Backup plan

[antonyb]

Hi All,

I have an Aria and a fairly large selection of C/Y lenses and am thinking of securing that investment with a backup body. I'm wondering whether to get a 2nd hand RTS3 body or a new Canon 350D (maybe even a 10D) with an adapter for my lenses. I already scan my films with a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and am very happy with the results, but am attracted by the lack of film/processing cost of a DSLR.

I was wondering what the "public" opinion is regarding this camera choice?

As always, I appreciate the advice.

Thanks, Antony.

 

[salim]

350D is a great option. After using it for a few months you may end up not shooting film again.

 

[albert4321]

Forget about the 10D. The DIGIC II image processor engine in the newer Canon dSLR models (20D, 350D, MKIIs) are so much better. Buy a 350D if you are in a budget.

RTS III is one of the best MF camera ever. You can hardly find anything that well built nowadays. It would be a great collection to your existing c/y lenses. If you hold it in your hand, you don't want to put it down.

But dSLR is a very practical choice.

 

[antonyb]

Albert - I notice your first listed Canon camera is the 20D, is it THAT much better than the 350D?

I am also worried that I will be unsatisfied with the build of the 350D - I have played with a 300D digital rebel and was very dissapointed...

Antony

 

[borghed]

Why not pick up one of the used AX:s before it becomes a rare collectors item. It is really a marvelous thing which probably will secure your investment substantially. I have had one from the very beginning and together some c/y lenses plus combined with an adaptor for my Hasselblad F-lenses I have had great times. Good luck Nils

 

[albert4321]

Antony, I have not handled the new 350D, so I could not tell how much different from the 20D. However, the 20D is a good body for $1400. So much better than the 10D in many ways. 0.2 second start up time, E-TTL-2, faster capture, image quality, etc. The AF is much better than the 300D.

Tell you the true, the 20D is not that well built neither, it is not as well built as the EOS 1 series, but better than the 300D for sure. One thing I like is the light weight, fast startup and fast capture with 8m sensor. I am getting the 1D MK II as 2nd body for my next wedding. But for the image quality, the 1D Mk II is not much different than the 20D except for the 1.3x FOV, with 3 times the price of the 20D. Certainly, MK II is a better body, but for dollar per value, I think 20D is a great buy.

You are so lucky to have a collection of C/Y lenses that you can use with any Canon dSLR body. I invested big bucks on the seven Zeiss AF lenses which have no use beside the Contax bodies. I am still looking around in eBay to build up my C645 lens collect.

 

[wang]

Just a question to Albert Lau. You said the DIGIC II image processor engine is better in the newer generation Canon bodies. If they are better, could you tell me in what way ?

Comments from dpreview suggested the switch from 10D to 20D is not that worthwhile. I would like to see the other view.

To me, my frustration to partial view cameras is always with the partial view and the reluctance of Canon to drop the price of the full view cameras.

 

[albert4321]

Joseph, I am not trying to be technical here. I have use the 10D for a while and when I got my 20D, I never look back.

Let's say from my own user experience, the DIGIC II gives:
1. very good hi-ISO result. (I think ISO 800 in 20D is as good as or better than iso-200 in the 10D). That is the main improvement for me.
2. The write time and capture rate are faster. I like that feature too.

other than that, 20D has 8M sensor (not a big deal, but almost 30% higher than the 10D. And as I mention before, the fast start up is a big plus for wedding. You can turn on the camera and take a shot in .3 sec.

I can't think of anything the 10D is better except the battery grip.

If one has the 10D already, probably not a real big deal to upgrade to the 20D. It is kind of sugestive. But if anyone wants to consider getting the 10D vs 20D like Antony does, I would vote for 20D without any reservation.

 

[jsmisc]

Antony,
I think the main question to resolve is whether or not you want to go digital. Given your choice, I think at present I would buy the RTS3 which will probably last for ever whereas I expect you will want to upgrade the 350D. You are already partly digital in that you scan film.
I also use film and the Elite Scan 5400. It is great apart from the slowness at full resolution. There is a Mark 2 version out now which claims to be quick.
On the other hand if you do want to go in camera digital, there is a bewildering choice but the fact that CZ lenses can be used on the Canon must be a plus.
John

 

[antonyb]

John,

I think my main problem with film at the moment is not being able to find somewhere that can develop my films without messing them up! I have recently bought my own place and as such no longer have the luxury of space that I had when renting to do my own developing.

This is causing me major problems. Any suggestions (from anyone) about where to use in the UK would be greatly appreciated!

I am also tempted by the immediacy of digital - if I can't process my own films then I don't want to wait for them to come back nicely stained by being left covered in chemical wash!

Antony

 

[jsmisc]

Antony,
Thanks for your reply. I have begun using Boots for negative processing, not the instore one hour process but the overnight one where they send the film away. I have found that service locally to be OK and the CD is useful if you order it.
For slides at the moment I am using dlab7.com

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and find them very reasonable in price and good apart from the slide mounts which I don't like. I like CS mounts.
I used to use a pro lab but the cost has scuppered that and to be honest, I did not find their ordinary processing to be any better.
I agree about the immediacy of digital but you still have to get it into the computer and edit, digitally process etc.
Black and white is another matter. I no longer do my own precessing either and I am not sure whom I would use for that now. Probably stick with Agfa Scala and scan to the computer.
All the best,
John

 

[deshojo]

I use the RTS3 and Canon 20D, and whilst the RTS3 is a fantastic camera with every feature you could wish for, it is built like a tank.
This means it is very strong and will last forever, but it weighs a ton!

I find I use it less and less now I have the 20D, and recently I've actually been using my tatty 30 year old RTS (the original model) for film because it is so much lighter. I've even been considering getting an Aria like you have! (The grass is always greener...)

I think you need to consider the type of shooting you mainly do. For wildlife and macro the 1.6 digital crop is a great bonus, it makes a 300mm f2.8 into a near 500mm f2.8, and gives extra distance for macro work. Also the results from the 8mp digic2 are probably better than most 35mm film.
Unfortunately that crop factor means my beautiful 21mm Distagon becomes a rather mundane 33mm, so for wide landscape work it can be frustrating (hence wanting a lightweight film body to carry as well).

If I were you I would probably opt for the Canon digital, because you will then have the choice along with your Aria, and they are light enough that you will carry both.

With regard to processing, I use Peak Imaging, Freepost SF 360, Sheffield S1 1AY

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and have found them fast, reliable and very professional for my E6 processing.

Cheers,
Matt

 

[nickser]

Hi Antony,

I will second John on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. I use them exclusively for my E6 slides with good results. I have also used them for C41 print packages and have been more than happy with them. They scan to cd as well (18 meg images) which are very good and blemish free.

Paul

 

[antonyb]

Thank you all very much for the advice, it has been VERY useful.

I think I will hold out a while longer and get a 20D - this seems the logical route (I really like Matt's argument in its favour) and I will look into dlab7 and peak-imaging for processing.

I guess my next question is which is the best adapter for my lenses to the canon?

antony

 

[deshojo]

Hi Antony,

I think you'll be happy with your choice, the 20D is a very useful tool alongside a film body. The good quality high ISO is a blessing, and the instant results are very helpful.

There is nothing that can quite match the appeal of a landscape shot on Velvia through a Zeiss lens, but once you see a wildlife or macro shot from the 20D you'll be a convert. And the lack of those full res. 15min dimage scans for 1 shot is something you will really like!

I've used the Camerquest adapter for 6 months now and found it well engineered, easy/fast to use, and very reliable. They're not cheap, but I think it was worth the cost (about £100).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Cheers,
Matt

 

[fotografz]

If you are discriminating enough to desire the excellence of Zeiss lenses, then only one DSLR will come close to what you are getting with a film Contax and good scans. Hint: it isn't the Canon D10 or 20.

I've used, or use, all the digtial cameras from Canon, from the D30 on up to the current 1DsMKII for wedding work. Hint: I'd never use the D20 for a major shot like the wedding party formal ... unless it was the only camera I had that worked.

Digital is fun, it's a novel way to see the stuff right away like a Polaroid. The newer pro-sumer cameras like the D20 are indeed better at high ISOs than before. As long as you look carefully at the results to understand what you are losing with digital capture.

While digital appears less expensive to process, in the long run I've not found that to be true. The gear depreciates at a wallet humbling rate, and you end up adding improvements to your processing tools every year or two in an attempt to "keep up".

 

[antonyb]

Marc,

Your first point reflects my initial thinking when I started this thread...

I am going to assume (for better or worse) that you are talking about the ND..? The problem I have there is that I have no N lenses. Fair enough I dont have that many C/Y lenses, but for me - an amateur, who likes to think he is discerning - replacing my lenses with the N mount range would be an unappealing expense to say the least, let alone the price of the body!

As for your comments on digital getting outmoded - you make a fine, and thus far unappreciated, point. Buying a new body every year or two would indeed be very expensive. My thinking here is that this is the case with all technology and considering I have a PC laptop, PC desktop and a Mac a fact that I am all too aware of. This said I have had my contax 3.1mp digital camera for a couple of years and have no plans to change it yet.

So here's where I'm at... I have a nice little collection of lenses equalling a fair hobby investment. I have the lightest (read: plasticiest - not that i dislike it in anyway) body in the contax range which theoretically is the easiest to break and the company are no longer making bodies. This leads me to think I need a C/Y compatible backup. An RTS3 body wnd hand will set me back £600 in mint condition - the 20D £1000 plus adapter. The RTS3 would appear too heavy for what i'm likely to use it for (travel) and the 20D would seem to be an expensive 'technology whim' for me. So...

A Contax film body lighter than the RTS3 but as close as possible in terms of features and durability would be???

The ST perhaps?

Antony

 

[antonyb]

Marc,

Your first point reflects my initial thinking when I started this thread...

I am going to assume (for better or worse) that you are talking about the ND..? The problem I have there is that I have no N lenses. Fair enough I dont have that many C/Y lenses, but for me - an amateur, who likes to think he is discerning - replacing my lenses with the N mount range would be an unappealing expense to say the least, let alone the price of the body!

As for your comments on digital getting outmoded - you make a fine, and thus far unappreciated, point. Buying a new body every year or two would indeed be very expensive. My thinking here is that this is the case with all technology and considering I have a PC laptop, PC desktop and a Mac a fact that I am all too aware of. This said I have had my contax 3.1mp digital camera for a couple of years and have no plans to change it yet.

So here's where I'm at... I have a nice little collection of lenses equalling a fair hobby investment. I have the lightest (read: plasticiest - not that i dislike it in anyway) body in the contax range which theoretically is the easiest to break and the company are no longer making bodies. This leads me to think I need a C/Y compatible backup. An RTS3 body 2nd hand will set me back £600 in mint condition - the 20D £1000 plus adapter. The RTS3 would appear too heavy for what i'm likely to use it for (travel) and the 20D would seem to be an expensive 'technology whim' for me. So...

A Contax film body lighter than the RTS3 but as close as possible in terms of features and durability would be???

The ST perhaps?

Antony

 

[antonyb]

whoops... sorry about the double post!!!

 

[vdipiet]

Or perhaps another Aria. What are the odds of droping two of them on the floor and breaking both?