Anyone tried copying MF negs/slides with a 5D2?

<p>I have a load of MF negs and slides and can't justify splashing out the sheckles for a decent MF film scanner. Just wondering if anyone has tried copying MF slides with a Canon 5D2 and a lightbox and, if so, what the results are like.</p>

<p>I looked around and there didn't see anything that would make me buy. </p>

<p>Have you looked at one of the scanning services like scan cafe? I'm really thinking of doing that with a lot of my film that still needs to be scanned.</p>

<p>I have done this - with good results - although not with a Canon. I think you really need a macro lens to do it properly, and a solid tripod or copy stand.</p>

<p>OK, many thanks. For my needs I won't be using a scanning service. I already have a 5D2 which is why I was asking. I may give it a try this week using my macro lens and a lightbox. It will be interesting to see the result.</p>

<p>Jamie, have you tried to look for a MF format slide duplicator that fits to the front of the lens? I use one for 35mm with great results. Scanning is just too costly, especially if you have a notebook full of slides both 35 and 645.</p>

<p>Hi Ed,</p>

 

 

<p>No, I had no idea such a thing existed. I have seen countless 35mm slide duplicators but never one for medium format. I'll look out for one of those. I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to make one if necessary.</p>

<p>Jamie, I have a several hundred MF transparencies I'd like to digitize. Your post prompted me to do a quick Google search using "medium format slide duplicator" and I found the link below. The description in the search results say medium format, but it does not specifically say that on the webpage.</p>

<p>http://www.kauserinternational.com/Photography/Ohnar/Copier/Ohnar%20Digital.htm</p>

<p>Bill:<br>

Looks too small to be a Med Format duplicator. <br>

I check with buyer (friend of mine) for major photo chain with 35 yrs in the biz and he has never seen one.<br>

The light box with macro lens is a good option. That was what I used before acquiring my 120 Scanner.<br>

Tips:</p>

<ul>

<li>Make sure the lighting is even with a light meter reading across the area to be used.</li>

<li>White balance the light source without any slides</li>

<li>Level the camera and the surface of the light box.</li>

</ul>

<p>$0.02, hope it helped.</p>

<p>Jaime, I have never seen one but am looking. The light box is ok except having the film absolutely flat. I would imagine that you would have to tape the film down. ????? ed</p>

<p>Bill Mussett: Many thanks for that link but after studying it I think it is for 35mm only.</p>

<p>Danny Wong: I agree, I have also never seen a MF slide duplicator. Thanks for the lightbox tips.</p>

<p>Ed Lustoff: Thanks, I'll either tape them down or put a P size clear filter on top of them to keep them flat.</p>

<p>Les Sarile: I have all three formats in my archive 645, 6x6 and 6x7.<br>

I am not worried about 35mm. I have my old Canon FS4000 film scanner for that.<br>

I am hoping to be able to duplicate my MF slides/negs to mainly use for web and A4 prints. Any larger prints will eoither be made directly from the slide/neg or from decent scans made by an outside service.</p>

<p>I appreciate what you are saying about the pixel count of the 5D2 compared to the various sizes of scanned files. I don't expect to be able to match the detail from a high quality film scanner. However, I do have some 4000dpi scans of some of my 6x7 slides made at a pro lab. It will be interesting to compare these scans with duplicates made using my 5D2. If I get round to trying this I will post the results on here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Les,</p>

<p>Like I said, I am not expecting miracles. I do have a flatbed with a transparency hood but it broke last week (thankfully). It was so bad at scanning transparencies that I rarely used it. I have no intention of spending cash on a MF film scanner so I'll see what the 5d can do.</p>

<p>Thanks Les, I had no idea the V500 was so cheap (although I'm sure it will be much more expensive here in the UK like most things). I already have a decent macro lens so I'll give the camera a go to see what happens.</p>

<p>Well, typically, the V500 is £183 pounds here in the UK which equates to $293 USD. Now you see why the UK is called "Rip-off Britain". If I shot a lot of MF I wouldn't hesitate to invest in the CS9000. My 5D2 gets me as close to 6x7 without all the hassle with film so I'll never shoot MF film again unless it's for a bit of fun.</p>

<p>Yes, the US vs US price situation has got slightly better recently. Previously, if something cost $500 in the US it cost approx £500 ($800) here. The 5D2 was horrendous. I paid £2200 for the camera body when it retailed (at the time) for $2800 in the US (£1750). The prices have equalised now but it was annoying at the time. I could have bought a good lens with the change if I lived in the US.</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks for all your advice. I'm in Sweden next week but when I return I will try copying some MF slides and post them on here.</p>

