There are much more fundamental problems that are easily obscured by technical issues.

The entire principle of fingerprint evidence is scientifically flawed. In spite of what most people think they know, it does not even meet the basic criteria defined for other forensic evidence. Of course fingerprint experts will get it right many times, but there is no substance to their usual claim that their judgement is infallible. This has nothing to do with any technical issues, but comes from the fact that attempts to create a scientific basis for the reliability of fingerprint evidence have not been carried out. As a result nobody knows how reliable a positive match based on fingerprint evidence really is. And to prove that this is not a theoretical issue there the case of the terrorist attack in Madrid in which 4 FBI agents claimed a 100% match between a suspect and somebody else's fingerprint (this is not the only case of failure, but probably the one with the highest profile).

So if this is the "golden standard" against which other types of biometrics will be measured, we should expect the worst, even if we get the underlying technology right.