Contemplating a switch from 35mm to digital format...hoo boy!

Hello

 

I am a long-time avid 35mm shooter and am at the point where I feel

the need to make a fairly major (bodywise) equipment decision. I am

currently using an EOS Elan 7E (Europe EOS 30 something or another)

35mm body (eye control) and own 3 very nice (in my mind) pieces of

glass (Canon 70-200 f4 L, Canon 50mm 1.4, and a Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX).

I have diverse photographic interests; however, I really enjoy

shooting landscapes, people in action (street/sports etc) and also

some underwater stuff (I have a dedicated film-based S&S system for

that).

 

I also am fortunate (or unfortunate--my fellow frequent flyers will

appreciate that) to travel extensively on a global basis for my work

(I design and build the visual systems segments of

military/commercial flight simulators). For example...since June of

this year I have visited Abu Dhabi, France, Tacoma WA, and Mobile

AL. Next week I am buzzing off to Hawaii and Alabama (I

know...contrast city there!). Obviously travel photography then

comes into play as well before/after my typical work day. I also

have access to all sorts of interesting photo locations that most

folks do not due again to the nature of my work.

 

Enough intro's and onto the gist of my post. I enjoy shooting with

my current 35mm system....great photographs (again...to me anyway),

easy to use, and fairly robust to handle the travel. I do own a 3

year old 2.0Mp Canon S200 digital which is nice for quick snaps for

email etc and have owned an OLY 5050Z which I used briefly for

underwater imaging (the housing was 3x the price of the camera). I

am comfortable using Photoshop Elements 2 and Photoshop 7.0. I am

now ready to upgrade the body of my system and have been looking at

the EOS-3 body. With the introduction of the 350D/Rebel XT the

question of switching over to digital rears it's head again.

 

Things I like about digital:

-Instant Gratification!

-No More Film!

-Histograms.

-The ability to shoot a heck of a lot more images without having to

change film, worry about film ASA for given conditions etc.

-No more irritation/worry at airport security! I am a Yank living in

the UK and I DETEST flying in and around the USA even more thanks to

the TSA and Co.

 

Things that scare me off digital:

-My current 35mm system is the ~equal to a 20Mp digital at a

fraction of the price. What sacrifice in image quality will I make

in 8"x10" enlargements? Not that I make many enlargements...but

still....

-The "PITA" factor (pain in the a$$) in dealing with digital

workflow. Although I suppose I would only be doing that for images I

actually intend to print. I have already shot .RAW with the Olympus

5050z and a pal's digital Rebel and appreciate the total

control...but to have to do that for every "keeper"?

-The digital sensor crop effect that changes my lenses...especially

my 20mm. Although I suppose the upscale on the other two is a pretty

cool bonus! If I hang a 1.4 extender on my 70-200 what does THAT

turn into?

-Buffering. I can crank off 4fps until the roll is gone on my 35mm

system. I think the EOS-3 will do 7fps if I remember right. What

difference can I expect using a 350D/XT shooting .RAW?

-Archives. I am concerned about how to store the original .RAW files

for archives. Is there a reasonably safe way to preserve them (note

I say "reasonably"...not foolproof...my house could burn down and

there go 25 years of negatives!).

 

I think you folks get the idea. Apologies if I turned an innocuous

question into an essay. The bottom line is that I am really torn

between the 350D/XT and the EOS-3 and some guidance/opinion from you

folks would be appreciated. On a final note....I am able to purchase

either body in the US or UK. If I make the obvious money-saving

choice and purchase it stateside will I be warranty covered for

service issues in the UK or will it need to go back to the US for

service?

 

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Ted

 

 

its going to be a transition, its very different, but it could work to your advantage, should you let it<br>

by that, i mean hearing about die-hard film guys try digital, dont really get into it<br>

and walk away thinking digital sucks, only because they didn't try to learn more about it<br>

so make the most out of it, frequent the forums here, ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS YOU CAN<br>

because help never hurts<br>

you wont find a sacrifice in quality unless you want to print a 60x40 or something super large<br>

it all depends on your technique

I made the switch from film to digital in June of this year, and I am not looking back.

 

a few quikc answers:

 

What sacrifice in image quality will I make in 8"x10" enlargements?

 

None at all. My 8x10 prints from a 10D beat my film prints hands down.

 

Not that I make many enlargements...but still.... -The "PITA" factor (pain in the a$$) in dealing with digital workflow.

 

You will learn very quickly, and you might even enjoy it (I did).

 

I have already shot .RAW with the Olympus 5050z and a pal's digital Rebel and appreciate the total control...but to have to do that for every "keeper"?

 

Probably, but you will get better at prepping files for output...

 

Although I suppose the upscale on the other two is a pretty cool bonus! If I hang a 1.4 extender on my 70-200 what does THAT turn into?

 

a 112-320mm. Crazy!

 

Buffering. I can crank off 4fps until the roll is gone on my 35mm system. I think the EOS-3 will do 7fps if I remember right. What difference can I expect using a 350D/XT shooting .RAW?

 

Whatever the buffer is. My bet is that you will be able to accept a slightly slower FPS for 'unlimited film'...

 

rchives. I am concerned about how to store the original .RAW files for archives. Is there a reasonably safe way to preserve them (note I say "reasonably"...not foolproof...my house could burn down and there go 25 years of negatives!).

 

Yes. When you transfer from card to computer, immediately put the files on a separate hard drive. Keep this hard drive OFF SITE (your friend' shouse, etc, etc.). When you are done processing files, save your results again on the hard drive, and then put them on a CD. As long as you have two copies (four is better) of everything, you should be fine, even if the house burns down.

 

best.

 

conrad

Hi 8bit,

 

You hit one of the big ones...that crop factor with landscapes. And the cost factor of a 5 body is a bit much for me...an amateur. I shoot for fun...not for work! What is irritating me as well as making decisions difficult from a cost point of view are the strange Canon UK pricing policies (at least through the camera shops in my area...Brighton/Hove)versus the USA. The local shop wants ?339 GPB for an EOS 30V (same as what I already have with the addition of a date back that I would turn off anyway) versus BHPhoto in NYC who sells the 7E for $339. What is THAT all about? Especially when the 350D is available body-only here for perhaps $150 USD more than I would pay at BH. Which is reasonable given local taxes etc....but DOUBLE for a 35mm EOS 7E?

<i>I am currently using an EOS Elan 7E (Europe EOS 30 something or another) 35mm body (eye control) and ....Canon 70-200 f4 L, Canon 50mm 1.4, and a Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX<br><br>

 

....I am now ready to upgrade the body of my system and have been looking at the EOS-3 body. With the introduction of the 350D/Rebel XT the question of switching over to digital rears it's head again....</i><br><br>

 

First of all, if you've been using the Elan 7E all this time, forget about the 350D/Rebel XT. IMO, you won't be happy with it in the long run.<br><br>

 

In terms of features, controls, body design, and build quality (magnesium body, for example), the closest digital equivalents of the Elan 7/7E are the 6MP 10D --which you can get used in mint condition, or even new, for less than a 350D/Rebel XT-- and its replacement, the 8MP 20D. (Btw, so far none of the Canon digital SLRs have eye control focus.) The 10D and 20D are, essentially, digital Elan 7's. They even look like Elan 7's.<br><br>

 

In any case, if I were you I'd keep the Elan 7 just as I kept my EOS-3 when I bought my 10D. You'll find yourself --as I did-- still shooting film from time to time, especially with your 20mm. As great as DSLR's are, they still can't touch Fujichrome Velvia or any fine-grain, wide tonal range B&W films.<br><br>

 

<i>...Buffering. I can crank off 4fps until the roll is gone on my 35mm system. I think the EOS-3 will do 7fps if I remember right. What difference can I expect using a 350D/XT shooting .</i><br><br>

 

3FPS with the 350D/XT or EOS-10D. 5FPS with the EOS-20D. Another good reason to go for the 20D in your case IMO.<br><br>

 

<i>RAW? -Archives. I am concerned about how to store the original .RAW files for archives. Is there a reasonably safe way to preserve them (note I say "reasonably"...not foolproof...my house could burn down and there go 25 years of negatives!).</i><br><br>

 

As soon as I return from a shoot, the very first thing I do is archive two sets of my original files (both RAW and JPG) onto two separate hard drives (one of which is external and kept in a safe place), <u>and</u> burn them onto high-quality CD-ROMs.<br><br>

As long as you are not croping, you may not lose image quality at 8x10. Although you may be capturing more detail with film (you may not be hand held), most printers are going to take a digital picture of you negative and print it at 300 dpi anyway. As long as you have a digital camera that captures enough information to do a 300 dpi print, you won't lose anything.

My $0.02

 

Forget about the 350/xt and consider the 20D. Rent it some weekend when you're not chasing airplanes and try it out or both for that matter. Most importantly - keep your mind open about the change you are considering. I've read more posts of film2digital converts that are unhappy about their decision and it mostly comes down to expectations. I think a lot of film shooters have a workflow that they think can be used in the digital world - some steps can cross over and others can't. It helps to be accepting during change. Be prepared to spend money on some archival plan - either burning 2 cds or dvds a week and storing one offsite, building a server with a raid array, something that can protect your work.

 

Good luck and I'd love to know how to build the video side of a flight simulator....all my ideas aren't supported by the hardware yet.

Great responses...thanks for that! I have been doing yet more research and a reasonably-priced EOS 33 (same as Elan 7E) AND an EOS 3 body just came to my attention at pretty decent prices for the UK. I actually was not aware that the D-SLR bodies did not have ECF (eye control focus) which I love and use extensively. That...IMO is a deal-breaker. I was also looking for a dedicated DOF preview on the 350D and did not see one (not that the dim view on the 7E viewfinder is great...but better than nothing). Although I suppose digital shooters can overcome that by simply clicking away. I am already leaning towards staying with 35mm (and I am not that old...just short of 40 so I am not some sort of snob about the whole thing!) and the whole post-processing affair beyond what I already do for my S200 2Mp snaps does not sound worth the trade-off. It also illustrates the fact that the digital models are changing spec/capability every six months while the 35mm body I am shooting now is still being manufactured and sold.

 

@Andrew Carlson specifically...if you have 70-80 million USD to spend on a full blown motion dome we can provide whatever you like! What ideas are you trying to implement? Check out our website www.seos.com and you may be surprised! There is a reason pilots cordially detest sims....but if you happened to catch the JetBlue incident I can promise you that the faulty gear landing is one of many scenarios these guys practice for just that sort of eventuality.

"My current 35mm system is the ~equal to a 20Mp digital at a fraction of the price. What sacrifice in image quality will I make in 8"x10" enlargements?"

 

You've bought into a very silly, but persistent, myth. 35mm color film does not capture the equivalent of 20 MP. Never has happened. Never will. (I don't blame you. This myth is repeated often on the web.)

 

According to the manufacturers themselves, the best slide films like Provia top out at around 10 MP equivalent resolution in real world shooting. But that doesn't tell the whole story as there are plenty of sites on the web which show 6 MP DSLR capture side-by-side with Provia scans, and the DSLR matches or exceeds the scan in quality. There are also plenty of people (like me) who will tell you that their DSLR prints beat their film prints hands down.

 

DSLR's have far better MTF response with the 50% point being 15-20 lpmm higher than film. DSLR's have better color fidelity. And DSLR's have far less noise. ISO 400 on a 10D is cleaner than Provia 100F.

 

The end result? You will gain, not sacrifice, image quality in your enlargements.

 

"The "PITA" factor (pain in the a$$) in dealing with digital workflow. Although I suppose I would only be doing that for images I actually intend to print. I have already shot .RAW with the Olympus 5050z and a pal's digital Rebel and appreciate the total control...but to have to do that for every "keeper"? -"

 

I assume you're already familiar with film scanning? RAW processing takes far less time and is far less painful. Generally speaking I can go from RAW to perfect print in a couple minutes. Set levels, adjust color balance (if necessary), apply some USM, print.

 

And you do not have to do that for every "keeper". When shooting snapshots or family events I generally shoot JPEG. I can get good prints by plugging the camera directly into a printer. In my experience every image, digital or film scan, benefits from some tweaking of levels and color. But what comes straight off the camera is very good and quite usable.

 

"The digital sensor crop effect that changes my lenses...especially my 20mm. Although I suppose the upscale on the other two is a pretty cool bonus! If I hang a 1.4 extender on my 70-200 what does THAT turn into?"

 

The crop sucks for WA, but is great for tele. The 70-200 is more useful with the crop IMHO. You should try 300mm on an APS digital (480 equiv). But you will have to grab an extreme WA (one of the new 12mm zooms) to match your current WA ability on film.

 

"Buffering. I can crank off 4fps until the roll is gone on my 35mm system. I think the EOS-3 will do 7fps if I remember right. What difference can I expect using a 350D/XT shooting .RAW?"

 

I forget what the specs are for the 350D. You'll be able to buffer more JPEG's than RAW. But you won't be able to get off many RAW.

 

I have a 10D which actually has a better RAW buffer than the 20D (9 vs. 6). I don't hit the limit often. I do find that I tend to shoot JPEG (highest quality) for sports just because the buffer dumps to the card faster and I can review images faster. Point being JPEG at the highest setting is quite usable.

 

"Archives. I am concerned about how to store the original .RAW files for archives. Is there a reasonably safe way to preserve them (note I say "reasonably"...not foolproof...my house could burn down and there go 25 years of negatives!)."

 

- Backup HD stored in a safe location. (You should have this for your PC already.)

 

- Archive CD's or DVD's stored off site.

 

- If you're really worried about format longevity, convert your RAW files to TIFF or to Adobe's new common RAW format before burning to CD/DVD.

 

Hope this helps!

Since switching from film EOS to digital EOS a few years ago, I've never looked back. The film prints I used to think were great just don't compare to what I am getting from my Rebel XT and 20D now. You sacrifice nothing with regards to image quality. If you want to see how a DSLR compares to 35mm film, take a look at this comparison of a 6mp 10D (unsharpened images) compared to scanned 35mm Provia 100F:

 

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor2.htm

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/lakehenshaw.htm

 

As you can see, the digital images are better and cleaner. And that's from a 10D, which is considered soft and has lower resolution compared to today's 8mp 20D and Rebel XT. You can see here from theses 10D/20D comparisons that the 20D is sharper and resolves more detail (and the Rebel XT pretty much delivers the same image quality as the 20D):

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page24.asp

 

So you have nothing to worry about when it comes to "sacrifice in image quality." And on top of that, you no longer have to go through the hassle of processing your film and scanning it.

 

If you can afford it, I would spend a little more and get a 20D. It will be much closer in size and handling to your current Elan 7e. My main body is the 20D, but I prefer the Rebel XT for travel or any situations where I want a smaller body and weight.

<em>You've bought into a very silly, but persistent, myth. 35mm color film does not capture the equivalent of 20 MP. Never has happened. Never will. (I don't blame you. This myth is repeated often on the web.)</em>

<p>

Hmm... I have a question, but please don't take it as another start for a new typical boring war. If 35mm is not 20MP then why does Minolta market 35mm scanners at around 40mp (5400dpi)?

<p>

<em> According to the manufacturers themselves, the best slide films like Provia top out at around 10 MP equivalent resolution...</em>

<p>

Provia is not the highest slide film resolution, Velvia 100F is higher and I think it's not as high as TechPan or gigabitfilm.

<p>

<em>... in real world shooting.</em>

<p>

Ha. Right, real-world shooting...

<p>

The other digital advantages you analogically mentioned - I completely agree, that's why I'm cozily nurturing the idea of owning a 5D...

And by the way, don't be fooled by the "My current 35mm system is the ~equal to a 20Mp digital at a fraction of the price" thinking. Having enormous scanned files is no good if all you are doing is scanning down to the grain of the film.

Specifically for Dan above-I really appreciate the myth-busting. After reading your response I found an excellent article at www.alpenglowimaging.com which 100% supports your response--with a few caveats. I really don't want to get wrapped around the axle on the tech details (the article is entitled "film-v-digital On comparing image quality") and at some point the high-end D-SLR's will exceed 35mm in those terms but at a dollar cost that I...as an amateur am not willing to pay...at least for some time to come. But I am glad that I have the actual facts for future comparison. I think I will stick with 35mm for the time being until Canon comes out with a digital equal to my 7E at a similar cost. In the meantime I think I will go with the EOS 3 body and burn the shutter out of that bad boy!

 

Thanks again for the responses and I am glad I finally stopped lurking!

Ted

I think that most of the film vs. digital quality comparisons on the web are silly and poorly done. Particularly when DSLR output is compared to film scanned on a cheap consumer-grade scanner. People should compare the final output - film to optical prints to digital to injet or lightjet prints.

 

I've seen great output from both film and digital. Choose what you like and what you enjoy shooting. After all, the point is to have fun! I shoot mostly film (medium Format) because I enjoy printing B&w in the darkroom. But that's because I use computers all day (and I used to be a Chemist). Other folks love digital workflow and the control they get with digital editing.

 

So, choose your weapon and get out there and shoot!

 

Robert

I've shot a test picture of an old sewing machine with Fuji Reala (not the finest grain film going, but not bad) in a Pentax mz5n, and with a Canon 20D. I then scanned the Reala at 5400 dpi.

 

Comparing the two, there are some sneaky differences. The 20D image initially appears as sharp, but on close inspection, you find you've sort of "hit the wall" on detail. What you see is ALL you're going to get. On the other hand, the Reala scan, while very grainy, gives hints of half resolved details and nuances.

 

Very subjective, I know, but that's my take on it. Now that's an 8 meg digital capture. With something like the 1ds mark II, perhaps the scale tips the other way?

Don't fall into the trap of the megapixel discussions. Currently, I use an EOS 1V body, and I only shoot slide film. Like you, the nature of my job (petroleum geologist) has taken me to several interesting countries: Mexico, Bahrein, and for the past 3 years, Oman. 3 years ago I bought a film scanner (Coolscan IV) that is still ticking very well, and allows me to print wonderful A4 prints.

 

Therefore, I am familiar with digital workflow. Digital was here a long time before digital cameras, of course. I don't feel compelled to shoot the vast thousands of photographs that apparently DSLR owners have to shoot either becasue they do that for a living, or because they don't know how to properly expose a photograph. Thus, until the series 1 digital EOS from Canon drops down below 3000 USD, I ain't buying. The 5D is a good move in the democratization of FF, but it is basically a 3000 USD EOS 30.

 

Instant gratification? Yes, I agree that it is useful. But the other day I shot a 2 hour long exposure for star trails with Velvia 100F. This was in end July, and since I don't develop my film in Oman, I had to wait until end August to see the results. Actually, there is something to be said about the fun and excitment of having to wait. It is part of the learning process too.

My personal experience has been that I prefer my 12" x 18" digital (20D) black and white prints (using black ink only) to same size prints from 35 mm or to 16" x 20" prints from 6x7 negs.

 

The prints aren't identical to conventional prints, but I prefer them.

 

I have been using a conventional darkroom for over 30 years, haven't used it for nearly a year now.

 

It did take at least 6 months before things clicked with digital printing, and I've been using computers since before Windows was invented, so it's not easy.

Ted,

 

Good luck with your decision, I think you made the right one for your shooting; also the EOS 3 is a great SLR. Besides, digital is only going to get better and cheaper and you'll have plenty of time to buy into it any time you want.

 

I noticed that you looked at a few comparison links posted above. Be wary of some sites on the Internet as some are either biased or poorly done. Not only that, but some even aim to prove that one medium is better than the other, which is absurd. Another word of advice: be very wary of individuals that unilaterally proclaim one as better than the other (not only with photography, but for many aspects of life). Many of those folks are kooks who have an agenda for one reason or another. Variety is indeed the spice of life, and as a photographer, the more spices, the better. I shoot both with a DSLR and with film in multiple formats and I like all of them for one reason or another and would not choose one versus another for my all shooting, no way.

Ted, you won't regret the EOS 3 purchase. It's a great contrast to the Elan's quieter shutter and smaller size. Try to keep both. I sold my Elan 7N and miss it. Me, I have gone digi for my sports shooting - it's a volume and turnaround thing. I shot a 10D, 20D, and 1D before opting for the 1 series - it's a very strong sports camera. The 20D is likely the best allround digital camera from Canon that can be had at reasonable used prices today.

 

After sports, I use my EOS 3 for everything else, along with a couple of nice RFs for B&W and daytrips.

 

I enjoy the benefits of shooting film and digital, and wouldn't think of dropping either option.

 

Good luck with your choice,

Mike