Best digital STILL cameras?

[Craig Jones]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : 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 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. -->>>

I deleted that because it's irrelevant. You said now. Nothing's changed since that article was wriitten besides a minor facelift of the D60.

Good to know you accept the rest of the text since it refutes your claim entirely. Perhaps you should have tempered your recommendation to only those articles that don't conflict with your point of view.

Jeff, you made an absurd claim not supported by any facts nor by any reasonably authoritative source. I'm as big a fan of digital SLR's as anybody but they have their limitations. The fact is that current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses so until that's solved we won't see large increases in resolution "in the coming years". If you had read the article you'd realize that digital has largely matched 35mm film already. They won't exceed medium format until they get better lenses and larger imagers. Your 10D won't be among those. There are digital backs for medium and large format cameras, though. If your claim were true I don't think there's be much market for those.

[Jeff Donald]

My claims are backed up by the hundreds of thousands of professional photographers that have replaced (or left in the closet) their medium format cameras. My almost daily conversations with pro's regarding the digital revolution lead to the only feasible conclusion. Film usage is down. Why? More and more people, pro's included, are shooting digital. For many, many, pro's it has replaced 35mm. My original statement, said it rivals medium format. Last I looked rivals means equals or competitors.

I know a great many PP of A members that have given up medium format for digital cameras (D1X, D100, S2, 10D, 1Ds). The prints produced from their digital files rival and in many cases exceed their medium format film. Digital has changed the way a number of pro photographers shoot weddings. Superior low light performance is one factor, among many.

My former partner in Cincinnati is a well respected studio photographer. He recently purchased a digital back for his medium format cameras. He chooses the digital back when the client needs large prints (usually 30 X 40's or larger). But for just about anything smaller he shoots it with his 1Ds or even 10D.

Digital is here to stay, and for many, many photographers it has replaced (dare I say rivals) 35mm and medium format film. My claims may seem absurd to you, but for many pro's (maybe the majority) film is a thing of the past. Just like the buggy whip.

[Craig Jones]

You said the 10D rivals medium format in resolution, image quality, etc. You did not say it rivaled medium format in desirability among pros although you now do. I don't know about that and have no reason to dispute it. Defend your claim of image quality and resolution. Your link most definitely refutes it.

I'm also certain that digital's good for for prints up to a certain size. I know it to be fact, but that was not your original claim. Larger film formats are king for the applications in which they are used. Those applications are growing smaller with each generation but the 10D is not the camera that will replace them except in your own mind.

[John Garcia]

Wow...all this from a 19 year old kid who wanted to replace his Cybershot 707 with a 10D.

There are multiple points addressed in the previous posts which have brought me closer to thinking that its all about what you plan on doing with the camera, and format preference.

Many people are fixed on the traditional way of photography, shooting with film. As technology advances, digital will become saturated in the market, and the amount of people shooting with film will be greatly reduced, although there will still be many die-hard film enthusiasts, the digital revolution has just begun, and will undoubtedly continue to grow.

For me, I was brought up in the digital age. The farthest i've gone into film was a 13-dollar disposable camera from a local drug store.

I then got my 707 and actually produced lots of quality work and got more than my moneys worth out of it. I've printed up to 8x10, and the print is acceptable, but id say 4x6 or 5x7 is the limit on the 5 mp machine. 2 yrs. past, and I need something better. Better quality, sharper images, greater versatility.

For now, I don’t see myself printing anything larger than 13x19. The largest id go would probably be 8x10.

It seems as though I have alot more research to do before investing my hard earned money into a new camera. Although i've seen the reviews on other Websites, I guess the only true way to find out which camera is right for me, is to actually work with it. See how I can apply the camera to my everyday tasks. Look at prints and determine which I like the best. Hopefully my choice will be a good one.

[Craig Jones]

<<<-- Originally posted by John Garcia : Many people are fixed on the traditional way of photography, shooting with film. -->>>

I agree. I'm strictly digital, though. No film for many years.

[Jeff Donald]

My mind and the tens of thousands lining up to purchase them from Canon. I continue to stand by my original claim.

WOW. The resolution, image quality etc. rivals medium format.

The 10D rivals medium format. When I shot medium format I routinely used it to produce prints that exceeded the quality I could get with 35mm. Now I (and many others) routinely use digital cameras (including the 10D) to produce prints that I previously would have used medium format for. The resolution and image quality of the prints rival what I previously made with medium format. Plain and simple.

[Mike Rehmus]

I'm not trying to make anyone angry but If I were to stumble on a digital camera forum that went on and on as this thread has done, I'd not come back.

This thread is going nowhere IMHO.

