JJC Slide and Film Digitizing Adapter Kit

I have a few different ways to digitize 35mm film: dedicated film scanner, flatbed scanner, cheap CMOS digitizer, and old school film/slide holder for use with a digital camera and macro lens. I use them all depending on the purpose of the moment.

I became curious enough about this JJC product (which is a knock-off of the Nikon ES-2 kit) to buy one:

https://www.amazon.com/JJC-Digitizing-Converting-Digitizer-Converter/dp/B09SLQJM7Z

It comes with more lens adapter rings than the ES-2, and also more options for extension. That makes it possible to use it with my full frame camera and either my 50mm macro or 100mm macro, or with my APS-C camera and 50mm macro.

One slight annoyance with my personal gear is that I can't make the extension short enough to entirely fill the frame using my full frame camera with the 50mm macro. At the shortest extension, the lens can provide only about 0.9x magnification instead of 1x, meaning the final pixel resolution of the image is slightly less than optimal. That's a result of the design of the lens housing, so it will likely be different with different lenses. Not a big deal, really.

The extensions and lens ring adapters are all metal. The film housing is plastic, as are the film and slide carriers. The plastic seems okay for the purpose, and the carriers are easy enough to work with.

There are a few things that could stand improvement:

The tolerance of the sliding carriers in the film housing is not ideal. There's room for some slight tilting. I fixed this by adding bits of thin, dense foam to the slot in the film holder where the carriers sit. That eliminates any play and keeps the carriers level.

The detents for side-to-side frame placement also have slight play of over a millimeter rather than reliably locking in a fixed position, requiring visual adjustment every time.

The light diffuser is good, but too close to the film plane IMO. It's close enough that dust on the diffuser might be inadvertently brought into focus, so it could need frequent cleaning. This appears to be the case with the ES-2 as well.

The impression is favorable enough overall, and I'll probably keep the kit because it offers some advantages over the film-era Accura duplicator that I've had for years:

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Accura_Variable_Magnification_Duplicator

There's no point in including digitized captures because the actual results depend on the camera and lens.

sybersitizen wrote:

There are a few things that could stand improvement:

The tolerance of the sliding carriers in the film housing is not ideal. There's room for some slight tilting. I fixed this by adding bits of thin, dense foam to the slot in the film holder where the carriers sit. That eliminates any play and keeps the carriers level.

I briefly had the Nikon ES-2 and at least the sample I had also had this problem. If I’d have kept it I think I would have used it with the camera at 90 degrees on the tripod, so the film holder was vertically downwards .

Overrank wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

There are a few things that could stand improvement:

The tolerance of the sliding carriers in the film housing is not ideal. There's room for some slight tilting. I fixed this by adding bits of thin, dense foam to the slot in the film holder where the carriers sit. That eliminates any play and keeps the carriers level.

I briefly had the Nikon ES-2 and at least the sample I had also had this problem. If I’d have kept it I think I would have used it with the camera at 90 degrees on the tripod, so the film holder was vertically downwards .

I have the option of doing that, but I prefer correcting the problem. One reason why I like products of this type is that they don't require any special support setup. I can have the camera sitting normally on a desk, using window light or a small artificial light source. It's good ergonomics with very little setup or teardown needed.

(I also know how to fix the problem preventing the film housing from getting close enough to my 50mm lens to completely fill the frame, but that one requires considerably more work.)

sybersitizen wrote:

Overrank wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

There are a few things that could stand improvement:

The tolerance of the sliding carriers in the film housing is not ideal. There's room for some slight tilting. I fixed this by adding bits of thin, dense foam to the slot in the film holder where the carriers sit. That eliminates any play and keeps the carriers level.

I briefly had the Nikon ES-2 and at least the sample I had also had this problem. If I’d have kept it I think I would have used it with the camera at 90 degrees on the tripod, so the film holder was vertically downwards .

