Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Scanners / Scanner Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Scanning film with an APS-C sensor compared with full-frame
Old 01-16-2017   #1
fjolnir
Registered User
 
fjolnir is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Posts: 28
Question Scanning film with an APS-C sensor compared with full-frame

Hello everyone!

I've been scanning 35mm film with my A7II+50mm Macro f2.8 on a copy stand for a while now, the quality is great, much better than my Epson GT-X980 (Same as v850 I think) which I only use for MF. But, I don't like shooting with the A7 at all, so I've been thinking about trading it for an X-Pro 2.

My only worry is that the smaller sensor will result in noticeably lower quality when scanning film. Are my worries unfounded? (please say so). I know I could shoot at 1:1 and stitch the frames, but I don't want to do that.

Currently I think I'd scan at 0.61x magnification using the 35mm f1.4 + MCEX-16 macro tube. But I'm not sure how the macro tube would affect the image quality. Another option would be .68x (APS-C/35mm = .68) using the 60mm macro + MCEX-11 if the quality is better.

Anyone have any insights?

PS: Output from the Sony:
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2017   #2
CliveC
Registered User
 
CliveC is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 35
Posts: 667
I really don't see why going from FF to APS-C would necessarily be lower quality in this application. It all goes down to the lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2017   #3
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,188
Agreed, I use APS-C, presently an X-E2, with an adapted M42 macro lens and extension tubes, and like the results a lot. If anything, the greater depth of field you get with a smaller sensor might be considered a slight advantage? Maybe?
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2017   #4
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,750
"Scanning" to an APS camera would be a .61x magnification vs. the full frame A7 at 1:1.

You didn't say which macro lens, but most are better at .66x than at 1:1. Very few are optimized for 1:1. I say keep using the macro lens. The change to APS might improve your result because the lens will be closer to it's sweet spot.

For this application, both cameras having the same resolution (MPx), I think you should expect about the same result.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing, more soon.
Photos, descriptions of for sale items previously listed here: this Flickr album
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2017   #5
jim0266
Registered User
 
jim0266 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 117
Timely thread. I'm assembling a scanning station built around a Leica BEOON. I'm planning to use a 50mm 2.8 APO Rodagon with a Canon 6D, assuming I can get the adapters to mount the 6D and the right extension tubes to copy 1:1. Starting to wonder if a Fuji X-E2S in lieu of the 6D might be less of a hassle?
__________________
My Web Site
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2017   #6
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim0266 View Post
Timely thread. I'm assembling a scanning station built around a Leica BEOON. I'm planning to use a 50mm 2.8 APO Rodagon with a Canon 6D, assuming I can get the adapters to mount the 6D and the right extension tubes to copy 1:1. Starting to wonder if a Fuji X-E2S in lieu of the 6D might be less of a hassle?
I use the BEOON in one of my scanning setups. Using a Canon DSLR will be challenging; the device is set up for LTM or M-mount and a 50mm lens, all the tubes are engineered around that combination. I fitted a Sony A7 at first, with an m-mount adapter. Now I use the M-P or SL with adapter. The lens I use is usually the Color Skopar 50/2.5 and it does an excellent job.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2017   #7
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 29
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran View Post
You didn't say which macro lens, but most are better at .66x than at 1:1. Very few are optimized for 1:1. Keep using the macro lens. The change might improve your result.
The APO RODAGON D is one such lens, just to give OP an idea of what to look for
__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #8
rscheffler
Registered User
 
rscheffler is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 462
At lower ISOs I don't expect you will see a quality difference between APS-C and FF in this application. As others have said, it's more the lens that will be a factor. I would wonder if the 35/1.4 will hold up well at very short focusing distances in respect to more aberrations present than would be at normal shooting distances, more field curvature, etc. I would err on the side of using a macro lens.

I researched this a couple years ago and decided on a FF solution, bought a used Nikon bellows, a 1:1 optimized copy lens, etc... but I'm rethinking it to instead be APS-C (probably with the Canon EOS M5). One of the lenses many seemed to have success with on APS-C was the Micro Nikkor 55mm. There are a few versions of this lens, so might be worth looking into.

I used this site for much of my research.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #9
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,197
I have used three versions of the micro for neg scanning on asp-c, two 55s and the 60 AF-D, and they were excellent, but recently I switched to a Nikon bellows with duping stage and those lenses wouldn't fit the space, so I got a 63mm f2.8 el-Nikkor. It's a special lens like the Rodagon-D, not a real enlarging lens, and the results are much better. But I was very happy with the micro-Nikkors, which, important for duping negs, were all exactly the same all across the film right into the corners. All real enlarging lenses were soft in the corners at 1:2. It's just that the 63/2.8 is obviously better. I imagine the Rodagon-D is similarly advantaged over the micro-Nikkors.

