I bought the 20D. Hope it's as good as they say.

There's few people anymore that would seriously claim that 35mm film scans are as good as D20 images, but MF is another matter.  That's still a pretty big resolution gap.  1ds comes close and maybe 1dsMKII flat out beats any MF film scan, but a good MF scan should be substantially better than D20.

It's all so relative and subjective.  Galen Rowell's big prints from 35mm slides look really great, but a bit less great if there's a collection of David Muench (large format) prints in the same room.  If it's possible with 35mm slides, it should be easier to get good 20D prints up to 16x20 or even bigger, but this will take a bit of expertise and maybe you'd want to avoid big format prints in the same room.

I realize your specific question was about the 20D, but I'm going to assume that we can stretch the definition of this thread a bit.  I have M7s and an RZ system and shot MF Velvia and ISO 100 negative film for two years before buying a 1Ds.  Since mint-condition prices on the 1Ds are now quite low, I'd wager that you would consider this option vs. the 20D if you're thinking about a decent MF scanner to compliment your M7 system, which isn't inexpensive.

I've done exhibits with 20x24 prints from MF, scanned with an Imacon drum scanner, and displayed them side-by-side with 20x30s from the 1Ds, all printed on the Epson 7600.  They look very comparable at typical viewing distances.  

I think a very telling conclusion is that my M7, a great system with exceptional lenses, now stays at home -- and I'm shooting 100% digital.  The reason for this boils down to three key advantages for an all-digital solution: Workflow and image processing convenience; overall flexibility of a system that spans WA to telephoto to macro needs; and overall quality in printed output.  And, the quality side of the equation will only get better with the 1Ds Mark II.

Two other comments: Buy the very best lenses with the 1Ds-class body, and invest in your image-processing technique (RAW conversion, Photoshop skills, printing, etc.)  Do these things, and I think for most people, you won't look back.

Well, that might be true. But again, the comparison is between A3+ prints from digital and A3+ prints from film. I would maintain that any extra fine detail the print from MF film would show would not have as significant an impact (or at least would not have a more significant impact) as/than the totally clean, grain-free nature of the digital print, or to put it another way, if you did want to quibble about such differences, it would be from a close, hand-held distance rather than a normal viewing distance.

I have a nice 6x7 kit (mamiya 7II) but consider to jump into digital. I'm looking at a scanner, the KM Dimage Scan Multi Pro for my medium format negs or a D20 and a 17-40L and a 50mm 1:1.4  About the same price. I do A3+ prints, never larger than that. Is D20 good enough? What to do....?

Thanks

Thanks for Your thoughts. The KM Dimage scan multi Pro is a MF neg scanner (4800dpi, 16bit) not a flatbed. I use mainly 400 ISO film in the Mamiya. Will the 20D be able to produce A3+ images with similar quality. If You read this and have experience with 20D and A3+ printing please post a reply.

Thanks again.

Let us know how you get on. Is the quality of the prints as good as you get from your Mamiya?

I second what Bernard just said. A good dedicated MF film scanner is getting more out of a tranny or neg than a 20D. Take low speed film ISO 100 or even 200 and the scans are breathtaking.

Just one more observation, the Multi Pro scanns MF with 3200ppi, 35mm with 4800ppi. The Nikon Coolscan 9000 and the Mikrotek Artixscan 120tf with 4000ppi on both formats are better suited for MF films.

I have not done a side by side test yet but an A3 print from the 20D is okey, but not more than that. I am using the 17-40L zoom, maybe a prime will perform better? I will come back with the side by side test results.

Thanks

OH NO!! Yet another thread raising this issue (ultrawide performance).  Here's the distillation and general consensus:
Ultrawide zooms have extreme sample variations and many, if not most, will show soft corners at the shorter focal lengths on a large sensor camera.  The few primes available are generally much better, especially at large apertures.  HOWEVER, an ordinary 17-40L should be excellent with a 1.6x camera, unless you got an incredible bad sample.  I'd bet that you won't get better results with a different lens.  There are other issues, such as downrezzing or uprezzing parameters and sharpening.  These issues comprise a huge can of worms about which there's much disagreement.

