Full Version: Canon EOS 5D/DSLR Discussion
From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#14]
14 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#12] 14 May 2006
Mike,
This is why I was asking about the olympus....it comes with TWO lenses and has an 8mp capacity....as opposed to 6 on the "prosumer" Cannon Rebel and the Nikon D50 or D70.......but I"m not sure about the "image chip" from what I have been able to discern...the olympus chip is a bit bigger than the others.....but hell what do I know.......
Anyway, call me sometime this week. You should have my number now.
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#15]
14 May 2006
To: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#14] 15 May 2006
You're right I think. Some cameras have a slightly bigger sensor with a 1.4 lens reduction value. But the game really has changed in the past few years. Most DSLR mfgs are now making lenses specifically designed for smaller sensors and not film. They're called Dx lenses by Nikon. In a decade, all the old 'film to DSLR' transitoners like me won't be of much concern to camera makers. Their new client base won't have an arsenol of old 35mm film lenses to transition. That's also why Nikon will probably never make a full frame camera. They're putting all their R&D into new lens technology that fits a smaller sensor. This is also why Canon may fall behind some day....(wink) Newer shooters will be buying the latest lenses designed for digital and not looking for lenses designed for film size. There will be nothing sacred about 35mm film size in the future and so no need for "full frame" cameras really.
But right now we are at a technological end with CMOS and CCD design. There does seem to be a limit as to how small and close together you can place image receptors (pixels if you will) on a piece of silicone without affecting image quality. A totally new design is needed, some breakthrough. But until then most camera mfgs are concentrating on refining the other and actually more important things about digital capture. Bit depth per pixel for example is much more important to image quality than the 'megapixel count' of your sensor. I think that for the next few years sensor size will stabalize and that refinement will be in finding better ways to utilize what's already in place......stay tooned!
And I apologize for not knowing the Olumpus evolt was an 8MP DSLR. Sure doesn't sound like a prosumer cam to me. Only 2 lenses though....that's a weak point.
EDITED: 14 May 2006 by BIGPIXEL
From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#16]
15 May 2006
To: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#14] 15 May 2006
You're thinking about the old Rebel. The Rebel XT, which replaced it last year is 8MP, and takes incredible pics. I have one. I highly recommend it as an entry level camera over the Nikon D50 & D70 (unless you already have a few Nikkor lenses). There are several other brands in this class, some of which are very good, but Nikon and Canon are the leaders and if you're going to buy lenses and eventually move up to other cameras in the future I personally feel Nikon and Canon are the best way to go.
The lenses are a big part of the investment. I spent twice as much (total) for 3 lenses as I did on the body itself for mine.
From: John (JOHNRMONTG) [#17]
15 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#12] 15 May 2006
Mike .. thanks for the 'in depth' reply! I have allways enjoyed your posts on DSSI and your replies (more frequently here nowdays, I believe). The technology changes so fast in so many arenas these days its really hard to keep up. I appreciate all of your thoughts and appreciate the links you provided to check into them even further. I had done some quick reading a little bit ago concerning my lenses, which are auto focus, fyi, and wasn't too sure as regard to their compatablity with the current batch of Nikon cameras. I am wanting to get more into murals as well so I am wrestling with the 'pixel wars' as well to maximize whatever I get.
Robin's choice of camera does look excellent and I am considering it as well but would still like to get the most 'bang for the buck' by utilizing my other lense.
Thanks again for your imput.
From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#18]
15 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#15] 15 May 2006
Mike,
It COMES with two lenses, where most come with only one if any. I believe there are about 20 lenses available for the Olympus....
Thanks for the information. It is obvious you know your way around a camera......I learned a lot from your post.
From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#19]
15 May 2006
To: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#16] 15 May 2006
Dave,
Did you consider the Olympus at all? If you did, what did you chose the Canon over the Olympus?
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#20]
15 May 2006
To: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#18] 15 May 2006
It COMES with two lenses, where most come with only one if any. I believe there are about 20 lenses available for the Olympus....
Thanks for the information. It is obvious you know your way around a camera......I learned a lot from your post.
Thanks Chuck, like I said earlier; I know a few things but not everything obviously. ;-)
The thing you must consider when going DSLR is that lens quality matters as much if not more than the digital body you buy. Photography's all about optics, right? There are trade offs in quality and different price points with lenses. That's why I'd research these two Olympus lenses to see what quality they are before you buy. I'd guess mid range, not very fast glass which is also what Nikon and Canon offer with their entry level cameras. Not saying that's a bad thing, it depends on your needs and wants. But there is nothing crazier than for someone to buy a $1000+ DSLR, put a crappy lens on it and then wonder why their pics are crummy. (general statement Chuck, not directed at you)
But that said, ultimately you will have much more invested in glass than a digital body, even if you buy a D2x ($4500) or a Canon 1DsMkII ($8000). I personally have approximately $10,000 in lenses and Nikon accessories. Much more than I will ever spend on a DSLR body.
Another thing to consider today is that most DSLRs seem to have a usefull lifespan of 3-5 years before they start to fail or better replacements are released that you'd want to buy. Its not like the old film days when your 30 year old F2 was still shootin as good as the day it was made. So you need to consider a camera system carefully as you'll likely go through several digital bodies over time that your expensive lens collection would need to work with.
This is why Nikon and Canon are the giants today. Both have hundreds of lenses and accessories for ther system to choose from. Olympus is a well known and respected camera mfg but I'm not sure where they stand in today's market. They came a bit late to the DSLR party I think. Many reliable camera makers who tried to take on Nikon/Canon are falling by the wayside. Contax, Kodak, Sigma to name three who have dropped out in the last 2 years.
Personally if I were starting out today, I'd only consider Nikon or Canon if my aim was long term involvement with photography.
Incidentally, just to show how far we've come ion a few years, Kodak released the first 35mm DSLR around 1995, the DCS760m. It was based on a Nikon body. Looked like a brick and weighed a ton. Cost $22,000 too >.< and produced a smaller image than most of today's cell phone cams!
EDITED: 18 May 2006 by BIGPIXEL
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#21]
15 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 15 May 2006
Dave,
You might consider renaming this thread, "DSLR Discussion" or something similar as it's beginning to widen out.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#22]
15 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#21] 15 May 2006
Thanks for contributing to the thread.
Good stuff! :-)
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#23]
15 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#22] 15 May 2006
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#24]
15 May 2006
To: John (JOHNRMONTG) [#17] 16 May 2006
Robin's choice of camera does look excellent and I am considering it as well but would still like to get the most 'bang for the buck' by utilizing my other lense.
Well then you should be looking at a DSLR with the largest capture size you can afford. The Canon 5D is 12.8MP, the Nikon D200 10.2MP. The 5D sells for $2900 I believe, the D200 for $1700. Both would give you a larger file that could be interpolated up to mural size with cleaner results. I wouldn't consider any 6MP camera today. 8MP is the smallest you should consider.
All things considered, the D200 is lookin pretty good for you I would think.
From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#25]
15 May 2006
To: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#19] 15 May 2006
Chuck, I did look at the E-500, and a couple of other brands. The 500 is very similar specs to the Rebel XT (some better, some worse). But after doing a lot of research I found it really came down to what Mike said about lenses. They are the key to good images, and Canon and Nikon are the big players in that field. I've always had a big respect for Nikon (my father is a pro photog and always had Nikons) but the bang for the buck seemed to be with Canon at the price level I was looking at.
I figured if I was going to get serious about it, I needed to pick between Nikon and Canon, and whichever I chose I would probably be using for a long time, since as Mike says, the lenses stick around longer than the bodies.
I ended up buying the Rebel body and then carefully picking my initial lenses. I picked a good general purpose zoom (17-85mm), a 60mm macro lens (I love closeups) and a 75-300mm telephoto (a cheap one, since I don't do much telephoto). At some point I'd like to get some good fast prime lenses, but I have this camera for a mix of personal pics and an occasional product photo, so can't justify spending too much per year on it.
My brother, on the other hand, has a Canon 1Ds MkII attached to the back of a 4x5 camera body and uses that for product photography in his graphic design business. He makes more money than me. ;-)
EDITED: 15 May 2006 by DAVERJ
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#26]
15 May 2006
To: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#25] 15 May 2006
Dave, now THAT is impressive! I don't quite understand how it would work, but impressive. Is it so that he can stay with all the optics he has for his 4x5? Even so, he's shooting a camera designed to expose a 4"x5" piece of film onto a 35mm sized sensor. I'm missing something here...
If you know why and how he's doing what he's doing, please post it here. I'd love to know.
From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#27]
15 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#26] 15 May 2006
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#28]
15 May 2006
To: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#27] 16 May 2006
From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#29]
16 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#28] 16 May 2006
He's just picking up a portion of the 4x5 image, but that crops off a lot of the fringing and distortion anyway.
I'll see if I can get a sample pic from him. BTW, his web site is http://www.jonesstudioltd.com
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#30]
16 May 2006
To: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#29] 16 May 2006
From: John (JOHNRMONTG) [#31]
16 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#24] 16 May 2006
Mike ... thanks so much for all of the facts you put in the post back to me. It will help my research a lot.
I assume you have done a bit of murals as well ... what enlargement program do you recommend? I am utilizing Corel 9,12 & 13 (which I am starting to like a lot more now with more practice) and have PSCS-2 as well. I bought Kneson Imager Unlimited and it seems to work pretty good but I am not as impressed as I felt I should be. I know there is a lot of talk about Genuine Fractals and it seems a lot of the 'math' is contained in KIUnlimited so which is why I bought it ... plus was a bit more economical. Its confusing when I see people post on DSSI about the number of conversions they make when they are expanding an image to mural size. I have allways beleived that the more times you convert a file the image continues to degrade in quality.
Thanks in advance!
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#32]
16 May 2006
To: John (JOHNRMONTG) [#31] 16 May 2006
John,
I haven't done large scale murals as I'm one of those who thinks transfer technology still doesn't offer the kind of longevity I would expect for my clientelle but I have enlarged digital images for fine art paper printing on occasion beyond reasonable norms with some success. My comments here will always relate to the state of digital photography, what anyone does with that is another matter.
I generally hate the results if the amount of interpolation required goes beyond 300%. But this is a subjective conclusion. It really depends on your needs and wants and what you think is commercially viable. I tend to be a perfectionist. This is the reason you should be considering a camera that offers as large an image file as you can afford. If you're able to shoot a 10-12 MB RAW file and then convert and edit it as a 80MB 16 bit TIFF, you'd be ahead of the game.
BTW, this brings up an important side note. How robust is your computer work station? The larger files the better DSLRs produce require muscle to edit. You need at minimum 2GB RAM and a fast processor, a good video card around 128-256 MB these days.
Re DSSI claims, have you ever seen a decent photograph of one of these projects? I haven't. You can't tell anything from a 50x50ppi image taken with a point-n-shoot there. I have been slammed for suggesting that larger, more professionally taken images might tell the story better. Its almost as if no one wants you to see a close up detail for fear someone will understand the weakness of their process. Either that or the people who've posted images take constructive criticism too personally. I've offered to photograph imaged tile and put up large files online for examination but as of this date no one who's said they'd send me tile to photograph has sent any.
Sorry to hear about Kneson Imager Unlimited. That did look promising. And you are right. The more you stomp on any image, interpolate it up, save and resave as a jpg; the image quality will go down dramatically. Most of the good folk on DSSI attempting these things are not photographers or good image editors. That's not a slam btw, just a fact. You can tell in how they describe their process.
EDITED: 17 May 2006 by BIGPIXEL
From: John (JOHNRMONTG) [#33]
16 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#32] 16 May 2006
Hi Mike ... all good points you have made. I am currently looking also at updating my workstation. My wife, darn her, has got the more robust computer so I am looking into a faster, more aprapro (sp?) computer to work with. This is just like stereo, photography and so many other things that the 'weakest link' drives the overall product. Currently have a 1.8 mhz on WinPro with only 512mb ram (maxed out, just found out a month ago) and an average video card.
I agree with your summary on what I have seen on the DSSI forum in what I have observed but often times people probably have much better images available but don't offer to post those 'off site' ... could just be a 'time thing'. I understand how you feel with some of the posts slamming you on that forum and if those people would take time to read between the lines what you are offering I think those of us with a lessor experience level would tend to learn a lot more. I think there are many ways tho to approach any given scenario and I value looking at all the options and then decide on what approach I want to take to solve my own problem. I know with photography before the digital age I was looking at all the different Nikons and would have loved to buy the F-1 (have a friend that has one with all the bells and whistles) but after a serious evaluation of my needs at the time and to have to lift that monster for a day of shooting, I opted out at a more appropriate level and decided to buy a couple of good lens to compliment it.
I would not say I am an expert on enlargement software and it could be kneison unlimited is equal to or better then others ... not sure ...
Thanks for your insights. :-)
Show messages: 1-13 14-33 34-53 54-60