The 63mm 2.8 is a sleeper lens, in the shadow of the 3.5 version, which is expensve because of being used for UV photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #10
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
 
coelacanth's Avatar
 
coelacanth is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,451
I'm using BEOON + old Elmar 50/2.8 with OM-D E-M5 MkII with its high-res mode, resulting in 7296 x 4864 px image for 3:2 aspect ratio of 135 format. I'm quite happy with what I'm getting.

I tried XE-1 but I didn't like the noise pattern (maybe coming from X-Trans characteristics?) that kinda created a maze like texture with the grain of the film. Maybe things are different with X-Pro2, but I just sold the X-Pro2 so can't compare now.
__________________
- Sug

b/w guy.

flickr | Instagram

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #11
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 886
I am curious: does scanning with camera rather than with dedicated scanner, as Nikon Coolscan for example, give you better quality, or is it faster, or both? I mean, what's the reason to do that?
Thank you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #12
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
 
coelacanth's Avatar
 
coelacanth is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
I am curious: does scanning with camera rather than with dedicated scanner, as Nikon Coolscan for example, give you better quality, or is it faster, or both? I mean, what's the reason to do that?
Thank you.
YMMV but...

I'm sure film scanning experts can get better results with high-end dedicated film scanners, but with the flatbeds and low-to-mid range film scanners I've had, I never got around to get the quality I wanted. Also settings things up on digital camera body is a lot more straight forward for me compared to regular scanners.

Once you have your recipe, I think the scanning speed is A LOT faster than conventional scanners. I'm talking about my setup with BEOON so that might be different for other setups. I usually finish up developing, washing, drying, and scanning 2 rolls of 35mm film in 2 hours.

I might try better taking lenses in the future (currently using an old Elmar), but I don't see myself going back to flatbed or dedicated film scanner again. Well, unless I want to wet print and scan that in with the flatbed we have for my wife's illustration work.

Also another thing to consider is the upgradeability. Digital cameras are still evolving. I can easily change the "scanning head" and taking lens. And the camera works as, well, camera for regular photo taking duties.
__________________
- Sug

b/w guy.

flickr | Instagram

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #13
quadtones
Registered User
 
quadtones is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 104
I can definitely recommend the 50mm f2.8 APO-Rodagon. This is also with a BEOON setup, in this case, using my M-Monochrom. I did add an old Leitz enlarger extension tube [don't recall the designation], which gives me the full range of sizes, from 1:1 with 35mm negatives to 1:3, which allows me to "scan" medium format negatives.

The results with the enlarging lens are better corner to corner than any other lens I've tried, including 50mm f2.8 Elmar and f2 Summicron. Flatter field, I assume.

While I've not tried APS-C, I was considering picking up an A7 just for copying, which would speed things further when setting up, due to the electronic finder. I doubt, used at base ISO, there would be any noticeable difference between FF and APS-C, at the same MP sensor size.
__________________
--Norm

http://www.normsnyderphoto.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #14
jim0266
Registered User
 
jim0266 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
I use the BEOON in one of my scanning setups. Using a Canon DSLR will be challenging; the device is set up for LTM or M-mount and a 50mm lens, all the tubes are engineered around that combination. I fitted a Sony A7 at first, with an m-mount adapter. Now I use the M-P or SL with adapter. The lens I use is usually the Color Skopar 50/2.5 and it does an excellent job.

G
Thanks Godfey. That was the problem I was fearing. I will probably wind up renting an A7 and a Fuji from Lenrentals to test.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
I am curious: does scanning with camera rather than with dedicated scanner, as Nikon Coolscan for example, give you better quality, or is it faster, or both? I mean, what's the reason to do that?
Thank you.
Comparing B&W scans I made years ago with a Microtek ArtixScan 4000TF versus scans made with my Canon 6D/50 Macro of the same negs, I found the DSLR scans as good or better than those from the dedicated film scanner. I've still not found an easy way to color correct C-41 from the DSLR, however.

Speed is the biggest factor in using a DSLR.
__________________
My Web Site
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #15
romosoho
Registered User
 
romosoho is offline
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 9
curious - what light sources are people using for their "scanning?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #16
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by romosoho View Post
curious - what light sources are people using for their "scanning?"
I use a "Light table" application on my tablet, put the negatives on top of my tablet and scan with the Canon T1i.