Geir has stated he uses mainly 400 ISO film with his 6x7 Mamiya. To get similar DoF with the same shutter speed as the 20D, you'd need to go much higher than ISO 400 with a 6x7 format. But never mind. There's a compromise.

Comparing an A3+ print from 6x7 format at ISO 100 with a 20D, the 20D would hold its own. MF would probably show slightly better detail, at close inspection. The 20D would show less grain, at close inspection. From a normal viewing distance, any differences would probably be undetectable.

However, compare MF ISO 400 with the 20D's ISO 100, then there'd be no contest. The 20D would simply look better. Any impression of greater detail, which as I mentioned would only be apparent at close inspection, would be overwhelmed by obvious grain in the MF print.

Enlarge greater than A3+, it's a different story of course.

Why not just print from the negatives, directly? You don't need to scan them for printing, only if you want digital archive. I know this sounds obvious, but buying a 20D to get big prints, when you already have the tools and lab expertise around to do it, seems strange.

Also, with a DSLR, before printing, there is so much going on, that it just requires a steep learning curve (unsharp mask, noise reduction, and so on and so on). Possible, but again, if you can print straight from the neg...

As I mentioned before I bought the 20D, battery grip and 17-40L, 50mm macro and 70-200L. I find the battery grip poor built and can not be used when using a tripod, its too plasticy and not sturdy fitted to the body. This is disapointing and not good enough. I use a tripod most of the time and leave the battery grip at home. Any comments?

Because scanning the film and printing digitally delivers uniformly better results than direct optical printing. The only people who do optical printing in the darkroom any more are people who do so for the process' sake and are not seeking ultimate technical perfection. Scanning is unquestionably a technically better process. Making good prints in the darkroom requires just as much skill and technical expertise as doing so digitally, but is more expensive and involves hazardous chemicals.

I didn't miss that.

Personally I don't feel that the 20D or any 8MP camera is capable of top-notch full-detail A3 prints.  It's close but just not absolutely there.

At 16MP, a Bayer digital camera can knock A3s out of the park.  8MP will do a grand-slam home run with A4, but there is still room for improvement at A3.  Not to say that the A3's aren't nice, can't be really enjoyable.  Simply that it's easy to see the improvement of a 1DsII image printed to A3 versus a 1DII.

A lot will depend on your expertise once you have your digital scan. The D20 with good lenses will take excellent RAW digital images. But again, your skill in manipulating the digital scan and/or image will determine the outcome. I have yet to see scans, other than from drum scanners, that can beat a RAW image from Canon’s pro cameras. I’ve never used a D20 so can’t comment, but using a Canon 1DMkII or 1Ds I felt the output better than scanned MF images on a flat bed scanner.

Good luck.

Roger

Hi there,

It is probably too late since it seems that you already got your 20D, but I do personnally feel that the 6*45 scans I get with my Coolscan 9000 are nicer than what my SLR/n delivers most of the time.

They are nicer in terms of color and just seem to contain more information, even if they look a bit soft when checked at 100% in PS.

That depends on the picture actually.

I don't know about the 20D, but all the evidence point to the fact that the resolution of the Kodak is significantly higher.

Best regards,
Bernard

if time is importand for you the D20 will save you #### of alot of time to take pictures or so... the quality is good enough for A3 size.. hope you are happy with it.

Countless people have made the transition from wet dark room to digital and there's been countless threads and messages devoted to this topic.  Michael (the founder and owner of this website and forum) made this transition quite some time ago and has clearly explained his reasons, as have many others.  Sure, there's learning curves and challenges, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks so hugely, that there's no looking back and film will continue to become more and more obsolete, except perhaps for 8x10.
This doesn't invalidate the notion that film and wet darkroom can be a satisfying discipline for some people, but the general trend is going digital and for a lot of very good reasons.  I'm for sure not planning to trade my 1ds in on a film camera any time soon.  To each his own.  :D

Your 6x7 should beat just about any dSLR other than the 1Ds Mark II assuming the best primes on the Canon.  At ISO 400 the 20D prints should be very respectable compared to the 6x7 in terms of noise/grain but with substantially less total resolution.

With ISO 100 transparency film and a decent scanner, the Mamiya will eat your 20D for lunch.

Matthew,
You missed part of the question, which was, "

The answer is clearly, yes.