Advice on Switch from Film to Digital

[dglickstein]

I shoot slide film with EOS3 and I am considering switching to

Canon's 16.67 mpix camera (I really get confused with the model #). I

have done my research and I am very impressed. Please tell me your

experience in switching from slide film to digital and thank you in

advance.

 

Another thought: I am looking at the Hasselblad H1 or H2 with a

22mpix digital back instead o the 16.67 Canon. Any input and

experience on moving from 35mm to MF would be appreciated. I only do

landscape and nature photography.

 

dG

[lester_wareham]

I switched from film (mostly slide and BW neg) to digital this year. Very expensive as my old system was Canon FD and the EOS.

 

I have a 20D which is a 1.6 crop factor camera. Even so I would say the quality is better than 35mm film. What convinced me was downlading a full resolution JPG or two from a review and priniting as A3.

 

The camera you are interested in is the 1Ds Mk II which will approach medium format film from what some say, but will very good anyway as it has twice the area of my 20D.

 

My experience is that it is much easier to get keepers. The instant feedback on exposure with the display histogram makes it simple to get perfect exposures.

 

Additionally if you shoot RAW rather than JPG great flexibility is available to fine tune exposure, contrast and colour temperature without instroducing artifacts. Compared to slide film there is loads of dynamic range with RAW.

 

The other point that I note is one shoots a lot more frames without the budget restrictions of film. Very useful with wildlife and macro work but also a general encouragement to experiment. So my suggestion would be to make sure you get plenty of memory.

[robert_fisher]

Derek, speaking from personal experience, stay away from digital if your application is landscape. I recently dumped two D2X cameras and returned to MF film cameras for the exact same application. If on the other hand you are satisfied with small to medium size prints and enjoy wasting your time and money with digital files and equipment, you will be a happy camper. A move to MF or LF gear might be worthy of your consideration.

[rog21]

I agree with Robert, if you're going to shoot large not-moving objects, stick with film. If you shoot primarily 35mm slide film and don't enlarge too much beyond 8x10, then you will probably be ok with digital. <br><br>

 

See this <a href=http://kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm>link</a> for a good article by a pro that uses both film and digital.

[KenPapai]

<i>"Derek, speaking from personal experience, stay away from digital if your application is landscape. I recently dumped two D2X cameras and returned to MF film cameras for the exact same application. If on the other hand you are satisfied with small to medium size prints and enjoy wasting your time and money with digital files and equipment, you will be a happy camper. A move to MF or LF gear might be worthy of your consideration.</i><p>

Your first mistake was the D2X. Being as this is the EOS forum no one is going to tout the D2X 1.5 sensor over the 1DsII FF sensor. Your 2nd mistake is the nonsensical, self-serving "wasting your time..." crap. You are extremely biased and cannot provide a helpful answer. "Small to medium size prints" from a 1DsMkII ehh? You have no clue. Sorry for the rant Derek but I hate seeing useless advice being given out.

[daniel_taylor]

Digital only good if you stick to 8x10? LOL! We have some film bigots in the thread.

 

Here are some comparisons with the 1Ds and 1Ds mkII.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

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

 

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html

 

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html

 

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_prints.html

 

The 1Ds mkII will bury 35mm, including for landscape. It will be very competitive with MF equipment, including for landscape.

 

A MF setup with a 22 MP back would be even better, and would easily out class MF film. Probably be pretty darn close to a well scanned 4x5. But whether or not it's worth the price is up to you. It is going to cost an arm and a leg.

[andrew_carlson]

I print 16x20 and 20x30 posters from my 20D and they look fantastic. If you can you might consider renting the body you are considering for a day or weekend and taking it out and seeing how <i>you</i> work with it. Also see how the jpg images it provides come out on your computer. You can tackle raw at a later time.

<p>

If you're happy with where you are at using slides or film and your workflow you may not need to make such a pricey transition. If you are willing to keep an open mind you can be quite successful. There might be other ways to achieve your goals without spending $8000us. The 5D is a Full frame sensor and while only being 12MP its significantly less expensive. Even a used 10D or digital rebel could help you decide if you want to make the move without the financial commitment. Both are EOS mount and compatible with your existing lenses. It isn't always about megapixels.

[robert_potts1]

Daniel Taylor, about all I can deduce from your comparison list is that if Peter Wolff is right, Michael Reichman must be out of his mind.

[john_macpherson]

Horses for courses. I switched from EOS1v, P645n, P67 and Fuji 69 to Canon EOS1DsMk2. I sold the 645 (kept the others). I do a lot of landscape and nature.

 

The 1Ds is astonishing. There are some things its not too good at (against the light, sun on water produces strange colour shifts in the highlights) but for most things I could not want better image quality.

 

It is a lens killer so you need to budget for L lenses, or time to explore work-arounds with third party lenses such as MF tilt/shift or some of the 35mm ones such as Olympus.

 

Bear in mind also that the files are 96mb saved at 16bit so factor in a new heavy-duty computer (or you will be falling asleep in your chair) and sufficient drive space to store this stuff.

 

Using the big files and stitching software is another way to go too - lots of possibilities there.

 

Good luck!

 

www.john-macpherson-photography.com

[dglickstein]

Thank you very much for your responses so far. I don't want to make this into a digital versus film debate and trash this thread because it is very helpful to me.

 

I am leaning towards MF right now, particular Hasselblad H1/H2 for the very reasons Robert and Roger state. I get decent results with Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanned slides where resolution is roughly 5000x4000, so printed I am doing about 260 to 360 dpi depending on print size--not too shabby.

 

With the 1Ds Mk II (Lester, thanks for the model #) I would be shooting a resultion under what I am scanning which would result in a lower dpi when printing--although I certainly understand the digital quality of this camera approaches, equals or exceeds MF film, so I am told by a lot of people and believe.

 

The larger frame with MF, be it film or digital will, by default, provide me with the option of printing larger prints with my keepers.

 

I thought lenses would be an issue but when I look at all of my keepers, almost none are shot with greater than 300mm Canon lens.

 

Thanks again.

 

dG

[scott_eaton]

I'll take the middle of the fence on this debate.

 

While I'm obviously pro digital and have rented a 1Ds on occasion to supliment my 10D, I'm still not convinced that the big Canon sensors are the end all solution for landscape work. Under moderate to low contrast situations digital sensors tend to produce tonal gradients akin to low contrast print film, which is not a good thing. Curve adjustments can fix some low contrast issues, but curve adjustments, RAW or otherwise, cannot create information that isn't there. You can only stretch a rubber band so far.

 

Under more vivid or energetic lighting I have no problems shooting digital landscapes.

[byronlawrence]

personally I think you will be very happy. if you decide to go with the Hasselblad system, then I would say why not, bigger prints, the digital backs can make prettier pictures. but the Canon system is still really great.

 

my experience was slide film to the 20d. I used kodak 100 slide film of various sorts on MF and 35mm. the 20 really beats the 35mm transparency easily as far as obtaining digital images goes (1.6 crop factor etc, is a whole different debate) per cost especially. the 6x7 MF transparency I think still has more information than a 20d but scanning is time consuming and/or costly. if I could affor a Hassleblad digital back and system,, that is what I would use, if I could even afford the Canon system you talk of I would go with that.

[byronlawrence]

I would say the biggest thing to consider, should you switch will be the learning curve. there will be one, don't get intimidated or frustrated by it, and be patient. You will match your really great scans in a click of a button (the feeling is great when you appreciate the minutes you can spend sometimes perfecting a scan...:), you have some experience already though). the 16.67MP camera will rival smaller MF but not quite 6x7 sizes. the 22MP should though.

 

the MF digital system, new lenses,, etc. will be expensive. it might be cheaper to go with film for a while if you decide to go with MF. that way you can get your body and lenses and later on get the digital back and replace your scanner.

[beauh44]

I like the points that Scott and John made. I'm a 1DsII owner and it is an amazing camera but there are a few things in my humble opinion that it can't do as well as film and most of those happen to be landscapes where one can't totally control the light. In a studio - where one has total control - well they're hard to beat and you can make great, billboard-sized prints from the results.

 

An advantage (I think) of the Hassie system over the Canon - and I hope I'm right here - but I believe the Hassie (Imacom?) digital back does not use an anti-alias filter like the Canon. That might help a bit.

 

A disadvantage for the Hassie verus the Canon is lens choices. I believe they finally have the adapter now so you can mount older manual-focus Zeiss lenses on the new camera but other than that it's a handful of new Fuji made glass. (Which is supposedly very good)

 

Obviously there's no Fuji equivalent of Canon's Image Stabilization lenses, or something anywhere near the reach of Canon's fine 500mm or 600mm f/4L prime lenses. But if you're not shooting birds you probably won't miss it. For me, that's why I stuck with Canon... the glass. Good luck!

[dglickstein]

I have many non-zoom L lenses so I am heavily invested in glass with EOS. If I made the switch to MF, it would all be traded in and I would take a hit.

 

Here is my rationale: With Canon digital, next year there will be a new digital body and the value of my $8,000 investment won't even be worth half. With a camera that has interchangeable backs, there is some chance for upgrade. My EOS3 bodies have lasted me for many years?I don't want to be chasing the technology, I want to enjoy taking photos with the best system possible.

 

I already have the computer system and my slide scans now are not under 130mb each.

 

I called my photo shop and I will take the advice to rent a H1 film body to see how it is. That's darn good advice. Thank you.

 

Can someone tell me the formula to convert MF lenses to 35mm focal length, i.e. what a 300mm MF lens is to 35mm format.

 

dG

[mark u]

You will find Julian Loke's lens calculator is a very useful tool for assessing focal lengths on different formats in terms of field of view and also depth of field at different apertures and focus distances:

 

http://ca.geocities.com/lokejul/jlcalc.htm

[tom_m2]

If the EOS 3 works for you, you probably can't go wrong with the 1D or 5D; they handle similarly, take the same lenses, and have excellent sensors. I'd personally go with the 5D at this point (have a 1D).

 

To me, the H1 and H2 only make sense if I still wanted to do MF film. You also have the option of large format digital (look for "betterlight" on Google).

[mark_schafer1]

I come from shooting MF with Mamiya RZ (and still do for a lot of assignments).

I love the 1DS M2 but it has it's limits.

If you can control your lighting and don't print larger than 11x14 than i have no problems

shooting digital. Anything else it's to your liking (aka test it with rental equipment). There

are things i love (quick review, workflow, no scans, delivery) and things i hate (can't shoot

toward the sun, contrast somewhat limited, a lot of oversight needed for final files/

images).

But coming from 35mm film i think you'll find the quality amazing.

 

It really depends on your final usage, if you deliver slides to your client than you will add

to your workload (from quick clip tests and runs, selecting and delivery to adjusting each

set, converting, selecting on screen, which i find much slower, resizing and burning of

CD's/DVD's or ftp, email delivery).

 

If you scan film to deliver digital images you will improve your images a lot.

 

But you will spend some quality time in the digital darkroom.

As for the Hasselblad solution i used the Phase One P25 and it's quite a bit nicer than 1DS

(the workflow is just fantastic, the quality beats film pretty hands down due to 16 bit

capture), i didn't like the Hasselblad version due to the external Harddrive.

So it really comes down to a price and quality demand you have.

Hope it helps

MS

[bsd230]

I agree with Ken, the Nikon is no comparison to the 1ds mkII. If you read the reviews of the 1ds you will see it rivals medium format in quality. And you can print much larger than 8x10.You can print a quality 8x10 with a 4 megapixel camera.

[bsd230]

I understand about chasing technology but I may be wrong but most of the digital backs are as expensive as a new 1ds. By that rational your paying for a new 1ds every time you upgrade and the your current digital back will be worth much less as well. With the advancements of digital, the medium format market will keep shrinking. Even though you would take a hit in the value of the 1ds, people would still be climbing over each other to buy it. I'm not so sure that would be the case with MF.

[jonathan_laufersweiler]

For all these years, photographers have used a variety of different cameras and image capture formats to get the job done. A serious shooter would use print film for some tasks, tranperancy for others, and B&W where appropriate. Different formats were chosen not just for enlarging capabilities, but also their impact on perspective, lens variety, camera adjustments, and depth of field.

 

Suddenly there's this new kid on the block and there's this idea that all of the old methods are now totally superceeded and one new tool can do all those jobs. That's silly! Digital is tremendously useful in lots of different ways. It can capture images in ways that were quite difficult before (sayonara poloroid tests) and render light in new ways (Halleluja White Ballance!). But that's not to say that we should turn our backs on all the qualities of our older tools.

 

I must say, shooting a Phase One P25 back on a view camera, I feel like a photographic god! They demand great lenses, but we want those anyway, right? At the same time, I continue to shoot Exakta cameras and develop my own B&W.

 

They're good in different ways. Why we shouldn't take advantage of the strengths of ALL the tools at our disposal?

[sheldonnalos]

If you are considering either the Canon 1Ds Mark II or a 22mpix digital back, then you must go read the forums over at Rob Galbraith. There are some extensive threads over there comparing the two, and some members who own both have been so kind as to post comparison photos back to back. You'd be surprised at how close the 1Ds Mark II comes to the MF backs in terms of quality.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

[pbizarro]

Derek,

 

I would have a look into Alain Briot's experience with the 1DS camera. His website is:

 

http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/index.html

 

Alain is a fine arts landscape photographer, so his insight may be useful.

[dglickstein]

I don't know if I should start a new post with these questions, but all of your responses have helped me.

 

1. MF transparency is 6/4.5 and the digital sensor is 36.7x49.0mm - is that a crop factor in MF?

 

2. What is the experience with scanning MF transparencies with Nikon Coolscan 9000--resolution? quality? printable size?

 

3. How does a scan of a MF film transparency compare to digital image from same camera/lens with crop factor?

 

If renting an H1 goes well, I am considering trading my Canon EOS gear for a H2 with film back and lenses and working with film transparencies and shortly thereafter purchasing a digital back for the H2. Your opinions and advice on this path are appreciated. Thank you in advance.

 

dG

[cathyscholl]

I shoot with an EOS3 and am also in the process of getting a digital body (5D.)

Although I shoot people vs Derek's nature/landscape.

 

It is interesting to see that everyone is comparing film and digital and no one is discussing

color...That is a topic of interest for me, usually working with Kodak E100VS and GX and

some Velvia I am curious as to whether I will be happy with the colors of digital or the

photoshop plug-ins which duplicate the films vs film itself. Maybe should be a seperate

topic but it also deserves to be discussed here. Any thoughts?