Best digital STILL cameras?

John Garcia · July 7th, 2003, 11:33 AM

I think the people of this community are smart enough to know better than to flame on others for thier opinions. That's what people from other boards do, not members of DVINFO.net...

Although, many opinions may come out 1/2 sided due to lack of knowledge, in which case someone will post and enlighten us with accurate information.

You still have my vote for a digicam forum on dvinfo.net. As least I know I'll be getting the accurate information that I need, and have a strong and reliable resource for any questions that I may have regarding both video, and still photography.

Matt Betea · July 7th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Since I've been here I haven't seen any of that stuff go on with all the other forums/topics that could easily spring up a flame war on other boards. No, I think 99.999% of everyone that's a regular contributor here on dvinfo is above that sort of thing. That's why I think it would be an asset to the folks here that are into still photography.

On an off topic note. I apologize as I didn't want to use a new thread for this, but has anyone had experience with Precision Camera & Video in Austin? I have to get some accessories and a power adapter. Searching on the net they seem to be the only place that has everything. As always, many thanks.

matt

Chris Hurd · July 7th, 2003, 10:53 PM

Matt

Jerry Sullivan runs a tight ship at Precision Camera. I've shopped there myself on many occasions. Be prepared to pay full retail, though. Hope this helps,

Jeff Donald · July 8th, 2003, 09:03 PM

I made the comment about medium format because it is true. I've owned a good 6 or 7 medium format cameras. Several Hasselblad's, Fuji's and Pentax's. I've been using large format since 1981, the same year I started teaching. I've had the images scanned on very high end drum scanners at considerable cost ($200 to $300 USD per scan). Prints made from the scans or direct to a Lightjet Ilfochrome show no difference up to about 16 X 20 (vs. the 10D). My comparison to the 1Ds indicate they are comparable to a size of 24 X 30. If you do a lot of 30 X 40's or larger continue to shoot film. If not, film is not required.

Yes, digital files need Photoshop. Film needs color and density corrections, special film processing may also be required (Zone System). I much prefer the digital darkroom (computer) to a wet darkroom. The smells, toxic chemicals, and environmental pollution caused by wet darkrooms are cause for concern.

The Fuji S2 is another great camera. But just like no film camera is perfect, neither are any of the digital cameras. Each user will have their own unique needs and no one camera will best meet every users needs.

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 09:20 PM

Jeff Donald said "I have been using the Canon EOS 10D for about a month. WOW. The resolution, image quality etc. rivals medium format. I am producing 13 x 19's with the Epson 2200 that are absolutely stunning. People are shocked, they think they were shot with medium format or large format cameras."

So you said the resolution, image quality etc. rivals medium format. You didn't say only up to a certain size print. It's generally well known that larger formats don't show their true strengths in smaller print sizes. If you expect people to already understand this then they don't need your advise. If they don't then you've misled them.

My D100 produces very good 16x20 prints but it doesn't rival medium format. I can't use medium format's advantages, though.

Matt Betea · July 8th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Thanks Chris. I put my order in earlier today and they already shipped. I spoke to Joan, she was friendly and helpful. Also informing me that a small item I wanted wasn't in stock and they would back order it for me when it arrived. Most places I've found don't let you know until you get your package and see it's not there and call them. Their pricing didn't seem too bad, some things I found were cheaper than B&H, others higher. Can't hurt to have found another good place to buy from. Thanks again.

matt

Jeff Donald · July 8th, 2003, 10:02 PM

If your having trouble with your 16 x 20's then the new forum may well be for you. Theoretical resolution advantages of film are only that, theoretical. If the advantages don't translate to paper, or the eye can't discern it, then it's no advantage. Unless someone needs transparencies for projection then it's all about the print. Compare prints, and film only has an advantage on very large prints.

I've been able to get 11 X 14's out of the D100 and even 13 X19's that are better than or equal to film.

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 10:17 PM

Jeff, I'm not having trouble with my 16x20's. Good 16x20's are not proof that my D100 rivals medium format. You don't seem to understand the difference.

My old Nikon 950 is 2MP and yields good 4x6 prints. That's not proof that it rivals medium format either.

My TRV-900 rivals an F900 when viewed on a 2" LCD screen.

If smaller prints are all you want, then the current digital SLRs offer enough resolution. If you want huge, great quality prints then 35mm film won't cut it. You stated that your 10D unequivically rivaled the resolution, image quality, etc. of medium format and that's wrong.

Jeff Donald · July 8th, 2003, 10:35 PM

Medium format cameras are routinely used for portraits, weddings, and many commercial applications. The size prints they are used to produce is generally 16 X 20 or less. Since the majority of the medium format cameras in use today are used by professionals in those fields and they produce 16 X 20 or smaller it is fair to say that the 10D rivals medium format. Nothing wrong about it, it's fact.

It's all about the print. Compare prints from MF and good digital cameras (10D, 1Ds, S2, etc.) and digital wins. I've shown the prints, to students, teachers, gallery owners, museum curators and most importantly, consumers and almost to a one, the prints from digital cameras win. I wish it wasn't always so, I've had a considerable investment in MF cameras and darkroom equipment. The truth is in the prints and digital wins up to 24 X 30 (larger in some cases, depends on the scene and the file).

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 10:41 PM

I know a large number of avid digital SLR photographers and not one of them would suggest they compete with medium format. Most scoff at comparisons to 35mm though that's not so clear. One loves his 1Ds and feels it's a match for 35mm.

The ideal resolution for a 16x20 print is greater than a 10D produces. Perhaps it's you that needs help printing medium format.

Jeff Donald · July 8th, 2003, 11:04 PM

The limit for the 10D is 13 X 19, my original stated size. I've produced larger prints by uprezing with the use of Genuine Fractals Pro. It's obvious you don't want to take my word for it and that's fine. I would suggest you visit Michael Reichmann's web site, The Luminous Landscape. Some of the best photographers today are there. Spend some time reading the many essay's, tutorials, product reviews, columns and How To's. I think you'll come away with a better understanding of the power and performance of today's DSLR's.

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 11:38 PM

Thanks for the reference Jeff. While I'm already quite familiar with the site, it's helpful that you've selected the industry "expert".

Please read this tutorial found on the Luminous Landscape website entitled Digital Camera Image Quality. It gets right to the matter.
Here's a quote for those in a hurry:

"A good medium format negative still beats the current crop of digital SLR's."

The author's conclusions? A D60/D100 is good for about 11x17. A Canon 1Ds (much more camera than your 10D) can do 13x19. Medium format is good for 24x30. Those are his numbers, not mine. Before you go off complaining that the 10D wasn't tested, the 10D has the same imager as the D60 but with improved noise performance. It's performance won't fair much different than the D60 and certainly won't approach the 1Ds. His medium format example bested the 1Ds by a whopping 70%.

I'm quite familiar with digital SLR's and own several. My disbelief of your claim is not due to ignorance of the subject.

Adrian Douglas · July 8th, 2003, 11:56 PM

For me, I'm sticking with film for a little while yet. While the quality of the current DSLRs is great but the camera features of the Canons just aren't there yet, for my needs at least. The 1Ds is a great camera but too slow for serious sports shooting. The 's' in the name stands for 'studio' and that is what this camera is aimed at, studio work as a replacement/to complement 35mm/MF studio set-ups. THe 1D has the speed but with the 1.3x multiplication factor it kills wide angle/fisheye lenses which are necessery for shooting many sports. However, it's great for beach based surfing, football, baseball etc where you need super-telephoto lenses.

I'm currently using an EOS5 and 1nRS and love both cameras. The pellicle mirror in the 1nRS is a dream as is the 10fps and 6millisec shutter release. If features similar to this are incorporated into say an 8Megapix fullframe camera then Canon would be on a winner. A fream camera would be an 8MP, pellicle mirrored, 5-10fps 1DRS, but it's probably just wishful thinking.

Jeff Donald · July 9th, 2003, 05:09 AM

Craig, I'm glad you've been to Michael's site. Since you seem keen on abridged versions, it might be helpful to point out that the article you link to is not written by Michael Reichmann. The article you refer to is written by Miles Hecker and he is writing in reference to work done by Norman Koren. The article was actually written a little over a year ago, when the D60 was just out. The 1Ds information was not from first hand information, but rather from samples from dpreview. You should have included the next sentence from the quote. For those in a hurry;

"That will change in the coming years"

A lot happens in a year Craig. Rather than wait for Craig and I to bring the whole web site to everyone line by line, for those interested in digital photography, I suggest following one of the links and explore the site. It makes for good reading.

Nigel Moore · July 9th, 2003, 06:11 AM

The more recent digital cameras (and I'm thinking here of the Canon EOS-1Ds in particular) do have much higher resolutions, and the images can be enlarged to a greater extent. But the real benefit, IMHO, is the reduced focal length multiplier. The 1Ds's FLM of 1 would be sweet.

