Emile de Leon
Well-known
Just get an el cheapo full frame Sony A7 and 50mm enlarging lens with DOORX or similar and adjustable length adapter to focus....and rebuy the BEOON. The enlarging lens will be better in the corners than a macro lens. Simple compact outfit.
Huss
Mentor
What's your budget? You can buy a nice used Nikon D610 for $600.
Or used Sony A7 for $400.
anerjee
Well-known
I can swing either, though I would prefer the Nikon. Seems like the preference is for FF cameras.
More interested to know about the copy stand vs. ES-2 type of decision.
My copy of the BEOON had issues, which is why I’d hesitate to buy it back.
madNbad
Well-known
The ES-2 has a 52mm thread, same as almost all manual focus Nikkors. It’s shipped with a 62mm adapter for the 60mm AF Micro-Nikkor. The ES-2 was designed for use with the Nikon 850 and it’s conversion software. A cheap full frame Nikon and the 60 AF will be the easiest route. Set up correctly it will autofocus on the grain and give good results from your negative. More importantly is the conversation software. Go to the Negativelab Pro website and start the learning process.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
How to Start, with Budget for a Good Rig?
How to Start, with Budget for a Good Rig?
I hear this question as "How to get started, with $ for a good rig."
My answers... Others feel free to chime in... To get started with a good rig:
Other alternatives:
You'll need software:
Anyone else? Suggestions for getting started with a good rig?
How to Start, with Budget for a Good Rig?
I hear this question as "How to get started, with $ for a good rig."
My answers... Others feel free to chime in... To get started with a good rig:
- Sensor size: Either way.
- Resolution: I'll vote 24MPx as sweet spot today. More MPx resolves grain better but doesn't add much image detail.
- Mirrorless? AF? I prefer manual focus on mirrorless. But, it's personal preference.
- Lens: Lots of choices. AF macro lens for your body if you like. Adapter and a manual focus macro lens. Some enlarger lenses, two excellent choices are 50 f/2.8 El-Nikkor, old model, metal body huge numerals; 80 f/4 Componon-S. Others may be good.
- Film holder: Negative Supply MK-1 is excellent and heavy enough not to move as you advance the strip. Film holder packaged with light box (Skier CopyBox & holders are excellent). Any negative carrier from an enlarger.
- Back light: Electronic flash with 1 or 2 layers of diffusion. Skier CopyBox. Any video light with added diffuser. iPhone or iPad with ~3/8" spacing between screen and film (recent models best).
- Rig to hold everything: Good Kaiser copy stand. Convert enlarger to copy stand. Bellows and slide/film copier.
Other alternatives:
- Bellows and slide/film copier. Caution, some lens/body combinations won't focus at the magnification you want. Backlight as above.
- Front of lens accessory: Nikon ES-2. Other brands. Backlight as above or point at bright clouds.
You'll need software:
- For slides: Most any photo software, adjust contrast/brightness.
- For color-neg: Negative Lab Pro and Lightroom. Various methods and tools in Photoshop (e.g. "CNMY invert"; see "Color-Neg Challenge" thread here). Capture One Pro now seems to have a module for this.
Anyone else? Suggestions for getting started with a good rig?
anerjee
Well-known
The Skier Pro system looks quite interesting -- how is the quality of the product? The light-box which comes with 35mm and 120 carriers.
Many thanks for the responses. I downloaded the Negativelab Pro -- works well.
Many thanks for the responses. I downloaded the Negativelab Pro -- works well.
lynnb
Mentor
I have a Canon 6D and EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. There doesn't seem to be a slide copy adapter or film holder to go with this lens... does anyone know if there is? Or some sort of kludge that would work? I use a V700 at present and I'm very happy with it, but I'd be interested to try camera-scans to see if there's much difference in quality and speed (I assume camera-scans will be a lot faster but I don't know about the quality).
madNbad
Well-known
The Skier Copybox II is compact, made from good materials and easy to use. It’s not an inexpensive option but having tried several other light pads and devices to hold the negative, the Copybox both streamlined the process and gave better, more consistent results. Currently, I’m only using it for B&W negatives and can capture a 36 exposure roll in about three minutes once the focus is dialed in. There is a photo of my setup in this thread. The box itself is made from bamboo and the carriers are metal. It is nicely finished and shows a high level of craftsmanship. Hope this helps.
anerjee
Well-known
Yes, this helps.
