Switch from Canon?

I've been a Canon user for more than 40 years. Their professional 35mm film products, I have found, are bulletproof. Recently, I've acquired a Canon 20D. I'm not sure whether I'm more concerned about the 20D itself, or the inherent hassles of digital photography. Any thoughts

What do you see as the inherent hassles of digital? or what problems are you having with the 20D? From what I've seen it's a great camera and if you have an investment in glass I can't imagine why you would want to switch

Mike

Thanks, Mike. Inherent digital problems are eternal sensor dust (or worse), dead/hot pixels, and the burden of having to be my own darkroom tech and spend my life in front of a computer instead of out shooting. The 20D is an excellent box, but if you look at the forum on this website, has a lot of issues. Maybe Nikon has the same, due to the commonality of technology (digital).

The time in front of a computer screen is a very serious issue, IMHO. Depends on the kind of person you are of course. Not really fair to say you trade time shooting for time in front of a computer as the amount of post processing you do is kinda up to you and with slide film you probably lose some ground on time invested labeling and organizing and FINDING slides. I think the software programs that catalog your imagery are a major plus for digital. Still, it is time in front of the computer screen. The time put into labeling and organizing slides with an ink pen seems somehow more wholesome to a lot of us.

I hear ya there.

bob
--
CP 8800 - KM 5D
http://www.joking-bear.org/gallery2/v/Bob3/
http://www.seawead.org

As a Nikon film user for 30 years I know exactly what you mean. I still find that the pictures most take with a digital resemble nothing of the original scene. I still use film and digital and find that digital is a compromise for speed and savings on rolls of film. IMHO canon and nikon make very similar products and the choice is down to investment in lens . I have on loan a hassie H1d and I am trying a mamiya zd shortly as these are closer to what I am looking for. What I find crazy on the forums is how critical other forum users are of, other manufactures and photos . Its called Budget and Choice. I have had a few shots published in a couple of magazines and in my opinion they were less than perfect. Who cares whether we buy nikon or canon i don't but I still think that film is better. For now

In any engineering trade study the technology maturity has to be taken into account. Easy-to-use computers have been around just a little longer than 15 years. Easy-to-use computers that are powerful enough to do serious photographic editing have been around much less time.

Optical sensors that can take enough data for the LAYperson to use (not talking about NASA and military) have been around only about 5 years or less. My 2.1 megapixel Oly was purchased in 2001.

"Plastic" as a commercial product family is just a little older than 50 years. Some are very stable in their production and usability, some are still closely guarded trade secrets.

But film photography technology was around during the US CIVIL WAR (1860's) for crying out loud. Back in the 1870's, 1890's, the fundamental "silver reacts with light" was known and studied. Then they figured out they could use nitrocellulose film (yes, the same fundamental chemistry that shot cannonballs in battle - that's why movie theaters burned down so regularly). Then they improved plastics, and learned to stubstitute dye for silver in the last steps, and we got early, GRAINY, UNDEPENDABLE color, then Technicolor came along and made it more stable.

THAT WAS HALF A CENTURY AGO! Propeller airplanes. Most people rode busses or trains. Trans-atlantic SHIPS. And Eastman Kodak did NOT sit on their laurels, but they kept making film photography BETTER!

So you are comparing a very mature technology with a BABY technology. Sure, you spend time in front of a computer. But you would spend time in a dark room. I suppose Ansel Adeams never spent any time dodging or burning.

You can pay someone to process your film, any you can also pay someone to process your digital pictures, too.

What I love about digital photography is that it gives me the chance to be in complete control of my images. I don't have to build a dark room, I don't have to store chemical solutions in a refrigerator, I don't have to worry about temperature fluctuations during processing a roll. I don't have to worry about pollution from my spent photopaper and chemicals.

Yes, there are trade-offs, but for being around only a few years, it is amazingly good. Compared to film photography, digital is still in the glass-plate era. Sure, one might be better in some ways, but if you want to wait until it is as mature, you might have to get your grandchildren to buy the camera.

sorry if this rant sounds like a flame, but I'm tired of people expecting babies to run marathons in under 6 hours. Or babies to design rockets. OK, so digital photography is a teenager.

I agree with WeB52.

This whole conversation sounds like the vinyl record vs. compact disc debate a couple of decades ago. There are still people out there who think vinyl is more true to life.

I switched from Nikon to Canon a few months ago. I invested in new glass, bought the 20D and shot professionally with it for 4 months. I hated it. I missed the ergonomics and button layout of Nikon, I also hated the low contrast the canon lenses had and the softness of the 20D.

So I sold it all and got back into nikon.

The d70s is much sharper right out of the box and the color is much better IMHO. This cameras is meant to hold me over until A) I can get a D2x or B) the D200 is something worth getting.

J

--
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/arizona
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/grand_canyon
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/john
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italyfav
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/adirondacks
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/arizona_flowers
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italy05



Johndig
CP-885, CP-8800, D-50, (pbase supporter)
PAS #19, MAA

Well said Bill!

When I did photography with film I loved taking pictures. With digital I take a whole lot more. It is also very easy to share. If you like you can get into the whole post processing thing. It is truly easy, if you are so inclined.

I do remember driving to Fairlawn , NJ to Kodak's special lab to bring my pushed film,(btw I passed it last week it is being torn down), I don't miss that part. Today I go home and relax and check out my results.

If you like you could just take your card to Costco, a local photo store, Office Depot, Office Max, etc., K-Mart, Wal-Mart..... etc. .. you don't need to own a computer.

So whatever you like is available. You also could buy a printer that you can stick your card in an print away.

Many more optins. Also many people owned Polaroid backs to preview shots, with digital that all gone. So look at what suits you and do it.
It makes no differance what camer you buy, just shoot and enjoy!

John D.

Thanks to all of you who have responded. What a great discussion! Where the rubber meets the road!

If image quality is important to you, stick with your 20D. Reviews and comparison tests show that Canon's lower end line of dSLRs give noticeably better image quality, most noted by Canon's lack of moire issues where Nikon has problems with it. Nikon recommends you "rotate the image until the moire is not visible" lol! Plus Nikon doesn't have ISO100, only 200 is their lowest.

Thank you, hellashot! Good info. DS

With all digital photography there is the handling of the digital workflow that is the first and most significant hurdle to get over. It means that you will have to invest in a computer system that can handle large image files, i.e. you will spend a bit more on RAM, graphics cards, imaging software and hard disk storage. Also, your DVD's will start to clutter the cabinet. To this, add hours in front of the computer, and some people might opt out. However, once you really get going in digital, you will be startled by the transformation it brings to your photography. There is no real need to switch between Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc. The general idea is to get a body (20D is fine) first and LEARN - that means taking pictures as often as you can and critically evaluate your workflow, quality of results etc. Once you understand digital, you can ponder more on Nikon/Canon or whatever. My father-in-law uses a 20D, and I use a D70. It is much of a muchness, and we are both happy. He paid more than I did, but he also gets 2MP more for his money. We have both kept our respective lens systems, with no real loss either way. I advise you to do the same. Do not get caught up too much in the upgrades: unless you make 1000 images a month or more, I doubt whether it is worth buying a new DLSR every time a new model is released.

Digital is different, but it still is photography, and the time when it was the future is already behind us.

Regards,
dorff
--

Visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/dorff/

I used to take shots with my old Nikon F2, bring the exposed rolls home to a processer I trusted, wait till they were finished, then see what I had. I have boxfulls of prints in storage, and it's time consuming and awkward to find a specific one. On a Whale Watching trip to Guerrero Negro a few years ago, I shot 7 whole rolls of 36 exp film, and paid a fortune to have it processed and buy new film. Now, I shoot upwards of 250 shots a day - or more - and cull out the ones I don't want.

Now, I go on a trip or whatever, check my shots in camera, download to the computer each night, (I carry a high quality Sony laptop) edit the ones I like as necessary, email special ones to special friends as I go.

