Mike, you are certainly right on what you state about the intended purpose of DSLR captures versus PMT drum scans. However, I hope I'll be surprised in good with the results obtained with the DSLR arrangement. CMOS have evolved, as well as software, and together, with fully coated lenses designed for digital cameras, they master flare and glare quite well, provided the whole light funnel is treated with a non reflective paint, which is not always the case with those lenses adapters, or when a lens sits on a long extension tube. If certainly not on par with drum scans, those scans from 120 film and larger should be hopefully good enough for low to mid-range productions. There is no question that the Micro-Nikkor will capture the film grain if the lighting is directive enough. It's performances are close to the Apo-Rodagon D. Still, it's a retro-focus design and a Sony macro lens designed for the short captor distance could do theoretically even better (the old Leica's effect). The distance from the diffusing glass to the slide can be set a means to reproduce the PMT oil mounting effect, which really is a way to diffuse the light all around the film grain in order to minimize the sand paper effect in the clear parts, such as the sky, and of wiping small scratches and blemishes away by making the rough surface more translucent. I did once some comparison scans when I worked with a drum scanner (a mid range one), wet and dry, and as far as super fine grain films are concerned, the gain was there when peeping at pixels, but at sight distance it was anecdotal. But the trouble of wet mounting is considerable. I thought it was better to scan dry, not to soak my precious slides into gels and solvents that might alter their life span. So, yes the process needs to be mastered and I am just supposing, but I'm expecting results that will please. Kind regards Paul Schilliger