Regards.

Marcelo.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #17
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
 
coelacanth's Avatar
 
coelacanth is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,451
I'm using a super thin, USB powered LED Light Box that I got from Amazon.
__________________
- Sug

b/w guy.

flickr | Instagram

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #18
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjolnir View Post
I've been scanning 35mm film with my A7II+50mm Macro f2.8 on a copy stand for a while now, (...) I think I'd scan at 0.61x magnification using the 35mm f1.4 + MCEX-16 macro tube.
Are you trying to replace a dedicated (flat field) macro with a high speed standard lens? Wont work. The macro tube has no affect on image quality but will magnify all the issues your fast lens potentially has.

I dont know about the sensor in the X-PRO 2 but from my experience anything current from SONY will be very hard to beat too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #19
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by coelacanth View Post
YMMV but...

I'm sure film scanning experts can get better results with high-end dedicated film scanners, but with the flatbeds and low-to-mid range film scanners I've had, I never got around to get the quality I wanted. Also settings things up on digital camera body is a lot more straight forward for me compared to regular scanners.

Once you have your recipe, I think the scanning speed is A LOT faster than conventional scanners. I'm talking about my setup with BEOON so that might be different for other setups. I usually finish up developing, washing, drying, and scanning 2 rolls of 35mm film in 2 hours.

I might try better taking lenses in the future (currently using an old Elmar), but I don't see myself going back to flatbed or dedicated film scanner again. Well, unless I want to wet print and scan that in with the flatbed we have for my wife's illustration work.

Also another thing to consider is the upgradeability. Digital cameras are still evolving. I can easily change the "scanning head" and taking lens. And the camera works as, well, camera for regular photo taking duties.
Interesting, thanks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #20
jim0266
Registered User
 
jim0266 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
I am curious. Can you just scan a blank frame or part of a negative with the sprocket holes, use the white balance tool in LR, and then apply the correction to the whole roll using sync?
Funny you should mention that. Last night I ran across a DSLR film scanning guide that suggested the same thing. I have not tried it yet, but I'm going to give that a try. The color balance on his C-41 scans were very nice.
__________________
My Web Site
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #21
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
 
Wupjak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by coelacanth View Post
I'm using BEOON + old Elmar 50/2.8 with OM-D E-M5 MkII with its high-res mode, resulting in 7296 x 4864 px image for 3:2 aspect ratio of 135 format. I'm quite happy with what I'm getting.

I tried XE-1 but I didn't like the noise pattern (maybe coming from X-Trans characteristics?) that kinda created a maze like texture with the grain of the film. Maybe things are different with X-Pro2, but I just sold the X-Pro2 so can't compare now.
I found similar patterns with the grain in HP5 and my X Pro 1 (same sensor) with BEOON and an EL Nikkor 50/4 that are not there with my A7ii and no other changes. I suspect it has to do with X Trans as well.

With that having been said, the Fuji RAW files were much more amenable to post processing than the Sony files.
__________________
Denis

ig: dmlincoln.sf
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #22
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
 
Wupjak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
I am curious. Can you just scan a blank frame or part of a negative with the sprocket holes, use the white balance tool in LR, and then apply the correction to the whole roll using sync?
I ordinarily use a Photoshop invert/RGB curve clamping action that gets me pretty close, however....

I am sitting here at lunch and just tried the above suggestion.

I don't have a whole section of sprocketed negatives but using the edge of a frame - that is admittedly not completely unexposed as the sprockets would be - gave a really nice reversal of a few frames I made in Joshua Tree.

It appears that the hardest part of this process is dragging the black point to the top of the histogram and the white point to the bottom in Lightroom.

Thank you for the suggestion!
__________________
Denis

ig: dmlincoln.sf
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #23
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
 
Wupjak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 50
There are still adjustments to be made after the fact - the reversals are low contrast and require some further color adjustment - but for the amount of effort they provide a good starting point with a close approximation of proper white balance. Thanks again and good luck with the project!
__________________
Denis

ig: dmlincoln.sf
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #24
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim0266 View Post
...I found the DSLR scans as good or better than those from the dedicated film scanner. I've still not found an easy way to color correct C-41 from the DSLR...
I've no idea what you've tried, but I digitalize using a camera and then use MakeTIFF, a free program from ColorPerfect, to convert the file into a linear Tiff files; then I use ColorPerfect, running as a Photoshop plug-in, to remove the orange mask and invert the file into a positive image. ColorPerfect has a series of film presets, which I use, but I do final color correction and contrast and gradation adjustments in Lightroom. You can see a range of digitizations of my Porta 400 shots, including Portra 400 pushed 2 stops, in this RFF thread: Bullet proof Portra 400 – Pictures from Thailand

This above workflow and an alternative one are described in detail in this uselful article.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #25
fjolnir
Registered User
 
fjolnir is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Posts: 28
I ended up buying the X-Pro/35mm 1,4, once I get around to testing scanning with it I'll post a comparison to the a7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bille View Post
Are you trying to replace a dedicated (flat field) macro with a high speed standard lens? Wont work. The macro tube has no affect on image quality but will magnify all the issues your fast lens potentially has.