Now, where did I leave that $8k? :-)

July 7th, 2003, 10:53 PM	#33
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Matt Jerry Sullivan runs a tight ship at Precision Camera. I've shopped there myself on many occasions. Be prepared to pay full retail, though. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 8th, 2003, 09:03 PM	#34
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I made the comment about medium format because it is true. I've owned a good 6 or 7 medium format cameras. Several Hasselblad's, Fuji's and Pentax's. I've been using large format since 1981, the same year I started teaching. I've had the images scanned on very high end drum scanners at considerable cost ($200 to $300 USD per scan). Prints made from the scans or direct to a Lightjet Ilfochrome show no difference up to about 16 X 20 (vs. the 10D). My comparison to the 1Ds indicate they are comparable to a size of 24 X 30. If you do a lot of 30 X 40's or larger continue to shoot film. If not, film is not required. Yes, digital files need Photoshop. Film needs color and density corrections, special film processing may also be required (Zone System). I much prefer the digital darkroom (computer) to a wet darkroom. The smells, toxic chemicals, and environmental pollution caused by wet darkrooms are cause for concern. The Fuji S2 is another great camera. But just like no film camera is perfect, neither are any of the digital cameras. Each user will have their own unique needs and no one camera will best meet every users needs. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 8th, 2003, 10:02 PM	#37
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	If your having trouble with your 16 x 20's then the new forum may well be for you. Theoretical resolution advantages of film are only that, theoretical. If the advantages don't translate to paper, or the eye can't discern it, then it's no advantage. Unless someone needs transparencies for projection then it's all about the print. Compare prints, and film only has an advantage on very large prints. I've been able to get 11 X 14's out of the D100 and even 13 X19's that are better than or equal to film. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 8th, 2003, 10:35 PM	#39
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Medium format cameras are routinely used for portraits, weddings, and many commercial applications. The size prints they are used to produce is generally 16 X 20 or less. Since the majority of the medium format cameras in use today are used by professionals in those fields and they produce 16 X 20 or smaller it is fair to say that the 10D rivals medium format. Nothing wrong about it, it's fact. It's all about the print. Compare prints from MF and good digital cameras (10D, 1Ds, S2, etc.) and digital wins. I've shown the prints, to students, teachers, gallery owners, museum curators and most importantly, consumers and almost to a one, the prints from digital cameras win. I wish it wasn't always so, I've had a considerable investment in MF cameras and darkroom equipment. The truth is in the prints and digital wins up to 24 X 30 (larger in some cases, depends on the scene and the file). __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 8th, 2003, 11:04 PM	#41
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	The limit for the 10D is 13 X 19, my original stated size. I've produced larger prints by uprezing with the use of Genuine Fractals Pro. It's obvious you don't want to take my word for it and that's fine. I would suggest you visit Michael Reichmann's web site, The Luminous Landscape. Some of the best photographers today are there. Spend some time reading the many essay's, tutorials, product reviews, columns and How To's. I think you'll come away with a better understanding of the power and performance of today's DSLR's. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 7th, 2003, 11:33 AM	#31
John Garcia Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 199	I think the people of this community are smart enough to know better than to flame on others for thier opinions. That's what people from other boards do, not members of DVINFO.net... Although, many opinions may come out 1/2 sided due to lack of knowledge, in which case someone will post and enlighten us with accurate information. You still have my vote for a digicam forum on dvinfo.net. As least I know I'll be getting the accurate information that I need, and have a strong and reliable resource for any questions that I may have regarding both video, and still photography.

July 7th, 2003, 08:50 PM	#32
Matt Betea Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: detroit, mi Posts: 187	Since I've been here I haven't seen any of that stuff go on with all the other forums/topics that could easily spring up a flame war on other boards. No, I think 99.999% of everyone that's a regular contributor here on dvinfo is above that sort of thing. That's why I think it would be an asset to the folks here that are into still photography. On an off topic note. I apologize as I didn't want to use a new thread for this, but has anyone had experience with Precision Camera & Video in Austin? I have to get some accessories and a power adapter. Searching on the net they seem to be the only place that has everything. As always, many thanks. matt

July 8th, 2003, 09:20 PM	#35
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	Jeff Donald said "I have been using the Canon EOS 10D for about a month. WOW. The resolution, image quality etc. rivals medium format. I am producing 13 x 19's with the Epson 2200 that are absolutely stunning. People are shocked, they think they were shot with medium format or large format cameras." So you said the resolution, image quality etc. rivals medium format. You didn't say only up to a certain size print. It's generally well known that larger formats don't show their true strengths in smaller print sizes. If you expect people to already understand this then they don't need your advise. If they don't then you've misled them. My D100 produces very good 16x20 prints but it doesn't rival medium format. I can't use medium format's advantages, though.

July 8th, 2003, 09:51 PM	#36
Matt Betea Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: detroit, mi Posts: 187	Thanks Chris. I put my order in earlier today and they already shipped. I spoke to Joan, she was friendly and helpful. Also informing me that a small item I wanted wasn't in stock and they would back order it for me when it arrived. Most places I've found don't let you know until you get your package and see it's not there and call them. Their pricing didn't seem too bad, some things I found were cheaper than B&H, others higher. Can't hurt to have found another good place to buy from. Thanks again. matt

July 8th, 2003, 10:17 PM	#38
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	Jeff, I'm not having trouble with my 16x20's. Good 16x20's are not proof that my D100 rivals medium format. You don't seem to understand the difference. My old Nikon 950 is 2MP and yields good 4x6 prints. That's not proof that it rivals medium format either. My TRV-900 rivals an F900 when viewed on a 2" LCD screen. If smaller prints are all you want, then the current digital SLRs offer enough resolution. If you want huge, great quality prints then 35mm film won't cut it. You stated that your 10D unequivically rivaled the resolution, image quality, etc. of medium format and that's wrong.

July 8th, 2003, 10:41 PM	#40
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	I know a large number of avid digital SLR photographers and not one of them would suggest they compete with medium format. Most scoff at comparisons to 35mm though that's not so clear. One loves his 1Ds and feels it's a match for 35mm. The ideal resolution for a 16x20 print is greater than a 10D produces. Perhaps it's you that needs help printing medium format.

July 8th, 2003, 11:38 PM	#42
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	Thanks for the reference Jeff. While I'm already quite familiar with the site, it's helpful that you've selected the industry "expert". Please read this tutorial found on the Luminous Landscape website entitled Digital Camera Image Quality. It gets right to the matter. Here's a quote for those in a hurry: "A good medium format negative still beats the current crop of digital SLR's." The author's conclusions? A D60/D100 is good for about 11x17. A Canon 1Ds (much more camera than your 10D) can do 13x19. Medium format is good for 24x30. Those are his numbers, not mine. Before you go off complaining that the 10D wasn't tested, the 10D has the same imager as the D60 but with improved noise performance. It's performance won't fair much different than the D60 and certainly won't approach the 1Ds. His medium format example bested the 1Ds by a whopping 70%. I'm quite familiar with digital SLR's and own several. My disbelief of your claim is not due to ignorance of the subject.

July 8th, 2003, 11:56 PM	#43
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	For me, I'm sticking with film for a little while yet. While the quality of the current DSLRs is great but the camera features of the Canons just aren't there yet, for my needs at least. The 1Ds is a great camera but too slow for serious sports shooting. The 's' in the name stands for 'studio' and that is what this camera is aimed at, studio work as a replacement/to complement 35mm/MF studio set-ups. THe 1D has the speed but with the 1.3x multiplication factor it kills wide angle/fisheye lenses which are necessery for shooting many sports. However, it's great for beach based surfing, football, baseball etc where you need super-telephoto lenses. I'm currently using an EOS5 and 1nRS and love both cameras. The pellicle mirror in the 1nRS is a dream as is the 10fps and 6millisec shutter release. If features similar to this are incorporated into say an 8Megapix fullframe camera then Canon would be on a winner. A fream camera would be an 8MP, pellicle mirrored, 5-10fps 1DRS, but it's probably just wishful thinking. __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

July 9th, 2003, 05:09 AM	#44
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Craig, I'm glad you've been to Michael's site. Since you seem keen on abridged versions, it might be helpful to point out that the article you link to is not written by Michael Reichmann. The article you refer to is written by Miles Hecker and he is writing in reference to work done by Norman Koren. The article was actually written a little over a year ago, when the D60 was just out. The 1Ds information was not from first hand information, but rather from samples from dpreview. You should have included the next sentence from the quote. For those in a hurry; "That will change in the coming years" A lot happens in a year Craig. Rather than wait for Craig and I to bring the whole web site to everyone line by line, for those interested in digital photography, I suggest following one of the links and explore the site. It makes for good reading. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 9th, 2003, 06:11 AM	#45
Nigel Moore Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Switzerland Posts: 358	The more recent digital cameras (and I'm thinking here of the Canon EOS-1Ds in particular) do have much higher resolutions, and the images can be enlarged to a greater extent. But the real benefit, IMHO, is the reduced focal length multiplier. The 1Ds's FLM of 1 would be sweet. Now, where did I leave that $8k? :-)