Nikon Coolscan III vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Patrick B Cox, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. I am in the market for a good quality film scanner at a reasonable price. My
    intended use is to scan 35mm negatives for the web and to work on my
    Photoshop skills. I may also make some prints up to 8x10. In researching, I
    found that the Coolscan III can be purchased for $200 - $300 used. I know
    this is an older machine but if I found one that was in good shape, would
    this be a good choice? My other option seems to be a new (or used) Minolta
    Dimage Scan Dual III. Of the two, which would you choose? Also, please
    offer any other options that would seem to fit. I would like to keep my
    investment at $300 or less.

    Thanks!
     
    Patrick B Cox, Feb 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Patrick B Cox

    Ed E. Guest

    The CoolScan III would be a better choice solely because it has ICE
    built-in. The SD3 is bad about making small specs of dust into huge glowing
    globs in your scanned image.

    Check the interface on the CoolScan 3 - some of the older scanners used SCSI
    but I'm not sure about that one off the top of my head. Even that scanner
    with a cheap SCSI card is a great deal.
     
    Ed E., Feb 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Coolscan III does use a SCSI interface. Is this a whole lot slower than
    USB? If I am not going to be scanning bulk, will this be an issue?

    Thanks.

    "Ed E." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The CoolScan III would be a better choice solely because it has ICE
    > built-in. The SD3 is bad about making small specs of dust into huge

    glowing
    > globs in your scanned image.
    >
    > Check the interface on the CoolScan 3 - some of the older scanners used

    SCSI
    > but I'm not sure about that one off the top of my head. Even that scanner
    > with a cheap SCSI card is a great deal.
    >
    >
     
    Patrick B Cox, Feb 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Patrick B Cox

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed E. <> wrote:
    >The CoolScan III would be a better choice solely because it has ICE
    >built-in. The SD3 is bad about making small specs of dust into huge glowing
    >globs in your scanned image.
    >
    >Check the interface on the CoolScan 3 - some of the older scanners used SCSI
    >but I'm not sure about that one off the top of my head. Even that scanner
    >with a cheap SCSI card is a great deal.
    >
    >



    I bought a Minolta Dimage Elite F-2900 on Ebay a year ago for about
    $200 and it scans up to 4032x2688 pixels. It's scsi, which was not a
    problem for me. The newer Minolta, in the store, was USB and I almost
    bought it but I realized that the 2900 had Digital Ice and the current
    model, at a similar price, didn't. I'm scanning lots of very old
    slides and it's doing a great job.







    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
     
    Al Dykes, Feb 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Patrick B Cox

    Magnus W Guest

    "Patrick B Cox" <> wrote in
    news:pQL_b.5218$AL.131930@attbi_s03:

    > The Coolscan III does use a SCSI interface. Is this a whole lot
    > slower than USB? If I am not going to be scanning bulk, will this be
    > an issue?


    DUH! You are insulting SCSI. SCSI will kick USB 1's posterior, any day
    (SCSI-II is seven times faster than USB 1). Transfer speed is not much of
    an issue with scanners anyway, the bottleneck is in getting the data off
    the film.
     
    Magnus W, Feb 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Patrick B Cox

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    SCSI is a PITA
    THe price you would pay for the Nikon is about as much as Nikon will charge
    to repair it, and they may fail to repair it, so make certain it works
    properly or send it back. When it fails - and it WILL fail, toss it out.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Patrick B Cox" <> wrote in message
    news:KqH_b.50346$4o.71011@attbi_s52...
    > I am in the market for a good quality film scanner at a reasonable price.

    My
    > intended use is to scan 35mm negatives for the web and to work on my
    > Photoshop skills. I may also make some prints up to 8x10. In researching,

    I
    > found that the Coolscan III can be purchased for $200 - $300 used. I know
    > this is an older machine but if I found one that was in good shape, would
    > this be a good choice? My other option seems to be a new (or used) Minolta
    > Dimage Scan Dual III. Of the two, which would you choose? Also, please
    > offer any other options that would seem to fit. I would like to keep my
    > investment at $300 or less.
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Feb 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Patrick B Cox

    Ed E. Guest

    > The Coolscan III does use a SCSI interface. Is this a whole lot slower
    than
    > USB? If I am not going to be scanning bulk, will this be an issue?


    As Magnus noted, SCSI is faster. The down side is the price of the card and
    cable between the card and the scanner. But do yourself a favor and get a
    scanner with ICE built into it, not that software-only stuff like the Scan
    Dual III uses. It honestly makes a huge difference.
     
    Ed E., Feb 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Patrick B Cox

    David Chien Guest

    www.imaging-resource.com for scanner reviews of them all.

    Here, I'd go with the Minolta Scan Dual IV for $350 from
    www.bhphotovideo.com today new instead of the III. Higher resolution,
    faster.

    ---

    Otherwise, the $800 Minolta Scan 5400. No point going for something
    with lower resolution at this price - totally packed with everything
    you'll ever need.

    ---

    That said, you can get away with 1) $59 Epson 1660 Photo flatbed scanner
    with 35mm adapter at Fry's Electronics refub'd and elsewhere. Why pay
    more when you're doing web work? You're definitely not going to be
    uploading 3000x3000+ images, right? 2) digital camera with slide
    adapter lens attachment (eg. Nikon 99x/95x series with such). Very fast
    way to take 'scans' of film. Just press the shutter button. 3) Find a
    local lab with a digital film processor. eg. Flashback photo in
    Westminster, CA has a Noritsu QSS-3011 and can scan ~1500x1000 images
    from film to CD-R discs. ~$1/frame, but far, far faster than you'd ever
    get done at home for a few rolls of film, built-in scratch & dust
    removal through ICE in the Noritsu, and the operator can do a fast color
    correction faster than you can.

    Sometimes, honestly, it's not necessary to spend $$$ on 'scanning' just
    for fun & web. A basic scanner can do it all.

    But, if you're looking to archive negatives in the future, at least the
    Minolta Scan Dual IV.
     
    David Chien, Feb 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Excellent advise Tony,
    I don't think I've come across a CSIII owner who has had any reliability out
    of their scanner. One poor sole paid $350 to have his repaired and it worked
    for 2 days. The Nikon agent said "Due to the complexity of the item and the
    fact it relies on other devices outside our control, we do not offer any
    guarantees on repairs to these scanners."

    Douglas
    ---------------------
    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:%VM_b.40464$...
    > SCSI is a PITA
    > THe price you would pay for the Nikon is about as much as Nikon will

    charge
    > to repair it, and they may fail to repair it, so make certain it works
    > properly or send it back. When it fails - and it WILL fail, toss it out.
    >
    > --
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Feb 24, 2004
    #9
  10. "David Chien" <> wrote in message
    news:c1gcus$e0b$...
    > www.imaging-resource.com for scanner reviews of them all.
    >
    > Here, I'd go with the Minolta Scan Dual IV for $350 from
    > www.bhphotovideo.com today new instead of the III. Higher resolution,
    > faster.


    I see that scanner is now 299 bux....how are they? I have 200-300 50 year
    old slides of the Korean War taken on Kodachrome that I need to scan. Also,
    I want to scan negative film for print archives taken with a 'vintage' AE-1
    that I own.

    Would this be a good choice for me? I've been scanning the negatives with a
    flatbed, and the results are not great to mediocre.

    thanks


    >
    > ---
    >
    > Otherwise, the $800 Minolta Scan 5400. No point going for something
    > with lower resolution at this price - totally packed with everything
    > you'll ever need.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > That said, you can get away with 1) $59 Epson 1660 Photo flatbed scanner
    > with 35mm adapter at Fry's Electronics refub'd and elsewhere. Why pay
    > more when you're doing web work? You're definitely not going to be
    > uploading 3000x3000+ images, right? 2) digital camera with slide
    > adapter lens attachment (eg. Nikon 99x/95x series with such). Very fast
    > way to take 'scans' of film. Just press the shutter button. 3) Find a
    > local lab with a digital film processor. eg. Flashback photo in
    > Westminster, CA has a Noritsu QSS-3011 and can scan ~1500x1000 images
    > from film to CD-R discs. ~$1/frame, but far, far faster than you'd ever
    > get done at home for a few rolls of film, built-in scratch & dust
    > removal through ICE in the Noritsu, and the operator can do a fast color
    > correction faster than you can.
    >
    > Sometimes, honestly, it's not necessary to spend $$$ on 'scanning' just
    > for fun & web. A basic scanner can do it all.
    >
    > But, if you're looking to archive negatives in the future, at least the
    > Minolta Scan Dual IV.
     
    Ernest T. Bass, Feb 26, 2004
    #10
  11. Patrick B Cox

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Chein is a bit off - in every respect. There are some flatbeds that will
    produce a pretty good film scan but they are not cheap. Quite frankly a film
    scanner is a more economical purchase if you have a lot of slides.
    According to Nikon ICE does not work with Kodachrome, but I've used it
    without problems. THe scans do come out too blue but with a high bit scan
    that can be corrected in Photoshop or (if you are scanning many from a roll
    for example) in the scanner itself.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Ernest T. Bass" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "David Chien" <> wrote in message
    > news:c1gcus$e0b$...
    > > www.imaging-resource.com for scanner reviews of them all.
    > >
    > > Here, I'd go with the Minolta Scan Dual IV for $350 from
    > > www.bhphotovideo.com today new instead of the III. Higher resolution,
    > > faster.

    >
    > I see that scanner is now 299 bux....how are they? I have 200-300 50 year
    > old slides of the Korean War taken on Kodachrome that I need to scan.

