RE: [APML] Minolta Dual IV vs Nikon Coolscan V ED

["Andrew Clegg" <andy@w4je.com>]

Hi Craig,

This is my first post to APML! I've been reading this list for several weeks
and have learned more than I would have in ten years on my own.

I have a Minolta Scan Dual IV and have been using it for my first
astrophotos. It seems to work well, especially after I was  able to figure
out how to avoid the blooming or flare around the brightest stars in scanned
transparencies (setting the analog exposure to -0.5 does the trick--thanks
to Jerry Lodriguss' book for teaching me this!).

The Scan Dual IV does have manual focus, but I'm finding that the autofocus
does a pretty good job on its own. You can specify which spot of the frame
to focus on as well (in either manual or autofocus mode), so this helps.

I can't comment on comparisons with other scanners since I'm so new to the
field, but I posted a couple of examples of my first astrophotos (scanned
with the SDIV) on my web site (http://www.w4je.com/ap0408.htm). Note that
these scans were made before I had figured out the manual exposure trick, so
you will notice a slight amount of blooming around the very brightest stars.
I have since re-scanned these frames and am re-processing them. I will post
the improved scans in the near future, with a close-up showing the before
and after effects with regard to blooming.

One of the most valuable things about APML is all the constructive criticism
offered by the group members of each other's photos. I would be very
appreciative for such feedback on my first pictures!

Clear skies,
Andy
http://www.w4je.com/ap0408.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: astro-photo-bounces@seds.org
[mailto:astro-photo-bounces@seds.org]On Behalf Of Craig McIntyre
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 8:39 AM
To: astro-photo@seds.org
Subject: [APML] Minolta Dual IV vs Nikon Coolscan V ED


Hi all,

I am in the market for a new scanner after my SS35+ packed up. Having
searched through the archives and the latest models available, it
appears to me that the Minolta Dimage Dual IV and the Nikon Coolscan V
ED are two popular models within my price range. However, the Nikon
(A$1100) is considerably more expensive than the Minolta (A$600), yet it
has a lower dynamic range (14 bits per channel) than the Minolta
(16bits) and has a slower scanning speed. The only advantage I can see
is that it has a greater resolution (4000dpi vs 3200dpi) which I am not
concerned with as my old SS35+ at 2700dpi was plenty.

Does anyone have either of these models, or is anyone able to comment on
why the Nikon is so much more expensive?

Craig.

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo