EOS 3 + Coolscan V or 30D

[dgoller]

I am never able to make up my mind if i really gain all that much with a dslr.

 

With a dslr i gain instant choice of ISO, unlike with film.

That's all i see, i have no issues waiting for negatives to be developed, the

time it takes to scan them, what i care about is the result. A dslr in the 30D

price range is about convenience, not quality.

 

I figure i would need about a 30d at least to really replace my EOS-3, or at

least to have a dslr that allows me to work the same.

I mostly shoot in M, but realized when i shot a march that i enjoy varying DoF

often enough between the crowd and individuals that a Rebel's lack of rear wheel

would make me regret buying another Rebel. ( I started with a film Rebel T2)

 

The Price of a 30D is about what a Nikon Coolscan V would cost plus a

85/1.8+hood i find lacking for portraits.

 

I am basically wondering if someone could share a compelling reason for a

decision in either direction that might make me go "Hey, i never saw it that

way." that might help me settle this recurring question once and for all.

 

Thank you for your time and attention,

 

Daniel

[mendel_leisk]

How extensive is your lens collection? Switching to the 30D will effectively mutliply your focal lengths by 1.6, so that 85/1.8 you're considering would more aptly be replace by something around 50mm. If that's not an issue, the 30D is a good choice, and I too would prefer it over the rebel, just for ergonomics and controls.

 

If you have a collection of EF lens, and shoot wide, you might want to consider the 5D. The viewfinder is comparable to the film bodies, and your lens behave per usual, with it's full frame sensor. Pricier, but worth it in the long run.

 

*If* you get a digital single lens reflex, I'd predict your original question, regarding film scanning vs dslr, will just melt away.

 

There is no contest.

 

I am doing a lot of film scanning right now, from years gone by. And I'm using a 5D. I have a very nice Pentax MZ-5n, but haven't touched it since getting into digital.

[jtk]

The best argument for the scanner might be your current collection of negatives and slides.

 

The best argument against the 30D is your E0S3, whose B&W prints above letter size from 4000ppi scans should look a lot better. If you mostly shoot color, DSLRs seem to have the advantage.

[emre]

What about the price of film? I do not see it mentioned in your cost estimate.

 

If you stick with 35mm film, I guarantee you will face an enormous back log of film to scan. The rate at which you will shoot will outpace your ability to scan. You will get frustrated.

 

On the other hand, the EOS3 is a much nicer body than a Rebel or 30D.

[chris whalley]

To my mind the ability to choose your ISO on a DSLR is a huge factor. This not only gives the photographer more opportunity to take photos in variable light conditions, it gives the photographer more control over the final image. By being able to adjust ISO, you have more range of control over the shutter speed and aperture for the image you want to take. Since the 30D will give you usable shots at up to 3200, I think this is an important think for you to consider, especially if you do any kind of low-light shooting.

 

You should also add in the cost of film and the amount of control you have over your image using RAW processing. I think these factors add up to more than just mere convenience in favor of the 30D or 5D or whatever DSLR you might choose over the EOS 3.

[harryo]

If you stick with 35mm film, I guarantee you will face an enormous back log of film to scan. The rate at which you will shoot will outpace your ability to scan. You will get frustrated.

 

I shoot both film (6x7) and digital and thoroughly enjoy film. I get the film developed and only scan the ones that I want to make prints from. Never feel like I have a back log of film to scan. Why would you want to scan every shot?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Let me tell you ... when I went digital, there were a lot of things I liked, but the one that came the closest to making me jump up and down and hoot and holler with a huge smile on my face was no longer having to spend time cleaning up dust and scratches and grain on every single image.</p>

[mark u]

Film bodies are now cheap (an Elan 7E or A2E with rear dial might be a good choice second body for perhaps $100-150), so it's easy to have more than one ISO (and more than one lens) available should you need it. The economics and time commitment are going to depend on what volume you shoot and print. The more you shoot, the more it may make sense to get a DSLR - but film cost is only part of the story. Getting a 30D will almost certainly entail rejigging your lens collection - not only to provide wide angle coverage, but perhaps also faster lenses if you use wide apertures for selective DoF (divide both focal length and aperture by 1.6 to get "equivalent" lenses). This could make a 5D seem like a less costly alternative than it might appear at first sight.

 

Scanning film can be very time consuming - so it pays to be ruthless about selecting images to scan. It's also possible to spend a long time "processing" a digital image. You will also inevitably spend more than you think if you get the DSLR on accessories, software and computer related hardware; you may also spend on some of those items with a good scanner. Good scanners seem to hold resale value rather better than DSLRs currently. Scan quality in comparison with DSLR output will depend on your film choices and tastes. The comparison issues are not solely about comparative resolution.

 

Perhaps I'm hinting that in your shoes I'd probably scan for now until a 5D comes within budget (allowing for the extras).

[francois_gauthier]

Do you need a large viewer ? Will the 1.6 cropping factor be a good or bad thing for you (wide vs tele). What are your favorite lenses, will they fit ? These can be mostly solved by choosing the 5D instead.

 

Are you worry about archiving your 'originals' digitaly ? 10 years from now or later, accessing your datas will mean you had redondant and resaving scedules.

 

Here is another : do you switch lenses often ? Or do you shoot in environnements where a little dust on sensor can become problematic ?

[dgoller]

Mendel:

 

Most all i own is what people would look at as consumer lenses.

I find my Canon 28-135 underated as i am very happy with the lens. I own a Canon 100-300 to cover the occasional long end of thing.

I have the must have 50/1.8 and a Tokina 19-35 to allow me to go wider when i want to. the 28-135 being the most used lens next to the 50/1.8

 

5D is too far off from anything i would consider doable price wise at this point, other wise the full frame sensor would make it the one dslr to get.

 

I guess my main thing is that i know film satisfies me, i know low res store scans off of the film satisfy me, and that i am not sure a dslr really will be doing the same. Often dslr shots suffer from a certain sterility, while other shots appear very soft (for lack of a better word), reminding me of times gone by where the net was filled with shots indistinguishable from video camera captures.

 

What a scanner would get me is high res files that i could work on and print the results w/o spending $25 each time. Of course a dslr does give highres images too.

 

Ok, by now you see how torn i am on this.

 

I see a 50/50 chance that either choice is leaving me wanting more. On one side i would not have the instant results, on the other hand, i might not have the same satisfaction. on a 30D i fear i would be waking up wanting a 10-22 to replace the loss of the wide end, as 19mm is about equivalent to 30mm on a 30D. Of course i would want to keep the EOS 3, for those times i really want to go wide, but then i am still a scan away from working on the files digitally.

 

Did i mention i am horrible about backing up files?

A lost file with a scanner is at worst a scan away from restoring.

A lost file is the ultimate death of a shot unless it can be retaken.

Of course i could stock up on DVD-Rs and instantly backup, even multiple times.

 

 

I really am on a 50/50 split, which is why i felt a post, and hopefully some (in)sight at this that i have not thought of could tip the scale for me one way or another.

 

Thanks for reading the lengthy post and reply,

 

Daniel

[mendel_leisk]

"Did i mention i am horrible about backing up files? A lost file with a scanner is at worst a scan away from restoring. A lost file is the ultimate death of a shot unless it can be retaken. Of course i could stock up on DVD-Rs and instantly backup, even multiple times."

 

I agree, that is this the Achilles heel of digital. I wouldn't doubt there will be some sort of hard and permanent digital negative available down the road. In the interm, it's not that difficult to deal with. Redundancy in your backups, on different media, and locations, and you're set (knock on wood).

 

Thank God I shot masses of Kodachromes, Tri-X and various others over the decades. I'm scanning it now. And, there is something delicious in my oldest slides, that I've yet to see in a digital capture. A combination of grain, subtle nuance of shading, and just a (to repeat myself) delicious, creamy patina in the highlights: not true white. I know there's a technical explanation, aging film, but still, for me it trademarks the past.

 

Still, I wouldn't go back to it. You mentioned dslr's ability to change ISO. I'd say way ahead of that is being able to instantly "chimp" your shot: review what you've captured. The biggest single mistake I make is going with the camera's exposure, blindly, and that's where instant review is so beneficial. Walk-about shot at dusk, take a look at it: gee, the camera's tried to make it look like high noon. Ok, try again, and this time dial in some exposure compensation. Or switch to manual and try a few things.

[mark u]

I'd use external hard drives rather than DVDs for backup. They are fairly cheap, much faster, more compact, more convenient and more reliable - but also one of the hidden costs of digitising images from whatever source.

[dgoller]

Looks like i had my reply to Mendel sit there for too long as now there are more replies deserving my reply.

 

John:

 

I own a Epson V350 which is evil slow and awefully soft compared to a real film scanner, but i don't mind scanning several rols 4 frames at a time if i get around to shooting "a lot" of film on eweekend.

One thing i would like to pick up is developing my own B&W film, as i used to as a kid in high school.

 

Emre:

 

I see the price of film+processing ammortized by the cost of truly redundant backups by both multiple DVDs and raid arrays to store the most recent shots on. Double that if i want to keep both unprocessed and post processed shots (And i am nto even considering RAW, more jpeg fine, RAW would be a special purpose/situation format. (Think a virtual ISO6400 for those shots that are shot at ISO3200 -1EV, just to get them))

I don't think my volume will cause me to outpace the scanner, i am not a professional, although i have considered doing portraits for people.

 

Chris:

 

Low light situations are certainly the one thing where a dslr would shine with a usable shot i wouldn't have gotten with say Provia 400X pushed 2 stops. But those times are rare for me.

 

Harry:

 

I don't think i would backlog mysef, but your mention of MF brings one other point, sell the EOS 3 all together, get the 30D, get a 10-22 if i really miss the wide end, and get a nice used MF (maybe a Mamiya 645e?) for indulging myself in film, of course the scanner cost would go up "a bit".

 

Mark:

 

You do touch on my worst nightmare, that my current lenses would be even less suitable for isolating a person or otherwise selective focus, since we don't really change the physical properties of a focal length on a crop body, i would be further away to get the same framing and thus increasing DoF.

I prefer Films in the Kodak Portra family and do like the Fuji slides i tried, there is stil some film to be tried, including Kodak slides.

 

Scanning until a 5D comes into reach, interesting thought, not putting a 5D aside as possibility, merely delaying its consideration, filling the time until then with scanning.

 

Francois:

 

It depends, some times i might walk around with only one lens the whole time (which could be the 50/1.8) other times i go through all of them.

While in my youth a tele lens couldn't have been bigger, i enjoy the wide end right now a lot, so the 1.6x crop would feel like a loss, not a gain.

 

 

Thank you all for your replies, i now have a few new things to consider, luckily the money is not yet burning a hole in my pocket, else i would go crazy right now, this way i can (have to) take my time thinking about it clearly.

 

Daniel

[dgoller]

Mendel:

 

I am afraid of chimping, i don't want to rely on a (brightness adjustable) LCD preview w/ or w/o histogram based on the thumbnail.

I want to remain trusting that the shot i wanted i got w/o the instant review.

Chimping would be a nice thing to improve on my flash photography, blow dozens of shots with various compensations, for the sole sake of getting a "feel" for what works when, of course if it ever becomes of big importance, i could get a Sekonic and actually measure what i get before i take a single shot.

Your mention of aged film reminds me of this ad for a PS plugin that can "cure" aged film, while the original was nice warm and wonderful, the "cured/fixed" version was cold and unfriendly.

 

Mark:

 

An external HDD does not last forever either, so i would have to replace them before they die, while more convenient while they work, they tend to take a large amount of data with them once they go.

If i rescan a frame of a lost file, a simple adjustment of levels/curves and maybe some cropping, while upsetting to have to do it over, isn't that much work.

 

I guess if Kodak and Fuji would announce that the Portras and Velvia/Provia are now $25 per roll, i'd be all over digital quick.

As the costs are affordable right now (especially if i do get into B&W films and own development), i see this as a "slow cost", while amounting to substantial things over time, it is only a few bucks here or there.

 

I guess i have no strong points for either choice, convenience and flexibility of digital vs knowing my EOS-3, lenses and films and turning it hybrid with a scanner.

 

I could think of the 30D for the convenience on the long side of things, and the EOS-3 for the wide side of things where i am less likely to crop or adjust anything.

[tim_biehn]

Daniel, I was in the same situation as you, I ended up with the Coolscan V ED to scan all of my old negatives. I now own a 1D MK II and will NEVER go back to film. While I have had good results from the scanner, the scans simply can't compare to an original raw image from my MK II. You can see the differences at http://www.pbase.com/tbiehn , the China pics are all scanned images while the other galleries are (excluding Natalie's, my daughters images)are from my Mk II.

[dgoller]

A 1D MkII is a nice camera (love the Africa shots, was looking at Barcelona but found the Sagrada Familia was shot with a Powershot, not the 1D, i have it too somewhere on APS, shot by a Vectis S-1), that i will not doubt Tim.

Maybe I am best of seeing the scanner as a for now option, until i can pick up a refurb. 5D or 1D MkII, for what the 20D currently goes (hey, i have to remain optimistic in this, no?)

 

I have to say, i love the Terra Cotta Warrior scans. It's scans like that that make me want to own a Coolscan V for my film.

 

Thanks,

 

Daniel

[dave_redmann]

<I>A dslr in the 30D price range is about convenience, not quality</I><P>

 

I completely disagree. The 30D will definitely have more accurate color than any film, and will almost certainly exhibit less grain / noise, especially at ISO 400 or higher.<P>

 

Where film <I>in some cases</I> will beat the 30D will be dynamic range and resolution. Negative film will be able to record detail in brighter highlights and darker shadows than the 30D will, but transparency film will record detail over a smaller brightness range than the 30D. Low speed, high-resolution film (like T-Max 100) will have higher resolution than the 30D, but higher speed films will probably record less detail, and even, e.g., Provia 100F is only capable of giving you a slight resolution advantage.<P>

 

And of course, this comparison assumes good film processing, a good scanner, and a skilled scanner operator. Achieving good results withe the 30D is far more foolproof.

[dgoller]

I guess it was phrased clumsy, i more mean it's more about comparable quality than an added quality improvement of a dslr in that price range at the ISO speeds i most commonly use.

 

I mostly shoot Portra 160NC for people and Portra 160VC for things like my Mission shots, or would use it for any other landscape shots until i get around to compare it to 100UC.

 

While i feel in can control the issue of scanner quality or scanner operator, it's the outside influence of lab operators that actually has me still consider a dslr.

 

It is very nice to have good usable ISO1600 or even ISO3200 quality, but that is not where i spend most my time shooting.

 

Most my shooting will be outside in bright Texas sun.

400NC used with fill/bounce flash yields nice results otherwise indoors.

 

In short, yes i want the high iso low noise a modern dslr can offer, no i would not use it a whole lot.

Yes it is nice to have high iso at my finger tips for my slow lenses, no i would rather invest in faster lenses.

 

I really appreciate everyone's input, even if i might at times sound like i made up my mind for a scanner, (rereading the thread i think i sound that way), i seriously can see so many pros and cons for either choice, i might at best kind of do both, a scanner for quite a while and then a used 1D* or 5D body, just much further down the road.

[bruce_rubenstein]

When your done counting how many angles can dance on the head of a pin, be aware that Nikon does not have any scanner drivers for Vista. There are also indications that they are not writing them either. So, if you're on a Windows box and either have, or planning on going to Vista, your scanner may become a paper weight.

[dgoller]

Thanks Bruce, i am not the least bit interested in Vista, and will fight for my XP Pro's survival for as long as i can. Interesting to know Nikon is not going to support it.

[mendel_leisk]

Vuescan will likely work with Vista (with the Coolscans). One of the recent upgrade notices mentions "Added signed code for Windows Vista security".

[dgoller]

Thanks Mendel, i will keep this in mind as a longevity detail.