rocco1

And I agree with both Jeff and Stuart - get to know your equipment, and you will get much better results from that than with a new flashier camera. Also - rather than wanting to get a bigger and better camera, look into getting a better lens - if you feel the quality from your work needs something more. By this time next year, you would still be getting very good pictures with the same lens, but whatever camera you buy today, will be long since obsolete.

I am another one that believe that DaVinci wouldn't be able to take my 20D and get a photograph taken, not unless he understoof the technicalities of my equipment. But man - then he would kick all of our butts! Understanding the techicalities doens't make you artistic, but it does make you proficient.

http://www.pbase.com/eminilia/image/82103301

 

HAHAhahahahahaha! ! Hysterical ! !

Big. Really big, bigger than the 10D and bigger still than the D30... Asuming that the 30D should theoretically be the same as the 20D, the biggest I have made was 2m x 2m. No problem.

Your best bet would be to get another 5D as backup... but with it's pricetag you have to be really good friends with the bank. Seriously, a while ago I got into that fix with my 20D's. Now I can say that I am one of those people that doesn't have lenses for my camera's - I have camera's for my lenses! All three my 20D's have their own lens, and I cannot remember the last time I had to take lens off a camera. Likewise, I cannot remember the last time I had a dirty sensor either. Maybe there is method in that madness.

When you look at how that camera worked, you have to agree: "Those were photographers" How many of us today can tinker together a box with a coupla pieces of glass, and end up taking photographs with it? Noteworthy though, in the last 170 years, nothing in terms of photographic principals changed...

No - it would not. BW is a technicolourd jungle, and photshop is a really great roadmap to gettin a perfect b/w picture. You mention "later flexibility"? If you shoot in color, you use all the available light. B/w is a fraction of all the available light, or just another dimention of interpreting light. Now how can that look worse if you are able to precisely select what to use, or how to interpret it in photoshop?

Jeff speaks wisdom. I too agree that once you know the difference, there is no way to confuse film with digital. However, if you really really know what you do, you can make digital look like film (well, mayby just a little bit), but never the other way around. Like Rick sayd, it has to do with the distribution of tones. It seems to be better with digital, but there are a lot of factors that could realy make you bite your own tail...

Sell the Epson if you really need to, but if it isn't absolutely necesary, keep it around. It has a lot of other uses you cannot use the Kodak for. I have quite a few Epson printers running small jobs, like printing covers / contact sheets etc you woudn't want to use the Kodak for.

I had the same Sigma lens, until it stopped working in the middle of a serious shoot and I was left standing with a red face. So maybe I am a bit unfair about the feeling toward the Sigma, but after I got a quote to fix it, I added a tidy sum and got the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. Never looked back. I am thus also one of those who say it's my favourite lens. I sort of lost track what happend to that old broken Sigma. I'm sure it's in a box somewhere...

Same this side. If I think a shoot might be difficult - I reach for my 70-200mm f2.8L IS. No amount of money saved with a cheaper lens can compensate for not getting the job done, so I never think of the money I spent on that lens. I just enjoy it!

Never mind the grain of salt, shoot in RAW - then you can always change your mind later on (meaning white balance / sharpness / saturation / size / etc / etc / etc) Since you are still new to your camera, get used to working in RAW, you'll never regret it.

After years of frustration not being in the priceclass of the Fuji Frontier, I

got myself a Kodak 6800. How many people are there out there that is using the

Kodak 6800 / 6850? Would anyone agree that it is one of the best photo printers

in it's performance/price class?

 

Remember, it's speed (less that 11 sec on a 4x6), cost ect. I have other

printers that is stunning in quality also, (note: the 8 different Epson

printers I have!) This machine really impressed me.

Louise Heusinkveld gave you good advice, but if you fail in getting results, you are welcome to dispair without feeling bad. Video isn't designed to look like photo's, but is designed to imitate moving pictures on a electronic display.

 

I get requests from clients on a dayly basis, but alas, the biggest you can really expect with any kind of quality is only about 4x6" prints. And don't look too closely at them either...

Likewise, if you are getting a 5D, you might want to consider getting a new computer! No joke, upgrading somehing like you have is going to be so frustrating that you will forget to take pictures...

 

In any case, with the power new computers have nowaday's, it will only be a investment to compliment your 5D.

Maybe a little late to post to this thread, but consider:

 

If you get a 5D, and PS, add a few bucks and get some "L" lenses. Trust me, is makes all pictures free from wanting to sharpen it. RAW is as sharp as the picture the CMOS see, wich is to say, just as sharp as your lens is.

 

Then - (and this is important) LEARN HOW TO WORK WITH RAW! Yes, I did yell that. The 5D is an awsome camera, and with what you are paying for it, it would be a waist of it's cost if you do not use it to it's full potential. Wich is a lot. Learning your equipment is the biggest time-saver you can invest in. You can tinker with jpg, but one you get profound in RAW, you will not be able to understand how you ever worked without it.

As I work with Photoshop, I just use it's browser - it gives just about all metadata there is, it's scalable, opens directly for editing ect ect... It's got most things other viewers have, or what I can imagine what makes them nice.

You are not telling much with regard as to how large you need to print. Are you going to print it yourself, and what printer do you have? What software do you use right now?

 

All of those answers are going to tell much more of what you can expect, but to give you a guideline, I regularly print A1 size prints from client media (I limit it to not less that 4Mp), but because I know how PS and my Epson 7600 work together (make that read "2 years experiance") I give prints that usually have the client grinning like a hyena!

 

Like other people also said, the amount of pixels you have is only part of the story - how large you can make it and look good is a chain of aspects, starting with light, glass, sensor size, in-camera processing, saved format, computer processing, type of printer/ink/paper used, ect ect.

 

But do not be intimidated, you don't really need to increase pixel count if you have someone to do your printing for you, the owner of the printer should know how to do it. And if you are doing it yourself, make note of whatever you do, and compare results till you have something that satisfy.