Nikon's ES-2 film digitizing adapter promises to be an easy way of scanning slides and negatives. We tested it with a bunch of different film stocks and discovered that it works pretty well!
I also wonder why digitizing film is either so difficult and time-consuming, or expensive in 2020.
I'm now in the midst of of digitizing (don't really know, but upwards of 30k) slides from late 70's to early 2000's.
I use my vintage Kodak Carousel projector with a white diffusing glass in place of the condenser lens. I remove the projector lens, and park my Canon M6 Mk II in front of it on a tripod with the EF-S 60mm macro. Remotes for camera and projector. Load the slides in the Stack Loader. Click-click, click-click... Crop, adjust in Lightroom.
It's reasonably fast, and I am astounded with the quality of the results. Interestingly, I am also astounding with the sharpness, dynamic range, and saturation of films like Kodachrome and Velvia. This is working so well for me that I really can't believe it!
I just don't understand why so many people insist on using the misnomer. Everyone knows that this isn't scanning. Nobody would accept it if I would have said, "I am going to scan some photos at the wedding with my new Z6." Nor would it be acceptable to say, "I am printing this photo on my 4K big screen TV." A strange world.
don't understand, why digitizing analog material is still so inadequate, timeconsuming and painful in 2020.
I have about 12k of framed color slides - mostly Kodachrome 64 plus some Ektachrome - waiting to be digitized. Don't understand, why there is no reliable, simple, powerful and fast batch scanner and matching "AI"-software that takes care of things.
I don't see why there is not a single machine available, with slide magazine loading, fast scan time - lets say about 1 sec/image in highest quality setting [6000x4000 pixels, proper DR / color profile settings automatically applied], effective "autofill" scratch and dust removal, JPG and HEIC output file format [forget TIFFS] and at an affordable price, lets say € 999 for hardware plus software license.
Instead the stuipid industry keep launching some additional manual focus lens every day and more video features in every single stills camera. Don't need any of that.
If you like to use that with Z6 or Z7 you can use Nikon Picture Control Utility to set up an inverse setting. So you can have live view of BW and Color negatives and keep the extra control you get by using RAW.
I have an ancient “Spiratone” slide copier, basically a close-up lens with variable distance between lens and film plane and from lens to subject. All in a rigid tube, and since it’s f/11 or so, it’s pretty sharp. But it lacks a negative carrier.
I could use it or I could buy this new rig. If I do, can I mount it on my OM-D EM5ii using the Oly 60mm macro lens?
What's the difference between the $60 ES-1 and $130 ES-2 (amazon prices) and $50 third party adapters (no terrible correcting lens FTW)?
What would be a good hardware setup on non nikon cameras? For example for sony/canon etc what would be a good lens and what adapter rings would I need? Nikon is like 10% of the market these days; pandering to non-nikonians would greatly enhance the appeal/audience.
I've done this in the past (years and years ago with an 8mp rebel) with the camera teathered. These days tethering is even better with live view support which should help you nail focus and other settings (?).
I use a similar, selfbuilt device for years to do makeshift digitizing of old analog material. I use Canon DSLRs (APS-C) with the excellent EF-S 60mm macro. The easy way to have good backlighting is simply using a flash and any white wall as a reflector. Works a breeze. Have fun.
Suggested set up using the ES-1 to copy small images like stereo slides. Nikon ES-2 is similar with different step up ring and spacers, 62 mm to 46 vs 52 to 46 of the Oly lovely 1:1 60mm macro lens. GX 8 or any m43 camera is also most suitable and a decent little LeD is a joy to use for illumination. I use both the ES-2 as well as the ES-1. I need both. For use with strereo slides which do not fit in the ES-2 holder for 24 X36, but do real well from top and are flat enough in the ES-1. ES-1 was on sale for about 4O dollars, Tubes to adapt, not a big cost, all made in China and decent products. . Check article from Dr Wrotniak ,the Olympus guy for his piece on use of m43 with the ES-2. Has sources of gizmos. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4472462
I am going to look into the ES-2, purely for the excellent holders it comes with. Currently I am using the ES-1 mounted to the Pentax 50mm DFA macro and K-1 and works brilliantly. My friend uses to ES-1 with an additional tube on his Canon 5D mk4 and 100mm Macro, and gets the same excellent results. It really is the way to go to scan film and slides. Full frame camera and RAW. The ES-2 does seem to resolve the fiddly slide holder that the ES-1 does not really have (couple of springs is all it has). Well done Nikon for this new adaptor.
