Help Going Digital: 20D vs Coolscan 5000

[johng]

I shoot color (mostly Porta/UC 160 & 400 of late) and b&w (TMax 100)

negatives. I have limited access to a b&w darkroom. I do mostly

travel, landscape/outdoor (nature, scenics, architecture, etc.)

photography but of late have been experimenting more with what I

characterize as creative/?fine art? photography.

 

I am interested in getting more into digital, both in capture and

post-exposure. I have a computer and a still shrink-wrapped version

of PS 6.0.

 

My current kit consists of Canon EOS 1V, 550EX, 16-35/2.8L, 28-

135/3.5-5.6 IS, 70-200/2.8L (non-IS), EF 2x Extender. I love the

feel and build of the 1V. I would love to get a dSLR equivalent of

the 1V, but that is out of my price range. I am not overly thrilled

with the idea of a 1.6 crop factor of the 10D/20D.

 

While I know I need to make the best decision for me, I would like

some input. Given a budget of $1500, would it make more sense to get

a film scanner (e.g. Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED) and upgrade to PS CS or

get the Canon 20D body?

 

If I go the scanner route, I continue to use the 1V and don?t have to

deal with a crop factor. This would allow me to get into digital

post-processing now and wait for a more affordable/less-crop-factor

camera in the future. Of course, I still have all the costs

associated with film development. If I get the 20D, I am getting

into digital capture immediately and can leverage my existing kit,

but I have a crop factor of 1.6. Also, while there are many posts

praising the build of the 20D, to me it felt like it was more plastic

and cheaper build quality (albeit I only had it in my hands for 10

minutes).

[Ed_Ingold]

If you have a library of negatives you'd like to scan, then a scanner makes sense. If you want to go on from here, then a DSLR is a good choice. Once you have a high-quality DSLR like the 20D, it's unlikely you'll use much 35mm film afterwards. This is based on image quality, not merely the convenience of digital. The build-quality of a 20D is adequate for most uses.

 

I have to say that scanning is a very time-consuming activity, taking 2 to 6 hours per 36-exposure roll. You would probably tire quickly of scanning old negatives.

 

In either case, you need Photoshop (or some image-editing software), and probably a photo-quality printer and a CD/DVD burner, for your digital "lightroom".

[michael_matsil]

Edwards got the right approach, although I would push you more towards the 'scanner

now-DSLR later' route. If you have a catalogue of images you would like digitize it makes

having a film scanner essential. You have a budget....so in this case, your decision gets

made for you.

Yes, scanning large numbers of negs can be time consuming, but think of scanning as part

of your ongoing editing process. You simply won't scan every roll from beginning to end.

In fact, even if you are Henri Cartier-Bresson, you will have 2 or 3 images to scan from a

really successful roll! The rest, leave in the sleeves and binders and move on to

processing your best in PS CS...and then print.

[peter_cofran]

Edward is right, i have a film scanner and I have grown to loath it. Hours of tedious work, in fact I've been putting off scanning a roll i need done, I guess I'll head up and do it now.

[johng]

BTW, I do have both CD and DVD burners as well as laser printer and fax/lo-res scan/print inkjet printer. I would eventually need to get a photo-quality printer, but also expect to use priting services (e.g. Mpix) for the larger prints.

 

I do have an image library of probably 18,000 pictures (probably modest amount compared to most shooters here). Lately, I have been getting "hi-res" jpeg scans along with my color development. I would expect to eventually scan some of my images, not all of them, but there is no pressing need to convert most of them immeidately.

[godfrey]

I did the negatives/scanner thing for quite a while before buying my first 5Mpixel digital

camera, and I still have my film scanners. However, with the kind of quality that even a

"prosumer" digital camera provides these days, not to mention a Canon 20D body with

that nice bunch of lenses you already have, I'd wager that you'd find yourself making more

and better photographs with the DSLR body. I have the 10D and several digicams from 4

-8Mpixel ... they allow me much more time to make photographs than scanning film ever

did, and I can't honestly say that the quality of the film process was better.

 

I used to have Nikon F/F2/F3 bodies so I know what you mean about the EOS-1v feel, but

I've found that the EOS-10D/20D bodies are very nicely put together, a bit lighter, and

have grown accustomed to them now. I hardly use all the 10D's capabilities and only once

or twice wished that it was a mite faster, so upgrading to the 1D Mk II or 1Ds Mk II is so

far not a consideration. The 20D might be nice as I'd like that additional increment of

pixel resolution for wide angle work.

 

For me the '1.6x crop factor' isn't too much of an issue. I find I use the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4

lenses most of the time with the 10D. They produce very very nice rendering and are great

for low-light work. If you like ultra-wide work, it's a little limiting but I find that when I've

spent the big bux in the past for a quality ultra-wide lens I don't really use it all that often.

 

I have been thinking of trying one of the Tamron 14mm lenses on the 10D as the Canon

lens is a bit too much for my expected use (and I didn't like the Sigma 14mm very much).

That's as wide as I find myself drawn to most of the time, approximately a 22mm field of

view. Adding one of them, or the Sigma 12-24mm zoom, to your lens kit might give you

enough additional wide angle to make up for the crop factor.

 

Regards post processing, it's much easier to do post processing without the consideration

of film grain, dust, emulsion defects, etc that come from the film scanning world. I'd

suggest upgrading your Photoshop 6 to Photoshop CS and getting the Camera Raw plug-

in to v2.3. CS allows a lot more 16bit operations, useful for either film scans or digital

camera work, and you'll need that version of Camera Raw to do 20D RAW format

conversion.

 

Either way you go, once you become facile with image processing, you'll want the other

option soon enough as well; the question is not so much *if* but *when*. The DSLRs are

now good enough and the prices reasonable enough to be satisfying for a long time. I find

that it takes me much more effort nowadays to work with my film originals from the past

because I'm generating so much work with the digital cameras that pleases me, but there

are still many images in my film library that have never been printed that I would like scan

into the digital domain and render to prints.

 

Godfrey

[scott_eaton]

Point 1: Buying a film scanner is no guarantee of quality results, even if you are using quality film. As much as I'm a strong supporter of film scanning, the process isn't without it's perils and typically involves more mucking around than a quality dSLR and it's nuances. I'd certainly rate a film scanner as a better option than relying on a lab to do 100% of the post corrections, aka 'think for you'.

 

Point 2: Don't hold your breath for a non 1.6 crop factor Canon dSLR to hit the street at a reasonable price for quite awhile other than the occasional stolen 1Ds on Ebay. I typically don't mind the sensor size in my 10D because for all it's lack of wide angle coverage it makes up for it on the long end. What drives me nuts are the lack of really good lenses to accomodate the 1.6 sensors.

[godfrey]

Scott,

 

What "really good" lenses are you looking for "to accommodate the 1.6 sensors"? I've been

very pleased with the rendering quality and sharpness available from Canon's L series

zooms and EF 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2, and 300/4L IS with the 10D. They seem to

exploit the sensor's capabilities very nicely.

 

Godfrey

[mike_elek]

John, if you have a lot of film to scan or want to convert into a digital format, then it makes economic sense to invest in a scanner. Scanning is time-consuming, especially when it comes to removing dust (digital ICE is fine but doesn't work with b/w, from what I understand) and retoning. However, most of us don't scan every shot. Realistically, I get between 10 and 15 keepers per 36. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

If you have DVD storage, that will be a big benefit, because scans can be quite large.

 

Most people agree that it will be some time before we see a full-frame digital that most people would consider to be "affordable."

 

There have been comments about the 1.6x crop factor but not enough to stop people from buying the DRebel/10D/20D in droves. If you shoot mostly wide, then you'll want to consider some of the new ultrawide zooms. If you shoot more toward normal and tele, then you might find that the 1.6x crop factor isn't a big deal.

 

Most digital shots (and scanned film) will require postprocess work. You won't get many (or any shots) that don't need work if you shoot RAW. A lot of people have set up macro operations ("actions") that automate the work. There are other software tricks to remove perspective distortion, noise and chromatic abberation. There's a software trick for almost anything. I'm thinking of using Noise Ninja to help clean up some scans. Much of the software can be used for film, as well as digital.

 

However, your investment in time reworking a DSLR image should be less than the time it takes to scan, tone, etc.

 

You're right: Tough call on scanner vs. digital body. What it comes down to is that no one can really make this call for you -- just lay out some pros, cons and opinions.

[wgpinc]

Get the Minolta Dimage IV scanner <$300 and the dRebel <$700 plus Photoshop Elements 3.0 (for raw processing) <$125. Total expense $1125 gets you a very good scanner, probably all you'll ever want or need and gets your feet wet with digital so you can decide if it is for you - pretty confident it will be. Sometimes you just have to go for it and not think about it too much. Good luck!

[james_ogara1]

Landscape photography = minimal need for immediate turnaround = lots of wide angle shots = keep using film but consider the SA-30 roll feeder for your Coolscan 5000 -- it's da bomb.

[robert_landrigan]

I'd go the scanner route - it's not as arduous a process as some would have you believe. In

that your film is coming cut down to 4-6 shot strips, the SA-30 isn;t a real critical item -

but it's a godsend when you're processing yourself. Just have something else to do and

feed the strips in, toss the scans you don;t want and then work on the keepers. I scan in

everything from B/W negs i process myself, then dump the results into iPhoto to view in

slideshow format. Makes it quick to review and cull - of course, using pshop for editing.

The best thing about having the negs is always being able to go back to them without

having a dedicated disk array to store the raw digital files.

[alexdi]

Hi John,

 

$1500 will just cover the price of a 20D, not including tax, the kit lens, memory cards, or what have you.

 

But I think you should buy one anyway. Keep the 1V for wide angles, high-ISO B&W, and exposure latitude. If you like the 28-135 range, trade that lens for the new 17-85. If not, sell it and buy a 50/1.4.

 

Film scanners in the 2800 DPI range sell for $75-$150 on EBay. And I'm not talking about Primefilm trash; the $1000 1999 Nikon LS-2000 with Digital ICE goes for $100-$175. I absolutely would not drop $1100 (or even $600) on any new film scanner.

 

I very much like PS CS, but PS 6.0 is plenty capable. Save $600 (or $300 with various discounts), find an old copy of Real World Photoshop, and learn to pull the most of what you've got.

 

I wish I could see your expression when you compare your first ISO 400 digital shot with Portra. Consider it the greatest irony in the history of Kodak moments.

 

DI

[scott_eaton]

<I>I've been very pleased with the rendering quality and sharpness available from Canon's L series zooms </i><P>Every fixed Canon lens I've used shorter than 35mm sucks along with wide-zoom, regardless if it's got a fancy 'L' in the name. These lenses were designed before the high demands of the 1.6 sensor, and I'm frankly tired of arguing about it. In a 8x12 prints I can easily tell which images were taken with my 50mm, and which images were shot with a 24mm 2.8 or even the over-rated and over-priced 28-70 I borrowed recently. Thankfully I'm used to sticking a 50 or 85mm on my 35mm Nikon and leaving it there for years at a time, so I can deal with fixed glass on my 10D vs being lazy and having to use a zoom.

[ishik_tuna]

get both..that's what i did..

 

bought a digital camera and a scanner....love'm both.

[godfrey]

<i><b>Scott Eaton writes:</b><br>

... "Every fixed Canon lens I've used shorter than 35mm sucks along with wide-zoom,

regardless if it's got a fancy 'L' in the name." ... </i>

<br><br>

On what do you base this preposterous opinion? I've compared results from many

manufacturers' lens lines (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus OM, Leica M, Contax G, etc).

The Canon primes and L zooms perform as well or better than most of them, with very few

exceptions. The ones with the USM mount are generally better than the consumer quality

models like the 24/2.8, and the L series are as good as the best of anyone else's.

<br><br>

<i>..."..and I'm frankly tired of arguing about it."...</i>

<br><br>

So don't. It's an outrageous claim and not representative of reality. Many independent

observations by a huge number of testers and users disagree with your opinion.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[chiswick_john]

I share Scott's experience - Canon wides, zoom or fixed, are noticbly inferior to their longer counterparts. Canon wides suffer from chromatic abberation, barrel distortion, softenss at the edges and even in the center. My experience comes from lenses I own and lenses I have hired and borrowed. Even Canon are now accepting this and rumour has it they are doing something about it - I was reading a Canon Pro magazine the other day and a photographer directly criticized canon wides for not being up to the job when used on a D1s mk2 - it's quite telling for this to happen in an official Canon publication.

[eric merrill]

John:

 

I can't yet justify a $4500 body. I can't imagine going from the 1v to the digital equivalent of a Rebel or Elan. To me, $1500 for the 20D also means needing to get the 35/1.4 for use as a normal lens. So add another $1000 to the price.

 

For now, I'm shooting happily with the 1v and scanning.

 

 

Eric

[johng]

All,

 

Thanks so much for your input. You have given me some points to consider that I hadn't previously thought of. If I go the 20D route, I won't need to incur the additional expense of CF cards as I already have a 1GB microdrive and a couple of 1GB CFs, albeit not at the ultra fast write speeds, but probably good enough to get me started.

 

I was leaning towards the 20D route and considering a used/cheaper scanner (e.g. DiMage Elite 5400) at a later date for converting the best shots from my exisiting images.

 

I think I could get past the 1.6 crop factor of the 20D (although I bought the 16-35/2.8 because I like to shoot wide) as well as only 9 focusing points. But the more I think about it, I may have a hard time adjusting to the 95% viewfinder coverage. I like to crop very tightly in-camera. I am not too crazy about a the lack of a true spot-meter, although I guess 9% partial metering would be good enough for me. Now that I think about it, the lack of a spot-meter may not be that critical as I mainly use it for the Zone system with my B&W stuff and I am not sure how that would work in a digital world. I also heard there may be some compatability issues with the 550EX flash and the 20D. And I think I would need to get the BG-E2 battery grip to balance the feel of the camera with the 700-200/2.8 lens, although I have heard about some issues with the grip not fitting precisely, plus now an added expense beyond my initial budget.

 

So Now I am leaning towards the 1V/scanner option, plus I have a fridge & freezer full of film. Of course, in an hour I'll change my mind....

[always_wanderlust]

I'd say go for what produces better quality. In this case it's no constest - it should be the 20D (which probably already surpassed 35mm). You can have your exsisting slide scanned professional and not have to worry about film expenses and 2nd generation scanning. If you had Medium or Large format that would be a different story....

[robert goldstein]

John,

 

I recently went through a similar process and decided to go with a high quality scanner and defer the purchase of a digital camera until the price:quality ratio improves. Without a doubt, scanning is time consuming and tedious, but it is also very rewarding to bring images to life through the magic of Photoshop in ways that you never thought possible. Recently, I have been scanning selected negatives from years past and am delighted to get results that far surpass the prints that I had previously gotten from a decent minilab. Scanning has a fairly steep learning curve, but once you have climbed to the top, it is really a fairly routine affair.

 

For my current work, I have switched to slide film, mostly Fuji Astia 100f, because it scans better and faster than any negative film that I have tried. It is also the most beautiful film that I have ever used. I do not have the slides mounted, as I do not anticipate ever projecting them. And I scan only selected frames, usually not more than 5-6 per roll. Let's face it, for most of us amatuers, the large majority of our images are not worth preserving in any form.

 

Yes, I know that there is a digital camera in my future, but for now, scanning meets my needs. I suspect that the same may be true for you.

[west_cork]

Bought a scanner 18 months ago, 20D last month.

 

Get the 20D - no contest. Buy the 50mm 1.4 as well if you can. You will be amazed at the quality once you learn to use it.

 

You really don't want to waste 6 months learning to do a decent scan when you can just start shooting with a 20D. The body is quite good enough for any normal user.

 

90% of what you hear about focus problems or lenses not being good enough is probably rubbish.

[johng]

I want to thank everyone for you input. You have given me some great points to consider. I bought the 20D and intend to buy a reasonable/affordable film scanner in the near future. I've only been playing with the 20D for 2 days but am happy with my purchase.

 

John