Best digital camera for scanning

[Peter Schrager]

Does it pay to go into one of the high end medium format cameras for scanning or is something like a nikon d850 more than acceptable??
Which camera or is any high pixel count camera viable??
Thanks in advance!
Peter

 

[madNbad]

A D850 is more than adequate. The things that are most important, a carrier that keeps the negative flat, a good copy stand and a decent light source. Currently, I'm using a Sony A7II but have used APS sensor cameras with good results.

 

[Les Sarile]

I haven't tried it myself but the 850 is the only dslr with built-in color negative conversion routine. Could be a good thing if you intend to use it on color negatives as this process can be a pain.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I haven't tried it myself but the 850 is the only dslr with built-in color negative conversion routine. Could be a good thing if you intend to use it on color negatives as this process can be a pain.

Unfortunately the built-in routine only produces a jpeg.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Doesn't each camera model have it's own slightly different color palette? How do you deal with that?

 

[4season]

Does it pay to go into one of the high end medium format cameras for scanning...??

Oh gosh no you don't need to go to such extremes: Color and b&w negatives in particular won't begin to challenge the dynamic range of a halfway decent CMOS sensor, and you can get 80 megapixel raw files from some Olympus M43 cameras via the resolution-quadrupling "pixel shift" feature, and I suspect smaller sensors such as those found in Nikon One and Pentax Q would also work well, sans pixel-shift. Negative Lab Pro is a pretty good option for reversing those color negatives.

 

[Les Sarile]

Unfortunately the built-in routine only produces a jpeg.

JPEG itself is not necessarily bad but a very high compression would not be helpful. Is that user selectable I wonder?

Also, if the results of the conversion process is usable then you can use it as a reference to apply on the RAW file you captured.

 

[warden]

Does it pay to go into one of the high end medium format cameras for scanning or is something like a nikon d850 more than acceptable??
Which camera or is any high pixel count camera viable??
Peter

I think it does not pay, unless you are capturing a large volume of negatives to make very large prints. And even then I'm not sure. What is your goal?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Does it pay to go into one of the high end medium format cameras for scanning or is something like a nikon d850 more than acceptable??
Which camera or is any high pixel count camera viable??
Thanks in advance!
Peter

Unless you're looking to spend a lot of money on a good macro lens, I would recommend a camera with an APS-C sized sensor if scanning 35mm film, or, full frame on medium format film. If you go for a full frame camera to scan 35mm film, you have to spend money to get a lens that can actually go a full 1:1 AND be pretty sharp all the way out to the corners. Those lenses tend not to be cheap, and it's easier to get good performance if scanning a larger piece of film with a smaller sensor.

Other than that, anything in the 20MP-30MP range will be fine for most uses unless you're planning to print super huge or do some other niche thing. More resolution is not a bad thing, but whether you actually need it will depend on what you're planning to do with the files. Avoid Fuji with x-trans sensors, they don't have enough red and blue resolution to really do justice to color negative film.

If you're just starting out, spend the money on getting a good light source, and a good way to hold the negatives flat and aligned with the camera. The light source should be as bright as possible. The light and holding the film will give you the most bang for the buck. From there, spend as much as you can afford on the best macro lens you can get for your chosen camera system, then once that is all sorted, you can spend money on more actual resolution, if you need it.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I'm going into production to make books and have been spending lots of money on scanning services
I don't print digitally ..is any of the above good for flat art too or is it just back to Epson scanners??

 

[bdial]

No reason you couldn't use the D850 or something similar for flat art too, you just need some sort of copy stand, and some lights. For film, VCP has rigged up an old-school slide copy stand that looks like it would work very well. I didn't look at it closely when I was in there recently, but I assume there are a selection of mount adaptors that you could use if you want to try things out.

 

[yeolde]

do not deal with sony

 

[wiltw]

Flatbed scanners can go to 4800 ppi.
A dSLR would need to have about 4535 x 6803 sensor to provide equivalent resolution.

 

[tokam]

Flatbed scanners can go to 4800 ppi.
A dSLR would need to have about 4535 x 6803 sensor to provide equivalent resolution.

4800ppi may be in the specs but a lot of reviews state that actual resolution is nearer half that figure. This for the Epson Vxxx range of scanners. I have the V700 and for 120 scans it's fine.

My Coolscan 5000ED, last of the Nikon 35mm scanners does a genuine 4000ppi. This is supposed to be about the max that can be extracted from Kodachromes, don't know about Velvia / Provia or Ektar C-41. I suspect I could get more from 35mm Tech Pan but this is long gone.

4000ppi from the Nikon provides a 25 megapixel scanned image and perhaps this is the sweet spot for scanning 35mm film with a digital camera. Just so long as your lens is up to it and your light source and copy setup are aligned correctly.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Flatbed scanners can go to 4800 ppi.
A dSLR would need to have about 4535 x 6803 sensor to provide equivalent resolution.

I believe that's for 35mm film. Larger sized film would need higher resolution. For example, 4x5" film would be a camera sensor with 19,200 x 24,000 to reach 4800bpi. Of course, since you're not going to print that big, you could cut down the sensor size. What sensor size do people recommend for 120 film and 4x5 film?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I believe that's for 35mm film. Larger sized film would need higher resolution. For example, 4x5" film would be a camera sensor with 19,200 x 24,000 to reach 4800bpi. Of course, since you're not going to print that big, you could cut down the sensor size. What sensor size do people recommend for 120 film and 4x5 film?

APS-C sensor is best all-round and lessens requirements on the lens, particularly if scanning 35mm film. For 120 or 4x5, you can use a full frame camera if you want to, though unless you go with a 45-60MP+ sensor, you’ll get more resolution with a flatbed on the larger film sizes. Whether you actually need that resolution is a matter of what you plan to do with it. If you’re going to display it on a TV, a 20-30MP scan will look pretty crisp.

 

[Light Capture]

Any camera should work well. While there are advantages to medium format digital backs, complexity rises exponentially.
Images are cleaner with digital back and simply 'smoother'. Z7/D850 sensor is great and works well. 55/60mm Nikon lens is plenty for scanning.
If you require 1:1, I would recommend 60mm AF-S version since it's slightly better at that magnification. The issue with AF-S version is that bellows and manual extension tubes won't work with it. I didn't use AF-D and can't say how good or bad it is. Should be similar.
55mm is excellent but at 1:1 it's very slightly worse. Two different versions tested.

To get 35mm sensor to be close to digital back, several images can be taken and averaged in editing software if averaging is needed for noise in shadows.
Longer lenses will increasingly produce inferior results due to camera shake. Camera support needs to be substantial for longer lenses.
Cameras with pixel shifting are something that should work well for scanning but didn't have chance to try it yet.