525i photos

[Jack]

I think when you take a long range photo and you blow it up you will see the difference 2 million mexpexials will make.
 
I don't know 525i, I would have to disagree with Nikon and Canyon being equal. I did not want to leave Nikon, had a fortune invested in just lenses. I was going to go with Nikon's best in this price range, the D70. I was able to shoot with both, compare with both and there was a large enough difference in the quality of the photos I had to give up my Nikon's. The continuous shooting you were referring too? Five shoots a second with a shutter speed of 1/8000 of a second.
 
I was going to get the 100-400 IS but opted for the better lenses of the 100-300 L. Canon did make a 100-300 5.6 in the famous "L" serious. Dan told me about them when I was evaluating between Nikon and Canon, I think he has one, and I found one on E-Bay. The lenses is not made anymore. Good 100-300 L serious lenses are not so plentiful and when you can run across one they are going to fetch a pretty penny, usually between $450 to $650.

[525i]

After I sent my response, I checked from internet and I found 100-300/5.6L and realised it's not manufactured anymore. I hould have checked this before replying.

I have not tried Nikon's, so I based my comment on hearsay. I have not seen full size photos taken at the same time with Nikon and Canon.

I have compared my lenses to each other by shooting the same scene. I did it before my camera body's (Canon EOS 10D) auto focus was calibrated. There is quite a big difference in quality between 17-40/4L and 24-70/2.8L to favor of the latter. So even with 6.3 Mpix I can see the difference of two good lens.

Sure 8.2 Mpix is better, but not as much as people usually think. People talk too much about Mpixels, I think. Am I only trying to justify that I only have 6.3 Mpix sensor?

[Jack]

525i I was admiring the quality of many of your photos, it is what led me to ask about the camera.

My camera instructor, he can choose any camera he wants, he has the Canon10D.

[chuckinwdc]

Those were lovely photos of Kherson and Yalta. I haven't been to Kherson, but I have to Yalta and your photos were like 10 times better than mine!

Since you guys (I'm including you Jack) know a lot about cameras, let me ask you a question. My wife would like me to buy her a nice camera for her birthday in August. Right now we've got a basic digital camera (Canon PowerShot S230).

She's interested in photography and is asking for a nice non-digital camera. I've been wanting to buy a really nice digital camera for a long time. So, I have two questions:

1. Are there any negatives about buying a non-digital camera?
2. If I buy a digital, which would you recommend?

We're both interestrf in having a zoom lens on whatever camera we buy, and neither of us is into the really technical aspects of fiddling with equipment, so the camera shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to operate.

Thanks!

Chuck

 

[525i]

Thanks, Jack and Chuck for comments on my photos.

Chuck, I don't know what is your budget. I don't know how much you are into photography. I will give my advice based on my experience. When you read my advice and comment, I can see better what do you think.

You can combine digital and film with SLR cameras. You buy lenses, which are important part if you want quality photos. Have you seen purple fringing in your photos with S230? If it bothers you, then you need good lens.

If you buy good lenses, you will not have to sell them, unless you change to another manufacturer. Jack had Nikon and he changed to Canon, so he had to buy everything.

You can start with film body. They does not cost much.

If you go digital and to Canon, you have many options. The basic model is 350D and it's about 1000 €/$. 20D is about 1300-1600. There are few differences in those. The main difference is that 350D is very small. It's too small for my hand. And it's very light, so if you have a heavy lens, like I have many of them, the camera has odd balance (it's front heavy). I tested this. My colleague has 350D.

20D is bigger and heavier, more like my 10D. It has good weight balance with heavy lenses and it's perfect for my hand. I have battery/vertical grip and it helps with grip and balance.

If you don't like to carry 2 kg (or about 3-4 lbs), then you have to look for lighter solution. Of course it depends on the lens.

Some would like 350D and light lens.

If this is too much, then you have other options in digital side, but lets talk about this later, when I know more about your needs.

And one important thing is size of a sensor compared to size of a film. In 350D and 10D the sensor is about 24mm wide (in film it is 36mm). If you look the scenery throgh film body and digital body, with same lens and focal length, the digital gives you narrower view. I find this a problem, because 17mm is not wide enough for some situations. With film body it would be quite enough. The advantage is on tele because with 300mm you can see farther with digital body.

I have thought of buyin a film body for wide angle photography. I dream about full frame digital sensor. Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II is too pricy.

These digital cameras I talk about have also a "point and shoot" mode, if you don't want to adjust shutter speed, aperture and ISO manually. I ahev never used those automatic modes. I use manual mode all the time. In that way I get consistent photos. If you use automatic mode, it depends how dark/light the photo is depending on how much it has dark/light subjects. I have learned the lesson, so that's why I use manual all the time.

[jb]

There are two camps when you discuss photography, digital and film, both have their advocates.  

With digital, the main advantage is instant gratification, you get to see the photo right away. You can also manipulate the photos and edit them convienently on your computer screen with the aid of a host of computer programs.  The disadvantages are: really good digital cameras are pricy. You can get a cheaper digital camera but you will sacrifice resolution, you cannot enlarge a digitial image beyound a certain point without seeing pixelation, and in all digital cameras you will sacrifice dynamic range compared to film, that's just the nature of digital.

With a film camera you are limited to ASA (film speed), lens quality, and camera body options to determine how good your photo will be.  Once the frame is exposed and developed, there's no way to edit, you are stuck with the result.  However film has almost unlimited resolution and dynamic range, if you get it right, you have a photo you can enlarge and hang on the wall.

Cost wise, a really good camera of either medium will be about the same, a Cannon D10 costs about the same as a Nikon N-80 with a decent lens.  If you are into snapshot photography I don't think you can beat the newer medium priced digital camera, if you are into serious photo art, you will eventually get back to film.  It all depends on the desired end results.

[Bruno]

Once the frame is exposed and developed, there's no way to edit, you are stuck with the result. However film has almost unlimited resolution and dynamic range, if you get it right, you have a photo you can enlarge and hang on the wall.

Not really true... i use always usual film for my photo but once the film developed, i scan the negatif...

At 3200 dpi for usual color film ( 200-400 ASA )

At 6400 dpi for diapo

At 9600 dpi for Black/White

At more high resolution, you have some artifact who begin appear on the result... the scan use always 48 bits for the color... 16 bits by color channel... since digital photo camera use only 8 bits by color channel, i have a better palet...

The only problem is the size of file... around 180MB for only one photo at 3200dpi 48bits color in tiff...

Now, you can edit these photo in your best graphic program... i know only two who support the 48 bits for color : photoshop and Gimp... the resolution is so high that you are able to see and remove the little particle of dust who was on your lens... and for these of you who don't manipulate lens in the right way, you can find the mark of fingerprint ...

So, i mix the high resolution of analogic with the manipulation of digital... since DVD writer are enough cheap now, i use around one DVD ( 4.7 Gb ) for one photo film 36 view... when you save after the work with photoshop, keep it in tiff other the color information are reduced at 24 bits...

A big help is have the color profile of the film used for photoshop... so, the color correction is automatic... since i use always Kodack, i have the profile of several film...

One other advantage... i am able to scan missed photo ( too much light, not enough, ... ) and correct it... the machine who print photo use the color/luminosity/contrast/... calculate on part of the negatif given ( 4 photo ) and not on the individual frame...

 

 

[525i]

At more high resolution, you have some artifact who begin appear on the result... the scan use always 48 bits for the color... 16 bits by color channel... since digital photo camera use only 8 bits by color channel, i have a better palet...

My understanding is that in Canon EOS-series RAW file stores 12 bits per colour. When you process this to other format, you lose bits, if you go down to 8, for example to JPEG. I shoot always in RAW. It's like a digital negative.

[jb]

Yes, Bruno...

I just don't have the time or the energy to go through all that.  I'd rather just take a good photo in the first place and avoid the trouble.

[jb]

525i

I sincerely hope you are saving photos in a format better than 8 bits.  After you discount the sine bit, (+/-) that only leaves 7 information bits which is only 42db of resolving power.  The mark 1, Mod 1 human eyeball can resolve at more than 72db, I'd think you'd want your camera system to at least match that.

[525i]

jb, yes, I save RAW images on DVD. I burn two copies. One I save in my house and another one I take to may parents' house. You never know when something bad happens.

For those who trust harddisks, don't trust!

[Bruno]

Yes, Bruno...

I just don't have the time or the energy to go through all that. I'd rather just take a good photo in the first place and avoid the trouble.

I am amateur in photo... i have only a very old reflex... a praktica MTL-5B ( http://www.compumess.nl/afb/fok/cameras/slides/praktica-mtl5b-01.htm ) ... nothing electronic... but i can make some good photo... and i like very much black and white photo... with a little home laboratory ( paper is very expensive )... slowly, it become a new hobby...

525, for harddisk, you have right... i have the mine dead in November... always with garanty but a lot of data loose... DVD is not always great... i have buy a new one who support double-layer but sometime, he have difficult to read previously writen DVD... now, only two small HD ( 160 GB ) from Maxtor in raid system... one dead, i have the mirror on the second... replace the dead, the new one is direct update... great system but i have need buy windows professional in place of my personal version...

 

[Elen]

My husband is a photograph. As mostly he does portraits he prefers films cameras for that kind of photos . He says digit cameras do more "flat" faces (have not idea how he sees that:?)

[jb]

Bruno,

If you are into B&W photography, which I also like because B&W film has such a wide exposure range and is very forgiving, you might like to pick up an older Minolta Autocord.

It shoots 6 X 6 mm medium format so you get a decent negative to play with in you home hobby dark room.

These cameras can be picked up in mint condition pretty reasonably.

Another option is the Rolleiflex.


Either of these cameras will out perform any 35MM SLR, and they are basically bulletproof, I own 5 such TLRs and although I collect vintage cameras, my criteria is that they must be shooters, I use them all.

Check out some auctions on ebay

[anono]

My husband is a photograph(er).

wow. i found a reason to like elen.:cool:

jb, had no idea you were into photography. that was my springboard into filmmaking. (seeing the steps of potemkin was something i'll never forget).

i had a dark room in HS and college. still have the equipment. love rollies, great cam.

all this digital stuff, well, i know how to make it work if the automatic fails:cool:

love to see your cameras someday.

 

[Bruno]

Thank JB... Great material but it is only a hobby, i don't wish be professional... not the time... same for the old Praktica, i have need around one year for learn use it correctly...

The remark of Elen over flat face is a little true... in reality, it is not a problem of face but it is more about the full photo... usualy, full automatic camera focus with spot zone... with manual, you can use the diaphramme for a great diep of field... only the time for make the photo rise... but this allow photo clean from near you to the infinite...

Now, i make some test with a macro objectif... very interesting for photo of flower...

And i have always some problem with the flash... a strong one but again, a manuel... the table on the back side is not very accurate...

Actually, i dream about Zeis lens... the best one but the price is very high

About Elen, i am not sure but i think that she have explain before that she work in the photographic sector... but i know this from almost the beginning of her post  ... it is why i smile when some people attack her... they don't know who she is... i know maybe 1% about her and she is a great lady ... with sometime a strong character :?

[jb]

Here ya go, Bruno.

If you'd like a really great camera for a terrific price, this is what you need.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3354&item=7522199156&rd=1

And, by the way, all these old Rollie's came with Carl Zeiss optics marketed under the name of Tessar.