Should I get the 10D or stick with my Elan 7e?

[marcella_davis]

Hi, I've been reading all the postings but haven't quite found the

answers I'm looking for. I currently own an Elan 7e (and one

lens - 28-135 IS 3.5-5.6) and have shot ~75 rolls so far this year

(>10/month). It's gotten so I have a pile of film to develop

because the cost of developing them is prohibitive. I've been

working as a wedding photog assistant and shooting the

weddings for myself to build up my portfolio. I am looking to step

up to photographing some weddings on my own and with the

other photographer. So, here are my questions.

 

1. Given the amount of film that I shoot, will the 10D save enough

on developing, etc.

2. I'm leaving my amateur status behind. Should I leave my Elan

7 behind for the 10D, also? Does the 10 D deliver more

professional results? Or is there a better (yet affordable camera)

to upgrade to? I know there is the 1D (not affordable), but have

heard the processor and megapixels are better on the 10D.

3. Is the 10D good enough to deliver great wedding prints?

4. What is this stuff about the 1.6 ratio? Is what I see in the

viewfinder not what I get? Or is it that when I put my lens on the

10D I will have a reduced wide angle? I.e., not 28mm, but

something greater?

 

Thanks,

Marcella

[chuck_dowling]

I gave up on film cameras for weddings several years ago, when I got an Olympus E10. I was able to produce very nice wedding photos with that camera, and have since used a Nikon D1, and then a Canon D60, and now a 10D. In capable hands, these cameras produce excellent photos for weddings. I cannot imagine going back to film. Unless you are using medium format, I see no reason to spend $$ on film and processing, when the DSLRs will produce better results. I say better, because of the control I have over editing the images. By the way, the 28-105 is my favorite and most used wedding lens by far.

[gerry_szarek]

The economics are easy to justify at $10 a roll for film/developing and printing, it comes out to 150 rolls of film for your 10D, or 15 months from your current usage. However you will shoot far more pictures and take more chances because it's FREE. That's right, if you don't like the picts you don't print them and hit the delete button. Go for it! BTW alot of pro's use the 10D as backup to their 1Ds bodies.

 

GS

[citizensmith1664875108]

I think the general opinion is that for 90% of photography the 10D is good enough to be indistinguishable from every day film results, even after considerable enlarging.

 

Actually turning a digital print into a hardcopy photo costs similar to lab film developing. If you develop yourself then the time taken will be similar to that of post processing digital images. Where you save money is the crappy photos that never needed to be developed, and the instant review allowing you to hit the mark with less allowance for error than film. However, don't just look at the cost of the 10D, remember you need memory cards, a decent computer, and image editing software. That can easily push the total investment towards $3000 if its not things you already have.

 

I looked myself and decided that I wouldn't save enough money to yet justify a digital SLR so I'm sticking to film and a digital P&S. Having said that, I get through less film than you.

 

I think one thing is guaranteed, if you get a 10D you'll never look back, it just may not be something you can yet justify purchasing as a cost saving device.

[hisham_atallah]

One reason I switched from the 7e to the 10D is fim cost. Like

you, I was shotting 10 rolls of slide a month for a cost of about

$12 a roll (including processing). That means the 10D pays for

itself in 15 months. I doubt I'll be selling it in double that period.

It's a very capable camera.

I shoot telephot so the crop factor is a plus. Basically, What you

see in the viewfinder and what's on the sensor is 1.6X tighter

than what you see on your elan. A 28mm will give an angle of

view of a 45mm.

If you use wide angle, that may be a problem. The 1D is a better

is the sense that the crop is only 1.3X.

 

Beyond that, I don't think the 1D is critical for weddings.

Mechanically, the 10D work as well as the 7e.

The possibility of changing ASA by pressing a button, instant

feedback, low noise at high ASA , amazing detail in shadows

have definitely improved my shots over the 7e.

 

Hisham.

[catman5]

Try out digital by first having your film developed to CD. Then you can judge a facsimilie of the output of digital and manipulate it in a simiar way. Plus the CD will have been scanned on a scanner tht is superior to most home scanners. If you like it, then rent a 10D and try it out. If you like that, and can afford the cost in changing to a 10D or adding it to your "tool shed" then you will have an idea of what to expect.

[hisham_atallah]

Here's an example at ASA 800. The first one is straight from the

camera. The second is brightened version. I wouldn't dream of

such shadow detail with scanned film. And that's jpeg not raw.

 

Hisham.

[melissa_eiselein]

Get the 10D, but keep your Elan 7e. It'll be nice to have a film camera for those ultra wide angle shots. And if you're doing weddings, it might be good to have two cameras "armed" with different lenses for those quick shots.

[shaun westlake]

When doing your cost justification for your 10d by counting up how much money you will save on film/processing/printing, don't forget that quality paper and printer ink will take up a significnat portion of these savings. Making enlargements digitally can be comparably to film in many cases. Add in the initial cost of memory cards and other accessories and your initial $1500(US) investment in the body can easily double. I would expect that your breakeven point would be considerably longer than 15 months (Easily double that time). Also factor in the time that printing and manipulating digital images is going to take.

 

I would consider how going digital could improve your workflow and how having instant feedback could improve you photos. I would love to have a 10d but can't justify the $$$ right now.

[PuppyDigs]

" I think one thing is guaranteed, if you get a 10D you'll never look back, it just may not be something you can yet justify purchasing as a cost saving device."

 

That's not really true. Plenty of people, me included, enjoy shooting both film and digital. You don't have give up film just because you bought a digital camera. Each medium has its own unique flavor and it's nice to choose the best tool for the job.

 

I didn't buy a 10D to save money. The 10D is like a new film emulsion to me and has a distinctive look quite different from film. However, you do save money in the long run but not as much as folks let on. Contrary to popular folklore, digital is not a free lunch. First, the digital workflow is very intense, especially if you're picky about quality. Time equals money if you're in business. With film you pay the lab to color correct, print, etc, and you concentrate on shooting gigs. With digital you shoot gigs and do all the lab work yourself. Of course, you could hire a PS pro to edit for you but that would eat all your cost savings over film.

 

After a typical shoot, I come home with 50 to 100 Raw images. I view them, select the best ones and play with 2 or 2 parameters such as color temperature, AE comp, et al. When in the ballpark, I convert the Raw file to TIFF. Often I end up with the camera defaults but this process typically takes about 5 minutes per image--about the same time to scan a slide or neg. Next, I tweak color, contrast, levels, etc., in Photoshop. Typically, another 5 to 10 minutes (much less time than tweaking a scan). Finally, I either print the file or burn it on a CD and carry it across the street to a Fuji Digital Frontier minilab for printing.

 

Yes, I think I save money in the long run because I only print the images I want. Plus you gain more creative control to boot. However, there are lots of other costs besides your time and 10D body. I've invested in a stack of external Firewire hard drives to keep images on (I buy one or two a year), 2 fast Mac G4 computers and calibrated monitors, 2 Firewire card readers, a bunch of 512MB CF cards, several extra 511 batteries, hundreds of blank CDRs, an Epson 1280 printer, a boatload of ink and paper (more expensive than using a lab), etc. Sheesh, I'll probably never save money on film developing at the rate I'm going but it's sure fun!

 

I have a friend that only shoots digital for weddings if the client demands it. Why? He'd rather pay the lab to print the film and maintain his family life, i.e., not have to sit in front of the computer all night desperately sorting and editing 400-500 images. Something to think about.

[ike k]

Hi Marcella,

 

 

 

I one of the newest member of this digital hype and yes I couldn't resist to give this 10d a try and turns out I really love this camera.To answer your questions, I try to be simple, if you have the money without getting rid your Elan 7, go ahead and you will love this camera.The thing about saving cost, it is actually saved my money to buy films and develop with frontier as always cost me $25 per 36 frames roll.And then I have to wait for couple more days to get it done, honstly hate that.

 

 

I'm sure as an assistant pro you have your computer gear ( I mean you have at least Photoshop as your software tool ) to get the most of this camera, play with your creativity.I myself just got the old PS 6 and boy what can I say, where have I been lately when people already have this wonderful camera but at least I'm not too late.

 

 

Before I also debating whether to wait a better and improved DSLR than 10d but consider the price it will be 2-3 times more expensive and I decided that this is it, as my starting point and I did a right decision.

 

 

Again don't give up on film yet as they will exist as long as kodak, fuji etc still produce film, so it is a keeper.Just get a nice lens such as L series lenses if you stick with canon.Camera is always same but lenses make things lot more different results IMHO.

 

I attached also one image from 10d taken with 24-70/2.8 L handheld on macro mode.Take care and good luck!

 

Ike

[dmarks]

I've had my 10D for 3 months now and all I can say is that I love it.I'm impressed by the quality of the prints I get from this camera.I find that my 12x18 enlargements are better from this camera that what I got from my Nikon F90x,Kodak Elite 100 and scanned on a Canoscan 4000us.

I shot a wedding with the 10D and the clients were blown away with the quality of the pics.It didn't hurt that I was able to give them some enlargements before their party was over.

Here's an attachment of a photo taken with the 10D.

[alex_tudor]

Keep in mind that with the 10D you will need to multiply your focal lengths by 1.6. So your 28-135mm lens will actually become a 45-216mm. So you gain more telephoto, but lose a lot of wide angle - if that's important to you. You have to decide.

 

Since I shoot 60% wide angle, 16-35mm, I will never go with a DSLR until I can get a non $8000 full frame CMOS one - like a cheaper 1Ds with more fps.

 

Also don't forget that developing is cheap. If you want prints, unless you print at home a lot, it will cost the same if not slightly more.

 

 

Alex

[lsaavedra]

I´m not sure at all that switching to digital will reduce the costs of photography in general because you have to take in account that photogaphic paper, ink cartidges, a good printer (in case you don't have one yet) and all the informatic stuff for postprocessing are very expensive. Also, to get high quality prints from digital files in pro labs is at least as expensive as regular film prints. Having said that the only advantadge that I can see in digital is the instant review capability and the posibility of taking those photographs you know won't be enlarged anyway for free. But for that you'd better buy a P&S digital camera (That´s what I do). hope this help you, regards

[ike k]

Hi Marcella,

 

 

 

The 1.6 crop factor doesn't make your lens a more telephoto like alex said, but it is the same length distance but it is crop, that's all.

 

 

Ike

[gerry_szarek]

Marcella, to give you an idea of how much more you are going to be using the 10d. I went to my son and daughters afternoon baseball camp run by the town. Blasted 120 shots in RAW mode, selected the best five and uploaded them to OFOTO. It costs $0.49 per print plus 2~3$ shipping. That same run if I did it in film would have been at least $50 at my local photo store. You will finding yourself using the camera more and more, taking shots you never thought of taking.

 

The other posters are correct L glass is the way to go, or stop down the "consumer" grade lenses a couple of stops.

 

For weddings I would recommend the 28~70L F2.8 as your basic lens. Your current lens will be fine for now until you get paying clients.

 

Also the 10d uses the EX series flashes to the full extent.

 

GS

[mike_lepp1]

Hi, I have an elan 7 and a d10. I use them in parallel. As has been pointed out, there are "hidden" costs with going digital, memory card, storage devices, software, etc. These add up to real money. Digital is also more time consuming than a people will admit. Sure, if you like being on the computer it's a non-issue. People will argue this, but it's like my friend the other day telling me how fast he can find something on the web. After an hour of chatting with his wife, he still hadn't found it yet. But he's convinced it's faster than the yellow pages and a phone call....

 

I'm also curious how you can be considering a d10 when you can't afford to develop film??? You can get film developed for $3.99 a roll on 3x5's. Then only reprint the ones you'd like for your portfolio from the pro lab.

[marcella_davis]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I was trying to make up my

mind before taking a trip this weekend to photograph a Puffin

colony in Maine. Since my mind is still not made up, I suppose I'll

hold off a few more weeks. Though, the ~$100 or so I will spend

on developing is bound to frustrate me, and with no immediate

results!

FYI, I have tested a 10D briefly during one wedding. Nice results!

And I have also had a lab scan my negatives to CD. This is less

expensive than developing and printing, but not by much. Aw,

heck, I'm back to wanting the 10D now, now, now!!

[mark u]

What a great thread! It really points up a lot of the hazards as well as the benefits of going digital.

 

IMHO it is clear that most photojournalists need to be predominantly digital. I think that small digital P&S works well for those who have trouble going through more than a roll or two a year (like my wife! - I even bought her 12 exposure rolls), so they can actually see the results - it might even encourage a bit more picture taking. Round my area, there is a Kodak D&P shop that will return a roll of 36 printed in 20 mins (alright, perhaps not best quality D&P). The best turnround for up to 40 shots on a memory card is 1 hr - and it's slightly more expensive in total cost per print.

 

In between those extremes, matters are less clear cut. Especially as digital bodies depreciate at a fearsome rate at this stage in the curve of technological advance. In a couple of years, a 10D might only fetch 4-500 pounds/dollars.

 

A couple of situations where digital may not be the best answer includes cold climates, where battery failure is an issue, and long travel away from home, especially off the beaten track, where access to power and storage of photos start to add costs and weight. Does anyone rent 512 MB CF cards in packs of 20? Another thing is that I don't think there's anything that quite competes with transparancies from the digital world as yet.

 

On the other hand, (even bearing in mind that the 10D is effectively cropping a 35mm image), the ability not to have to rent/buy/carry/airfreight a 600mm F4 plus associated heavyweight tripod etc. (or other long telephoto according to taste) should perhaps be considered a bonus for those who enjoy wildlife photography.

[jim_larson1]

Only thing to add: As of 2003, digital cameras tend to get replaced more often than film cameras. Think how long PC's lasted in 1994.