victor_yushenko

Noisy 1.6 factor 10MP would not be much at all. And even if it's 100$+/- cheaper than Nikon or Sony it would not matter at all. At that point Canon will solidly become a follower allowing Nikon and Sony to lead the way...

The only way for Canon to be the leader again is to come up with more MP and less noise all at the same time. This almost certainly means bigger sensor. A good camera with 1.3 factor and say 10MP will allow Canon to break away and be a leader again. At the same time they should allow for 5D to drop in price, effectively replacing 30D (assuming that yield on FF sensors is good enough to do this). What's the point of making your own sensors if Canon ends up playing catch-up with other companies.

 

Canon has been complacent for far too long...

 

In a mean time I am perfectly happy with my DRebbel waiting for 1.5k or less FF camera.

Nicholas I think that if you switch to a wider color gamut, then your pictures would look and print exactly the same. It would work kinda like inceasing canvas in Photoshop. Picture itself looks exactly the same but there is more space added. With wider gamut you will be able to increse color saturation (make colors more intense), but the difference will only be visible on the print (and not on the display with their norrow gamut).

This this seems like a good way: http://www.imatest.com/

(eval version allows for 20 runs). If you decide to go with this approach, please post your results (ether on this forum) or on imatest's forum.

I am not sure that there will be a lot of used 10D after 20D hits. Replacing camera this often is expensive. Those who can afford it already got 1Ds. 20D is not all that better then 10D (at least not to me, a larger sensor and bigger viewfinder, that would be something).

I only have Canon stuff.

I only briefly looked at Nikon, but it seemed to be a better camera then DRebel.

From drycreek it seems that Nikon has a wider color gamut.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/vrml/canon/Canon-10D.htm

vs

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/vrml/nikon/Nikon-D70.htm

This means that colors can be more saturated then on Canon. Not by much but still.

Image preview felt much faster on D70 then on mine DRebel.

It is far better constructed then DRebel. I belive it has more futures as well. Noise is no worse then DRebel/10D, but apparently 20D is better then any of them.

Price wise D70 is much better deal then what Canon offers, but the real expensive part is glass. From talking to some of mine friends, it seems that top of the line glass is more expensive for Nikon (but I could be wrong here).

If you have Canon glass definetly stick with it, if not I would probably get D70.

20D is agrurably a better camera, but it will also be much more expensive.

I have 2.8 IS. Digital both helps (higher ISO) and hurts (1.6 focal lengh magnification). Fully zoomed out you will need to be 1/300 to keep it steady. Put on one of your lenses and see when will you go slower then 1/300 at f/4. From what I read it seems that image quality is same across all 3 lenses (4, 2.8, and 2.8 IS). With 2.8 you can make background just a tad blurier, but not by much.

IMHO, Extra money will only give you faster shuter speeds. If I were buying my lens again I would definetly get 2.8 IS again. I can take nice images when there is not much light and thus contrast is not too big.

I have a weird "problem". I have left my tripod with B1 in the garage

for at least half a year. Now I discovered that clamp began to

discolor (instead of black, now I have a somewhat purple color). It's

did not happen uniformly and I can even see my fingerprints on it.

This discoloring seems to be permanent. Did it ever happened to anyone

else? The only reason that I can think of is maybe UV light? But it

has only been half a year (summer in Southern California, but still).

Maybe it was moisture (near the ocean).

 

I guess it's not a big deal since ballhead is perfectly functional.

Did anyone else had a similar "problem"?

I was going over a gamut comparison pages at dry creek:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/index.html and I

realized that gamut of many printers is not very great. I was curious

what would be a best printer to achive a greatest gamut? From dry

creek it seems to be a dye sublimation one, but I am not sure.

From my tests I think that all of these lenses (I have not tried 28 but MTF shows it almost the same as others) are sharper then DLSR that can use them. You might want to read this article: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml">24 vs 24 vs 24</a>

 

The way I read it is: "practicaly all current Canon lenses are very sharp". If you happy with 28 do not do anything. If it seems as not very sharp it might be your style, tripod, or tripod head that needs replacement. If you find 28 unconvinient in any way, get zoom (17-40 is perfect).

I shot some events (birthday parties and such) with my new 70-200 2.8 IS recently. Portraits coming out just great with this lens. I especially like the long reach of this lens. With long lens you have an option of shoting people who are unaware and act natural.

To your question I found zoom extremely usefull for proper framing. When I saw a great expresion there was never enough time to change lenses, but I got some nice shots with good framing by zooming quickly. In my view long focal length also makes it easier to capture feeling of the moment, isolate. Say a birthday cake was just brought out. With long lens I could only get cake and a birthday child in frame, yet because there is so few items, attention is drawn to the child face. With wide lens you can inculde more people, some exited some bored. If you can afford having wide and long zooms are great. If you can only afford one lens 70-200 is a great choice IMHO. Then later you can get 17-40.

I have 70-200 and love it. WIth digital I can reach with it as if it was 300. Makes huge difference for me. People stop realizing that I am taking photos because i am reasonably far away. Here a typical example about 7 feet away. (Before this lens a month ago in all photos my son was staring at me/camera)<div></div>

I am not an expert, but I think you can use a magic wand tool in Photoshop to select background, then reverse selection, cut out an image and then paste to the background you want. It will be much more helpfull if background is solid. For studio portraits light is very important. I do not know details but There is a tutorial in the Learn area on portraits that tells how to get good light by properly placing subject near a window.

Low light means high ISO. High ISO has higher noise. The bigger each pixel is the less noise you going to get (big difference). There is two ways to get big pixels:

 

1.) Put less pixels on a chip.

2.) Make chip bigger.

 

Most point and shoot and have small to very small chips with way too many megapixels and huge noise even moderate ISO speeds. It all has to do with cost. Bigger chip is much, much more expensive to produce, and nobody want to have a low pixel count because most consumers seem to prefer more pixels (because they do not understant relation between noise and size). I own Digital Rebel SLR (under 1000$ even with a decent zoom lens) that's ideal for low light at this price range. It also has good resolution 6 Megapixels, but again this is good low noise pixels. Can't say anything about other cameras you mentioned. You can compare them yourself at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/">Digital cameras Review</a>. Look for the section that compares noise. Also try to find pixel size, bigger pixel always means less noise.

 

I think that Digital Rebel with kit lens (it comes with and without a lens, diffirence is 100$) is going to be a best option for you. The only drawback is that it's bigger then most point and shoot.

Any camera requires white-balancing. You can ether set it in camera or shoot in RAW and then apply white balancing in Photoshop. Overall with almost any decent digital camera you can get more exact reproduction then with say film cameras. That is if you camera is properly color calibrated. Then your output device needs to be calibrated (printer or display) so that you can see this exact copy exactly as it is.

Problem with any image is that exact copy might not look exactly as you think you saw it. Eye and mind adjusts to different colors and to different light. No cameras can read you mind and figure out how to modify the image so that it looks that way you want it to look, the way you see it. What I am trying to say is that do you really think it was a problem with Nikon 5000 (what did it lack?) or with your technigue?

 

I own Digital Rebel and I love it. But to get very good images I need to get framing right (very hard for me), have nice light, and then a lot of time spent in Photoshop converting from RAW, playing with contrast, curves, levels, saturation, changing size to be correct, applying profiles for print... So it is not automagical :-(

I got 70-200 2.8 IS and absolutely love it. First of all with drebel 70-200 becomes (112-320). I though that 320 will be too long. It is not. For nice perspective (how nose looks and so on) 100 might be ok, but with 320 I can actually take pictures of my son and wife without them paying any attention to it. I've got some great pictures taht way . Before that with my 50 f/1.4 I would always get portaits where person is looking into the camera, because I had to be so close (I was shoting with EOS3 so it was real 50). If and when I buy full frame digital I probably would miss current length of that lens.

Next IS or not IS. IS is much, much more expensive. 600 (f/4) vs 1600 (f/2.8 with IS). For some difference will be too much to justify no matter what. For me it was hard initially, but after seing my photos I am glad I got it. I can hand hold it while shoting inside without a flash when it's dark outside with just normal lights tuned on (not very bright). I also did some testing with resonably bright daylight outside. Some people might not have this problem, but for me even at 1/2000 (+/-) IS was producing better images. Difference was not huge, but in hight contrast areas it was visible. I had one area with black dot on red background. Dots where just slightly bigger then

few pixels. Without IS dots would lose their contrast (they were smuged). It was not very aparent just by looking at the pictures but it was obvious comparing one vs another. Since I would expect to take many pictures in shaded areas I decided that for me IS was worth it, but for a while (actually until I got reaction to the pictures from our relatives) I was worried that I overspend. 2.8 IS also comes with lens colar but it does not make differece in price much smaller. 2.8 IS is also heavier.

I am sure that 70-200 f/4 is a great lens as well.

Intersting experiment. I should try it as well.

Maybe you right. I always though that Canon does not do a super duper test for all of ther cameras to keep costs resonable. They have to perform good tests to be competetive though. I think you can always send camera and lenses to Canon center to calibrate. Will cost extra though.

I wanted to say Luminous Landscape, But it seems that it has been metioned already dozen of times.

 

I'll just add that Luminous Landscape has some other great articles. It is worth to read eveery one of them.

Plastic is great. What are the other alternatives? Wood? Stone? Would you really buy a Drebel with wood body?

Plastic is cheap, but it yet another advantage that it has.

 

If you want 1000$ camera body without "ratling" nose I can sell you mine EOS3 for a "low, low price" of ahh say 550$ :-) No rattling noices and cheper then drebel. Come on. Most money are spend on chips and software, there is very little left for body. If chips and software costs say 500, then there is only 300$ left for drebel body and 1000$ left for 10D body.

 

I agree that I would be nicer if ther were no rattling sound and body color was black and it was full frame and was packaged with 12-12000 f/1.0 small zoom and had a beter quality then 10*12 large format and had all the swings and tilts movements build into the camera and... But wait would'd it make it more expensive?

