<blockquote>
<p>This is not simply a matter of slapping a macro lens on a dSLR, however.<br /> But hey, if it works for you....go to it.</p>
<p>Have you ever wondered why so many slide copying devices (tube and slide holder type) are available on eBay <strong><em>in "like-new" condition</em></strong>? Even Nikon and Canon devices, not just Spiratone.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They don't work well because they either</p>
<ol>
<li>have cheap optical elements that kill quality right there. Or</li>
<li>suspend the slide/negative carrier with a non-adjustable tube that most likely isn't the correct length for your macro lens.</li>
</ol>
<p>I just tried out a Spiraton Video-Dupliscope from eBay and, yep, it produced much softer results than I get with my Canon 60D + Canon 60mm macro lens + <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">Photosolve Xtend-a-Slide</a>. The Dupliscope is an inexpensive device that has an inexpensive lens. Cheap lens == bad image quality. Well, duh.</p>
<p>The Xtend-a-Slide has no internal optical elements so the resolution is as good as your camera + macro lens can deliver. The length of the tube that supports the slide or negative is adjustable so it will work with a lens of any focal length.</p>
<p>If you already have a decent DSLR/mirrorless body and macro lens that has a flat focal field (and is internal focus (like Canon macro lenses are), so it can support the weight of an Xtend-a-slide without being damaged), then camera scanning is worth looking into. Again, you get the same resolution and image quality that your digital camera already gives you.</p>
<p>JDM, please stop trotting out the Spiratones whenever somebody brings up camera scanning. Camera scanning is like other forms of photography: garbage in, garbage out. If you use quality equipment and use intelligent techniques, you will get quality results. If you use inferior equipment and/or inferior techniques, well, you will get inferior results.</p>