Now only if I can buy their product -- their website seems to do it's best to prevent me! If you have an email I can contact them, do you mind pls pm me? thank you!
Update: email was on their page, the owner responded and my order is placed. Will update when I get my rig together!
Now only if I can buy their product -- their website seems to do it's best to prevent me! If you have an email I can contact them, do you mind pls pm me? thank you!
Update: email was on their page, the owner responded and my order is placed. Will update when I get my rig together!
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Camera-scan quality? An interesting question. Camera-scan resolution is unlimited (if one shot isn't enough, use higher magnification and stitch). Color is subjective, pretty easy for chromes and the products for converting color-negatives are now excellent, automatic results as good as we used to get from the mini-labs.
For 35mm, IMHO one-shot with a 24MPx body and good macro lens will be better than the V700 and will not be beaten by CoolScan, Dimage, or whatever. I have done some 50MPx experiments with 35mm; while the grain is resolved more clearly, I don't see much if any additional image detail.
For MF, the tradeoffs are a bit different. With a lesser Epson, a V600, my one-shot camera scans beat the flatbed. Many feel that MF or 4x5 is worth the effort to get more pixels so they use exotic digital bodies or stitch. Again, resolution is unlimited.
Downside of camera-scan: there is no equivalent of Digital ICE which is very helpful for C-41 negatives and slides. Instead, we have to make the film very clean and spot by hand.
Hope this helps.
Ricoh
Well-known
Question for the Negative Lab Pro users, how does the s/w conversion handle Lomography Metropolis. I’ve seen very disappointing results from the likes of Silverfast, the results looking too green and nothing like the promo shots from Lomography.
Thanks...
Thanks...
Huss
Mentor
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
Has anyone done controlled tests comparing results from macro lenses like the Nikkor 55/2.8 (which seems a default macro favorite for film duplication, here and elsewhere) and high quality enlarging lenses such as the Focotar-2 (which also seems to get used a lot for film duplicating) or other enlarging lenses.
For a full frame 35mm digital body.
I’ve mostly been using a Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar ZF, as it’s the best macro lens I have found for general macro use, but not sure if the plane of focus is as flat at close distances as some of the other options like enlarging lenses. Not sure it isn’t either, just can’t find a well executed comparison anywhere for this application.
I am only using this setup/copy stand and stitching for 4x5.
I guess I could get the Nikkor 55/2.8 and do my own comparisons as they are cheap enough, just wondering about the resolution/flat plane advantages/disadvantages of enlarging lenses in comparison for this kind of duplicating setup. Seems there should be a lot of stringent testing and evaluation out there, but I haven’t found it, so far.
For a full frame 35mm digital body.
I’ve mostly been using a Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar ZF, as it’s the best macro lens I have found for general macro use, but not sure if the plane of focus is as flat at close distances as some of the other options like enlarging lenses. Not sure it isn’t either, just can’t find a well executed comparison anywhere for this application.
I am only using this setup/copy stand and stitching for 4x5.
I guess I could get the Nikkor 55/2.8 and do my own comparisons as they are cheap enough, just wondering about the resolution/flat plane advantages/disadvantages of enlarging lenses in comparison for this kind of duplicating setup. Seems there should be a lot of stringent testing and evaluation out there, but I haven’t found it, so far.
Huss
Mentor
Larry, I've got both the 55 2.8 and the Macro Planar but much prefer using the Nikon 60 2.8 as it AF focuses to 1:1. The other two only do 2:1. I've had no issues with image sharpness across the entire frame using the 60.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I have only a 60mm Leica R macro to compare with..and while that is really a stellar lens for regular closeup photography..
