Minolta Scan Elite 5400 or Nikon CoolScan V ED?

[Craig]

I've read the specs on the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and the new Nikon
CoolScan V ED. Can anyone bottom line for me the reasons why I should
go for one over the other. The price differences is negligible: less
than $100, I found $739 for the Minolta online and $659 for the Nikon.
I also don't think the dpi gap will make much difference for my
purposes. I just want high res scans for nice prints, possibly
portfolio prints. As far as speed, it sounds like they would take a
similar amount of time scanning. Any other specs I should judge this
on? Any reviews? I haven't found any posted. I know the Nikon is new,
but if anyone has experience with it, or enough experience with the
Minolta to provide some good advice, I would appreciate it. Can I do
any batch scanning with what's provided or do i need to do one at a
time? If anyone has any thoughts on the Scan Dual III versus the
Coolscan IV, too, that would also help me in my decision. (Just in
case I opt for the lower cost option).

Cheers,
Craig

[Wilfred van der Vegte]

Craig wrote:

> I've read the specs on the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and the new Nikon
> CoolScan V ED. Can anyone bottom line for me the reasons why I should
> go for one over the other. The price differences is negligible: less
> than $100, I found $739 for the Minolta online and $659 for the Nikon.
> I also don't think the dpi gap will make much difference for my
> purposes.

This is why Ed Hamrick, the maker of VueScan, thinks the Nikon is better:

> I think the LED light source is better at producing vivid colors,
> and having a separate infrared LED light works better than mixing
> an infrared LED with a white lamp (this is how the 5400 works).
>
> Both are good scanners, and I own both, but when I scan something
> personally, I use the CoolScan V (LS-50).

He said this in answer to a question I asked him in this newsgroup. I
have the Minolta myself, and I don't see any lack in vividness of colors
but then again I haven't seen results from the Nikon. I like the extra
resolution the Minolta gives, because I sometimes want to print at A1 size.

--

Wilfred van der Vegte.
Replace 'invalid' by my first name to reply by e-mail

[Wilfred van der Vegte]

I wrote:

> This is why Ed Hamrick, the maker of VueScan, thinks the Nikon is better:
>
>> I think the LED light source is better at producing vivid colors,
>> and having a separate infrared LED light works better than mixing
>> an infrared LED with a white lamp (this is how the 5400 works).
>>
>> Both are good scanners, and I own both, but when I scan something
>> personally, I use the CoolScan V (LS-50).
>
>
> He said this in answer to a question I asked him in this newsgroup. I
> have the Minolta myself, and I don't see any lack in vividness of colors
> but then again I haven't seen results from the Nikon. I like the extra
> resolution the Minolta gives, because I sometimes want to print at A1 size.

I forgot one more reason why I bought the Minolta: I'm on a Mac G4 and I
wold have had to buy a USB2 card to use the Nikon at full speed. The
Minolta comes with USB2 *and* FireWire.