Canon slide copying set-up

[spacecadet]

32 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Actually he does seem to have put a lot of thought into the channel through which the film slides in terms of the materials used, the wing nuts are just for initial assembly for that particular format. The film is supposed to slide easily from one frame to the next within a channel 0.5 mm thick, impossible to say how well this works and if there is a real risk of scratching the film in doing so. 

Ah fair enough. I think film is about 0.1 mm so I wonder if 0.5 mm is enough for flatness. I would probably still add some sticky tape. It works on a Steenbeck.

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I think that products like these are mainly aimed at the growing groundswell of enthusiasts who like to shoot film.  In fact new films are coming to the market and darkroom equipment seems to be escalating in value on ebay, as are film cameras, at least the good ones. There are many websites dedicated to this area and rather gratifyingly it seems to be driven by the young who want something analog, and maybe somewhat less perfect and predictable than digital offers, rather like the surge in sales of vinyl records.

 

Now, if you shoot colour negative then mainly you will send it off to get it processed and probably get a CD of low res images at the same time. You could do the same with B&W but a big part of shooting B&W film has always been processing it yourself, it's a very rewarding thing to do, but back in the day a contact sheet was a very easy, routine operation with standard wet chemistry. However now that is impractical for most people it's actually quite difficult to do anything similar, a contact sheet if you like, just in order see what you've got on the film. So if this holder allows you to this (and yes the ES-2 does also) then I think there is a demand, of course it must do so without any risk of scratching the film. There is another holder that  picks up on the sprockets so you can wind the film through, can't remember who makes it, and some, particularly in the USA, have made use of a holder designed for Beseler enlargers that does the same.

 

 

I can certainly see the point if people are going to go the whole way into a darkroom. Environmental issues aside, I would strongly encourage it. Will anyone ever forget the sight of that first print appearing in a tray of developer? Magic. It made up for the Santa Claus shock. 😎
 

 However, shooting film and then digitising it seems pointless if that is the end product, moreover given the quality that is likely to be achievable. It is far easier to shoot digital and emulate print film as well as print with a high quality inkjet printer. A skilled editor should be able to achieve any film look with or without proprietary plugins on digital camera captures I think. 
 

For old negs, I would not risk dragging them through anything. It might never happen but, if it does, it will be an ES-2 and JPEGs initially to see what is there, then a small selection of raws at a slow pace. 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by MDM

[spacecadet]

12 minutes ago, MDM said:

However, shooting film and then digitising it seems pointless if that is the end product,

+several.

All those articles on the pixel-peeping sites with so-called shootouts between different brands of film? They think they're comparing the films, but by and large they're not- they're comparing the scans.

I sometimes get nostalgic about my old A-1 and Hasselblad- until I see the price of film.😮Sixteen quid a roll for Ektachrome. Not even process-paid.

Edited August 27, 2020 by spacecadet

[Betty LaRue]

8 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

A qualified 'yes', the initial purchase includes holders designed for negatives but he shows a picture of a stage designed to hold 35mm slides and says "Once you complete your main EFH purchase, you will be given the opportunity to add 35mm Slide Masks to your pack – these make it very straight-forward to scan slides."

 

However for 35mm slides only the Nikon ES-1 holder is a much better route and can be made to work with your Fuji. Don't forget that this is just a holder so you need a light panel and also a means of suspending the camera over the holder in precise vertical alignment. 

I have the light, but only tripods which probably wouldn’t get the job done well. Didn’t Ian use a tripod? Ian, chime in here.

[Harry Harrison]

6 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I have the light, but only tripods which probably wouldn’t get the job done well

You can use a tripod with this universal holder but Ian uses something like the ES-1 except a custom version for his different lens, so that fits to the lens and removes all alignment problems. There's a lot about using the ES-1 in this thread but as DDoug points out, on APS-C the ES-1 generally has to be held further out from the lens than the Nikon ES-1 provides for so you need some extension tubes (possibly from the Far East) to enable that. I don't use an ES-1 but that's how I understand it.

[geogphotos]

15 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I have the light, but only tripods which probably wouldn’t get the job done well. Didn’t Ian use a tripod? Ian, chime in here.