I have the option of doing that, but I prefer correcting the problem. One reason why I like products of this type is that they don't require any special support setup. I can have the camera sitting normally on a desk, using window light or a small artificial light source. It's good ergonomics with very little setup or teardown needed.

(I also know how to fix the problem preventing the film housing from getting close enough to my 50mm lens to completely fill the frame, but that one requires considerably more work.)

I found my workflow with the ES-2 difficult, and with the camera I was using the results were no better than using a scanner.  As I didn’t want to replace my digital camera I just got rid of the ES-2, but if I’d have kept it I’d have had to do something.  I think foam would probably solve the issue on the ES-2 too.

I bought the specific macro lens for the ES-2 so I didn’t have problems with getting full frame.   One of the things I liked the look of with the JJC one is that it can be adapted to many lenses.

Overrank wrote:

I found my workflow with the ES-2 difficult, and with the camera I was using the results were no better than using a scanner.

That is almost true for me, although I can sometimes get what are slightly better results using a 24mp camera than I get with my film scanner.

But there's something else that can make even more difference: the speed and ease with which I can do bracketed captures for HDR treatment. Getting a handful of bracketed shots with the camera is straightforward and takes only seconds. I haven't even figured out how to get VueScan to do true bracketing with my scanner at all ... but if I did, the process would be much longer and the results wouldn't benefit from the camera and lens profiles that are available in my PP tools.

I've tested this with some extremely contrasty slides. The process can pull out amazing tonality in both highlight and shadow areas that I just can't get with the scanner. But I would only be doing that kind of thing with 'special' images, of course.

sybersitizen wrote:

Overrank wrote:

I found my workflow with the ES-2 difficult, and with the camera I was using the results were no better than using a scanner.

That is almost true for me, although I can sometimes get what are slightly better results using a 24mp camera than I get with my film scanner.

But there's something else that can make even more difference: the speed and ease with which I can do bracketed captures for HDR treatment. Getting a handful of bracketed shots with the camera is straightforward and takes only seconds. I haven't even figured out how to get VueScan to do true bracketing with my scanner at all ... but if I did, the process would be much longer and the results wouldn't benefit from the camera and lens profiles that are available in my PP tools.

I've tested this with some extremely contrasty slides. The process can pull out amazing tonality in both highlight and shadow areas that I just can't get with the scanner. But I would only be doing that kind of thing with 'special' images, of course.

I did do that with one Kodachrome slide, a window lit portrait which was half in shadow.  I could lift the shadow up to almost the same brightness as the lit side, but you could tell from the “grain” that it was not quite right.  That was probably an extreme example though - I have kept the scan but not brightened up all the way.

When I got rid of the ES-2 I kept an ES-1 which only does slides so I can still do HDR if necessary.  The ES-1 can fit thicker slides than the ES-2, like thick plastic mounted slides.  Can the JJC scanner fit the thicker slides ?  That was another limitation for me of the Nikon kit.

Overrank wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Overrank wrote:

I found my workflow with the ES-2 difficult, and with the camera I was using the results were no better than using a scanner.

That is almost true for me, although I can sometimes get what are slightly better results using a 24mp camera than I get with my film scanner.

But there's something else that can make even more difference: the speed and ease with which I can do bracketed captures for HDR treatment. Getting a handful of bracketed shots with the camera is straightforward and takes only seconds. I haven't even figured out how to get VueScan to do true bracketing with my scanner at all ... but if I did, the process would be much longer and the results wouldn't benefit from the camera and lens profiles that are available in my PP tools.

I've tested this with some extremely contrasty slides. The process can pull out amazing tonality in both highlight and shadow areas that I just can't get with the scanner. But I would only be doing that kind of thing with 'special' images, of course.

I did do that with one Kodachrome slide, a window lit portrait which was half in shadow. I could lift the shadow up to almost the same brightness as the lit side, but you could tell from the “grain” that it was not quite right. That was probably an extreme example though - I have kept the scan but not brightened up all the way.

