Best camera, lens for scanning b&w 4x5

I have a bunch of b&w 4x5 negatives that I want to scan with one of my digital cameras. I'm new to this - I welcome advice from those who are more experienced. Would it be better to use my M10 Monochrom (36 x24 sensor, native monochrom, no Bayer filter) or my Hasselblad 907x (44x33 sensor with Bayer filter)? And which lenses are ideal with each? Thank you!

IMO, the 907x would be the better choice for 4x5 because the aspect ratio is closer which will allow you to utilize more of the sensor for the scan. It's best to have a good macro lens and a sturdy way to hold the camera. Many use a tripod, but I like using a copy stand. Not sure about your options for holding the film as I don't digital scan LF. Since you'll be doing B&W, the light source isn't as much of a consideration other than you want something even across the film area. Bottom line...you can start with a minimalist setup, and then go down the rabbit hole about as far as you want. Digital scanning can get expensive!

I'd try them both and compare. Is there a macro lens you can use on your Leica? If you have Hasselblad's excellent 120mm Macro, it'll be a far better lens for scanning than a normal lens would, even if you can get a lens to focus close enough on the Leica with extension tubes. You want a lens with no curvature of field, which is what most macro lenses are designed for.

I occasionally scan 4x5 color transparencies for a client; I use Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II and the 60mm f2.8 Olympus Macro lens and it gives excellent 'scans' that print well at large sizes. Your Hasselblad and your M10 will both have more pixels....but you need a good lens for that to matter.

I do all my scanning with the 907x and the results are terrific. I tried High Dynamic Range but found that the dynamic range of the sensor does not justify the extra workload for HDR.

Chris‘s advice for a 120 is spot on. I personally use the 135 CF, the 120 should be in the same ball park.
(Never tried my 120, as -in my understanding- the 135 is really designed for „close close-ups“.)

Let me know if you have specific questions.

What are you using as a light source? That's as important as a lens or camera.

Cheap 55mm Nikon macro would work extremely well at that magnification level on M10 Monochrome. 55mm works well down to twice the life size. Life size is good but not stellar as lower magnifications.

120mm and 135mm Hasselblad on larger sensor works well but using the same tripod or copy stand shorter 55mm or something in that range will have less blurring from shake.
Difference in shake amount is significant.

I tested a significant number of other lenses and there are some like Apo Rodagon 50 or similar that will work somewhat better but it's harder to mount them and use on different cameras.
Good and stable copy stand or tripod will make more difference than using better lens. My tests were done on Nikon Z7, P25 and P45 backs.
100% live view at life size shows a lot of movement even with very stable copy stands. Walking on the same floor, wind outside and passing cars can be seen easily. Even without any of these there's some background motion.
Using good flash setup will freeze this motion to some extent.

Light source is extremely important for scanning. It's not only colour temperature that's important but bad quality light sources cause strange artifacts and strange or false grain.
Flash is the best source but it's harder to get even exposure across the frame. Good quality light boxes like Kaiser and similar have a following and seem to produce good results.
Flash will also help significantly with shake blur due to short exposure.

If using 120mm or 135mm Hasselblad lenses via adapter on 907x, flash won't sync. If used with Hasselblad V body and sync cables flash will work well.
Didn't try the M10M but still think that it will produce better results for this purpose than 907x.
Reasonably good results are easily achievable (critically sharp at 10-15x even 20x magnification from 6x6 Hasselblad negatives). Extracting the most out of the film takes much more effort.

xkaes said:

What are you using as a light source? That's as important as a lens or camera.

Click to expand...

Not sure if that question was directed to me - in any case I fully agree with your point. As far as I am concerned I use an LED lightbox. A controlled color temperature, good CRI, and even illumination is important.

Don't use an ipad (or similar) with a white screen as illumination source. Even if the pixel structure is invisible to the naked eye, it will show up on scans.

Also, avoid stray light around your picture. Find a way to mask it, as it can cause artefacts in your picture.

I "recycled" an old Kaiser enlarger I got for cheap as a copy stand. The adapter to mount the camera to the enlarger in place of the enlarging head was the most expensive part of the deal

PS. In my case, no flash. I use a continuous light source.
I do an exposure bracketing and keep the one where the histogram maximizes the capacity of the sensor without clipping.

Alfa13 said:

I have a bunch of b&w 4x5 negatives that I want to scan with one of my digital cameras. I'm new to this - I welcome advice from those who are more experienced. Would it be better to use my M10 Monochrom (36 x24 sensor, native monochrom, no Bayer filter) or my Hasselblad 907x (44x33 sensor with Bayer filter)? And which lenses are ideal with each? Thank you!

Click to expand...

I'd use whichever camera has the best macro lens. The resolution you get will be good, but for sheet film, even flatbed scanners will provide a very good, and very high number of megapixels.

Adrian Bacon said:

even flatbed scanners will provide a very good, and very high number of megapixels

Click to expand...

Exactly. I used an ancient Epson 2450 flatbed for all sorts of scanning, it worked fine. A 4x5 neg is so big that a flatbed scanner works great. If you start trying to get too much data out of a scanner scan or a camera scan, basically all that happens is that the grain gets weird.

What surprised me was that I could take a flatbed scan of a 35mm B&W negative and make it look just as good as my Nikon Coolscan V ED. Only the file size was different. In 13x19 prints there was little to no difference between them. That Epson was a good scanner. If you're dealing w/ older, color negs that have issues, get a scanner w/ ICE.

Thanks all for the great advice. I have the Hasselblad 120 macro lens, so sounds like the best approach is to start with that. I may also experiment with the Leica, although I don't specifically have a macro lens (but I do have a macro adapter, essentially a small extension tube). I'm using Negative Supply's 4x5 film holder and light source. I understand that for best results, it's also advised to block ambient light with a dark cloth or some such. All my 4x5 negs are b&w, so color isn't an issue at this point. Will let you know how it goes!

I also have an Epson V600 flatbed - don't think it can handle 4x5.

etn said:

Not sure if that question was directed to me - in any case I fully agree with your point.

Click to expand...

Sorry, it was directed at the OP, for consideration -- but, of course, anyone can throw their two cents in. Sounds like you have that aspect all set -- and so does the OP.

I would want to use a native macro lens instead of adapting just for ease, which leaves the 120. Don't go past 1:2 with tubes though because the lenses fall apart optically.

Seems like you have some nice equipment though so if you can, you'll save a lot of time and futzing if you just get a Imacon or pro flatbed. You could scan a lotta sheets with an IQSmart2. The scans will be easier to produce and better in every way. I personally invested a lot of time and money into serious camera scanning and I believe the technology is promising, but for sheet film there were insurmountable problems. Light even-ness, geometric distortion, and flaring around the edges of the sheet namely. I got an Eversmart Supreme II and within a few months I've sold off all my camera scanning stuff save the light, which I plan to list shortly. Real pro scanners are just incredible.

Muy interesante todo lo que leo pero por qué no escanea los negativos con un escáner tipo Epson V700?
QUiero creer que es porque se tarda menos pero los resultados seguramente serán mejores y no tendrás los quebraderos de cabeza de encontrar una columna de ampliadora, pruebas con luz continua, flahes, sincronizaciones, luces parásitas y el inevitable polvo que te aparecerá por mucho que limpies los negativos. El escáner te ahorrará mucho trabajo y posiblemente, también tiempo y dinero si optas por uno de segunda mano.