ron_serpico2 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Hello, I am considering purchasing a DSLR. I currently use a Canon Elan 7. I shoot Velvia/Provia and scan with a Canoscan 4000 dpi scanner. Would a Canon 20D (8.2 megapixels) provide the same level of detail/crispness as a scanned slide? Or do I need to save for a used 1Ds/1Ds II? I print no larger than 13x19, but usually 8x12 or 11x14. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_sallis Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I've been delighted with the macro capabilities of my 20D.I use a Zeiss 100mm f2.8 Makro Planar, which has a great reputation for resolving fine detail. Here's a shot of a bluebottle fly I took recently.I think the fact that you can see it's ventricles and individual eyelashes suggest the 20D's macro capabilities meet or exceed that of scanned film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_sallis Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Here's the full shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheleberti Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 For such print sizes the output of a 20d is enought even withouth resampling. I get great prints of the size of 50x70cm from a 10d+resampling... so I can guess that printing from an bigger output file would yield at least equal results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 If you realy want detail you should use 5"x4" or 10" x 8" film actually! If you are printing upto the size you have indicated 8MP should be enough. You would need 32MP to get TWICE the resolution of the Eos20D. Hence the 16.7MP Eos1Ds II is only around 30% higher in resolution and is only better of you have a lot of 35mm lenses lying about. Why waste your money on that camera since that level of expenditure would fund your next two or three Eos20D replacements in the future! Have you considered the Fujifilm S3pro? This camera with it's extended dynamic range is better for Landscapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiswick_john Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 "You would need 32MP to get TWICE the resolution of the Eos20D. Hence the 16.7MP Eos1Ds II is only around 30% higher in resolution" - no 16mp has 2x the number of pixels and therefore 2x the detail. Resolution is theoretical as in practice you are limited by the lens resolution. Landscape photography does not automaticaly require a high dynamic range and anyway the 20D has a dynamic range that comfortably excedes that of any tranny film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Last week, I sold all my film gear (and other stuff) and made to move to digital (350D/XT - same resolution as 20D). Amongst others, one of the reasons for this move was that no matter how 'great' technique' you use, and even with 35mm films like Provia 100F, the resolution, print size, and perhaps most importantly 'the tonal range' is limited. I am still a beginner, but by now, I have learned enough to finally accept that 35mm film and landscapes are a compromise at best. Take a look at medium format negatives of landscapes, better yet, professional prints. Take TMX for example; the medium format film blows away anything that might be accomplished with the 35mm version. Again, the tonal range is just not there. So the type of photography that can be done with medium format, should be done with medium format. It is a well known fact that there is more resolution in films like Kodak TMX, Velvia, Provia than the current crop of prosumer DSLRs (6-8mp), and I have seen this personally with 11x14 prints. It is also said that (but I have not seen this with my own eyes) if you drum scan these fine 35mm films, they have more resolution than the 1Ds. I think people stopped such comparisons and claims with the release of 1DsII though. Drum scanning, the cost, and the resulting file sizes, and the computing power required to deal with that - I would not go there unless I had plenty of money to throw around. So I think today, the economic way of doing landscapes right is still medium format film and traditional wet-printing. If landscapes is all that you want to do, I would recommend you that you look into it. If you shoot all kinds of other things too, like I do, the argument for going digital with cameras like 20D or 350D/XT is pretty strong. Good luck. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Chiswick John YOU ARE WRONG,WRONG,WRONG! Brush up you maths first! The facts: The Eos20D can produce 3504 x 2336 pixel maximum image. The Eos1D Mk 2 can produce a 4992 x 3328 pixel maximum mage. Ok it is not 30% BUT ABOUT 40-45% higher -NOT TWICE! Also any idiot knows the linear response of CCD/CMOS sensors leads to problems with highlights.Simply too much light saturates the photoreceptor. Film is not linear hence it would take more light to saturate the film to produce a similiar effect. You know nothing of landscape photography if you say that it does not require a large dynamic range! That is the biggest load of BS I have ever heard in my life! What are you taking pictures of? Peat Bogs during an overcast day(when the sky is gray not WHITE)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiswick_john Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 SL - You are making me laugh with your ignorance of what I have practical first hand knowledge of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
test11664875106 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I'm not large-volume shooter of landscapes, but made some observations based on my experience with shooting 35mm film through good prime Canon lenses, medium format through far-not-good lens of Lubitel 166 and again same Canon lenses on 20D. General impression that for crisp look 35mm and 20D are about the same unless you venture into pixel-pipping, but for details...well, even a toy like Lubitel lets me see that distant tree has leaves and not needles and overall produces more feature-rich image despite its soft-focus. So if you're happy with your Elan, you're unlikely to be disappointed with 20D. But if you expect details that you haven't seen on your slides, don't put to much hope in getting them with 20D. This is not to say that I'm not happy about 20D, but I'm still dreaming of getting hold of at least 4x5 camera for landscapes and matching enlarger to print those big negatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Chiswick John you are the one who is ignorant! Why should anyone listen you when you cannot even multiply properly? It seems Mr john seems he is more intelligent than the people who work at Fujifilm or the people who find the advantages of the S3pro. Laugh in ignorance as much as you want! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Moreover resolution is not only measured by the quality of the lens you use but that of the resolving medium too! We are taking about AREA not a 1-d dimension. If a building in your picture is 20 pixels by 20 pixels in SIZE to have TWICE the resolution you need it to be represented by 40 pixels by 40 pixels.Hence each point on the image is represented by 2 pixels not one! YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS USED DIGITAL SLRS MATE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Listen to Ilia Varlachkine and A. Taner they give good advice which actually means something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I also forgot to add for Mr John's convineince that 40 x40= 1600 and 20x20=400 which is 4 time the number of pixels. Also check Ken Rockwell's site if you are still confused.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiswick_john Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 SL - keep it up I've not laughed so much in ages - you made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiswick_john Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Ah Ken Rockwell - now if I was laughing before - a quick revisit of that towering intelects website will make me fall off my chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 It seems we are both laughing at each other! I suppose "Laughter" is the best medicine.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_phan Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 The 20D can produce exceeding crisp and detailed enlargements. But keep in mind that sharpening can play a very important role in how good your prints look. Read about Photokit Sharpener and the related sharpening workflow articles to understand how it plays a part in digital images: http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/. I used to use Photokit Sharpener quite a bit, but these days I do moderate sharpening to the images, then let Qimage (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/) do the output sharpening and resizing for print. Prints look stunning, with tremendous detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_taylor Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 "It is a well known fact that there is more resolution in films like Kodak TMX, Velvia, Provia than the current crop of prosumer DSLRs (6-8mp), and I have seen this personally with 11x14 prints. It is also said that (but I have not seen this with my own eyes) if you drum scan these fine 35mm films, they have more resolution than the 1Ds." The following link compares a 6 MP D100 to 35mm Velvia scans and prints using numerous work flows. The D100 beat everything easily except the drum scan. What's interesting about the drum scan is that if you drop the D100 samples into Photoshop and apply a little unsharp masking, they look virtually identical to the drum scan samples, suggesting the author missed some auto sharpening in the drum scan work flow. http://www.borutfurlan.com/test_results.html "Known facts" regarding film resolution are all too often based on a simplistic look at max lpmm under lab 1000:1 contrast test conditions. But resolution is not a single number, it's a MTF curve across a lpmm range and is degraded by noise, which you must take into account. Compare the MTF curves and noise of a DSLR and Provia and you find the DSLR has better overall resolving power even though Provia can record details at slightly higher frequencies. (Of course you have to get the information off Provia and onto a print, the second area where film falls apart compared to a digital work flow.) Ideally one would use a 1Ds or MF digital back for landscapes because of the large amount of distant, high frequency detail. But if your budget limits you to small format/sub-full frame, a DSLR is preferable to 35mm, especially given the work flow most are able to afford (i.e. desktop scanner). In macro work a DSLR will pull further ahead because the details in a macro shot occur at lower frequencies than, say, distant trees in a landscape. And DSLR's simply have a stronger MTF response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Well, maybe I should not be saying anything since so many people feel so strongly about "right" and "wrong". I do not use digital -yet. I had a lot of scans done (Canon FS4000US) from Reala, Superia and NPH. Film may be giving you a theoretically higher resolution, but all (well, vast majority of) scans have noise. You have to remove it, and in the process you loose some small details and as a consequence - some sharpness is lost too... Mind it, some people may scream "not true" etec. etc. and technically they may be right, but the perception of a scan after noise removal is just that: less sharp picture. Well, maybe my technique and settings for NeatImage are wrong... OTOH, I have received 3 CDs with about 800 photos from a professional (good) photographer, after my daughter's wedding. He used Nikon D1X with 5.5M sensor. I hate to say that (composition issues etc. aside) his pictures have excellent sharpness and clarity (viewed on screen at large magnification, and that from 2.6Mb JPEG). Generally I have to put a LOT of effort to achieve the same level of quality with a scanned pic. You may say that is because I do not know what I am doing - which may be the case, but somehow I do not think so. Similiar level of perceived sharpness and much better clarity (read: no noise) is obtainable from a digital camera with 10% of effort. I am not getting rid of film: but I think that with 8Mp sensor you would be hard pressed to match the digital results with a scanned film. Again, I am not talking about Velvia and spending hours scanning and PhotoShopping just to prove the point that you can get better results this way. You probably can (lots of people do), but it costs a lot of time and effort. At certain point one needs to consider what the priorities are: spending days at the computer screen or taking pictures. And I do not want to start a flame war: just my observation. Digital is getting real good (of course it helps to know your stuff too ;) ;) ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Thanks for the link Daniel. It is basically a demonstration of what I wrote earlier (...there is more resolution in films like Kodak TMX, Velvia, Provia than the current crop of prosumer DSLRs...) Extracting that much resolution from those 35mm films though, is difficult and expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Please SL: show me your 8x10 macro shots. I'm curious to see how you deal with lighting, DOF and film flatness issues, not to mention the high cost of multiple images to CYA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshchapman Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 SL: just a quick note. Don't cite ken rockwell in this forum unless you want to be laughed at.<p> Cheers<br> Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Thanks Josh for the advice I shall heed it.However I will Stick to the Minolta and Nikon forums because their more akin to my needs. I am not some number one fan of Ken Rockwell although it seems really sad people have to be polarized around this Canon/nikon axis of evil. Have you met the guy to HATE him so much just because he has TOTALLY OPPOSITE view to you? I do agree with some points he says but to TRY to put some when down becuase of that well that is just petty. It's just like the stupid ATI vs Nvidia and Intel vs AMD debates. You seem to equate it to a life and death struggle,Cheez! Responding to Z.You seem to forget your roots. I am more interested in landscape photography anyhow but I have also taken a few macro shots myself. Explain to me before 1990-1995 what did everyone use to take macro pics with? Film by any chance? Depth of field Don't non 35mm/MF sized digital sensors have a lower depth of field due to their smaller size? I get perfectly good results with my outdated 105mm/4 AI micronikkor and Royal Supra 200. SO HAVE THOUSAND'S OF OTHERS! If you are trying to insinuate that you are a better photographer then why are you WASTING TIME writing in this forum or any for that fact? Shouldn't you creating your photographic magic somewhere? I wonder how you survived before digital. Was it hard? You can worry about such details for all of us and we will take the photos! Is that OK? I also do not feel the need to show any of my pics Why? I take pictures for my own enjoyment. There is only one critic that should matter and that is ones self. I don't give a toss what anyone thinks. If they do not like them - TOUGH! Take pictures for what you think of them and not what others define as good. In that case you should not be taking the picture they should! Please disregard if you have to do this for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Only the last paragraph though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now