OT: Digital SLR

[leica_phil]

It's crunch time. I either need to get a pro quality 35mm scanner or switch to a digital SLR. I'm leaning toward the SLR to eliminate the hassel of scanning. And with the new cameras coming out in December(DCS 14n, EOS 1Ds) and the Fuji S2 avaliable now, the time just might be right.

 

The question is of course, what to do. By going with the EOS I could use my leica R glass. However, I don't have a large leica setup and could switch to nikon which offers more choices in bodies (kodak, fuji, nikon) and is more affordable. Jay, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say since you went from nikon, to leica R, to canon. Any thoughts from others?

 

Finally, I'm a landscape, travel, portrait kind of guy. Can anyone provide feedback about using a digital SLR in the field?

 

Thanks.

[joshroot]

This OT thread is going to be allowed to stick around assuming that it doesn't spiral into a digital vs. film bash fest. Just answer the man's questions please.

[carl smith]

I know this will stir up some heat. but if you're considering the Nikon 1Ds and the Kodak DCS 14n, one thing to consider about the cost different is the build. Canon will probably bring the price down to $6000 to compete better. But still, we wonder why the camera with 3 fewer megapixels could cost $2000 more (maybe). One thing is the body, which the Canon is clearly designed to be a cut above being based on the EOS 1v. Battery efficiency should be better since it's CMOS based and the Canon CMOS chips are known for their image quality.

 

No doubt the Kodak will be good, it's just not too easy to tell until they come out whether the price difference is justified etc. If I were spending a lot of money on a digital body, I'd go with the Canon because I would just as much rather have the tougher body, etc.

 

You may also want the film scanner anyway to digitize the film you have shot. But that becomes another issue entirely. As always, what you do depends on your individual needs and uses.

[jackflesher]

FWIW, the Canon 1Ds just appeared on dealer's shelves in Japan last week for YEN650,000 -- I understand this is roughly equivalent to US$5900...

 

I LOVE my 1D, and find it a very appropriate digital compliment to my M's. I may never bother to shoot color film in my Leicas again...

 

Cheers,

[derek_stanton2]

You can (sort of) get the best of both worlds if you do buy the

digital SLR. I've been shooting with a D60 since its release, and

i now dread the idea of shooting film and dealing with the issues

of scanning, retouching, spotting film, etc.

 

I'd buy the d-cam, and then if you do need top quality scans for

possible film work later on, send the film out for drum scans. At

about $30 each, unless you're likely to have large quantities of

them to do, you may not feel the occasional, incremental pinch

as much as if putting down a grand or more for the hardware to

do them yourself.

[jay_.]

I switched from Nikon AF to Canon before ever considering digital. The reasons were 1) Image Stabilization in a choice of top lenses vs NIkon's one and only not-so-hot not-AF-S 80-400VR that still needed aftermarket teleconverters to retain metering, AF and VR. 2)In-lens AF motors in all lenses, not just a few. 3)The ability via adaptors to use both Nikon and Leica R glass. 5)A quick comparo on Photodo showed overall a bit higher numbers for Canon primes and zooms (not counting the cheapo ones of course).

 

I have never regretted making the switch. I still have about a dozen manual Nikkors which I can still use on the EOS. However I did sell all my Leica R equipment because I never liked any of their bodies, especially the R8, and after more than a year of testing I hadn't found any of my Leica R lenses to be better than the Canon equivalents. And with an SLR, even on a tripod, IS far outweighed picayune differences in optics.

 

As to digital SLRs, I did own a D30 which I liked, but I sold it in anticipation of the price dropping when the D60 first was announced. Well, I'm still waiting for a D60, but I may never get one. It is only a matter of time before the 1Ds chip finds its way into a less expensive and lighter-weight body. The 1D/1Ds are too big and heavy for my travel use, and too expensive to use only for wildlife. I had a Fuji S1 before the D30, it was based on the n60 body and therefore a joke IMO.

 

Personally I have pretty much come to my senses: $6000 or $4000 or even $2000 is too much money for me to sink into one soon-to-be-obsolete body. The resolution hasn't topped out yet: 24MP is still the benchmark for equalling the best 35mm has to offer, let alone medium format. I have hundreds of rolls of film in my freezer, and I don't shoot that much that film/processing costs offset the cost of a digital SLR. I have a nice little Nikon Coolpix 5000 which serves my every need for a digicam. I like to shoot film, I like using the cameras that shoot film (Rolleis, Nikon F's, Leica M's etc.). I dislike cameras with menus to scroll through on LCD screens I can't see unless I lift up my glasses and cup the screen with my hand. I dislike cameras I have to carry a thick instruction book around and study before each shoot as if I were retaking the dental boards. If and when film gets so expensive or so hard to come by that digital is the only way to fly, I'll deal with the state of digital SLRs at that point. Until then I think Canon, Nikon et al will just have to make their nut without my help ;>)

 

But one last item, should you decide to buy a digital SLR for outdoor use: be aware that CCD's (like the Nikon D1X and Canon 1D)attract dust like magnets, while CMOS sensors (D30/60/1Ds)are much less offensive in that regard.

[bobtodrick]

The answer can best be found in answering: is this a want or a need? It is pretty much established as fact (by both conventional and digital camps) that you need something approaching a 20 megapixel sensor to vie with 35mm in all its nuances. So the Canon 1ds has about 1/2 that and the Kodak a bit better. Film savings in another thing the digital camp likes to tout, but when you consider that a 14 megapixel sensor will generate a 50 megabite raw file, a 1 gig CF card at $700 will hold about 20 images.....that buys a hell of a lot of film. Add in the computer, storage devices (you'll need seperate hard drives to store your images if you're a prolific shooter) and all of a sudden digital looks like, for most people, a want...not a need. If you need to get an image to your newspaper or publisher 'toute suite'...digital is the way to go. If your are a portrait shooter who can sell extra images by displaying them immediately with a LCD proj...then have at her. But for the average person, who already has an expenditure in conventional capture there is no need to 'go digital', other than to make someone in the marketing world a little richer. BTW did you know that even the digital camp admits that the best way to store images long term (archivally) is to buy a film recorder and burn the images to neg. Kind of says it all in my opinion. And quess what...I sell digital equipment for a living!!

[fotografz]

Too much mis-information going on here. The two new entries: Canon

11 meg., full frame EOS 1Ds; Kodak 14 meg DSC full frame w/Nikon

mount ( this camera is a first for kodak in that it was designed from the

basics of an N-80 to keep it small, but constructed of Magnesium rather

than plastic, and uses parts from the F-100 and F-5. Like the Kodak Pro

backs, this camera can be upgraded as new camera firmware is developed.

I moved from Canon to Nikon because there are more choices of Digital

bodies, and the lenses I like to use still have the traditional aperature ring.

However, I hate both systems for shooting B&W with either film or

digital. In fact, the only 35mm type film cameras I currently own are

Leicas' ( film which, BTW, I love to scan).

[andrew1]

Lots of things to consider on this topic- I have been going

through some pains on this myself, as much of my work would

benefit from shooting digital to save time and money. I have

been shooting with Nikons for 16 years, and am loathe to give

them up. However, I have been shooting with Canon equipment

for a couple of years now for some of my wedding work, and I

have to admit there is one reason why I would switch- Image

Stabilization. Jay has talked about this for a while, and he is quite

right- this system works really well. How else can you hand hold

a 200mm lens at 1/30th of a second and get a sharp neg?

 

Clearly, there are loads of other points to consider when looking

at investing in any system, be it film or digital, and others will

make these arguements better than I. But their IS lenses alone

offer reason enough to give Canon a long hard look.

[Robin Smith]

Bob pretty well said it all I think. If you already travel with a behemoth kit then I guess adding a huge digital SLR with batteries and laptop/digital wallets etc will not be an issue. Personally I can think of better ways to waste money. My R6 or M6 kit is much smaller than any digital equivalent and has quality to spare compared to a digital set up and was even much cheaper too - so why change? To me the thought of using a pro digital SLR for general travel photography makes me feel a little sick, but I know people who do it. It is one thing to do it for work, but for pleasure....If you have Leica R glass then putting it on a Canon EOS seems to me to be a poor choice as it takes you back to circa 1955 with a manual aperture - unless you mainly shoot at full aperture, of course. If you are a super tele person then the difference may be less pronounced as long lenses remain large and heavy whether you have a digital body or not. But I doubt you are really as you are a "travel, landscape, portrait" person.

 

You can get an excellent scanner for $1000 - why not go this route?