When I got rid of the ES-2 I kept an ES-1 which only does slides so I can still do HDR if necessary. The ES-1 can fit thicker slides than the ES-2, like thick plastic mounted slides. Can the JJC scanner fit the thicker slides ?

I don't know. It holds every type of mount that I have, paper or plastic. It can even hold two paper mounts in one slot. How thick are the 'thicker' ones?

That was another limitation for me of the Nikon kit.

sybersitizen wrote:

Overrank wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Overrank wrote:

I found my workflow with the ES-2 difficult, and with the camera I was using the results were no better than using a scanner.

That is almost true for me, although I can sometimes get what are slightly better results using a 24mp camera than I get with my film scanner.

But there's something else that can make even more difference: the speed and ease with which I can do bracketed captures for HDR treatment. Getting a handful of bracketed shots with the camera is straightforward and takes only seconds. I haven't even figured out how to get VueScan to do true bracketing with my scanner at all ... but if I did, the process would be much longer and the results wouldn't benefit from the camera and lens profiles that are available in my PP tools.

I've tested this with some extremely contrasty slides. The process can pull out amazing tonality in both highlight and shadow areas that I just can't get with the scanner. But I would only be doing that kind of thing with 'special' images, of course.

I did do that with one Kodachrome slide, a window lit portrait which was half in shadow. I could lift the shadow up to almost the same brightness as the lit side, but you could tell from the “grain” that it was not quite right. That was probably an extreme example though - I have kept the scan but not brightened up all the way.

When I got rid of the ES-2 I kept an ES-1 which only does slides so I can still do HDR if necessary. The ES-1 can fit thicker slides than the ES-2, like thick plastic mounted slides. Can the JJC scanner fit the thicker slides ?

I don't know. It holds every type of mount that I have, paper or plastic. It can even hold two paper mounts in one slot. How thick are the 'thicker' ones?

Not that thick - the Nikon one could only hold the thin card mounts. This review says they have to be less than 2mm - https://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_rev_es-2.html  Many of my slides wouldn’t fit

That was another limitation for me of the Nikon kit.

Overrank wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Overrank wrote:

When I got rid of the ES-2 I kept an ES-1 which only does slides so I can still do HDR if necessary. The ES-1 can fit thicker slides than the ES-2, like thick plastic mounted slides. Can the JJC scanner fit the thicker slides ?

I don't know. It holds every type of mount that I have, paper or plastic. It can even hold two paper mounts in one slot. How thick are the 'thicker' ones?

Not that thick - the Nikon one could only hold the thin card mounts. This review says they have to be less than 2mm - https://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_rev_es-2.html Many of my slides wouldn’t fit

I don't have any mounts as thick as the plastic one seen in that review.

My micrometer says the thickness of two of my non-Kodak paper mounts is 0.08 inch, essentially 2mm. It's a tight fit, but they go in and out with no problem. Two of my Kodak paper mounts measure 0.09 inch, and that's too thick. So, the same as the ES-2, I guess.

However, three Kodak mounts can be easily slipped into the film gate without using the slide carrier. That's 0.135 inch, more than 3mm. That might also work with the ES-2.

More: I just realized that using the device without the slide carrier can position the slide a bit closer to the lens, which helps with the magnification limitation I mentioned earlier. And it increases the distance between the slide and the diffuser, so it also minimizes the potential drawback of dust on the diffuser. Perhaps it will be bye-bye slide carrier for me.

Thanks for posting this.  The link says it is currently unavailable, but I may look for this and give it a try.  My Minolta Scan Dual IV died and I find the 35mm results from my Epson V700 to be a bit lacking.

MediumFormatLover wrote:

Thanks for posting this. The link says it is currently unavailable, but I may look for this and give it a try.

I only used the Amazon link as a reference. I actually got mine from eBay at a lower price. Search there for jjc digitizing adapter.