I was dragged into the computer age, kicking and squalling, about 8 years ago. About 4 years ago, started getting hooked, and started my own website. It now has over 100 pages, and I'm in the process of building more than a dozen more pages. Take a look at http://www.gogittum.com , then, about 1/2 way down the page, click where it says, "To go there, click here," and it'll take you to my Home Page. Most really enjoy it, especially the "Traveling" pages. For a look at my 'in camera' education, go to "Vacation 2003" and click on the "Texas" link. The sequence on Carlsbad Caverns explains my on-the-spot education.

A year ago, I took my then-new 8800 to the Grand Canyon, and broke the lens in a fall. Pulled out the old faithful F2 and continued shooting.........and hated it. Bulky, awkward, clatter-ey old thing, and I couldn't see what I was getting. Man, I'm converted - I'll take digital any time. No looking back ! ! ! Sorry for the rant, I DO get going.

Lar.

--
Larry Bourne
Airplane Builder; Fish Chaser; Desert Rat; Hummingbird Hunter; WSSA #23; MAA

Hellashot said:

Plus Nikon doesn't have ISO100, only 200 is their lowest.

Click to expand...

This seemed unbelievable to me, and in fact it is, or at least partly. I have an 8800, so not very familiar with DSLR. I checked the D2X and D200 reviews, and they have ISO 100. D50, D70, and D2Hs start at ISO 200. Gosh, that seems so odd. My 8800 has ISO 50, but it only goes to 400, where the SLRs go to like 1600. I think I prefer having ISO 50 available rather than 1600.

And don't forget the personal touch that pp digital gives you.
--
Keith Lawrence
Perryville,Mo.

http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw

Canon Powershot S2
Olympus Stylus Epic Zoom 115 (film)

I made the switch to Canon some years back with the D60, found lots of problems and sold it and went from the Nikon D100 to the D2H. Posted all this at: http://www.members.cox.net/d60-d100/Review.shtml

The Canon 5D has me thinking all over again, as I miss full frame, despite its harsh exposure to glass, and despite what some have said here, Canon has great glass as does Nikon. I just miss using my 105mm and 50mm as they were meant to be used, portrait photography being my favorite endeavor these days. Anyway, I'm not going to get into the digital vs film argument, too old and pretty much decided anyway if you look at the market with open eyes.

Okay, so here's the real issues:

Dust, dust dust! Neither Canon or Nikon has solved it, so don't worry. Keep a blower handy, change lenses smartly, and manage it as best you can.

Dead/Hot pixels. Okay, I have to admit this, every single Canon digital I owned (from the "G" series on down) had pixel problems, and also some firmware bugs where I had to shut down a few times for unknown reasons. The longer I owned my D60, the more pixels 'livened up'. My Nikon D100 and D2H never showed any such problems, and I still check for them. Maybe it was just my bad luck, or maybe there is an issue there, hard to say.

Digital Darkroom slave. No one says anything, but the film lab is sorely missed by digital users, and no one warns us before we make the digital plunge. Labs had VERY expensive equipment that balanced each and every print for color and density. We spend several hundred for photoshop and still have to do it manually. It sucks. Its not that digital is less accurate than film, its just that the Lab just quietly fixed the same errors on film and you never did see it. So, you save money on the lab costs, but you are stuck with the work. Fair? Hard to answer. I don't know why Kodak (who is suffering so bad financially with the collapse of film) does not market their superior software tools, SHO, GEM and ROC, tune them into an easy to use, automated post production tool (not just a PS plugin) that just does this like the Lab does and charge $49 for the package? This is the same technology used in the Labs, and Kodak owns the rights. They'd make a mint!

