Back to film – what an eye-opener!

Last weekend my 20D decided to die on me. It suddenly started to give the dreaded “error99” whenever I pressed the shutter. I cleaned the contacts, but to no help. I have “only” shot 85,000 exposures, so it shouldn’t be the shutter limit of 100,000 which was killing it.

So what to do…. Still 1 month left of the 2 year warranty period, so I went down to the shop where I bought it. You should have seen the look on the dealers face…”I have never seen a 20D in a worse condition, have you been digging tunnels with it ?” “Ha ha, I guess he had never seen a camera used by a bird photographer before”, I told myself. Anyway he sent it off to the Canon repair facility here in Denmark. Unfortunately it will take 4-5 weeks before they will even start to look at it! (Thanks Canon for putting so “many” resources into service…)

Bad bad news, this is in the mid of shorebird-migration, what can I do? For 3 days I stayed home instead processing old photos, then yesterday I just couldn’t take it anymore. I found my old EOS3, and 5 provia films which have been laying in a drawer completely untouched since I went digital 2½ years ago. I went to a good little spot with dozens of young Wood and Green Sandpipers, and put the camera to work! What an experience…..

First impression, wow this camera feels good, heavy build (not the 20D plastic/toy feel) – and what a clear and bright viewfinder. But gee, what’s this - it says 1/160 at f5.6 (with 500/4 and 1.4extender) and the birds are so far away! I better adjust the ISO…. and lets check the histogram to see how much I need too compensate…Then the situation dawned on me, I was sitting in a car with my big lens trying to take handheld shots of distant shorebird with a camera without the nice 1.6 crop-factor, with a 100iso film just before sundown…. After a while I got a nice Greenshank in close and I started to fire… very very few seconds later – a strange sound – the film was out and the camera was rewinding it. I changed film, but actually before half an hour had gone, I had used all my 5 films….and birds were everywhere and close, in beautiful golden water. This is going to be expensive, I wonder if I can even find a lab to process them, and I wonder if my old film-scanner still works, but will find out in the coming days!

I realized just how fortunate we are these days shooting digital, and I actually became full of admiration for the old bird photographers using film, who needed to get it right in few frames, or have a very very big wallet!

So didn’t I get anything positive out of the experience ? Well, actually I was impressed with how effective and fast the AF worked, with the bright viewfinder, the sound of the shutter (the 20D is too loud, too metallic sounding and scares the birds away). The EOS3 felt and weighed like quality, and it was actually nice to put the eye and chin onto it, - there was space for my face in the camera-front.

So what to do in the remaining 4½ weeks… either use the EOS3 and a fortune in films, or accept the nice offer from a friend who will loan me his reserve 10D.

If Canon reads this – PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE – make me an EOS 3D!

This reminds me of my pristine EOS 1n sitting in a closet. Maybe it's time to get it out and have some fun!

I had always wanted an EOS 1N RS and now that they are selling used in 9/10 condition for $400 I don't know what I would do with it.

Paul

Maybe just for grins and giggles, I'll load up some print film, mount my 50/1.4 and enjoy a trip down memory lane!

I'm sure you will have lots of fun, Jim! BTW - just found a lab which can still process the films, price has almost doubled since 2004. Can't wait to see the outcome

Great story Helge. Submit it!

I can understand your comments about the EOS 3 vs the 20D. The digital really feels and sounds like a toy next to it! The last time I used the 3, about two months ago, I didn't realize there was no film in it (why, I don't know). After shooting enough to wonder how much space I had left on the memory card...

Great account Helge!

Several times a year clients insist on 35mm or 120 film rather than digital, and it's always an eye opener. The long wait for film processing to confirm that you "got" the shots can be nerve wracking, compared to the immediate confirmation with digital. We always carry a laptop on location shoots and sleep a lot better knowing the results immediately rather than waiting and facing the potential of a cumbersome and embarrassing reshoot.

We also garner extra income from consulting with clients on the spot rather than waiting days for film processing. It shares roots with product displays around checkout counters in stores. Impulse buying is powerful stuff, especially if you can catch clients while they are still enthused about the shoot, rather than waiting a few days for them to calm down before making decisions about size and quantities.

And the expense of film and processing! Over the course of a year, digital savings can be immense. Shoot "only" 30 rolls a month, and you're talking $7000 a year. Shoot 100-200 rolls a month as we did in days of yore, and....... Do the math yourself, but an active shooter can spend an awful lot of money on camera gear and still save money after switching to digital.