I dont know about the sensor in the X-PRO 2 but from my experience anything current from SONY will be very hard to beat too.
Yeah, I do worry about that, but if it ends up not working well, I'll add a dedicated macro to the kit. I just wanted to have one multi-purpose lens if possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim0266 View Post
I've still not found an easy way to color correct C-41 from the DSLR, however.
What I do is to put a bit of film base under the camera, and then add Cyan&Blue color correction filters on the light table under the film until I get a mostly grey tone (With the a7 I'd use live view on my computer inverted to make it easy to tell how much was needed)

Once I do that, most of the time a simple per-channel auto-levels will give a cast-free image. Occasionally a white balance shift is necessary.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #26
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
I am curious: does scanning with camera rather than with dedicated scanner, as Nikon Coolscan for example, give you better quality, or is it faster, or both? I mean, what's the reason to do that?
Thank you.
You can see a useful specific comparison of camera digitalization to scanning, with fairly conservative conclusions, in the article I linked in post #27.

My own experience is with the Imacon Precision III scanner, some commercial scans with the Epson 800/850 scanners, and my current use of using a Leitz BEOON stand with a Focotar-2 enlarger lens with the M9 and M-Monochrom cameras to digitalize Tri-X and Portra 400 film.

The bottom line is that the Imacon Precision III has true optical resolution of 6300 dpi and a dMax of 4.2. My BEOON setup has resolution that is close enough to that and a dynamic range that I cannot distinguish from the Imacon; the Epson scanners have noticeable less resolution and dynamic range.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #27
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockos View Post
The APO RODAGON D is one such lens, just to give OP an idea of what to look for
Lenses I know to be optimized for 1:1:

Olympus 80mm f/4 Macro (A bellows lens, some models allow a bit of touch-up focusing. The Olympus variable extension tube gives you some good options.)

And, the APO Rodagon 75mm f/4 D for 1:1. There is also an APO Rodagon D 75mm f/4.5 2x which is optimized for 1:2 in normal orientation and 2:1 when reversed. (1:2 means the subject is larger than the image, and vice versa.)

Enlarging lenses are optimized for 1:4 or maybe 1:8, depending on the lens and intended format. Reversed they do a good job at 3:1, 4:1, and more.

Your typical macro lens is optimized for 1:2 or 1:3 but many are good out to infinity 1:lots.

So what's the practical difference of a 1:1 optimized lens for SLR scanning? Most any lens, racked out really far to 1:1, will give reasonable sharpness in the center, macro lenses and enlarging lenses will do quite well. The difference will be in the edges and corners.

So, suppose you are shooting an insect. Soft borders won't be a big concern. But, if you are copying a stamp, a slide, or SLR-scanning a negative, might be a greater concern.

A different case: An ordinary macro lens, on APS or full frame SLR, will do a great job SLR-scanning of medium format film. But, then again, you might want to come in to 1:1 and stitch.

Good shooting!
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing, more soon.
Photos, descriptions of for sale items previously listed here: this Flickr album
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #28
jim0266
Registered User
 
jim0266 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman View Post
I've no idea what you've tried, but I digitalize using a camera and then use MakeTIFF, a free program from ColorPerfect, to convert the file into a linear Tiff files; then I use ColorPerfect, running as a Photoshop plug-in, to remove the orange mask and invert the file into a positive image. ColorPerfect has a series of film presets, which I use, but I do final color correction and contrast and gradation adjustments in Lightroom. You can see a range of digitizations of my Porta 400 shots, including Portra 400 pushed 2 stops, in this RFF thread: Bullet proof Portra 400 Pictures from Thailand

This above workflow and an alternative one are described in detail in this uselful article.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Using the instructions and PS action from this tutorial made some of the nicest color conversions from C-41 yet.
__________________
My Web Site
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2017   #29
fjolnir
Registered User
 
fjolnir is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Posts: 28
So, Just tested the new setup. Aaand.. it's not even close

Fuji + XF35mm f1.4 vs Sony + 50mm f2.8 Macro

I'll post an updated comparison once I get an appropriate lens for the job.

