conrad_hoffman Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 I think no mirrorless has bellow isn't that true? In fact I think the bellow is more useful with mirrorless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels - NHSN Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 (edited) 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 1 Niels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted December 14, 2021 Author Share Posted December 14, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 16, 2021 Share Posted December 16, 2021 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted December 16, 2021 Author Share Posted December 16, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted December 16, 2021 Share Posted December 16, 2021 could go on the filter thread/slide holder end to allow full lens auto. I hate quoting myself.....:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted December 16, 2021 Author Share Posted December 16, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 17, 2021 Share Posted December 17, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted December 17, 2021 Share Posted December 17, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted December 17, 2021 Author Share Posted December 17, 2021 I refuse to obey the laws of physics and you can't make me. o_O 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted December 17, 2021 Share Posted December 17, 2021 Reality is so over rated.....:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted December 17, 2021 Share Posted December 17, 2021 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted December 18, 2021 Author Share Posted December 18, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_fromm2 Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted December 19, 2021 Author Share Posted December 19, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 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". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now