Do I need more than a D30?

[night73]

So I have read many reviews of all the different Canon Digital SLRs.

I currently use an EOS 3 with a 28-135, 100-400, and 50 1.8 for my

shots (mostly wildlife and portraits), mostly on Velvia or

Sensia/Provia 100 and scanned with a Minolta Scan Dual III. I want

to add a digital camera to my bag, but why would I need more than

the D30?

 

It seems like it can produce 8x10 (which is the largest I would ever

produce) that would be on par if not better than what I currently

do. So, besides the obvious differences in AF etc when compared to

the EOS 3, what would be the reasons for a D60 or 10d? Am I right

here that I would be fine with the D30?

[tom_burke3]

My personal view is that 3MP is a bit too small to print as large as you suggest. I don't know the exact specs but I imagine that the D30 has a max resolution of about 1500 x 2000? Assuming you use the full size of each frame, you can print 7 1/2in x 10in @ 200 dpi. That's just about acceptable, but there's no room for cropping or anything else at that resolution. And this is quite a bit smaller than the Scan Dual III - doesn't that provide 2700 dpi or something like that - that gives approx. 3500 x 2350 for a 35mm negative, ie around 8 to 9 MP.

 

I don't have a digital SLR but I do have a Canon Powershot A70 (3mp) and my wife has a Nikon 4300 (4 mp) and once we get to about A4 size the prints from hers are noticeably better, especially if I've cropped any of them. Once you start printing at, say, 180 dpi or below the lack of resolution really starts to show.

 

There are software tools you can use to increase resolution & file size. Perhaps the most effective is 'Genuine Fractals', but a number of people have some issues with the way it works - to put it very simply it 'invents' content, sort of. And it my not be available for your computer platform of choice.

 

So my view is - 3MP is not quite enough resolution. A s/h D60 would be a much better proposition if you want to produce large prints.

[hans_eckelman]

Could you make due with a D30? Sure. Would a D60 or 10D be better? Absolutely. You would have more creative freedom with your prints because you could crop them much more than you could the three megapixel image from the D30. If you can afford it, I recommend the 10D. The autofocus and numerous other improvements made it worth the money to upgrade for me.

[jay_.]

I'd recommend a used D60. Same res as a 10D at half the cost.

[catchlight]

I shoot with a D30, a 10D, and an EOS3, and find the 10D to be a vast improvement over the D30/60 in terms of autofocus speed in low light, and control and convenience features.

<p>

That said, the D30 is a <a href="http://www.rainbowtheatre.com/charliebrown/index.htm">very competent DSLR</a>, unless you shoot in marginal light. Even then, with good technique, you can get good results, although you will lose the occasional shot to slow AF.<p>

[ http://www.rainbowtheatre.com/charliebrown/index.htm ]

<p>

Up to 8 x 10, RAW files, and even high/fine JPEGs from the D30 print very well.<p>

For your wildlife and portraits, I would go for the D30, and put the money you save into fast prime lenses, or go to the 10D for the 6MP RAW files and improved responsiveness. I wouldn't bother with the D60, which has all the D30's shortcomings, with the only bonus being bigger RAW files. Most DSLR users seldom shoot in RAW.

<p>

You could also save a whack of money to upgrade your lenses by sticking with your beautiful EOS3, and getting a 16-base scan of each roll of film on CD. That gives you the best of both worlds: a brilliantly quick camera, and high quality digital images.<p>

Parting thought: don't skimp on lenses. DSLR's work much better with lenses f/2.8 and faster.

[vsevolod_krishchenko]

3Mp is almost enough for 8x10 without cropping.<br>

But you need good AF for wildlife. I'm using D30 for bird shots... In low light condition, it causes real pain. I believe that after using superb EOS 3 AF system you will have very few shots in focus :(<br>

D60 has almost the same AF's system.<br>

If you wanna just add EOS D30, not replace EOS 3 - ok, it's your bag and your shoulder =:)

[majid]

It depends on your subjects. Portraits have continuous tones and don't require very high resolution, and the 10D won't buy you much more practical quality for that application. Actually, higher resolution will highlight skin blemishes and might be counterproductive in a way.

 

For wildlife the improved AF of the 10D and its headroom to crop to compensate for uneven framing of highly mobile subjects would be quite useful.