Need a push to jump into the EOS lineup.

[keith_smith2]

I have used and still use a Canon AE1 and a Canon A1. These are very old

cameras and still produce excellent photos. However, I need to jump into the

autofocus world. My original thought was to get a Canon 1v. Then I thought I

would save big money by only producing the photos that I want if I were to get

a digital body versus a whole roll of film using the 1v.

 

I would appreciate any views regarding the following thoughts.

 

* Regarding going digital, the thought of upgrading every other year or model

really bothers me, considering that I have had the Ae1 and A1 for many years.

This tends to push me to getting the 1v.

 

* My biggest fear with digital is that I am not a techo person. I see all

these fascinating images and they all have been somehow enhanced, cropped or

whatever is is that gets done with the computer programs. I have no desire to

do this but have been told that I will once I try it. Bottom line, the

thought scares me. So I guess my question is this, can a non-techo person get

by with a Canon digital?

 

* I read the article on the homepage regarding the 20D 30D 5D and the Nikon

200. Now I am really confused. I don't have one particular subject matter.

I shoot vacations, my family, sporting events, barns, trains, flowers and

anything that I feel like shooting. My old equipment includes the A1, Ae1, 35-

105, 80-200L, 85L, 50 1.4, 28 f2, 20, (all canon) and a Kiron 105Macro. I

will be looking at trying to eventually end up with a collection that

parallels my FD collection. Should I go with the 1V or jump into the 21st

century and try Digital, if so which model? I don't want to use up a

salesmans' time and thought the experience from this forum will better guide

my decesion. Thanks.

[todd_fox]

Could you also provide the following information?

 

What is your budget?

 

How do you feel about the crop factor of 1x vs. 1.3x vs. 1.6x?

 

Being techno savy is not necessary, but do you have the computer equipment needed for digital editing?

[joe_photo2]

Not really an answer re: digital, but the EOS3 is a better buy IMHO.

All things depending, of course...

[v.anisimov]

"...upgrading every other year or model really bothers me..."

 

You don't have to upgrade every time they introduce a new model. I bought my EOS 20D 18 months ago and I see no reason not to use for at least 2 more years without a burning need to upgrade. I think the dSLR market has matured to be relatively stable.

[keith_smith2]

My computer is fairly new and should be alright, Pentium D. My budget for the camera body should has a cap of $2000. I also have $2000 set for a flash and lens, maybe the 24-105L. Then slowly, I will build up my collection.

 

The crop factor... hmmm, I have lots of feelings regarding the crop factor. I don't really care for it, which tends to push me to the 1V or 5D. The price of the 5D is too high for me. Right now I am feeling that I should get the 1V and wait for a digital model to come out that I can afford that has a full sensor

[cliff_henry]

Keith,

 

At one time I had a nice collection of FD bodies and lenses - A1E Program, A1, 24-35, 50, 35-105, 100-300, 400, and others. About ten years ago I switched to the EOS system and have never been sorry that I did. Over the years I've had several EOS bodies. Now I have a 1VHS and EOS-3, both are great bodies. I also have more L lenses than anyone could possibly ever use. Last year I added digital, the 20D, mostly so I would not be left behind in the evolving tech. world.

 

I started my photog as a hobby and shot mostly nature. Two years ago I started shooting weddings professionally. To date I have shot about 70 something.

 

"Then I thought I would save big money by only producing the photos that I want if I were to get a digital body versus a whole roll of film using the 1v."

 

This is a dangerous statement that I have read many times on PN.

 

First, if you sell your FD system and go digital you will take a major loss. To replase lenses like yours with EOS L lenses will not be cheap.

 

Second, with digital you will need a high capacity computer with a good monitor and some expensive software to process your digital files. If you plan to print them yourself, then you will need an expensive printer, which by the way, uses lots of expensive ink. If you don't process and print your files yourself, then you can sent them the a lab and your cost will be about the same as you are now paying for your film prints. This doesn't count the cost of your time, hours and hours, spent in front of the computer processing the files or the cost of classes needed to learn how to process them.

 

Photog has moved away from film and to digital. The day may come when there will be only digital photog. You may not be able to avoid going digital. However, don't make the move if your only reason is to "save big money", because that just won't happen.

 

BTW, I enjoy using my 20D and I like the control of printing my own prints, as I did when I had my own darkroom. However, I find the 1V a much better wedding body and don't ever plan to get rid of it. I still prefer film over digital but that is a personal thing.

 

Good luck.

 

Cliff

[keith_lubow]

I know what you mean...I am an FD owner, but I am very interested by Canon's 1v for my own personal use, although I am getting my own digital for work (a few days...yay!). The thought of having a brand new film camera that uses the same lenses as my work gear is extremely attractive. The Nikon F-6 is probably as good or better in some respects, but a little more expensive, and the Canon system of lenses has many more options, especially when it comes to fast primes and the wide angle PC. There are 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm 1.4s. There is an 85mm 1.2. There is a 135mm 2.0.

 

As others on this board have pointed out to me when I was discussing the 1v, there are tons of Canon 35mm film AF cameras that take EF lenses floating around the used market at excellent prices.

 

If autofocus is the only serious upgrade you're after, one of these might do perfectly. The 1v is a luxury item, and while top notch, may not necessarily be a good vaule, or bang for the buck.

 

I have owned several F-1s over the years, and currently have an FTb (the camera I started on) and two A-1s. Could never stand the AE-1s, though. I prefer the FTb out of all of these because it is battery independent. These are such excellent cameras because they put pretty much all the responsibility on you. They make you really work for your product. I can only urge you not to get rid of them if you get something newer, because I think there will be times when you will miss that about them.

 

As far as digital...whoo boy. There are digital cameras out right now that are so good and well rounded that there will be no need to upgrade for a very long time, especially for what you describe.

 

I would say the deciding factor in whether or not you go digital is what you want the final product to be. Do you want prints, the negs, and all your bad shots, or will they be on a computer only, and only the good shots? For personal use and family type stuff, I like having every shot no matter how bad, and I like being able to hold the actual piece of film that was in the camera there with me.

 

Keith

[iori]

I agree with Cliff. Most people who go digital underestimate the initial expense involved for peripheral items. Like you, I already had an up-to-date PC when I went digital last year. I then added a quality Eizo LCD monitor ($1k+), secondary backup hard drive ($150), Photoshop CS2 ($580), Coloreyes monitor calibration software bundle ($325), and a Canon i9900 printer ($380). That was before the 1.6 crop factor forced me to have to buy the 17-40 ($620) wide angle zoom. As you can see, in less than a year, I have more than made up for the cost savings that I achieved from not having to buy film or pay someone for processing.

 

All that being said, I would still make the leap from film to digital all over again. The instantaneous response, complete control over the entire work flow, zero concerns about the financial cost of taking "wasteful" images, the power of Photoshop, convenience of storing and sending images over the internet, etc. I've tasted all the arguments in favor of digital photography, and I'm addicted. I also believe it's a good idea at some point to become familiar with what is the mainstream future of photography.

 

My recommendation is to start out with the Digital Rebel or the 20D, as you'll need to allocate some of your budget for peripherals. By the time you have become comfortable and adept with digital, the successor to the full-frame 5D will hopefully be available for under $2k. That's my game plan anyway. Good luck.

[ken munn]

Two steps?

 

The main motivation for abandoning FD seems to be the need for autofocus. So you can

move to EOS film, and start building a lens armoury. There is a whole raft of lightly used

film bodies on the market right now at very reasonable prices. This will leave your

workflow pretty much as it is now, and will obviate the need for expense in building a

digital darkroom.

 

Do that and wait a few years to see how the digital body market develops - personally, I

don't think it's anything like mature yet and that Moore's Law (price/performance doubles

every 24 months) as applied to computing must have a close relative in digiphotography.

 

You'll then be able to take the second part of the decision - going digital - when you have

EOS lenses available and when better bodies at better prices, better computers at better

prices, better printers at better prices and better software at higher prices (!) are available.

 

I've gone halfway digital - I still shoot film - and am reluctant to devote more money to

bodies at the moment, having tried to stay on the leading edge of Apple Macology over

the years, and having seen how often my kit has been obsoleted, and how rapidly it

devalued.

[dogbert]

Canon digital cameras produce very nice pictures straight out of the camera, so it is really a matter of choice as to how much computer processing you want to get into.

 

There is a steep learning curve at first, but if you can handle film and a 1V you can easily handle a Canon digital camera. IMO it is much easier to get good photos with digital, as well as much being much easier to learn, because of the instant feedback of the LCD display and histogram, ie instand feedback on composition, colour and metering.

 

Take the jump. For me it was more fun that I could ever have imagined and I too don't like wasting my time on computers.

 

BTW is still use film, but only for my personal entertainment. Shot for shot digitla is far easier.

[jan_thomas1]

If you're going to go digital I would say buy a new end of stock 20D at a fantastic price, and put the rest of the money into starting a decent lens collection. BTW, all the focal lengths that you are used to will become 1.6x longer with this body. If this is a problem then look around for a used but good condition 1D/1Ds series camera.

The 350D (rebel XT) is also a good choice, and coming from the AE1/A1 you will probably not get feature overload! but the body is small and plastic and you may not like it. Best bet is to handle these cameras before making a decision. Good luck.

[john_graham3]

" Regarding going digital, the thought of upgrading every other year or model really bothers me"

 

The technical advances of new models are getting smaller and smaller. With Canon, there was a big jump in the AF system, burst rate, and high-ISO noise between 10D-20D. The 30D gives a bigger LCD and a spotmeter. Both nice, neither essential. The successor to the 5D will probably have a faster burst and some kind of in-camera software compensation for the vignetting (which is easily fixable in CS2 now). So upgrading won't be as big a reward as it was, and staying happily with this or the last (20D) generation for years is totally possible.

 

"My biggest fear with digital is that I am not a techo person. I see all these fascinating images and they all have been somehow enhanced, cropped or whatever is is that gets done with the computer programs."

 

You don't HAVE to do any of that if you don't want. You don't have to shoot RAW, you can shoot JPEG, drop your card off at the local mini lab and return for the prints just like you do with film. The results will look as good and probably better than from film, because your lab just runs the negatives through a machine that scans and prints them digitally right now.

 

"Should I go with the 1V or jump into the 21st century and try Digital, if so which model?"

 

That's one only you can answer. IMO I'm going to bet that once you try a digital SLR (notice I don't speak of compact digicams!)you will wonder why you waited so long, and never shoot another roll of film. As to model, I think a closeout 20D is the best buy going today. Once you get a wide zoom (like the Canon, Sigma or Tokina 10,12-xx)which won't cost you nearly the difference to a 5D, you won't miss the "full frame". I've got a 1Ds-Mark2 and a 5D and the post-processing needed to contend with the FF chip is something it doesn't sound like you would enjoy.

 

"I don't want to use up a salesmans' time"

 

That's a good one! Camera salesmen as a rule have plenty of time. If anything, it's knowledge they're sometimes short on.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>If you plan to print them yourself, then you will need an expensive printer, which by the way, uses lots of expensive ink. If you don't process and print your files yourself, then you can sent them the a lab and your cost will be about the same as you are now paying for your film prints.</i></p>

 

<p>Or, you could not print them at all and just put them up on a web site (there are plenty of software packages available that make this an easy task). After switching to 100% digital several years ago, I have yet to pay to have even one print made. If a friend/relative isn't satisfied with viewing the image electronically and insists on having a print made, I send them a JPG and have them buy it themselves through Shutterfly (or some other online photo lab) or their local photo lab. If it's a gift, I burn them a CD or DVD of photos (again, lots of software packages that can make this an easy task).</p>

 

<p>It's really nice to no longer have to manage boxes of prints and negatives. Mind you, I have backups of my photos on several drives, but that takes up so much less volume than the prints and negatives used to -- and I get the added bonus of having an identical set of "negatives" stored off-site (by storing one of my backup drives in a different geographical location than the rest).</p>

[w_t1]

Food for thought: http://www.animalu.com/pics/process.htm

[PatrickMP]

<P>I came from a manual focus Pentax system, and upgraded to Canon EOS when I found

I needed autofocus for some projects I was working on. Like you, I was torn between

digital and film, and settled on film.

<P>Part of the decision was based on personal preference. Like some have said, having

the actual film is better than a digital image. I also enjoy doing darkroom work, which

would not be possible with digital (unless I bought a film burner of course!).

