Another DSLR film scanning thread (camera and lens questions)

[warden]

Hi all,

My trusty Nikon Coolscan IV is starting to make end-of-life sounds while scanning so I want to be proactive and start researching its replacement. For MF I'm using an Epson V700 which has worked well. My intention is to invest in a DSLR scanning rig to replace both scanners. I don't plan on making negatives larger than 6x9.

Another thread highlighted Negative Supply and I've spent some time on their site looking at their stuff, which looks good to me so I'll continue that research but if you have other sources for similar equipment please let me know.

I have a lens that might work. It's an AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8D which I bought years ago for my Nikon D70. Question #1 - is this lens sufficient for digitizing 35mm film with one non-stitched shot, and will it outperform the Coolscan? Specifically I'm interested in distortion, sharpness in the corners, etc. I'm assuming MF negatives would be stitched.

Question #2 - for the camera I have that old D70 (still works perfectly!) but I've heard sensors might have improved a bit since then. If I replace this camera body with another Nikon, what would you suggest? I see KEH has D800s available which are 36mp. Would this be overkill?

Thanks!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have a lens that might work. It's an AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8D which I bought years ago for my Nikon D70. Question #1 - is this lens sufficient for digitizing 35mm film with one non-stitched shot, and will it outperform the Coolscan? Specifically I'm interested in distortion, sharpness in the corners, etc. I'm assuming MF negatives would be stitched.

I've done some experiments camera "scanning" with a Fuji X-T2 and compared to my Coolscan 9000 the resolution and general quality is not up to the level of the Nikon scanner. However I suspect with your 105mm macro, a good support set-up (copy stand etc.) and a full frame D850 or Z7 etc. your results could probably be very good. - Keeping out stray light in the film path is vital in my experience.

Mark Sperry on this forum has made some good points about the benefits of a pixel-shift camera in terms of resolution and accuracy, but how important this is may well depend on whether you're photographing colour film.

 

[warden]

I've done some experiments camera "scanning" with a Fuji X-T2 and compared to my Coolscan 9000 the resolution and general quality is not up to the level of the Nikon scanner. However I suspect with your 105mm macro, a good support set-up (copy stand etc.) and a full frame D850 or Z7 etc. your results could probably be very good. - Keeping out stray light in the film path is vital in my experience.

Mark Sperry on this forum has made some good points about the benefits of a pixel-shift camera in terms of resolution and accuracy, but how important this is may well depend on whether you're photographing colour film.

Thanks Tom. I'm on the bottom of the learning curve so it'll be fun learning about it. I'll be digitizing black and white for new work but I have a lot of old slides and color negatives to do too.

 

[grat]

According to this site: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/105mm-f2.8d-af-micro-nikkor/review/

Your lens will be fine. If there's a downside, it's that your working distance will be a bit long, simply because of the focal length.

You probably want a few more megapixels.

 

[titrisol]

Besides the above.
Stray light is your enemy, I'd recommend you build a "box" or "shroud" of black paper to keep the space between lens and negative dark
You can use old negative carriers form an enlarger to hold your negatives
If you have an APS sensor your magnification is 0.6 which for the 105 should be something like 40cm from the negative

According to this site: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/105mm-f2.8d-af-micro-nikkor/review/

Your lens will be fine. If there's a downside, it's that your working distance will be a bit long, simply because of the focal length.

You probably want a few more megapixels.

 

[grat]

40cm sounds a bit excessive. I'm using a Canon EF 100mm macro on APS-C, and my distance for 35mm is about 20cm (lens to negative).

 

[Chan Tran]

The lens would be sufficient but the D70 wouldn't be able to do as well as the cool scan. The D70 is 6MP and the coolscan IV can do 11MP for a 35mm negative or slide. For a FF body of 24MP it should be fine.

 

[warden]

According to this site: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/105mm-f2.8d-af-micro-nikkor/review/

Your lens will be fine. If there's a downside, it's that your working distance will be a bit long, simply because of the focal length.

You probably want a few more megapixels.

Thanks for that link, which gives me confidence that this lens will work. It seems to have basically no distortion, which I figured might be a problem when it comes to stitching. I've never tried stitching images so I'll need to learn about that later.

 

[warden]

@warden to maximize corner performance it helps to leave some empty space around the negative, e.g. lift the camera higher. This is where extra resolution will be helpful, and 36mp will not be an overkill. I would say that 18-36MP is the sweet spot for 35mm scanning. Also, watch out for shake blur and AF accuracy. A lot of folks have posted their "disappointing" camera scanning results because they failed to create a stable platform. A sturdy desk+copy stand help, as well as a bright light source to keep the shutter speed high. Use electronic shutter or electronic first curtain if available. Also, tether to a computer, this will allow you to confirm focus at 10x in live view. It will also show you how much shake you're introducing just by keeping your hands on your desk!

Tethering to a computer is a great idea, and something I've never done before. Thanks!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

If you're primarily going to be digitizing 35mm film with a DSLR/Mirrorless style setup, I would recommend an APS-C camera. It's much more forgiving of lenses, and doesn't require a full 1:1 macro. I wouldn't bother with trying to compare with a dedicated film scanner and instead focus on what your output resolution needs are and get a system to match that.

What you're planning to do with the resulting images should dictate how much resolution you need. I scan *a lot* of film with a DSLR setup and in practice, if you go with 24+ MP with APS-C, you can do the full 35mm frame in one shot with acceptable resolution for most applications. The same applies to medium format. It's waaaay too easy to get down into the "I need to resolve all the film grain" and "it looks soft when I zoom into 800%" weeds and spend a huge amount of time and money chasing something that will make very little if any difference in your final image output.

Take it from someone who has been there and done that. There is nothing wrong with trying to extract as much detail as possible out of the film during the scan, but at the end of the day, you need to ask yourself what your real end goal is and get an appropriate system for that.

The way I look at it is this way: If I were to shoot that same image digitally today, how much resolution would I need for my intended usage? Be brutally honest and real with yourself about this, because it's going affect how much time and money you spend on this.

In my experience, 24MP (6000x4000 pixels) shot digitally, renders a very nice looking 16x24 inch print at 240 pixels per inch. Using a camera with that same sensor resolution to scan film does in fact resolve a lot of film grain with a lot of emulsions on a 35mm frame of film.

EDIT: If you already have a digital camera, I would just start with that and get the other pieces that you need to do it. Don't spend any money you don't have to until you've spent some time actually digitizing film with the new setup, then spend money and effort where your pain points are. If your pain point end up being resolution, then get a new body. You'll probably find that your pain points are elsewhere.

 

[warden]

If you're primarily going to be digitizing 35mm film with a DSLR/Mirrorless style setup, I would recommend an APS-C camera. It's much more forgiving of lenses, and doesn't require a full 1:1 macro. I wouldn't bother with trying to compare with a dedicated film scanner and instead focus on what your output resolution needs are and get a system to match that.

What you're planning to do with the resulting images should dictate how much resolution you need. I scan *a lot* of film with a DSLR setup and in practice, if you go with 24+ MP with APS-C, you can do the full 35mm frame in one shot with acceptable resolution for most applications. The same applies to medium format. It's waaaay too easy to get down into the "I need to resolve all the film grain" and "it looks soft when I zoom into 800%" weeds and spend a huge amount of time and money chasing something that will make very little if any difference in your final image output.

Take it from someone who has been there and done that. There is nothing wrong with trying to extract as much detail as possible out of the film during the scan, but at the end of the day, you need to ask yourself what your real end goal is and get an appropriate system for that.

The way I look at it is this way: If I were to shoot that same image digitally today, how much resolution would I need for my intended usage? Be brutally honest and real with yourself about this, because it's going affect how much time and money you spend on this.

In my experience, 24MP (6000x4000 pixels) shot digitally, renders a very nice looking 16x24 inch print at 240 pixels per inch. Using a camera with that same sensor resolution to scan film does in fact resolve a lot of film grain with a lot of emulsions on a 35mm frame of film.

EDIT: If you already have a digital camera, I would just start with that and get the other pieces that you need to do it. Don't spend any money you don't have to until you've spent some time actually digitizing film with the new setup, then spend money and effort where your pain points are. If your pain point end up being resolution, then get a new body. You'll probably find that your pain points are elsewhere.

Thanks Adrian, I appreciate you weighing in.

For the practicalities I was looking at the D800 because of the camera's image size of 6144 x 4912. I sometimes print 6x6 negatives, and the largest so far is 19x19". I paid to have the negatives professionally scanned and would like to not pay that price going forward if I'm investing in this system.