300D and 10D are alsmost the same. Canon just disabled some futures in 300D. 300D can be had with or without a "kit lens"(100$) and 10D cames without a lens (you need to buy lens separately). Here is the link that just got posted on Canon EOS forum:

<a href="http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?articleId=60003&pageId=1">10D vs 300D</a>

 

 

For lanscapes 10D has a mirror lock-up, 300D does not. I have 300D and I do not think that mirror flap degrades image in any way on that camera at all.

I think that 300D is far better deal for a beginner. In other word if you not sure whether you should get 10D or 300D(Digital Rebel) then 300D is your camera. Money that you can save on 300D vs 10D can be better spend on some good lenses. If you never shot digital there will be a learning curve, but it's true for any digital camera.

Mike I think it is very unlikely that 10D has focusing issues. So lets look at the test instad. I think it would be better if you shot a stationary object that can not move. Bulding is good, unless you live in California and there is an earthquake. Next you must have good tripod. Then test. There is just too many variables in the shot that you posted. Maybe person in the image was mocing (maybe not moving directly, but breathing would move closes). You were hand holding camera. I've seen many test shots (lenses were tested) on 10D and 300D and all of them focused very well. I also know that autfocusing array is not very advanced in 10D/300d (as compared to say EOS3) so difficult subject or low light might negatively affect focusing. I think that Canon QC is usually much better (but probably not perfect so you might get a bad camera once in a while), then most tests that people try to trow at Canon equpmwnt.

Christopher, 10D does not have less noise then 300D. They use same sensor.

 

I also think that 300D with a kit lens is a great option. For lanscapes at f/8 you gogin to have a great quality. I have not used kit lens myself, but from comparisons that I've seen it is very sharp at f/8.

 

I though that sigma is a great idea, but not anymore. Current algoritms do not need all 3 colors for each pixel. Extra information does not hurt of course, but it makes sensor/camera more expensive and does not seem to improve images.

 

I think that there is no comparison between 300D and Sigma. 300D wins. Sigma resolution is just under 4Megapixels needed for Noritsu print for 5*7 (needs 320dpi). You can increase size with to 4megapixels in photoshop and it still would look great, but for something bigger then 5*7 I would get more then 4 megapixels.

 

To me 300D is also better then Sony. I do not like LCD for viewfinder. I think that manual focusing will be hard with Sony. I heard that it zooms in on LCD for focusing, but then you loose full image for framing. Sony sensor is also smaller and thus noice will be worse then on Canon.

 

You might want to wait until there is a full review at http://www.dpreview.com/ for Sony 828 and then decide.

 

I own 300D and very happy with it (great, great camera). Last week I put 50 f/1.4 lens, set iso to 1600 and was able to get 1/100 shutter speed at night. Something that would not be possible with Sony (lens is zoom so it will be slower no matter what and with smaller sensor iso1600 will be too much).

but what they mean by amateur...? Is 1Ds is an amateur system? From another piece here http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?article_id=766&section_id=5&page_number=12

"In Japan, major customers for medium format are pros�unlike the U.S., where amateurs account for the highest percentage." If medium format is for amateur, then 1Ds is probably also an amateur system and it is already a full frame.

 

You can read it any way you want really.

Dhiren nice images in your folder.

 

I disagree that prime is better then zoom (17-40). When I did my testing they looked fairly equal.

 

I think that most people assume that primes now days are still better then zoom because:

1. It used to be that way.

2. It is logical since prime is simpler.

 

Zooms might already be better then primes (if not, then they will be soon) simply because there is more money going into their development then into primes (I am only talking about Canon line up). Last time I bought a photo equipment from a local store all lenses that other people were looking at where zooms. It would make sence for Canon to spend as much R&D money on zooms as posible. That's what sells well (and zooms being more expensive overall might have better margins as well).

 

Said that primes do have excelent optical qualities and only lack popularity and convinence.

 

Nice shot from kit lens. I saw one review comparing 17-40 vs kit lens and at f8 kit lens actually looked better. I still would buy 17-40 next because it would fit full frame camera.

I think that replacing 70-200 f/2.8 IS is not going to be smart. It's a great lens and why mess with the good thing? I wish they would figure out a way to come out with sharp 200-600 zoom at under 2k.

Since you are asking this question, the answer is probably no for you.

I am a beginner and 300D fits me perfectly. 10D is a better camera, but if I had to buy everything all over again I would definetly not spent much more then 100$ extra for 10D. I though that I would miss mirror lock-up, but I am not. I would love black body and bigger buffer, but I would not spent more then 100$. (And I just spent 1600$ for 70-200 f/2.8 IS) I do not care about flexiblity with exposures. No camera (not even 1Ds) can read my mind and in difficult light know whether I want to lose details in shadows or in highlights. With my Rebel I have to often dial exposure correction, which is easy with histogram. If I make a mistake and I can't take another shot with corrected exposure, then Photoshop will probably correct it just fine(I shot in RAW).