D series Nikon for budget camera scanning (and also maybe to use)?

[_T_]

A dx sensor is 23.6x15.8mm so to fill the frame with a frame of 135 you would need a magnification of 1:1.53 and that lens only focuses down to 1:2 so you would definitely need the extension tube. But the es-1 holds the film a fixed distance from the lens and it’s designed for full frame cameras so it won’t work with the setup you’re thinking of unless you choose a full frame camera instead of the dx.

 

[Dan Fromm]

But the es-1 holds the film a fixed distance from the lens and it’s designed for full frame cameras so it won’t work with the setup you’re thinking of unless you choose a full frame camera instead of the dx.

Why do you believe this?

I ask because I have and use what I think is an ES-1. I described its key measurements in post #12 above.

 

[_T_]

I was operating on mistaken information from an incorrect source. Please forgive the error.

 

[MattKing]

A dx sensor is 23.6x15.8mm so to fill the frame with a frame of 135 you would need a magnification of 1:1.53

You have the magnification going the wrong way.
The magnification is equal to the size of the result/size of the original.
Which equates to 23.6mm x 15.8mm/36mm x 24mm = 0.432.
Give or take

 

[bdial]

At any rate, what I have is the AI Micro Nikkor 55mm/2.8. I don't know why in my head I had it as an pre-AI lens, but it's probably because I don't own an AI body.

Now, on a FX/full frame DSLR, my understanding is I could use that with the ES-1 and an extension tube, since the lens only goes to 1:2.

But since I'm looking mostly at DX/APS-C bodies, the crop factor would mean I would need the film further away and a lower magnification ratio. But it's not quite a crop factor of 1:2, so I'd probably still need an extension tube, right? Would the ES-1 even have enough extension to hold the film far enough away?

You probably would need a tube, maybe not the long one that gets a 55 to 1:1 though.

In any case, I’ve found that a bit of extra extension is helpful because it gives you some flexibility in framing and nailing focus.
For example, assuming a 55 with its 1:1 tube, focusing requires changing the lens to subject distance, depending on your set up that might be challenging to do precisely. If you have enough extension to go a bit beyond 1:1 you can frame and focus with the lens.

 

[George Mann]

Something with more than 12MP can give you similar result like the scanner. A D3400 would be good.

Unless he uses a D2x which manages to outrender the 24mpx D3000 series in fine detail, and produces a more realistic image to boot.

My point being that megapixel count alone does not guarantee the amount of resolution that a camera is capable as most make compromises such as trading off a certain percentage of resolve in able to achieve lower noise levels.

 

[MattKing]

such as trading off a certain percentage of resolve in able to achieve lower noise levels.

I'm guessing that auto-correct played a role here

 

[George Mann]

I'm guessing that auto-correct played a role here

Everything involves tradeoffs.

 

[MattKing]

Everything involves tradeoffs.

I'll resolve to keep that in mind .

 

[_T_]

You have the magnification going the wrong way.
The magnification is equal to the size of the result/size of the original.
Which equates to 23.6mm x 15.8mm/36mm x 24mm = 0.432.
Give or take

Oops my lysdexia acting up

 

[reddesert]

You can get an offbrand 3 piece set of extension tubes to fit Nikon for probably under 30 dollars. Maybe under 15 bucks on ebay, I haven't checked. It is possible to make this unreasonably complicated, but unnecessary. With a macro lens like the 55mm (or the 40mm DX if you have a DX camera), a set of extension tubes, and a slide holder like the ES-1 or ES-2, one ought to be able to arrange a reproduction ratio between 1:2 and 1:1. That is what the ES-1 and ES-2 are designed for.

It might be possible to cook up some circumstance where one of the ES's is too long for the short macro lens at some ratio, but I am not sure this is a problem.

The annoying things are that the ES-1 is discontinued and the ES-2 is expensive. Also the ES-1 is designed for slides, and I am not sure its slide-holding area is deep enough to squeeze in a plastic negative filmstrip holder. I wish one of the companies that makes offbrand adapters and extension tubes and such, would make a generic copier accessory similar to the ES-1 or ES-2, but so far as I know this doesn't exist.

I have tried a sneaky workaround for this, using the ES-E28 (designed a thousand years ago for slide copying with small-lens digital P+S), and some step down rings. You would think this has no hope of working, but I think it actually may with the 40mm on a DX camera. This is definitely outside the realm of intended use, and it might not reach the right working distance with other lenses, or vignette. No warranty of merchantability or fitness is implied.

 

[Chan Tran]

Unless he uses a D2x which manages to outrender the 24mpx D3000 series in fine detail, and produces a more realistic image to boot.

My point being that megapixel count alone does not guarantee the amount of resolution that a camera is capable as most make compromises such as trading off a certain percentage of resolve in able to achieve lower noise levels.

Most cameras have low enough noise level at base ISO and for this work always use base ISO.

 

[RLangham]

You can get an offbrand 3 piece set of extension tubes to fit Nikon for probably under 30 dollars. Maybe under 15 bucks on ebay, I haven't checked. It is possible to make this unreasonably complicated, but unnecessary. With a macro lens like the 55mm (or the 40mm DX if you have a DX camera), a set of extension tubes, and a slide holder like the ES-1 or ES-2, one ought to be able to arrange a reproduction ratio between 1:2 and 1:1. That is what the ES-1 and ES-2 are designed for.

It might be possible to cook up some circumstance where one of the ES's is too long for the short macro lens at some ratio, but I am not sure this is a problem.

The annoying things are that the ES-1 is discontinued and the ES-2 is expensive. Also the ES-1 is designed for slides, and I am not sure its slide-holding area is deep enough to squeeze in a plastic negative filmstrip holder. I wish one of the companies that makes offbrand adapters and extension tubes and such, would make a generic copier accessory similar to the ES-1 or ES-2, but so far as I know this doesn't exist.

I have tried a sneaky workaround for this, using the ES-E28 (designed a thousand years ago for slide copying with small-lens digital P+S), and some step down rings. You would think this has no hope of working, but I think it actually may with the 40mm on a DX camera. This is definitely outside the realm of intended use, and it might not reach the right working distance with other lenses, or vignette. No warranty of merchantability or fitness is implied.

You're quite right on all counts.

I bought a DX body today, very cheaply from the same used video game store where I buy most of my guitars. Yes, it's a small town. It's a D3200, not ideal but I can upgrade later. The Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 will certainly achieve the proper magnification with the shortest extension tube; it already comes close with 1:2 being its maximum and .432 being the target. The bellows are much too long for this.

As for the ES-1, I'm not sure I need it. A wooden light box with a jig screwed to the side to hold the camera with a little bit of vertical adjustment is very doable for me. Then I could even use the negative carriers from my defunct film scanner and just set them on the light box.