Best digital STILL cameras?
 

Hmm...I know this is not DV related, but it is digital none-the-less. I appologize if anyone finds this post unappropriate for the DVinfo.net forums...

Anyways, I currently have a 5 mp Sony Cybershot 707 that ive had for a couple years now. I love this camera, and have bought every accessory available, but it cant seem to meet the demands for my print work, and is lacking in quality that I need for my projects.

What would you say is the best still digital camera out there for the money. Im looking ad a digital SLR style camera such as the Canon EOS10D. What does everyone think of these cameras? Does anyone have first hand opinions/experiences in which they would like to share?

I would appreciate some light shed on this subject. I trust my fellow dvinfo.net community members can help me out on this one.

One more thing, how much does everyone think i should sell my current camera for? Heres what i have...

Sony Cybershot DSC-F707 Digital still camera
2 Sony 128 MB memory sticks
3 Sony InfoLithium battery packs
Sony remote control for zoom and shutter
Sony External flash pack
Sony Filter pack - ND Polarizing filter and clear lens protector
Sony Memory Stick Adapter
Sony Tripod
Canon WD-58 wide angle converter
1 Tiffen 58 mm ND Circular Polarizing Filter
1 Tiffen 58 mm 6 pt star filter
Ultra knit lens cleaning cloth (supposedly the best)
Nylon Carrying case with strap and handle
Lens cleaning kit

I have all original packing and manuals...

Thanks in advance,

John

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.

I have advised several members on this camera and none have been disappointed to date. My best advice for starting out is buy the Canon "L" series lenses. You can see the difference with this camera. A few non "L" lenses may be substituted, depending on your shooting needs (EF 28mm - 135mm IS, 17mm - 40mm are two I would recommend). Shoot everything in RAW. Think of RAW as a digital negative. So much can be done in the RAW mode. You'll need PS 7 and the RAW plug-in. PS 8 will support RAW mode without the plug-in, but I wouldn't want to wait until the end of the year to start working in RAW.

I teach photography and would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Awesome Jeff. Thanks for your reply. I know about the canon EOS 10D and ive heard about its capabilities. Its just good reinforcment to hear such comments about its quality.

The hard part is im only 19, and of course, funds are an issue. If I sold my current camera (as listed) I would hope to generate almost (if not enough) enough money to buy the EOS 10D body. I know the lenses are just as expensive as the body, so that would be a little problem, but at least its a start. I can save up to buy my lenses.

What else can you tell me about the EOS 10D? I know ive read about some problems and some firmware upgrades or something? Can you shed any light on this for me?

Once again, thanks for your reply. I am looking even MORE forward to getting the 10D.

Best Regards,

John Garcia

I have the Canon D30. I would love to upgrade to the 10D but can't really justify it (non-pro use). Even so, the output of the D30 is still beautiful.

One point, changing lenses on a digital SLR is more fraught than with film. You have to more careful not to get dirt or dust inside, otherwise it's not fun cleaning the CMOS/CCD.

wait a sec...ps 8? hmm...I have 7.0, and last I heard, I have the latest version. Am I missing something here?

PS7 requires an Adobe plug-in (at added cost) to support RAW natively, although there are other alternatives. I use PS6 with Yarc+ (PS6 doesn't support the Adobe RAW plug-in.)

PS8 is rumoured to natively support RAW (i.e. the plug-in will be included). Personally, I don't use RAW so much, and Yarc+ is good enough for now. But I will upgrade to PS8 (it's also supposed to support filter layers, the lack of which is what stopped me from moving to version 7).

*When* PS8 comes out, it will support RAW mode, which is what I think Jeff meant to say. PS8 is not out yet.

Jeff...

That Epson 2200 is also an important part of the equation. It's an amazingly good printer.

I have one and use a color management system with it -- and the results are nothing short of great. I'm starting to make prints from slides that I shot more than 20 years ago, prints that simply wouldn't come out otherwise.

Now with good slide scanners and Photoshop, it's possible to get prints with subtle details in highlights and shadows.

I love this digital stuff!

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

hey dean,

i need to talk to you more about photography. I need some pointers and tips, especially when I go into the digital SLR's such as the Canon EOS 10D. Ill shoot you an e-mail to discuss this further.

john

Instead of emailing Dean privately, what would you think about a public digicam forum here on DV Info? I know the subject is covered by a variety of other online message boards, but I think there's enough accumulated skills here that we could pull it off on our own.

Printers certainly play a key role in the determination of the quality of the final print. However, the Epson 2200 isn't the only printer that can do the job. I happen to use it because the school I teach at has one.

I own a 2 1/2 year Epson Photo Stylus 870. With the right paper it makes 8 x 10's (it's largest size) that are indistinguishable for traditional chemical based (color dyes) printing. The key is the use of 6 colors of ink and a resolution of at least 1440. Canon also has some very good printers that can do the job as well. HP makes great office printers, but they are lacking in their photo quality (at least when compared to Epson and Canon).

PS 8 is in beta right now. The anticipated release is late this fall (Nov. Dec. ?). It will include the plug-in for RAW files. The plug-in is $100. You might want to wait (and save your $100) till PS 8 is out.

RAW files, for me, is like the digital negative. The file size is about 6 mb. The biggest jpeg is only 2.5 mb. But the file is not processed by the camera (no quality lost either). I prefer to take the file into PS and process my image myself. It is more time consuming, but think of it like printing your own work.

On the topic of lenses, it is important to use the best quality lenses you can afford. The very high resolution of the 10D will make any lens defects much more readily apparent. If you're on a limited budget, I would start out with the 50mm F1.8 or the slightly better (and faster) F1.4. If you have a want a zoom to start with, I would suggest the 28mm - 135mm IS lens. Most users seem a little disappointed in the optical quality of the 24mm - 85mm and the 28mm - 105mm.

The "L" series lenses are great, but pricey. As your budget permits, try to add one or two to your arsenal. I can recommend the 400mm F5.6 L, 300mm F4 (both the IS and non), 16mm - 35mm L. Non "L" lenses worth considering are the 17mm - 40mm, and 75mm - 300mm IS.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Instead of emailing Dean privately, what would you think about a public digicam forum here on DV Info? I know the subject is covered by a variety of other online message boards, but I think there's enough accumulated skills here that we could pull it off on our own. -->>>

Chris, I think a digicam forum would be awesome. In my opinion, digital still photography and digital video have many similarities. Alot of the basic principals that apply for still digicams also apply for digital video cams. Video is basically still photography in motion.

I also think that the knowledge of our members within the dvinfo.net community meets, or exceeds that of other digicam forums out there.

I think it would be a good call, and we would get great participation on this wonderful subject.

Thanks for everyone’s answers to my questions. I’m still wondering though, how much would my camera package go for?

Thanks again,

John

I would research it on ebay, it's become sort of a standard for used equipment. You also might consider what B&H, or KEH out of Atlanta, get for it used. I really couldn't give you much of an idea of a fair market value. Sorry.

Chris...

A forum on digital cameras might not be too much of a stretch as I think many of us here cross the lines between still and video fairly frequently.

John...

I'd be glad to help out with info. If you'd like, drop on by the Bulletin sometime in the next week or so and I can give you a few demos on what I do with Photoshop. I'm working desk for now until another photog comes back from maternity leave. Drop me an e-mail and I can let you know what my schedule is like.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

awesome. Id like to see you in action. Ill drop you an e-mail right. now. Thanks!

cool....

:-D

A digital camera forum would be great.

I will upload a picture of the worlds first commercial digital camera. I have it here in my studio in one of the shoe boxes. It was used to shoot negative frames in "The Last Starfighter", and the original "Dune".

After the scanning, the scenes were fed into a Cray 1S supercomputer where it took 30 days to compute just 8 seconds of on-screen film.

hmm...Interesting. Cant wait to see it, and what it looked like!

Chris, Great idea about the digital camera section on this forum. My wife has a Nikon with a bunch of lens and she has started asking about going digital that she could use her Nikon lens on. This would be a great way for her to move towards the transition.

Hook Em Horns, Nick

John,

It looks like a shoebox with a mesh top and about 2/3rds the length. Normally had an enlarging lens sticking out the front, sometimes a MicroNikor.

Single line array that was moved across the focal plane by a motor. Three scans through RGB filters to get one color image.

At that time, 1981, there wasn't much fast memory out there and this thing, once started, swept across in 2.3 seconds. Took one of the first graphic display systems, a Ramtek, to capture the image and then transfer it via a DEC PDP-10 to the Cray.

The array was a Fairchild CCD designed for facsimile machines. We'd get their entire production run and test them and keep the good ones. The lesser units went back into stock for fax machines.

Chris,
I would love a digital camera forum here. There's a few photography and digital cam sites I frequent, but besides maybe one, none of them have the level of knowledge and the calibre of people that's here.

Back to the topic. I'm partial to Nikon. The price drop Nikon issued on the D100 makes it all the more tempting, it comes down to personal preference really. Either way both produce great images. I would suggest though, if you have a camera or two that you're seriously looking at, try it out before you decide. Hold it, fiddle with it, go through the menus and functions. For me, the D100 just felt better. And that was what "sealed the deal" for me.

Also even at 3mp, the D30 is still a nice cam. Clean used ones can be found for around $600-$800. That might be a consideration as well.

matt

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Instead of emailing Dean privately, what would you think about a public digicam forum here on DV Info? -->>>

You've got my vote!

A digital still forum would be excellent, despite the plethora of such newsgroups. The big differences, in my opinion, would be the high level of expertise and a lack of the vitriol normally found in the newsgroups and in many other of the forums. A friend of mine calls it recreational hate and I'm sure it drives away many who would like to add their informed comments. Fortunately, we do not suffer that malady here.
Sandy

Looks like we'll all be reading about digi cams soon! I will no longer need to venture else where to ask a question about still photography. We have all the knowledge we need in one place. I still swear by it that this is by far, THE best online community out there. I look forward to learning more with all of you.

Thanks for everyones replies. Now, I need to sell my 707 and pick me up an EOS 10D! I cant wait...

John

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

My 1MP Casio rivals medium format, too, on 3x5 prints.

Digital SLR's struggle to compete with 35mm film let alone medium and large format. Their dynamic range suffers and their overall resolving power (excepting the 1Ds and 14n) are not as good. They also can't "lie" like film can. You'd think in a videography forum where so many are trying to emulate the look of film this would be better understood.

Digital SLR's are fine tools that offer some real advantages over film but quality is not among those. Today's best dSLR's are beginning to compete in some ways with the quality of 35mm and we can hope they will continue to improve. The Canon 10D is a highly regarded camera but the Fuji S2 significantly outperforms it in resolving power. Today's 6MP cameras produce a good but non-optimal 13x19 print while larger film formats are just starting to hit their stride at those sizes.

I see nothing wrong with supporting a digital SLR forum here, but those interested in learning the subject would do well to participate in all the available forums.

hmm...interesting. Im confused though. So you're saying digital SLR's arent all cracked up to what they're said to be?

I wasn't going to say anything about the original medium format comparison but since Craig replied ...

No off the shelf digital camera can come within miles of medium format. A few can only approach 35mm. So there.

And I'm only talking resolution, not contrast or color saturation. Some say you need 10M pixels to come close to 35mm. More say you need 25M pixels to equal 35mm. Medium format, up to 100M pixels.

For contrast and color saturation, digital is still amateurish.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Garcia : hmm...interesting. Im confused though. So you're saying digital SLR's arent all cracked up to what they're said to be? -->>>

No, I think they're very good but saying that they rival medium format is an exaggeration.

In some ways the current cameras are as good or better than 35mm and in other ways they are not. Dynamic range is an area they need to improve. Resolution and noise performance are already very good. Color saturation really depends on the film you compare it to (that's what I meant by "film lies"). You can choose your color rendition with film but with digital you must use photoshop.

There are convenience factors that are compelling with digital so long as slides aren't your preferred output so if you think you're interested in a digital SLR I don't see why you should be discouraged. The 10D, Fuji S2, and Nikon D100 are all fine camaras that are more alike in their performance than different. The 10D is newest, cheapest and most popular. The Fuji is least popular and most expensive but arguably the best performer. The D100 gets the best 3rd party hardware which is important to me underwater.

--->>>There are convenience factors that are compelling with digital so long as slides aren't your preferred output so if you think you're interested in a digital SLR I don't see why you should be discouraged. -->>>

I think this is the point. The proliferation of images over the internet has reached its asymptotic limit. Images viewed on the most convenient display, i.e. a computer monitor, are the way the medium is being displayed. What I'm trying to say is that large format cameras have their place...in the photographic gallery for high quality prints. The rest of the world, ENG, video art, general image disemination, will be via the internet for screen viewing. In these situations, a 6 MP digital camera is just plain good enough. And, hell, we don't even have TV display that can distinguish a disposable camera image from a Hasselblad. For every photojournalist I've ever known, the 6 MP cameras look like perfection.

I think a digital still forum would be good as long as it isn't going to degenerate into the "one vs the other" wars we work so hard to avoid. It's going to be up to the community members to ensure this doesn't happen.

Thanks Adrian,

I think the whole motivation for us to do a digicam forum is because so many other online message boards from top-notch digicam sites have broken down into unmoderated free-for-all flame fests. Of course, that won't happen here... right, folks?

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.

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

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,

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 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.

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

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, 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.

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).

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.