rayfoxlee
Raymondo
Although I have a dedicated film scanner (Nikon V ED) for 35mm, I rely on an Epson 4990 for medium format. With so many positive comments about performing this task with a full frame digital, would I be pushing expectations too far to deal with this with a Olympus OM-D EM-1? The output of this camera is pretty impressive and the lenses are stellar.
Any thoughts for or against?
Many thanks
Ray
Any thoughts for or against?
Many thanks
Ray
Huss
Veteran
Just try it Ray. I bet you’d get great results.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
I am using an EP-5 with the 60mm macro lens for 'scanning' black and white negatives. As with a regular scanner, I do 'proof' scans of the full negative. So this is about an 11-16 mpx scan, depending on the format of the film. Like you, I have a 35mm film scanner that does all I need easily. So this is only for medium format.
The jpg files are usable for Instagram and such. I haven't gone into the settings to see if the sharpening could be lowered because I am getting some sharpening artifacts. Or something so that when I do some needed sharpening of the image I can easily get what I call salt and pepper dots all over.
The RAW file (ORF??) is great. Very smooth, very detailed. Will probably match or beat your 4900 files.
If I am looking for greater detail, I will shoot shoot closer, more than one frame, and stitch together. It is a simple stitch for something like Photoshop and I don't get artifacts. It appears to use the grain as reference points because I don't notice lines where the grain is smeared.
One thing to think about is the density of the pixels on any camera. I am not up for tracing out the math, but remember that if you shoot 1:1, an MFT sensor at 16mpx is, I think, close to an APS-C sensor at 24mpx?? Well, that could be way off. But the idea is that if you do shoot multiple frames and stitch, MFT will do you well.
The jpg files are usable for Instagram and such. I haven't gone into the settings to see if the sharpening could be lowered because I am getting some sharpening artifacts. Or something so that when I do some needed sharpening of the image I can easily get what I call salt and pepper dots all over.
The RAW file (ORF??) is great. Very smooth, very detailed. Will probably match or beat your 4900 files.
If I am looking for greater detail, I will shoot shoot closer, more than one frame, and stitch together. It is a simple stitch for something like Photoshop and I don't get artifacts. It appears to use the grain as reference points because I don't notice lines where the grain is smeared.
One thing to think about is the density of the pixels on any camera. I am not up for tracing out the math, but remember that if you shoot 1:1, an MFT sensor at 16mpx is, I think, close to an APS-C sensor at 24mpx?? Well, that could be way off. But the idea is that if you do shoot multiple frames and stitch, MFT will do you well.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I think any MFT wouldn't resolve 35mm film, but should be fine post of glory at RFF and prints up to L size.
Larry H-L
Well-known
Many of the newer m4/3 cameras have a high-resolution pixel shift mode that does a beautiful job of “scanning” film. Files are very large and sharp. If your camera has it, give it a try.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
With a macro lens, you'll get excellent camera-scans. IMHO, 24MPx is the sweet spot for 35mm films, but might be hard to tell difference vs. your 16 MPx body.
:: Mark
Well-known
I use an E-M1.2 with a 60mm macro lens, stand and Kaiser light table. It is faster than using most dedicated scanners and the Olympus raw files are much smaller than the tiffs from most scanners.
The biggest challenges for me have been edge and corner performance of the macro lens, and the tendency of some films (400tx) to curl. For 35mm I use a plustek film holder, which helps tame film curl. You can solve problems of tilt in the image plane by collimating the scanning rig by putting a mirror in place of the film and cantering the image of the camera lens.
With most 35mm films, there is no meaningful difference between 20mp and 80mp hires scans. Hires is more useful with medium format or larger, and it allows looser framing to crop out the weaker edge results from the macro lens.
The 60mm is ok for this, but there is both softness at the extreme edges and some field curvature, both of which are clearly visible at 20mp in the film grain. I have not tried this, but you might get better results using a good quality adapted full-frame macro lens, where the u4/3 camera uses only the central area.
For the absolute best quality, shoot hires and make a focus stack. Not something that you want or need to do regularly (if at all).
The biggest challenges for me have been edge and corner performance of the macro lens, and the tendency of some films (400tx) to curl. For 35mm I use a plustek film holder, which helps tame film curl. You can solve problems of tilt in the image plane by collimating the scanning rig by putting a mirror in place of the film and cantering the image of the camera lens.
With most 35mm films, there is no meaningful difference between 20mp and 80mp hires scans. Hires is more useful with medium format or larger, and it allows looser framing to crop out the weaker edge results from the macro lens.
The 60mm is ok for this, but there is both softness at the extreme edges and some field curvature, both of which are clearly visible at 20mp in the film grain. I have not tried this, but you might get better results using a good quality adapted full-frame macro lens, where the u4/3 camera uses only the central area.
For the absolute best quality, shoot hires and make a focus stack. Not something that you want or need to do regularly (if at all).
Ricoh
Well-known
I sometimes use an EM5 mk1 (16mp) mounted to a BEOON via an M -> MFT adapter, with an enlarger lens. Output is ideal for the web.
When it comes to 1/2 frame negs from my Pen F there's a problem scanning 2 side by side diptychs since the sum is slightly wider than a standard FF 35 neg. I end up scanning frames individually and stitching in photoshop.
When it comes to 1/2 frame negs from my Pen F there's a problem scanning 2 side by side diptychs since the sum is slightly wider than a standard FF 35 neg. I end up scanning frames individually and stitching in photoshop.
ddutchison
Well-known
If you're working with 35mm negs, bellows coupled with slide copiers were popular accessories in the film era and are cheap and easily adapted to digital cameras. They hold the film flat and keep everything in perfect register and you can use an LTM adapter on them to mount enlarger lenses which are perfect for the task.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
I think the hi-res mode on the newer MFT bodies would quite easily resolve 35mm film.