Moving from film to digital (sort of)--Canon 10D or Mark II?

[VanessaN]

Hello!

I am thinking it may be time to upgrade my Canon Elan 7E, as the costs of film photography are really starting to bear on me. I've been a photography fan for years, but due to lack of time/money, didn't seriously get into it until 9/11 (which prompted many to do many things). I went right out and got a 7E, what I could afford at the time, and have literally put 1000s of photos through this thing. (Went down to Ground Zero every week for several months and literally took about 10-14 rolls each time). I consider myself a beginner-intermediate person, in the fact that I often (or I try) have very good composing skills, but my technical skills are not advanced yet, such that I rely on auto and program settings more than not. Lately I feel I have either lost the knack, or the camera is aging, as I can't seem to auto-focus anymore. It takes an awfully long time searching, and even so I tend to have more blurry pictures than not. (There's also a couple of dirt specks when I look thru the viewfinder, but can't seem to find this dirt on either the inside or the outside of the camera). I still have the lenses that came with the Elan, both standard Tamron 75-30 and the 28-90 (which I don't use anymore), and the Canon's popular IS 28-135, as well as the Phoenix 19-35, and the Phoenix 100-400.

In any event, I am in the mood for a new camera...as I still enjoy what good photos I still occasionally take (I am a harsh critic of myself), and, given how profilic I am at taking hundreds of photos, feel it might be wise to invest in digital at this point (which I thought I would never do).

I take mostly nature photos, photojournalism, architecture sometimes, parades, the occasional people pictures. I am mostly a nature/wildlife/animal fan, though (lots of trips to zoos and the outdoors), and the 10D I am sure is adequate for that....although with moving to digital I am concerned about movement blur which seems more likely with digital than with film. While at the zoo once I talked briefly with this guy who had a 10D (and a monopod) who was taking snow leopard pictures, and I was impressed with most of his animal pictures, but there was blurriness when the leopard happened to be pouncing forward. Now, I don't know if he wasn't steady at the time, or what, but how good is the 10D at capturing animal movements? Felines are my thing. Bird photography?

Now I have a new interest as well--horse racing (inspired by Smarty Jones)...as I love horses, and would love to add horse racing photos to my list. This would fall under sports...again how good is the 10D at capturing high-speed movement?

I had read somewhere in the MarkII's advertising that it would be a joy to wedding photographers (huh?) and photojournalists/sports photographers. Any experiences on this? On some of the forums here, it seems to indicate that the 10D might be better for action movement than the Mark II.

Just so people know, I will--eventually, once I've saved the equivalent of a downpayment for a house--be getting better lenses (although I like the 28-135)---in the sense of getting L lenses. Probably the 100-400 (which isn't large aperture but still good), and possibly a 2.8 lens or two (possibly the 70-200, and either the wide angle or the 28-70).

Should I start with the 10D for now, or will I be disappointed with action items, and should I save for a MarkII? Or is film still better? The other option I thought about was to get a EOS 3. (although it looks as if the EOS 1V may be dropping in price eventually--however, I don't know if I am good enough to earn that yet....then again, probably not good enough for the MarkII either). Maybe I should get a film back-up camera (the 3) as well, but it's likely that I will be using digital more and more (it is, I admit, so nice to be able to pick and choose your photos right there).

I don't mind spending the money, and I take my photography seriously.

Thanks for your thoughts!
Vanessa

[EOSThree]