For a 16x16" print from a 6x6 negative if I assume 300dpi would need the full D800 sensor if my math is good, but I wouldn't need to stitch which sounds great to me. I'm not sure if I would actually need 300dpi rather than your 240dpi though as I don't know that much about digital printing. For the camera purchase I'm just trying to avoid sourcing a camera that would require stitching when for another hundred bucks or whatever I could avoid that work.

 

[wiltw]

For a 16x16" print from a 6x6 negative if I assume 300dpi would need the full D800 sensor if my math is good, but I wouldn't need to stitch which sounds great to me. I'm not sure if I would actually need 300dpi rather than your 240dpi though as I don't know that much about digital printing. For the camera purchase I'm just trying to avoid sourcing a camera that would require stitching when for another hundred bucks or whatever I could avoid that work.

If you want a 16" x 16" print at 300dpi, you simply need a digial file with 4800 x 4800 pxiels, and it does not matter that size format the film was originally.

 

[warden]

If you want a 16" x 16" print at 300dpi, you simply need a digial file with 4800 x 4800 pxiels, and it does not matter that size format the film was originally.

Yes I mentioned the format because of Adrian's comment "If you're primarily going to be digitizing 35mm..." Since I haven't done this yet I thought I'd mention it because I'm not sure what the differences would be between formats, other than moving the camera farther away from the negative of course. The 4800x4800 resolution is the reason I'm thinking about that particular Nikon.

 

[PhilBurton]

Hi all,

My trusty Nikon Coolscan IV is starting to make end-of-life sounds while scanning so I want to be proactive and start researching its replacement.


Thanks!

OR. There is a closed Facebook group devoted to Nikon scanners. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1514948298527146/ There are two guys in the US and one in the UK who repair Nikon scanners and all have an reputation for excellent work, judging by user posts in that group.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

For a 16x16" print from a 6x6 negative if I assume 300dpi would need the full D800 sensor if my math is good, but I wouldn't need to stitch which sounds great to me. I'm not sure if I would actually need 300dpi rather than your 240dpi though as I don't know that much about digital printing. For the camera purchase I'm just trying to avoid sourcing a camera that would require stitching when for another hundred bucks or whatever I could avoid that work.

You'd be hard pressed to see individual pixels at 240 pixels per inch unless you had perfect close focus vision and put your nose up against the print, AND had good light. The reality of the matter is a 65 inch 4K TV has way less than that and looks great. It's all about viewing distance. People gravitate towards 300PPI because it's a nice easy number, but the bigger you print (or display), the further away you tend to stand (or sit), and so as a result, the less pixels per inch you actually need. As long as you've got at least 100 pixels per inch and you're not closer than arms length, you can't actually see the difference.

This is why I say just start with what you have right now. If it turns out that you do actually need more resolution, you'll be better informed about how much resolution you actually need and can purchase accordingly. It's more important to get practice doing the other parts, as they'll have a much larger impact on the outcome than the raw resolution.

Another thing to note is, it's pretty easy to mask low resolution with sharpening. You can make an image that looks sharp and absolutely pops by selectively sharpening the important edges in the image. While there is a really big difference between lots of fine detail and sharpness, to an untrained eye, brighter and sharper win the day. The human visual system is attracted to brightness and high contrast edges. When we say something looks sharp, we're commenting on how much contrast the edges in the image have. Make the brights bright, and the important edges pop with contrast and the general public oohs and ahhs over it. If you do that, it doesn't matter if it has fine detail. All people will see is the the brightness and sharpness because that's what human vision is tuned for. Only people who actually know how it works will see otherwise, and believe me, once you get that to click in your head and visual system, you won't be able to unsee it. It suddenly opens up everybody else's images, and you start to see what they did with post processing to get to that final image.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Yes I mentioned the format because of Adrian's comment "If you're primarily going to be digitizing 35mm..." Since I haven't done this yet I thought I'd mention it because I'm not sure what the differences would be between formats, other than moving the camera farther away from the negative of course. The 4800x4800 resolution is the reason I'm thinking about that particular Nikon.

I mentioned 35mm film because if you have a full frame digital camera, if you want good edge to edge performance, you need at least 1:1 macro, and those types of lenses that also perform great across the entire frame aren't cheap. APS-C sensors don't require 1:1, and only really need good performance in the center of the lens, which significantly opens up your possible lens choice.

 

[warden]

People gravitate towards 300PPI because it's a nice easy number, but the bigger you print (or display), the further away you tend to stand (or sit), and so as a result, the less pixels per inch you actually need.

