«

Hi

The purpose of the scanner is to archive a collection ~2000 old slides
and negs. I've had a look at the availabel info but I think some more
educated opinions would be valuable to me.

Nothing is likely to be printed above 8x10 (11x17 max)--I don't feel the
resolution of either scanner is limiting for these purposes. I think the
biggest issue for me is Dmax and how well the included software works
with my OS (I'm running Mac OS 10.2).

I like the price of the nikon IV ED, and the canon isn't much more
expensive. Is the canon worth the extra $100 for my purposes (Dmax and
software are my primary concern)? My impression is that Nikon has better
software and that either has good enough dmax for most images.

I've also noticed that for another few hundred more the minolta scan
elite 5400 is available... Any comments on running this on mac os x?

Thanks for any thoughts on the issue
--Ben

Either scanner will do well. I prefer the Nikon as I feel it is better
made. I don't use any of the manufacturer's software, however. I prefer
to drive scanners with VueScan, obtainable from
<http://www.hamrick.com/>. It's very efficient on Mac OS X and allows
batch scanning operations while you're using the computer to do other
things as well.

Godfrey

In article <>, Benjamin Librande
<> wrote:

> Hi
>
> The purpose of the scanner is to archive a collection ~2000 old slides
> and negs. I've had a look at the availabel info but I think some more
> educated opinions would be valuable to me.
>
> Nothing is likely to be printed above 8x10 (11x17 max)--I don't feel the
> resolution of either scanner is limiting for these purposes. I think the
> biggest issue for me is Dmax and how well the included software works
> with my OS (I'm running Mac OS 10.2).
>
> I like the price of the nikon IV ED, and the canon isn't much more
> expensive. Is the canon worth the extra $100 for my purposes (Dmax and
> software are my primary concern)? My impression is that Nikon has better
> software and that either has good enough dmax for most images.
>
> I've also noticed that for another few hundred more the minolta scan
> elite 5400 is available... Any comments on running this on mac os x?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts on the issue
> --Ben
>

Benjamin Librande <> wrote:
>The purpose of the scanner is to archive a collection ~2000 old slides
>and negs. I've had a look at the availabel info but I think some more
>educated opinions would be valuable to me.

You want a model that offers a slide feeder - that eliminates the IV.
It does a great job with slides, even without true multisampling, but
it takes a long time for each and every one.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Hi,

Personally I prefer the Minolta scanners to Nikon.
I had a Minolta Scan Speed, a Nikon IV ED and now the Minolta 5400.
If the price of the 5400 is too high (about $845), get the Minolta Dimage Elite
II.
Again, personal preference but the Minolta scanners give you a more vibrant
scan right off the bat without having to manipulate the image later with
Photoshop.
Rosita

HRosita <> wrote:
>Personally I prefer the Minolta scanners to Nikon.
>I had a Minolta Scan Speed, a Nikon IV ED and now the Minolta 5400.
>If the price of the 5400 is too high (about $845), get the Minolta Dimage Elite
>II.

But do they have slide feeders - that's the critical question I think for
this guy's purchase choice.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Benjamin Librande <> wrote:
>The firewire and higher Dmax sound nice, but overall the 5400 seems like
>more resolution than I need. How does it do when you scan at say 4050
>rather than 5400?

Will it scan at that resolution? My IV scans at 2900 and 1450, otherwise
I think it is just resizing with software.

>It has the ability to scan four slides at a time which is perfectly
>adequate for me (I think). I'm not in any rush to get through it all.

If you're talking about 2000 slides, you shouldn't get a model without
the option. With a feeder you can load it up and let it run overnight.
This also lets you set it at the high oversampling rates without concern
to the time it will take.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com