Full frame camera is not really necessary for JPEG quality. Many of us who use a so called crop sensor camera are pleased with the results of copied JPEGs. True you will need a couple tubes, very cheap and not hard to find to adapt the thread of 62mm to that of your macro lens--mine is 46mm abd I splurge and buy a sexy Sensui step up ring.....The ES-2 model is an evolutionary improvement, in that it has a set screw for the slide holder and a very solid adapter fo-real improvement -(. Looks like the neg holder is equally solid from my inspection and I may someday face the music and insprect those orange sleeves I got in the hanging folders...... I say it was worth the price , unless you be very very penurious. I bought the ES-1 only so that it has a better grip on my stereo slides of which I have a bunch. If JPEG is fine for all else, then dupe on JPEG high quality and just enjoy.....that is my informed opinion for what value it might provide.. Aloha.
I have tried scanning with APS-C and the combo I have and it cropped. You need to have an extension tube to cover the whole image. Not a problem if you have one, to which I don't. If you do, then no problem.
You can buy the extension tubes from this easy mail order source. ' Photo Plus, a seller on Amazon Market placethat has the tubes for various size lens threads. Otherwise it craps, you are correct about craps. I prefer to do my own crops, and want the whole image. I am using micr'o four thirds. It works is my only point. Check out Amazon for threads to step up and extend the lens one owns...
My father shot slides of my sister and I growing up. He started this in 1955. After he died in 2008 I looked at about 3000 slides and selected 120 to digitize. I tried a slide scanner but that was very tedious. I set the project aside. Late 2018 I bought a Z6, macro and the ES2 adapter. in short I had terrible results. The Z6 could not manual or auto focus to save its life. SOLD! I then tried a D7500, 40mm macro and the ES2 adapter. What a difference from the Z6. Near perfect results every time with just auto focus. I took the RAW files into Photoshop, made some small adjustments and then made 3x5 prints with a Canon dye-sub printer. The result was like taking film to a drug store for developing and getting prints 60 years ago. The D7500 plus the 40mm macro and the ES2 adapter cost me a total of $1100. If you have slides and you want to digitize them, I highly recommend the arrangement I used (D7500, 40mm macro and ES2 adapter).
Theoretically, a FF camera needs 1:1 magnification to copy 35 mm film. At that magnification, the subject is as close to the film plane as possible, and any change in the lens throws it out of focus. Your only choice is to adjust the position of the film holder relative to the lens.
That is a pretty crude way to focus, but there is a simple hack - reduce the magnification. I back off the focusing ring a few degrees and get a rough focus sliding the tube of the ES-1/2. I then turn the focusing ring to get grain-sharp focus. It might even be possible to use AF, although I always use a manual lens for copying.
You might lose a few pixels in the process, but that's a small price to pay for precise focus. Besides, slide frames are significantly smaller than the image area, and negatives are easier to convert if the blank areas surrounding the image are cropped away.
@garyphx: "...and then made 3x5 prints with a Canon dye-sub printer."
Prints? What are these "prints" you speak of?
My friend's Mom absolutely refused to look at pictures on a computer or tablet screen. If you wanted her to see something you had to print it out. She said, "It's not a picture if it's not printed."
I'm the opposite - if I can't see it on a screen it's dead to me (and I'm 62). I have boxes full of prints and their negatives all sorted by date and am in the process of scanning the negs. I don't even touch the prints, I just put the negatives on a light table to sort them and then scan. Eventually the files will go onto a TV I have dedicated for picture slideshows, or a smaller digital frame. Wretched little 3x5 prints stay in the box.
Tom K: I used to think similarly. However after my father died in 2008 I swapped out the hard drives on his iMacs and kept his data (not that I expected him to return any time soon) before selling his iMacs. Now, 12 years later, almost ALL of his files which once were readable have generic icons and can't be opened (easily or at all). I figure that if my kids are even remotely interested in these images, prints are the only way the images will survive. Not only are the images of family but there are images of places we traveled to that no longer exist. If my kids aren't interested they'll toss everything into the trash. Not my problem. At least I've done my part at preservation.
I think Nikon would be much more successful with a new scanner. With new sensor technology and today fast chips and prices for sure they could come out with an affordable and fast solution that would trump this ES-2 solution.....
To do it right, including a very good software interface, would cost Nikon a fortune in development monies. So the "scanner" would retail for several thousand dollars would be my guess.
What does Hollywood use to scan movie film, when it's still used? There must scanners able to quickly digitize a hour's worth of shooting for editing. And of course, films were being edited on computers well before most movies were shot as digital capture.
Right, I understand 35mm movie film doesn't have the resolution of 135 film used in an SLR, but of course few people would simply scan five rolls of 135 film at the highest resolution with this hypothetical new Nikon film "scanner".
Nikon had all the technology needed to make superb film scanners. The reason they were discontinued was the precipitous drop in the potential market. At the time, digital cameras were just starting to exceed 6 MP. By the time the most common resolution was 24 MP, film scanners were too far behind the curve to be resurrected.
More than a few movies are still shot on film, but are invariably scanned digitally for grading and editing. Once edited, the results may be printed on film for distribution. However this too shall pass. Even neighborhood theaters now have 4K or 8K digital projectors.
Creating a digital intermediate (internegative equivalent) is slow, taking 10-15 seconds per frame. AFIK, these machines are proprietary, built and used by specialty companies.
One can always offer an alternative that already exists, and those that seek to flatbed scan have choices If one has actually tried this device ( and I have) and gotten good and fast results, then it is worthy choice. For less than two hundred simoleons it works, but you must consider a nice macro lens and one should get one in any evern. Does Nikon have a big interest in the flatbed scanner market. I have no idea. It seems a moot point to suggest that is their way to profit making. Nikon does have some neat accessories. I have used them for years along with my Canons.
Respectfully, Nikon had a film scanner line that Ed Ingold referred to--Coolscan. It was well respected. It was not a flat bed scanner.
The issue with this new Nikon system is dust removal; there is no infrared channel to allow the software to see, and mostly remove, dust and scratches during the scan of colour negatives.
Right, to make money on some new fast, sensor based, film scanner, Nikon, or any other party, would have to charge high retail prices to recoup significant development costs. No, the Coolscan system though it produced very good results was not fast.
Nice device to have available, but after watching the video, I’m glad I kept my Nikon LS-IV scanner, and really happy that Vuescan works with a 19 year old device. I did use my Epson V700 to scan multiple slides simultaneously when going through my old collection.
Excellent Video by Dpreview, still don't get why Nikon didn't add the D850 & D780 related ES-2 settings over to the Z.... Very useful addiction of ES-2 on the Z's as well as the D850 but requires me to do extra steps in post to produce final image.
Actually, there is an automatic color negative converter in Photoshop. It produces two kinds of results, bad and unusable.
Every emulsion is different, and every light source used for the original image. A small deviation in exposure has a profound effect on the color balance. Mini-labs get by making everything come out in jelly bean colors. Nothing subtle or artistic about commercial processing.
Exactly. Can someone please explain why the ES-2 apparently does not work well with the Z6 and Z7, Nikon's latest flagship cameras? I have not seen any good explanation of why the ES-2 is designed for the Nikon 780 but not the Z series cameras. This makes no sense to me.
Great images. In terms of the digitization/conversion results, I'd say the quality to effort ratio seems pretty good. Probably better results than you'd get from a V800 with equivalent time spent. There are many shortcomings of course. The film is not staying in focus throughout the frame, despite the f/8 aperture, and is tending to drift quite strongly towards the right side. Not sure if this is misalignment of the ES-2 body on the lens, the holder, or a deficiency of the lens itself. The conversions are quite good and punchy as first drafts, but are applying too much noise reduction/sharpening and are too contrasty/saturated to take much further in post. They would be useful to have a starting point, however, if you shot a raw as well. But I'm guessing Nikon haven't made it easy to shoot a raw along side the jpeg conversion mode?
Shooting slides I find that F 8 and autofocus is spot on. Old negs of course may have a bulge or set. Beat them with a kitchen mallet, or lay them to flatten with a book on top.
I have an ES-2, but have not found it easy to get accurate colour from Negs using a D-810. The results are good, but need a lot of work. Do I really need a D-850?
My old Konica/Minolta 5400-II neg scanner delivers noticeably superior detail and tonality, with stronger more vivid colours.
However, one big benefit of the ES-2 using a diffused light source is - dust and scratches are much less obvious with silver-halide B&W films, compared to a dedicated neg scanner.
The use of a small highly directional led light source in neg scanners ensures that dust and marks are emphasised/exaggerated. Grain too.
ICE dust/scratch removal software largely hides the problem with C41 and E6 emulsions, but ICE doesn't work with silver-halide B&W or Kodachrome.
With the ES-2 having a diffused light source, you don't have issues with dust and scratches to anything like the same degree. Great!
Also, once you've got the ES-2 set up, you can digitise your negs/slides very quickly.
I have found the same - ie. that DSLR capture with a diffuse light source minimizes dust, scratches and grain compared to the dedicated film scanners I have used (flextight X1 and Dimage 5400 II), though detail levels are comparable.
I have an ES-1. To use it on my APS-C camera with the 60 f2.8D lens I simply got a bunch of 52mm magnification filters off Ebay (really cheap), broke the glass out of them and made a stack sufficient to get a whole 35mm slide in the frame. This same thing would work for an ES-2.
Over the past year or two I've been using the ES-1 with 2½" of extension tube on the Olympus µ4/3 60mm macro lens, digitizing colour slides as a volunteer for our local museum.
The quality of manufacture of the ES-1 was poor and necessitated repacking the telescopic tubes to remove wobble and maintain uniform focus across the slide, but once done the device is quite satisfactory. I used plumber's thread-seal tape for the job: thin enough to build just the right thickness, bonds to itself with no adhesive, and is slippery enough to permit adjustment. Hopefully, the ES-2 doesn't have this problem.
On the 16MP EM-1 the result is 128 P/mm (3250 dpi). I have found the best light for slides is a clear sky on a bright day. Pan negatives are easy enough to invert but I have not been very successful with colour negatives.
The "Clear Bright Sky" requirement would limit scanning in Chicago to about 30 random days a year. In Seattle, you would grow old waiting.
Seriously, have you measured the color temperature of the sky. I't probably close to 7500K, almost the limit of WB adjustment on many cameras. Because the setup is rigid, you don't need bright light, you need consistent light with a relatively smooth spectrum.
That could explain some of your problems with color negatives. But then, good negative color isn't guaranteed with a dedicated film scanner either.
I've successfully copied about 2,000 slides with the Polaroid Slide Duplicator on the Oly 60mm macro. I threw away the crappy plastic lens that came with it, added a 46-52mm adaptor and used a small Ledgo LED panel for backlighting, that's all. However, I've now found some 35mm colour negative strips and some 120 B&W film and unfortunately the Polaroid Slide Duplicator handles only 35mm slides so I'm looking at the ES-2 as a solution.
The ES-2 handless film strips up to 6 as well as slides. For larger formats, you can use a copy stand with a light table, a focusing rail with a film holder (e.g., Novoflex), or a dedicated film copying fixture like a Filmtoaster.
For colour negatives, the Negative Lab Pro plugin for LR works great. The trick is to first white balance on the orange border. However, white balancing on the border then simply reversing the tone curve doesn't work well but the plugin sees to have some other smarts to get it pretty right.
I do have this adapter and find it very handy for digitizing. The workflow is fast and convenient except for inverting negatives (appropriate threads discussing the issue can be found on a new DPReview's dedicated film forum). It is a pity Nikon does not include an appropriate picture profile in every of their DSLRs and now mirrorless cameras. That would be a certain plus of any Nikon camera and a competitive advantage. With an awakening interest in film photography that could bring some additional support for total sales. D850 and D780 do have a special mode but you get only jpegs and this is understandable since picture controls can be copied and used to process images from any camera. But anyway if you own a Nikon camera and you are a film photography fan or have an analog archive it is worth spending some extra dollars (around USD160 for the adapter (depending on the country you live in) and USD150-300 for a suitable used macro lens).
I scanned thousands of my more interesting 24x36 films and slides on a Coolscan IV years ago (drove me crazy but the results were good). Then I scanned hundreds more of my 6x6 films and slides on an Epson flatbed (left me feeling I was not getting the best possible result). For the past 12 months I've been scanning the remaining unimportant 24x36 négatives on my D850 with the 60mm and the ES-2. It's much quicker than the Coolscan. The results vary from very good (with Professional Fuji NPH 400 colour negative film) to abysmal (typically with older amateur colour negative film like Kodak Gold). If it's not coming out right then there's not a I can do. When I've finished the 24x36 then I will try the remaining 6x6 films on the D850+60mm using the film holder from the flatbed scanner and a light table.
There's a huge amount to know about getting good results when digitizing film, whether the kit is simple or not. 8 minutes is nothing and barely scratches the surface. It's a decent overview/introduction.
I produced corporate videos for promotion, training, H&S, etc., for national and international companies for over 20 years. If I had made videos like a lot of these 'bloggers' I wouldn't have lasted 20 weeks! A lot of waffle and ego boosting seems to be the modern way, I'm sorry but, in my opinion, these guys just haven' a clue about good and effective video production.
Using the adapter with a Nikon Aps-c and the Micro 105mm, would the frame be filled, or there be a lot of blank margins left, or, worse, would it only get part of the negative frame? D7000 in my case, so, if margins left, final frame would be less than 16MP, but if it would crop image, no use for me.
With the 105mm you cannot focus the lens on the film (tried it). Even if you could you would only get the central part of the image (with APS-C it would be even worse). The ES-2 is basically a sliding tube with the film holder on one end and the lens mount on the other which perfectly fills a 24x36 full frame with a 60mm lens at minimum focussing distance (1:1).
@Bob: If I was going to do an A1 size print from a 24x36 Tri-X negative done on my Leica with all the dust etc. corrected then I would use the D850 at full resolution. The grain is part of the beauty of the image. If on the other hand I was scanning a 100 ISO consumer negative film with vague dye clouds rather than grain just to have a JPG to put in my image Library then I would downsize it to 10MPix.
I`ve got one of these in M42 or Tamron Adaptall from the 70s somewhere . has the optics built in ready to go .. they were for turning slides into prints back in the day , stunned that Nikon have re-invented the thing after all this time
That was the 70's, when digital was not a choice. People have started to feel anxious about preserving their film legacy, and digital cameras have evolved to be up to the job with a substantial margin.
You will need to invert the curve of the negative scan. That is, drag the white point to black and the black point to white. in whatever you are editing the scan in - C1, LR, Photoshop, etc.
Thank all. But it seems I need an FF for this to work w/o further adapting, I have a D7000. Anyway, good Nikon keeps producing photo dedicated stuff. I have about 5,000 negative frames, mainly family stuff covering 3 decades, I need to preserve some of that for future generations.
Not certain. There is about 1cm of adjustment possible in the distance between the film and the lens which is set for a 60mm at 1:1 magnification. The focussing distance at 1:1 for a 30mm will probably be much closer. However as you're not doing 1:1 but something less then the focussing distance will be further away. It might fit into the adjustment possibilities of the ES-2. Or not..
The ES-2 works with a 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, with the long 62 mm tube and a 52-62 filter adapter ring. You also need a PX=13 (27 mm) extension tube to get 1:1 magnification.
That Is only true if all you want is the record shot of the person, place or thing on the film. Not to get too “art school” about it but part of what you’re buying here is the creative possibilities and fun of working with a high res picture of the film and its unique physical characteristics. In other words it opens up a way for you to use elements like the wear and tear on the acetate, halation, the grain, emulsion up vs emulsion down etc. in your interpretation of the scene. If that sounds too crazy just think of it being able to pull additional metadata from the film.
@fotopix2021 It depends on how you are viewing the photos. Simply put; 47 MP 35mm scan displayed on a 8k screen > 24 MP 35mm scan displayed on a 8k screen
There's a reason why 16mm scans for movies benefit on 4k TVs despite everyone saying that 35mm is the 'perfect' scan. Same thing with 35mm movies being displayed on a 8k tv....higher res scans benefit.
"Except no film can deliver 47 MP. Only the very best films can deliver 4000 dpi (approx 24 MP on 35mm)."
For my slides, I'm using a D7100 (so 24 MP), the 40mm macro and the ES-1. The slides are perfectly framed with this combo, the autofocus works great and the results are beautiful. I don't think I would need more than 24 MP for my 35mm Kodachromes and Velvias.
If I remove the 35mm slide mount and scan with a custom-made mount that goes right to the edge of the frame, I can get a 21MP file from my 8000ED scanner, not 24MP.
Regardless, rezzing up a scan that size to 47MP loses detail. Then there's the CCD noise on the scanner that you don't get with a camera copy, and the added DR and versatility of a raw file.
Add all that up (plus the speed advantage) and the ES-2/D850 digitizer is still far better than any scan. I know because I've compared them side by side.
Thanks! Let's remember that this is a sample of photos over Three years and countless rolls of film. Sample galleries for the show are usually 40 or so photos kept from just one or two sessions of shooting. So in that regard I think I do ok. I do truly appreciate your compliment about the old work though.
Something to be aware of in any dust lurking on the INSIDE of the opaque light diffuser is so close to a slide or negative that it usually gets recorded on the digital photo.
If you mounted slides in GE-PE glass or glassless mounts they are usually too thick to fit in the Nikon slide holder. A solution is to dispense with the slide holder and use a second empty slide mount above the original slide mount to obtain appropriate spacing.
Raw is the way to go unless unless you have hundreds of old slides to scan. Or if you are a jpeg shooter. It is possible to make a quick and dirty conversion from raw or take the time to do a good one. Even shots from the same roll will need slightly different adjustments.
I’m a fan of speed and convenience. I do indeed have tens of thousands of negatives. I have never been a fan of the RAW workflow. I save the raw files as a back up, always. But it’s very seldom I use them. Much prefer a jpeg workflow which means getting everything right in camera. Still far easier with jpeg than slide film for example.
I'll never go back to scanners. I've had it with end-lesslessly unreliable hardware and their associated buggy underdeveloped software and drivers. You may not love Adobe but I guarantee they put more effort into their products than any of those scanner software developers.
A good macro lens and digital camera are easily a match for the resolution and DR of any film I've ever used and I've got a raw file I can process to taste rather than a pre-cooked tiff.
It takes a little while to sort out a system but once you've got it dialed in it's much faster as well.
Need to check your light source as colour balance is off on all the colour ones. The scans do not look that great compare to a dedicated 35mm scanner like a Minolta 5400 running either Vuescan or Silverfast.
This is just the way the D780 automatically deals with the colour. It's unfortunately not something one can change or calibrate using the built in digitizer. We wanted to show the results good or bad and some of the negs did represent okay, and some went quite cyan. Also they are 20 year old negs and as I understand colour neg can start to slide after 7 years or so. I tried natural daylight and led and the result was the same. Couldn't tell you what strategy Nikon is employing to naturalize the colour results.
Use a preset color temperature for copying slides and negatives, determined from an empty holder and the light source you are using. AWB is unduly influenced by the predominant color in the slide, or orange mask in a color negative.
Hmmm I wonder if my never used Minolta 5400 will still work. I have one in storage that well..been there forever.
As for scanning with a camera - did lots of that before. Today, the wisest thing one can do is use an evenly defused light source behind the slide or neg and with the ability to do stacked images, one can do multiple shots and move the focus points given that some slide/trans and negatives are not exactly flat. Sadly, back when that was not a real good option given that macro/micro work was too sensitive to rack a lens that way.
@Chris Niccolls: Did you check the CRI of the LED lightsource? Even if it was a good one, it most likely still has deficancys in deep red or deep blue. For best results, sunlight is the only option...
@Chris Niccolls: this seems to be getting results much closer to lab scans right out of the box. There is some initial set up, but many have been really happy with the quality and speed of Negative Lab pro, I'm pretty sure Nate has been improving the compatibility with flatbed scanners as well.
Really disappointed with the video. I had (still have) many old slides and wanted to digitize them. The adopter made life very easy. I set up my D820 on a tripod and used an external flash set on manual. Nikon's 60 mm lens was set on f/8. Focus was manual, and did not change. Off I went. Everything was in focus. And in RAW. My only problem was removing and putting back the slides from the slide carousel. Dpreview made the process sould much harder than it really is. Boredom will be the enemy of the process.
I appreciate your compliment! It's an interesting take though I don't necessarily agree. I suppose back then I was just shooting for myself and for fun. Maybe that shows through.
Also, only the best shots survived probably and when you shoot an episode of dpreview you show alot of shots that where done in 1 or 2 days max. Nobody can do 10-20 amazing shots in one day, especially when your main focus is to shoot the video.
As a practical matter, if the center is in perfect focus (grain sharp), the corners don't matter much. At f/8, the DOF is enough to handle all but the most extreme curvature.
Just as well. At 1:1 magnification, the focusing helix has little or no effect. To change the focus, you have to change the distance between the lens and the film holder.
The DJI Air 2S is exactly what many drone enthusiasts have been asking for: a consumerdrone with a 1"-type camera sensor that's budget-friendly. Does it live up to the hype? In our opinion, yes.
DxO has just released PureRaw, a simple, standalone program that can automatically apply its high-quality lens corrections and impressive noise-reduction algorithms to your Raw files, and then pass those Raw files off to your favorite editing app. We're pretty impressed by it – find out why in our review.
The Fujifilm Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR is a very versatile, compact telephoto zoom lens. But how does it perform? Read our review to find out.
The X-E4 is going to make a lot of photographers happy, especially those craving a near-pocket-size X-mount body with Fujifilm's latest IQ performance.
In our latest software shootout, we pit Adobe's Camera Raw against Capture One Express Fujifilm, included for free with every Fujifilm camera. Can you get all you need with the free option? For a lot of people, it looks like the answer could be yes.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with friends or loved-ones in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
Earlier this week we published our DReview TV episode on the new Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM ultra-wide lens. This compact, lightweight prime is optically impressive and a great option for a wide range of photographic uses. Have a look at the episode's samples, including plenty of astrophotography shots.
EarthCam has announced the GigapixelCam X80, a new robotic webcam that uses Sony's 61MP full-frame image sensor. By automatically tiling and stitching thousands of images, the GigapixelCam X80 creates 80,000MP (80 gigapixels) panoramas.
The new APS-C 11-20mm F2.8 offers a fast ultra-wide-angle zoom lens in a compact package, while the full-frame 150-500mm F5–6.7 offers a lot of range in a relatively compact package.
Today marks the effective date’ that Part 107 and Remote ID rules take effect in the United States. This includes the Operations Over People rule. We break down what changes, what hasn't yet, and what you need to know.
Canon has announced two new PIXMA all-in-one wireless photo printers, the TS3520 and the G620 MegaTank. The TS3520 promises ease of use, simplicity and it costs only $80. The G620 MegaTank is larger and costs more but promises affordable prints thanks to its continuous ink system.
DJI's new mid-range Air 2S drone delivers substantial image and video quality improvements over its predecessor thanks to a larger 1" -type sensor. Check out our sample gallery for a sense of what this $1000 unit is truly capable of.
FusionTLC has announced Raven, a universal flash trigger that offers remote control of flashes from multiple brands, including simultaneous control of two different brands of flashes.
Colorcinch is a photo editor you can use inside your web browser. Many of the included tools, including all the photo editing tools, are available to use for free.
In addition to putitng its new M1 chipset inside both the 11" and 12.9" iPad Pros, Apple has also thrown in a Thunderbolt port and 5G connectivity. The 12.9" iPad also receives a new 'Liquid Retina XDR display' with a claimed 1,600-nits peak brightness for HDR content.
Apple has given its iMac lineup a design refresh for the first time in nearly a decade and tossed in its new M1 chipset first seen in its MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and Mac Mini computers late last year.
Sony has announced its latest G-Master lens: the ultra-wide 14mm F1.8 GM. At nearly a third the weight of its nearest peer for the system, it's an incredibly compact and lightweight prime for E-mount shooters. Read on for a closer look at what it offers, including a preliminary look at its optical performance.
In this episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan get their hands on Sony's new compact, ultra-wide 14mm F1.8 G Master lens, and share how well it performs for both stills and video.
We've been shooting around with Sony's latest G Master lens and initial impressions are positive: the FE 14mm F1.8 GM is well-built, fast to focus, and plenty sharp, even wide open. Take a look.
Sony has introduced its FE 14mm F1.8 GM lens for its full-frame mirrorless body. This compact lens uses numerous special elements and has twin linear focus motors for speedy focusing.
Conservationist and photographer Donal Boyd and filmmaker Frank Nieuwenhuis visited the ongoing volcanic eruption on the Reykjanes Peninsula in Iceland, where he captured beautiful visuals of the eruption.
We took the Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 to the Bay Area and put it in the hands of commercial and fashion photographer Robert Silver to see what it can do.
Cosina adds to its Voigtlander Vintage Line series with its new 28mm F2 Ultron lenses, which come in two models — Type I and Type II — with different focus ring styles.
Sony's latest FX3 has a lot in common with the a7S III on the inside, but we've got our hands on one to show just how different it is on the outside – take a look.
The DJI Air 2S is exactly what many drone enthusiasts have been asking for: a consumerdrone with a 1"-type camera sensor that's budget-friendly. Does it live up to the hype? In our opinion, yes.
The winners of the Professional, Open, Student and Youth categories of the Sony World Photography Awards have been announced, showing some exceptional projects and single images.
Canon has announced two new telephoto prime lenses for the RF mount: the RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM and 600mm F4L IS USM. Click through for a closer look at these two new telephoto options for RF.
From the stately twin-lens reflex to the timeless view camera, here are some of the less common film camera types still kicking around on the used market.
Comments