Copying your 24 x 36 mm slides with your Fuji camera, any relevant experience?

[milandro]

A friend of mine and I want to quickly digitize slides ( just for viewing purposes).

 

Any experiences that you like to share about doing this on an aps-c camera ( not other formats) ? Have you tried one of these Hama or Opteka slide copiers which you attach to a zoom lens, perhaps the 18-55?

 

They seem to have a +10 dioptric lens ( not sure if it has more elements or it is one lens only).

 

Not interested in scanners. Takes too long.

 

I have seen a number of possible solutions, one is a Panagor tube but I wonder how this would work on an aps-c since it was originally meant for 24 x 26mm cameras. Could this work if used with a turbo adapter?

 

I’d like to see some examples taken by anyone who has done this kind of thing. 

 

[milandro]

I’d like to bump this, I have modified the post and maybe it gets more attention this way.

[bobcom]

I always refer people asking this question to this youtube movie. Still have to try it out for myself, though.

[milandro]

Thanks, interesting, but synchronizing a camera to a projector is way to complicated rig for me.

 

Although I can really see it would serve the purpose to digitize large amounts of slides in a very short time.

 

I am interested in a different type of slide copying.

 

The particular use of a those tubes which one attaches to the front of a lens as in the ones shown above on a Fuji 18-55mm zoom or the other tubes which can be attached to the camera directly albeit with an adapter.

 

I could easily buy one of these other types, a panagor zoom slide duplicator, they have a zoom lens inside and attach directly the the camera body.

 

The question is whether they could be used at all on an aps-c since the format is smaller than the original format ( 24mm x 36mm) for which these were made. I also have a lens turbo adapter which might help.

 

But, since you haven’t done this yet I guess I’ll have to wait or try it myself.

 

 

[bobcom]

I can imagine some drawbacks of the system shown by you. First, it has its own optics, and they will not be comparable to a real macro or reproduction lens with flat field correction. Second, most of these duplicators were meant to be used with 35 mm film camera's, so they won't give you full frame coverage on a crop sensor. Thirdly, every second or 3d slide must be placed into the holder, necessitating refocusing with every second or 3d shot. I don't think they'll outperform a slide projector which you can buy for some € 30,- on the net. 

 

Don't know of any duplicators meant to be placed before the camera's own optics, but in view of the camera lense's optical properties and minimum focusing distance I am rather sure that image quality won't be stellar - to say the least. To arrive at a 1:1 reproduction you would need either a strong diopter or large distancer in front of your lens or some tubes between your camera body and lens - and neither are helpful to image quality, set-up stability or reproduction reliability. 

 

As far as synchronising slide advancement and exposure are concerned - they are not an issue. You use the remote control of the projector to advance each slide, and with the camera remote you activate the shutter for each subsequent slide. You  can either control focus of each slide on your camera screen or trust that each slide will have the same focus distance of the former one - a high aperture count (f/16 e.g.) will help in this case. 

 

I'm still looking for time and opportunity  to try this out on my ca. 6.000 analog slides - I'd probably mount my Kiron 105/2.8 macro lens on my X-E1 body, put it on aperture priority, use my Orion slide projectors' remote to advance my slides and a traditional screw-in remote to activate my X-E1 shutter. I'd regularly check focus using the manual focus enlargement option on the center of the slide, since this will show the largest displacement under influence of the projectors lamp heat. The procedure is clear - now to find the time to translate it into action. 

[milandro]

thanks, good luck with your endeavor.

[addicted2light]

Hi, 

 

I use a different setup.

 

Basically, I just use a metal lens hood as a spacer, and then put the camera + lens combo directly on top of the film (with the film resting on top of a lightbox). This has the added advantage of shielding any stray light and to ensure perfect parallelism between sensor and slide. Besides, other than a macro lens (even a 50€ legacy one) and a metal lens hood this does not require special equipment, and works a treat even for medium and large format film.

 

You can read about my setup here:

 

How to scan films using a digital camera

 

And see how much of a difference does it make agains a normal flatbed scanner and a drum scanner here:

 

Best film scanner: Canon 5D Mark II vs Drum scanner vs Epson V700

 

When I wrote these posts I was still using the Canon 5D mk II, but since then I've successfully adapted the technique to APS-c cameras as well. All you have to do is, either:

- shot multiple shots for each frame and then stitch them together (still way faster than a scanner, and the best quality; I do this only for the very best shots) or

- use a longer lens hood; I taped together two tele metal lens hoods (they fit one inside the leap of the other perfectly, so they stay put even without tape).

 

Alternatively, there are a few slide copiers that screw on top of a macro lens of your choice (so without optic elements inside); they are essentially empty metal tubes. The problem is that with an APS-c camera you will have an excessively high magnification, and you will "crop" just a central portion of the slide.

 

On a side note, if the light source in your lightbox is suitable try to use the electronic shutter to cut down on vibrations, and obviously either a remote shutter release or the 2s self timer.

[milandro]

thanks very interesting.

 

I am however looking at doing this with my aps-c cameras and ideally the tubes such as the Panagor.