My Minolta Scan Dual IV died and I find the 35mm results from my Epson V700 to be a bit lacking.

Yes, the Epson flatbeds can't match the resolution of a good film scanner or a 24mp camera.

sybersitizen wrote:

MediumFormatLover wrote:

Thanks for posting this. The link says it is currently unavailable, but I may look for this and give it a try.

I only used the Amazon link as a reference. I actually got mine from eBay at a lower price. Search there for jjc digitizing adapter.

My Minolta Scan Dual IV died and I find the 35mm results from my Epson V700 to be a bit lacking.

Yes, the Epson flatbeds can't match the resolution of a good film scanner or a 24mp camera.

I’ll check that out.  Thanks.

sybersitizen wrote:

... One slight annoyance with my personal gear is that I can't make the extension short enough to entirely fill the frame using my full frame camera with the 50mm macro. At the shortest extension, the lens can provide only about 0.9x magnification instead of 1x, meaning the final pixel resolution of the image is slightly less than optimal. That's a result of the design of the lens housing, so it will likely be different with different lenses. Not a big deal, really.

I was able to completely correct this. The issue is that the #1 tube that normally sits within the housing is longer than it should be (for my lens). That means it can only be pushed into the housing so far before it rests against the inside of the housing, with about 1/4 inch still sticking out the back.

I was going to cut that tube to a better length, but the easy solution is to instead substitute one of the #2 tubes (there are two of those in the kit), which are shorter. The other #2 tube remains available as an extension for use with my APS-C camera if I need to shoot with that for some reason. I believe the combination of two #2 tubes would only be needed with macro lenses longer than about 80mm, so that's not an issue for me.

In order to swap the tubes I only had to remove four screws on the film housing to gain access to the inside so I could pull the #1 tube out. The ridge on that tube prevents it from being pulled out from the back end, but it doesn't really serve any other purpose.

On a different thread ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66293235 ) someone has posted a link to a video showing the JJC kit.  Assuming that’s typical it looks (1) like it more very “inspired” by the Nikon ES-2 (the negative holder looks very similar for example) and (b) it looks better packaged than the ES-2. My ES-2 was just loose in quite a flimsy Nikon box.

I'd like to see an option for scanning medium format film. Kind of surprised there are no commercial options for medium format using this approach.

wcan wrote:

I'd like to see an option for scanning medium format film. Kind of surprised there are no commercial options for medium format using this approach.

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4516781 for a 3D printed adapter for 6x6 negs

Overrank wrote:

On a different thread ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66293235 ) someone has posted a link to a video showing the JJC kit. Assuming that’s typical it looks (1) like it more very “inspired” by the Nikon ES-2 (the negative holder looks very similar for example)

Almost everything about it is similar. That can be seen from the photos on Amazon and eBay. Rather than 'inspired by', I'd say knockoff is the applicable term here.

and (b) it looks better packaged than the ES-2. My ES-2 was just loose in quite a flimsy Nikon box.

Yes, the packaging and documentation are commendable.

wcan wrote:

I'd like to see an option for scanning medium format film. Kind of surprised there are no commercial options for medium format using this approach.

It might be feasible for 120 sizes, but such solutions for larger formats would be huge because of the focus distance required. I only know of standalone support + film holder + light source solutions for that.

sybersitizen wrote:

Overrank wrote:

On a different thread ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66293235 ) someone has posted a link to a video showing the JJC kit. Assuming that’s typical it looks (1) like it more very “inspired” by the Nikon ES-2 (the negative holder looks very similar for example)

Almost everything about it is similar. That can be seen from the photos on Amazon and eBay. Rather than 'inspired by', I'd say knockoff is the applicable term here.

I had one eye on the lawyers

and (b) it looks better packaged than the ES-2. My ES-2 was just loose in quite a flimsy Nikon box.

Yes, the packaging and documentation are commendable.

Whether the Nikon or this adaptor…what does everyone recommend lens wise to “scan” with my D700?