Yep, that's me. The 300dpi is just a number I've heard for years and haven't questioned as I don't do my own printing.

I mentioned 35mm film because if you have a full frame digital camera, if you want good edge to edge performance, you need at least 1:1 macro, and those types of lenses that also perform great across the entire frame aren't cheap. APS-C sensors don't require 1:1, and only really need good performance in the center of the lens, which significantly opens up your possible lens choice.

It's an interesting balancing act between a) sensor size, b) lens quality, and c) print size + resolution if I'm following correctly. I'm satisfied that the lens I have will work for me, so it's just a matter of selecting the camera, stand, negative holders and accessories. Thanks for walking me through it!

 

[warden]

OR. There is a closed Facebook group devoted to Nikon scanners. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1514948298527146/ There are two guys in the US and one in the UK who repair Nikon scanners and all have an reputation for excellent work, judging by user posts in that group.

Thanks Phil. If my scanner was the Nikon medium format version I would consider that, but I'm committed to replacing both scanners with a DSLR rig. I've gotten twenty years of service out of that scanner so it doesn't owe me anything at this point.

 

[Tim Gray]

I think Adrian has a lot of experience here and is digitizing in pretty high volume compared to some of us, so his advice is solid.

I purposefully ignored the crop sensor advice and went with a full frame Sony A7rII - I wanted a full frame camera for photo purposes and partially rationalized the purchase by having it double for scanning. After playing around with various bellows, Nikon slide adapters, fancy reproduction lenses (which I may one day return to as a project), a small copy stand and the Sony 90mm macro with AF is working pretty great. I'm using a Kaiser Slimlite Plano LED light panel for the light source as it is high CRI.

WRT to the Negative Supply film carrier: Some of the accessories are not worth it in my opinion, but the 35mm carrier is very nice, as is the base stand for it + antistatic brush. If you have the money for it, it's a good setup. The carrier is very solid and weighty, the knob transports film easily, and you can really crank through frames. The base has leveling feet - I use a Klein 935DAG digital level to level the camera and the film carrier planes and have had no real focus issues (0.1 degrees seems close enough).

I have 2 complaints with the Negative Supply carrier, one of which could be fixed. The default film gates really should be a hair wider as it can be right up on the edge of the image. The 'full frame' gates have a HUGE opening. I wish it was considerably smaller (like 26-28mm x 38-40mm opening) as that would keep the film flatter. My second complaint is somewhat related: The carrier seems optimized for scanning full uncut strips of film. I cut my film into strips of 6 before scanning so I can flatten them (makes for better scans) and scan at a later time. The carrier transport doesn't grab the film until you are a few frames in, which is a minor inconvenience as you have to manually push the film in. More importantly, sometimes the first or last frame isn't quite supported correctly and the cut edge can curl down, hop out of the film groove, and drop out of the plane of focus. A smaller 'full frame' gate would help significantly.

That being said, it's a really nice piece of kit and the best I've tried. Also, I have a working Nikon Coolscan V, and this is a better setup in my opinion.

 

[warden]

I think Adrian has a lot of experience here and is digitizing in pretty high volume compared to some of us, so his advice is solid.

I purposefully ignored the crop sensor advice and went with a full frame Sony A7rII - I wanted a full frame camera for photo purposes and partially rationalized the purchase by having it double for scanning. After playing around with various bellows, Nikon slide adapters, fancy reproduction lenses (which I may one day return to as a project), a small copy stand and the Sony 90mm macro with AF is working pretty great. I'm using a Kaiser Slimlite Plano LED light panel for the light source as it is high CRI.

WRT to the Negative Supply film carrier: Some of the accessories are not worth it in my opinion, but the 35mm carrier is very nice, as is the base stand for it + antistatic brush. If you have the money for it, it's a good setup. The carrier is very solid and weighty, the knob transports film easily, and you can really crank through frames. The base has leveling feet - I use a Klein 935DAG digital level to level the camera and the film carrier planes and have had no real focus issues (0.1 degrees seems close enough).

I have 2 complaints with the Negative Supply carrier, one of which could be fixed. The default film gates really should be a hair wider as it can be right up on the edge of the image. The 'full frame' gates have a HUGE opening. I wish it was considerably smaller (like 26-28mm x 38-40mm opening) as that would keep the film flatter. My second complaint is somewhat related: The carrier seems optimized for scanning full uncut strips of film. I cut my film into strips of 6 before scanning so I can flatten them (makes for better scans) and scan at a later time. The carrier transport doesn't grab the film until you are a few frames in, which is a minor inconvenience as you have to manually push the film in. More importantly, sometimes the first or last frame isn't quite supported correctly and the cut edge can curl down, hop out of the film groove, and drop out of the plane of focus. A smaller 'full frame' gate would help significantly.

That being said, it's a really nice piece of kit and the best I've tried. Also, I have a working Nikon Coolscan V, and this is a better setup in my opinion.

Thanks Tim. I'm leaning toward full frame for the same reason as you. I'm currently 99% film and 1% phone, and I've had that D70 since new and never felt the urge to upgrade it. I figure if I'm going to need a camera for this copy stand I might as well go full frame and see what that's like in the field.

 

[Tim Gray]

Thanks Tim. I'm leaning toward full frame for the same reason as you. I'm currently 99% film and 1% phone, and I've had that D70 since new and never felt the urge to upgrade it. I figure if I'm going to need a camera for this copy stand I might as well go full frame and see what that's like in the field.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that after buying the camera, I barely scanned anything with it for 2-3 years Rationalization at it's finest.

 

[Tim Gray]

@Tim Gray instead of cutting into strips, try exactly the opposite: roll it up and store overnight. This will create more vertical curling, which carrier easily takes care of, but it cancels out lateral curling. It's even more effective with the medium format carrier.

I'll try that with my next rolls.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I have 2 complaints with the Negative Supply carrier, one of which could be fixed. The default film gates really should be a hair wider as it can be right up on the edge of the image. The 'full frame' gates have a HUGE opening. I wish it was considerably smaller (like 26-28mm x 38-40mm opening) as that would keep the film flatter. My second complaint is somewhat related: The carrier seems optimized for scanning full uncut strips of film. I cut my film into strips of 6 before scanning so I can flatten them (makes for better scans) and scan at a later time. The carrier transport doesn't grab the film until you are a few frames in, which is a minor inconvenience as you have to manually push the film in. More importantly, sometimes the first or last frame isn't quite supported correctly and the cut edge can curl down, hop out of the film groove, and drop out of the plane of focus. A smaller 'full frame' gate would help significantly.

thanks for the kind words.

I also have the NS 35MD and the full frame gates, and my major complaint is actually that there’s too much side to side slop. The film has a tendency to wander up and down in the film gate (which shows up as the scanned image area floating vertically up and down over the course of the roll with no easy way to adjust it as the transport rollers are really gripping it). My solution was to cut some thin shim material that goes between the gate and the carrier frame so the two carriers are just a little closer to each other. Out of the gate (no pun intended), there’s a solid 1mm of extra space and in my experience, cut 35mm film doesn’t vary that much in width. Every once in a while I’ll run across a roll that is a little snug going in, and I’ll spend a minute to remove some shim material to loosen up the fit a bit.

you can try the same to see if it helps any with the film flatness as more of the frame edge will be in the channel.

 

[PhilBurton]

Thanks Phil. If my scanner was the Nikon medium format version I would consider that, but I'm committed to replacing both scanners with a DSLR rig. I've gotten twenty years of service out of that scanner so it doesn't owe me anything at this point.

@warden. You could still post in that group that you have this scanner for sale. As long as you are honest about the condition (and specific about the issues), you should get a buyer. Note that you should double-box the scanner. Frank A. Phillips even has some postings about to pack a scanner for safe shipment.

 

[Tim Gray]

thanks for the kind words.

I also have the NS 35MD and the full frame gates, and my major complaint is actually that there’s too much side to side slop. The film has a tendency to wander up and down in the film gate (which shows up as the scanned image area floating vertically up and down over the course of the roll with no easy way to adjust it as the transport rollers are really gripping it). My solution was to cut some thin shim material that goes between the gate and the carrier frame so the two carriers are just a little closer to each other. Out of the gate (no pun intended), there’s a solid 1mm of extra space and in my experience, cut 35mm film doesn’t vary that much in width. Every once in a while I’ll run across a roll that is a little snug going in, and I’ll spend a minute to remove some shim material to loosen up the fit a bit.

you can try the same to see if it helps any with the film flatness as more of the frame edge will be in the channel.

Good idea. Yeah that is my issue with the regular gate - it's basically the width my images, but the film can wander a bit, so sometimes it is cut off.

I'd really like them to offer a middle gate. They are 3D printed after all, it shouldn't be *that* much work.