Posted by Tim Marks on January 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM
If you can find a used EOS 3 go for it. That is a dynamite camera
Posted by Phillip Noll on January 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM
when the 40D will do everything a film camera can and then some?
I'd like to see it do star trails as easy as a film camera!
Try to find an EOS 3. Great camera!
Posted by SKIPPER3454 on January 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I have a 20D and an old OM-1n and for star trails, the OM-1n does a far better job. Now if you can obtain a suitable film emulsion which does not have much reciprocity failure for long exposures, you are off and running. Also, the mechanical film cameras of yesteryear which do not rely on a battery to keep the shutter open will excel at long exposure astrophotography.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 23, 2009 at 3:24 PM
The EOS 3 is a great camera. You get the pro build, autofocus (to f8 maximum aperature, but center point only), good metering (I actually like the 5D's a bit better, but it is a newer camera), excellent viewfinder, plus the usual Canon quirks. And they are cheap, around $400 or so used in great condition. Look at KEH's website for one.
I shot heavily with the EOS 3 for several years and felt like I took a huge drop down in built quality and responsiveness when I bought the 20D. I use the 5D now and it is still a step below the EOS 3. That is not a knock on the 5D, just a remark on how nice the EOS 3 is.
Depending on exactly what you want from the camera in terms of abusability, another possibility might be to go back to the manual FD series of cameras. Lens are almost free for those cameras (I saw a 600mm lens in what appeared to be new condition selling for $1,800). For multihour exposures like star trails, batteries become a nonissue. The downside is that you won't be able to use your EOS lenses on those cameras.
Posted by Robert Fisher on January 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Yep, I'd agree with the others on trying to pick up a used EOS 3. Keep in mind that if you have any EF-S lenses you're using currently with your 40D, they won't work on a film camera (or full frame DSLR for that matter).
Posted by Randall Quon on January 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM
You may also want to consider a used EOS 1n or 1v.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Todd, there definitely is a difference between film and digital in the final output. I'm not talking about the image quality, but in the "feel" of the image, especially if you are going from film to a silver print. I just have not seen this successfully duplicated digitally.
For things like ultralong exposures (in the hours range, rather than even minutes), seriously nasty weather (sufficiently below zero that Mother Nature is obviously making an effort to kill you, like -35), battery life, real color infrared, and grain, film cameras, especially the older mechanical ones, have some points that even the current digitals just don't match with.
This is not to start a debate on the merits of film vs digital. I shoot both and for most of what I do, digital is a far better medium to work in. I am personally convinced that for the majority of my work, the 5D produces a better final print than film, even the Velvia which I shot for years. At the same time, I keep a couple of film bodies around for when digital won't do what I need it to.
And it is always fun to see the look of utter shock on a face when you tell someone "Yes, I can still easily buy film for this camera!"
Posted by James Hersey on January 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM
I should not have read this post. Now I really miss my EOS 3s again. Sold one and lost the other due to damage and did not replace but If I was going back to film thats the camera for me. Only problem is it will make you want to get a 5D after using it.
Posted by John Mumaw on January 23, 2009 at 6:51 PM
I'd like to see it do star trails as easy as a film camera!
Your wish is my command, Phil.
3.5 hour exposure with a Canon 40D.
Posted by Roger Rouch on January 23, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I don't miss film itself, but often wish for the simplicity of some of the old film cameras. The Nikon FM was built like a brick, lightweight, and could function without a battery (except the light meter). No need for the fingers of a small monkey to press buttons or a degree in menu-ology to figure out functions. Of course there are tedious little details like having to use a lever to advance the film or turn a ring to focus.
Posted by Phillip Noll on January 23, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Well, I guess its possible to get star trails with a digital camera but I do see quite a bit of noise and some banding in there John. Nevertheless, a 3.5 hr exposure on a digital camera is quite impressive! But I would still argue that the image quality for ultra-long exposures is not on par with film---yet. Unless you resort to image stacking software and take many, many images--but then that's where it gets easier to just shoot with film!
Of course none of this helps me with my decision to keep or sell my last film camera (Mamiya 7II).
Posted by Larry Fischer on January 24, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Fact: a digital camera at this time will NOT do everything a film camera can. Why do you think there is such fervor over HDR? I'm glad someone is looking at film.
Film simply has a wider latitude of exposure, dynamic range. I've often wondered why a good negative, copied to digital, would not have a higher dynamic range than a digital file.
Would it? If so, film still reigns, esp. in landscapes. More effort but........ it might be worth it.
I have a Nikon D300 but still have my F and F3... I wonder if the D300 would have made it through a tour in Vietnam??? F = workhourse.
the fisch
‘If thou art a god, thou wilt not hurt those who have never injured thee; if thou art a man, advance—and thou wilt find men equal to thyself." – Plutarch
Posted by Cliff Beittel on January 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Another vote for the EOS-3, a camera that has eye-controlled focus, which the 1n and 1v lack. If the 3's ECF works for you (it doesn't for everyone), there is simply no faster way to focus many subjects. The only real shortcoming versus the v for me is a flash sync speed of 1/200 versus 1/250.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 24, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Larry - I've never shot film, but here's what I've learned (I think )....Certain films did have somewhat more dynamic range than digital. Most films, however, had less dynamic range than digital (color slides for one). Digital cameras are quickly catching film here though - the new D3X may have even caught up.
HDR, though, is not at all driven by trying to match film. HDR images can go way beyond what film could ever do.
What film did have was more exposure latitude in the highlights, where there was a larger range of exposures where bright areas would stay just short of clipping. This allowed for a little more choice in exposure without blowing things out. That doesn't mean it had increased dynamic range though.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 24, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Yep, the dynamic range of slide films, especially the high contrast ones like Velvia, are less than that of the current batch of digital sensors. I've been caught on that a couple of times with shots, expecting deeper blacks and faster transitions to black. It is just a different medium.
Now that you mention HDR, another thing film is very strong in is with BW. BW film has a huge dynamic range which I suspect is going to be untouchable digitally in the immediate future. Some of the best digital BW landscape work I have seen has used HDR with a vengeance. I'd rather just go to BW film in-camera rather than spend the time on the computer, as I have often described myself as being Photoshop lazy.
If you plan to use a 35mm film camera in rough terrain at high altitude, one of the older Nikon or Canon manual focus cameras with a mechanical shutter will work well. These older cameras used a small battery for the meter only, and will withstand the rigors of such use.
I have a 1971 Canon FT-b and a few FD lenses that baked in Death Valley, bounced up climbing routes in the Sierra, and froze at 20,000 feet in the Andes, and it never let me down. It stll works.
For film, assuming you are shooting color, try a color neg film. These films have an excellent dynamic range (approaching that of normally developed B&W) and wonderful color when scanned and processed properly. I have gotten gorgeous results from 4x5 color neg when transparency film would simply block up.
-P
Posted by Tim Marks on January 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Larry - I've never shot film
Thanks David, way to make some of us feel old
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 25, 2009 at 9:08 PM
I would recommend that you try to find one of the newer EOS mount bodies. The EOS3, Elan 7N 7NE and the later Rebels like the Ti. The reason is that these bodies will not only work with all EF lenses, they'll also work with current E-TTL2 flashes. Older EOS bodies may work with the flashes, but I don't think they get correct functionality from the flashes. I picked up an EOS 3 for $175 in EX+ condition recently. The Elan 7N are not much cheaper. I've also picked up 2 EOS 300/Rebel 2000 bodies for $15 each.
I like my rebels because they are VERY light, but they top out at 1/2000 shutter speeds, which can be a problem with fast lenses outdoors. The EOS 3 can do 1/8000.
However, if you're looking beyond this, I'd recommend 4X5 cameras. They are just a much different way of working. The negative/slide is so much larger than 35mm that the image will blow you away.
Mel-
PS, I went to digital in 2004, and now have gone back to shooting mostly on film, even on 35mm.
Posted by Bill Parker on January 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Some interesting responses to this question! I would humbly suggest that my drum scanned medium format images yield absolutely nothing in quality to the latest and greatest digital SLR. A used 645 system is cheap, reliable, and lightweight, and Velvia 50 captures remarkable colors and detail. Give it a try!
Bill
Posted by Bill Parker on January 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Some interesting responses to this question! I would humbly suggest that my drum scanned medium format images yield absolutely nothing in quality to the latest and greatest digital SLR. A used 645 system is cheap, reliable, and lightweight, and Velvia 50 captures remarkable colors and detail. Give it a try!
Bill
Posted by Rakesh Malik on January 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I use a Nikon d300 and a Nikon fm3a, and I find the fm3a to be by far the more pleasant of the two to work with. I actually prefer the fm3a over even a Leica m7, mainly because I like long lenses. :)
I also prefer film to digital, even though it's not as convenient... it just looks better, even though it loses a bit in the scanning process.
4x5 or bigger aren't just out of digital's league, they're playing an entirely different game.
"...my drum scanned medium format images yield absolutely nothing in quality to the latest and greatest digital SLR."
I would submit that all drum scans are not created equal. Drum scanning is a much different process than working with a typical pro-sumer film scanner, or a flatbed. A great drum scan is very much dependent upon the skill of the operator, the quality of their machine and it's calibration, and the care taken with preparation of the film for scanning. So, I believe your statement should not be construed to apply to all drum scans of MF film and then compared to a digital image of the same pixel dimensions.
Before I started using 4x5 (yes, it is an entirely different game!) I shot a lot of 645. The prints I've made from drum scans of this film are gorgeous. For someone wanting to get into the MF film game, there are some very nice dedicated film scanners that will do a wonderful job if drum scanning is not feasible.
If Phil is considering MF, the Mamiya 7-II rangefinder 6x7 is a supreb camera! Click Here for a picture.
Given the above, I still think that a small, manual 35 would best suit his stated need.
After going digital in 2002 I rarely shot film. However after looking at the results of two large prints I made from scanned Fuji Velvia I began shooting film (in limited quantity for special projects - landscape photos where I wanted the rich colors) again. Some years later I find that I do not have the time for it - do to my too busy schedule.
If anyone shooting film is interested I have a Canon EOS-1v with only 74 rolls of film through it, and the EOS Link software allowing you to import the metadata from the film and set personal functions on the camera beyond what can be set using the camera alone, that I would be willing to sell at a fair price.
Discussion
29 repliesI am into digital photography but would like to frequently switch to regular film cameras.
What film cameras are the most often used by the pros when shooting in difficult terrain (alps, arctis, safari etc)?
Thanks a lot!
Phil
I am using a Canon EOS 40D right now.
Thx.
Try to find an EOS 3. Great camera!
I shot heavily with the EOS 3 for several years and felt like I took a huge drop down in built quality and responsiveness when I bought the 20D. I use the 5D now and it is still a step below the EOS 3. That is not a knock on the 5D, just a remark on how nice the EOS 3 is.
Depending on exactly what you want from the camera in terms of abusability, another possibility might be to go back to the manual FD series of cameras. Lens are almost free for those cameras (I saw a 600mm lens in what appeared to be new condition selling for $1,800). For multihour exposures like star trails, batteries become a nonissue. The downside is that you won't be able to use your EOS lenses on those cameras.
For things like ultralong exposures (in the hours range, rather than even minutes), seriously nasty weather (sufficiently below zero that Mother Nature is obviously making an effort to kill you, like -35), battery life, real color infrared, and grain, film cameras, especially the older mechanical ones, have some points that even the current digitals just don't match with.
This is not to start a debate on the merits of film vs digital. I shoot both and for most of what I do, digital is a far better medium to work in. I am personally convinced that for the majority of my work, the 5D produces a better final print than film, even the Velvia which I shot for years. At the same time, I keep a couple of film bodies around for when digital won't do what I need it to.
And it is always fun to see the look of utter shock on a face when you tell someone "Yes, I can still easily buy film for this camera!"
Your wish is my command, Phil.
3.5 hour exposure with a Canon 40D.
Of course none of this helps me with my decision to keep or sell my last film camera (Mamiya 7II).
Film simply has a wider latitude of exposure, dynamic range. I've often wondered why a good negative, copied to digital, would not have a higher dynamic range than a digital file.
Would it? If so, film still reigns, esp. in landscapes. More effort but........ it might be worth it.
I have a Nikon D300 but still have my F and F3... I wonder if the D300 would have made it through a tour in Vietnam??? F = workhourse.
the fisch
‘If thou art a god, thou wilt not hurt those who have never injured thee; if thou art a man, advance—and thou wilt find men equal to thyself." – Plutarch
HDR, though, is not at all driven by trying to match film. HDR images can go way beyond what film could ever do.
What film did have was more exposure latitude in the highlights, where there was a larger range of exposures where bright areas would stay just short of clipping. This allowed for a little more choice in exposure without blowing things out. That doesn't mean it had increased dynamic range though.
Now that you mention HDR, another thing film is very strong in is with BW. BW film has a huge dynamic range which I suspect is going to be untouchable digitally in the immediate future. Some of the best digital BW landscape work I have seen has used HDR with a vengeance. I'd rather just go to BW film in-camera rather than spend the time on the computer, as I have often described myself as being Photoshop lazy.
I have a 1971 Canon FT-b and a few FD lenses that baked in Death Valley, bounced up climbing routes in the Sierra, and froze at 20,000 feet in the Andes, and it never let me down. It stll works.
For film, assuming you are shooting color, try a color neg film. These films have an excellent dynamic range (approaching that of normally developed B&W) and wonderful color when scanned and processed properly. I have gotten gorgeous results from 4x5 color neg when transparency film would simply block up.
-P
Thanks David, way to make some of us feel old
I like my rebels because they are VERY light, but they top out at 1/2000 shutter speeds, which can be a problem with fast lenses outdoors. The EOS 3 can do 1/8000.
However, if you're looking beyond this, I'd recommend 4X5 cameras. They are just a much different way of working. The negative/slide is so much larger than 35mm that the image will blow you away.
Mel-
PS, I went to digital in 2004, and now have gone back to shooting mostly on film, even on 35mm.
Bill
Bill
I also prefer film to digital, even though it's not as convenient... it just looks better, even though it loses a bit in the scanning process.
4x5 or bigger aren't just out of digital's league, they're playing an entirely different game.
I would submit that all drum scans are not created equal. Drum scanning is a much different process than working with a typical pro-sumer film scanner, or a flatbed. A great drum scan is very much dependent upon the skill of the operator, the quality of their machine and it's calibration, and the care taken with preparation of the film for scanning. So, I believe your statement should not be construed to apply to all drum scans of MF film and then compared to a digital image of the same pixel dimensions.
Before I started using 4x5 (yes, it is an entirely different game!) I shot a lot of 645. The prints I've made from drum scans of this film are gorgeous. For someone wanting to get into the MF film game, there are some very nice dedicated film scanners that will do a wonderful job if drum scanning is not feasible.
If Phil is considering MF, the Mamiya 7-II rangefinder 6x7 is a supreb camera! Click Here for a picture.
Given the above, I still think that a small, manual 35 would best suit his stated need.
-P
If anyone shooting film is interested I have a Canon EOS-1v with only 74 rolls of film through it, and the EOS Link software allowing you to import the metadata from the film and set personal functions on the camera beyond what can be set using the camera alone, that I would be willing to sell at a fair price.