Minimum needed for better scanning quality?

[What About Bob]

Looking to get an idea on what would be the acceptable minimum for scanning film with a DSLR or through using a film scanner.

I moved to hybrid mode about a year ago. Printing materials are out of my reach. I have been using a Canon T5 with the 18mm to 55mm kit lens mounted on an old Bogen tripod with a Cinestill CS light pad to capture 35 and 120 negative frames. I had bought a set of extension tubes that were supposed to be for the T5 but for some reason the autofocus doesn't work and the aperture setting is inoperable, display reads f/00, so I have been doing without the extension tubes by zooming in all the way to 55mm on the kit lens.

I am on a somewhat tight budget. It would take me some time to save up and I would have to get certain pieces one-by-one. I can do it, it will just take time. I am not looking for absolute pristine quality but something that would be better than what I am, have been, dealing with. The quality I get from the T5 with the kit lens on the Bogen tripod is on the fuzzy side. The image quality is not that crisp as it could be. There is also some visible noise evident. I use an aperture of around f/8 - f/11. I have played around with shutter speeds and even auto ISO options and no matter what I use, the quality is virtually identical: fuzzy and with slight noise and I have to really work out the levels.

I have looked into film scanners and really good ones are way above my budget. The Epson V series scanners look like they may be a decent option but how bulky are these scanners and would they be able to work under Linux Mint? I know the software definitely will not. And no I will not be returning to Windows of any kind.

Any advice and suggestions that anybody would have are welcomed. Thanks

 

[4season]

I'd prefer to use an actual macro lens, not a zoom lens which has some macro capabilities.

 

[Chan Tran]

I'd prefer to use an actual macro lens, not a zoom lens which has some macro capabilities.

A zoom with macro mode can't get sufficient magnification to fill the frame with a 35mm negative.

 

[Pieter12]

First, you don't absolutely need autofocus. You can do it the old-fashion way, by eye. Second, although the extension tubes might be for the T5, are they compatible with the lens--a more important distinction. And third, that lens only focuses down to 25" or macro 1:2, a far cry from what you would need to copy a frame of 35mm film. Save your pennies for a true macro lens with the ability to go 1:1.

 

[bdial]

As others have mentioned, I’d start with a fixed focal length macro. Either one specific to your camera, or something you can get a suitable adapter for. I don’t know what’s what in the Canon world, but Nikon’s 55mm macro, with its 1:1 extension tube works well, and they are available inexpensively, especially the non-“auto indexing” versions. Vivitar and Tamron made some macros too, either would likely be less than Canon’s version.
Another option might be a bellows unit and an enlarger lens.
As mentioned, autofocus is sort of convenient, but is not essential, and often just complicates things.

 

[What About Bob]

Second, although the extension tubes might be for the T5, are they compatible with the lens--a more important distinction.

I had to retrieve the document when I purchased the tubes. They were bought on 01/16/2025 and received on 01/21/2025 They are stated as compatible with Canon EOS (EF and EF-S) based lenses. Brand is Fotodiox, automacro extension tubes. They were bought at Adorama.

@4season, @Chan Tran and @Pieter12: I will look into a macro lens. Any idea on focal length and a lens that isn't as costly? B&H has a Canon version but the price is way up there.

 

[What About Bob]

I don’t know what’s what in the Canon world, but Nikon’s 55mm macro, with its 1:1 extension tube works well, and they are available inexpensively, especially the non-“auto indexing” versions. Vivitar and Tamron made some macros too, either would likely be less than Canon’s version.

The Canon one I saw was on the high end side for price. I forgot about Tamron. I wil llook into them and the Vivitar lines. I do recall Sigma also. Thanks

 

[julio1fer]

AFAIK the V series and other Epson scanners that can do transparencies do not have Linux support. But you could try researching VueScan software.

 

[What About Bob]

AFAIK the V series and other Epson scanners that can do transparencies do not have Linux support. But you could try researching VueScan software.

Thanks for letting me know this. I will look into Vuescan.

 

[What About Bob]

Would the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens be good enough?

Update: Moderately used. No description of condition. I will keep looking around. The $169 price tag was attractive, lol.

 

[koraks]

Would the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens be good enough?

Should do fine.

In a pinch you could use a set of appropriate extension tubes (the ones you have sound like they don't have the electrical EF contacts) and a lowly EF50/1.8mkII 'plastic fantastic'. At 1:1 magnification it will show some purple/yellow fringing, but this can be compensated for the most part in a (free) RAW converter like RawTherapee.

The Tamron is a proper macro lens optimized for actual macro work, so may be a better choice.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I agree with the others who say your lens is the weak link in your workflow, and a decent prime macro lens is necesary to do what you want to do. Also, I am of the opinion that autofocus is not at all necessary when copying film. I check my manual focus every 3 or 4 frames, and almost never do I need to readjust the focus.