    Also,
    > I want to scan negative film for print archives taken with a 'vintage'

    AE-1
    > that I own.
    >
    > Would this be a good choice for me? I've been scanning the negatives with

    a
    > flatbed, and the results are not great to mediocre.
    >
    > thanks
    >
    >
    > >
    > > ---
    > >
    > > Otherwise, the $800 Minolta Scan 5400. No point going for something
    > > with lower resolution at this price - totally packed with everything
    > > you'll ever need.
    > >
    > > ---
    > >
    > > That said, you can get away with 1) $59 Epson 1660 Photo flatbed scanner
    > > with 35mm adapter at Fry's Electronics refub'd and elsewhere. Why pay
    > > more when you're doing web work? You're definitely not going to be
    > > uploading 3000x3000+ images, right? 2) digital camera with slide
    > > adapter lens attachment (eg. Nikon 99x/95x series with such). Very fast
    > > way to take 'scans' of film. Just press the shutter button. 3) Find a
    > > local lab with a digital film processor. eg. Flashback photo in
    > > Westminster, CA has a Noritsu QSS-3011 and can scan ~1500x1000 images
    > > from film to CD-R discs. ~$1/frame, but far, far faster than you'd ever
    > > get done at home for a few rolls of film, built-in scratch & dust
    > > removal through ICE in the Noritsu, and the operator can do a fast color
    > > correction faster than you can.
    > >
    > > Sometimes, honestly, it's not necessary to spend $$$ on 'scanning' just
    > > for fun & web. A basic scanner can do it all.
    > >
    > > But, if you're looking to archive negatives in the future, at least the
    > > Minolta Scan Dual IV.

    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Feb 26, 2004
    #11
  12. I saw the Dual IV for $244... B&H I think... I highly recommend
    this scanner. See the review article at my web site...

    Good luck!




    On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:27:22 GMT, "Patrick B Cox"
    <> wrote:

    >I am in the market for a good quality film scanner at a reasonable price. My
    >intended use is to scan 35mm negatives for the web and to work on my
    >Photoshop skills. I may also make some prints up to 8x10. In researching, I
    >found that the Coolscan III can be purchased for $200 - $300 used. I know
    >this is an older machine but if I found one that was in good shape, would
    >this be a good choice? My other option seems to be a new (or used) Minolta
    >Dimage Scan Dual III. Of the two, which would you choose? Also, please
    >offer any other options that would seem to fit. I would like to keep my
    >investment at $300 or less.
    >
    >Thanks!
    >
    >


    jim h


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca

    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes for every 1,000th visitor, a bit of humour...
     
    Jim Hutchison, Feb 29, 2004
    #12
  13. Hi Jim....do you think the IV will do ok with 50 year old Kodachrome slides?
    I'll have about 200 of them to scan

    thanks

    --
    It's me, it's me, it's Ernest T !
    http://www.ernestt.com/etb.html


    "Jim Hutchison" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I saw the Dual IV for $244... B&H I think... I highly recommend
    > this scanner. See the review article at my web site...
    >
    > Good luck!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:27:22 GMT, "Patrick B Cox"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I am in the market for a good quality film scanner at a reasonable price.

    My
    > >intended use is to scan 35mm negatives for the web and to work on my
    > >Photoshop skills. I may also make some prints up to 8x10. In researching,

    I
    > >found that the Coolscan III can be purchased for $200 - $300 used. I know
    > >this is an older machine but if I found one that was in good shape, would
    > >this be a good choice? My other option seems to be a new (or used)

    Minolta
    > >Dimage Scan Dual III. Of the two, which would you choose? Also, please
    > >offer any other options that would seem to fit. I would like to keep my
    > >investment at $300 or less.
    > >
    > >Thanks!
    > >
    > >

    >
    > jim h
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    > http://www.jamesphotography.ca
    >
    > More than photographs: free downloads, prizes for every 1,000th visitor, a

    bit of humour...
     
    Ernest T. Bass, Feb 29, 2004
    #13
  14. On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:03 -0500, "Ernest T. Bass" <>
    wrote:

    >Hi Jim....do you think the IV will do ok with 50 year old Kodachrome slides?
    >I'll have about 200 of them to scan
    >
    >thanks


    I've heard the scanner has issues with Kodachrome, so - bring one to
    a store that has one in stock, and have them scan it for you.

    That's what Henry's in Toronto did for me... they had one out for
    demo purposes, and it wasn't working at the time, so they grabbed one
    from stock and demo'd it for me.

    Let me know...






    jim h


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca

    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes for every 1,000th visitor, a bit of humour...
     