================================

Final note on switching from Canon to Nikon and vice versa (from someone who's done it and gone back). Don't listen to the voices of unreason that insist one is better than the other, its all personal preference. Both Nikon and Canon make the best cameras, and they are neck and neck, with leadership going often back and forth. Both make superior glass (superceded only by German glass, as its always been, Zeiss, Schneider, Leica) that performs well and costs about the same. In terms of the camera, Nikon tends to be designed more by an engineering standpoint with the pro photographer in mind, where Canon is more market driven. This is why Canon seems to miss the boat on certain details like mirror lock up, instant on (before the 10D), and slow focus issues (D30). Its also why their pro line is so costly, but they dare to do the full frame thing where Nikon is playing the marketing approach on the DX issue and waiting for their chance to see if full frame sells and if they can get in on a chip Fab to make it affordable. This is probably also why you get hot pixels in Canons, as they gotta sell those chips, be they good or just marginal.

I will post on my above site an article on decisions to come up shortly regarding the new crop of cameras. This is a tough one and the products are starting to get real good now. Great time for digital.

I wonder if there will ever be a hobby in which "old timers" (no malice intended) will not yearn for the old days and the better ways.

Archery the big battle is compound vs recurve/long bow

Pistols its caliber or revolver vs semi auto

Same with general thing with rifles or you can add composite stocks vs wood

Seems like as with other things in life people tend to forget the not so great parts of some acitivty, person whatever is being fondly remembered.

To me digital means

No Schlepping around rolls of film both used and not opened yet when I travel and no Xray machine worries or hassles

I am a computer type so digital dark room seems MUCH easier to me than a darkroom (admittedly I wasn't the best in the darkroom) nor do I find that I am spending massive amounts of time in general processing film on my digital darkroom. Its not like a well exposed, well framed photo needs to be manipulated a ton to get an exceptional image.

Instant feedback with the LCD screen

I can transfer, process and print my photos all while sitting here watching TV or chatting with the wife etc.

If for some reason I get bored of processing or have to answer the phone, try a soup the wife is making etc, I just save file shut down the PC.

SURELY there are some things about film that are the equal of dust on the sensor. Personally I think if you take care of your camera the whole dust issue is WAY overblown. Between my two digitals and even though I have traveled to some pretty rough places in this world I have yet to experience a dust "problem"

I have shot a lot of film all formats 35mm to large

I guess some will always resist technology, new things, advancement... I just get annoyed when sometimes those who resist these things for whatever reason feel compelled to try and denigrate the path I have chosen as not being as valid, good or relevant. Like the old guys who used to say you wouldn't shoot that good with a recurve without a sight... Oh really? Let me see yours for a second. WOW imagine that I shoot nicely with a recurve bow without a sight.

I am NOT saying that is what is being done here I just wonder about the motives of someone who uses a Canon film camera for 300 yrs, has recently purchased by what most will say is a great camera in the 20D and comes to a NIKON forum and asks this question. I don't get asking about the inherent hassles of digital photography. There are a ton of inherent hassles with film... I can't remember the last time I had to lug a few gallons of fixer up a flight of stairs, build/maintain a light proof room, dispose of chemicals safely etc.

Oh and film cameras aren't dust proof either.

Technology advances have been a fact of life since my Great GREAT Grandfather 1000Xs over first made a fire. Embrace or don't it but generally there is no need to tell me the old ways were better.

Not a rant at all right on the money and very well said.

I am over this whole our ways are better than yours.

The whole darkroom thing was so painfully laborious to me do I respect Ansel Adams and his talents in the darkroom and many many others? Absotootinlutely.

Do I think a digital darkroom is more productive and catching up quickly with film? You betcha.

I wonder if anyone has ever done the 1 Gig card Fine, medium shots Vs 1 35mm or 120 comparison of shooting a roll/card to useable professional image timing yet?

Would be a pretty cool thing to compare. Of course the chemicals would need to be brought to right temp first.

I think I broke my D2X it goes to 100ISO. Gee I know lets go to another camera manufacturers forum troll look for threads to pass BS info and that will be fun... Grow up.

If you need something to do or feel your choice is so lacking you need to rag on others cameras come rake my yard. I for one would NEVER go looking for issues or trouble on the Canon board. I wonder if there is an immaturity clause when you buy a Canon.