300 2.8 on EOS 3 or step up to a Digital SLR and stay with my 70-200 2.8?

[matt_patyk]

So I'm throwing out what I think to be a no-brainer but will ask

anyway in my naivete to the Digital world. I own a canon eos 3 with

a couple lenses (all canon) 17-40 f/4; 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x

teleconverter. I take all of my pictures still with slides and

convert them digitally using a nikon coolscan 5000. I'm curious,

would it be worth going to a nice digital and using my current

lenses or stick with slide film and my eos 3 and purchase a used

canon 300 2.8?

 

Thanks,

Matt

[erin.e]

If you have the spare funds I would suggest buying the 300 2.8 at this stage and if you have the useage to justify it. There are plenty of good second hand digital options around now such as IDS (first incarnation) that can wait a little longer until you decide which way you want to go with Digital. The lense will be sublime with film or electronic capture.

[fxdonny]

As usual, hard to answer without knowing what you shoot. However, IF I WERE YOU, I will buy the DSLR, the 20D if you can live with it, or 5D. I will give it more thoughts before buying a 1Dmk2. If you buy 20D you won't need that 300/2.8, as practically the 20D would give you 1x6 crop factor. HOWEVER, you won't be able to shoot as wide, unless you also buy that 10-22.

 

However, if you want a 5D, it's a different story, but I would still buy it. You could live with 70-200, so I suspect you will live with 70-200 and start saving for that 300/2.8. But having a 5D will make ur workflow much easier, provided you scan all your pics in the past.

[KenPapai]

If you have the cash for sure get the 5D. Else get the 20D and PLEASE never buy an EF-S lens. Keep your very nice EOS 3 camera and get a DSLR which you can swap all of your non-Toys-R-us EF lenses with. An EF-S lens, for someone like you, is a waste of money and a crime.

[mike_broderick]

For digital cameras, the price will only come down, and the capability per dollar go up for the foreseeable future. As long as you are content with the capabilities and workflow of your slides, I'd go with the new glass myself. If you have a problem with your current imaging, and you are positive digital is a good way to solve it, things aren't as clear. But it doesn't sound like that's the case.

 

I am strictly a digital shooter, so I don't say this from chauvinism.

[pbizarro]

Im my book, lenses are more useful than cameras. So if you need the 300 lens, that's it.

[carl_weller]

You know,

 

this is one of those rare times in life where you can actually have it all...

 

on a 1.6 crop DSLR (like the 20D that is highly recommended) your 70-200/f2.8 will be an

effective 112-320/f2.8.

 

This will give you a slightly greater range than the 300mm on an eos 3 anyhow, and the

70-200 is a stellar lense so quality shouldn't be an issue.

 

That's my $0.02.

 

regards,

[tal_marcu]

I'm sure you'll be disappointed in terms of image quality.

All the digital cameras ( including the pro models ) have only 12bits per color while your scanner have 16bits per color. Your gear allows higher quality of digital pictures ( after scanning of course ) and it means better color accuracy, higher dynamic range and more mega-pixels in you final pictures.

Try scanning your slides with a very old scanner that has only 12bits per color ( today, an "entry level" scanner has 14bits per color ) and then you'll sense the quality of pictures taken with digital SLR's ( that also have only 12bits/color ).

If the quality is fine for you - buy the digital SLR and enjoy all the benefits of digital photography. But if you have the time and you don't compromise on quality - improve your gear in terms of lenses or accessories.

 

I also have the EOS 3 and 70-200/2.8L and I'm thinking of getting myself a nice scanner instead of moving to digital SLR.

 

I once photographed a sport event and compared the scans of my films to the pictures taken with 10D. The difference was huge - my pictures didn't need any photoshop work while the 10D photographer had to work on it and also after that work - my pictures still looked better. Also - the auto focus worked much better on my EOS3 and I got much sharper results.

 

I hope it helped.

 

Good luck whatever your choice.

 

Tal

[mark_sala1]

With my 20D, I shot 1500 photos in three days while travelling in cambodia. That's more shots than I took in a whole year with my film camera. So from my point of view, digital has done wonders for my photography.

[happy_chappy]

"on a 1.6 crop DSLR (like the 20D that is highly recommended) your 70-200/f2.8 will be an effective 112-320/f2.8. "

 

Not true.

 

Everyone seems to forget about perspective control. The 1.6x factor is a crop. But the image taken with a 200mm lense on a 1.6x factor will be slightly different to a 300mm ff camera.

[mike t.]

Buy the glass, Matt, buy the glass. The 300/2.8 is a fabulous lens that is a clear step up from your 70-200/2.8. Unless you've got a good reason to spend on digi - I mean you're into high volume, fast workflow, deadlines, etc - invest on the important end of your kit.

 

By the way, you'll love the AF speed of your 3 and the 300/2.8, if you use AI Servo at all. They were made for each other!