Scanning with a digital medium format compared to full frame DSLR

[ymc226]

I currently use a Nikon Z7 and get good results but am wondering if anyone uses a medium format digital camera like a Hasselblad X2D 100C? About 80% 6x6 using Rolleiflexes and the rest 35mm. Does stepping up to a digital medium capture for the 6x6 negative give a step up in quality similar to going from 35mm to 6x6 format in film?

I just probably need an excuse to get the Hasselblad though I am 99% film (hybrid) now.

 

[braxus]

Im sure you'll notice a difference, especially going to a 102 MP sensor. It depends if Hassy has a macro lens and one that will get you close enough to the film to fill the frame. If not, you might not get any benefits over the Z7.

 

[_T_]

There is a macro lens made for that camera but it only focuses to 0.5x magnification and for 35mm you would need about 1.2x magnification to take advantage of your full sensor.

That means that you would need about 73 mm of additional extension in the form of macro extension tubes or a bellows system.

You would also likely need to upgrade nearly every other component of your current scanning system to fit the larger and heavier system.

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you stitch my guess is you will see very little difference.

If you go the medium format route you should be able to get extension tubes to allow the macro lens to magnify greater than .5x

 

[MattKing]

I'd be surprised if the camera - sensor, processor, firmware and particularly the lenses are designed in a way that optimizes performance at the magnifications necessary for film scanning.

 

[Light Capture]

I'd be surprised if the camera - sensor, processor, firmware and particularly the lenses are designed in a way that optimizes performance at the magnifications necessary for film scanning.

This is the challenge with camera scanning. The whole system has to be tested and matched.

I found Phase One P25+ digital back to pickup more details from negative compared to Z7. Even grain structure looks different in favor of this particular digital back.
On paper Z7's resolution should trump the P25+ but in reality there's more than pure resolution at play in this magnification range.
The problem here is that performance at 2x magnification when scanning 35mm on P25+ is typically abysmal on lenses that are not optimized for that range. Camera shake becomes a huge factor as well.
Even 1x magnification is not where most standard macro lenses work well. I found them to work really well on 0.5x but there's a drop when magnification goes up to 1x.

 

[Augied]

Here's something to consider. The Z7 sensor is 3:2, and the Hasselblad (or Fuji) is 4:3. When you scan a 6x6 negative you'll crop less, so the difference is greater than just the overall resolution of the sensor. On the other hand, you don't need to crop at all with the Z7 35mm combo.

 

[ymc226]

Thank you for all of your replies. This is harder than I thought as I assumed Hasselblad would have a macro lens. I am used to the rapid pace of scanning using the Nikon Z7 using autofocus and exposure which have been giving me good results for printing on my Epson P900. I just wanted to extract more quality out of my 120 negatives if possible. I guess, I will stick with the present set up as it is serving me well enough.

 

[ymc226]

If you stitch my guess is you will see very little difference.

If you go the medium format route you should be able to get extension tubes to allow the macro lens to magnify greater than .5x

By stitching, do you mean taking very close up pictures and combining 2 or more photos using a panorama program (I do this using LR when I shoot digital). With the Z7, the macro lens is the 105 f/2.8 VR S which can focus down to 11.4 inches and a macro repro ratio of 1:1, max mag of 1X.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Personally I would not want to go larger than 135. A modern pixel shifting APS-C sensor would be just about perfect for scanning. Going up in sensor size is only going to introduce problems, and most of the macros are 1:2. When using tubes, they lose performance.

I would stick with your current set up and just continue optimizing. If you really want better scans, pick up an IQSmart3 or Imacon.

 

[Steven Lee]

I used to have a Fuji GFX system. Despite having 100MP I wasn't able to find any lens that worked well for film scanning. The native macro lens was only 1:2 (and didn't excel at that close range either) and the older adapted lenses weren't any better. Besides, manual focusing at 1:1 with these ultra high resolution sensors is a fool's errand anyway. I ended up selling it and building a scanning rig around the Sony full-frame camera with a Sigma macro that appears to be well-optimized for 1:1 ratio.

Check out https://www.closeuphotography.com/ I find that a camera-based film-scanning system should be built starting with the lens, which shouldn't be a surprise for anybody here.

 

[L Gebhardt]

By stitching, do you mean taking very close up pictures and combining 2 or more photos using a panorama program (I do this using LR when I shoot digital). With the Z7, the macro lens is the 105 f/2.8 VR S which can focus down to 11.4 inches and a macro repro ratio of 1:1, max mag of 1X.

Yes, that's what I mean by stitching. It works well for me as long as the images have detail in the overlapping areas and you can ensure consistent exposures.

 

[MattKing]

For the extra pixels to make a significant difference, you would need:
1) optics that are optimized for high magnification. That means extremely good flat field performance, including very low distortion at those magnifications and the ability to deliver exceptional acutance and contrast. Optics like that often give sub-standard performance when applied to more general photographic purposes;
2) a combination of sensor and sensor performance that would most likely give quite unattractive response if used for something like portraits at typical distances;
3) a combination of processor and firmware and programming that would also most likely give quite unattractive response if used for something like portraits at typical distances.
Whenever you try to re-purpose equipment designed for general use to be used instead for a highly specific, high magnification use, you are going to have to deal with some serious compromises.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I used to have a Fuji GFX system. Despite having 100MP I wasn't able to find any lens that worked well for film scanning. The native macro lens was only 1:2 (and didn't excel at that close range either) and the older adapted lenses weren't any better. Besides, manual focusing at 1:1 with these ultra high resolution sensors is a fool's errand anyway. I ended up selling it and building a scanning rig around the Sony full-frame camera with a Sigma macro that appears to be well-optimized for 1:1 ratio.

Check out https://www.closeuphotography.com/ I find that a camera-based film-scanning system should be built starting with the lens, which shouldn't be a surprise for anybody here.

Lenses I've had good results with on the Sony A7R4 include the Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 75mm, the Mamiya 645 120mm macro, the Nikon 105mm Micro Nikkor, and the Sony 90mm macro. I'd expect the Rodagon D would work well on a the GFX system, but I haven't tested it. The Mamiya 120mm should also be good and is easier to adapt. I don't have a GFX test on, so those are just educated guesses.

 

[Steven Lee]

@L Gebhardt The Sony 90mm macro is weak in the corners. It is a good lens, don't get me wrong. But scanning film on high-density sensors requires crème de la crème, and the Sony is not it. The focus field is not 100% flat. To compensate you have to close down to f/8, and then you're limited by diffraction. Again, for normal photography that's nitpicking, but if you want to match and exceed a Coolscan or a Flextight, you need to feed high MTF into those high-density sensors. The same applies to the Mamiya 120 macro. I have not tried others because they're manual focus and that's a far bigger limitation that people realize.

The only sensor+lens combination that I'm aware of that can beat a 60MP full-frame sensor with the 105mm Sigma Art Macro is the 100MP GFX with Rodenstock 105/5.6 HR Digaron Macro. But that's a $6K lens which also requires a motorized focusing rail and focus stitching to achieve it's full potential, which is way too much work for that price. There could be others, but I I haven't found anything after a year of searching. Two combinations I wasn't able to locate full-sized samples is 100MP Hasselblad H with their 1:1 120mm macro, and the Phase One Cultural Heritage dedicated film scanning setup (which is $50K+ anyway AFAIK).

 

[ymc226]

You all convinced me that my present set up is more than adequate enough for my personal use. As long as I can continue to enjoy shooting film with a very easy and rapid way to convert the negatives to a digital file that can be processed and printed, I'll remain happy with this hobby.

 

[GLS]

105mm Sigma Art Macro

Their 70mm ART macro is also very good (it's what I use with the A7RIV) and allows a shorter working distance when digitising, which has advantages re: stability on a copy stand.

 

[L Gebhardt]

@L Gebhardt The Sony 90mm macro is weak in the corners. It is a good lens, don't get me wrong. But scanning film on high-density sensors requires crème de la crème, and the Sony is not it. The focus field is not 100% flat. To compensate you have to close down to f/8, and then you're limited by diffraction. Again, for normal photography that's nitpicking, but if you want to match and exceed a Coolscan or a Flextight, you need to feed high MTF into those high-density sensors. The same applies to the Mamiya 120 macro. I have not tried others because they're manual focus and that's a far bigger limitation that people realize.

The only sensor+lens combination that I'm aware of that can beat a 60MP full-frame sensor with the 105mm Sigma Art Macro is the 100MP GFX with Rodenstock 105/5.6 HR Digaron Macro. But that's a $6K lens which also requires a motorized focusing rail and focus stitching to achieve it's full potential, which is way too much work for that price. There could be others, but I I haven't found anything after a year of searching. Two combinations I wasn't able to locate full-sized samples is 100MP Hasselblad H with their 1:1 120mm macro, and the Phase One Cultural Heritage dedicated film scanning setup (which is $50K+ anyway AFAIK).

Yes, the Sony 90mm isn’t good in the corners, but with stitching it is good enough for medium format film. With 6x6 and four shots using the central square of the sensor over each corner the results are more than good enough for large prints.

I prefer the manual focus lenses. The Rodagon D on an extension tube with helical is a very easy lens to use with focus peaking. It’s also not expensive.