If anyone can recommend a 0.6x+ magnficiation(on APS-C) lens that would be sharp all the way to the corners on a Fuji, it would be very much appreciated.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2017   #30
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
 
Wupjak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim0266 View Post
Using the instructions and PS action from this tutorial made some of the nicest color conversions from C-41 yet.
Indeed. I think I've found my preferred workflow. The results are what I had hoped for when I started shooting c-41 film again. Thanks for linking. I'm sold on this method.
__________________
Denis

ig: dmlincoln.sf
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2017   #31
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim0266 View Post
Using the instructions and PS action from this tutorial made some of the nicest color conversions from C-41 yet.
I'd like to compare the method you link with what I do using ColorPerfect. However, the method of determining the "optimum exposure" is not clear; can you elucidate. What I mean a very dense slide would require a very different exposure to a very thin slide to get the histogram to the right. (I use auto-exposure, which results in a low-contrast scans that works well with ColorPerfect.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2017   #32
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjolnir View Post
If anyone can recommend a 0.6x+ magnficiation(on APS-C) lens that would be sharp all the way to the corners on a Fuji, it would be very much appreciated.
Your magnification is close to 1:2. You were happier with the Sony macro lens.

From this, the next thing to try would be any major brand macro lens with an adapter. These are optimized for 1:3 or 1:4, but should look pretty good. Stop down a couple of stops to f/5.6 or f/8. The Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 would do a great job. This will, of course, be manual focus. I don't know what AF macro lenses exist for the Fuji.

I'm not at all surprised the the Sony macro lens does better than the Fuji 35 f/1.4 for this application; you are using that Fuji lens way out of it's comfort zone.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing, more soon.
Photos, descriptions of for sale items previously listed here: this Flickr album
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2017   #33
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 761
Well I know this is an academic question now, as the OP decided to go for the Fuji, but I've been wondering for quite a while why the high-resolution mode on the Olympus Pen hasn't become the standard solution for DSLR film-scanning?

Articles like this seem to suggest that the 80-megapixel RAW scans simply blow away the detail of even full-frame 35mm digital cameras - the images at ISO 200 show unbelievably microscopic texture.

A Pen with a good quality, manual focus OM macro lens should be the ideal setup? I may be missing something?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2017   #34
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,697
I used a DSLR APS-C and a 50mm Macro (Pentax lens) for a few years. It worked great, the Macro lens was absolutely a must. I even rigged it so I could use it with 120. I got tired of running with the SD card from one room to my computer but it worked better than my scanner.

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2017   #35
fjolnir
Registered User
 
fjolnir is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Posts: 28
So, I went and got an XF 60mm Macro. With the extension tube, the results are not significantly better than from the 35, completely unusable. I also tried using it with a Raynox DCR-150, which gave better results, but still not nearly as good as from the Sony Macro.

Next up: Trying a EL-Nikkor 50mm f2.8. If that doesn't work I'll probably just get a Plustek and accept slow scanning times.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #36
fjolnir
Registered User
 
fjolnir is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Posts: 28
Ok, tried the Nikkor. It's close, but not quite there. Had to put it on backwards with some duct tape to even get close to decent results..

I'm testing an El-Nikkor 75mm f4 next, supposedly it's sharper at lower magnifications, and better in the corners.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #37
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 29
Posts: 917
At what aperture did you use the Nikkor?
__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #38
fjolnir
Registered User
 
fjolnir is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Posts: 28
I tried 5.6 & 8
  Reply With Quote

Something's wrong...
Old 01-25-2017   #39
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,750
Something's wrong...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fjolnir View Post
So, I went and got an XF 60mm Macro. With the extension tube, the results are not significantly better than from the 35, completely unusable.
Something's wrong. This lens on a Fuji camera should give good results.

Fuji 60mm Macro shot has way less contrast than Sony Macro.

The Fuji Macro goes to 1:2, slightly awkward for shooting 35mm negatives because you want .6x, not .5x, to fill the frame. Have you put the Fuji Macro on your extension tube?
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing, more soon.
Photos, descriptions of for sale items previously listed here: this Flickr album
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #40
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockos View Post
At what aperture did you use the Nikkor?
And aperture for the Fuji 60mm?
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing, more soon.
Photos, descriptions of for sale items previously listed here: this Flickr album
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:19.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.