Now we need a Z version of the PS-4

I've always liked the PS-4 slide and neg copy attachment for the PB series of bellows. Now that we have the 105 mm Z macro, it would be really great to have a screw-on version of the PS-4. It would just need the right length tube so the ratio could be set 1:1. Too lazy to work this up myself right now, so just tossing the idea out there. IMO, it would be about the best slide and neg digitizer out there, especially if you had a Z7.

IMO, it would be about the best slide and neg digitizer out there, especially if you had a Z7

 

To each their own, I guess.

 

Most of you know how little enthusiasm i have for these bellows slide copiers, although I do like bellows for other purposes;

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by JDMvW

I think no mirrorless has bellow isn't that true? In fact I think the bellow is more useful with mirrorless.

I think no mirrorless has bellow isn't that true? In fact I think the bellow is more useful with mirrorless.

Would people pay what it would cost to make it? If a flimsy ES-2 is $140 (B&H) then what would something like this cost today?:

PB-5 & PS-4

Edited December 14, 2021 by NHSN

A simple alloy tube with a filter thread at one end and a slide holder/neg carrier at the other isn't exactly taxing if one simply wants 1 : 1 'copies' with a Z7 and the 105mm Z Macro.

 

If you need some adjustment there are plenty of good, short helicoid 'adjusters' around like this..

 

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Bigking-Focusing-Helicoid-Adapter-Adjustable-default/dp/B08NW2T4K3/ref=sr_1_10?keywords=helicoid&qid=1639504142&rnid=1642204031&s=electronics&sr=1-10

 

....could go on the filter thread/slide holder end to allow full lens auto.

Edited December 14, 2021 by mike_halliwell

Yes, a simple version wouldn't be too tough to make. One note about the bellows and Z lenses. The modern lenses are designed to be a fixed distance from the sensor, so using a bellows or extension tube is probably a thing of the past, unless you also use lenses from the past. The 105 Z macro goes 1:1 so it's just a matter of putting the neg or slide at the right distance and a couple of nesting tubes would take care of that. The PS-4 did have some nice features, like the X-Y slide for cropping, though would be expensive today.

like the X-Y slide for cropping, though would be expensive today.

I guess the slide holder could be un-locked X-Y and in-front of a short helicoid for <1:1 and with a short Z extension tube for >1:1

 

Apparently the 105mm Z's min. working distance is ~ 134mm

Edited December 15, 2021 by mike_halliwell

Since you lose all automation with the PB-4; what's wrong with a cheap, dumb Z-to-F adapter and 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor?

 

The adapter and manual focus Micro-Nikkor together can probably be bought for less than what Nikon would charge for a slide/film holder alone.

 

FWIW, I get excellent digital film copies using a 6 element enlarging lens that was designed before DSLRs were commonly available, let alone MILCs. So I wouldn't worry about the fixed sensor-distance thing in the slightest. There's a lot of hooey dreamed up by marketing suits designed just to panic you into replacing all your 'outdated' gear!

I've used an adapter on my bellows and PS but I suspect the 105 Z macro is even better than the manual focus Micro Nikkors. I've always wondered if the Micro Nikkors maintain their performance down to below their native minimum focusing distance, down to 1:1.

could go on the filter thread/slide holder end to allow full lens auto.

I hate quoting myself.....:D

It could be worse. I sometimes Google things that are a complete mystery to me and discover I figured it out and posted about it years ago.

but I suspect the 105 Z macro is even better than the manual focus Micro Nikkors.

I beg to differ.

The main issue with film copying is getting the film flat enough - a complete headache with mounted slides. So you often (always?) need to resort to using a mid marked aperture like f/5.6, f/6.3 or f/8. In terms of effective aperture and diffraction, this translates to using between f/11 and f/16 at a 1:1 RR.

