Camera instead of scanner

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>Has anyone ever done scanning of 35mm slides using DSLR and a good macro lens? Basically what I am asking, is this a viable option and how does it compare to the results achieved with dedicated film scanner?<br>

Vahe</p>

[starvy]

<p>I investigated this mode before buying a dedicated scanner. Even the entry level flatbed should offer a very acceptable result if you learn how to do the post processing and invest in software.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Vahe, I did this quite some time ago. Hands down, the results were better with a scanner than with the macro setup I was using. For 35mm, I still use a Canoscan dedicated scanner. It is an older unit, but works beautifully.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I currently do this with 120 film shot with a Diana (not exactly a high resolution set-up to begin with). It works surprisingly well. I'm using a Canon 20D (only 8MP) and decent macro lens. I created a light tube. The flash sits at the bottom and is bounced off a card. At the top of the tube the film rests in a holder. The camera is above the tube on a tripod pointing down.</p>

<p>Resolution-wise, a flatbed scanner is a bit better as you can more or less start to resolve grain. I think the macro set-up is fine for small enlargements but not quite as detailed as a consumer level flatbed.</p>

<p>For my higher quality 35mm film scans I use a dedicated film scanner (Canon FS4000US and Coolscan 5000) which are both superb. The Nikon has a noise advantage for slide scans.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>One of the staples of eBay and other auction sites are the "Slide Duplicator" attachments for your SLR. Nikon and other major manufacturers even made attachments for their bellows for this purpose.</p>

<p>All of these offers pretty much share one thing in common: "like new, in original box"</p>

<p>Why? because all of them were used exactly once and then stuck away in the closet with Aunt Maude's muskrat fur coat. As attractive as the idea is in theory, in practice they are a real PITA with usually very poor results.</p>

<p>The exceptions to this -- and they were very important in pre-digital days-- were the kinds of tools variously known as a "Repronar' (Heiland, Honeywell) and the Bowens Illumitran. Used properly these devices and a few copies offered by places like Spiratone made excellent slide copies, especially with slide copying film (lower contrast). They could be used to recover underexposed slides (e.g., forgot to reset camera from the High-Speed Ektachrome used the night before to the ISO 25 Kodachome 25 in the camera now). They could also be used with filters to correct color balance: in short, for slides they were a sort of "analog" and mechanical PhotoShop</p>

<p>The Illumitrans (mostly just the light box) and the Repronars (originally with a waist-level Pentax and bellows all built in) are available on eBay, but for what they cost you could buy a really fairly decent film-scanning flatbed.</p>

<p>I was lucky enough recently to bid, perhaps out of nostalgia for my long-lost Repronar, and win what looked like a broken-down, dismantled Honeywell Repronar lacking the Asahi Pentax camera. I thought that maybe I could adapt it to a digital camera. When it came, it was NOT the old Pentax Repronar at all, but an unknown (to me and obviously any potential bidders) late variant marketed by Honeywell, apparently after the split with Pentax, called a "Honeywell Universal Repronar." It was nothing more nor less than a Repronar made to use any through the lens flash metering 35mm camera! It was in fact in pristine condition and functioning perfectly after I figured it out (cannot find a manual for this late model except at prices more than I won the thing for).<br /> One of these days, I'll be posting an account of my adventures with this, but it actually works extremely well with a digital body on it. With a modern digital SLR it actually doesn't need the flash--the preview light is more than adequate for most slide duplication.</p>

<p>But all the same, most of the time I know I'll get better results even with my Canon 9950, much less my older Canon film scanner.</p><div></div>

[peterbcarter]

<p>This would be a good read <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~tony1964/MicroSlides.html">http://www.mindspring.com/~tony1964/MicroSlides.html</a></p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There's no reason you can't use a camera to copy slides or negatives and get good results. You need a good lens and (probably) bellows attachment, a means to hold the film flat and exclude extraneous light, and have a good light source. If you don't need really big prints, copying with a camera would probably suffice.</p>

<p>A good scanner takes care of all that infrastructure. Furthermore, the scanner resolution is fixed per inch on film, so the larger the film, the more pixels. A camera has a fixed resolution regardless of film size. The scanner covers one line at a time, whereas the camera shoots the entire frame in a fraction of a second. At 4000 ppi, a Nikon film scanner creates 24 MP image from 35mm film, and proportionately more from larger film. Not many DSLRs would do as well.</p>