If I can meet the resolution of my Scanmate 5000 with a quicker workflow I’m happy.

You all convinced me that my present set up is more than adequate enough for my personal use. As long as I can continue to enjoy shooting film with a very easy and rapid way to convert the negatives to a digital file that can be processed and printed, I'll remain happy with this hobby.

That’s the important thing. Sounds like you have an efficient workflow that meets your needs. Even if your scanning solution doesn’t give the absolute highest resolution it is still working if it meets your needs. If you need more at times you can always rescan on a drum scanner by sending it out.

 

[ymc226]

I think I will look at the Sigma macro that Steven Lee thinks so highly of but will wait until the next generation 60+MP Sony mirrorless camera comes out in a few years since I just got the Z7 and Nikon macro lens this year. It will also allow the Mac Studio to progress to the M3 processor. As long as I don't lose the current speed, efficiency and convenience of home processing any gain in quality will be a plus.

 

[Film Rescue]

The top FADGI standard for film digitizing is 4000 dpi so in order to get there, with 2 1/4 square film, you'd need pixel resolution of the Fuji GFX 100 or the Hasselblad X2D 100C to just get you there. Any more resolution, according to FADGI (and me too) will be moot because you'll be exceeding the resolving power of almost all film. FADGI is the standards laid out by the US Library of Congress for the digitizing of cultural heritage material.

I'd favor the Fuji because you can use the Capture One software instead of being stuck with Lightroom with the Hasselblad but if you can afford it, then get the Phase One with an IQ3 or IQ4 back because then you get the very useful Cultural Heritage Capture One software. Or just get yourself a good scanner...then you're not stuck with Negative Lab Pro to do your color inversions. Scanners don't have a bayer pattern which makes color inversions not optimal.

Now you have your excuse to get that camera

PS...with a DSLR, you are digitizing your film - not scanning. Even Phase One won't call it scanning. There is no shame in digitizing your film. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

 

[bags27]

I used to scan my MF negatives with a Fuji GFXr and now use a Panasonic S1R (and that Sigma macro). All in all, I'm happy with the switch. Which is a subjective, aesthetic decision, nothing to do with peeping.

If the 907x comes out with a 100c, I'm an immediate buyer (for oversees travel) and would probably swallow hard and buy the HB macro, even though it's 1:2.

 

[etn]

Thank you for all of your replies. This is harder than I thought as I assumed Hasselblad would have a macro lens. I am used to the rapid pace of scanning using the Nikon Z7 using autofocus and exposure which have been giving me good results for printing on my Epson P900. I just wanted to extract more quality out of my 120 negatives if possible. I guess, I will stick with the present set up as it is serving me well enough.

If you don't need autofocus, the Hasselblad/Zeiss 135mm (the one intended to be used with bellows) is optimized for magnifications close to 1:1. I got excellent results with my it and my CFV 50c back. Checking the focus for each shot is time consuming, though. If I compare with the scans I did with my Nikon Df (16 megapixels) and the 60mm Micro-Nikkor, autofocus definitely speeds up the process. Resolution is half, though - approx 6000x6000 with the CFV vs 3000x3000 with the Df.

 

[ymc226]

I used to scan my MF negatives with a Fuji GFXr and now use a Panasonic S1R (and that Sigma macro). All in all, I'm happy with the switch. Which is a subjective, aesthetic decision, nothing to do with peeping.

If the 907x comes out with a 100c, I'm an immediate buyer (for oversees travel) and would probably swallow hard and buy the HB macro, even though it's 1:2.

With the HB Macro being 1:2, what does that do to the resolution or file size? Does it cut both in half since the image is not captured fully?

 

[etn]

If the 907x comes out with a 100c, I'm an immediate buyer (for oversees travel) and would probably swallow hard and buy the HB macro, even though it's 1:2.

There are rumors of a 100c - there is a thread on hasselbladdigitalforum.com.

Be careful though, for having had the 907x for 3 years, I find it absolutely brilliant when using as a digital back with a 500-series body. However, I never could warm up with the user interface (or lack thereof!) when used as a 907x with an XCD lens. So many control buttons are missing. I suggest to try it before you buy, if that's your intended purpose. Some love it (I don't - so much that I decided to swap it for an X2D).

 

[etn]

With the HB Macro being 1:2, what does that do to the resolution or file size? Does it cut both in half since the image is not captured fully?

At 1:2, a 56x56 mm negative will be projected on a 28x28 mm area on the sensor.

Given that the Y resolution of the 100c sensor has 8740 pixels over 33 mm, you can expect a resolution of 7400x7400 pixels over that 28x28 mm area. Or 54 Mpixels.