Hi Jan!
I agree with Eric.
I tried the digital camera route.
The sharpness is good as I used a macro lens & a high end light box plus a copy
stand.
I also looked up the mirror and used live view.
The sharpness was very good but I always felt the tones were not as
smooth...not sure if I am perceiving something or not. I just prefer the epson
scans of the flatbed.
Another thing I find it easier to use a flatbed, more convenient, less trouble.
So I eventually just got a v800 and use the epson software.
It's worth it, as I can do medium format, 4x5 & 5x7.
Just view it as the cost of a good lens:)
Frédëric
Sent from my iPad
Eric wrote:
There are problems with this approach, including even illumination
(most light boxes/tables aren't close) and access to a copy lens with
the ability to produce a reproduction that is undistorted with good
corner resolution. I've worked on specing these set ups for museums,
galleries and the like, and you really wouldn't want to try this with
a standard lens and light table unless you don't care about quality.
If you're just looking to capture something for visual reference, then
sure, it's adequate.
If you don't have a good copy setup, you'd be better off with a
scanner... money-wise and quality-wise
