Canon EOS 10D vs Film

Any comparisons out there of the Canon EOS 10D at 400/800/1600/3200

ISO vs FUJI NPH and FUJI NPZ?

 

Thank you ...

Speaking as a brand-new owner of an EOS 10D, I can say that I am done with 35mm film. The quality of images from this camera are nothing short of stunning, and this is coming from someone who has been staunchly anti-digital for years. Digital prints (using chemistry-based paper) are spectacular. I have personally had 12x18" prints made which are as good or better than I can get from 35mm film. Not to mention the convenience of being able to see the images immediately, make post-exposure adjustments like white balance, sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc...

 

I'm sure 35mm film will be around for years to come, but I won't be using it.<div></div>

I think both film and digital have unique advantages and disadvantages. In the end they come out about equal for me. I just got a 10D after waiting on a list for 6 weeks! However, I plan to keep using my EOS 3, Elan 7E, A2, IX, Elan, G1, FE and FM3A. The other day I converted nearly 200 raw images, tweaked the good ones in PS and made a couple prints on my Epson. It took all dad burn day! That was a real pain in the asre compared to my usual film routine. I prefer viewing chromes on a light table, so I'll pro badly continue to shoot film and digital about equally. I especially enjoy the retro feel of my FM3A and the large variety of emulsions available (which continue to improve). Provia 100F really gives the 10D a run for its money (I can't wait for Velvia 100!). Of course, viewing a chrome on a light table with a loupe will always be more vivid than monitor viewing or prints. But what the hay, it's nice to have a choice and play with all the toys. Digital is just another film emulsion for me.

I think any comparison is pointless without knowing what settings, lenses, and the conditions each photo was taken with.

To KT ...

 

Obviously ...

And, you have to consider what you can do with each one. If you want an ultra-wide field of view, the 10D won't do it. Future full-frame digitals will, and, of course, the 1DS at a price. If you want 10FPS, no DSLR will yet do it (although the 1D gets close at 8). If you want 14 FPS, you still have to go back to the New F1 HSMDC... If you want pellicle mirror you've got the EOS RT and EOS 1NRS. There are plenty of things that digitals don't do yet. If you don't need these things then the D60 and 10D are very competitive...

Just an anectdotal contribution: Since getting my 10D, I've barely picked up my EOS 1V, even tho' it's a superior camera in just about every respect. While nothing really beats looking at a slide, since my goal is usually to make a print, the convenience of the high-quality digital image I get from the 10D is just hard to beat. I used to own a Sony F707 5Mp digital camera. It's no slouch - it has a great Zeiss lens - but I barely used it because making prints from slides was much better. Now that I have the 10D, that's not the case. I don't have to buy the film, drop it off, have it developed, pick it up, scan it, de-spot it and then print it. I just go home, download, pull it up on Photoshop and print it. What has the 10D *not* replaced? My medium format negs and slides - no digital camera I can afford can do that... Yet. Best wishes . . .

Well I have bought a used D30 about two months ago and it has been great. I gave my EOS 650 and 50/1.8 to my son and that will give him a great camera to get into photography. I now carry an old Konica T1 in my bag with the digital camera. If I take a good picture with the digital then I tweak the settings on the digital until I get the picture I want, then I also pull out the Konica and compose the same picture on film. End result is that I don't waste money on film while getting the most of of the pictures I develop on film. On the other side I shoot TONS of digital pictures. More than I have ever done on film. I actually keep my settings on continuous and many times shoot 3 pictures at once for every take. It takes more work at the computer afterwards but I get more quality pictures this way either by design or chance.

I think digital photography has a lot of advantages: instant feedback, low cost (no film and no development), total DIY, etc....

In 10 years time, most likely film based photography will be the minority and digital may be the mainstream. But until then, film still has its position. While the 11MP 1Ds may generates quality rivals that of medium format, even a low cost point & shot may generate high quality image challenging high end prosumer digital camera. And the crop factor of most DSLR is most discouraging for wide angle fan like me. My compromise is to use digital for general work, and use film base SLR for more serious work to enjoy the best of both world (or suffer the worse of both!) But I think when full frame DSLR becomes more affordable I will be digital convert as well sooner or later.

I have the 10D and I still like the Fuji film better.....

Having said that, digital is sooooo much more fun and easier

and cheaper to experiment with!

 

Rod

I bought a digital camera 4 years ago and it got me into photography, I found the lack of ability to add lenses etc limiting and I went onto a film camera (EOS300) I enjoy using both, and they both have advantages and disadvantages. What I do get annoyed about is the constant bitching about film v digital that seems to go in the photography publications.

 

I am a mere amateur but as I see it the skill is in composing the shot and being in the right place at the right time - how you capture it I think is totally irrelevant. Without that skill you could have the best digital or best film camera and still not produce great shots. There seems to be a myth that with digital it is somehow easier to take good pics.

 

Personally as a newcomer to photography I find that when experimenting with different settings, exposures etc then digital gives me instant feedback and hence I have learnt more, as I have been able to experiment on the same scene without waiting for films to be developed. The EXIF file also gives me a useful record of the settings used. Having said that, some of my best pics have been taken on film! Digital is good but is still not 100% as crisp (maybe the wrong term, but hey I am a beginner!) as film. I find it is most noticeable in areas of lots of fine detail, say in pics of trees, the leaves look somehow blurred. Although I cannot comment on the 10D, (go on Canon, send me one FOC to try, Pleeeease!)

 

As for some of the comments about digital being cheaper - yeah right - want a set of 5x7" prints? say 36, by the time paper and ink have been taken into account, film is a lot cheaper.

 

Also is manipulating in Photoshop anymore cheating than messing around with a pic in the darkroom? And as anyone who has sat before photoshop knows it also takes a great deal of skill.

 

As far as I can see film and digital are just two arms of a great hobby, each requiring a distinct set of skills, what I don't see is why one needs to be considered better than the other. I will probably purchase a 10D so I can use all my Canon lenses, but will continue to shoot both film and digital.

Well, we seem headed a little OT here, but...

 

I shoot both. I bought a nikon coolpix 700 early last year, and found a great many uses for digital, but obviously it wasn't a patch on the capabilites or quality of my EOS 3. Capabilities bothered me more (Since my uses for digital don't demand enormous resolution, etc), so I recently replaced the coolpix with a D30. The D30 offers pretty much everything I need from digital for now. If the chance arose for a price I could afford, I'd replace both with a 1DS, but for now the EOS 3 still has its place because it can do things that the D30 can only dream of (and the 10D wouldn't give me either).

Reviews with the 1Ds and film showed the 1Ds just about beat out film. Actually properly and not using any advertizing jargon. The 10D being half the resolution doesn't really stand a chance. In a close, objective test the 10D is going to fail. The question is, in every day use, and even up to decent size enlargements, is the difference going to matter particualrly? Probably not.

 

Then it comes down to user preferences. Can you live without wide angle? Are you printing individual prints at large sizes, or loads of prints small (the family album thing). At the moment I feel they both still have their place. Film will really be hurting when decent quality digital has dropped another grand, and the printing is waaay more streamlined. I too have lost entire days to photoshop, and as I'm not a pro photographer that is what is stopping me using digital for everyday pictures.