    Jim Hutchison, Mar 1, 2004
    #14
  15. Jim....sorry for the hasty post of mine. I meant will the Minolta Dual Scan
    IV work for Kodachrome, it looks like I implied the Nikon Coolscan IV...in
    case you took it that way.

    thanks

    --
    It's me, it's me, it's Ernest T !
    http://www.ernestt.com/etb.html


    "Jim Hutchison" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:03 -0500, "Ernest T. Bass" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Hi Jim....do you think the IV will do ok with 50 year old Kodachrome

    slides?
    > >I'll have about 200 of them to scan
    > >
    > >thanks

    >
    > I've heard the scanner has issues with Kodachrome, so - bring one to
    > a store that has one in stock, and have them scan it for you.
    >
    > That's what Henry's in Toronto did for me... they had one out for
    > demo purposes, and it wasn't working at the time, so they grabbed one
    > from stock and demo'd it for me.
    >
    > Let me know...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > jim h
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    > http://www.jamesphotography.ca
    >
    > More than photographs: free downloads, prizes for every 1,000th visitor, a

    bit of humour...
     
    Ernest T. Bass, Mar 1, 2004
    #15
  16. On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:29:27 -0500, "Ernest T. Bass" <>
    wrote:

    >Jim....sorry for the hasty post of mine. I meant will the Minolta Dual Scan
    >IV work for Kodachrome, it looks like I implied the Nikon Coolscan IV...in
    >case you took it that way.
    >
    >thanks



    Not at all - I had heard the Minolta had issues with Kodachrome
    myself, so I interpreted it correctly.

    I don't have Kodachrome slides to test it with, so that's why I
    recommend you take one to a store and have them demo the Minolta.


    jim h


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca

    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes for every 1,000th visitor, a bit of humour...
     
    Jim Hutchison, Mar 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Thanks for the info....I'm going to thoroughly check it out. I produce
    negative film that I need to scan, but these old Kodachrome slides are a big
    issue..

    thanks again.

    john

    --
    It's me, it's me, it's Ernest T !
    http://www.ernestt.com/etb.html


    "Jim Hutchison" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:29:27 -0500, "Ernest T. Bass" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Jim....sorry for the hasty post of mine. I meant will the Minolta Dual

    Scan
    > >IV work for Kodachrome, it looks like I implied the Nikon Coolscan

    IV...in
    > >case you took it that way.
    > >
    > >thanks

    >
    >
    > Not at all - I had heard the Minolta had issues with Kodachrome
    > myself, so I interpreted it correctly.
    >
    > I don't have Kodachrome slides to test it with, so that's why I
    > recommend you take one to a store and have them demo the Minolta.
    >
    >
    > jim h
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    > http://www.jamesphotography.ca
    >
    > More than photographs: free downloads, prizes for every 1,000th visitor, a

    bit of humour...
     
    Ernest T. Bass, Mar 2, 2004
    #17
  18. Patrick B Cox

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Ernest T. Bass wrote:
    > Thanks for the info....I'm going to thoroughly check it out. I produce
    > negative film that I need to scan, but these old Kodachrome slides are a big
    > issue..
    >
    > thanks again.
    >
    > john
    >


    I have been following this thread for a while. I know you only asked
    about Minolta or Nikon, but just to add to the discussion, the Canon
    CanoScan scanners will do Kodachrome. I have quite a few Kodachrome
    shots, and do not have any trouble scanning them.

    The two Canon film scanners are basically a 2800 dpi model and a 4000
    dpi model. The newer ones add FARE (similar to ICE, et al), but it does
    not work well with Kodachrome. Also, I know of no bulk loaders, unlike
    the Nikon choices.

    A job I had a few years ago resulted in nearly 100 Kodachromes. To save
    time I had them scanned onto Kodak Pro PhotoCD. This is different from
    consumer PictureCD, and the results are very good. It might be another
    route to try, though I feel that my individual scans later on with the
    Canon scanners produced slightly better results.

    Kodak film scanners are still available, but not very cost effective.
    Polaroid film scanners were recently bought out by Microtek, and are
    fairly high quality. Polaroid also has a free Dust & Scratch Removal
    software, and it works really well on old images after scanning. Best of
    luck.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Mar 2, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eyal Reshef

    Scanner - Minolta Scan Elite II Vs. Nikon Coolscan LS-40

    Eyal Reshef, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    648
    Mark Kelepouris
    Aug 5, 2003
  2. Godfrey DiGiorgi

    Re: Opinions:Minolta Dual Scan III

    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    458
    Godfrey DiGiorgi
    Aug 6, 2003
  3. Fausto

    Nikon Coolscan V vs Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400

    Fausto, Jul 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,035
    HRosita
    Jul 15, 2004
  4. David Lodge

    Dimage Dual Scan IV or Nikon Coolscan V ?

    David Lodge, Jan 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    425
    Paul J Gans
    Jan 22, 2006
  5. arifi
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,241
    arifi
    May 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page