 

Yes use a tripod to hold the lens and slide holder

 

 

And before I had either the macro lens or Alan Gallery's 'Thing' I was messing about like this

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by geogphotos

[MDM]

Fuji people would do well do read the recent posts by DDoug which describe exactly what is required to copy 35 mm slides to a very high quality using the Nikon slide copying devices: the ES-1 and the ES-2 and a Fuji camera. This EFH thing is a diversion here in relation to 35mm. It may be useful for copying larger format film but currently the Nikon adapters are definitely the way to go for anyone intending to copy 35mm film. 
 

Edited August 27, 2020 by MDM

[Betty LaRue]

3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes use a tripod to hold the lens and slide holder

 

I thought so! You were better at deciphering the incredibly long thread than I was. I know you struggled a bit, but you did it. I wouldn’t want to sink a small fortune into it, or otherwise I’d just pay a company to do a few select ones.

[geogphotos]

9 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I thought so! You were better at deciphering the incredibly long thread than I was. I know you struggled a bit, but you did it. I wouldn’t want to sink a small fortune into it, or otherwise I’d just pay a company to do a few select ones.

 

 

The second photo shows me just using the lens I had ( 24-105) on a tripod and with small lightbox. 

 

Fiddly but if you only have a few to do you could improvise rather than spending. But as you say probably best to find someone local with all the equipment and expertise and ask them to do it while you wait so you don't risk losing the precious negs/slides. 

 

I'd be happy to do it for you next time you are passing by this way😃

[Betty LaRue]

42 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The second photo shows me just using the lens I had ( 24-105) on a tripod and with small lightbox. 

 

Fiddly but if you only have a few to do you could improvise rather than spending. But as you say probably best to find someone local with all the equipment and expertise and ask them to do it while you wait so you don't risk losing the precious negs/slides. 

 

I'd be happy to do it for you next time you are passing by this way😃

Oh, but that would be so nice! We could have a brew and gossip.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

It may be useful for copying larger format film

Well this thread isn't entirely about 35mm, the Novoflex Digi-Copier mentioned on page 1 was recommended for both 35mm & 120 slides and I think this film holder potentially is far more versatile than that, and much cheaper. For 35mm the ES-1 reigns supreme though it is undeniably a fiddle to work out how to fit it to, say, a Fuji 60mm macro, or even Ian's Canon 100mm macro especially for those reluctant to experiment who are looking for something off the shelf.  I'd be very happy to use a manual 55mm Micro-Nikkor on the Fuji but it doesn't suit everyone.

[DDoug]

After some trial and error, I settled on this set to get the full 35mm frame focused on the Fuji APS-C chip:

[MDM]

47 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well this thread isn't entirely about 35mm, the Novoflex Digi-Copier mentioned on page 1 was recommended for both 35mm & 120 slides and I think this film holder potentially is far more versatile than that, and much cheaper. For 35mm the ES-1 reigns supreme though it is undeniably a fiddle to work out how to fit it to, say, a Fuji 60mm macro, or even Ian's Canon 100mm macro especially for those reluctant to experiment who are looking for something off the shelf.  I'd be very happy to use a manual 55mm Micro-Nikkor on the Fuji but it doesn't suit everyone.

Sure Harry. In fact I haven’t seen anything better recommended for formats larger than 35mm than the Novoflex setup. My issue with the device you linked to is the way it is described and marketed which makes it sound like a brand new solution when it is only a film holder, albeit a cleverly designed one. 
 

Anyway we have come a long way from the original question which was “What exactly do I need to buy to be able to copy 35mm slides in the way that has been described here ( I think using a Nikon camera) using a slide holder illuminated by a light source behind?”  We have figured out pretty much exactly what will work on various systems other than Nikon. For my part, I have tried various setups on my D810 and come to the conclusion that the Tamron 90 with the extension tube in front is even better than the 55 Micro-Nikkor simply because of the autofocus but the Nikon 105 is not as good as either. The recent input from DDoug about the Fuji setup augments what we have learned about Nikon and Canon. 
 

The bottom line for me is the ease with which it is possible to align the film with the camera and to change slides using the Nikon adapters so ideal for 35mm. They are very well made and appear to give perfect alignment. A rail system such as the Novoflex is fine as well but more expensive and unnecessary unless copying larger formats m

 

For those who are good at making things then a DIY solution is great but I don’t have the manual skills or the desire to spend time on homemade solutions. Overall this has been a very positive thread. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by MDM

[Harry Harrison]

16 hours ago, DDoug said:

After some trial and error, I settled on this set to get the full 35mm frame focused on the Fuji APS-C chip:

It's great that you've taken the trouble to post both this and the details of how you do it, it really helps show just how this ES-1 could be used on many different lenses. I've done some experimenting myself and as far as I can see you could use a simple extension tube in the range of 5mm to 30mm (the Nikon PK-13 would be fine at 27.5mm) together with a standard Fuji to Nikon F adapter and just use the helical focusing of the lens itself to move it the correct distance from the sensor, but perhaps I'm missing something.

 

...in fact I've just set the Fuji together with the 55mm Micro-Nikkor up on my Bowens Illumitran which entails using the bellows in place of any tubes etc. To copy a slide with a small margin for cropping I've got the following measurements when the Nikon lens is not extended at all:

 

Fuji lens mount to Micro-Nikkor rear lens mount face = 65mm

Filter thread to slide = 88mm

 

If I wasn't using the Illumitran then that 65mm could be obtained by using a Fuji to Nikon F adapter (28.8 mm) plus a PK-13 extension tube (27.5) and then racking the lens out by a further 9mm.  In fact the focus travel of the lens is 20mm so a shorter extension tube could be used if necessary.

 

With an ES-1 used to hold the slide then that 88mm has to be made up of extra extension tubes together with any extension allowable on the ES-1 itself.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Harry Harrison
Add measurements

[DDoug]

10 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

If I wasn't using the Illumitran then that 65mm could be obtained by using a Fuji to Nikon F adapter (28.8 mm) plus a PK-13 extension tube (27.5) and then racking the lens out by a further 9mm.  In fact the focus travel of the lens is 20mm so a shorter extension tube could be used if necessary.

 

With an ES-1 used to hold the slide then that 88mm has to be made up of extra extension tubes together with any extension allowable on the ES-1 itself.

 

There's definitely more than one way to accomplish the task. I used to have an old, bordering on ancient, Novoflex bellows with a Fuji X mount adapter, slide copy attachment and an APO-Rodagon lens. It did a good job of copying slides. I would still have it, except that I also wanted a macro lens for general close-up photography and got the Micro-Nikkor. Then I figured, “Why have both?” The current kit does double duty. I tried a combination of extensions, but, unlike you, I couldn't get it right so I got the Kipon.

If I were starting from scratch today and didn't have the Micro-Nikkor, I'd look at something which wasn't on the market before, the Laowa 65mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO.

[Harry Harrison]

9 hours ago, DDoug said:

If I were starting from scratch today and didn't have the Micro-Nikkor, I'd look at something which wasn't on the market before, the Laowa 65mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO.

Thanks for confirming that, I understand that your Kipon Helicoid mount is dual purpose but in terms of anyone wanting to use a 55mm AI-S Micro-Nikkor for slide copying on a Fuji APS-C then I wanted to point out that they wouldn't need to go to the expense of buying one. I also wanted to make sure that I wasn't making some fundamental error. Clearly if there was any internal focusing going on with the 55mm Micro-Nikkor things would be different but with that lens I think the focusing action simply moves the entire lens away from the sensor.

 

There are certain measurements that can be extended to using any APS-C camera with the 55mm Micro-Nikkor for slide copying. So the filter thread will be 88mm from the slide at 1:1 and in fact the sensor to slide distance will be 233mm for any APS-C camera. 

 

Fuji Flange Focal Distance (FFD) = 17.7mm

Distance of Fuji lens mount to rear mount of Micro-Nikkor = 64mm

Length of unextended Micro-Nikkor from rear lens flange = 63mm

Filter mount to slide = 88mm

 

Total - 232.7mm (though I'm only I'm taking these measurements to the nearest millimetre so the real figure is just going to be 'around 233mm')

 

Also:

Fuji lens flange to front edge of filter ring = 127mm

Length of fully extended Micro-Nikkor from rear lens flange = 95mm, so maximum focus extension on lens itself = 32mm.

 

Anyway, if you're using, for example,  a Sony APS-C camera you'll need a Sony to Nikon F adapter, a Nikon (or Sony if behind the adapter) extension tube in the range of 5mm  - 30mm and the 55mm Micro-Nikkor. If you're using the ES-1 then you'll need the same length of 52mm extension rings (you've used two I think)* to take the ES-1. I know that 21mm tubes for this purpose are available from the Far East here

 

* actually measuring off your photo I'm not sure that your extension rings are as long as 21mm, they're certainly different to the ones on ebay which are not plain like yours, are they easy to get hold off?

 

That Laowa lens looks interesting, I can't help wondering if it would be sharper than the Micro-Nikkor for slide copying, it seems to be manual focus and manual aperture so similar to the Micro-Nikkor apart from going to 2:1 without using extension rings.

 

I've corrected both of my posts, your Kipon Helicoid macro adapter gives a maximum of 5mm extension so of course the range of extension tubes that would work in its place are in the range of 5mm to a little over 30mm. As little as 5mm will work with the lens fully extended on its focusing threads as of course you've found, a longer tube would give greater scope for more extreme magnifications for other applications. The Nikon PK-11, PK-12 & PK-13 extension tubes (8mm, 14mm & 27.5mm) are really nice, very well made, but there are lots of branded Nikon extension tube sets that would be fine also, the external aperture links are not required though and I find they get in the way.

 

It's quite easy to move the focus on the lens itself so if your helicoid adapter can be locked I can see that would make things easier together with a bit of tape on the lens.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Harry Harrison
Amendments

[DDoug]

6 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I understand that your Kipon Helicoid mount is dual purpose but in terms of anyone wanting to use a 55mm AI-S Micro-Nikkor for slide copying on a Fuji APS-C then I wanted to point out that they wouldn't need to go to the expense of buying one.

 

I have a cheap, generic Nikon AI TO Fuji FX adapter that's on the short side, so it focuses beyond infinity (a term that makes sense only to photographers and Buzz Lightyear). To that I added the shortest of my several Nikon extension tubes. Shown side-by-side with the Kipon NIK-FX M at its maximum extension, it looks like it's about 5mm taller and thus focuses closer than the Kipon. There is probably something equally inexpensive that would work better than what I have. But basically, I'm sure you're right. If the purpose is only slide duplication, something a lot less expensive than the Kipon would no doubt work.

 

 

About the 52mm extension tubes: I bought mine from someone who sells odds and ends on eBay and no longer has them on offer. There's something similar to the one you referenced if you search “Photo Plus 52mm Diameter Extension Tube” on Amazon. Several lengths are offered.

Edited August 28, 2020 by DDoug

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, DDoug said:

There's something similar to the one you referenced if you search “Photo Plus 52mm Diameter Extension Tube” on Amazon. Several lengths are offered.

Thanks, much appreciated, I never think to look on Amazon even though we've inadvertently landed a free Prime trial which has already expired once but they've given it to us again. They don't give up easily.

 

I updated my posts, several times in fact, and the last was quite recent (no more, promise). Yes any extension tube between 5mm and just over 30mm will work for slide copying instead of your helicoid adapter but I noticed  that the focus on the lens itself is so beautifully smooth that it's all too easy to jog so if your helicoid adapter is either stiffer, or can be locked that could make things easier. Strange that these 52mm extension rings are so difficult to source, on ebay at least.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, DDoug said:

 

I have a cheap, generic Nikon AI TO Fuji FX adapter that's on the short side, so it focuses beyond infinity

I've found that they usually are, even my high priced Fuji/Leica one was and I think that's because they have to promise that they will focus on infinity, but not that the focus scale will be accurate. I've shimmed a couple out with 4 thou coke can and that fixed it for me. It was easy on the K&F Concept, straight shims were fine but for the Fuji one I had to stamp out tiny washers. However I do like to be able to read the distance off the focus scale for 'street photography' so it was worth it.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[DDoug]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

I've found that they usually are, even my high priced Fuji/Leica one was and I think that's because they have to promise that they will focus on infinity, but not that the focus scale will be accurate. I've shimmed a couple out with 4 thou coke can and that fixed it for me. It was easy on the K&F Concept, straight shims were fine but for the Fuji one I had to stamp out tiny washers. However I do like to be able to read the distance off the focus scale for 'street photography' so it was worth it.

I tried again and it sort of worked. I have a K&F Concept adapter for Minolta and it isn't bad. Not able to find one at the time I was looking for Nikon, I settled for a cheapie which goes by the brand name "Massa". It's wobbly and the f/stops come out on the bottom of the lens instead of the top for some reason. However, I can focus on the slide it takes up most of the frame so I'd have to say it works.

[Harry Harrison]

6 minutes ago, DDoug said:

However, I can focus on the slide it takes up most of the frame so I'd have to say it works.

On cheap adapters you can often mount Nikon lens in 3 different positions. I'm guesstimating but I think with your helicoid adapter and the lens extended fully as in your picture you've probably got the helicoid wound out about 3mm as opposed to the full 5mm that is possible. Unfortunately that would mean you still need an extra extension ring with the standard adapter to get to full 1:1 - but then you don't need to as you've got the helicoid option which is a nice bit of kit.

 

For someone starting from scratch with a Fuji or Sony APS-C and who is happy using manual focus and aperture,  then a 55mm Micro-Nikkor, a short Nikon extension tube, an ES-1 and a couple of those 52mm extenders would give very good results for 35mm slide copying.

[MDM]

BUMP. This thread is the best resource on the forum about digitisation of slides.

[Bill Kuta]

I've shot about 3-400 slides, and am generally pleased with the results, but today I'm wondering what is the optimal aperture and why. A search of the forum topic we're in shows recommendations of 6.3 to 11. Googling on the internet doesn't show many specific recommendations, mostly f8 or 11.

 

But one link was from someone shooting at f4.5 (full-frame) who claims that it makes the dust/scratches very out of focus. I'm skeptical of this. But I'm going to try some test shots with a variety of apertures.

 

I realize the optimal aperture depends on whether you're shooting full-frame or APS-C. (I'm APS-C, and mostly shooting old family shots, but also some Alamy archival.)

 

Edit:  I guess I'm mostly questioning why we need a lot of depth of field. Slides are flat. Maybe we want the shallowest depth of field that still has edge-to-edge sharpness.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Bill Kuta

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Bill Kuta said:

I've shot about 3-400 slides, and am generally pleased with the results, but today I'm wondering what is the optimal aperture and why. A search of the forum topic we're in shows recommendations of 6.3 to 11. Googling on the internet doesn't show many specific recommendations, mostly f8 or 11.

 

But one link was from someone shooting at f4.5 (full-frame) who claims that it makes the dust/scratches very out of focus. I'm skeptical of this. But I'm going to try some test shots with a variety of apertures.

 

I realize the optimal aperture depends on whether you're shooting full-frame or APS-C. (I'm APS-C, and mostly shooting old family shots, but also some Alamy archival.)

 

Edit:  I guess I'm mostly questioning why we need a lot of depth of field. Slides are flat. Maybe we want the shallowest depth of field that still has edge-to-edge sharpness.

It’s an interesting question and will depend on various factors. Slides should be flat but some slides are flatter than others. Some are not entirely flat in the mounts so I go for optimal depth of field. The lenses I have used are excellent at f11 so that is what I use. I did some experiments when I started using the ES-1 with FF 36MP Nikon and got best results at f11 so why not use that. Shutter speeds are around 1/15 to 1/4 with mirror lock up. The idea of using a wide aperture for marks or dust sounds reasonable but my slides are pretty clean anyway so minimal spotting is generally required. A quick blow with a blower is all I do - I never touch the film. 
 

Edit. I use lowest native ISO to minimise noise. That is ISO 64 on my camera which gives an essentially noise-free image. I have concluded that most of what looks like noise is actually film grain. I expose as far to the right as possible but not too far - I make sure I capture highlight detail as once gone it’s gone. This is not the same as photographing normal scenes where ETTR is the rule. 
 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by MDM

[geogphotos]

I haven't worried about DOF.

 

I have worried about slow shutter speed sometimes and consequently have increased ISO.

Edited October 1, 2020 by geogphotos