Camera scanning with full frame or medium format

[pkr1979]

Hi all,

I'm considering switching from scanners to digital cameras for scanning. So I was wondering if anyone has any experience in scanning with both full frame and medium format, and can say anything about potential benefits with medium format over full frame (or FF over MF).

More specifically I am considering either a used Panasonic S1R or a used Fuji GFX 100s (however, I am open for suggestions). I am scanning small format, medium format (645+67) and 8x10" large format. I am scanning roll film more often than sheet film.

So, comparing one to one I suspect that the Fuji will outperform the Panasonic due to the fact that it has a larger sensor, more pixels, and a higher bit depth, but factors I assume could make a difference as well is pixel shift and in camera stitching.

I know that both have pixel shift, but if I am not mistaken the Panasonic does this in house meaning you get a raw file from the camera, while from the Fuji you will end up with a tiff from the fuji software?

And if you camera stitch - will this not close the pixel gap between these two cameras? I was also wondering how important lens profiles are when stitching, as I am considering the Pentax 645 120mm in combination with the GFX.

I guess my question is can stitching, pixel shift, native 1:1 macro lenses and lens profiles narrow the gap between FF and MF - or even switch it in favour for the FF?

Cheers
Peter

 

[koraks]

Neither of the digital cameras you mention are medium for at though, are they? What does the 'medium format' in the thread title refer to?

 

[pkr1979]

The Panasonic S1R is full frame and the Fuji GFX 100s is medium format. Medium format in the title refers to digital medium format cameras.

 

[koraks]

Sorry, I didnt realize that the Fuji is MF, silly of me! Disregard my earlier comment.

can stitching, pixel shift, native 1:1 macro lenses and lens profiles narrow the gap between FF and MF - or even switch it in favour for the FF?

I'd say, depending on specifics, yes. Especially w.r.t. the lens used.
I'd also take into account performance aspects that may not directly related to pixels - think of field curvature, distortion pattern, vignetting and color variations across the field of view.

 

[runswithsizzers]

the Fuji GFX 100s is medium format

It is and it isn't.

It is, nominally, because Fuji say it is. And everyone else have agreed to call the Fuji GFX series cameras "medium format."

However, the sensor on Fuji's GFX 100s measures a little less than 44×33mm, while the image area of 6x4.5 film measures 56x42mm.

When talking about small format, "full frame" sensors measure the same size as a 35mm negative. But when talking about medium format, Fuji's GFX version is quite a bit smaller than the smallest medium format film frame. So technically, the GFX cameras are not quite medium format cameras, and should probably be called something else.

Still, the Fuji GFX 100s sensor is quite a bit larger than full frame sensors, and bigger is better if all other factors are equal. Just be sure you can find (and afford) a suitable flat-field macro lens for the GFX before going that route.

 

[pkr1979]

It is and it isn't.

It is, nominally, because Fuji say it is. And everyone else have agreed to call the Fuji GFX series cameras "medium format."

However, the sensor on Fuji's GFX 100s measures a little less than 44×33mm, while the image area of 6x4.5 film measures 56x42mm.

When talking about small format, "full frame" sensors measure the same size as a 35mm negative. But when talking about medium format, Fuji's GFX version is quite a bit smaller than the smallest medium format film frame. So technically, the GFX cameras are not quite medium format cameras, and should probably be called something else.

Still, the Fuji GFX 100s sensor is quite a bit larger than full frame sensors, and bigger is better if all other factors are equal. Just be sure you can find (and afford) a suitable flat-field macro lens for the GFX before going that route.

Thanks - Yes, I am aware of the difference. However, my question remains the same though.

 

[xkaes]

I'd go with which camera has the most pixels -- and other features that you find important. Some other factors are what lens(es) you have for the digitizing, and how easy they are to set up.

 

[isaac7]

Pixel shifting does give you larger images but I don’t think that is the biggest advantage. I have seen videos that show pixel shifting can help combat grain aliasing when shooting B&W 35mm (and presumably smaller formats). As the film size went up there didn’t seem to be much benefit. Pixel shifting while shooting color does a manual debeyaring theoretically giving you better color resolution. I’m not sure if that works the same way with Fuji sensors though.

Lenses will be an interesting choice. Since you might be shooting 8x10 onto a 35mm sensor a 50mm enlarging lens would probably be ideal. A bigger challenge might be getting a good light source and keeping the film as flat as possible. B&W would be easier since evenly lit high cri or RGB LED panels at that size will be challenging.

 

[djdister]

I think pixel shifting and/or overlapping exposures and the required stitching is too much work. I'm happy with using my GFX100s and a macro lens.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I am considering either a used Panasonic S1R or a used Fuji GFX 100s

You have mentioned possibly using the Pentax 645 120mm in combination with the GFX. Have you selected a lens for the Panasonic?

Since you are shopping used, I assume cost is a consideration? Have you calculated the total cost, including the lens plus any necessary adapters for each system?

How do you plan to use the digital files? Will you be printing via ink jet printer or paying someone to do that for you? If so, what is the largest print you anticipate making?

