I saw this: http://whitemetal.com/pentax/ap_ab_ii/index.htm
And they're not that expensive to buy, so I'm considering it for digitizing a lot of old pictures that my family has. I've been supposed to do this for a long time, but I have no scanner. This seems faster and easier, but I have no experience doing this.
How is this compared to scanning with a quality scanner? I know the resolution will be limited to my camera (Pentax K-5), but that's enough for me. Any ideas or experience to share about this?
I was thinking I could use the Sigma 105mm macro for this as it's a very sharp lens and can focus to 1:1.
i'd buy it just for the way it looks (depending on the price of course) - i like how and where they've put the lens - think of the possibilities :-)
but, years ago i believe that sony's telecine (tv film to tape) was essentially a hi/def camera looking at slides whizzing by, and the quality was very good for commercial use - so, possibly in a different class to this item, but i do think this would be worth investigating for your camera - negs will look best, the greyscale distortion/compression in prints does not transfer so well
yes good idea . . . something to do on those long winter nights . . . apart from remembering those belly dancers
If it comes with the 100mm f4 Takumar, it is a good deal. The lens is very very sharp.
It doesn't, that's just the page I used to show what I was talking about. It's just the bellows and the slide copier. I think it was 149 USD.
[quote name='Alexander ' timestamp='1322625690' post='13368']
...It's just the bellows and the slide copier. I think it was 149 USD.
[/quote]
I'd go for it. It looks cool.
In my experience copying slides with my camera requires more than just a copier. The light source isn't included and you need something that will give you consistency in the results. I initially started by just aiming the thing at a white wall. That was variable when I moved the setup. I finally mounted a light source on the system so it's always in the same place. (My copier had a diffuser built in). I used a small halogen bulb and it gave consistent results. However, some of the slides required some postprocessing to get the white balance right.
The resolution of my old slides (after 40 years) isn't all that great, so the camera resolution is just fine and I don't need anything higher.
The other thing you have to pay attention to is dust on the slides. Clean the slide thoroughly before making the copy. You will still probably have some baked-on dust particles. Some you can delete in post.
Most of my slides have writing on them. Keep a record that you can correlate the writing with the copies. After all, that's your EXIF data for slides. The development date stamp is also worth recording.
I've done both slide and negative scanning with a DSLR - with a fairly "ghetto" setup, essentially a macro lens, a basic macro focusing rail, a slide holder and a speedlite for back light. I must say that once I nailed the focusing and diffused the light properly (spent a few rainy evenings with various attempts) it worked very well, and the quality and resolution were top notch. With a slide holder with multiple slides you can get through a lot of shots very quickly, quite a bit faster than a dedicated film scanner.
[quote name='danida12' timestamp='1323252998' post='13502']
...With a slide holder with multiple slides you can get through a lot of shots very quickly, quite a bit faster than a dedicated film scanner.
[/quote]
That's true. But it's the documentation that takes time. And I think the documentation is important. It's easier to do it in real time than it is to try to sort it all out later.
' />
' />