RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Tools > Hardware
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Hardware Computers, displays, tablets, scanners, cameras, printers, etc.

Canon raises the bar!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 09-18-2003, 07:41 PM
jeaniesa's Avatar
jeaniesa jeaniesa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Colorado foothills
Posts: 1,826
Catia, I definitely believe that DSLR's have their place and if I had the funds for the 10D I'd probably be getting one! (I can only drool over the 1Ds. ) But given what I've read about the 300D, it's not the DSLR for me. (You didn't say which camera you had, but whatever it is I'm glad you're happy with it! )

Kevin, I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact that the 300D will (has?) changed the DSLR market. I think that's a given! I can't wait to see what other manufacturers do to stay competitive.

Quote:
Even now with a good film scanner I am talking about at least an hour to convert to digital. That is not acceptable for my style and time schedule.
Yup! That is definitely the biggest drawback for me too! If I want to share my pictures, I have to scan them to put them on the web. It's a major hassle to share my slides with friends and family living around the world.

Jeanie
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 09-18-2003, 07:45 PM
KevinBE's Avatar
KevinBE KevinBE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 511
Hey Catia. My partner at work is ordering a 300D tomorrow. So I will get to see one in action soon.

This milestone event will greatly benefit all photographers, especially those who are planning to make the move to digital. We all will benefit from the effects as well. I think the pricing structure will shift downward for the existing cameras and the newer DSLRs will have to take notice. I think that this is a win win situation for the consumers. Well, probably not for the guys that just bought new cameras.

My N80 may show up one ebay soon, you never know.
Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 09-18-2003, 09:17 PM
Kevin Connery's Avatar
Kevin Connery Kevin Connery is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 82
When the Sony 828 was announced, I was quite impressed with the technical specifications, but wouldn't want to use it as my only camera. It might make a great back-up for when I don't want to carry the larger stuff, but it's missing one little thing that I rely heavily on. Or rather, it has too much of it.

Depth of field.

If you're not familiar with the term, you probably won't see any benefit from a larger camera, and saving money and weight makes the smaller sensor-sized cameras a great deal. Even if you are familiar with it, you may still prefer the 828--there are many fields in which the main problem is getting enough depth of field rather than being able to reduce it.

But not everyone will.

I shoot a lot of candids, in busy locations with very cluttered surroundings. If the background is sharp (as, for example, the recently posted example of the riderless horse, with the fence and fields and clutter behind it being sharp), it reduces the effectiveness of the shot--the subject lacks separation. Sure, everything is sharp--but because of the way human perception works, when everything is sharp, nothing really stands out as BEING sharp.

Yes, it could be post-processed, but I don't want to HAVE to do that for every single image.

See how even the leaf is "soft"? Or in this one, where even her left eye (camera right) isn't as crisp as the right one, and the background is all soft. Or the trees behind this girl . I didn't blur the background in postproduction on any of these shots--that's how they came out of the camera. And the 300D will permit that; the 828 will not.

If I shot macros, I'd be using a 707/717/828 or similar, but I don't, and that one limitation is very important to many photographers. They will be better served by the larger, heavier, bulkier, and, in some ways, less technologically advanced Digital Rebel than they would be by the 828, even though the 828 is smaller, less expensive, and has a larger pixel count.

It's a tool.
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 09-18-2003, 09:20 PM
KevinBE's Avatar
KevinBE KevinBE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 511
Jeanie, I thought I was going to get a shot at a 1Ds this week. On ebay there was an item for a Canon 1Ds with 2 stabalized zoom lenses, a 24-70 and a 70-200. The price was so low, $1000.00 that I thought something was fishy so I sent the seller an e-mail asking about the camera. He sent back a reply that he had sold the one I was looking at but that he had another on just like it for $2000.00. The seller was in Germany. He started telling me how I would need to send him the funds by Western Union in a different name. and that when I received the camera I would be able to change the send to name to his name and only then would he receive the money.

I almost called the FBI to see how we could get this guy. I still may, but I doubt there is a lot they can do just because we think that this is a scam.