Bottom line, unless you have a real and specific need for the extra pixels, I would go with whichever system is less expensive, assuming the lenses can record similar detail. If one lens is a lot better for flat-field macro work, then go with that system. However, it may difficult to find accurate resolution data for the lenses you are looking at.

Personally, I am scanning 35mm and medium format with a 16mp APS-C camera and a pretty good lens (Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 75mm f/4.0 copy lens). I do stitch the medium format negatives, taking two overlapping shots of my 6x6 negatives and three overlapping shots of my 6x9 negatives. So even though my camera sensor is only 4896 x 3264 pixels, my 6x6 negatives come out about 4800x4800 pixels, and my 6x9 negatives about 6900x4600 pixels. That is plenty of resolution for my modest needs, but I don't make big prints. I do make photo books, but so far, none bigger than 8"x10"

 

[pkr1979]

I think pixel shifting and/or overlapping exposures and the required stitching is too much work. I'm happy with using my GFX100s and a macro lens.

This is a point that needs to be considered - if it becomes to much of a hassle/time consuming maybe one should just keep scanning with scanners.

 

[pkr1979]

You have mentioned possibly using the Pentax 645 120mm in combination with the GFX. Have you selected a lens for the Panasonic?

Since you are shopping used, I assume cost is a consideration? Have you calculated the total cost, including the lens plus any necessary adapters for each system?

How do you plan to use the digital files? Will you be printing via ink jet printer or paying someone to do that for you? If so, what is the largest print you anticipate making?

Bottom line, unless you have a real and specific need for the extra pixels, I would go with whichever system is less expensive, assuming the lenses can record similar detail. If one lens is a lot better for flat-field macro work, then go with that system. However, it may difficult to find accurate resolution data for the lenses you are looking at.

Personally, I am scanning 35mm and medium format with a 16mp APS-C camera and a pretty good lens (Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 75mm f/4.0 copy lens). I do stitch the medium format negatives, taking two overlapping shots of my 6x6 negatives and three overlapping shots of my 6x9 negatives. So even though my camera sensor is only 4896 x 3264 pixels, my 6x6 negatives come out about 4800x4800 pixels, and my 6x9 negatives about 6900x4600 pixels. That is plenty of resolution for my modest needs, but I don't make big prints. I do make photo books, but so far, none bigger than 8"x10"

I was thinking maybe the Sigma 105 macro with the S1R. Cost is a consideration, but I will have to admit I have not really done a lot of calculating. I will print A2 at home, and maybe larger at labs. Out of the lenses I have looked at the mentioned Pentax appears to be solid.

 

[xkaes]

I use a 100mm bellows lens when digitizing 4x5" (as big as I go), and that's quite a distance between the camera and the 4x5" film. For 8x10", you'll be even farther away. For smaller formats, I use shorter lenses. I do it in a darkroom with all the lights off.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

My question is what scanners are you using?

I still do film scans with scanners since I mostly shoot 35mm and I use a Nikon which can scan the whole roll in one go. Moving to camera scans is more labor intensive for me so I stick with film scanners. I should add that scans for me are just proofing since I still print in the darkroom. Time is more important than quality. For larger formats I don't think camera scans are worth it unless you go whole hog and get a Fuji 100mp camera. Just my 2¢. Of course it would depend on your current situation which is why I asked what scanners you are currently using and what you plan on doing with the files.

 

[pkr1979]

My question is what scanners are you using?

I still do film scans with scanners since I mostly shoot 35mm and I use a Nikon which can scan the whole roll in one go. Moving to camera scans is more labor intensive for me so I stick with film scanners. I should add that scans for me are just proofing since I still print in the darkroom. Time is more important than quality. For larger formats I don't think camera scans are worth it unless you go whole hog and get a Fuji 100mp camera. Just my 2¢. Of course it would depend on your current situation which is why I asked what scanners you are currently using and what you plan on doing with the files.

I have a ScanMate 11000 drum scanner and a Nikon CoolScan 8000. The drum scanner takes up a lot of room and is quite time consuming to use. I mainly use fine mode on the coolscan, so that is also time consuming. For small formats I sometimes just use my Canon 6D. My printer does A2 so I like to print that. I dont do a lot of darkroom printing.

 

[250swb]

You are thinking about the problem backwards. Decide which camera you'd want to use for everything other than scanning and buy that, you then get a camera and a 'free scanner'.

For 4x5 and 8x10 and doing digital contact sheets use an Epson V700/V850. Modern full frame cameras (especially with pixel shift) are fine for medium format film and there are a lot of choices for 1+1 macro lenses.

 

[pkr1979]

Epsons scanners and 8x10 is not a good combination in my experience. But now we are drifting off topic. So, when camera scanning various formats - full frame or medium format?

 

[loccdor]

For me the medium format digital cameras for film scanning did not add enough value for the price. I went with a used Pentax K-1 36 MP camera with pixel shift and 50mm f/2.8 macro lens, together these cost $1300. If I wanted to spend more I'd probably go with that Sony camera with more MP that also has pixel shift.

You may want to consider that scanning small formats on a larger format is going to be trickier with regards to depth of field, diffraction, and film flatness. You may want to reverse the lens for that as I do when digitizing half-frame.