Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 66 of 66

Thread: Olympus Air

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    I personally would prefer to use a descent flatbed scanner with negative and slide scanning capability rather than using a camera (olympus air) to digitize as with a proper scanner, one can extract more detail from the slides.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by mazor View Post
    I personally would prefer to use a descent flatbed scanner with negative and slide scanning capability rather than using a camera (olympus air) to digitize as with a proper scanner, one can extract more detail from the slides.
    But I want speed rather than detail.

    Tony
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,867
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    I have done number of tests with flatbed scanners, I owned the Nikon 5000 and even the Hasselblad X5 scanner and while IQ might be better from dedicated scanners if you know what you do and how to handle the scanner software, I also very much prefer the workflow of digitizing slides and negatives with a good DSLR or CSC and dedicated macro lenses.

    Nothing tops the possibilities you get today when using RAW with either of the modern post processing tools like LR6 or C1Pro8. Dare I say that in my eyes results even already top the ones from dedicated scanners and definitely all works much faster and much more flawless!

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    I'm interested as I am in the midst of a huge scanning project.

    Can you give me a URL for the stand you use, please?

    Tony
    Mine is very similar to this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...opy_Stand.html
    I've had this one for a very long time. It's awkward to store but rigid enough.

    G

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by mazor View Post
    I personally would prefer to use a descent flatbed scanner with negative and slide scanning capability rather than using a camera (olympus air) to digitize as with a proper scanner, one can extract more detail from the slides.
    From my experience capturing film into digital with flatbed scanners, film scanners, and camera/optical capture, your statement isn't necessarily correct.

    - Most flatbed scanners, although they can record higher density pixel counts, have resolution which tops out at around 2400-2900 ppi (Epson V700).
    - 4000 ppi film scanners provide the highest resolution capture due to individualized, optimized focusing (Nikon Coolscan V and Super Coolscan 9000) at the trade off of being very slow to operate.
    - Doing 1:1 capture with the Leica M-P nets an even larger scan file with 35mm (24 Mpixel vs 21 Mpixel with Coolscan V) and has more dynamic range, the raw files have more adjustability as well.

    Capturing with the E-M1 (or by extension the Air) will net results between the M-P and the Coolscan V on 35mm format. For 6x6 format, the Nikon 9000 will produce the most detail and the largest file from 6x6 (83 Mpixel), which is very useful if the goal is to make very large prints. However, that's only very rarely my goal; the largest prints I ordinarily make are 13x19 inch from cropped 6x6cm. Most of my printing is much smaller sizes than that so a 12 Mpixel square image is sufficient for my print needs.

    It's all plusses and minuses. I shoot 6x6 for the qualities of the camera/lens/FoV/DoF coupling, not because I'm looking to make enormous prints. If you want very large prints, get a dedicated film scanner or a larger sensor camera with more pixels... :-)

    G

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by 4season View Post
    That's intriguing: What sort of lenses and light sources do you use for the task? Actually I wonder if M43 or even Nikon 1 might be great picks for this sort of task because of the deeper DOF one typically gets.
    I use two different setups that I've had for a while. Once is a wall mounted copy stand (Bencher) that has a variable height table and camera holder. It also has arms for lights, and you can take out the table surface for very large stuff on the floor. For transparencies or negatives I put a light source (ColorPro) on the table with a small box that has no top or bottom on that, and a film/slide holder on that. The box is to separate the slide/negative from the light source so I don't get dust from the surface of the light source showing up. My lens of preference is the 45 Macro Elmarit.

    I also have an Aristophot setup which is great for smaller items and general micro photography and I have various transmittance and reflectance light sources for that. But it's not as handy for 35mm slides or negatives because it works best with manual focus and the Leica lenses. On the other hand theres's nothing more sturdy and rigid than the Aristophot. On that I have a set of Leica Photar lenses. Putting an m43 camera on the back of that is easy.

    m43 is so good for slide digitsing because the autofocus can work, because you're working at 1:2. With full frame cameras autofocus doesn't work because to focus, the camera-subject distance has to change, and moving or focussing the lens does nothing at 1:1. DOF of course is good to have, but f/8 is as small an aperture on m43 that I use. If you're trying to digitise slides without focussing on each one, dof won't cover it and a smaller aperture will result in diffraction losses.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by henningw View Post
    ... With full frame cameras autofocus doesn't work because to focus, the camera-subject distance has to change, and moving or focussing the lens does nothing at 1:1. ...
    Hmm, I see the focus shift very clearly when using the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 pre-AI along with M-tube and ES-1 slide stage. No AF, of course, but the focus is critical and shifts enough as I turn the focusing ring that I can see it easily with either Nikon SLR optical viewfinder or with the Leica M-P EVF. FourThirds format does make it a lot easier ... more DoF and lower magnification is easier to manage.

    G

  8. #58
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by 4season View Post
    That's intriguing: What sort of lenses and light sources do you use for the task? Actually I wonder if M43 or even Nikon 1 might be great picks for this sort of task because of the deeper DOF one typically gets.
    The best lens for copy work and macro with this camera might be the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 for 4/3. Aside from being a stellar lens in most respects, it can be stopped down almost indefinitely without losing quality to diffraction. Even the dirt cheap Zuiko 35mm f/3.5, also for 4/3, is of great quality.

    http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/35

  9. #59
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The best lens for copy work and macro with this camera might be the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 for 4/3. Aside from being a stellar lens in most respects, it can be stopped down almost indefinitely without losing quality to diffraction. Even the dirt cheap Zuiko 35mm f/3.5, also for 4/3, is of great quality. ..
    I had both, once upon a time. Both are excellent performers.

    For flat art work (like capturing negatives or prints with a copystand) the 35 is more useful because you can work closer to the subject plane. With the 50mm, I was always racking the copy stand near to the top of its travel, which has implications on stability. Also, the 35 can be used with the EC-14 teleconverter to achieve 1.4:1 magnification.

    When I returned to shooting with Micro-FourThirds, I almost bought another ZD 50mm lens ... but decided on the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45 instead.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    You folk have got me thinking.

    I am happy to use my V600 for quality scans but I do want a system that lets me pick up a roll of 35mm and crack it in five minutes.

    I have just realised that my Oly 12-40 pro will produce 1:1 images.

    I have ordered a cheapo stand from eBay and I have dug out an old transparency viewer box. I plan to put some cardboard guides on the box so I can slide a 6 image 35mm neg through and click on each frame. I like the idea of seeing the frame numbers in my files.

    I then will put the images through a Picture Window Pro workflow to convert them to positive and do what needs to be done to rationalise the tones.

    The results will not be masterpieces but they will show what negs exist and that is the prime purpose.

    Way OT the Air - but if I got one I'd have a neater and even faster system.

    Tony

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Olympus Air

    The 50/2 is an excellent lens, but it is not autofocus, and that makes a lot of difference when you're trying to digitise hundreds of negs or transparencies. The singular advantage that m43 has over full frome, and why I generally do not use full frame for digitising, is the matter of autofocus. A regular camera system cannot autofcus at 1:1, which makes full frame useless for dealing with 35mm slides. Since m43 copies 35mm slides at 1:2, it can easily autofocus. As mentioned before, focussing on each slide or negative is essential for best quality, so autofocus speeds up my workflow immensely. If your copy setup limits your working distance, the new 30mm Panasonic macro might be of interest.

    If I were to accept dealing with manual focus, I would use my Aristophot setup with the Photar 80 and put the Leica M240 on the back of that. Definitely higher quality, but a fair bit slower.
    Last edited by henningw; 8th July 2015 at 11:59.

  12. #62
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by henningw View Post
    The 50/2 is an excellent lens, but it is not autofocus, and that makes a lot of difference when you're trying to digitise hundreds of negs or transparencies. The singular advantage that m43 has over full frome, and when I do not use full frame for digitising, is the matter of autofocus. A regular camera system cannot autofcus at 1:1, which makes full frame useless for dealing with 35mm slides. Since m43 copies 35mm slides at 1:2, so it can easily autofocus. As mentioned, focussing on each slide or negative is essential for best quality, so autofocus speeds up my workflow immensely. If your copy setup limits your working distance, the new 30mm Panasonic macro might be of interest.

    If I were to accept dealing with manual focus, I would use my Aristophot setup with the Photar 80 and put the Leica M240 on the back of that. Definitely higher quality, but a fair bit slower.
    The ZD 50/2 will certainly autofocus ... It autofocuses quite nicely on both the E-M1 and E-PL7, although it will focus faster on the E-M1 due to the PDAF implementation. Same goes for the ZD 35/3.5, and Macro-Elmarit-DG 45/2.8. I'm sure all of them will also autofocus on the Olympus Air.

    G

  13. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    The ZD 50/2 will certainly autofocus ... It autofocuses quite nicely on both the E-M1 and E-PL7, although it will focus faster on the E-M1 due to the PDAF implementation. Same goes for the ZD 35/3.5, and Macro-Elmarit-DG 45/2.8. I'm sure all of them will also autofocus on the Olympus Air. G
    My bad. You're quite right, of course. My mind was on the OM 50 macro; a whole different beast.
    Last edited by henningw; 9th July 2015 at 15:25.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    You folk have got me thinking.

    I am happy to use my V600 for quality scans but I do want a system that lets me pick up a roll of 35mm and crack it in five minutes.

    I have just realised that my Oly 12-40 pro will produce 1:1 images.

    I have ordered a cheapo stand from eBay and I have dug out an old transparency viewer box. I plan to put some cardboard guides on the box so I can slide a 6 image 35mm neg through and click on each frame. I like the idea of seeing the frame numbers in my files.

    I then will put the images through a Picture Window Pro workflow to convert them to positive and do what needs to be done to rationalise the tones.

    The results will not be masterpieces but they will show what negs exist and that is the prime purpose.

    Way OT the Air - but if I got one I'd have a neater and even faster system.

    Tony

    true, sounds like the air will be very suitable for you application . Once the rig is setup, ie good consistent light sources, light table etc for negatives, just leave the air in place for a powerful digitization station.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by henningw View Post
    My bad. You're quite right, of course. My mind was on the OM 50 macro; a whole different beast.

    think the Om 50mm macro was a f3.5, quite distinctively different from the ZD 50mm f2.0 macro

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The best lens for copy work and macro with this camera might be the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 for 4/3. Aside from being a stellar lens in most respects, it can be stopped down almost indefinitely without losing quality to diffraction. Even the dirt cheap Zuiko 35mm f/3.5, also for 4/3, is of great quality.

    http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/35
    This is very interesting information indeed. Did not know this ZD lens suffers from less diffraction than other m43 lenses. Wonder how well the oly 60mm macro performs in comparison with respect to diffraction.

  16. #66
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Olympus Air

    Quote Originally Posted by mazor View Post



    think the Om 50mm macro was a f3.5, quite distinctively different from the ZD 50mm f2.0 macro
    There were two version of the OM 50mm macro, a 2.0 and a 3.5mm I have the 2.0, and it's a gem

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •