Eos 5D or Canon New F-1?

I'm heading to Thailand in January for 6 months. I currently have a Canon New F-1 system, with several lenses.

However, I'm wondering if the convenience of digital would be better for travel. I doubt I'd take more than 2

lenses with me. Currently, I don't shoot film much. It's a hassle to get good processing, and it's expensive to

buy film and develop it. However, I already have the camera and some good lenses. Digital seems very convenient.

I can take a lot more photos. What does everyone think my best option is?

 

Thanks!

 

-Sean

I'd use the digital camera as long as you can keep your batteries charged and have a few extra memory cards to take along. Shoot on fine JPG and you can go all day.

Digital is a lot more convenient if you can afford it. You'll need new lenses though since your FD lenses aren't compatible with any EOS body (film or digital).

 

Advantages of digital include the ability to switch ISO settings from 100 to 3200 and back again on a frame by frame basis (try that with film) and the ability to instantly review the shot and get feedback on composition and exposure.

i can throw my two cents in. if i had been shooting film (color slides) it would have cost me about $40,000 to produce the quantity of images i've shot over the past year. that, plus all the trips to the local pro shop for film, then to the local pro processor to have the film developed. then back to pick up the slides. then comes the endless handling of slides -- cutting, mounting, putting them in sleeves, etc. then, really, if you want to display them you have to get them printed (r-type prints cost a fortune) or have them scanned and uploaded to a computer. you can project slides but that doesn't help if the people you want to see the images aren't in the room. finally, there's the handling of the digitized imagery, emailing pictures, etc.

 

if you're going to shoot volume, shooting digital pays for itself, in a sense. if you're only going to shoot a couple rolls maybe it's not worth it

Two more cents. This past weekend I looked at the EOS-1N (film) and thought....well why not take it

along and use up some film. I couldn't believe how fast 24 exposures went in the shooting manner to which I have become accustomed with digital. It was fun of course shooting...and I wanted a

particularly wide shot that only a full-frame would give really well, but at the end of the day,

digital really is superior.

Sean, I guess it depends on how good your FD glass is, and whether you're able to afford to pick up comparable

glass for a digital body. I also shoot film with an F-1N (and a T90), but have recently acquired an EOS-3, and am

planning on picking up a 5D Mark II, with an eye to the eventual demise of film. If your FD glass is very good, I'd take

my F-1N/FD gear in addition to a digital body with a couple of walkabout zooms. That way, you'll have the

convenience of digital for everyday shooting, as well as your FD system for those special subjects.

I switched from Canon FD to digital 3 years ago and have never looked back. I finally bit the bullet and sold all of my Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25 in the spring to purchase a full frame DSLR. I still use manual focus lenses so that I can afford to buy the best possible glass. As mentioned above the ability to confirm composition and exposure instantly makes a DSLR an extremely powerful tool and for myself there is the added bonus of confirming focus as well.

 

 

The 5D is an excellent choice and a very good value now that it's price should drop even more with the release of the Mark II. I highly recommend purchasing as soon as you can so you can learn how to use the camea and also learn how to post process before you go (of course you could always wait until your return to do that). I hope you have a laptop to download your images as you go, or some sort of portable hard drive system. Choice of lenses for your new system might put you over the edge, but at least by going full frame you can eliminate all the EF-S lenses.

I have both cameras, and love both. I'd pick the 5D. If you have a laptop with a DVD drive, take a bunch of media with you so you don't have to buy a bunch of cards.

Sean, I have and use an extensive Canon FD system that I love dearly (great lenses) as well as a full Canon EOS 30D digital kit. As good as the FD gear is (F-1's and T90's) I don't travel far with it. The stuff is heavy and transporting film country to country is a real hassle. As I write this I am in Malacca, Maylasia enroute from Singapore. It is gawd awful hot and humid here and I almost passed out yesterday lugging the SLR bag (two zooms, one normal lens, a few filters, 2 batts) about town. Today I have been shooting with my backup, a Canon G9. What a difference! When traveling in SE Asia, think light!

I'd certainly recommend going to digital, but I don't think I'd switch just before going on a long trip like yours, unless you will have time to learn the ropes on the new camera (and lenses). You will also need to have a computer along for downloading, etc and for making DVD backups.

 

One more reason for switching is the X-ray problem. Several years ago, on what for this reason turned out to be my last trip with film, all of my color negative film was just slightly fogged, even with frequent hand searches. The fogging was slight enough that it would not have showed up in prints, but as I was scanning in the negatives, it became obvious that both the image area and the edges of the film were affected. Not much more than some contrast and level control was needed to recover, but still... I took it as a sign that it was time to go digital.

 

If you do film, get it processed there, maybe even buy it there.

 

By the way, I actually went and bought a Canon AE-1 Program just so I could use older FD lenses. I was a Nikonian before I went digital.

I use film and digital side by side. I enjoy both. It is great not to have to buy film and processing and to be frank

my "investment" in digital pays for itself quite quickly on this score, even if I take into account the mounting pile of

hard-drives I now have for files and back-up, and the mounting pile of software boxes round me. In nine months of

mostly but not total digital photography I have 100GB of digital images, even though I get rid of a lot, and I think I'm

a reasonably restrained photographer though I do travel a lot. So there's more to the costs of getting into digital than

buying photographic equipment and a few CF cards, and you need to take a realistic view of the totality of your

investment requirement before deciding.

 

Here's another couple of factors

 

First if you, like me, have usually been using slide film then you'll find the brightness range that a 5D offers easier to

expose than you're used to. If OTOH you've been using colour neg film then the reverse will apply, and I assume

that the area you're going to will have plenty of contrast. Of course you'll be able to see how your exposures turn out

and redo if necessary but the obvious point is that seeing what you've got on a histogram doesn't actually give you

any more dynamic range. Time to break out the grads, or use a tripod and learn to merge images.

 

Second, there's more to the convenience aspect of film/digital thing than taking the photographs. With colour slides

I take the work to a lab and two hours later I have everything I'm going to get on their Lightbox. A day's work at

home , maybe spread out over a few days to allow things to gel, and I've thrown away half of it, and mounted those

that I think might have a future. So about a day and a half of work that I find enjoyable to move from nothing to the

end position. I may not find this work so pleasant if it were my fiftieth wedding or product shoot of the year, but then

thats why I do what I do. With digital you shoot more and I spend far more time in post processing than I ever did

with film. A raw image on your screen doesn't look much like what you remember seeing, and you need to do a little

work on pretty much all the photographs to really appreciate what you've got. I have no doubt that some of this time

is down to less than optimal use of LightRoom and Photoshop, but it takes me a lot longer to decide what to

keep/lose, and a lot longer to optimise what I keep, than it used to do with film. I spend a very large chunk of my life

in front of a screen editing images, putting together stock agency submissions, finalising the images they select and

so on. When I come back from a trip with a thousand photographs I feel daunted by the magnitude of what lies

ahead. Now if you don't mind that and you have the time, its not a problem. But its going to be an issue for some

people.

 

I don't think I'll be changing back; I'm getting a lot of value from things like IS lenses, not carrying a tripod

everywhere, seeing right away whether I've got the exposure right on, quality zoom lenses and so on. But when I

look at the output from a recent trip to Scotland, its the early morning/evening shots on MF Velvia which I had to get

just right at the point of taking, which are giving me the most pleasure so far.

Another point: January is not that far away. If you're used to your F-1 and to shooting film, the time until January might not be enough to

familiarize yourself with your new digital equipment and its possibilities - your end results would be inferior to shooting film. But that is of

course highly dependant on how much time you've got to learn digital. Just something to think about!

Actually it really does not take that long to learn how to use a digital camera. A simple start is to turn off all in camera image settings and shoot RAW, you can adjust the images later once you understand post-processing. It is post-processing that has a huge learning curve. Learn how to change ISO, learn how to view and delete your images, leave white balance on auto, learn how to take cards in and out and how to format them in camera, learn how to download them to your computer or hard drive. About white balance, auto works extemely well except when you are using flash so set it appropriately when doing so. White balance performance likely changes from camera to camera but I have found setting it manually does not work as well as auto. Take a few exposures and play with them in editting software to see how your preferred exposure matches the histogram on the camera. On my first digital camera I preferred slight underexposure when viewing the histogram on the camera and the two cameras I have now must be exposed pretty much with a balanced histogram. Once you know what sort of histogram balance delivers the exposure you want fire away and delete the images that don't match it. With tricky exposure I will simply keep a couple of brackets and evaluate them more carefully on my laptop later.

 

 

Your toughest change will be going from manual focus, and having lenses with depth of field guides marked on them, to autofocus. I also went straight from FD to digital and after 25 years of manual focus I still have not made the change to autofocus. I don't have the money to invest in autofocus and the more I read about it the more I don't trust it. I will eventually tackle the huge learning curve of autofocus but I would not necessarily do it while you are on a trip. No matter how many autofocus points you have and no matter how sophisticated the system is, it can still make mistakes. Landscapes and architecture in particular are much easier to focus using the depth of field/aperture scale to ensure that everything you want in focus is. The one autofocus lens that I have does have the scale but I don't think that all auto lenses do. Just something to look for.

I love digi and would not get back to film but I would not recommend taking new equipment to a trip. If you have time to familiarize yourself with it then I think it's worth a try.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I think three months or more is ample time to familiarise yourself with a new camera.

Having an extensive FD collection (including two New F1bodies) and a lot L series and similar FD glass I might be

considered biased. However I also use the EOS series cameras (both digital and film based). I have so far been

disappointed in digital (although I will buy the new 5D Mk II). My general frustration with digital is

essentially the post processing and the fact that you tend to take far more images than you need to. I think

that what you chose to do depends on your budget. From my own experience do not assume that digital is cheap -

it is really only convenient. As ever the quality of the image is really a function of the lens - although for

digital the camera sensor makes a difference (one of my sons shoots a Canon Rebel and this is not a great camera

and produces poor images above ISO 400). Here are the pros and cons from my experience

 

Digitial

 

Advantages

 

You can get instant feedback on an image

Images are essentially almost zero incremental cost (someone above suggested film was $40,000 per year - this is

over 2,000 rolls of film or 72,000 images so he is taking over 200 images a day!)

It is easier to produce large size prints

Film or digital the new EOS cameras are 1/3 of a stop unlike the F1

You can bracket your shots

You can work in lower light

If you do not want to use Manual the F1 can be a heavy camera, especially if you use the winder for shutter priority

TTL (E-TTL) flash metering although you will need a new flash gun

 

Disadvantages

The camera is only the first item you need (add Photoshop / Lightroom / Elements, a printer, paper, storage,

calibrated monitor - my regular dell 19" LCD was useless for colour reproduction)

Batteries are a key concern you need to but them and charge them - even with the grip you are likely to run out

of power

You will need EOS series lenses - my 5D is sensitive to the quality of the glass and so you need to be above

consumer grade

The 5D is not built like an F1 and is likely to be more vulnerable to water (I live in Canada but have used my

F1s for over 20 years in temperatures from -40 to +130 F - no the oil does not freeze despite Canon warnings -

they have been dropped, sat on and generally abused but keep working) I feel my 5D is about as strong as a T90 -

although the body is metal

The 5D is very sensitive to dust (when I last went to India I used an EOS 1V for this reason - the F1 is even

more dust and moisture resistant)

The 5D will be a greater theft risk than the F1 as it is obviously more attractive to thieves

 

In terms of Camera choice the 5D is a good camera but needs good lenses. I find that digital cameras are slower

handling than film cameras as there are more settings to think about (in my opinion the T90 is the fastest

handling Canon SLR ever while a camera like a Contax G2 is possibly the fastest ever). Unlike John I did not

have problems moving to AF (i did this with the EOS1NRS) for most photos - the continuous focus mode does take

experience and even then is not perfect (I regularly photograph Ski racing with a 1V or 1D mk II). As many people

have commented you will have difficultly moving from the F1 to the 5D - but most of this will not be film to

digital - it is that Canon controls changed have changed significantly over the years (the first digital I used

was a 1D which was almost the same layout as my film based 1V)

 

Rather a lengthy discussion but in summary the F1 with a mix of Velvia 50 slide and a good mix of 200 / 400 ISO

print film (e.g. Kodak NC) will still produce great results in the hands of a good photographer. From a cost

point of view it is obviously much cheaper to stay with the F1 - even if you invest in an additional lens or 2 (I

certainly recomend having a good wide angle lens with a lens hood). For the price of adding a flash to the 5D you

can cover most of your likely film and processing costs. The other issue with the 5D is that is has just been

made obsolete and you may not be able to get the new model before you leave. While it is still a good camera the

digital model appear to have a 3 year replacement cycle and are obsolete in about 6 years. You should also be

aware that some older (non-Canon) lenses do not work on Digital bodies - for example my Sigma 14mm lens (older

version) will work on all the film EOS cameras but not the 5D. If you are planning to change to digital you will

have ample time to adapt if you buy now but be aware it is probably more expensive than film overall.

 

 

take the hit now, sell all your manual gears and go for EOS. You have the most selections of USM lenses and you will not regret. I did that when I was using Minolta. very happy for the switch.

I own both F-1N and 5D and assorted Canon made lenses. For a trip like yours I'd think outside the slr box and pick

this handy olympus waterproof point and shoot for $321. Add an extra battery and 3 or 4 oly memory cards and and

you're still under $500. I started with a digital point and shoot back in 1999 and one shouldn't overlook the convience

of a small size camera. It took me an additional 7 years before I bought my first digital slr, now I own 4 that I share

with the wife.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543347-REG/Olympus_226350_Stylus_1030_SW_Digital.html#