For me, at least several hundred CDN$, and more likely more than $1,000.00 CDN.The solution is out there. And IS super easy. Camera + lens + ES-2. 3 things.
YOU ROCK !This thread may be missing some content, we've had to re-ban a disruptive account coming in under a new alias. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
T*H*A*N*K Y*O*U!!!
..
So difficult and complicated that, in the summer of 1969, I and a group of 8 or 9 other fairly average kids learned to operate adjustable cameras, develop our own film, and make prints -- in the course of a week of half days. Total time spent learning, shooting, processing, and printing, about 15 hours. Probably easier for kids, though.
For me, at least several hundred CDN$, and more likely more than $1,000.00 CDN.
Plus another camera. Or another lens for my existing camera.
And that isn't even taking into account my relatively unusual needs to scan other formats like 110, 126, 828 and medium format.
It is what I have said from the beginning - we don't have the same definition of "super easy".
.. And it won't require setting up when I've got negatives to digitize -- it'll be right there on my desk....
...
1) Load film into camera(s)
2) take pictures, replace film cartridge through the session/travel
3) When back into 'home', load film cartridges into something that can start developing them, and notify me in the morning that it is done
4) For the 'done' cartridges load them into another thing, that scans them into my personal hard drive/card (without sending anywhere online for privacy and cost reasons). If I want 100Gb scans per image, I would have to send it somewhere (and loose privacy, time and a bit of money). But many would use the in-home option if is reasonably priced (and may be will come in a 'kit' together with other parts of the film photography package!).
...
..
I realize that to implement the above workflow, film chemistry itself need to change to allow for more modern development process in (in step 3). That's also where innovation needs to happen.
It does take an inordinate amount of time to attach a lens to a camera, then the film holder to the end of the lens.
It is super easy not because I had the gear - but because I wanted to scan film and so did the research on how to do it. End result is the best result outside a drum scanner is a digicam with lens + film holder. All three things available at the click of a button.
You could step up to a FF camera if you want. A used Sony A7 is $400? New Nikon D610 is $800. Remember we are talking about a scanning solution for people who are looking to get into it. Just because your equipment as is does not work ideally can be fixed by getting the correct gear.
The solution is out there. And IS super easy. Camera + lens + ES-2. 3 things.
Scanned with those things, and the $20 light source:
It would be super easy for me to do what you do if I had the equipment you do, because I have the skill and knowledge to use it.I'm curious, what is your definition of super easy? It doesn't get easier than camera/lens/holder. If you don't want to pay for those three pieces, that's a different matter.
No, it doesn't -- but when you have limited space, you can't leave the copy stand, backlight source, etc. set up while not in use, else (for instance, in my house) cats will either deposit $800 worth of equipment on the floor with a crash you won't even hear if you're at work, or if they can't manage to move it, cover it with cat hair.
It would be super easy for me to do what you do if I had the equipment you do, because I have the skill and knowledge to use it.
But if someone doesn't have that equipment, or doesn't have the knowledge and experience with flat field copy work at macro ranges, it isn't super easy.
It is accomplish-able for those without the equipment, experience and knowledge, but it isn't easy because it will cost substantial amounts of money and there will be a learning curve.
My initial caution was directed at those who don't have all the equipment and flat field macro copy experience.
Let me try to give you a sense of where I am coming from.
A long time ago I used to work in camera retail. When I dealt with inexperienced customers, it was really important not to over-sell how easy something would be to do, because customers who bought from me and then quickly got frustrated with the learning process were much more likely to take advantage of the store's generous return policy!
You need a full frame camera for your setup to work.
You only have to use a copy stand if you scan MF film.
Do you put your film scanner away? Or do you leave it sitting out?
Sorry forgot a few details from when I did the initial research some years ago.Nope. It also works with crop/DX sensors. Nikon recommends the 40mm DX macro lens if you go that route. (Of course they would recommend their lens!)
Ahem, no.For multi-format shooters, there's pretty much only the copy stand/macro, or a flatbed scanner. My "new" obsolete model scanner will pull 30+ megapixels out of a 35mm frame; an $800+ current model Epson will get above 45 MP at optical resolution (6400 ppi). A camera that will beat that will cost about as much, exclusive of lens and copy stand and light panel, and it's harder to get good results with a camera vs. a scanner, IMO.
Ahem, no.
A completely unsupported contradiction? Seriously? The arithmetic is simple and basic. Are you saying the actual resolution of the scanner isn't what's claimed, or that 50 MP cameras (with macro lens, light panel, and copy stand) cost less than an $800 flatbed scanner?
This is still one of the best comparisons, though far from perfect and contains some negating his own research and results at the end (just goes to show that intelligence is something that comes and goes in spurtswith regards to flatbed film scanning vs camera-based copy, are there online accessible test compares?
For digital camera copying to be efficient, it requires new hardware as well as software. Automated negative or slide advance, an adjustable light source, and a digital medium whose own artefacts are indistinguishable from the characteristics of film.
I don’t believe I’ve met anyone in a very long time that has even a remote interest in buying a new, not previously owned, film camera. I think I’m the last person on the face of this Earth who did so... about a decade ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?