[Not a Number]

Not a problem. It just goes to show that Pentax's machining tolerances are pretty fine so it could look like one piece. I hope you didn't chew up the M42 adapter too much with the pliers, especially if it is a genuine Pentax adapter. Maybe the seller has the screw and clip?

[glee46]

I'm happy to say I have full frame coverage using my K-1. I'll take some shots of the rig and show it off.

I'm using the HDMI out to one of my monitors so that I'm able to get better focus. Wow! I'm really jazzed to get this going. Next comes developing my own film.


I'm using at this point a Pentax 55mm f.2 and a Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 M42. I wonder if a Pentax 50mm f/4 Macro M42 would work even better on it. I don't have one, but I'm thinking about purchasing one.

[Not a Number]

So the rear standard of the bellows clears the body of the K-1? No "scratch" problem as with some Sigma lenses?

Let's see some photos of bellows attached to the K-1

[glee46]

So the rear standard of the bellows clears the body of the K-1? No "scratch" problem as with some Sigma lenses?

Let's see some photos of bellows attached to the K-1

I have added a thin K-mount extension tube on the front of the camera. When you look at the pictures you will see it. I still get full frame coverage with it. Here's a link to about 10 shots of the setup: https://www.flickr.com/photos/one_thing/albums/72157668816092560

Here's one of the shots from the album. I'll do a more precise little article soon as well.

[MarkJerling]

Not a problem. It just goes to show that Pentax's machining tolerances are pretty fine so it could look like one piece. I hope you didn't chew up the M42 adapter too much with the pliers, especially if it is a genuine Pentax adapter. Maybe the seller has the screw and clip?

Trust me, you don't want the screw and clip. It can be hell to remove the adapter from your camera. Which is why most people discard the clip and screw.

[Not a Number]

Trust me, you don't want the screw and clip. It can be hell to remove the adapter from your camera. Which is why most people discard the clip and screw.

Really? I've been using the genuine adapter for years with the clip. Never a problem. I'm not the only one.

I have added a thin K-mount extension tube on the front of the camera.

Will it fit without the extension tube?

[glee46]

Really? I've been using the genuine adapter for years with the clip. Never a problem. I'm not the only one.



Will it fit without the extension tube?

No, you need some room for it to fit. I would think that you could purchase a cheap set of K-mount extension tubes for under $10. The one's I have can go for as high as $150 which is stupid unless you're a collector.

Do you know anything about using a 50mm f/4 Macro M42 with the type of setup I'm using? My 55mm f/2 M42 is fine, but I want the best focus that I can get from my prints.

[MarkJerling]

Really? I've been using the genuine adapter for years with the clip. Never a problem. I'm not the only one.

Everyone I know, who use the adapter, removes the clip and screw. Of course, you may not be the only one who does not! The topic comes up for discussion from time to time in these forums.

[beachboy2]

Again I agree with Not a Number. Never remove the clip from a genuine undamaged Pentax M42 adapter. But always remove the clip from non genuine Pentax adapters. The non genuine adapters just are not built to the same tolerances and sooner or later cause problems. I speak from experience.

[glee46]

Again I agree with Not a Number. Never remove the clip from a genuine undamaged Pentax M42 adapter. But always remove the clip from non genuine Pentax adapters. The non genuine adapters just are not built to the same tolerances and sooner or later cause problems. I speak from experience.

Genuine is the key word. I found out the hard way myself, which I think many have done so as well. I have 1 Genuine and 4 Fotodiox adapters.
I got my Fotodiox adapter 1st. I had to use a Dremel tool to cut it off my Pentax 135mm f/2.5. The Genuine has never caused me a problem. YMMV.

---------- Post added 06-13-16 at 09:44 PM ----------

When I shot my 1st roll of film a few weeks back, I took it to a professional developer. It cost me @ $12 for each roll, and they uploaded them the next day. I was happy to see that they all turned out, but they were not the greatest pictures on my part. Some out of focus, over/under exposure, but they were super grainy looking. Did some LR/PS helped but all they sent was jpegs. With RAW/DNG, at least I have something to work with to make them better.

Anyway, here are two pictures. The 1st one was what I had developed and sent to me via email. The 2nd was after I drove over there and got the negatives. I scanned them using my FF K-1. There is a major difference in my eyes. My model would kill me for putting these up as she was not having a good hair day & didn't come to work to shoot that day.

So, what say you between the two?

Pro Developer My K-1

[Eyewanders]

Anyway, here are two pictures. The 1st one was what I had developed and sent to me via email. The 2nd was after I drove over there and got the negatives. I scanned them using my FF K-1. There is a major difference in my eyes. My model would kill me for putting these up as she was not having a good hair day & didn't come to work to shoot that day.

So, what say you between the two?

Pro Developer My K-1

To my eye the DSLR scan is quite soft (and I'm assuming that's just a straight export from the raw unprocessed image) and as if the negative was not flat - seems to be some distortion. Which one matches the contrast and details of your negative under a loupe? That's what I'd look at.
What scanner did your lap use and what resolution is the emailed file? It looks to have a large amount of USM applied and obviously more contrast. Those are two very, very different images to me.

[Not a Number]

Do you know anything about using a 50mm f/4 Macro M42 with the type of setup I'm using? My 55mm f/2 M42 is fine, but I want the best focus that I can get from my prints.

I have the Super-Multi-Coated 50mm f/4 macro. Definitely can be used with that setup. The problem is slides tend to curve in the mounts - the acetate side (non-emulsion) tends to bulge out - a bit of pincushion effect. That's why the lenses on slide projectors (except pro models) have a slightly curved field. So sometimes a normal lens may work better. You can use glass slide mount to flatten the slide but then you get Newton rings (a sort of Moire type pattern). Sometimes shooting from the emulsion side of the slide helps. Just remember to flip the image in post processing. Relative humidity and heat can effect the curvature. When using a slide projector you can see the focus "pop" as the curvature of the film changes from the heat of the projector lamp.

A flash as the light source could give you more light for a greater DOF.

Have you tried Pixel Shift resolution (unrelated to slide curvature)?

No, you need some room for it to fit. I would think that you could purchase a cheap set of K-mount extension tubes for under $10. The one's I have can go for as high as $150 which is stupid unless you're a collector.

Just as I suspected. The standard on the K-mount bellows is even larger so a small extension tube would be in order. I can always use my Minolta Auto Bellows III with slide copier since I need to use a K-mount to Minolta SR (MD) adapter - about 10mm of extension.

With the M42 bellows I suppose one could use M42 extension tubes. The original Asahi auto tubes can be had for under $30 with the case if you wait long enough on eBay..

Have you noticed any "play" in the M42 to K-mount adapter? If found this to be a problem using the Auto Bellows on my K10D and I had to be careful not to "rotate" the camera which makes focus stacking or time-lapse sequences more difficult. I think a flanged adapter as I linked above would solve that problem

[Eyewanders]

Contrast adjustment and pixel shift and the like are secondary to just getting a good scan of a flat slide, or rather flat negative in this case.

The film needs to be flat. I can see even from the photo of the rig that maybe it is not. I'm not clear what you're using to secure the film at the end of the rig, but a used plastic slide mount may do the job - file off the nubbins so it does not close completely allowing you to slide the film through it as you work.

Ideally you want a neutral scan that matches what you see in the negative under a loupe, erring on the side of flat (aka lower contrast than the original). As others have said - increasing the amount of source light will help so that you can ideally tighten the aperture to around F8 - F11. A diffused flash will work, or one of the many small/slim lightpads/light-tables available these days.

[glee46]

To my eye the DSLR scan is quite soft (and I'm assuming that's just a straight export from the raw unprocessed image) and as if the negative was not flat - seems to be some distortion. Which one matches the contrast and details of your negative under a loupe? That's what I'd look at.
What scanner did your lap use and what resolution is the emailed file? It looks to have a large amount of USM applied and obviously more contrast. Those are two very, very different images to me.

I just started shooting film for the 1st time using a K-1000 & ME Super. My focusing skills are not quite up to par even though I've used manual lens on DSLR's which gives a beep when in focus. These are film strips and it would be better if I had them in the cardboard which was used in the old days. I need to try and order some.

The finished pictures which were sent to Dropbox were Jpegs, The only info I found in the metadata was Noritsu Koki - EZ Controller. The size was 2048x3089.

I'm sure most of the softness is due to user error and from some tips here, I'm sure in a few weeks I'll have most of the kinks worked out.

By the way, what does USM stand for?

---------- Post added 06-14-16 at 09:24 AM ----------

Looks like you are out of focus on your shot, partially stemming from the unevenness of the slide surface.

Also, taking a look at the pics of your rig, it appears you are using a standard 55mm f/2 Takumar? If so, you'll probably get much better results around the edges with a flat field dedicated macro lens.

The out of focus is user error. However, I need to find a way to get a tighter fit so that there is no "unevenness" onto the slide surface. Maybe the cardboard which use to come with the negatives, or thin glass. I definitely need to work on that.

I have a Pentax 50mm f/4 Tak Macro on the way. So that should help, I hope.

---------- Post added 06-14-16 at 09:27 AM ----------

Contrast adjustment and pixel shift and the like are secondary to just getting a good scan of a flat slide, or rather flat negative in this case.

I think the Pixel shift would make a difference and I'm going to give that a shot today.

[stevebrot]

By the way, what does USM stand for?

It stands for Unsharp Mask, the proper name for sharpening in post-processing.

Sharpening Using an Unsharp Mask


Steve