I don't know. To me the (very literal) eye opener usually comes from setting up my 4x5 and looking at the glass under a dark cloth. My first reaction is usually "wow, I wish I had this view with the 5D"

Guy

Nothing is more thrilling to me than exquisite light captured on slide film and then looking at it on the light table with a loupe (esp medium or large format trannies). Digital RAW - still gotta punch up the contrast and colours and tweak it to look anything as good as Velvia is sweet light. And then it isn't something you can hold in your hands - it is less organic - I still miss film. a lot - like I miss the feel of a the body of a past lover (oops, didn't mean to get THAT carried away with nostalgia!) Darwin

"Digital RAW - still gotta punch up the contrast and colours and tweak it to look anything as good as Velvia is sweet light."

Question is, how much? If you have a slide made at the same time, it's easy to make a digital file match it. But if you don't have a slide to match, how can you possibly remember exactly how intense the colors were? I'm sure I'll switch to digital at some point, but the subjectivity of digital (yes, more subjective than Velvia!) bothers me.

Meanwhile, I'd say to Helge: (1) Provia F 100 can easily be pushed a stop for more shutter speed and still make a nice two-page magazine spread. Even two stops (ISO 320) is usable, though probably not for a two-page spread. (2) Give eye-controlled focusing on the EOS-3 a try, if you haven't. It's magic in many situations. (3) Just because a shutter is rated at 100,000 activations doesn't mean it will last that long. A number of 1DII-Ns have been breaking at a quarter that level. Nor are actuations free--from what I read, the more times you push the shutter button, the lower the resale value of the camera. (4) Yes film is expensive, but so are high-end computers, external hard drives, RAID arrays, etc., and they don't last as long--in the case of external drives, sometimes not even a year. Nor do film cameras become obsolete every 18 months. I'm still shooting fully depreciated EOS-3s that cost $1,200 when I bought them in early 1999.

I'm with Guy on this one. A 4x5 is great to use!

I am constantly looking at the math on digital. I seem to be in-between somewhere. I figure I've only been shooting something like 16 rolls per week during the past summer months. I generally shoot far more in winter though. Still, when I figure up the cost of a D200, new 12-24mm lens to replace my 18-35mm, two new SB-800 flash to replace my two SB-28s, a Sigma 28mm f1.8 to replace my Nikon 50mm f1.8, plus buying a field memory storage device, 4GB cards, and on and on, digital looks to me to be the most expensive system of all. If shot at Hank's volume and needed the fast turn around it would be a no-brainer. If the Nikon D80 is close in performance/build quality to the D200, the equation could change. I find myself choking when it comes to buy a $1,000--$1,700 camera that will quickly drop in value when there are so many cool lenses out there I would like to have instead! For example, I know I'd get more use out of a 80-200mm f2.8 VR than a D200.


Kent in SD

"Yes film is expensive, but so are high-end computers, external hard drives, RAID arrays, etc., and they don't last as long--in the case of external drives, sometimes not even a year."

I have seen this argument on many threads on many forums, and I simply have to disagree with the logic. I was having my slides scanned long before I went to a digital camera. Everything listed here is just as important when storing scanned slides as it is when storing digitally shot pictures. And scanned slides (or any type of trannie) are larger files than all but the highest end digitals produce.

Also, I'm not sure what brand of external hard drive you are using, but mine has lasted 3 years and is going strong (knock on wood!). There is no reason why an external hard drive shouldn't last as long as an internal. They are the same, one is just inside a computer, the other is inside a housing.

As for whether film or digital is better, I will not take sides on the discussion. But, I will say this. On other forums (that had mostly amateur or beginners as members), many complained about the "quality" of digital compared to what they were used to with film. What most didn't understand was, when you buy a digital SLR, you are also taking on the responsibility of processing your shots. It is no longer dropping your film off at the lab, and telling them that you pushed it, or that you need more contrast, or to reprint this one because the color was off.

Kent - external enclosures are usually not as well-ventilated as most "full size" computer chassis, which is a factor in drive longevity. I do agree with your argument though - I needed reliable digital storage for my scans long before I started using a digital camera.

Guy

Guy, you're right about the drives. They make housings with built in fans, but they are more expensive, and most "off the shelf" external hard drives probably do not come with them.

Really torn. Recently I've been lamenting about the build quality. Helge and Dan touched on it. I miss the great build and 45 point AF and Eye Control which worked really well for me of my EOS 3. I have a hard time with the fact that to get the same sturdiness, reliability and AF as my EOS 3, I need to spend 4500+ or 8000+ for the 1D II or 1DS II. I still have the EOS3 and occasionally I'll take it out and burn a few rolls of E100VS. The last slides I got back were all the things that I have to work hard for post processing with the 20D. Next month I'm going shooting for 7-10 days straight. I'm taking the 3 the 20D and my Mamiya 645's. Probably will need anti psychotic drugs when I get back. And oh yes, the processing on the film will really hurt the wallet.

