Scanning film with an APS-C sensor compared with full-frame

Something's wrong...

Something's wrong...

fjolnir said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
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?
Click to expand...

Here is XF60mm at 1:2. I don't have a file using the tubes right now, but it was really bad. This guy had similar results: XF60mm with tubes vs XF60mm with Raynox. As you can see in those, it's fine at 0.5x, and then even with the smaller macro tube, the corners are a blurry mess.

I sold mine already (thankfully at a higher price than I bought it for), so I can't test further.
 
I'm sharing below the way I'm using a Sony A7r to scan negatives, in case it can be useful to someone. Basically, it's not very different from what other guys are doing by using a BEOON, only without a BEOON (can't find it used..). Instead, I'm using my enlarger, to which the camera is mounted by means of a cheap accessory after removing the enlarger's head. See photo below. By using either close-up lenses or extension tubes & an old Nikon 50 1.8, I can fill whole of the 36 Mp FF sensor with a 35mm negative including black border. The scans I get are way better than those I used to get from my Epson 4490 and Reflecta 7200 Professional.
img_5710.jpg
 
Here's my setup for 35mm. Sony A7, Nikon PB-4 Bellows, the terrific APO Rodagon D 1:1 lens, a Beseler Dual-Mode Duplicator using flash (i.e. daylight balanced) for illumination. (The "Vello" cord triggers the Beseler flash through a Wein Safe-Sync.) Sony "RemoteCameraControl" app allows tethered shooting to my Mac.

170614-SonyA7-CameraScan-Setup-IMG_9098.jpg
 
MIkhail said:
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.
Click to expand...

Faster with plenty of resolution with camera-scan (with 24MPx and a good macro lens).

On the other hand, color adjustment for color negatives is tough. Might be easier with the scanning software for a dedicated film scanner.

At this point, I'm quite happy with camera-scan results.
 
CliveC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Film scanning is one application where the increased in sensor area compared to APS-C is least important.
  • You control the signal-to noise ratio by increasing the signal (external lighting)
  • The potential increase in dynamic range is essentially moot

In fact, for media with 4:5, 1:3.5, 1:2 or 1:1 aspect ratios, m4/3 camera bodies may be better (less cropping).

I don't think DOF differences are relevant.

After lens compatibility/availability I think pixel density is the most important parameter.
 
I thought I might try camera scanning with my Nex 7 and Nikon 55 Micro, but after considering how many shots per roll actually warrant scanning, the speed advantage did not seem so compelling. I decided instead to buy a new film scanner.

B&H now has the Plustek 8200i SE on sale for $275, so I opted for that solution. The prospect of a simple, compact approach with no setup time appeals to me.

John
 
I "scanned" using a Nikon D7000 and nikkor 55mm f3.5 micro for a long time with excellent results. Once I went FF with a Nikon D610 I bought a AFS 60mm micro to replace the older lens. No difference in the results between the two combos. The newer 60mm is a much better lens though.
 
Timely. I've just acquired a Beoon and intend to scan my 35mm (only) negs using either a Leica M240 or a Fuji X-T1. The latter of course with its M mount adapter. In choosing a suitable lens I'm a little confused with choice.

Given the above, what lens you advise ?

Thank you
 
There could be many lenses to choose from.

Figure out what mount you want.

Decide if you want AF.

Decide how close the camera will be to the media, then choose appropriate focal lengths.

Create a budget.

Spend some time hunting down data-driven lens reviews. Good copy lenses use optical designs that are optimized for close-up work.
 
willie_901 said:
There could be many lenses to choose from.

Figure out what mount you want.

Decide if you want AF.

Decide how close the camera will be to the media, then choose appropriate focal lengths.

Create a budget.

Spend some time hunting down data-driven lens reviews. Good copy lenses use optical designs that are optimized for close-up work.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely no useful information in this comment.
 
You will need a Leica-mount lens, either M or LTM, to work with the BEOON. My BEOON setup uses a Fuji X-E2 and a 50/2.8 Schneider Componon S enlarging lens (M39 thread). I am _very_ happy with the results.

The BEOON was designed for a 35mm film camera (24x36 sensor) and a 50mm lens. If you change the sensor size to APSC (or anything else) or change the lens focal length it is unlikely that the extension tubes that come with the BEOON will let you fill the sensor frame with the image of the negative. Every combination of the four tubes I tried was either too long to too short. I calculated the necessary length by interpolation and eventually found a 40mm tube that works for me. YMMV
 
I used to scan my negatives with my Nikon D90 and the 40mm Micro Nikkor. The results where a lot better from what I get now with my Epson V600, but it used to take longer to get a scan, from setting the negative in the holder I made, taking a couple of shots to get the optimal exposure, taking the shot and inverting later in photoshop.
With the scanner I get things done faster, but with lesser quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom