Has anyone used this for scanning slides?

[JaceTheAce]

Does anyone have any experience with these slide attachments for DSLR cameras? How well do they "photograph" slides? They seem to be a great option to buying a slide/film scanner and the advantages of shooting the slide in RAW are obvious. They require a 52mm threaded lens, or by use of a step-down adapter ring.

Amazon.com: Opteka HD² Slide Copier for Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Opteka HD² Slide Copier for Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
Amazon.com: Opteka HD² Slide Copier for Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Opteka High Definition II Slide Copier / Duplicator for Digital Cameras

[Mike_PEAT]

Correcting my earlier reply...I was thinking of the slide copier that attaches right to the body via the lens mount; for instance I have one that's a T-mount, and it definitely requires full frame to work.

To comment on Opteka though, they don't make the greatest products and their products described as "pro" or "high definition" usually are far from it.

Another issue is the choice of lens used as the Opteka site states...although they don't state what lens you need.

[JaceTheAce]

Originally Posted by Mike_PEAT

The obvious is you have to have a "full frame" camera...if you use a camera with a smaller sensor you will only capture a portion of the slide.

I don't think that's the case. People are saying that with a 1.6x crop body a focal length of 80mm works the best to capture the entire slide.

[Mike_PEAT]

See my corrected post.

[JaceTheAce]

Originally Posted by Mike_PEAT

Correcting my earlier reply...I was thinking of the slide copier that attaches right to the body via the lens mount; for instance I have one that's a T-mount, and it definitely requires full frame to work.

To comment on Opteka though, they don't make the greatest products and their products described as "pro" or "high definition" usually are far from it.

Another issue is the choice of lens used as the Opteka site states...although they don't state what lens you need.

Agreed on Opteka making bad products. But, for $50 I think I might give it a try.

What kind of slide copier are you using? How well does it work?

[nrottley]

I was given a digital film scanner from VuPoint Solutions as a present and found it did not work very well. The scans had significant vignetting and were out of focus. I haven't tried scanning slides again but I understand you can rent a top of the line scanner (Nikon) for about $40 for the weekend!

[Ed Shapiro]

A good scan from a slide or a negative will work much better than any camera copying equipment. For the last two weeks, I have been preparing a new portfolio and have had to reproduce some of my current commercial work that was done on transparency material for 35mm to 8x10! I put everything through an Epson scanner with film capabilities and the result were superb!

Ed

[Carusoswi]

I agree that the flatbed scanners with adapters for negatives and slides are hard to beat. These setups are designed for the task. The light source is constant, and the software drivers are tailor made for the task.

With photo copying setups, there are simply too many variables in addition to the equipment, itself.

I use an Epson Perfection 2400 - not new, and it does a great job. I imagine newer machines (by Epson, Canon, or HP) are even better than my 2400.

Shooting in RAW on a camera setup would give you adjustment flexibility over shooting JPEG, but neither can add detail that is already lacking in the original photo, and I doubt any photo setup would be as good as a decent scanner.

Caruso

[Mike_PEAT]

Originally Posted by Carusoswi

I agree that the flatbed scanners with adapters for negatives and slides are hard to beat. These setups are designed for the task.

Well, if you want to be picky a dedicated slide scanner is superior as it's designed for finer movement...flatbeds are good for those who don't want to spend the money on a separate dedicated unit or don't need the quality.

I should add there's also cheaper dedicated slide scanners that should be avoided, the type that just take a single "photo" rather than "scan" the slide.

[Ed Shapiro]

I have that 2400- it is quite the amazing machine. I am now preparing a new portfolio for my commercial work and tutorials here on the forum. Problem was/is, a great deal of my past work was on 8x10 color transparencies and color negatives. I though I was going to be into outsourcing scans on a drum scanner at around 40 bucks per image. I have been scanning my medium format and 4x5 negatives with great results so as a last ditch effort to save money with the 8x10 chromes and negs, I placed an 8x10 chrome directly on the glass and scanned it- stitched the 2 halves together and the results are amazing- I made a 30x40 test print the other day and it was better than the analog originals that I has previously made. I get the occasional NEWTON RING and get rid of it in PhotoShop.

As an aside- I have copied transparencies and even large prints on my D-300 and the results were decent enough for smaller images. I had a client who lost the transparencies that I gave him 25 years ago and I shot a few that I still had in my file and some prints he still had in his showroom- I was able to produce a brochure for him with no apparent loss of quality but the largest images was about 8 inches wide. I never though of putting those big chromes or negatives into the scanner with out the supplied negative carriers in place. At the same time, there was a deadline in place and I had to produce something for my old client. He his a flooring company who has made instillations in many government buildings and some of them are no longer accessible due to security reasons and some have been covered with very heavy rugs- so no re-shoots. You would be surprised what could be done with improvisation and simple equipment. The chromes were placed on a piece of Sign-White Plexiglas(tm), masked off with black paper and this rig s back-lighted (trans-illuminated) with an electronic flash uni equipped with a soft-box. The room was darkened and a few bracketed shots were made on the D-300. The Sign White Plexiglas is designed to spread light exceptionally well for back-lighted signage and the additional diffusion from the soft box helped as well. This is not too terrible a technique for an occasional job but of course the scanner does a much superior job.

I once had another scanner with an adaption for film scanning and it worked pretty decently for film up to 4x5.

As with all equipment, the investment one can make depends on the budget and the frequency of specialized work that the gear is needed for. If my portfolio project was not successful as to quality on my existing scanner, I would just have to spring for the money and outsource the work for drum scanning. If I was going to have to deal with this kind of job all the time, I would purchase a drum scanner or a flat-bed film unit for 8x10 work, if there is such an item. A the present time, I am doing my commercial work with film, and also with a digitized RZ67 camera. Once I have scanned in all of my 8x10 film, I don't expect to be shooting much if any 8x10 work in the future.

Funny thing- I have my notorious "junk drawer" with gadgets (under 50 bucks) which I have purchased just out of curiosity to see if they work. Some of them worked surprisingly well and some had serious limitations. thus the junk drawer!

Among the better purchases was a plastic variable portrait diffuser which work like a diaphragm -this was eventually replaced with an expensive Imagon soft focus lens and another expensive one for my RZ67- in some cases the $30 dollar attachment worked better! I even found usages for those cheap filters and diffusion attachments- I purchased a spanner to remove the glass or plastic which I toss into the garbage can and replace them with home-made devices which work better.

I do purchase the best gear that I can afford for my daily work but I am no equipment snob. Many years ago, there was a New York City camera shop on 7th Avenue around 34th Street- it was called the Camera Barn. They had every configuration and incarnation of pure PHOTO JUNK, GOVERNMENT SURPLUS CAMERA JUNK and WOW- do I ever miss that place! Some of my best images were made with some of that junk!

Ed

[tomrit]

Let me third the Epson 2400. I have one with the old 4x5 negative carrier. Does a good job, not quite up to my 35mm dedicated scanner, but I can only do 35mm on the dedicated scanner. I picked up the 2400 used on eBay, because it was the only thing with USB 2.0 that would still take the 4x5 negative setup. I wound up paying about $50 for the adapter and the scanner.