How many times has your EOS3 been in the repair shop? I'll take the build quality of most film based cameras (or at least my Arca-Swiss 69) over that of digital any day.

I get so sick and tired of the film vs digital debate. If you like film, use it. If you like digital, use it. Enough said.

Josh, you are absolutely correct. Actually, the film vs digital debate seems to be tame here as opposed to some other forums. We are all photographers, does it matter what we shoot?

I do want to reply about build quality though. I have had my 10D for two, two and a half years I guess. In that time I have never had a problem with it. There was one outing where I slipped on an ice sheet while carrying the tripod with the camera on it. The tripod and camera hit the ground hard enough to break one of the knobs on the tripod, and actually pop the lens in half out of the camera. The lens did not hit the ground, the camera did, and the force of that literally shot the top of the lens off at the focus ring. The camera has not missed a beat. It actually came out of the fall better than I did!

BTW, after that, I really got into the habit of putting my gear back into my pack when walking over any area that could be treacherous!

Who cares about the build! Heck, my last camera was made of wood All I can say is I'm not going back! I love my digi-cam!

Actually, I don't really see this thread as a digital vs film debate.

Having used Canon's pro film bodies and handled their consumer film bodies and vice-versa on the digital bodies, I have a lot more confidence in the pro bodies abusability and especially their capabilities. That is a big reason why I prefer my using EOS3, rather than the 20D.

It is also amazing how used you get to the field workflow of the digital, which I think is a large part of what is behind Helge's post. ISO flexibility, greater time between changing "rolls of film" (memory cards), cost of film processing , etc. And like it or not, there is a huge difference in the appearance of a digital capture vs. Velvia. Whether or not this is a good difference really isn't the point here.

But am satisfied with my decision to go mostly digital, via the 20D. It is a different medium, that's all. I just wish I coould afford the pro models - it would, I think, largely be the best of both worlds.

Well, it's time to go shoot some 4x5. Have a good weekend!

Ummm, I only have one question. Where does it say the 20D is rated to 100,000 shutter actuations? I was told by a Canon salesman in a retail store (not the most reliable source of info) that the 20D was rated to 100,000, but when the 30D came out, one of the upgrades listed for it was that it was rated to 100,000 shutters, like the "1" bodies. I've been told on a couple forums since then that the 20D is rated to 50,000 shutters. Since mine has 37,000 in about a year and a half, that's a concern of mine.

By the way, awhile back I picked up the Elan that I gave to my step-daughter after I switched to digital. She's a film wedding and portrait shooter who will switch to digital when she builds the capital for a better computer and a 30D. Hefting that camera, I remembered how much I liked the feel of that body. Would I switch back? Nah. Putting my hands on that body was just like getting a squeeze and a kiss from an old girlfriend. It's easy to remember the good times, but if you went back, those bad times would return in a hurry.

- - - My original (bought new) Nikon-F is still in working condition, and still gets used for doing all of my "film" infrared work. I have a converted digital IR body that I also shoot with, but since I had bought about 50 rolls of IR film before I started using the digital one, the Nikon-F is still ready to go, and gets used almost every month . Don't even need to two other ones I also have. I'd like to see the day any one of these $1,700 digital ones last that long!

- - - PS - - I forgot to ask,,,
Has anyone other than me used much Tech Pan film?

For B&W shooters there is NO other film with more sharpness and resolution.
In fact, the film is sharper than any of todays top quality lenses can capture on it.
If you want to go for detail in close-up B&W shots, you are missing half of it if you don't try this film.

I do think it's funny. I have read numerous times in this thread about how digital SLRs don't have the quality of film SLRs, but have yet to read anyone giving first hand experience of a digital (especially Canon or Nikon) SLR failing. I have met people in the field who are still shooting on a D60. The build quality must be pretty good. I am really not trying to turn this into a film vs digital argument, I think film is still a wonderful medium to shoot (not just medium and large format, but 35mm as well). I just don't think it's fair to throw out that DSLRs are unreliable and short lived because of build quality. Yes, technology changes quickly, and a DSLR can become "outdated," but this is not because of build quality.

I understand that DSLRs are very expensive, especially when you compare them to the cost of film cameras. A mid range prosumer model DSLR like the 20D costs what a high end pro model film SLR does (actually, B&H lists the EOS-1v at close to $2000), but you aren't really comparing apples to apples. The pro model DSLR from Canon is close to $7000 (EOS-1DS Mark II), but these are the cameras that should be compared. If the cost of a DSLR is too high, then don't buy one, but don't compare the DRebel to the EOS-3, or the 30D to the EOS-1. They aren't fair comparisons.