I have played around with shutter speeds and even auto ISO options and no matter what I use, the quality is virtually identical: fuzzy and with slight noise

What shutter speeds are you using, and how are you releasing the shutter?

Even if you had a much more stable platform than your Bogen tripod, and even if you are using shutter speeds in the range of 1/125-1/250 sec, then it is almost impossible to press the shutter release on the camera without introducing enough camera motion to cause fuzzy results. You must either use a remote shutter release (cable, wire or wireless), or use your self-timer when copying film. Depending on your flooring, even someone walking across the room while your shutter is open can introduce enough vibration to affect the process.

And I recommend using your camera's base ISO. If you feel the need to increase your ISO to get a shorter shutter speed, then some other part of your workflow needs to be corrected -- either more light, or a more stable platform.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

A dedicated macro lens would be your best bet for ease of use and overall cost. You are better off with a 50/60 rather than a longer lens if you are going to be doing medium format as well. For 35mm you don't quite need a 1:1 lens since your camera has a crop sensor. That actually works in your favor. There have been many macro lenses made over the years. From what I recall the best modern one is the Sigma 70mm though that might be more than you want to spend. You can adapt lenses easily to Canon though so you don't have to necessarily get a Canon mount lens. You could get a Nikon manual macro lens for example and just get a converter for it. I don't know what that would cost but it wouldn't be very expensive.

 

[Pieter12]

Your T5 has an 18MP APS-C sensor. I wouldn't expect too much, don't splurge on an expensive lens. Look for a used macro lens or hold out for a better set-up all-around. Are you processing your film? The economics of having film processed and scanned by a lab might work in your favor, depending on how much you shoot.

 

[MattKing]

Your T5 has an 18MP APS-C sensor. I wouldn't expect too much, don't splurge on an expensive lens. Look for a used macro lens or hold out for a better set-up all-around. Are you processing your film? The economics of having film processed and scanned by a lab might work in your favor, depending on how much you shoot.

I'll counter that in one way - if you have other uses for a lens that gives really good flat field performance, a good macro lens is worth it.
I have a 50mm f/3.5 Zuiko lens for my Olympus OM cameras that does this sort of thing well. If I was seeking to make digitized files that had a lot more pixels than your camera gives you, I would look for a more expensive lens.
If you are considering buying something other than a Canon EFS macro lens and adapting it, you have to pay some attention to which lenses will adapt easily to the close focusing distances your setup permits. My Olympus slide copying/close focusing bellows kit, as an example, has difficulty getting my Olympus macro lens close enough to a Canon crop sensor camera once the necessary adapter is installed.

 

[What About Bob]

What shutter speeds are you using, and how are you releasing the shutter?

Around 125/250. I use the two second delay mode for taking the shot.

A dedicated macro lens would be your best bet for ease of use and overall cost. You are better off with a 50/60 rather than a longer lens if you are going to be doing medium format as well. For 35mm you don't quite need a 1:1 lens since your camera has a crop sensor. That actually works in your favor. There have been many macro lenses made over the years. From what I recall the best modern one is the Sigma 70mm though that might be more than you want to spend. You can adapt lenses easily to Canon though so you don't have to necessarily get a Canon mount lens. You could get a Nikon manual macro lens for example and just get a converter for it. I don't know what that would cost but it wouldn't be very expensive.

The crop sensor would make a 90mm something like a 120mm probably. I will look into the 50/60 lenses. What ever I order I need to make sure the lens is in good condition with no scratches. The one I was looking at talked about being moderately in good condition with some wear but made no mention about the condition of the glass itself so I held off.

Your T5 has an 18MP APS-C sensor. I wouldn't expect too much, don't splurge on an expensive lens. Look for a used macro lens or hold out for a better set-up all-around. Are you processing your film? The economics of having film processed and scanned by a lab might work in your favor, depending on how much you shoot.

For now a used macro lens would be fine. Yes I process my own film. I went hybrid about a year ago due to the cost of printing materials. Once I get a decent macro lens I should be set. Anything will be better than what I am currently working with at this point.


I came across this video last night. This would be pretty neat to build. Not as clumsy and bulky as my Bogen:

 

[What About Bob]

I'll counter that in one way - if you have other uses for a lens that gives really good flat field performance, a good macro lens is worth it.
I have a 50mm f/3.5 Zuiko lens for my Olympus OM cameras that does this sort of thing well. If I was seeking to make digitized files that had a lot more pixels than your camera gives you, I would look for a more expensive lens.

