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

[fjolnir]

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:

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fjolnir/31459524714/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fjolnir/31460046635/

 

[CliveC]

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.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

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?

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

"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.

 

[jim0266]

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?

 

[Godfrey]

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

 

[Jockos]

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 🙂

 

[rscheffler]

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.

 

[mdarnton]

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.

 

[coelacanth]

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.

 

[MIkhail]

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.

 

[coelacanth]

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.

 

[quadtones]

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.

 

[jim0266]

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.

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.

 

[______]

I've still not found an easy way to color correct C-41 from the DSLR, however.

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?

 

[romosoho]

curious - what light sources are people using for their "scanning?"

 

[mpaniagua]

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.

 

[coelacanth]

I'm using a super thin, USB powered LED Light Box that I got from Amazon.

 

[Bille]

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.

 

[MIkhail]

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.