Ex-slide shooters: 30D or 5D?

Is it necessary to go up to the 5D if my goal is to end up with images the same quality as I am used to with slides? Nature/Landscape/Art is the focus with images printed to at least 12x18.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of your experience!

Ken

At those print sizes, the 5D will have a definite edge. Depending on your subject matter and preferences, it ought to match or beat slide.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
[ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

I still shoot slide film on the EOS3 from time-to-time, and compared to the 5D the slides look poor. Skip the 30D, get the 5D.
--
Visit me at

http://www.radiodenver.org/

Ken Crouch said:

Is it necessary to go up to the 5D if my goal is to end up with
images the same quality as I am used to with slides?
Nature/Landscape/Art is the focus with images printed to at least
12x18.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of your experience!

Click to expand...

Even an 8 mega-pixel APS-C camera will produce better results than 35mm slide film and, IMO, the 5D produces better results than 645 (even B&W).

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg

dotborg said:

Even an 8 mega-pixel APS-C camera will produce better results than
35mm slide film and, IMO, the 5D produces better results than 645
(even B&W).

Click to expand...

If by better you mean workflow I may agree with you here. If by better you mean larger prints and more resolution I will have to disagree. Even a pro-sumer film scanner such as the Nikon 9000 ED will scan at 4000 dpi and very nice detail on a properly exposed positive. I will always get better and larger prints from a good 35mm slide than a aps-c 8mp image.

Now the 5D has really raised the bar. Very tough to get as clean of an image from the scanner as the 5D. Size still goes to the scanned slide however.

Bric

Barugon said:

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg

Click to expand...

--
Photo Gallery @ http://www.therothenbergers.com

BricRoth said:

If by better you mean workflow I may agree with you here. If by
better you mean larger prints and more resolution I will have to
disagree. Even a pro-sumer film scanner such as the Nikon 9000 ED
will scan at 4000 dpi and very nice detail on a properly exposed
positive. I will always get better and larger prints from a good
35mm slide than a aps-c 8mp image.

Click to expand...

That certainly hasn't been my experience and I have yet to see anyone produce a side by side comparison that favors film.

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg

no text....

This is an example from a panoramic 35mm slide shot in Cuba last year. This scan is out of the Nikon 9000 and prints simply incredible at 70 inches. You can see it's pixel width here that converts to aprox a 36mp image. More expensive drum scans have produced results much larger and sharper than these prosumer scanners.





Please don't take offense but drum scanning has yielded results superior to film for several years. I far prefer the workflow and time of digital but I am afraid blanket statement such as yours are not the feeling of the stock industry today. Digital has made huge gains in the past couple of years but I am afraid the aps-c cameras are not even in the same league .

Bric
--
Photo Gallery @ http://www.therothenbergers.com

This is not my image. I have not had the privilage of traveling to Cuba yet. It belongs to a photographer friend of mine.

Bric
--
Photo Gallery @ http://www.therothenbergers.com

. . . that you probably have a carefully chosen selection of lenses for your film body.

Buy a 5D, and your focal lengths will continue to be those stamped on the side of the lenses, with no 1.6X crop factor. And any wide angle prime or zoom you have will still serve that function.