Best lens/camera set-up for converting slides to digital

linzybel · Apr 20, 2018

In retirement I'm planning to convert many high-quality Kodachrome slides to digital. I'm leaning towards using a camera/lens set-up rather than a scanner.

Does anyone have any suggestions for such a set-up? If you think a scanner is better, I'd love to hear your arguments.

Ultimately the images will be projected in auditorium-sized presentations, so my priority is excellent resolution.

arty H · Apr 20, 2018

I have used a short focal length macro lens on an SLR, with a copy stand and a "slide copier." The slide copier has no optics. It is just a box with a light source and a slide holder over frosted glass. I doubt that the Testrite copier is still made, but it could be constructed pretty easily if you are handy.

The slide copiers I have seen, like the Opteka, use a closeup lens, rather than true macro optics. I am skeptical about how well this works, but I really don't know.

I get good results with the setup I use. Canon makes a couple of good short macro lenses for crop cameras, especially the 35 F2.8. I have a Sigma 50F2.8 macro for full frame, but this lens is no longer made in the Canon mount.

Ken60 · Apr 20, 2018

Hi,

I played with this using a high res. 35mm digital body and a macro lens. Uniformity is the goal, so I went for sheets of opal perspex behind the transparency and flash head in a soft box with diffusers. The lighting needs to be even, diffused and repeatable in terms of power and colour temperature.

Having copied transparencies with a 2000 DPI optical 10,000 dpi enhanced flat-bed scanner with light head , I was aware of the potential to end up with thick shadows and burnt highlights. When I used the copy camera mentioned above I tried using the HDR function of several exposures to contain the contrast range that good transparencies have.

If your going to do a lot you will have to build some sort of Jig to ensure easy setup and repeatability, ensuring 100% 90 degree between camera and slide holder . DOF will be minimal at 1:1 macro range. Once you have digital files your happy with you could even write macros in photoshop to automate the processing and possibly a standard process from RAW to combine the exposures.

It's not an easy or quick process , good luck and enjoy the labours of retirement

Icestationkilo · Apr 20, 2018

I used a Canon EOS60D and the EF-S 60mm Macro to copy mine. Set up was a 'light pad' bought from a supermarket chain (£25 in the UK) it's approx A4 sized, even illumination a constant colour temperature. Over this I placed a tripod with the camera pointing vertically downwards at a height such that the transparency area of the slide completely filled the sensor area. . On the light pad I placed a piece of card with an aperture the size of a slide. Using a remote release cable, the process was to put a slide on the light pad in the card cutout, use the tilting screen on the 60D in live view at max magnification to focus on the grain of the slide, then take a photo, saving as a RAW file. Generally exposures were around 2 to 8 seconds at f8, ISO 100, depending on how well the original had been exposed. It is a bit time consuming, and you need to ensure each slide is free of dust etc. So far have done around 3500 slides in a number of batches.

The advantages were that I already had all the kit except the light pad, you can immediately check the quality on the camera after each shot (and repeat if required), and you quickly get a feel for the right exposure.

For film negatives I used a Canon 9000 scanner but found that it couldn't cope as well with slides.

Oldpanda · Apr 21, 2018

I have the Canon 35mm f/2.8 macro lens on a SL2 body and, like you, plan to digitize slides during retirement.

I have been playing around with a couple of methods. I first bought a Miranda slide duplicator on Ebay just like the one that DPR forum member photonius has on his website (see below). As I write this, there are several on Ebay, but the "brands" are different - Accura, Telesla, etc.

By removing the adjustable section and taping the slide holder section to a 49mm to series 6 stepping ring, I could get about 20-21 MP images of the exposed part of the slide, but there was a shadow from the diffusing window inside the image of the exposed area. I cut the diffuser window off and used white foam core illuminated by a 5000K LED bulb as a diffuser. Using ISO 100 and f8 using Av, exposure ranged from 1/15 to 1/250 depending on the slide density, but this didn't matter since the camera/lens/slide holder were firmly attached to each other. The camera was on a mini-tripod. The main problems with this was aligning the shutter with the slide (rotation) and it was awkward to change the slide. I used the touch shutter function in Live View during my trials, but plan to use a remote cord once I start.

I also bought a Nikon ES-1 slide copier attachment and tried that. I used a 49-52 stepping ring and the same 5000K LED light. With it I get a 17-18 MP image. However, for some reason, the images seem to be better using this diffuser than with the white foam core. Since until last September I had a SL1 with a 18MP sensor and found that satisfactory, I will probable use the ES-1 for my copying.

BTW, I tried using a 27-49 stepping ring by taking off the lens hood and found that the threads on the lens will not support the weight of the slide holder.

Using either method, you will have to crop off the portion of the slide mount leaving just the exposed film image.

I see that you have a G1 X Mark II. I'm not sure that either of these slide holders will work with that camera.

Some useful websites:

www.scantips.com/es-1.html

www.photonius.jimdo.com/slide-copy-setup/

Hope that this helps.

Glenn

photonius · Apr 21, 2018

linzybel said:
In retirement I'm planning to convert many high-quality Kodachrome slides to digital. I'm leaning towards using a camera/lens set-up rather than a scanner.

Does anyone have any suggestions for such a set-up? If you think a scanner is better, I'd love to hear your arguments.

Ultimately the images will be projected in auditorium-sized presentations, so my priority is excellent resolution.

Here is my set-up with a camera and macro lens:

https://photonius.jimdo.com/slide-copy-setup/

photonius · Apr 21, 2018

Oldpanda said:
I have the Canon 35mm f/2.8 macro lens on a SL2 body and, like you, plan to digitize slides during retirement.

I have been playing around with a couple of methods. I first bought a Miranda slide duplicator on Ebay just like the one that DPR forum member photonius has on his website (see below). As I write this, there are several on Ebay, but the "brands" are different - Accura, Telesla, etc.

By removing the adjustable section and taping the slide holder section to a 49mm to series 6 stepping ring, I could get about 20-21 MP images of the exposed part of the slide, but there was a shadow from the diffusing window inside the image of the exposed area. I cut the diffuser window off and used white foam core illuminated by a 5000K LED bulb as a diffuser. Using ISO 100 and f8 using Av, exposure ranged from 1/15 to 1/250 depending on the slide density, but this didn't matter since the camera/lens/slide holder were firmly attached to each other. The camera was on a mini-tripod. The main problems with this was aligning the shutter with the slide (rotation) and it was awkward to change the slide. I used the touch shutter function in Live View during my trials, but plan to use a remote cord once I start.

I also bought a Nikon ES-1 slide copier attachment and tried that. I used a 49-52 stepping ring and the same 5000K LED light. With it I get a 17-18 MP image. However, for some reason, the images seem to be better using this diffuser than with the white foam core. Since until last September I had a SL1 with a 18MP sensor and found that satisfactory, I will probable use the ES-1 for my copying.

BTW, I tried using a 27-49 stepping ring by taking off the lens hood and found that the threads on the lens will not support the weight of the slide holder.

Using either method, you will have to crop off the portion of the slide mount leaving just the exposed film image.

I see that you have a G1 X Mark II. I'm not sure that either of these slide holders will work with that camera.

Some useful websites:

www.scantips.com/es-1.html

www.photonius.jimdo.com/slide-copy-setup/

Hope that this helps.

Glenn

thanks for the tips on the experience with the 35mm macro. 35mm demands a short working distance to get 1:1.

The ES-1 looks like a nice adapter too. However, what led me to the Miranda was the adjustable distance to adjust magnification.

danski0224 · Apr 21, 2018

linzybel said:
In retirement I'm planning to convert many high-quality Kodachrome slides to digital. I'm leaning towards using a camera/lens set-up rather than a scanner.

Does anyone have any suggestions for such a set-up? If you think a scanner is better, I'd love to hear your arguments.

Ultimately the images will be projected in auditorium-sized presentations, so my priority is excellent resolution.

Look at a Nikon ES-2.

It isn't out yet at the time of this posting.

The Nikon D850 apparently has a color reversing mode.

The ES-2 can probably be adapted to almost any camera and macro lens.

If your auditorium-sized presentation is viewed from the proper working distance, I bet that a <10mp camera will suffice.

Otherwise, a Canon 5Ds(R) is still the highest megapixel count full frame camera.

