Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 mounting comparison CanonMPE

[Enoplometopus]

I had a chance to buy a scanner Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and get the objective. The following pictures show how I mounted it into a housing of an old Leitz objective to fit it to an RMS thread. Equipped with a Godox diffusor and illuminated with three Godox flash units I made test stacks (150 shots each) at 1:1 (Canon 5DMkIV).

The results seem quite similar on first glance (the comparative picture pairs are 5K screenshots iMacPro), but upon closer inspection I see differences, always with the Minolta showing a bit more details. In all pairs Canon MPE65 is on the left and Minolta on the right. First whole picture, then comparison at 100 %, 200 % and twice at 400 %. More comparative shots (with different motives and also at 1,5:2 and 2:1) will follow.

For 1:1 I mounted the Minolta objective directly to the camera with an adapter. Inside the Leitz housing it sits in front, with about 10 mm distance to the RMS thread. 1,5:1 or 2:1 will require distance rings. With my Novoflex bellows (Balpro) it starts around 2,5:1.

My personal opinion (after having seen only these 1:1 shots): The MPE has advantages in a variety of situations and aspects, no doubt about that. But in stacking shots at 1:1 it seems like the Minolta does a noticeably better job. I'm curious to see 2:1. And based on the fact that presently the price of the Minolta is not defined by its real value but by the value of a nonfunctional and old scanner – which means the price of electronic junk – it's not only worth the buy but it would be a pity not to save all those objectives from all those dead scanners and prevent it from rotting. Great stuff for very little money, at least at the moment.

[Enoplometopus]

Here is a bumble bee comparison between Canon MPE 65, as I call it: "Minolta 5400 APO" and Mitutoyo 5x M Planapo. Magnification is about 2,2 in Can and Min, about 2,5 in Mit (thats as low as I can pull the Mitu down with the small Raynox tube lens and my bellows extension to 110 mm (they say you need 125 mm extension with that tube lens, but I found this objective to be extremely flexible in this regard).

Based on what I see in this comparison on my own monitor (I hope enough details can be seen in this picture), I would say that with this magnification the quality of the "Minolta 5400 APO" can be rated as being somewhere between the Canon MPE and the Mitu.

[JH]

Thanks for this comparison!
I would really like to see a what the antenna looks like with the Minolta lens if it is placed in the corner of a FF Canon sensor.

Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg

[SURF]

The following pictures show how I mounted it into a housing of an old Leitz objective to fit it to an RMS thread.

I like that.

[Enoplometopus]

>>I would really like to see a what the antenna looks like with the Minolta lens if it is placed in the corner of a FF Canon sensor. <<

Good idea. The pictures don't show the full sharpness of details here, but I think it can be seen that the quality is a bit lower than near the center, but it's not a drastic drop of quality. But of course this type of comparison is much better done the way Robert did with the wafer.

[Enoplometopus]

The following pictures show how I mounted it into a housing of an old Leitz objective to fit it to an RMS thread.

I like that.

I admit that I had a bit of stomach ache disassembling and mis-using a respectable old Leitz objective. But that was out of use for long, and no one wanted to buy it ;-)

[Enoplometopus]

Here is a comparison of the right upper corner crop between Canon MPE 65 and the Minolta 5400 APO. In general in all of those comparison pictures shown here, the quality I see on my screen in the original stacks is better than what you see in these small jpgs, so what you get is not an impression of the real detail reproduction but just an idea of the difference between the objectives respectively the location of the crops.

My impression is that the Minolta outcompetes the Canon MPE in the center as well as in the corners.

[JH]

Here is a comparison of the right upper corner crop between Canon MPE 65 and the Minolta 5400 APO. In general in all of those comparison pictures shown here, the quality I see on my screen in the original stacks is better than what you see in these small jpgs, so what you get is not an impression of the real detail reproduction but just an idea of the difference between the objectives respectively the location of the crops.

My impression is that the Minolta outcompetes the Canon MPE in the center as well as in the corners.

Thanks a lot!
Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg

[JW]

What f/stop was the MPE 65 set at?

[Enoplometopus]

What f/stop was the MPE 65 set at?

f/8

[Smokedaddy]

... super idea mounting the DiMAGE lens.

[JH]

f/8

As you probably already know you might at 2x get a tiny bit more resolution if you use the mp-e 65 with f5.6 or f4 with your sensor.

Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg

[Enoplometopus]

f/8

As you probably already know you might at 2x get a tiny bit more resolution if you use the mp-e 65 with f5.6 or f4 with your sensor.

Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg

Sure, a bit. I can try to demonstrate that. But f2,8 might increase the CA's. But as the comparative tests from Robert show, there is a visible difference between those two objectives that is quite surprising.

[JH]

Sure, a bit. I can try to demonstrate that. But f2,8 might increase the CA's. But as the comparative tests from Robert show, there is a visible difference between those two objectives that is quite surprising.

Thank you!
Your pictures are very informative. Roberts tests are very good. But your corner pictures are more usefull for me because I also use a Canon FF camera.

If you sometime test the quality of the corners using the minolta lens on less than 2x on Canon FF it would be interesting to see the result.

Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg

[Enoplometopus]

>>If you sometime test the quality of the corners using the minolta lens on less than 2x on Canon FF it would be interesting to see the result.<<



Here it is attached. On first glance the 1,2:1 (only rough estimate of magnification, distance between the objective end and sensor 70 mm) looks much worse than the 2,2:1, but you need to consider that the reproduction size is just one half and the upscaling doubled.

I also tried to go below 1:1, like 1:1,2, but it seems like you don't get a sharp picture, it looks blurry.