digital camera for copy work

[phil sweeney]

I am considering a digital point and shoot as an alternative to polaroids. I have read posts on the subject. A second purpose would be to use it on my M2 bencher copy stand. I generally use a 210mm g-claron on a 4 x 5 and I can copy an 11 x 14 print at about 32" print to lens. This leaves me about 5 inches from the highest position with that setup.

To do the same copy with a point and shoot I figure I would need around 65-70mm lens (35mm equivalent).

Whether I can copy with a macro/zoom lens on a point and shoot seems questionable, as I do not think I can know if it will focus unless I actually have it in hand.
Is that correct? I'd appreciate any insight on this. I tried to focus at 32" with a 35mm camera macro zoom lens at 75mm and it will not focus at 32 inches (regular or macro). It looks like the macro lets the lens extend further like a bellows so I guess two macro lenses may perform differently depending on how far the lens can move out from the film plane on that type of camera. If I could focus at a shorter length lens, then I am thinking one would get lens distortion? Once again any insight would be appreciated.

I'd like to be able to copy my 7 x 17s direct to the computer for web display. If I cannot do the copy work I will get a cheaper camera for polaroid substitute. If I can do the copy work I would spend more for more pixels and try to copy 8 x 10 transparencies and negatives, also.

[Ted Harris]

Phil, IMO a much better answer (and an exciting one for other reasons too) is to scan your 7x17's using the new Microtek 1000XL which will handle up to 11x17 and gives you decent resolution and dMax. Michael is testing one now and will have some preliminary results soon.

[ronald moravec]

A 210 is equal to 60mm on the long dimension of the neg. The 4x6 will see a little more on the width.

Every P&S has different specs so I can`t really answer that question. I will tell you that the quality will probably be poor.

[phil sweeney]

Ronald,

I was looking at the nikon 8700 or 5000 (as a polaroid replacement). I thought the 8700 might yield fair quality?

[Nigel Smith]

the hardest part of this would be getting the lighting even with no reflections and the camera centered and 'level', and since you sound like you already know how to do that...

Just about any digicam would be capable of this. My Ricoh digicam focuses to 1cm @ the widest zoom setting (28mm in 35mm terms), about 3-4cms are the longest (80mm I think). You end up with a image with more pixels (2000+) than you can display on a webpage (say 800 wide) so you'll have to resize it down.

Don't know why you think it won't focus without holding onto it.. it will. Probably have built in self timer settings of 2secs and 10secs or something like that which makes life easier too (2sec wait instead of 10-12secs)

Your 35mm macro not foucusing close enough is a 'feature' of that lens. Many zooms with macro functions would be able to focus closer. My Nikkor 35-105 goes to about 5inches.

For scanning negs and transparencies, a flatbed with appropiate hood would be better. Better for the prints too, but depends if you want to go that way or the digicam (which could be used for other things)

[ronald moravec]

I know what you mean, but I consider the 8700 not a P&S, well maybe a high quality P&S. P&S denotes $200 digi cams to me.

I`m looking a the same price level digicams right now. Contenders are OLY E500, Canon rebel something or other, Nikon D50. Yesterday the 8700 was a contender and Canon makes a similar model top level model in the medium price catagory.

I`d get a real digi SLR that I could add a real macro to. Look at the Nikon D50 and their 60 macro. Canon`s got similar set up.

When this is all over, I will probably end up with nothing. I have a large, no extensive, Leica system(s) and a similar quality digi set is hughly expensive. I can use use several thousand rolls of color film for it`s cost and that probably will never happen. When I make the money back, the camera will probably break and no parts available, so I`ll have to get a new one. This looks like a vicious never ending cycle to me. I can always continue to scan if I need a digi file.

Well off to read the 5 issues of PC Photography I checked from the library today! Drool !

[Frank Petronio]

Might as well wait until next month's PMA show for the next round of new cameras.

Personally I'd pop the extra bucks for a Nikon D70 and 60 Micro, as they are nice cameras for all around use.

Of course, I'd also get a flatbed scanner that can do 8x10 film (Microtek i800-900, 1800f, Epson 4990, Canon 9950) and learn how to stich two scans together. Then you can scan the film and get a much larger, higher quality digital file for web and print repro.

[phil sweeney]

I appreciate all the advice. My copystand has built in lamps for illuminating and copying transparencies and I guess I keep thinking that a good quality digital camera and lens could yield results as good as a scanner.

[Jack Flesher]

IMO a P&S digicam won't give you acceptable results -- the largest issue being the extreme distortion you'll encounter.

OTOH, an 8MP Canon Rebel 350D (~~$500-600 used) and a Canon 50mm f2.5 macro lens (~~$175-200 used) will give you incredible detail, focus more than close enough and have virtually no distortion. On the Rebel with its 1.6x crop, the 50 generates an 80mm FoV.

FWIW, I think you'll find 8MP almost equivalent to MF film in detail while copying under the 1:10 range. This drops down a bit as you transition into the more normal magnification ranges. The 8MP file will print quite nicely at A3 and will be outstanding at A4.

Cheers,

[ronald moravec]

I agree on the distortion issue for older zooms, but I saw some large prints at a local store several years back from I high-med grade Canon. Putting a straight edge across every line I could find yielded no curvature.

Now every lens is different and some transition from barrel to pin and maybe my sample was at a point where distortion is neutral.

I think the big problem is field flatness. The only zoom that ever had a flat field design priority was the 90/180 Vivitar made for close work.

Like I said, SLR and a macro lens and you will do fine.