Cameras

[mapguy]

The MP3 thread was getting off topic so I decided to start another.


Originally posted by SteveH
I really would like to get that camera since it uses EOS lenses. I've got an Elan IIe w/ two Canon lenses and a Canon flash. All would work on the digital body. Best part about using EOS lenses, the chip in the camera is smaller than a 35mm frame. As a result it effectively makes your lenses 1.6 longer. My 300mm lens then would then be 480mm on this body.

OK, now back to the MP3 program already in progress.......

I used to have an old school, fully manual, Pentax SLR until I decided to take pictures of the aftermath of an ice storm....

Anyway. I have wanted to get another SLR for a while now. I ruled out Pentax as, until the *ist, have had very dissapointing autofocus systems. A friend of mine told me that Minolta make the best bodies and Nikon make the best lenses and Canon has the best compromise. Although with Canon's USM lenses I think that it has changed somewhat.

I wanted to get a digital SLR as I like the idea of not having to wait for development and the ability to adjust images on the PC. Plus they are cool as hell. It wasn't until recently that digital SLR's got below the $2k barrier. The first one that I actually got my hands on was the Sigma SD-9. Not bad but it felt like a plastic toy camera. Plus it is based on the film D-9 which isn't that great of a camera. I really liked the Canon D10 and it was at a really good price, $1600. Then Canon brought out the Digital Rebel. BAM! Mind changed. For $1600 I can get the DRebel, two lenses, Tamrac carrying case, Canon flash, battery grip and tripod and still have change from $1600. (not much).

[sadams]

I've got a Cannon A1 and the wife has an EOS. We 've both resisted the digital switch because the cameras didn't take lenses. Now that Cannon has the body which takes EOS lenses I might have to switch.
I also wasn't very impressed with resolution and color satuation on the digitals I'd seen. They all seemed like "snapshot" 35MM cameras, OK for the birthday party but not for real photography.

[mapguy]

Originally posted by sadams
I've got a Cannon A1 and the wife has an EOS. We 've both resisted the digital switch because the cameras didn't take lenses. Now that Cannon has the body which takes EOS lenses I might have to switch.
I also wasn't very impressed with resolution and color satuation on the digitals I'd seen. They all seemed like "snapshot" 35MM cameras, OK for the birthday party but not for real photography.

The new EOS digitals have 6.1 (or 6.3) megapixels which would allow for images to be printed at 11x14 without distortion. That is pretty impressive. That is getting pretty close to film quality. The top of the line Canon has 11.1 megapixels :eek: but you are looking at close to $10k for that one.

[sadams]

I always shot Kodachrome 25 or 64 for the fine grain and red color saturation. How would the EOS 10D compare ?

[mapguy]

Originally posted by sadams
I always shot Kodachrome 25 or 64 for the fine grain and red color saturation. How would the EOS 10D compare ?

I don't think that the 10D can compare to slide film. From the POP report that I read it is comparable to iso 100 film. So if that is the case the EOS 1Ds, which has almost twice as many mp's (6.3 vs 11.1) would be comparable to slide film. But it is a hell of a lot more expensive. $1500 vs $8000.

[lone_groover]

To equal K64 or Fuji Velvia, you'd need something like 40-60 megapixels.

I'm gonna get a better scanner (soon) and stick with K64, RDP, TMX and Neopan 400.

[mapguy]

Originally posted by lone_groover
To equal K64 or Fuji Velvia, you'd need something like 40-60 megapixels.

I'm gonna get a better scanner (soon) and stick with K64, RDP, TMX and Neopan 400.

That sounds about right. The way that they are advancing with the DSLR technology I would think that by the end of next year they might be approaching that figure.

[lone_groover]

You alwayz gotta take into account color descrimination, color accuracy at the pixel level, color gradation, aliasing, digital noise, digital artefacts (like your Hamilton LED watch, HA HA), adjacency effects...... :)

[mapguy]

Originally posted by lone_groover
You alwayz gotta take into account color descrimination, color accuracy at the pixel level, color gradation, aliasing, digital noise, digital artefacts (like your Hamilton LED watch, HA HA), adjacency effects...... :)

Easy, just adjust the flux-capacitor with a hydro-spanner and bingo. The only problem is that you have to set up a containment field so you don't get a core breach. Pixels are a beatch to clean off the floor.

[lone_groover]

Just watch out for them Klingons by you-know-where!

:cry:

[Methanolandbrats]

Originally posted by lone_groover
To equal K64 or Fuji Velvia, you'd need something like 40-60 megapixels.

I'm gonna get a better scanner (soon) and stick with K64, RDP, TMX and Neopan 400. The Honorable Gentleman say what? 40-60 MPXL? Uh, no. I've seen a job shot on 2 1/4 Blads and the following year with a D100. The D100 is as sharp as the blad. The photographer sold his blads. I've also seen commercial work inside a factory shot with the 10 mpxl Canon. The results are sharper than Velvia and with better latitude. The only pros I know who still shoot film do it for the occasional client who refuses to deal with digital.

[lone_groover]

Pros may shoot digital, and it may LOOK good, but it takes a 4x5 digital back to match a good 35mm chrome.

[mapguy]

Some of the pros that I have talked to when they do commercial shoots they use digital to preview the shots to the client and then use chrome for the real shots.

[Methanolandbrats]

I am a professional, have been for 30 years. I've got friends in all aspects of the business. I'm not going into the lines/mm resolution limits of Velvia, the resolution limits of good lenses, the megapixels required to make a print of a certain size, etc...etc... You can make HUGE prints from a Nikon D100 that look as good as 35mm trans film. Hell, they look as good as 2 1/4. The "grain" of digital photography looks different than the grain of transparency film. That is the difference people are seeing at huge magnification, not a difference in sharpness. This guy has posted some interesting stuff
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
BTW all this is irrelevant to people on this forum who are going to the racetrack and want to make an 11x14 to put on their wall. Just get at least a 3mp camera that has the features you want and as little shutter lag as possible. If at all possible buy a digital SLR since people on here are obviously interesting in shooting moving subjects. Canon has one now for under $1000 with a lens.

[lone_groover]

I'm NO pro....but I worked in the stock photo biz in fun city for a dozen years; I know my way around a loupe.

If ultimate small format quality is your criterion, NO CONTEST - as of Oct., 2003.

:)

[mapguy]

Originally posted by lone_groover
I'm NO pro....


C'mon L_G, no need to be modest. I was impressed with your work for the Tivoli Lodge. Donating that work for the Special Olympics and the Short Bus Advocacy Group was especially touching.

:D

[lone_groover]

That's it, Mapguy (if that is you name)! ONE more retard joke, and you're OFF the BRIAN'S WISH steering committee!

:cry:

[Methanolandbrats]

Hey lone_groover, the Stock Photo Biz....are you a photo researcher?
I agree if you put a top level 35mm transparency under a Schneider Loupe, it's sharper than hell. By the time it is scanned and goes to press, whatever advantage there may have been is gone. I go way back to the early 70s and Kodachrome, I've got tens of thousands of those suckers.

[lone_groover]

Was.....:)

[JT265]

Originally posted by sadams
I always shot Kodachrome 25 or 64 for the fine grain and red color saturation. How would the EOS 10D compare ?

I'd love to tell you sadams, but remember the old tune?

Mama gonna take my Kodachrome,
Mama gonna take my Kodachrome,
Mama gonna take my Kodachrome away?

Well, she did.

And, if THAT ain't bad enough, I'm cruising the boardwalk singin' my tune when I happen upon a funny little man playin' a dobro, and he says, "whatsup?" So, I explained my predicament, and just then a tall blonde funny-lookin' dood stops by and says "c'mon Paul, we gotta go". Even tho' I figured they were married, I thought "aw hell, live and let live".

It was some months later that I heard my tune on the radio. :cry: :D

[McB]

I bought a Digital Rebel for use at Fontana this weekend. :-<

I used it a bit at the Edwards AFB Open House last week, but its gonna have to wait til next season to get a race weekend workout now.

I am using the old EF lenses from my EOS 630 and I am pleased as can be so far. The focus and metering is different than the EOS, but I am learning quick.

[Methanolandbrats]

Here's a good example of why digital is good for action subjects.
D100, JPEG Fine, ISO 400, 450mm f6.3 I used most of a 512 card(150 frames) to get a couple sharp shots. I had to prefocus on the track and pan VERY quickly. With digital I could finetune the pan by looking at the results. With film this might have been impossible, or if it worked I'd a $100 lab bill along with two usable shots...sure don't miss those lab bills! :D STUPID photohost, I'll try to fix it later.