Fine Art Application - DSLR vs 8 MP?

[peter_glass1]

I want to purchase a digital camera. I consider myself what is

generally termed a "fine art" photographer, specializing in black and

white. I'm moving from medium format and a wet darkroom to a digital

medium. Does the interchangeable lens feature of the affordable 6 MP

choices of Canon 10d and the Nikon D70 trump the current crop of

prosumer 8 MP fixed zoom offerings from a variety of manufacturers?

Most of my subjects are landscapes, stationary objects. I'm only

interested in the quality of the capture. Which is best?

[beauh44]

Hi Peter, <I>Does the interchangeable lens feature of the affordable 6 MP choices of Canon 10d and the Nikon D70 trump the current crop of prosumer 8 MP fixed zoom offerings from a variety of manufacturers? </i><BR><BR> In a word, yes, simply because you'll have a choice of zooms, macros, primes and image stablized lenses. You would be able to use the best and sharpest lenses of the two manufacturers, and even numerous 3rd party lens manufacturers, as opposed to being locked into 1 lens with most "prosumer" digital cameras. The 10D is a 6 Mp camera, and while you might be quite happy with it, since you're used to MF, you might want a little "oomph" - for example a 1D MKII (8 megapixel) or the 1Ds (11 megapixels). Printing B&Ws in a digital darkroom gets tricky too. You might want to consider buying a scanner first, to give some of your old negs/chromes a new lease on life, learn some Photoshop and practice printing before deciding on a digital camera system. Good luck!

[wedding-photography-denver]

Dslr (Canon IMHO). I recently made a transition into the digital world myself (about the past year for a serious move) and studied by reviews, examples of prints, and by purchasing various bodies and returning the ones I didn't want.

 

The out come for me was the 6mp Canon offerings. I now have a 1D2 and think it likely we will be seeing an 8 or 10 mp 10D by the end of this year. If you are not in any hurry (??) that may be worth the wait.

 

Just my thoughts. Regards.

[steve g]

No doubt DSLR<br>

What no one has mentioned, and I mess stress the importance of is the almost complete loss of DOF control with small-chip non-dslr digital cameras. They seem to have almost infinite DOF @ just about all apertures/conditions other than closeup and wide open. Makes selective focus kind of a moot point.

[godfrey]

The DSLRs win due to the large sensor which gives low noise at high ISOs and (in the case

of the Canon 10D at least) a 12-bit per pixel capture space. More bits with less noise

equals higher quality capture.

 

This is the bottom line but might be a little simplistic as the sole criteria for choosing a

camera.

 

Godfrey

[alexdi]

Outright resolution is very slightly in favor of the 8 MPixel cameras at ISO 50. At anything higher, and in every other metric except convenience, they are trumped by DSLRs.

 

But this may not matter. Tripod shots of stationary objects are about the least challenging thing you could ask of a camera, and the sub-APS prosumer sensor allows for an extremely versatile lens in a very petite package.

 

DI

[grega]

It is a big mistake to compare pixel count on fixed zoom cameras to DSLR. Compare the image quality. Check out the noise as you shoot at even moderate speeds. Then there is lens quality and the ability to choose the most appropriate lens for what you want to do. Finally there is the control and responsiveness of the camera. 4MP D2H or 6MP D70 versus 8MP fixed zoom, my choice is the DSLR for better images.

 

On the other hand if you want convenience and don't want to worry about cleaning dust off the camera sensor the fixed lens camera may be the best choice. If your decision is based on number of pixels you might not get what you want.

[steve_chan5]

If you generally shoot at very low film speeds (ISO100 or less), are happy with lots of depth of field, and would be happy with a 35mm equiv. focal range of 28mm-200mm, a fixed lens digicam may be for you. Otherwise, all the aforementioned benefits of DSLRs win out.

 

The Luminous Landscapes web site has an article on this topic you should check out.

[jespdj]

The Luminous Landscape article: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digicams-vs-dslrs.shtml">Digicams vs. DSLRs</a>

[magnus_nystedt]

I don't think there's much question that in most situations the DSLRs will give you better

quality, and you also have the option of getting the top-of-the-line lenses, like the Canon

"L" series for them (ok the Canon 8mp supposedly has an "L" lens, I know :-). That said,

you can get amazing results out of the 8mp prosumers. I'm an A2 user myself and I've

seen A2 shots at 20x30 which are just georgeous. Michael Reichmann has many good

thoughts on the subjects (others have linked to his pieces).

[joeb]

As you are shooting landscapes, the DLSR may be the better choice. I was using a Sony 707 and moved up to a DLSR. Both Canon and Nikon have lenses to cover down to 20mm equiv. The difference between 20 and 28 is large. I bought just as the 8 MP prosumers were being introduced. The prosumer would have been cheaper. I have spent many times the cost of the camera in glass, tripod, and other accessories. The good glass will be with me 5-8 years from now when I have a 24 MP full frame body.

[digitmstr]

I think Bob Atkins has at least one article here that talks about megapixels *count* VS sensor *size*. It will give you the answer you seek with a clear explanation of why.

 

If you come from Medium format (as I have) nothing less than a DSRL will do :)

[Spearhead]

All of these responses ignore one of the fundamental criteria for camera choice, ergonomics. There are some things you can do with digicams that are difficult with dSLRs. Examples include shooting at ground level and over the head, if the camera has a swivel screen. The cameras can be dead silent, important in some shooting. Also, there's no issue with sensor dust.

 

There are plenty of technical limitations, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some excellent fine art photographers working with digicams. Pedro Meyer at ZoneZero (www.zonezero.com) gave a group of famous Mexican fine art and documentary photographers some medium resolution digicams, sent them out for the Day of the Dead festivities, and produced an electronic book (available at the site) from the results. The results include images that are far better than virtually anything I've seen here with a dSLR. It comes down to how the ergonomics fit. Closer to home, there's an excellent photographer, Brad Evans, who posts on this site. He doesn't use the portfolio section here, but his posts on the Leica Forum often have his shots, taken with a two-generation old digicam, and better than almost all the shots posted there that were taken with a Leica.

 

There are no simple answers, despite all the attempts at them above.

[peter_phan]

You'll also be able to attain sharper lenses with a DSLR. If you're most interested in image quality, and your subject matter is primarily landscapes and stationary subjects, all you really need is a Digital Rebel (300D), a cable release, and a few nice lenses. Also, install the 300D <a href="http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html">firmware hack</a>, which will give you mirror lock up and most of the features of the 10D. That will give you an affordable transition to digital capture. And you'll be able to put your money where it impacts image quality the most: the lenses. Also, leave room for one other critical investment for digital: Photoshop CS!