Coolscan 9000 vs Minolta Dimage Scan Multi F-3000

Rogier van der Heide said:

I do know this is a very old comment but actually the scan resolution of the Dimage Multi F3000 / F3100 is 1128 dpi when scanning 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 of 6x9 materials.
That higher resolution you mention must belong to he Multi Pro, but that is not the scanner that was discussed here.

Click to expand...

A bit late to this thread but why not. The following is probably well known already but just in case some MF3000/MF3100 owners are not aware of it.

Kodakchromeguy is correct that Minolta Dimage MF3000/3100 will scan at 2820 dpi for 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. The MF3000 and MF3100 are actually identical but you will need to enter the serial number of a MF3100 if yours is a MF3000 or you have paid Minolta for the upgrade from Minolta after the Minolta scan software is launched. Once the serial number is validated the software is updated to include all features of the upgrade including 2820 dpi scanning, GEM and ROC (no ICE).

The question you may have is if the MF3000/MF3100 have true 2820 resolution. The answer is these scanners have a true 2820 dpi in the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is achieved by interpolation (software hack). I have two and a half MF3000 scanners. They produce 135 megabytes files when scanning at the 2820 dpi. The 3rd scanner is half good because it needs a new CCFL lamp. Otherwise it works identically to the other two.

Minolta MF3000 (and MF3100) is a great scanner. I paid almost $2k for one when it just came out. I was disappointed of its resolution at 1128 dpi until the 2820 dpi upgrade became available for $100 (Minolta price). I am sure there are better scanners but I am completely happy with the MF3000. Scanning at higher resolution such as 5000 dpi is not practical for everyone. It merely lengthens the scanning time, creates a huge file that takes up disk storage and increases load/save time when the file is edited.

So you are saying the Minolta software sets the scanner ... and if so, what if you are not using the Minolta app (due to OS driver compatibility)?

Have a MF-3100 with original software CD (ver. 2.02) w. s/n on it. Now trying to use it with Dell laptop on WinXP via SCSI to USB adapter. Scanner don’t want operate with original Minolta software, just moving holder, but don’t want to make preview or make scan. With software ver. 1.15 (downloaded from Konica support server) performs only blanc (white) scans on preview mode or general scans. But works with Vuescan. Strange. Will try to re-install Minolta software with TWAIN driver option.
Also don’t forget that true 2820dpi OPTICAL resolution on MF scans can be reached on this scanner with optional film holder and two-side mask with automatic stitching in Minolta software (see software user manual for Scan Multi II).

electraice said:

Have a MF-3100 with original software CD (ver. 2.02) w. s/n on it. Now trying to use it with Dell laptop on WinXP via SCSI to USB adapter. Scanner don’t want operate with original Minolta software, just moving holder, but don’t want to make preview or make scan. With software ver. 1.15 (downloaded from Konica support server) performs only blanc (white) scans on preview mode or general scans. But works with Vuescan. Strange. Will try to re-install Minolta software with TWAIN driver option.
Also don’t forget that true 2820dpi OPTICAL resolution on MF scans can be reached on this scanner with optional film holder and two-side mask with automatic stitching in Minolta software (see software user manual for Scan Multi II).

Click to expand...

The problem might be caused by the SCSI to USB adapter. Use a SCSI controller which can be had cheaply. I currently use an HP (Adaptec OEM) SCSI adapter on Windows 10.

Edi said:

thank you. I am leaning to the Minolta Scan Multi F3000 just because you can get one cheaper than the coolscan which is considerably pricey.

I was trying to find reviews but mostly are for the Scan Multi Pro so I'm not sure on how much difference is between those two models.

Click to expand...

I too run a Nikon scanner although it is a 35mm film only version of the Nikon 9000 and have a Dell XP laptop to work with the scanner, saving the files onto a memory stick and working on themvia my desktop computer. However I have seen scans done with the Minolta scan multi and they were very good. But if I were in the market for a med format scanner I would go with the Nikon 9000 every time. (Plus there will be no issues with getting the scusi card to function.

There does exist an aftermarket software sold under the Silverfast name which will allow the Nikon and almost certainly the Minolta Scanners to work with Windows 10 and 11 but these will cost around £90 to £100 in UK. On the down side I have read articles where getting it to work first time can be a bit of a challenge.

The Nikon scanner cans do something which no other scanner of this type or and consumer level 'flatbed scanner can do and that is scan in 'RAW' which provides quite incredible levels of information when it comes to working on the images afterwards. Even from a 35mm neg I usually get a file of around 120mb.

I also have an Epson V600 which replaced the earlier V500 and while the scans are quite good the files are that much smaller before you start work on them. In addition I find with the Epson on high end scans when they are printed there is a lot of colour fringing especially in the sky areas which quite frankly really does knock the edge off the image.

The Nikon scanners with their terrific ED lens has virtually non of this and if there is any it can be corrected quite easily with photoshop.

In addition the Dmax from the Nikon scanners is 4.2 whilst the Epson flatbed is around 3.6. The later Epson V800/850 manage to get the Dmax up to around 3.9. It does not sound a lot, but in reality there is a world of difference. In all honesty compared to the Nikon, the scans are comparatively soft

What also sways me in favour of the Nikon scanner is there were far more sold than the Minolta scan multi's and getting someone to service or repair them could be quite difficult. Even in UK there are two companies that can service Nikon scanners but you always have to consider that these devices are around 20 years old and like all things they do not last forever. I have had mine cleaned and serviced once and there were no issues so it just soldiers on.

BMbikerider said:

The Nikon scanner cans do something which no other scanner of this type or and consumer level 'flatbed scanner can do and that is scan in 'RAW' which provides quite incredible levels of information when it comes to working on the images afterwards. Even from a 35mm neg I usually get a file of around 120mb.

Click to expand...

Nikon Scan's raw is basically just tiff with gamma 1.0 encapsulated in .nef container. Any other scanner can do the same with Vuescan (if OEM software doesn't have the option to do that).

brbo said:

Nikon Scan's raw is basically just tiff with gamma 1.0 encapsulated in .nef container. Any other scanner can do the same with Vuescan (if OEM software doesn't have the option to do that).

Click to expand...

But just as important aw RAW is the Dmax has not been equalled by any other scanner in the same class either dedicated film scanner or flatbed since that day it was unveiled. Flatbed scanners are simply not in the same league and never will be. Yes you may be able to get RAW with Vuescan but that is an add on, in other words a compromise not part of the original set up. Compared to the Nikon as I said flatbed scans are really quite soft. Never mind the technicalities it is the final results that count.

Not quite true, either. Dmax is not that important (it's dynamic range (Dmax - Dmin) that counts). Dmax can easily be achieved by just exposing the scanned film with more powerful light source or extending exposure time. The problem is that that will affect Dmin.

Btw, no Nikon scanner has a real Drange of 4.2.