<P>One of the biggest problems with digital bodies is the crop factor. I like to keep the

aspect ratio of my Pentax 28/2.8 lens when I shoot with a Canon 28mm lens. The crop

factor doesn't let me do that! Another problem is the cost. Film bodies are relatively

cheaper than digital bodies by a landslide. When I bought my EOS 3 I found it in mint

condition for $500 CAD, with PB-E2; the equivalent full frame sensor body (which I would

require to keep 28mm "being" 28mm) cost four times that!

<P>My recommendation is to buy a film body. The EOS-1V is a lot of body, the EOS-3

does pretty much everything you would need nowadays. Keep in mind that a lot of the 3

accessories (e.g., the PB-E2) are compatible with the 1V, so even if you find the 3 is too

little body, you can carry over accessories to the 1V when and if you upgrade. I don't

know of a comparable setup in the digital world -- AFAIK accessories are not compatible

between any EOS Digital bodies. The savings can be put towards a 70-200 or similar lens

if you are already aiming at the 24-105L.

<P>Don't listen to the people that claim that the photo world has gone digital, and that

film is dead. True, film is now a minority, but when companies such as Ilford put out

<em>new</em> products in this day and age, it is proof that there is still demand!

<P>Cheers,<BR>- Patrick

[jim_d5]

My first camera was an AE-1 Program, my second was a Rebel 2000 :-) Yes the AE-1P served me till 1999 with no problems other than that it was developing the dreaded shutter squeak, which ultimately lead to shutter failure. I got the kit lens with the Rebel but I do not reccomend this for you as it was crap and I sold it within a month and got the more expensive 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. Great lens if you start in the film format.

 

Well then I got the EOS-3 and I still think it may be the best film camera ever made in many respects. Its autofocus system is perfect and actually never fails. The metering system is amazing, and for me has never failed but maybe 1 in a 100 shots if that often. The film transport is plenty at almost five frams per second.

 

Ergonomically the EOS 3 is the most comfortable camera you will EVER hold. For a man, it is not too heavy and it is not too thick, it is not too light or too thin. It fits like a glove to me. Now you can find them used for relatively cheap, ha, I paid $1350 for mine shortly after they came out.

 

With all that said, I ultimately think you should not dismiss digital at all. Why? Because it IS the format of choice now. I am just now (this week) converting to digital with a 350D on the way, so don't think I'm all ghung-ho. Digital has many advantages, many advantages. Now I am a bit of an advanced computer man, as my business is computer repair. But this doesn't mean that you, a non-techie, can't get into digital photography.

 

It is easy, yes that is easy for me to say, but with a little proactive learning you too can shoot digital. Shoot you can get computers that are plenty capable of working with any digital system for under $500 (monitor and printer included - check the local superstore ads).

 

Will you need a new computer in two years? Certainly not, current computer speeds and their storage capacities are, for the most part, in excess of what people use them for, five years is more realistic (seriously).

 

Will you need a new digital camera in two years? Most definately not. Especially if you get a can current Canon SLR model. The noise levels are nearly gone at all ISOs (certainly less noise than high speed films) and the resolution is plenty for 11x14, do you need more than that? The color accuracy is everything short of phenomenal. More than likely any current Canon SLR will be plenty for most of us as long as its shutter will travel in proper time and the sensor still captures imagery. How long will that be? Well none of us know but things tell me that Canon designs their digital SLRs to have a lifetime comparable to that of their film counterparts.

 

I do know of people that have used their Digital Rebel's (300D) and 10D's to tens of thousands of shots with no problems. How much will you use your camera? Probably not to 100000 cycles in the next five years.

 

So why not try digital? It would be a brave bold move for you it sounds like, but it would be WELL worth it. Nobody said you had to digitally edit your pictures once they are loaded onto your computer, you could just as easily never do that. If you are worried about image quality, don't be. Have you seen an 8x10 taken with a Rebel XT or 20D as printed by Costco or Walmart, pretty convincing, film becomes less attractive. Considering ultimately you chose what to print and when or not at all digital is ALWAYS cheaper per shot than film.

 

Some things to think about. One thing is for sure the Canon EOS system is the most complete and the easiest to use in my opinon. From the entry level items to the professional one's everything Canon screams quality and good engineering. Canon has experience with digital immagery (video systems, copiers, fax, scan, medical, etc.) that goes back farther than Nikon, Minolta, and Olympus. The EF lens mount is engineering genius. All the SLR's are chock full of features, Canon loves to offer cheaper models (half price) that nearly match the, if not completely, most of the capabilities of their more expensive brothers (i.e. Rebel 2k -> Elan 7, EOS-3 -> EOS-1v, Digital Rebel -> 10D, Rebel XT -> 20D/30D, etc.). Actually, this is why Canon outsells everyone else in the photography world in just about every category.

 

Just my two cents, and no I don't work for Canon.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Like some have said, having the actual film is better than a digital image.</i></p>Really? In what ways?

[ken munn]

Like some have said, having the actual film is better than a digital image.

 

Really? In what ways?

 

I've just found some negs I shot in 1965 (Agfa Optima camera, FP3 film) and can scan them

and get nice prints. Not sure what shape digital files would be in if they'd been left in the

back of a drawer in my brother's garage for 40 years.<div></div>

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Not sure what shape digital files would be in if they'd been left in the back of a drawer in my brother's garage for 40 years.</i></p>If you store them on the hard drive in your computer, that scenario likely wouldn't happen, unless you stopped using your computer for 40 years. As my storage needs grow, I upgrade my hard drives. The data gets copied, file integrity is verified, and there is zero degradation in image quality (unlike film, <a href="http://www.eastmanhouse.org/inc/the_museum/faq-photography.php#preserve">which degrades over time</a>). I also like the peace of mind of having multiple copies of my RAW files on several hard drives, with at least one stored in a geographically different location than the rest -- each having an identical copy of the images. That's not really possible with film. Certainly not at the same cost.

[ken munn]

So, not exactly file and forget, then, like negs?

[m_barbu1]

Sure it is! I haven't touched the images themselves. Heck, I haven't even looked at them that much since I took them, to be honest. This is just what I would (and should) do anyway as a typical upgrade path and backup routine for my computer.

 

This is not a special routine just for the images -- it's computer maintenance. My accouting, tax return, E-mail, word processing, music, video, and other data is included in the mix. It's like making sure you regularly change the filter on the furnace to your home, or changing the batteries in your smoke detector.

[PatrickMP]

<P style="border: groove">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00Gl63</P>

<P>I already sit in front of a computer > 9 hours a day, I don't want to do the same when

I get home from work. There is a certain tactile quality to handling film, working in a

darkroom, etc., which is warmer than working with a digital image. I like to be able to

hold the media, and holding a hard drive just isn't the same.

<P style="border: groove">If you store them on the hard drive in your computer, that

scenario likely wouldn't happen, unless you stopped using your computer for 40 years.</

P>

<P>I've seen, and personally had, HD's fail for no reason. And it only takes one press of

the "oops" button, or one very malicious user on a multi-user system (and even if you are

the only user of your computer, once you hook it up via broadband it is "live" on the

Internet, and no amount of software based protection (e.g., Firewalls) can stop a persistent

malicious hacker), to wipe out everything you have. Sure, you might have multiple copies

at different sites, but that ends up being a maintenance nightmare (unless you do full

mirror images vs. selective incremental archiving). Further, keep in mind that even HDs

degrade over time -- it is a physical medium like anything else, and not impervious to the

"elements" (those discs are just magnetic pulses).

<P>I'm happy having my film processed archivally, in archival binders, and for the extra

paranoia, in a fire/flood-proof safe.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I already sit in front of a computer > 9 hours a day, I don't want to do the same when I get home from work.</i></p>

 

I'm in the same boat. That's why I have scripts that perform these maintenance tasks for me. When it's done, it takes less than 30 seconds of my time to disconnect one of the drives and set it aside to move it off-site.

 

<p><i>but that ends up being a maintenance nightmare (unless you do full mirror images vs. selective incremental archiving)</i></p>

 

Not if you let the computer do the work for you. Automatic, nightly, incremental backups with a full backup at the end of each week. The only "work" is disconnecting the right drive and taking it with me to an off-site storage location and bringing the other one home.

 

<p><i>I'm happy having my film processed archivally, in archival binders, and for the extra paranoia, in a fire/flood-proof safe.</i></p>

 

Great! :-) I'm happing having the same peace of mind (for all of my data, not just photos), for a lot less money, and with a mechanism that takes up a lot less physical space. :-)