 

My enquiry was particulalry directing toward people whom might have used these tubes and the possible use of a focal reducer on a aps-c ( which I own). Thanks anyway.

[addicted2light]

thanks very interesting.

 

I am however looking at doing this with my aps-c cameras and ideally the tubes such as the Panagor.

 

My enquiry was particulalry directing toward people whom might have used these tubes and the possible use of a focal reducer on a aps-c ( which I own). Thanks anyway.

 

You're welcome

 

BTW, it has been years that I sold my Canon gear, and now I'm using this technique with the X-T10

[milandro]

Good news, the rig that I had in mind and that I had hoped it would offer the solution that I had been thinking that would work for me, does work.

 

 

 

I have bought one of the so many zoom slide duplicators on the market. The tipically cost less than €20 secondhand and are normally very little used .

 

This one is made by made by Makinon.

 

Anyway it was new and unused and it had the all important M42 adapter.

 

As predicted these things don’t work well on an APS-C camera because they were generally made to copy 24 x36mm slides 1:1 onto the same format but Aps-c is smaller.

 

I had bought a lens turbo adapter though which I predicted it might have been used for this, and it does.

 

So I quickly put an old dia shot when my son was 10, almost 20 years after I am copying the slide.

 

I put the ISO at 800 but I am sure that I can go way lower than that ( and in fact since the subject is not moving and I am using the electronic shutter perhaps the shutter speed is on no consequence at all)

 

The result of the first experiment is very pleasing to me and exactly what I wanted.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 24, 2016 by milandro

[quincy]

Yep, very nice! Thank You for testing and reporting.

[milandro]

on second and better thoughts the copying is slightly on the short side in the length but it is much closer in the width.

 

Still there is no comparison to scanning pictures!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 24, 2016 by milandro

[milandro]

A new development in the endeavor or copying my slides might be coming with a new purchase, a Vivitar macro bellows wit a slide copy attachment.

 

It is not a straightforward affair because the back has a T2 connection and I have a T2 to M42 and then a M42 to Fuji FX adapters, then at the front I have a T2 to Minolta, so I bought a ring to adapt a M42 to Minolta Bayonet.

 

When that comes I will try one of my M42 lenses and see how it works. I may have to get an enlarging lens to do this or having a shot with the 100mm macro Pentax.

 

Wish me luck!

[quincy]

Good luck! Your adapter stacking thing sounds like fun.

[milandro]

well, we shall see, once it is al mounted it might be a bit of a nightmare but all of this is all relatively cheap.

[milandro]

after some experiments I have decided to go further with the camera mounted on a copy stand and a lightbox as a light source and with my 60mm macro and a +1 dioptrics lens  ( +2 is too much), you still have some cropping ( and cleaning   ) to do but the results are better than anything else that I’ve tried.

 

The Macro bellows would have been an option but it all became very complicated at some point and I really am looking for simplicity.

[Larry Bolch]

Much experience with slide-copy equipment, both with film and with digital. Even with the greatest of care, results have been lacking with the exception of an elaborate copy device at a place where I worked decades back.

 

I still have a slide copy device similar to the one illustrated in the first post. It has built-in optics—no need for mounting on a lens—and it zooms. The slide holder slides up and down and rotates for cropping—pretty high-end. With a Nikon adapter, it works on my X-Pro1. I just gave it a try and found it awkward to use, one slide at a time inefficiency, unimpressive results. In the past, I also tried using a macro lens with a white reflective panel behind the slide. Precise alignment was frustrating, manually dealing with the slides themselves was slow, and getting even lighting was a problem.

 

I know that scanning was stated as non-viable by the OP, but that was my solution—if I may please elaborate on my experience.

 

Many years back, I really wanted a medium-format Nikon slide scanner, but could not afford it. At 1/6th the price, a top-of-the-line Epson 4870 got great reviews, but it was a flatbed, and everyone knew flatbeds were useless in this role. With immense regret, I eventually carried one home. I had very low expectations.

 

I was blown away by it. I could drop eight slides into the scanning frame and they were aligned. I could set an individual exposure and white balance for each image individually, hit the "Scan" button and walk away. Whether scanning into Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, when I came back, there were my images. I could also switch to another application and scan in the background. It also worked very well for negatives doing the reversal just by choosing "negative". It handled all sizes of film up to large format. If time has value, the scanner paid for itself quickly. Batch scanning is extremely efficient. A dozen years later, it is still one of my most used peripherals.

 

It does flawless scanning of documents and prints. It does a decent job of optical character recognition. Above all, it does a really good job of scanning my legacy film images. Prints from scans meet or exceed the quality of what I did in the fume-room, in just a fraction of the time it took back then. Scanner and photo inkjet are vastly quicker and better than enlarger and colour processor. I brought along a few prints to a gathering of working photographers shortly after getting the machine. The unanimous opinion was that they were from drum scans. Everyone was astounded that they were from a flatbed! At least one of the shooters gave away his Nikon 35mm scanner and replaced it with an Epson.

Advantages—one can scan to the precise size and resolution needed. DigitalICE does a great job of removing dust and scratches and even helps with damaged prints at the cost of slower scanning. It has a restoration setting that works very well with faded colour prints. EpsonScan software in "pro" mode is logical, easy to use and simply does the job. LaserSoft Imaging SilverFast software was included, but in spite of being a rather pricey inclusion, I found that it was user-hostile to the point that I abandoned it. I have no idea if the current version is more usable—I would hope so.

 

As with anything digital, there have been timely upgrades. The current machines are faster, have no warm up time and can handle a dozen slides in a batch, along with 18 35mm negatives and up to 8×10 sheet film. Fluid scanning is available. Current models may have somewhat higher resolution and greater dynamic range now. However, my dozen-year-old machine still delivers very high quality with great efficiency. As long as it continues to work, I feel no need for the most up-to-date replacement. If it did fail, I would replace it with the current high-end model without hesitation.

 

The much less expensive consumer-level scanner has similar resolution and capability, but much less area for transparency scanning. For the OP's purposes, it might do the job sufficiently. Compared to using a camera, it is a big time-saver and eliminates all frustration. 

[milandro]

Thanks for your consideration, but curiously , also having had extensive experience with scanning, I embarked in this journey precisely because I find the use of a scanner way more time consuming than holding a slide in front of a camera. As I write in my first post: 

 

“...I am not intersted in scanners, it takes too long..."

[Larry Bolch]

Thanks for your consideration, but curiously , also having had extensive experience with scanning, I embarked in this journey precisely because I find the use of a scanner way more time consuming than holding a slide in front of a camera. As I write in my first post: 

 

“...I am not intersted in scanners, it takes too long..."

 

Perhaps a difference in experience. With thousands of images copied vs thousands of images scanned, with me batch scanning wins. For you, the camera may be the most efficient way. I expect that the optics in my device may be substantially inferior to the optics in my scanner so camera image quality can not match my old scanner.

 

It is an ancient device—but it DOES work. Setting the white balance on some slides where the emulsion did not match the colour temperature were corrected reasonably well using the white balance on the X-Pro1. My scanning software also has an auto setting that gets one close. Both have fine tuning if one wants to use it. However, the fine tuning is more easily done after the scan/exposure.

 

Exposures were reasonably accurate, and the EC knob was able to produce a pretty decent histogram. My device is ancient, and presently there may well be units with optics that we expect now. However, given a stack of images to scan, using this device would be far slower than my old scanner, not even counting the time spent in processing. The big difference would be in batch scanning. 

 

Negatives would be difficult to handle with my camera-mounted device and it would require cutting the film and mounting each exposure into slide mounts. The frames that came with my old scanner accommodate four strips of six exposures, and negative scanning is as easy as scanning chromes. Software handles the reversal.

[milandro]

With respect.

 

I have used professionally Imacon, Kodak , Minolta and Epson scanners and I was experienced enough to use Silverfast at the time, but that’s beside the point and the point of this thread is contained in the first post when I wrote.

 

 

“ Iam not interested in scanners"

 

Other threads, which you might very well want to start, might contain other points and you are very welcome to make them but it was not my intention to discuss scanners.

Edited August 30, 2016 by milandro

[lleo]

Until now I've only used my camera on the tripod set up for copy once, with a Super Takumar 50 Macro attached, but only for 6x6 and quite quickly. So, not correct light temperature, and so on. I have to try again as soon as I will have some time.

But I think the result will be good using a configuration like yours. With a macro lens probably you don't need a tube extender.

Anyways, about your statement “...I am not intersted in scanners, it takes too long...", well to me scanner is quicker. Unless you have a fix copy stand always available for the job. To me, I have to catch the tripod, attach the camera and the lens (via adapter), setting up correctly, get the light table, put the slides on it correctly, and so on. My scanner is always connected, so the time to starting up, put the slides in and it's done.

But this is my experience. Though I will try to copy other slides, also 35mm, with the camera to see how it works. Maybe I will make a comparison between camera and scanner to see how close (or far) they can get.

[milandro]

Thanks.

 

Again, I appreciate the hint, but have no interest in scanning. 

 

Others have done similar comparisons with many cameras... all to be easily found on line. 

 

http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html

http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/photo/slide-transfer.html

http://forum.mflenses.com/slide-copying-scanner-vs-duplicator-t22881.html

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/29/the-other-way-to-scan-positive-slides-or-why-i-kept-my-big-dslr-by-stefan-schmidt/

 

So, If I were simply interested in this thing of copying slides by means of any other camera and comparing it to a scanner I would have found enough food for thought there.

 

I was really only interested in sharing experiences of slide copying by using a Fuji camera.

 

I’ve done some more tests today and it took me seconds to shoot several one after another. Results are comparable to other methods which I described before.

[lleo]

Yes, I also want to try with the normal 18-55 at 55 focal with the extension tube and see the result. Right now I'm forced about scanning with the camera, at least the 6x6 format, because I only have a Nikon for 35mm. Anyway it will be interesting if you will upload your samples with the various results.

[milandro]

some examples have been shown before, the new results (with and extra close up lens added to the 60mm) are comparable with those and not better.