Surely, if there were to be a digital camera forum it would contain information about digital cameras and their applications (other than, perhaps, film replacement :-) ) wouldn't there?

I use digital where I want and film up to 4x5 when appropriate. I know which is appropriate because it's what I want to use at that place and time.

Sorry if I've made anyone angry.

[John Garcia]

I agree Mike. I guess its just a really touchy subject, much the same as "Making DV look like film".

Although, I have learned alot from the arguments, I can see why someone who already knows much of this information would be driven away from such discussions.

We'll be good...Dont worry. :) lol...

[Dean Sensui]

Here's my experience:

I started out with 35mm and eventually acquired medium format and 4x5 equipment to do commercial work. The 4x5 was especially valuable when it came to doing anything that would require substantial enlargement or critical control of perspective.

Since then I've sold the Bronica and the 4x5 with the Schneider lenses. Sold the Omega D5VXL, Polaroid backs, and Minolta meters.

The 4x5 system went unused for three years, as I'd replaced it with a digital workflow. No Polaroids. No film holders to load and unload. No wondering if the camera might have slipped out of adjustment at the last second or if a strobe somehow failed to fire. The test shot becomes the final working shot. That cost savings alone is huge as we'd use several Polaroids just to get the lighting exactly right for wristwatches.

Also, if I was working with a graphic artist, he could bring his Quark layout and I could immediately import the images as we shot them to see if they'd work with his design. And, again, once we had something that worked, that was it. The shoot was done. The client would save hundreds of dollars in studio time and get exactly what he wanted.

I did some display ads for Pearlridge shopping center -- John Garcia knows where this is :-) One of the displays is a 5x5-foot backlighted transparency sitting over the central escalators. The photo was shot with a Fuji Finepix S1 Pro SLR. I did the color corrections and then enlarged it with Genuine Fractals. The result, even when seen at arm's length, is incredibly sharp. Much sharper than it needs to be under normal viewing conditions.

Another display was one for the optical shop in the mall. It ended up being 6 feet high and 2 feet wide. The face of the model was blown up until it was more than two feet high. The first print ended up being displayed at another store since it showed too much detail. You could see every single blemish and pore on her face. And that was after I did substantial touch-ups. I diffused the second print, and that's the one that went on display in the mall.

Had I shot with with a medium format camera (forget using a 4x5 on a model), it would have shown grain. Even with Kodak VPS. The digital image, on the other hand, was absolutely clean and clear. With the current technology, making a wall-sized enlargement is limited only by the camera's optics, the capabilities of the output device, and the client's budget.

For detailed work I'll rent a Hasseblad with a digital back. For architecture I use a Kodak DCS 760 that provides an 18-meg file. For news work it's a Kodak DCS 620, which is especially good in low-light situations.

There are photographic problems that I can solve with digital photography which were nearly insurmountable or extremely painstaking with film.

And as for color reproduction -- if you use Colorsync in a color-managed system -- the results are outstanding.

These are just my own experiences. Others may argue the point, and that's ok. But I'm getting the job done and getting wonderful results. And things haven't been this good in the 2 decades I've been in the business. I was a nut when it came to exposure and processing. Even went through the extensive process of setting up the Zone system for anything I did with Tri-X for medium and large format. But now that I've discovered what digital can do -- and that it does it darn well -- I'll never go back.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

[John Garcia]

So with that in mind, where’s the best place for me to pick up a 10D? I know id have to buy lenses. Which lens could I use that would give me the most basic photographic capabilities, without breaking the bank? I guess you could say "universal" or “all around” lens?

Also, to all of those out there with "Digital Darkrooms", describe the process you go through to ensure preservation of your digital files from your camera to the final output? What gives you the best results? What are some dos and donts?

Ill briefly explain my process...mind you, it may not be correct, but that’s why I’m here...to learn. If you see a better way for me to do it, or tips, id be glad to give them a try...

For me, I load the images (jpgs) from my camera into Photoshop. I then save a copy of the image as a tiff, and proceed to color correction and touch-ups. I also convert color modes if need be. (rgb > cmyk)

Then, I open a new Photoshop document at final print size (5x7, 4x6, 8x10) and drag the tiff file onto the output document, and resize to fit. I usually like to stay about 250 dpi for output.

If I took the picture at highest resolution (2560 x 1920) I can usually produce a full sized landscape 5x7 at about 300 dpi. If I need to go bigger, I just drop the dpi in the output file then drag the tiff until it fits.

Let me know how you set your files up...

[John Garcia]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dean Sensui : Here's my experience:

I started out with 35mm and eventually acquired medium format and 4x5 equipment to do commercial work. The 4x5 was especially valuable when it came to doing anything that would require substantial enlargement or critical control of perspective.

Since then I've sold the Bronica and the 4x5 with the Schneider lenses. Sold the Omega D5VXL, Polaroid backs, and Minolta meters.

The 4x5 system went unused for three years, as I'd replaced it with a digital workflow. No Polaroids. No film holders to load and unload. No wondering if the camera might have slipped out of adjustment at the last second or if a strobe somehow failed to fire. The test shot becomes the final working shot. That cost savings alone is huge as we'd use several Polaroids just to get the lighting exactly right for wristwatches.

Also, if I was working with a graphic artist, he could bring his Quark layout and I could immediately import the images as we shot them to see if they'd work with his design. And, again, once we had something that worked, that was it. The shoot was done. The client would save hundreds of dollars in studio time and get exactly what he wanted.

I did some display ads for Pearlridge shopping center -- John Garcia knows where this is :-) One of the displays is a 5x5-foot backlighted transparency sitting over the central escalators. The photo was shot with a Fuji Finepix S1 Pro SLR. I did the color corrections and then enlarged it with Genuine Fractals. The result, even when seen at arm's length, is incredibly sharp. Much sharper than it needs to be under normal viewing conditions.

Another display was one for the optical shop in the mall. It ended up being 6 feet high and 2 feet wide. The face of the model was blown up until it was more than two feet high. The first print ended up being displayed at another store since it showed too much detail. You could see every single blemish and pore on her face. And that was after I did substantial touch-ups. I diffused the second print, and that's the one that went on display in the mall.

Had I shot with with a medium format camera (forget using a 4x5 on a model), it would have shown grain. Even with Kodak VPS. The digital image, on the other hand, was absolutely clean and clear. With the current technology, making a wall-sized enlargement is limited only by the camera's optics, the capabilities of the output device, and the client's budget.

For detailed work I'll rent a Hasseblad with a digital back. For architecture I use a Kodak DCS 760 that provides an 18-meg file. For news work it's a Kodak DCS 620, which is especially good in low-light situations.

There are photographic problems that I can solve with digital photography which were nearly insurmountable or extremely painstaking with film.

And as for color reproduction -- if you use Colorsync in a color-managed system -- the results are outstanding.

These are just my own experiences. Others may argue the point, and that's ok. But I'm getting the job done and getting wonderful results. And things haven't been this good in the 2 decades I've been in the business. I was a nut when it came to exposure and processing. Even went through the extensive process of setting up the Zone system for anything I did with Tri-X for medium and large format. But now that I've discovered what digital can do -- and that it does it darn well -- I'll never go back.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions -->>>

AMEN! lol...awesome Dean, cant wait to learn for yah...;) lol...

[Bill Ravens]

B&H Photo has the lowest price going for a 10D, well, at least as low as any other low prices. Sometimes I think even this price is somewhat regulated by Canon...or a Canon dealer will lose their authorized dealer status. Anyway, the USM 35-135 lens is a workhorse and a truly outstanding lens...I'd recommend it as the most used...at least it is for me.

Another tip: Fredmiranda.com has some OUTSTANDING plugins for Photoshop, customized for the 10D...sharpen filters, highlight filters, and such that are indispensable. Many thanx to Rextillion for turning me on to this site.

[Dean Sensui]

John...

I always save the original camera file in its native format. With the Kodak pro cameras it's a proprietary raw TIFF file. These can be re-acquired again if the software improves, so it always pays to keep them intact and unaltered.

If the original is a JPEG, then that gets archived unaltered as well.

As for working on the file, I use Photoshop's adjustment layers almost all the time. It's non-destructive and allows me to go back to make additional tweaks if necessary.

For output, I can add an adjustment layer for a specific output device (if the profile isn't providing an exact result).

These images also are archived as Photoshop files to preserve all the adjustment layers.

Re-sizing is done on copies of that file. In general, this is called "re-purposing" in which a file has to be modified to use as a print, for an ad, for a transparency, in video, etc. I'll only convert to CMYK if it's headed for the press. If it's going to be output on my Epson 2200 then I'll let Colorsync do the conversion and also have it display a simulation on my monitor. You'll have to go to a 100 percent Colorsync workflow to do this.

If I need to do an extreme enlargement with Genuine Fractals, I'll flatten the file and save it seperately.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

[Nigel Moore]

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : The fact is that current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses so until that's solved we won't see large increases in resolution "in the coming years". -->>>

I'm obviously being thick here, but since in most cases the lenses are the same and with the top of the range Canon the focal length multiplier is 1, where's the difference in the optics between digital and 35mm?

[Bill Ravens]

both formats use the same lens. since the digital CMOS is smaller than 35mm film format, there is a slight amount of magnification...i think it's 1.6x.