<p>I could not recommend an Epson for MF. Nikon is the minimum for me YMMV.</p>

<p>I wouldn't dismiss using a service as too expensive. You are not required to scan all your film at one time after all. And some appear to have a good value. I also have a lot of film to scan, and I do have a good scanner to use. But, time is the issue. Can't find enough time to scan, and if I did it would take away time from taking photos or printing or post processing. </p>

<p>Even if you can find a solution do you have the time to spend on it? If you do find a solution please post it with your results. I may be interested in giving it a try if its not too expensive.</p>

<p>I did try the do-it-yourself method last night using my 5DII, 24-70 lens and a Cabin light panel rated at 5000K. I need to fine-tune the mechanics of the set-up, specifically a better method of keeping the transparencies flat. Though the 24-70 has a macro focus setting, I do realize it is not a true macro lens. With this lens the transparency image covered about 1/3 of the sensor area. I cropped the transparency image out of the resulting image to a size of 1000px x 1000px. There's nothing special about that size, it's simply what I chose to use. The resulting transparency-to-digital image would certainly be acceptable for emailing, cataloging or perhaps small prints.</p>

<p>Well, I couldn't resist it. I have just tried a very quick duplication of a 6x7 transparency using my 5D2. I compared it directly to a 4000dpi scan done at a pro lab of the exact same slide. I'm not sure what scanner was used at the pro lab but the scan was done 3 or 4 years ago. The file size of the pro lab scan was approx 270MB. By the time I had cropped off the edges of my 5D2 duplicate the file size was 47MB. Both files were TIFFs.</p>

<p>The result? I am utterly astounded by the quality of the 5D2 duplicate. It took me completely by surprise. Is it as good as the pro lab scan? Believe it or not, the edges of the 5D2 frame are actually BETTER and the centre of the frame is slightly worse but there is surprisingly little in it.</p>

<p>Before you get excited, I haven't got the time to sort out any example crops for posting on here yet. I will try and do that by this weekend before I go away. And before you all slate me and tell me I'm hallucinating I understand that a number of factors may be affecting my findings. I understand the pro lab scanner may not have been a Coolscan 9000, I fully understand that the pro lab scan might be inferior somehow (operator error or transparency not flat during the scan?). I do have a small number of other pro lab 6x7 scans to compare with so I will do a more thorough test when I have the time.</p>

<p>The only conclusion I can come up with at the moment is that my intial quick test shows that I can EASILY produce nice A4 prints from my MF slides using this method. That is what I wanted so I am delighted. Whether these duplicates will stand up to a decent scan from a Coolscan 9000 is a different matter altogether. It's very doubtful indeed but I think it will be an interesting test to see what the 5D2 is actually capable of.</p>

<p>Jamie, why is your 5D MkII TIFF so small? I normally get 110mb plus for a TIFF or 25mb for a RAW.</p>

<p>Les: I am not at home at the moment but the pixel dimensions of the lab scan were around double that of my 5D2, at least 8000x4000 from memory. I will confirm later. I have no idea what scanner was used by the lab. I used them because they came out as the best UK scanning company after a magazine review.</p>

<p>Scott: I was referring to the size of the finished file when opened in PS, not the size of the file on disk. I had to crop quite a bit from the left and right edges of the frame because 6x7 doesn't fit exactly into 35mm format. This resulted in a 47MB image. Also, the file was 8-bit, not-16 bit. Normally my full frame 8-bit TIFF files from my 5D2 open out to about 60MB in PS.</p>

<p>645 MF scanned at 4k dpi will be much bigger (9440x7080) than if you shoot it with the 5d2. If you do, get a good light table with even illumination and a good level. I did a project archiving 6x6 negs this way and the main advantage I saw is it's incredibly fast compared to scanning. Construct an L-shaped guide on the surface of the light table so you never have to move the lens.</p>

<p>L-shaped guide if your transparencies are already mounted I should say. It's kind of a pain otherwise, as they usually will not lay totally flat. Even a little curl is going to screw it up.</p>

<p>OK, I've spent a little more time on this.</p>

<p>For clarification, after cropping out the black surrounds from both the pro scanned image and the 5D2 image so that just the actual photograph is displayed, I get the the following pixel dimensions:</p>

<p>5D2 image: 4530 x 3678 (8 bit TIFF file)</p>

<p>4000dpi scanned image: 10703 x 8654 (8 bit TIFF file)</p>

<p>Just to illustrate, here is a thumbnail of the slide I have duplicated:</p><div></div>

<p>Now for the interesting part. First, I resized the 4000dpi scan to the same dimensions as the 5D2 duplicate in PS. No image adjustment has been applied at this stage (no sharpening, no levels, no colour balance, nothing)</p>

<p>Here is a 100% crop from the resized file (4000dpi scan):</p>

<p>Try again:</p><div></div>

<p>And here is the same 100% crop from the 5D2 duplicate image (again, no manipulation at all, no levels, no sharpening, no colour balance):</p><div></div>