20D,300D, film SLR?

[www.flickr.comphotostmcc]

I have a rather large dilemna and was just curious if anyone could

offer any advice whatsoever. I currently own a 300D, Im somewhat

strapped for cash as I am saving up for University (Though I do have

some spending money). I do my own mounting, so quality is a big

thing (8x10 is probably the largest I ever go). I have basically two

choices: A, I can sell the 300D, upgrade to a 20D, and be

comfortable with the image quality that the 20D offers. I was just

curious to as if if there would be a noticeable difference in

resolution, contrast, and general overal image quality on an 8x10

print. I have been doing some night photography recently, and there

seems to be excessive noise the longer the exposure goes. Does

anyone know if the 20D has lower noise levels? This is getting

awfully long: My second choice, is to keep the digital rebel, and

purchase a SLR, such as the EOS 5 or 1N, to use for situations where

higher quality is neccesary. But the cost of developing and printing

will most likely add up. A part of me wants to switch completely to

the 20D, and another part wants to maintain my roots in film. If

anyone else has been through, or is going through, or just has any

advice at all on this situation, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

[KenPapai]

It's a WELL DOCUMENTED FACT that the noise levels on a 20D are a whole stop, if not 1.5 stops better than the 10D or 300D. Also, on an 8x10 (A4) inch print you will not be able to tell the difference between the 6MP or the 8MP sensor (unless you shoot at high ISO's where the 20D's will be cleaner obviously). Canon's 6MP sensors from the 10D and 300D make *excellent* A3 sized prints even.

[PuppyDigs]

I certainly enjoy shooting both film and digital, although I shoot more digital than film. If

you're happy leaving film in its natural medium--e.g., slides on light table or projected--

film is still an incredible experience. A sparkling chrome viewed with a loupe on a light

box is hard to beat for beauty and wow factor. However if your ultimate goal is to translate

it into the digital domain--scan it--stick with digital. You need a really top notch scanner,

slow fine grained film and expert PS editing skills to approach the quality of your 300D.

Why do it the hard way?

[steve_leblanc]

Well Tom, I don't have an answer, but I have a similar problem and I'll tell you what I am doing. I am using my A80, as my digital and using a couple of film cameras as well. An Elan II for film, scanning using a FS2710. I also have a older Nikkormat with a gaggle of fine old Nikkor jewels.

 

I'm investing the money I might spend on a 20D, which is my target camera on a few good lenses instead that will work on the Elan. The logic here is that I KNOW I won't be satisfied with consumer lenses on a 20D, or even on a 350.

 

I am old school maybe, but I think the basic reasoning hasn't changed all that much, "It's all about the glass."

 

You didn't mention your lens quiver, but unless you got a lot of nice glass, I'd be thinking lenses, not bodies.

 

I'm dying for a 20D, but I know it doesn't end there, the body is just the beginning for me. I've also got a 380EX flash, but I've read here that it won't work well on the newer Canon dSLRs. I'm disappointed with Canon for that snafu.

[www.flickr.comphotostmcc]

Hi Steve, Currently I just have the kit lens for the rebel, but a 70-200 f4 is on the way. Another advatange of the film camera purchase is the different focal lengths this lens will have when switching from the rebel to the film body.

[jim_larson1]

<i>It's a WELL DOCUMENTED FACT that the noise levels on a 20D are a whole stop, if not 1.5 stops better than the 10D or 300D.</i>

<p>

That is . . above ISO 400. At ISO 400 and below the two major web reviews I have seen (DPreview and Luminous Landscape) state the noise performance as being the SAME (and excellent).

<p>

I presume you are shooting ISO 100 with your camera on a tripod? If not. . that is the first step. Afterall. . .once you are on a tripod, who cares if your exposure goes from 1 second to 8 seconds?

<p>

As for the film / digital thing. . .I maintain that digital is generally more expensive than film. You are about to experience why: After your initial $900 investment. . you already talking about upgrading at a cost of a few hundred dollars. By contrast. . .I still use my 1989 EOS 630 film camera.

<p>

The other reason digital is more expensive than film is the computer infrastructure. . .

<p>

BUT. . .you already are on the digital road. You can't go back now!

<p>

Honestly. . .before advising furhter.. I would ask what is wrong with your current setup? If you still have the kit lens and shoot at ISO 1600.. . .going film won't help. You need a better lens and to shoot at low ISO.

[steve_leblanc]

Hi Tom, yes, the film is nice, but don't forget you need to invest in the scanning equipment and invest in the time and effort of scanning. Not that this isn't fun, but it can be time consuming. (Kinda like my old beady eyes dark room days.)

 

Remember, best advice; "F8 and be there".

[mawz]

At print sizes up to 8x10 you aren't going to see a difference between any reasonably

modern DSLR (Yeah, you'll get perfectly good 8x10's from a D30). The big kicker is noise

performance.

 

Do you shoot high ISO? If so get the 20D. Film can't match modern digital high ISO

performance between ISO 800 and 3200.

 

If you are shooting low ISO's, get an EOS 3 and shoot Velvia or E100VS. You can shoot a

fair bit of film for the cost difference between a used EOS 3 and a 20D. The EOS 3 is

getting cheap enough that it's the best choice in film bodies for EOS, with the AF unit from

the 1V/1D series, up to 7fps (with PB-E2) and full E-TTL flash (The 5 and 1N do not do E-

TTL and have inferior AF and frame rates, except the 1N RS which will outperform the 3 for

fps)

[www.flickr.comphotostmcc]

I already own a computer, so that will not be put into the overall cost of a digital system. A main reason of switching to a 20D, or film for that matter from a 300D is also the higher fps that they do offer in comparison to the rebel. Also build quality is important as I constantly go on 2 or 3 day hikes, its just more reassuring to know that the camera has a slightly better chance of surviving a slip or fall.

[jmf]

I know this is probably heresy, but have you considered medium format? Maybe not the best for low light situations, yet you could set your self up with a non-hasselblad (say mamiya, pentax or rollie) system including lenses for about 1/3rd the cost of a new 20d body and decent glass. You will see a difference @ 8x10, but the real improvements will be with larger prints. The larger negs also will let you tolerate higher ISO films with larger grain/clumps.

 

It's a bit of commitment though. You just need to decide if you're up to it.

 

OTOH, if you never go beyond 8x10, the difference between a 20D and 645 format is probably a no op. A good eye might catch the diff between a 20D and 6x7 or 6x9 at that print size.

[jim_larson1]

SCAN? Personally. . . film is for prints. Digital is for digital :)

 

Regarding the 20D/300D thing. At this point. . .wait. The 20D is on the verge of replacement with a new model. In 2-3 months . .the next new thing will be out at the current 20D price.

 

If you are desperate for better build at high frame rate. . .you can still buy a NEW 10D from B&H photo for $799. ;)

 

Coincidence: I am postprocessing night photos taken at xmas time as we speak (RAW conversion in background :) ) ISO 200, 1-2 second shutter times. 10D body. They look swell :)

[www.flickr.comphotostmcc]

I heard rumors about a replacement for the 20D coming out, which is why I want to sell my 300D sooner rather than later so the price doesn't drop considerably, haha.

[phoneguy]

I went from film (Elan 7) to Digital (20D). The 20D is great, but it's a little late in the game. I would wait for the replacement to come out and then pick up a 20D, it could bee a few hundred dollars cheaper in a few months. I personally wouldn't go back to film, but that is just me. I like to chimp. Have you considered the new Rebel XT? You can get the body only for roughly $700, and you have the 8mp sensor.

 

Mike

[conraderb]

I didn't read all the responses, but the quality difference in a well exposed image from the 300D versus the 20D should be fairly small - 6.3 v 8.2 megapixels. In terms of area, that's sort of like 8x10 compared to an 10x12 (roughly). Remember that when you double your megapixel count, you multiply the length of the image it can print at for a given resolution by 1.4. If you want to DOUBLE the size of the image you print at for a given DPI, you need to QUADRUPLE the megapixels output.

 

ie. if I 2 megapixel can give sharp 5x7s, and you want 10x14, you need 8 megapixels to get the same DPI. if you want to go to 20x28 and maintain the same DPI, you need 32 megapixels (of course, viewing distance increases with print size, which is why the 20D can give nice 20x30 if you know how to print them correctly).

 

All of that to say, for regular lighting situations where you don't need high ISOs, I think your 300D will do just fine if you are concerned about quality.

 

I say htat if you rarely go over 8x10, then you should stick with the 300D - it's plenty - and wait and see what canon will (allegedly) come out with in a month.

[richard_reusser]

As someone whos done it, you won't be super impressed moving from the 300D to the 20D. Either wait for the 20D replacement, or dive into some good glass. I really noticed difference moving to prime lenses.

Rich Reusser