Good Film camera to supplement 20D

[the7ferret]

I ordered a 20D and was thinking of getting a nice Film camera to supplement the 20D, Allowing me to use it as a backup, or get full use out of my wide angle lens that I also ordered. Any Ideas? I was thinking about the EOS Elan 7NE.

[Superbaldguy]

I think the Elan 7 platform is similar to the 20D, so it would be a good match.

It's nice to see that a lot of people feel a desire to own both film and digital cameras, as they each serve certain needs.

[Oculus Sinister]

I also plan on getting a film body soon and am eyeing the EOS 3. Its 45 point focusing system, eye control, weather sealing and f8 AF limit sounds nice. Its pro controls would also prepare me when I decide to upgrade my 20D to a 1DMk2 or even the 1DsMk2:)

[thomasrhee]

If you want a film body as a secondary camera in addition to a 20D, I'd recommend picking up a EOS 7N or a used EOS 7.

The EOS 3 is nice, but unless you need the feature set and robust build, IMO it's not worth the extra weight and size considering it'll be used as a backup.

[Carzee]

Well of course you want a EOS to be able to use your glass! EOS 7 'cause they are self loading, 7 pt AF, nice balance.

If you disregard the glass imperative, well, maybe a smallish vintage rangefinder... nostalgic.

OTOH, SLRs are plentiful and the best thing about older MF -recent CLA of course- is the retro look and metal quality. Perhaps a minty OM-1,2,3, or 4 with what I call the "IMAX viewfinder". Great fast primes plentiful too..:cool:

[D Boone]

I have a minolta 101Sr. Its what I learned on and a great manual camera. I have been wanting a new film camera to put in the bag. I would love to have one that used my canon lenses, but want a fully manual camera. Can't find anything like that in the canon lineup. Anyone know if there was one that would be compatable with my ef lenses? So now I am looking at a canonent rangfinder to keep as a backup.

[ScottE]

I have an EOS 3 film camera and 20D and D60 digital cameras. As much as I loved the film camera I never use it any more. The auto-focus, turn-on speed and other abilities of the EOS 3 made it a much better camera than the D60. With the 20D it does not have any advantages. I don't see any reason to use a film camera if you have a 20D.

Who wants to bother carrying around a bunch of film when you are shooting digital? You never use it and the date eventually expires so it has to be replaced.

Scott

[Hellashot]

I also plan on getting a film body soon and am eyeing the EOS 3. Its 45 point focusing system, eye control, weather sealing and f8 AF limit sounds nice. Its pro controls would also prepare me when I decide to upgrade my 20D to a 1DMk2 or even the 1DsMk2:)

I am also eyeing the EOS-3 or the Elan 7ne. The 7ne was recently updated to ETTL-2 where the EOS-3 only has ETTL - that'd be my only reservation about getting the EOS-3 now. I am hoping they update the unit soon to ETTL-2

[jukas]

I have an EOS 3 film camera and 20D and D60 digital cameras. As much as I loved the film camera I never use it any more. The auto-focus, turn-on speed and other abilities of the EOS 3 made it a much better camera than the D60. With the 20D it does not have any advantages. I don't see any reason to use a film camera if you have a 20D.

Who wants to bother carrying around a bunch of film when you are shooting digital? You never use it and the date eventually expires so it has to be replaced.
Scott

I shoot primarily digital but I can think of several reasons to shoot film still. Landscapes for example it's extremely nice to have a full frame sensor instead of a 1.6x crop factor. What if you have a client or stock agency that only wants a 5000dpi drum scanned file from a slide? Also E-6 Slide film has a greater tonal range than the 10D or 20D digital sensor. As for expiring, I've shot expired film before that was either frozen or refrigerated and noticed no ill effects in the final product.

I still shoot primarily digital, but there are definately times when I want to shoot film. that's why I ordered the EOS 3 as a backup body.

[Todd Jacobsen]

I ordered a 20D and was thinking of getting a nice Film camera to supplement the 20D, Allowing me to use it as a backup, or get full use out of my wide angle lens that I also ordered. Any Ideas? I was thinking about the EOS Elan 7NE.

Why a high end film camera as backup? Recommend looking at Rebel series for backup purposes.

[Jon]

Why a high end film camera as backup? Recommend looking at Rebel series for backup purposes.
Because most EOS film models still cost less than the DR, and as he said, he'll be able to get full wide out of his new wide. Every time I put the 15-30 on my Elan 7E, I re-resolve to shove some film in it for wide shots.

[rdenney]

Also E-6 Slide film has a greater tonal range than the 10D or 20D digital sensor.

I've heard this before, but frankly it hasn't been my experience. My experience is that slide film is quite contrasty because it is designed for direct viewing, and for dramatic direct viewing at that. They take five or six stops of scenery range and spread them over ten stops of viewing range.

The reason the images seem flat on the LCD and upon first inspection on the computer is because that wide range is being displayed on a device that can only display a narrow range. The typical monitor with the 500:1 contrast ratio can only see 9 stops of dynamic range, assuming the monitor is used to its fullest. So, the image is flattened out a bit when it's displayed on the monitor (or something is lost at the ends). The LCD has a much more limited constrast range.

My 10D seems to have good gradation buried even quite deeply in the shadows, and I really think I'm able to work up to about 10 or 11 stops of scenery range. I can move values in the RAW files up to four or five zones and still not posterize, which is quite stunning. I'm able to do things I was never able to do with transparencies. This assume capturing in RAW, of course.

But that doesn't mean I've given up film. I've just given up 35mm film, for the most part. The only time I use it now is when I need more extreme wide angle than I can see with the small 10D sensor. If I need image quality for that two-page spread, I use medium format. And then I use negative film, because it stores 11 or 12 stops of scenery range in a narrow band, making it quite scannable, though one has to spread it back out after scanning. I have trouble scanning slides and getting all of what's there.

This fellow has done a compelling analysis that demonstrates quantitatively what I'm seeing:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

Rick "who, nevertheless, is hanging on to his Elan II and his older FD stuff" Denney

[jukas]

Why a high end film camera as backup? Recommend looking at Rebel series for backup purposes.

If you are referring to me, I'm chose the EOS 3 for several reasons. First it has a 97% viewfinder compared to the EOS 7 which I believe is 93%. Secondly it offers actual Spot Metering. Thirdly it allows me to adjust in 1/3rd stop increments. The Elan 7 is in 1/2 stop increments. Not a big deal to some, but I prefer working with thirds. The 3 also offers light weather sealing when matched up with my two L lenses (which is basically all I use these days). Add in a 45point AF ability and it supposedly handling AF in low light better than the 7 and it was a better choice for me.

[jukas]

I've heard this before, but frankly it hasn't been my experience. My experience is that slide film is quite contrasty because it is designed for direct viewing, and for dramatic direct viewing at that. They take five or six stops of scenery range and spread them over ten stops of viewing range.

The reason the images seem flat on the LCD and upon first inspection on the computer is because that wide range is being displayed on a device that can only display a narrow range. The typical monitor with the 500:1 contrast ratio can only see 9 stops of dynamic range, assuming the monitor is used to its fullest. So, the image is flattened out a bit when it's displayed on the monitor (or something is lost at the ends). The LCD has a much more limited constrast range.

My 10D seems to have good gradation buried even quite deeply in the shadows, and I really think I'm able to work up to about 10 or 11 stops of scenery range. I can move values in the RAW files up to four or five zones and still not posterize, which is quite stunning. I'm able to do things I was never able to do with transparencies. This assume capturing in RAW, of course.

But that doesn't mean I've given up film. I've just given up 35mm film, for the most part. The only time I use it now is when I need more extreme wide angle than I can see with the small 10D sensor. If I need image quality for that two-page spread, I use medium format. And then I use negative film, because it stores 11 or 12 stops of scenery range in a narrow band, making it quite scannable, though one has to spread it back out after scanning. I have trouble scanning slides and getting all of what's there.

This fellow has done a compelling analysis that demonstrates quantitatively what I'm seeing:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

Rick "who, nevertheless, is hanging on to his Elan II and his older FD stuff" Denney


Rick,

At the risk of starting a huge debate even after reading that url, I still believe that at least with the prosumer dslr's (10d 20D etc) that E-6 has a greater tonal range than digital sensors. I'd suggest doing your own comparison. If possible setup a test shot using a lens with a tripod mount in a situation with at least a 5 stop difference in tonal ranges. Use a less contrasty film than Velvia (Try Provia 100) and make sure your settings are identical between the film and dslr body. Look at the differences in the highlights/shadow areas.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 10D and 90% of the time I'll be shooting digitally. The flexability I get from the digital to me outweights the 1 stop tonal range difference on either end I could get from shooting E-6 as long as I acknowledge the difference and work around it. For me shooting film has some very specific uses, primarily in landscapes (17-40L on a FF film body vs a 1.6x sensor).