It really falls down in the corners compared with the Focotar-2. There really is no comparison. Which leads me to believe..if you are photographing a flat surface..you really need an enlarging lens..esp if you want the corners sharp. But most people wouldnt notice..as how important are the corners anyway...lol...
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
Thanks, Huss. I had a Nikon 60/2.8D, an older one, once, not sure where it went. I’ve got bellows and tubes when I need them, so magnification isn’t a problem, and, to be honest, I haven’t felt there were any problems with sharpness, but, in my mind, I am always thinking “compared to what”. If you know what I mean.
Maybe there’s better, than what I am doing, there’s always better
If I am using the Z7, that’s a lot of resolution, was just wondering what lens in this application was up to that. I do understand the whole “outresolves the filmstock” thing, though more in theory than in practical reality, perhaps.
Sorry for the ramble. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple of years looking for something definitive as to what’s the best lens available for doing this, if one is going to go to the trouble to do it, and have been surprised I can’t find much. Most articles describe the process and most seem, as far as the lens used is concerned, to be based on whatever macro lens the writer had lying around. Maybe that’s all anyone needs if stopped down a bit. I just haven't seen any significant comparative testing out there. Something like post #38, but with a variety of lenses in controlled conditions. Seems odd, as people seem obsessed with that kind of testing in other areas. Anyway, thanks, something else for me to consider.
Maybe there’s better, than what I am doing, there’s always better
If I am using the Z7, that’s a lot of resolution, was just wondering what lens in this application was up to that. I do understand the whole “outresolves the filmstock” thing, though more in theory than in practical reality, perhaps.Sorry for the ramble. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple of years looking for something definitive as to what’s the best lens available for doing this, if one is going to go to the trouble to do it, and have been surprised I can’t find much. Most articles describe the process and most seem, as far as the lens used is concerned, to be based on whatever macro lens the writer had lying around. Maybe that’s all anyone needs if stopped down a bit. I just haven't seen any significant comparative testing out there. Something like post #38, but with a variety of lenses in controlled conditions. Seems odd, as people seem obsessed with that kind of testing in other areas. Anyway, thanks, something else for me to consider.
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
Thank you, Emile. I was curious about the idea of enlarging lenses, as others share your opinion. (FWIW, I had the 60mm Leica Macro Elmarit-R with the 1:1 adapter and compared it to the Zeiss 50/2 Macro ZF and the Zeiss was better at every focal length in terms of sharpness. I thought the Leica was stellar until I spent some time doing some controlled testing against the Zeiss. Not wanting to start a war on that front, however.)
An enlarger lens just “seems” like it would be a good idea since it would be optimized for close subject distances and flat field perfection, I’d guess, whereas general duty Macro lenses need to be designed to be good at all subject distances, so you’d think there were compromises.
I obviously don’t know what I am talking about with regard to the best available lens for film duplication, which is why I am asking. But, I know somebody does.
Huss
Mentor
Larry, this was 'scanned' with a Z7 and 60 2.8, single shot of the Noblex 135 image, no stitching.
You can see from the 1:1 crop from the side that there is no issue with image flatness. Check out the tattoos on the dood's arms.
You can see from the 1:1 crop from the side that there is no issue with image flatness. Check out the tattoos on the dood's arms.
dourbalistar
Buy more film
Someone here on the forum (Godfrey?) mentioned that enlarging lenses were designed for the negative to be behind the lens, rather than in front of the lens. I'm a total ignoramus on the topic, so I only offer that as food for thought. That said, I happen to use an EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lens on my Leica BEOON. If nothing else, most enlarging lenses give you great bang for the buck.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Yeah...the 60 R macro is getting pretty long in the tooth..but it still works good for me...
As..there is always a lens..better than the one you have..
And I'm sure..the Focotar-2 can be beaten..by a Rodenstock APO or similar of newer vintage..provided you have a good sample..
And then there is that rare bird..the APO el nikkor ..the super rare one for thousands...$$$..would luv to get my hands on one someday..
But the Focotar is best close to wide open..and that works fine for me..and it says Leica on it..so thats enough..lol..
Then there are the latest Voightlander macros..anyone tried em yet???