I would definitely use it for regular picture taking. Another valuable tool to possess.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Your T5 has an 18MP APS-C sensor. I wouldn't expect too much, don't splurge on an expensive lens.

My Fuji XT-1 has a 16MP APS-C sensor, and for my purposes the results are satisfactory. When digitizing 6x6 film, I do stitch two overlapping shots, so those files are more like 21-22MP. You can view my results < on this webpage >

Both words: "splurge" and "expensive" -- are going to mean different things to different people, so I either agree, or disagree. ;-)

 

[What About Bob]

Lot of good options and information. Thanks, everyone.

Should do fine.

In a pinch you could use a set of appropriate extension tubes (the ones you have sound like they don't have the electrical EF contacts) and a lowly EF50/1.8mkII 'plastic fantastic'.

Yeah I do not notice anything on the ring for contacts. Why they were advertised to work I have no clue. Maybe a wannabe auto tube.

 

[benderscameracorner]

Canon used to make an EF 50mm f2.5 Macro lens which can be had for ~USD100 these days. It's an older lens with slower autofocus (won't bother you in this case) but is known for excellent sharpness and minimal distortion.

It doesn't manage 1:1 reproduction on full frame, but on a crop sensor you'll be at approx. 80mm which *should* gives a more convenient working distance, and be OK for 35mm scanning? I'll dig out an old sticky 300D and give this a test tonight.

Otherwise, an old manual focus Nikkor macro and cheap mechanical F-to-EF adaptor is a tried and tested budget route.

Oh, and 18MP is fine for scanning... you'll be struggling to get more than 20-24MP of resolution out of all but the sharpest 35mm films, and for anything larger tiling and stitching can easily boost resolution if it's needed.

 

[What About Bob]

My Fuji XT-1 has a 16MP APS-C sensor, and for my purposes the results are satisfactory. When digitizing 6x6 film, I do stitch two overlapping shots, so those files are more like 21-22MP. You can view my results < on this webpage >

Both words: "splurge" and "expensive" -- are going to mean different things to different people, so I either agree, or disagree. ;-)

With stitching do you mean to capture one part of the film frame and then the other and then join them? I want to try this out. When I think of stitching, it brings me back to a long while ago when I joined images to create a panorama scene. I played with stitching around the time when the Canon Powershot A70 came out. The software I think I used back then was Arcsoft to do the stitching.

I'm looking over your web page. I really like the grouping of the work, with the film and date titles and the methods used for the results.. Informative and a good variety of subjects. Well done!

 

[runswithsizzers]

With stitching do you mean to capture one part of the film frame and then the other and then join them? I want to try this out. When I think of stitching, it brings me back to a long while ago when I joined images to create a panorama scene.

That is exactly right. Because the negatives from my Rollicord are square, and the sensor in my Fuji is a rectangle I can either:
a. fill the height of sensor with the square image of the 6x6 film and leave some of my sensor's pixels unused. This one-shot method results in a digital image of about 3200 x 3200 pixels.
Or...
b. fill the width of my sensor with the top part of the square frame, then take another shot of the lower part of the negative, and combine the two overlapping shots into a sort of panorama. This two-shot method results in a digital image of about 4700 x 4700 pixels.

 

[loccdor]

Would the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens be good enough?

Update: Moderately used. No description of condition. I will keep looking around. The $169 price tag was attractive, lol.

Tamron's SP line is generally extremely good. I haven't used their macro, but I have the SP 85mm and 45mm f/1.8 lenses in Canon EF mount. They are the second and third sharpest lenses I own, bested only by the Sigma 135mm f/1.8.

I wouldn't worry about autofocus for high magnification work, at first I was using it but found it only got in the way. You really want to focus once per roll if possible.

 

[What About Bob]

That is exactly right. Because the negatives from my Rollicord are square, and the sensor in my Fuji is a rectangle I can either:
a. fill the height of sensor with the square image of the 6x6 film and leave some of my sensor's pixels unused. The one-shot method results in a digital image of about 3200 x 3200 pixels.
Or...
b. fill the width of my sensor with the top part of the square frame, then take another shot of the lower part of the negative, and combine the two overlapping shots into a sort of panorama. This two-shot method results in a digital image of about 4700 x 4700 pixels.

Thanks for going over the process. Would you know of any software for stitching? This may be difficult for me because I am on Linux

I have Rawtherapee and Gimp and there doesn't appear to be any function for stitching images. The manual way of doing it would be to open with a new image canvas and then paste each image portion as its own layer and then move the pieces to join them. Not sure how smooth of a transition at the seam would be.

 

[MattKing]

Would you know of any software for stitching? This may be difficult for me because I am on Linux

A Google search indicates a few options, such as PTGui and Hugin and others. I'll let those like @koraks who work more in Linux give you more informed responses.