Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO and Microtek 120TF

[aming]

Hi everybody. Recently I want to buy a scanner for my 35mm and 6X6 films. I have had a epson 4990 and I found it's Density range is so poor, so I decided to upgrade it. Would anyone please tell me that which produce better image quality between Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO and Microtek 120TF? Thanks a lot.

[rdenney]

Hi everybody. Recently I want to buy a scanner for my 35mm and 6X6 films. I have had a epson 4990 and I found it's Density range is so poor, so I decided to upgrade it. Would anyone please tell me that which produce better image quality between Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO and Microtek 120TF? Thanks a lot.

I have owned neither, but have had many conversations with medium-format photographers who have owned both. Generally, I would predict that the Minolta has better dynamic range, but both will be about equal in terms of resolution. The Microtek was also sold as a Polaroid (same model name) if that helps you search for information.

I had a Minolta Multi II (the predecessor to the Multi Pro) and found that despite its low resolution with medium format (1128 spi), its color accuracy was exceptional and its dynamic range quite good. Those who have owned both the II and the Pro report that the Pro is even better. Optical resolution for the Pro with medium format is 3200, and with small format it is 4800.

The Microtek's resolution is 4000 spi, but those who've had both report about the same real resolution from each. Microtek reports the same density range as a Nikon 8000ED (4.2 Dmax), but those I know who've had both report that the Nikon has more real depth.

The Microtek has the advantage that Microtek will still provide the latest driver, which will run only on a 32-bit Windows machine or up through MacOS 9. You'll have trouble finding a Minolta driver at all, and certainly not from Konica-Minolta. Nevertheless, Vuescan will happily operate both on current machines.

What I have not heard is commentary about the film holder, and in my experience that is quite important. The Minolta film holder is assuredly glass, which means more dust, but also better flatness. I've used the glass and glassless carriers with the Nikon 8000, and prefer the one without glass, though I must be absolutely meticulous about making sure the film is tightly stretched by the holder. If the Microtek is also glass, then it's a wash.

For negatives, I would suspect either will be nearly equal. For transparencies, which typically have extreme density ranges compared to negatives, the Minolta might have an edge.

Rick "who moderates a forum mostly related to medium format" Denney

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The Minolta Multiscan Pro enjoyed support from Lasersoft Silverfast and Hamrick Vuescan beyond the demise of Konica-Minolta.
I have the KM Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and find that the final (free downloadable) version of the Minolta drivers for OS 10.3.9 are stable and work well with a PowerPC and with my 15" MBP. (I'm pretty sure it was the same standalone driver for both scanners-- from KM). Worth mentioning too is that the Minolta implementations of Kodak Digital ICE and multiscanning work better than others I've tried (Viewscan and Silverfast).