Those are a lot of thoughts! So I will give you my thoughts, and a lot of them.
The inability of your camera to auto focus sounds like it's time to sent it in for service and cleaning. In the mean time focus manually. That was the only way to focus my AE1. If the specks you see through the viewfinder don't appear on your photos, they are probably on the focusing screen or mirror, a good professional cleaning should take care of that too. My EOS 3 has these spots everywhere, it's pretty hard to get them out and they don't affect image quality.
The 10D is based on the Elan 7 and the body is similar in features and build quality. The 1D Mk II is based on the EOS 1V and is truly a professional body. The Mk II has the the advantages of nearly a full frame sensor with only a 1.3 crop and 11mp, its basically waterproof, faster(fps), has a larger buffer, and more, but boy is it pricey. Unless you are a professional photographer, IMO it would be overkill. The 10D is more than an adequate digital replacement for your Elan 7. There are professionals using the 10D out there. I have seen flawless 16x20 enlargements from the 10D.
The blur you've seen will occur whether on digital or film and is due to a slow shutter speed, too slow to stop the action. It has nothing to with the body, and digital makes getting a faster shutter speed to stop the action easier, you can change the ISO right now, there is no need to change rolls of film, just press a button and turn a dial. The 10D is noisless at ISO 100, virtually noiseless at ISO 200 and has very acceptable noise at 400 and 800, and at 1600 it gets noisy, but not horribly so. With the expansion if it is really dark and you need the picture you can get really noisy at ISO 3200, but you will still get the picture. It does seem that a slow shutter speed on a digital camera produces more of a ghosting effect with movement, but a faster shutter will eliminate that.
The quote you made on the MkII being " a joy to wedding photographers and photojournalists/sports photographers" is marketing aimed at the professional. The MkII is very fast, I can't remember the frames rate on the MkII but it is significantly better than the 10D. This basically means you can get more pictures of a particular situation in a given time, but has nothing to do with stopping movement, that is purely a function of shutter speed. You need to use the TV mode and choose a shutter speed that will stop the movement, and still get enough light to the sensor(aperture). If your lens is wide open, and you can't get the shutter speed fast enough(underexposed), bump up the ISO(sensitivity). The MkII probably has at least equal to and probably better performance at higher ISO settings, but the 10D has very very good performance. Having a quality support for long lenses makes a huge difference too, the longer the lens the more chance of camera shake. Taking muliple frames of a scene with a semi solid support like a mono pod increases your chances for getting one of them in sharp focus. A more solid support like a tripod increases your chances even more, but limits your movement tracking a subject.
I would recommend getting a 10D now (or its replacement that has been rumored for months with no solid confirmation) and spend your money on lenses. Upgrading your lenses to faster lenses will allow you to get more light to the sensor(proper exposure), while keeping your ISO low(less noise) and your shutter speed high(stops movement).
L glass costs and arm and a leg but is usually f/4 or faster and allows more light to the sensor. L glass has a noticeable difference in image quality over Canon's consumer lenses, which are for the most part, very good. Your 28-135 IS 3.5-4.5 is a good lens, and makes a fine walk around lens for the 10D. The 17-40 f/4L will regain your wide end after the 10D's 1.6 crop factor and is a bargain at around $750, it's a stop slower than most other L's, but image quality is great, and you have to wonder if its worth doubling the price to get the extra stop. The 70-200 f/4L is an excellent lens also, and is a stop slower than the 2.8 but again is a way to get great glass a little lower cost. My favorite in that range is the 80-200 f/2.8L. It's an older lens and can be had for around $800 used, it doesn't have the newer focusing motor, but it is as sharp as any L glass and is about half the price as the newer one.
Your camera body is just a fancy light timer, all bodies do the job of timing the light well. The lens and your skill in placing the lens is what makes the image, spend money on good glass, bodies will come and go, but a good lens will still get a high quality image to the sensor of any body.

[VanessaN]

Hi!

Love long posts or emails like yours--thanks so much for the wealth of information!

I'm certain my Elan7E is very overdue for a cleaning...don't think it's been professionally cleaned once yet, and I have dragged this poor baby everywhere, and it has the scuff marks to prove it (Niagara Falls, humid green or butterfly houses, 10-30 degree weather, snow, rain, lots of waterfalls here in the Fingerlakes area)... Question is: how or who to send this to? Canon? A professional camera shop? I don't actually think there are any left in this area that does internal cleaning, so regardless I would have to send it out. One charges $40 for external cleaning, and they said it would be $75-100 for internal cleaning, if it didn't have to be repaired in addition.

Does this sound right? Would the costs involve entail I should just get the 10D anyway? What do you usually do when you have to get your camera cleaned?

I would think that the Mark II's fast frame speed would be useful for high speed events--like horse or car racing, or even air shows---you think the 10D should still be able to do it as long as the shutter speed is fast enough? I haven't actually taken anything really high-speed, but had assumed that fast frames give you a better chance of stopping motion (or getting lucky in getting a picture). In terms of ISO.....if it's a great picture I usually like to print at 8 by 10 and, sometimes, 11 by 14....but if I do a really lovely one I might go bigger. Is the noise at 400-800 equivalent to film grain? Hard to answer that of course depending on what film you use, of course. Usually use Fuji Superia or Reala when I can afford it, infrequently Kodak consumer film or Kodak Supra.

So I am only leery in terms of having to go with higher ISOs and thus increasing the amount of grain--frequently I am shooting into shadowed places or high contrast places (sun/dark). One that has surprised about my digital compact (Nikon 4500, bought that a couple years ago when I wanted something light to take with me most of the time and I liked the swivel design at the time) is that it is very good at taking night pictures, much better than my Elan7E. I have to still practice bulb shooting but inevitably it comes out overexposed. A year ago when they put back the twin beams at the WTC, I took much better pictures of them from the top of the Empire State Building (you have to ask them ahead of time if you want to use a tripod, and I didn't have one at the time) by handholding the Nikon4500 then I did with handholding the Elan. The Nikon took the night cityscapes amazingly well hand-held.

I see by your handle that you must have owned, or still own, the EOS3? Don't know if you've used the Elan 7s and could compare them? Is it marginally better? It seemed that the lone larger advantage was the spot metering? Have you gone completely to digital?

Thanks so much for your insights!
Vanessa

[VanessaN]

Oh, and one more thought...is it really true that there is a successor to the 10D on the horizon? Sigh, I hate how you never really know when big computer or photo manufacturers are about to release some amazing new camera/etc. With cameras I get amazing lust pangs, as I did when the MarkII came out (and the 1Ds of course)....ah, for a winning lottery ticket!!!

[Franglais]

Oh, and one more thought...is it really true that there is a successor to the 10D on the horizon? Sigh, I hate how you never really know when big computer or photo manufacturers are about to release some amazing new camera/etc. With cameras I get amazing lust pangs, as I did when the MarkII came out (and the 1Ds of course)....ah, for a winning lottery ticket!!!

