Need direction...

[les]

My question: what would be a better choice from the technical quality

point of view (all other things like lenses, photo printer, etc.

being equal):

1) slide film with a good scanner (like Canon FS4000), or

2) digital directly (Canon 10D) ?

[chuck_dowling]

I'm gonna say the 10D. If you want digital in the long run, why add extra steps (work)?

[whayne_padden]

Tough to answer, both have positives and negatives. There is no doubt that the 10D produces stunning pictures and the thing I like about it is it noise free essentially upto ISO 800. Do an enlargement of clear sky from even velvia 50 and 10D and you'll see the difference. Fine grain film is technically sharper 120 l/mm as compared to 65 l/mm, but there doesn't seem to be much in it in real life. To get the best out of the slide you need a top notch scanner. Have a look at

 

www.clarkvision.com

 

to see this sort of issue discussed. I must admit I have been amazed at what a 6MP camera can do. I always thought they would suck until they got to 16MP, but how wrong that idea was.

 

I am hanging out for the rumoured 3D with 8.5-9MP as I can't wait to get into digital. There are so many advantages to working with digital that any small foibles can be easily forgiven.

[PuppyDigs]

I just happen to have the combination you asked about (EOS film bodies, FS4000US scanner and 10D) and still scan lots of film.

 

All other things being equal, ultimate image quality depends on your scanning and Photoshop skills and the type of film scanned. If you're a scanner/PS tyro the 10D will probably give better results. Personally, I find the image quality of the 10D better compared against scans of ISO 400 or 800 film in all ways except one--photographic range. However, negative film has about double the photographic range of the 10D and, with some tweaking in layers (or sometimes by combining 2 scans), I can compress 8 to 10 stops of detail into a scan.

 

With slower film the story is a bit different. For example, Portra 160 VC not only has twice the photographic range of the 10D, but it is sharper and thus can be enlarged more and still reveal more detail than 10D files.

 

However after using a 10D for 3 months I don't shoot much ISO 400 film anymore (OK, I still like NPH 400 even if it's too grainy). But I love the variety films offer and Portra 160VC, Provia 100F and Velvia 50 are still at the top of my list. The 10D is merely another emulsion, albeit a superduper one!

 

Incidently, I don't find the 10D saves much time over scanning. The uploading, browsing thumbnails, converting from RAW to TIFF and, finally, tweaking in Photoshop doesn't save any time or over scanning. The conversion from RAW to TIFF is the step that really eats up time, especially if you decide to change something, e.g., white balance. Of course if you shoot JPEGS and don't tweak you'll save lots of time over scanning, but your images won't be very presentable. With that said, scans usually need more PS tweaks than 10D files.

[citizensmith1664875108]

The answer maybe depends on how you take pictures. A 10D still can't beat the best film photography. When you use slow, high quality film, and a lot of time and effort go into scanning. However, if 90% of you're photos are on 400 plus speed film, and you don't have hours of time for scanning then the 10D is definitely an equal quality wise, and will save you time.

 

So, for the 10% of photos you put every last effort into film is better. For the 90% of everyday use the 10D is better. Sure its a generalization, but hopefully you get the idea.

[fotografz]

The idea that scanning film (quality scanning) isn't any slower

than downloading digital images from a CF card is misleading.

 

Scanning is WAY slower. I just downloaded, culled and

selected, processed and PS corrected, cropped and individually

sized (plus B&W converted half of the total) of 200 wedding

keepers in 2 days. I shot 5 gig cards full (over 400 images all

totalled). I use a firewire card reader, and although the Canon

10D RAW processor is slow compared to the Adobe RAW

processor I use with my 1Ds, that will change in a matter of

months with PS-8. If I had 400 negs to select from, and 200 of

them to scan, I wouldn't be here writing this...I'd still be scanning.

 

Scanning is a labor of love. I still do a lot of scanning with my

Leica Rangefinder films, but it is "turtle slow" in comparison to

digital right out of the 10D camera. After all, the image is already

"scanned" when you open it.

[harold_lassers]

Pure technical quality? If there is enough light, or you can use a tripod, there is no way my 10D can touch a full frame 35mm slide or negative, on good ASA 200 or slower film. I love my 10D, and I find direct digital much faster than scanning but there is gobs more data in a quality full 35mm frame than my 6 megapixel 10D sensor. BUT that "if there is enough light" is quite a kicker. For my (amateur) shooting usually shutter speed, the need for faster film, wide f-stops and dubious focus, etc are the real limitations in image quality. When the going gets tough the 10D often blows away film.

[PuppyDigs]

"The idea that scanning film (quality scanning) isn't any slower than downloading digital images from a CF card is misleading."

 

Nobody here said that. Downloading from a Firewire or USB 2.0 card reader is pretty fast, almost as fast as circa 1995 hard drives. However, don't even consider using downloading directly from the camera's USB 1.1 port--it's S--L--O--W. However, the conversion from 10D RAW to TIFF is the step that really eats up time, especially if you decide to change something, e.g., white balance. Now if I shoot 60 or 70 images, I'm likely to convert only one or two images for PS tweaking and printing, about the same average for my chromes. Using a FS4000US, a 4000dpi scan takes about 3 minutes on my Mac G4. One or two adjustments and conversion from 10D RAW to TIFF takes about the same amount of time in Canon File Viewer Utility (a slow & chunky program), sometimes even longer! To make matters worse, it crashes about 25% of the time (PS never crashes). Yes, I know Phase One Capture One DSLR is much faster and better implemented, but I can't see spending $600 for it (the LT version isn't available for Macs). I'll wait for PS 8 and the RAW plug in.

 

Another thing to consider: it's nice to get away from the computer and just shoot pictures. Every few weeks PS burns me out and I shoot a bunch of chromes. The lab hands me back a finished product I can view and enjoy. No print or monitor image is as beautiful as a Velvia or Provia chrome viewed with a good loupe on a light table.

[majid]

Slide film will give slightly better results if you use a top notch film like Velvia 50, but

the 10D is far more versatile and far less labor-intensive.

[ike k]

I disagree with puppy face on 10d doesn't seem save time enough on transferring images, yeah right!!!! after shooting rolls of rolls of film how long you have to wait till all those damn films to be "developed"? still 10D win over those times!!!.

 

Take this if you are photojournalist, the easeness of being digital is you just transfer your images from your camera to your laptop and don't have to wait another days or even hours to get it done.So sorry puppy face you're wrong on this issue.

 

Film sucks for me now and that's period, I don't care about you can shoot different kinds of films, it's just film is ooooooovvveeeeerrrr!!!

 

 

 

Ike

[bobatkins]

I also have both a 10D and an FS4000US. For me there's no doubt that if I could chose only one I'd take the 10D. Workflow is faster, quality is as high or higher with less work. Maybe marginally less resolution if you're scanning Velvia and using "L" lenses under optimum conditions, but lower noise (grain) and images that just "look" better (or at least as good).

 

However if you have stacks and stacks of old slides, the FS4000US is a very good scanner - but if I didn't have boxes and boxes of slides on hand, I'd certainly go with a 10D.

[les]

Wow, what a response ! And in just couple of hours !

It was not my intention to start a film vs digital war...

It is just that currently I have Elan7 with couple of good lenses (Canon 50/1.4, Canon 100/2.8 macro, Sigma 70-200/2.8 and Canon 17-40/4 on the way).

The 10D (while a very good piece of equipment - no doubt about that) has one very significant drawback at the current time: the price of over US$1750.

While sooner or later it is on the cards, currently I am kind of tired of trying to take a good pic only to have it printed by the lab staff according to their idea what a photo should look like.

And enlargements are rather expensive - I figured that with a good scanner and a good printer I can give them a run for my money.

