What SLR is minimal for a slide copy setup?

[joecrumley2]

Woops, looks like part of the question I have dropped off.
Wanting to purchase a camera for copying negatives.
I'm planning on buying a bellows and flat field copy lens but would like to get the camera first. Would appreciate advice.

 

[Derrel]

This is an interesting question; from what I have read, the advent of 24 megapixel d-slr cameras has really, really made digital SLR + bellows + macro lens copying of slides and negatives into a VERY rewarding, fast, and productive endeavor, with results that are in many cases, better than using average to medium-grade scanners.

A few years back, I saw a series of different authors who had written on-line articles about using a d-slr to digitize slides and negatives, and most were using 24 to 36-MP cameras.

I dunno...seems like any 24-MP Nikon d-slr would work, as would other cameras made by Canon or Sony,etc..

 

[joecrumley2]

Darrel,

Thanks for the reply.
Like you, I have seen other reviews of using a camera for duplicating process with excellent results. Choosing a flat field lens was one of the criteria. What I'm wondering is if the MP count is important since it's working off a flat field.

It's doubtful many people on the forum will have experience in this narrow field but welcome and advice.

 

[Derrel]

Any good macro lens will be pretty much optimized to provide a nice, flat field at close-range distances. Af far as MP count goes...the issue is in large part that the newer, 24-MP sensors are also very good-performing sensors, with low noise, wide dynamic range, and rich, deep color rendering, and bring with them the ability to create/show/record a very high degree of detail. I would think that the lower the MP count sensors of say from 6-megapixels to 10-megapixels to 12 megapixels, would show a slight lack of the very-finest details, as compared against digitized images created with a 24- to 36- or 45- to 50-million pixel camera.

What impressed me the most in the on-line articles and the sample images that I saw was that was that d-slr digitizing actually created less of an issue with dust and dirt and scratches than film scanners created...and in fact, the d-slr results seems to be to be better than the scanners they compared against. And of course, the sheer speed of the d-slr digitizing was a big advantage over scanners.

 

[joecrumley2]

Darrel,

Thank again for taking the time to fill me in on my questions. Your answers were exactly what I needed. I may go with a macro lens as opposed to the bellows and copy lens.

I've been having my old negatives scanned and but not pleased. I have thirty years of Leica negs.
to work on and it seems I'd probably be better off working on them myself.

One more simple question. Is it better to save in the RAW format?

Thanks again for the time you spent.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Yes, raw format will allow more editing leeway and the absolute best-possible end result. If you are shooting 35mm format B&W negatives, which are smallish compared against medium format rollfilm shots, I think the 24-MP d-slr or higher, is the way to go.

 

[joecrumley2]

Thanks again,

This was exactly what I was thinking too. Now back to work.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

@Derrel interesting idea. I've been searching for something to do with my K30 (A/F motor went kaput), with 16.3 mp would this make a suitable choice. I have a ton of old slides I need to copy.

 

[dxqcanada]

Ah, I remember the Beseler Slide Duplicator we had in the lab ... bellows with a Rodenstock 75mm enlarger lens.

 

[jcdeboever]

My old mentor (passed away) digitized his and others with a nikkor micro 60mm f/2.8D on a D7200 that was mounted on an old enlarger stand. He used a 35mm film holder on top of a light table at the base. He gaffer taped two metal strait edge rulers as a horizontal feeding guide for the film holders. Also had the light table precisely marked for vertical alignment of the frame, it was ever so slight over sized and just trimmed in post. He also had bubble level placements on light table, camera, copy stand. He never adjusted them, as his setup was rather permanent but more for piece of mind. He used post software to invert. The camera LCD was remotely hooked to a monitor. He also had multiple stock glass tops for the light table that supported other format film holders that were ready to go. I know he did it as a side business. I was so new into photography at the time (2 years ago), I really didn't give it much thought when he was showing me or I would have paid more attention. I didn't even know how to spell film at the time.

 

[Designer]

I am wondering what lens to use.

I have a 100mm macro, but I've heard that the 60mm f/2.8 is a very good copy lens. That's the full extent of what I know about it.

I need to digitize my old transparencies and what negatives and prints I can find.

You haz links?