Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV vs. Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II
Paul, I have the Coolscan IV at work and it is a nice mid- range scanner.
It gives a esolution that lets you print comfortably at 8x10, it works
rather fast and scanning is easy.
I guess the DSE II is pretty much the same class of machine. I didn´t use it
yet but I think the 4,8dmax is a number calculated by the scanners bit
resolution . The theoretical maximum so to say. I am almost sure the scanner
will not show 4,8 in real world scanning. Minolta claims the same numbers
for their new Multi Pro MF scanner, so I guess its just mathematics.
The big pice difference would not let me hesitate and I´d take the Minolta.
Here in Ger*money* the Minolta will - as far as I have heard - only be
slightly cheaper than the Nikon..
greetings Bernhard
----- Original Message -----
From: "patton paul" <ppatton@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 3:27 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV vs. Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II
> I'm a serious amateur photographer and have been thinking about purchasing
> a Nikon Coolscan IV. Its advantages include 2900 dpi resolution and ICE.
> However, at nearly $800.00, the price makes me hesitant. I recently
learned
> that Minolta has marketed a filmscanner called the Dimage Scan Elite II,
> which has specifications that seem very similar to the Coolscan IV, but
costs
> only $400.00. Could anyone please comment on the relative quality of
these
> two scanners? The DSE II has 2,820 dpi resolution and ICE. Its dynamic
> range is 4.8, which is better than the Coolscan's 3.6. Could someone
please
> explain whether this difference is significant? The light source in the
> DSE II is a cold cathode fluorescent tube, whereas that for the Coolscan
is
> an LED. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of these two
> light sources? Are the two machines roughly comparable, as their specs
> seem to suggest, or is the Nikon Coolscan really worth the extra money?
> __________________________________________________________________
|