Thanks everyone for their responses - it appears that I will stick to the film (neg and slide) for some time, and try to fill the piggy bank for the 10D.

[steve_barnett2]

Leszek, an awful lot of responses from the digital fraternity seem to concentrate on how 'easy' it is. Well, if you want 'easy' get a digital point and shoot. You can still get better quality (which is what you asked about) with a Canon FS4000 from films like Provia and Velvia. But off course the other thing to consider is the number of films you already have in your archives. Surely a scanner would be useful for your back catalogue as well?

[PuppyDigs]

<P><I>"I disagree with puppy face on 10d doesn't seem save time enough on transferring images, yeah right!!!! after shooting rolls of rolls of film how long you have to wait till all those damn films to be "developed"? still 10D win over those times!!!."</P></I> <P>There's a photolab across the street from me (Fuji Digital Frontier, et al.), so it's about an hour wait. Having lunch or a drink for an hour is more pleasureable than staring at a computer screen waiting for RAW to TIFF conversions! </P> <P>Nevertheless, You misunderstood my post and/or attempted to twist my words to fit your agenda. I merely said scanning a single image on my FS4000US takes about the same time to convert a 10D RAW file to TIFF (& play with white balance or AE comp et al.) with Canon File Viewer Utility. I enjoy both film and digital and see no reason to "get religious" over either medium. They're both fun to work with and give great results. However, I have 30 years of chromes and negs sitting in filing cabinets as well family photos dating back to the early 1900s, so scanning will keep me busy for a long time. </P>

[les]

You are right, Steve. "Easy" seem to be the key word. A lot of people thinks that "it is easy to delete a bad picture on a digital camera".

 

Well, I think that the solution to the problem is to take good pictures in the first place. Personally, I prefer film (not taking anything away from digital cameras). It is part of the fun to take pictures without really knowing how they will turn out, and then see that they are really good !

 

There is still a lot for me to learn about film photography (which is still going strong IMHO) and I am going to do just that: learn, take pics and have a lot of fun in the process.

[tom_burke3]

There's a review in this week's Amateur Photographer of the Minolta Scan Elite II.

There certainly seem to be some issues with its user-friendliness (which might be

solved by using VueScan - I know the reviewer was using the supplied Minolta

software), but at the end of the day the reviewer was extremely pleased with the

results. And look at the resolution - about 7500 by 5000, ie nearly 40 Megapixels!

File sizes of nearly 120 Mbytes..... 25 x 16 or thereabouts prints at 300 dpi....

 

Certainly, mastering a scanner of that nature is not a five-minute job, but for those

that do the rewards in terms of quality will be considerable. And it's not that

expensive - about half the (UK) price of a 10D.

[john_baker4]

Couple of issues here all well thought through but worth teasing some items out.

 

IMHO the ability to review digital work at the time of taking is a massive plus. I hour processing is great, but it is still an hour, when things can change � be it light, weather, etc. Time is money, if you are taking an unrepeatable event, things happen in a moment in time, with digital you can review your work and adjust and re shoot if necessary. I know with film you can bracket and mistakes can be few and far between � but they do still happen.

 

Film still has a number of advantages; from being easy to carry, less battery dependant, readily available around the world. However, the big issue for me is that many of the cheaper digital cameras do not have full size image sensors and while that may be an advantage with long lenses, it can create major problems when using wide-angle. But if you need to produce a digital image, I will admit that it can be difficult and time consuming to get quality scans.

 

Photography should not be seen as a one horse race; with one system being better than another. One size definitely does not fit all, the camera is only a tool to capture the image and both film and digital still have their place and long may it be so!

 

The best solution is the third-way of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of both systems and having the flexibility of utilizing the advantages of both as and when necessary�

[majid]

Leszek, if the cost of the 10D is an issue, consider the new 300D/Digital Rebel. It costs $900, $1000 with a dedicated zoom lens, and in many respects (7-point AF), it is closer to an Elan 7 than a Rebel Ti.