scanning negatives with pixel shifting?

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondering whether anyone's using a Leica or Panasonic with pixel shifting to scan their negatives? I currently use a Fuji GFX-R (Mamiya 645 120 f/4 macro) and am generally satisfied. But wondering whether pixel shifting adds another dimension of precision. There's a professional nature photographer who, in his on-line blog, wrote that he's sold his drum scanner since using the Olympus with pixel-shifting. He prints very large, and I'm sort of dubious. Thanks! 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bags27]

Should add that I generally scan 6x7 but also FF and 6X6.

[250swb]

I don't know why it wouldn't work, normally the downside of pixel shifting is if the object is moving. For a 6x6 or 6x7 shooter the Olympus m43 route is very interesting because the ratio of the sensor matches those formats better and means fewer wasted pixels. Scanning 6x7 it could be the 20mp Olympus producing a 50mp file wins against any non-shifting FF camera with a sensor 50mp or under.

[bags27]

4 hours ago, 250swb said:

I don't know why it wouldn't work, normally the downside of pixel shifting is if the object is moving. For a 6x6 or 6x7 shooter the Olympus m43 route is very interesting because the ratio of the sensor matches those formats better and means fewer wasted pixels. Scanning 6x7 it could be the 20mp Olympus producing a 50mp file wins against any non-shifting FF camera with a sensor 50mp or under.

Important consideration! For myself, for other reasons, I'd want to stick with an L mount alternative, if I made the change. The photographer who got me thinking this way (I can't find his website quickly, but he does impressive work) actually shoots LF film (of course the exact ratio is still to your point), yet captures enough with an m4/3s to make it work for him.

[250swb]

I've looked it up and the top end OM-D M1X has a 80mp setting as well! But there are a lot of cameras that do pixel shifting, I found this web page

https://camerajabber.com/buyersguides/which-cameras-have-pixel-shift/

and there are pluses and minuses with some, like the sensor ratio, as well as 'how much is enough?' and how much it would cost. From the perspective of my Nikon Z7 which is 47mp but not a pixel shift camera I can see every grain in a 35mm scan and the grain is sharp. But scanning 6x6 or 6x7 MF I do lose a chunk of those pixels, yet I can still see the grain on a grainy film and it's still sharp. I think the watchword would be that just like normal digital capture simply doubling the effective pixels doesn't mean you double the resolution but there is a noticeable improvement in DR and tonality.  But a negative already has it's DR and tonality set in the emulsion and if the camera you've got can record that is it worth considering anything more? 

But you got me thinking.

[bags27]

10 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I've looked it up and the top end OM-D M1X has a 80mp setting as well! But there are a lot of cameras that do pixel shifting, I found this web page

https://camerajabber.com/buyersguides/which-cameras-have-pixel-shift/

and there are pluses and minuses with some, like the sensor ratio, as well as 'how much is enough?' and how much it would cost. From the perspective of my Nikon Z7 which is 47mp but not a pixel shift camera I can see every grain in a 35mm scan and the grain is sharp. But scanning 6x6 or 6x7 MF I do lose a chunk of those pixels, yet I can still see the grain on a grainy film and it's still sharp. I think the watchword would be that just like normal digital capture simply doubling the effective pixels doesn't mean you double the resolution but there is a noticeable improvement in DR and tonality.  But a negative already has it's DR and tonality set in the emulsion and if the camera you've got can record that is it worth considering anything more? 

But you got me thinking.

Thanks! You make really important points to me about what is already baked into the negative. This is really helpful! BTW, that website doesn't include the SL2, which got pixel-shifting in a firmware update.

So, this is what I'm considering. Because Fuji FGX-R is a 50 mps MF, the sensor spreads the pixels over 1.7x the space of a FF, and is closer in size (but not nearly exact) to MF film. The FF L mount cameras of course have 47 mps compacted into a smaller space. But this Fuji does NOT have pixel-shifting.

Newer Fuji MF models do, but I would have to layout a lot of money for those. And I have other needs for a FF L mount camera, while I'm not currently using the Fuji for anything beside scanning.

Paramount, however, is whether pixel-shifting increases the quality of the scan. I could buy a Panasonic S1R off KEH, compare the two, and either return the Panasonic (21 days) or sell KEH the Fuji. So, no financial risk, as the Fuji is probably worth more than the Panasonic anyway.

But I'm just wondering if anyone has had the same results as the guy who claims pixel-shifting is equal to drum scanning. A very large claim indeed.

BTW, I have very much considered the Nikon Z7 as well. For a couple of reasons, I decided not to, but I really like that camera!

thanks again.