Canon are rumoured to be introducing at least one new digital SLR for Photokina at the start of October. This might be the 300D relabelled as the 3000D with a lower price tag, and/or the replacement for the 10D which might be called the 3D. It's not that long to wait.

BTW the EOS 1D mark 2 has 8Mpix (not 11) but that seems to be enough. For you - the mark 2 seems like overkill to me. If I were you I'd look at the 300D with its kit lens which takes pretty much the same pictures as the 10D and is much more accessible than either of the ones you've got your eye on. Then build up a collection of better lenses and in 4 years or so when the market has stabilised get your definitive digital SLR.

Charles

[EOSThree]

I agree with Franglais that the 300D would be a fine camera. It has the same sensor as the 10D. I know of at least one semi-pro that shoots with one. He has captured some fine shots handheld with a 100-400 IS of aircraft/parachute exits from 3000 feet.

Oops! 2am brain fart on the the MP of the MkII, I was thinking of the 1Ds.

Try KEH for camera cleaning/repair, that is who my local shop sends all repairs to:
http://www.keh.com

I'll re-iterate: frame rate will NOT make up for shutter speed in capturing motion. All frame rate gives you is the ability to capture more blurry pictures per second, if your shutter speed is too slow to stop motion. You need a shutter speed of 1/250-1/500 to stop most motion. Any camera body has the ability to shoot these speeds.

Yes noise is the digital equivalent of grain. The 10D or 300D has excellent low noise performance at 200 or 400, at 800 it is still very good. I have no qualms shooting at ISO 400 with my 10D.

I still own an EOS 3 and an EOS A2, neither one has seen much film since I bought the 10D. Your Elan 7 can take the same quality of pictures as the A2 or 3. The higher priced bodies just allow you more refinement, more speed, and better construction. I thought digital was a gimick, good for snapshots only, or pictures for Ebay. What changed my mind was stumbling on to Pekka Saarinen's G1 gallery:
http://photography-on-the.net/galler...p?exhibition=2
I went out and purchased a Canon S30 the next week.

I completely dedicated a season to digital with the S30, and later a G2. It was great fun to see my pictures immediately and the quality was amazing to me. I was still satisfied with just a point and shoot though, the D30, and D60 were just too expensive and had too many little glitches. Then the 10D came out, I lusted after the 10D for a year before finally purchasing it amid rumors of a replacement. The rumors are still there, with no camera materializing yet. I would rather be shooting pictures than waiting on "the latest, greatest".

Phil Askey has great reviews and info on digital cameras:
http://www.dpreview.com/

Michael Reichmann is a complete digital convert and quite a bit of knowledge can be had on his site:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Only you can decide what camera will meet your needs, the best thing is to arm yourself with knowledge and make an informed decision. Remember to have fun with it, and don't lust for the latest fanciest gadget, Pekka's G1 is 3 years old and he did great things with it. My G2 gave me images I was proud of, with the 10D just allowing me more flexibility.

[SmartWombat]

Thanks for this thread.
I'm considering my next move, and it'll probably be the 300D instead of the 10D.
Just because I don't have any Canon lenses, so I'll be looking at the kit to start with.
Unless I can get the 10D body on the internet and some good second hand lenses.

I've found even with motorsport that the burst frame rate isn't that important to me.
What matters more is the time it takes before I can take the next one.
Whihc includes the focus time, speed of writing to card, card speed.

With a 1DmkII I could be too tempted to use the camera like a hosepipe
Instead of looking for the action and photographing it.

Your mileage may vary.
Contents settle during shipping.
This message made only with recycled electrons.

[VanessaN]

Thanks for all the comments, everyone (although I always appreciate endless conversations).....it's been a learning experience!!! And grateful for all your advice.

I considered the 300D too, at one point. In fact I spent months reading all the compare and contrast articles there were between that and the 10D. And then perused the many forums. It seemed to me that while there were certainly happy, satisfied users with the 300D, it proved too limiting for others. Meanwhile the 10D, except for some weird focus problems here and there, has gotten across the board great reviews. Then, of course, the MarkII came out, and that obsessed my attention for a while. So that it was comparing that to the 10D.

Paul, from what I've seen in the last couple weeks, the 10D is dropping in price, both in standard places like BH (Canon announced the price drop too), and with all the other places who are selling it even more cheaply. I would imagine it may drop further when this new camera comes out. So, even though it seems like an eon (2 months?) before the new camera is announced, might be worth it to wait. It seems the 10D has a edge over the 300D. And depending on whether the new camera is a successor to the 300D or the 10D, (good rumor has it that it's the 10D replacement). Maybe there'll be a midrange camera as well (something between the 10D and MarkII in price). Me, I am pretty much decided that I would get the 10D, but I am going to try to wait another couple months, much as I really *want* a new camera now. ;) Need to save money for one, and am curious to see what the new one will be. Which will undoubtedly get me all indecisive again, unless the price is really good (or equivalent to the 10D now).

Vanessa