"scanning" bw negatives with a dslr for on-screen purpose only

Recently been shooting with bronica ETRS, mamiya c220 and rb67, and since I was planning to get a dslr body(for fun shooting) anyways, I thought why not get one and try the "scanning with dslr" myself. I already have a nikon af 60mm macro lens so it will be a nikon body(or fuji maybe?), and budget is $400 tops so this narrows down the choices

This will be my first ever dslr body and will probably be the only one for a while.
"Scanned" files only have to be screen-worthy, for viewing on a monitor and sharing online.

What would be the most cost-effective option?
Fuji s3 pro(12mp) looks nice since they seem to go for a lot less than nikon bodies with similar pixels.
Nikon D300(12mp) or D200 maybe?
Some posts suggest over 16megapixels would be ideal so should I go for higher pixel#?
Entry bodies like D3200 have 24mp but would it be a good "scanner" dslr?
I don't know much about digital so I'd greatly appreciate any comments/suggestions.

I think you would be better asking this on Dpug, photo.net of Flickr. Any of the sites that deals with hybrid work flows. Digital is a dirty word around here.

I predict this tread will be closed in 3,2,1...

Simonh82 said:

Digital is a dirty word around here.

Click to expand...

Oh I don't know. A little grubby round the edges and maybe only spoken in a hushed voice....

My advice for the OP. If you already have Nikon lenses, go for a low mileage second hand body. Don't waste money on new as the deprecation on consumer electronics is horrendous. The money you save buying used can be put towards a substantial amount of film, paper, and chemicals.

I've never understood why scanning and hybrid discussions are so disliked on this forum. This forum has a gallery, every image posted to it was scanned or digitized somehow!

To answer the OP's question, definitely stick with Nikon since you already have the right lens for the task at hand. Any of the bodies selected will work just fine.

Don't worry about pixel count. Remember that 1080p (typical screen resolution) is only 2MP, so even on a 12MP camera you're going to be doing a lot of downscaling to make it fit on a modern screen.

As for which one, if this was a dedicated scanner replacement, I'd say get a D200 (I can find them locally for under $200Cnd) and be happy with that. Since this is also a fun camera, size and handling become important. I don't know anything about the Fuji. The D300 has cult status (I lust after one for absolutely no good reason) where the D200 doesn't, but both are "studio" cameras; thus larger and bulkier than the D3200, but they give you full manual controls and a better view finder. If you go all Auto when playing with your not-film cameras, get the D3200 and call it a day (great images, lousy manual controls).

scanning for gallery posting is actually fine...I think.

Anything, even an phone would be fine. Usually it is best to just lay the negatives on a light table and photograph them. Make sure you get the whole negative, to aid in diagnosing problems.

Not if you want them to look good.

I apologize for posting on a wrong section.
For those who answered my off topic question, thank you

apneasuesan

i wouldn't worry about it ...
the thing to remember is if you are going to remove dust
or crop ( because you shoot wide ) just make sure you
give yourself enough image ( like 200-300dpi ) because you will
only upload at 72 and if you make that your exposure number
you will be able to see the dust removal &c ...
most people realize the gallery is just a show and tell,
and the original image might look better ( or worse ) ...

good luck !
john

I've made proof sheets using a dslr. I've ran some tests with a canon xsi with a 50mm fd macro and it's not bad. Kinda soft but sharpening it in PS helps. But take a look at this.

http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-scan-film-negatives-with-a-dslr/

This question would be perfectly legitimate in the Scanning group: (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

It really doesn't have anything to do with B&W Film, Paper and Chemistry.

It's not exactly what OP wants to do but I have done this analog > analog.

I had an image on 35mm film. Placed it on a light box.
Took my F100 and used a 105mm macro lens.
Shot an image onto 35mm film.
Printed both to little larger than 8x10

There were no degredation of image quality.
I don't see any reason why doing the last step with DSLR won't work...

I'd say try it.

Thread moved to an appropriate forum. Subjects directly concerned with methods for digitizing analog images for display in the APUG galleries are a topic that is within the scope of the site. If the thread strays away from that, it will be closed.

The hybrid group is also a good option for such a discussion.