>>4502991
Spend the money on a small darkroom setup instead. You'll get so much more out of film if you actually make prints.

>>4502996
It's even more expensive than sending it to a lab then

>>4503044
You can get started printing 35mm film in a bathroom for like 300-400 doll hairs if you find a cheap enlarger. Look around local used markets for the enlarger. You can find them real cheap if you keep your eyes peeled.

File: 409EGNz.png (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB PNG

I use an original Sony A7 + Canon fd 50 macro + Nikon es-1 for 135 / foam film holder for 120

File: DSC08817editSMBDR.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

Use an es-1 and shave down an empty slide holder and you can larp like a printer instead of being one

>>4502991
I do, I'm using a (???) no name copy stand, with a Sunray Box III for the light source. It has 35mm and 120 film holders you can swap out.

For the camera I used an olympus EM-1 mark ii in pixel shift mode, with the 30mm f3.5 macro, though I wouldnt reccomend this lens as even with the in-built corrections it vignettes pretty hard. Normally I use a 5D mark II with the 150mm f2.8 APO macro by sigma. Next I'll try the 150 on the olympus, hopefully that will work better.

https://files.catbox.moe/70vlhz.jpg olympus
https://files.catbox.moe/ubjj3y.jpg canon

File: 100S8780web.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

i bought the valoi 360 kit and built a copy stand

>>4503057
This looks superb.

>>4503101
Thanks anon. I forgot to mention what I was using to edit and touch up the scans, which is lightroom with negative lab pro. If you want any tips LMK.

>>4503057
is pixel shifting worth it? is there any discernable difference... especially with 35mm?

>>4503312
Comparing the m43 pixel shift on to the same setup with pixel shift off, yes there is a huge difference. You get a lot more resolving power. The question is, do you actually need that much resolving power for scanning 35mm film? In my experience, no, it just ends up resolving more grain. The photo I scanned in that example was taken on a modern autofocus SLR with a modern lens and kodak gold 200, and even still, the scanning setup is overkill. Anything past like 25mp is just gunna be resolving more grain. Maybe its worth it for medium format, idk, I haven't scanned any.

The only thing you really lose by using it is storage space. If you have it, I would use it just because having such fine grain being sharp and visible is pretty cool, and I think it looks good, but I wouldn't go out of my way to buy a camera for that.