A Sigma sdQuattro (H or non-H) will provide files that will match, and in some ways better, the 5Ds(R).

Oldpanda · Apr 21, 2018

The problem is that the shortest distance of the Miranda was too long. You were right about the distance to get a full shot of the slide being about 45mm. The minimum distance for the Miranda was about that, but the lens hood (which has the 49mm filter threads) adds about 7-8mm. Removing the length adjustment piece of the copier put the slide 39mm from the lens hood, adding the 7 or so made the distance 46-47 mm. That gave me the 20.XX MP. Another 2 or 3 mm shorter would have given me a full sensor image of the slide. Again, lining up everything up was a pain. Having a small black border helped to line everything up.

The ES-1 also has a 45 mm minimum distance, but the diffusing screen design is superior. I'll probably live with the 17.xx MP images.

I have about 6K slides dating from 1972-to the 1990's. They are mostly sorted by date of processing. Finding and culling the images to digitize, shooting and post processing will probably take about a year of "spare" time work. I'm switching from DPP/PSE to DXO and Affinity Photo which will add to the time. In addition, I have about 2000 4x6 prints to copy with my Canon 8800F.

BTW, according to Canon, the working distance for the 35mm macro lens @ 1:1 is 30mm , but since the slide is bigger than the sensor it is only a magnification of about 0.6X (1:1.6).

Again, thank you for all the help I got from you. Between your PM and website, There was a lot of information.

Glenn

Macro guy · Apr 21, 2018

linzybel said:
In retirement I'm planning to convert many high-quality Kodachrome slides to digital. I'm leaning towards using a camera/lens set-up rather than a scanner.

Does anyone have any suggestions for such a set-up? If you think a scanner is better, I'd love to hear your arguments.

Ultimately the images will be projected in auditorium-sized presentations, so my priority is excellent resolution.

You may want to scan. Here are some articles regarding that:

Canon Europe recommendation

EOS magazine

photonius · Apr 22, 2018

Oldpanda said:
The problem is that the shortest distance of the Miranda was too long. You were right about the distance to get a full shot of the slide being about 45mm. The minimum distance for the Miranda was about that, but the lens hood (which has the 49mm filter threads) adds about 7-8mm. Removing the length adjustment piece of the copier put the slide 39mm from the lens hood, adding the 7 or so made the distance 46-47 mm. That gave me the 20.XX MP. Another 2 or 3 mm shorter would have given me a full sensor image of the slide. Again, lining up everything up was a pain. Having a small black border helped to line everything up.

The ES-1 also has a 45 mm minimum distance, but the diffusing screen design is superior. I'll probably live with the 17.xx MP images.

Yes, it's a pity that the working distance of the 35mm is so short and that none of the holders I know seem to have short enough barrels. Griturn UK had a short-tubed slide holder, but now they seem to sell it only together with a magnifying lens to use on normal kit zooms.

50 / 60mm macro lenses seem optical for the working distance. With 100mm macros, you use them best with a full frame camera, otherwise distance gets rather long.

Yes, the diffusing screen of the Miranda is not optimal and could be better. Also, the tube is of course not super great engineering. One needs to wiggle the tube a bit to get the alignment in center before tightening the screws.

Oldpanda said:
I have about 6K slides dating from 1972-to the 1990's. They are mostly sorted by date of processing. Finding and culling the images to digitize, shooting and post processing will probably take about a year of "spare" time work. I'm switching from DPP/PSE to DXO and Affinity Photo which will add to the time. In addition, I have about 2000 4x6 prints to copy with my Canon 8800F.

BTW, according to Canon, the working distance for the 35mm macro lens @ 1:1 is 30mm , but since the slide is bigger than the sensor it is only a magnification of about 0.6X (1:1.6).

Again, thank you for all the help I got from you. Between your PM and website, There was a lot of information.

Glenn

Search

Best lens/camera set-up for converting slides to digital

linzybel

Leading Member

arty H

Senior Member

Ken60

Senior Member

Icestationkilo

Member

Oldpanda

Well-known member

photonius

Veteran Member

photonius

Veteran Member

danski0224

Senior Member

Oldpanda

Well-known member

Macro guy

Veteran Member

photonius

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts