EOS 3 or G9

[NigelC]

I currently use a 5D and various F4L lenses (apart from an Oly 8080 when I want something lighter and for scuba). I've become seduced by the idea of returniig to the sort of tight, grainy black and white I used to get from FP4/HP5 (generally not bigger than 11x14) - if you can imagine it, think of the crispeness of high contrast winter light shot on 35mm film. Not better than the 5D converted in Channel Mixer, but different. I was thinking of getting a used EOS 3 for this but having read the review of the G9 just posted on this site, I was wondering whether I could get something simiiar from the G9 shot at relatively high ISO - would this give a tight grain, as opposed to mushy noise. The G9 route would also give me an excuse to rplace the Oly 8080, which has an vitually unusable raw due to lack of buffer.

[francois]

I currently use a 5D and various F4L lenses (apart from an Oly 8080 when I want something lighter and for scuba). I've become seduced by the idea of returniig to the sort of tight, grainy black and white I used to get from FP4/HP5 (generally not bigger than 11x14) - if you can imagine it, think of the crispeness of high contrast winter light shot on 35mm film. Not better than the 5D converted in Channel Mixer, but different. I was thinking of getting a used EOS 3 for this but having read the review of the G9 just posted on this site, I was wondering whether I could get something simiiar from the G9 shot at relatively high ISO - would this give a tight grain, as opposed to mushy noise. The G9 route would also give me an excuse to rplace the Oly 8080, which has an vitually unusable raw due to lack of buffer.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nigel,
Have you tried programs such as RealGrain from Imagenomic ([a href=\"http://www.imagenomic.com/rg.aspx]here[/url]). It might be all you need.

[Eldor]

Like Francois, my suggestion is that you try to accomplish what you want with the 5D and post-processing.  I haven't tried the RealGrain program but I've used something from FredMiranda.com called (if I remember the correct name) B&WPro.  It not only lets you make many different b&w effects (and things like sepia, etc.) but it allows you to add a 400ASA film grain which is suppsed to be very similar to the old Tri-X film.

Now if you're looking for a good digital camera to carry along with you when your 5D (with lenses) is too big, the G9 is a pretty good choice.  I have one and I'm really happy with it, especially since it does RAW.  The weaknesses of the G9 are (IMHO) the very poor higher ISO quality - I pretty much shoot it only at ISO 80 now - and the fact that RAW support for it is still so poor.  Capture One Pro still doesn't support it (so images from it don't fit as well into my workflow), BBPro doesn't support it, and neither does DPP.  There's some klutzy program from Canon that comes with it that does support the RAW format, but it's nowhere near as nice as the other options would be.  And Adobe CR does support it, but personally I prefer Capture One.

Good luck!

[sojournerphoto]

I currently use a 5D and various F4L lenses (apart from an Oly 8080 when I want something lighter and for scuba). I've become seduced by the idea of returniig to the sort of tight, grainy black and white I used to get from FP4/HP5 (generally not bigger than 11x14) - if you can imagine it, think of the crispeness of high contrast winter light shot on 35mm film. Not better than the 5D converted in Channel Mixer, but different. I was thinking of getting a used EOS 3 for this but having read the review of the G9 just posted on this site, I was wondering whether I could get something simiiar from the G9 shot at relatively high ISO - would this give a tight grain, as opposed to mushy noise. The G9 route would also give me an excuse to rplace the Oly 8080, which has an vitually unusable raw due to lack of buffer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You could try the DXo filmpack plugin for photoshop - it's much much cheaper than the full DXo software and does a nice job of black and white rendering and grain. I like the tri-x look. One of my projects for the enxt few weeks is to spend a week shooting my 5D with the zeiss zf35 and process everything through the filmpack's tri-x rendering.  Just for fun and to take me back 30 odd years to the rangefinder my grandfather gave me as a boy:)

[mahleu]

I vote for the Eos 3. Shooting on film is just such a different way of photographing. The instant review isn't there and you're forced to wait a while.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have a near mint EOS 3, when I switched to Canon for commercial work, I thought some clients would still want slides-not one. For sale-email me.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I vote for the Eos 3. Shooting on film is just such a different way of photographing. The instant review isn't there and you're forced to wait a while.

And that's a good thing how?

[mahleu]

And that's a good thing how?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's a pleasant change from the instant gratification obsesessed society we find ourselves in. it brings back a bit of mystery to photography.

[NigelC]

Thanks for the replies. I think I will try out some software plug-ins to see how "film-like" they are and compare them to prints from some of my existing 35mm B&W negatives. I think the difference is about texture although I think any black and white film has more dynamic range than my 5D - less shadow detail though.

I think I need a new toy anyway so may get an EOS 3. I had alook at a G9 - nice screen but the optical vewfinder is so bad Canon shouldn't have bothered including it.

[Jonathan Wienke]

It's a pleasant change from the instant gratification obsesessed society we find ourselves in. it brings back a bit of mystery to photography.

To each his own, I suppose. Mystery is NOT a good thing when you're leaving a wedding or a shoot with a bunch of models and won't know if you really got what you wanted until the film comes back from the lab. For personal work that isn't intended to pay the rent, I suppose it could be a novelty...

[stever]

i seitched from a point and shoot to 20D for UW a couple years ago out of frustration

point and shoots have improved (in some ways) since then - wetpixel.com has a forum devoted to point and shoot

like everyone else, i have an EOS 3 in the closet - and it will probably stay there until it becomes a valuable antique or i die

[escog]

It's a pleasant change from the instant gratification obsesessed society we find ourselves in. it brings back a bit of mystery to photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm, you also get the mystery of whether the lab is going to lose your film, if they'll process it properly, or if you'll get scratches or spots on the negatives. There are a number of characteristics I occasionally miss about film, but mystery is one of them.

The only advantage to film that I can think of is that you're forced into better technique, because if you screw it up, you won't know about it until after the film is developed. But, I find this to be a dubious advantage.

[stever]

20 years ago i wouldn't trust a lab to develop my b&W negs

[DonWeston]

Labs haven't gotten better in my area sadly to say. IF you do your own lab work for B&W and enjoy it, great. If you are depending on an outside lab, check quality before handing them anything important. Last shot some 4x5 about 2 yrs ago, after not shooting any for about 5 yrs of using digital only. Boy, what I found was not good, actually tried 2-3 labs in area over a two week period and was generally dismayed about poor processing. These were labs that previously did a bang up job on E6 and C41. That is one issue...

On the other side, you can come close to duplicating the grainy look in digital with various plug ins, mean while you know you got the shot, and that except for an errant dust bunnie, with little or no clean up....

Last issue, is and this is argueable, I would only consider using Mf or Lf film these days, digital quality has come along way with current 10-16Mp cameras overall. Even my G7 gives me great prints up to 11x14 as long as ISO is low. Have fun with either way...try out film again, I did and found that it just didn't have the charm that it once did for me [3 decade film user and bw processor and printer]...