 

It's a lose-lose situation I'm afraid Conrad, because even an optically perfect lens can't beat diffraction. In short, you'll see no nett gain between those lenses unless you can get the film absolutely flat and work wide open. Even then you'll just get sharper grain/dye-clouds and no more real image detail.

 

It's 35mm film. It's never going to compete with a 36, 42 or 60 megapixel full-frame digital camera. And nobody expected it to back in the day.

need to resort to using a mid marked aperture like f/5.6, f/6.3 or f/8

Focus stacking will sort that Chestnut out......@ f3.2 :cool:

 

Lovely dye clouds....:D

I refuse to obey the laws of physics and you can't make me. o_O

Reality is so over rated.....:eek:

I've always liked the PS-4 slide and neg copy attachment for the PB series of bellows. Now that we have the 105 mm Z macro, it would be really great to have a screw-on version of the PS-4. It would just need the right length tube so the ratio could be set 1:1. Too lazy to work this up myself right now, so just tossing the idea out there. IMO, it would be about the best slide and neg digitizer out there, especially if you had a Z7.

An FtoZ adapter and your old PB bellows with PS-4, perhaps? The old lenses will do the trick fine enough.

Edited December 17, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

Yes, have that and it works fine but I'm curious if the new 105 will be any different. I'll probably set it up on a copy stand and do a comparison when I get some time.

Focus stacking will sort that Chestnut out......@ f3.2 :cool:

So, err, you want to make camera digitising as time consuming as using a film scanner? :confused:

So, err, you want to make camera digitising as time consuming as using a film scanner? :confused:

 

I don't see the advantage of using a camera over using a scanner except that the scanner generally takes seconds (or even minute) for 1 scan but if he does stacking it would take a lot more time than the scanner.

I don't see the advantage of using a camera over using a scanner except that the scanner generally takes seconds (or even minute) for 1 scan but if he does stacking it would take a lot more time than the scanner.

 

Hmm. I've had my PB-4 and PS-4 for > 50 years. I've had a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS for 35 years. I recently broke down and bought a used D810. I don't have a scanner.

 

Please explain to me why I should buy a scanner. And please send money.

I can't beat that but have certainly had the same PB & PS combo for several decades. I recently sold almost all my Nikkor primes but kept the Micro Nikkor. IMO, there is no cost effective and properly supported scanner that can compete, if one exists at all.

Hmm. I've had my PB-4 and PS-4 for > 50 years. I've had a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS for 35 years. I recently broke down and bought a used D810. I don't have a scanner.

 

Please explain to me why I should buy a scanner. And please send money.

But many have scanners but no bellow. Bellows isn't cheap and as you know there is none made for the mirrorless.

But many have scanners but no bellow. Bellows isn't cheap and as you know there is none made for the mirrorless.

I have a perfectly good scanner. It takes well over 1 minute to do a full res scan, then add tinkering about time in post to get the colour right. There's also no manual adjustment for exposure, nor any way to fine tune the AF. Plus the lens is probably set to a sub-optimal aperture.

 

Apart from that, it's wondetful! (Add irony emoticon here)

I have a perfectly good scanner. It takes well over 1 minute to do a full res scan, then add tinkering about time in post to get the colour right. There's also no manual adjustment for exposure, nor any way to fine tune the AF. Plus the lens is probably set to a sub-optimal aperture.

 

Apart from that, it's wondetful! (Add irony emoticon here)

 

I think you've just answered your own question of..

 

So, err, you want to make camera digitising as time consuming as using a film scanner? :confused:

 

Yes! If the slide deserves it....:D

I have a perfectly good scanner. It takes well over 1 minute to do a full res scan, then add tinkering about time in post to get the colour right. There's also no manual adjustment for exposure, nor any way to fine tune the AF. Plus the lens is probably set to a sub-optimal aperture.

 

Apart from that, it's wondetful! (Add irony emoticon here)

Sub optimal lens, no exposure nor focus adjustment...

You need to reconsider your definition of "perfectly good".