The bad thing is that this guy had a feedback rating of 145. I wonder if there is a way to forge that?
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 09-18-2003, 10:20 PM
Kevin Connery's Avatar
Kevin Connery Kevin Connery is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 82
Getting enough Depth of Field is rarely an issue for 35mm or MF cameras. Getting a shallow enough one is.

Perhaps I'm overstating the criticality of the issue; I know a lot of people who have no use for that control. But I cannot operate effectively without it, just as they don't need it. (And I don't even own any particularly large aperture lenses--the fastest I've got is f/2.8--a far cry in DoF terms from my older film gear, where f/2.0 was the norm, and f/1.8 or f/1.4 were preferred, AND where I didn't have the small-sensor "crop factor" to deal with.)

If you can save money and get good results, go for it. I was responding to your very heavy handed insistance that the Sony was the end-all, be-all for everyone, as I DID read all the messages before responding.

That it's a better choice for you, I cannot argue; you've made that point clear. That it's NOT the best choice for everyone is the point I'm trying to convey.

I rarely shot landscapes; I even less frequently shoot macros, flowers, or fish, or ducks, geese, swans, squirrels, or any other small wildlife. I do occasionally shoot sports and very frequently shoot portraits. Any photographer with a comparable set of goals is going to have a similar reaction to the 828-it's not functional as their main camera. The Rebel might also not qualify, but it's a much better candidate for those tasks. (Fortunately, neither is being targetted as being a 'photographers camera', merely good general-use cameras, at which they both excel, at least on paper.)

A typical day of my shooting can be seen at http://www.keradwc.com/20030719_lyondemere/ -- if you can get a comparably shallow DoF with a smaller camera, PLEASE let me know. I don't particularly enjoy carrying around the larger box and lens, but since it's the only way I know to consistently achieve these (barely acceptable) results, I'm going to stick with it until I find a better approach.

Last edited by Kevin Connery; 09-18-2003 at 10:25 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 09-18-2003, 10:39 PM
Kevin Connery's Avatar
Kevin Connery Kevin Connery is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 82
Quote:
I know many portrait photographers that get blurred backgrounds with small sensors. You just have to know what you are doing.
You're right. I spent way too much money on the wrong equipment. Please forgive me. I'll rush out and sell my worthless gear and buy The One True Camera right away.

Maybe I can get enough for it that I can sign up for a photography 101 class, so I can understand how to make The One True Camera give me results like the ones you posted, and how they're at all comparable to the subjects I shoot, and the results I need.
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 09-19-2003, 11:17 AM
Toad's Avatar
Toad Toad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 177
This is on-topic but also off-topic.

I have read a lot about shallow DOF and small sensors in this thread.

I (and probably lots of others) don't quite understand why you cannot get shallow DOF from a small sensor - perhaps this is intuitive to the Pros, but not to me.

Can someone explain why this is so. I definately miss shallow DOF on my current pocket picnic portable - and don't want to make the wrong choice through misinformation on my next camera.
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 09-19-2003, 11:38 AM
catia's Avatar
catia catia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 255
Toad,

Check this out http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html#digital

Catia
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 09-19-2003, 12:40 PM
Toad's Avatar
Toad Toad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 177
Thank you for the information - that helps clarify this issue for me nicely.

So - in conclusion...is the reason that people expect more blur/better DOF from the Canon only based on the fact that you can optionally change up to longer lenses?
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 09-19-2003, 01:24 PM
Toad's Avatar
Toad Toad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 177
I see.

I still think the F828 may be appropriate for my needs. We'll see when the actual reviews start to come out and what is available then.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Tools > Hardware


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW Image Thumbnailer and Viewer Syd Software 4 08-21-2007 11:51 AM
Canon S45 to XP home upload Old Canoeist Hardware 3 02-27-2007 11:53 AM
HP 7900 or Canon i9900 ? 1STLITE Input/Output/Workflow 8 05-24-2004 09:20 AM
Missing scroll bar? CJ Swartz Website Feedback 38 09-08-2002 04:50 AM
Canon S800 Printer Marni Hardware 11 09-03-2001 08:49 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved