Minolta 5400

I am about to take the plunge into digital by first getting a film scanner for trannies.
The above has the highest resolution in its class/price.
I am looking for reader experiances and advise.
Thanks
Hari

I've had the Minolta 5400 and it was an OK scanner. I switched to the Nikon LS-5000 and find it to be a superior scanner in every way. Digital ICE and the lack of ROC, GEM and DEE on the Minolta was a pain. I'd consider the Nikon LS-50 instead of the Minolta - the extra 1400dpi isn't siginificant for image quality.

While the Minolta has the highest DPI, it does not produce the highest quality scans although from what I have heard and seen, they are excellent. Minolta uses a fluorescent tube as the light source while Nikon uses calibrated LEDs as the light source. The GEM software which maximizes image quality works better with an LED light source than a tube light source. In all honesty, I think the only thing 5400 DPI doe is produce a larger image file and eat up more hard disk space. With the Nikon scanner you get near a 6000x4000 pixel image off of 35mm slide. That's more than enough for 99% of all uses.

What I fogot to mention is that my intent is to produce A3 sized prints. Is the Nikons ok for that?
Thanks
Hari

The Nikon can easily produce A2 and larger, A3 is nothing - you can do that without interpolation with a 4000 DPI scanner.

One possible significant difference between the two machines is that the Nikon V and 5000 do not have firewire (USB 2 only), while the Minolta 5400 has both (I believe, it definitely has firewire). Thus, in my situation, having an Apple PowerBook G4 as my computer, which is USB 1 and firewire only (no USB 2), the speed of scanning could be affected. So, my question for the experts out there: While I understand that I can physically connect a USB 2 device to a USB 1 interconnect, I further understand that it will function at USB 1 speeds. How much of a difference will that likely make in scanning times, particularly as compared to a firewire connection?

I have the Minolta 5400 and I found it to be excellent. I used the past tense (found) since I didn't use it for about 3 weeks and then I couldn't get the software to open! I took it back to Samy's Camera here in Pasadena, CA and I imagine it'll be another 4 weeks or so before I get it back. I know many of the people who post on this forum from NPN where I found that Nikon was held in reverent awe. I can't dispute that. I've not owned a Nikon scanner. I did have a Canon FS 2710 which was adequate for my initial experimentation in scanning but did not produce large enough files for digital stock. The Minolta gives you all you'll need and more, as far as I'm concerned. I also find the scan quality very good and the Digital Ice seems to work very well (for my purposes). I considered the Nikon 4000 but the reviews and price difference got me to jump into the Minolta 5400 which, If it is fixed and doesn't have any more problems, I will not regret. I hope this helps. Mike Stolting

I've had a 5400 since July and have produced 100's of trouble-free scans. Its a fine scanner and I've been pleased with the results. I'm sure the Nikon LS-50 ( similarly priced to 5400 in UK ) is equally competent and as others have said once you get above 4000ppi the resolution is probably not all that important and it comes down to things like price and availability.

Hari, I seem to remember that you're in the UK. Have you thought about visiting the "Focus" show at Birmingham NEC later this month ? You may well be able to pick up a bargain there ( I've made 25+% savings on prices there in past years )