Easy35 Film Scanner Reference Images

Example files related to a review of Valoi’s Easy35 film “scanner”. You can read the review on Wired.

Image was shot on Tri-X 400. A stormy early morning in the Outer Banks, NC (that’s the moon in the clouds).

professional scan by Richard's Photo Lab photographed by luxagraf — Tri-X 400 as scanned by Richard’s Photo Lab.

Tri-X 400 scanned with Easy35 film scanner and Nikon AF Nikkor 60mm photographed by luxagraf — Tri-X 400 scanned with Easy35 film scanner using Sony A7RII with an adapted Nikon AF Nikkor 60mm lens

Download the RAW file (43MB)/Download XMP

Tri-X 400 scanned with Easy35 film scanner and Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro photographed by luxagraf — Tri-X 400 scanned with Easy35 using Sony A7RII and Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro

Download the RAW file (43MB)/Download XMP

Both Easy35 images were shot at the same light temp and brightness, with just about the same settings applied in Darktable. I did have to up the contrast a bit on the image from the Nikon compared to the Sigma (not surprising, the Sigma is a sharper lens), but overall I don’t see much difference between the end results. The Sigma just makes the whole process easier and faster, with less work in your RAW editor.

2 Comments

Henrik September 28, 2024 at 4:49 p.m.

First of all: thanks for one of the most neutral review/test of the easy35 I have read. I am referring to it as often as I can. I don’t think I have found any other that didn’t feel like it was a paid ad from Valoi where I am told that everything with this product is just perfect and there is just no problems with it what so ever by people who probably handles toilet paper with more care than their negative strips.

Did you use the sigma 70/2.8 ART in your test? I have the older sigma 70/2.8 EX DG that I bought for film scanning but with an other setup in mind. It seems I have some issues with lens sag. I couldn’t figure out why the negative wasn’t in the centre and was a little bit cropped on the top. It is about half the height of a sprocket, so clearly noticeable. It is probably because of a slight bend in the setup. It is annoying because that forces me to use 40 + 20 mm tubes instead of 40 + 10 when the latter is so close to being a perfect fit with the negative filling up almost all of the frame. Then I was reminded of the decreasing edge sharpness by people who knows more than me. So having some air around the negative to crop out may not be the end of the world after all.

I have just started testing the easy35. I bought the sprocket holder on your recommendation. So far I have not seen any huge benefits with the sprocket holder versus the standard 35mm holder. I would think the extra light leakage would interfere with measuring the exposure in a negative way.

Scott October 02, 2024 at 2:11 p.m.

Henrik-

I did use the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 ART. And I would generally agree that backing off to avoid corner softness is a good idea. I like the sprocket holder because I found it faster to use since I didn’t have to spend as much time lining everything up perfectly. I did not really notice much light leaking, but I have seen some complaints that the quality of the easy35 various considerably. I think that’s something Valoi has been working to eliminate, but I don’t know if maybe you got a bad sprocket holder.

Thoughts?

Please leave a reply:

All comments are moderated, so you won’t see it right away. And please remember Kurt Vonnegut's rule: “god damn it, you’ve got to be kind.” You can use Markdown or HTML to format your comments. The allowed tags are <b>, <i>, <em>, <strong>, <a>. To create a new paragraph hit return twice.