Just my $.02

[Todd Jacobsen]

If you are referring to me, I'm chose the EOS 3 for several reasons. First it has a 97% viewfinder compared to the EOS 7 which I believe is 93%. Secondly it offers actual Spot Metering. Thirdly it allows me to adjust in 1/3rd stop increments. The Elan 7 is in 1/2 stop increments. Not a big deal to some, but I prefer working with thirds. The 3 also offers light weather sealing when matched up with my two L lenses (which is basically all I use these days). Add in a 45point AF ability and it supposedly handling AF in low light better than the 7 and it was a better choice for me.

Umm...

I referring to da ferret since his original question was for a BACKUP film camera for his digital. I don't read this as his need for a PRIME film camera, therefore, don't buy a PRIME film body.

I was referring to the Rebel film line. Good, dependable, cost effective BACKUP film camera.

[rdenney]

I'd suggest doing your own comparison. If possible setup a test shot using a lens with a tripod mount in a situation with at least a 5 stop difference in tonal ranges. Use a less contrasty film than Velvia (Try Provia 100) and make sure your settings are identical between the film and dslr body. Look at the differences in the highlights/shadow areas.


I have done so, but between negative and positive materials. I wanted to know what worked best in the scanner (and most for medium format). I found that the scanner's range was limited, and negative material stuffed a wider range of scenery into a narrower range of film--narrow enough so the scanner could see it all. But I also discovered that the negative material recording a much wider range than slide film in general. I was comparing Fuji Reala with Provia (which is my favorite slide film, or was; Velvia was only for special conditions).

And then I compared negative material with digital, and found that in general, I can match the scenery dynamic range of medium-format negatives with the 10D, or very nearly so.

Consider these two images:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/tree_against_sunset_II_lores.jpg

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/tree_against_sunset_III_lores.jpg

The upper image was made on Reala negative material in medium format. The lower image was made on Velvia in 35mm. (Yes, it's Velvia, but go with me for a moment). Notice that the shadows show much more detail in the upper picture. These pictures were made very close to each other in time. The highlights are more exposed on the slide, yet the shadow on the slide film has gone to black. (Of course the color balance is different and they are two different focal lengths, but you can still see the additional contrast in the slide image.) This is because of slide film's narrower range than negative materials. In my experience, the 10D will capture fairly extreme contrast ranges.

This picture is one that shows quite a severe contrast range:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/concepsion-steps-lores.jpg

Yes, there are parts that are blown out in this picture. But I submit that if you shot this on slide film with the steps going up into the daylight exposed exactly as these are, the cross on the left would be lost in blackness.

I continue to be amazed by how much I can pull up out of the 10D's shadows. I originally expected it to be perhaps a stop better than slide film, but I've decided that it's more like about three stops.

I'm an old Zone System addict, so I tend to think of everything in terms of a 10-stop range, and measure accordingly. I've found that the 10D is a good Zone System tool.

Rick "who thinks the digital has the same clarity of highlights as slide film but with the shadow potential of negative film" Denney

[mbze430]

I still shoot more film than I do with Digital, so essentially I originally bought a 20D to back up my 1v. BUT, because of the different control system, and the croping and other factors I got a 1DMKII

[jukas]

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/concepsion-steps-lores.jpg

Yes, there are parts that are blown out in this picture. But I submit that if you shot this on slide film with the steps going up into the daylight exposed exactly as these are, the cross on the left would be lost in blackness.
I continue to be amazed by how much I can pull up out of the 10D's shadows. I originally expected it to be perhaps a stop better than slide film, but I've decided that it's more like about three stops.


Does that mean you are making the comparison of a developed slide on a light table to a digital image that you have fully processed in Photoshop? If that's the case, IMHO the only way to get an accurate comparison would be to take the exact same image at the exact same focal length, f-stop, shutter speed and iso. Then have the slide drum scanned and process it in photoshop, and process the raw file from the 10D as well.

My comments were pertaining to 35mm E-6 slide film. I know beyond nothing about Medium format, I couldn't even walk into a photo shop and find the film without help so I don't know how they compare.

I suppose when I get the EOS 3 in my hands I should "put my money where my mouth is" so to speak and do a identical test myself.

[JaertX]

I love my Elan 7NE, but I'm not so sure I'd recommend getting an eye control focus model. It's a neat feature and it works well, but I hardly ever use it and if I had it to do over I'd put the extra $50 in my pocket.

If you think you'd use it, I wouldn't worry about getting it. I tend to keep my camera in manual focus for one thing. When it's not I have the center sensor picked.

But other than that debate, it's a great camera. All the controls are easy to use. Loading is easy. And you can burn through a roll of film fairly quickly at 4fps.

[mdr]

I have an EOS 3, and certainly wouldn't recommend it to a 20D user. It is far too good for you, and will burn a massive whole in your wallet, as you will be desperate to get a 1D Mk II or 1Ds Mk II with the equivalent 'professional' features. Once you use these on the EOS 3, you'll be hooked ;););).

I found the 20D a massive step back compared to my EOS 3, and I've got the 1Ds Mk II on my wish list. Haven't managed to convince my wife yet (she wants to trade our car in for a Jaguar first) :(.

On a serious note, the 20D is more or less the same in layout as the EOS 30/33, but quite different from the EOS 3. Feature wise, the EOS 30/33 is no match for the EOS 3 though.

The best/cheapest option is the EOS 33 (no eye controlled focussing as with the 20D).

[mdr]

I always carry my EOS 3 with Fuji Velvia and 20D together. Digital is very versatile, but you can't get the quality slides or the quality digital from scanned Velvia with the 20D.

[rdenney]

Does that mean you are making the comparison of a developed slide on a light table to a digital image that you have fully processed in Photoshop?

No, not really. I'm really talking about the information that is available to the print-maker. A slide on a light table is, to me, an unrealized goal.

I shoot RAW in the digital camera to facilitate subsequent manipulations in Photoshop, not to make an image that is immediately viewable. In the old days, when I shot transparencies and printed on Cibachrome, I made exposures on slide film differently for printing than I would for direct viewing in, say, a projector. Slides and digital share this feature: A blown-out highlight is gone forever. With both, I followed the maxim of expose for the highlights and process for the shadows. With slide film, the only way to bring up shadows in a print without blowing out highlights is to make a contrast mask. Cibachrome (like all print paper) had much greater contrast than the film. But there was a limit to what was available in the shadows if the highlights were exposed to have some texture. That's the nature of slide film.

Digital RAW is the same way, except that there's just more in the shadows to work with. Instead of contrast masking and dodging/burning-in under an enlarger, we use selection, tone curves, and dodging/burning-in tools in Photoshop. In all cases, we are after the same result: Taking the information that is available in the film/digital image and placing on a usable tone scale so that we can print or otherwise display it. If the information is not there, then there's nothing we can do. That's why I let the foreground in the Velvia image above just go black--it was the best way to manage the contrast of the scene.

I never have tried to make a digital image that looks from the outset like a slide exposed for direct viewing. And I have rarely been successful printing slides whose exposures were optimized for direct viewing rather than printing. And scanning slides is not easy--the wide range intended for direct viewing extends beyond the range of most scanners. My scanner is no Imacon, but it still cost more than my 10D when I bought it (It's a Minolta Multi-II).

Negative film has much more range, and it's in a form that's much more usable, because the density range of the film will fit within the capabilities of good scanners. Of course, if we don't have shadow detail on a negative, it's gone forever. So, we expose for the shadows and process for the highlights. I tend to overexpose negative materials by about the same margin (up to a stop) that I underexpose slide and digital images. The histogram, of course, tells me if I was successful.

There is a characteristic curve in the transfer function of digital images, such that there is less separation at the highest light values. Thus, pulling more of those values down into the middle range a bit helps with separation in my opinion. I'm not an "expose to the right" kind of guy, unless it's the only way to record the shadow information that I want. But, as I've said before, I continue to be amazed at how much information is in the shadows of a RAW file.

(By the way, slide film in medium format is just like slide film in small format. There are a few different choices, but if it says the same thing on the box, it's the same.)

Rick "who optimizes for ultimate display, ala the Zone System" Denney

[Perfect_10]

Why a high end film camera as backup? Recommend looking at Rebel series for backup purposes.

Couldn't agree more .. I run an EOS 3000 as a backup .. small and light .. takes excellent pics when using my L glass

[skyphix]

I use an EOS 650... old, but works well.

If I ever get a scanner worth its weight I'll scan some photos I've taken with it (test rolls)...

90% of the time the camera sees only black and white film, but its there if I need it.

[DionM]

My film backup is my first SLR - the EOS300.

All my needs of a backup film body (and for wideangle use) is that it is dark inside, has metering, and turns on the AF in my lenses. Other than that, I don't care. EOS300 fits the bill on all counts.