Bwahahahaha! At 8 MP? You mean "great" like we used to get out of the old
16mm films? Great if you don't mind buildings that look like they're
falling over backward? Spend some time with full size cameras then tell us
about "great".

What is this loser talking about? 8MP exceeds the resolution of a 35mm negative
by nearly 25%. It's close to the res of a medium format without the bother.

RB

Pro's can get good pictures with a pin hole camera.


Thom, I find it really annoying when someone like you chimes in on a topic you
know nothing about. I worked as a still photographer and a pro can't get good
results from a crappy optical set or a slappy shutter. Nor can you get very
impressive results with low res CCDs. That's why we buy reasonably good gear.

RB

By the way, why don't you buy cameras like you do Boats? All that money
for only a picture when a boat can be a case of life and death for you
and your family.

I didn't pay for the Canon 20D, Thom. It was a gift. I suppose I could take it
back and keep the 2K, but that would be pretty creepy. And the Nikon was bought
to take pics of the baby.
Sorry if this offends you, but we like the beautiful prints that this gear
makes.

RB

Honestly, the Pro, according to her, has good bit
of noise above 100 and the vignetting was
unacceptable. I'm not going to argue with her
about it.
S.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
: The Pro is 8MP and the rebel is 6MP.
: She I think she'd like the 1DsII, but can't
: justify it for what she's doing at this
point.
:
:
: Honestly, the Pro can take really great pics
with some practice. A lot rides on
: how you print them.
: My new Nikon 8800 is 8 MP. I've already taken
some greats shots...but it's easy
: enough to get it wrong, especially with the
focusing. I'm glad the 20D has true
: manual focus.
: Your wife should take another crack at it and
take her time. An Epson R300M
: will deliver excellent 8X10s as will the 800.
They are terrible for regular
: text printing though.
:
: RB
:
:

Honestly, the Pro, according to her, has good bit
of noise above 100 and the vignetting was
unacceptable. I'm not going to argue with her
about it.


Well, it all depends on how you're shooting and where. I rarely set above 100.
The new crop of cameras certainly do better with that. If she wants to avoid
lens issues, she'd probably like a SLR like the Canon 20D, but overall it's
probably best to wait another year or so rather than spend a small fortune.

RB

I think if you look at what people in the know you
will find that they have the same complaints about
the Pro.
I told you that she liked the 1DsII but not for
7k.
S.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
: Honestly, the Pro, according to her, has good
bit
: of noise above 100 and the vignetting was
: unacceptable. I'm not going to argue with her
: about it.
:
:
: Well, it all depends on how you're shooting and
where. I rarely set above 100.
: The new crop of cameras certainly do better with
that. If she wants to avoid
: lens issues, she'd probably like a SLR like the
Canon 20D, but overall it's
: probably best to wait another year or so rather
than spend a small fortune.
:
: RB

I think if you look at what people in the know you
will find that they have the same complaints about
the Pro.


Agreed. I have seen some good results with it though. I bet a Canon 20D with
the regular lens (1600.00) would perk her interest. But in another year we'll
see some amazing cameras for under 1K I bet.

RB

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Bwahahahaha! At 8 MP? You mean "great" like we used to get out of the old
16mm films? Great if you don't mind buildings that look like they're
falling over backward? Spend some time with full size cameras then tell
us
about "great".

What is this loser talking about? 8MP exceeds the resolution of a 35mm
negative
by nearly 25%. It's close to the res of a medium format without the
bother.

If you are only interested in amateur snapshots for web posting you'll be
satisfied with that resolution and the lack of contrast and perspective
controls but this "looser" prefers better - like at least 10x the resolution
of a 35mm minicam and buildings that don't appear to be falling over and
foregrounds in focus, etc. Again, if you are really interested in quality
photography, spend some time using a full size camera system.

If you are only interested in amateur snapshots for web posting you'll be
satisfied with that resolution and the lack of contrast and perspective
controls

Vito, you clearly never used a modern digital camera. Modern 6 MP and better
match or exceed the capability of a 35MM camera. My 8.2 MP camera is quite
close to a medium format camera. Unless you're refering to 8X10 cameras which
are less than practical. Not many pros used them these days.
Your comment on contrast makes zero sense. A 5 Mp shot with a G5 can match
contrast with a 35mm shot on Kodak F5 papers.
Get back to me when you can google up a clue.

RB

"Bobsprit" wrote

Vito, you clearly never used a modern digital camera. Modern 6 MP and
better
match or exceed the capability of a 35MM camera.

You are right. My 4.2 MP zoom is OK for snapshots used for web posting or
newsprint where quality doesn't matter. It replaced my 35mm SLR that I used
for essentially the same purposes - ie where quality didn't matter.


Unless you're refering to 8X10 cameras which are less than practical.

There is nothing so beautiful as a well concieved and executed 8x10 contact
print with the lovely range of tones unachievable in miniture (35mm) film
cameras or any digital camera I could afford. But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

Not many pros used them these days.

That's because customers have become inured to poor quality. Check out some
old Life magazines and see what I mean.

Your comment on contrast makes zero sense. A 5 Mp shot with a G5 can match
contrast with a 35mm shot on Kodak F5 papers.

That's because, like most minicam and digital tyros, you have no
appreciation of contrast control. You point and shoot and take whatever your
camera's computer gives you and deem it "good". But since you are reasonably
intellegent your ignorance in this area can be cured by simply learning and
understanding the Zone System. I suggest Ansel Adam's series on that
subject. Works for color too, BTW.

Get back to me when you can google up a clue.
Yes, please do.

Unless you're refering to 8X10 cameras which are less than practical.

There is nothing so beautiful as a well concieved and executed 8x10 contact
print

I have shot large format stuff for years, but it can't be used in many
situations and is just not practical. I used a deardorff for years. It's not
something that belongs on a boat or to get that rare moment on film. In fact,
in real life shooting it's pretty much useless.
Contact 8X 10s are fine, but I used to use a rail mounted enlarger for making
wall sized prints on a vacuum wall. I used to get the worlds worst paper cuts
and get blood on the prints...which I couldn't see until after processing.

RB

But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

As I said a new Canon 20D will only cost 2K and will match medium format film
based units and repay you with cheaper operation costs.

RB

In article ,
Bobsprit wrote:
But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

As I said a new Canon 20D will only cost 2K and will match medium format film
based units and repay you with cheaper operation costs.

I had a Bronica 645 a couple of years ago. Great optics, but I didn't
like the plastic body, etc. I don't have much use for film cameras any
more. My Nikon 5000 seems fine for my needs.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Not many pros used them these days.

That's because customers have become inured to poor quality.

Not at all. And most of those life magazine pics were shot with 35mm and medium
format, which are now eclipsed by digital quality.
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The only
limiting factor is the lens. My Nikon ED Optics are excellent and the Canon set
is even better.
Your basing your comments on el-cheapo cameras you've seen. Pick up any
prosumer 8 MP or even the Nikon D70 and see what they can do. They go way
beyond "snapshots."
And it's only a matter of time before digital CMOS chips exceed even large
format capability.

RB

Your comment on contrast makes zero sense. A 5 Mp shot with a G5 can match
contrast with a 35mm shot on Kodak F5 papers.

That's because, like most minicam and digital tyros, you have no
appreciation of contrast control. You point and shoot and take whatever

I'm afraid you're just showing your ignorance here. Prosumer cameras and DSLRs
have low contrast settings. The camera does nothing but take the shot in manual
mode. The user works in Photoshop as they would any darkroom and a far greater
range of contrasts is available....for free!
I'm sorry Vito. You don't own a fine digital camera and I doubt you own an
8X10. I've owned/own both and used to shoot still for a living. It's unlikely
that you've even used anything remotely like a Deardorff. Hell, I even used to
own a medical grade versemat for 8X10 negs.
You just don't know what you're talking about.

RB

But since you are reasonably
intellegent your ignorance in this area can be cured by simply learning and
understanding the Zone System. I suggest Ansel Adam's series on that
subject. Works for color too, BTW.


Oh really? You do know that Adams felt that a full darkroom was a component.
How many folks still operate their own darkroom? You can apply the zone system
with far greater ease (and far less expense) with a good digital camera and
full photoshop.
Most of your comments simply show that you've never even touched a good digital
camera.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:

Not many pros used them these days.


That's because customers have become inured to poor quality.

Not at all. And most of those life magazine pics were shot with 35mm and medium
format, which are now eclipsed by digital quality.
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The only
limiting factor is the lens.
It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).

Cheers

FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The
only
limiting factor is the lens.
It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).


Nav, for an 8X10 print, a 6 MP camera will match a 35mm frame as both are at
the paper's maximum res. limits. Using a dye sub printer with a scanned
negative, the digital file shows a sharper image when cropped using a F2/Nikkor
lens set BTW. Finally, unless you do your own processing or use an expensive
custom lab, the digital results will destroy the film camera. You should see
the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The

only

limiting factor is the lens.

It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).


Nav, for an 8X10 print, a 6 MP camera will match a 35mm frame as both are at
the paper's maximum res. limits. Using a dye sub printer with a scanned
negative, the digital file shows a sharper image when cropped using a F2/Nikkor
lens set BTW. Finally, unless you do your own processing or use an expensive
custom lab, the digital results will destroy the film camera. You should see
the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.



What do you think the film grain size is?

Cheers

the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.



What do you think the film grain size is?

It doesn't matter if it can't be caught on photographic paper. It can be seen
on a slide or neg, but that is of little use to most people.
I can get far more good shots with a DSLR than I ever could with film camera.
That's because the limitless control over shots and tweaking in a digital
darkroom are free.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:

the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.




What do you think the film grain size is?

It doesn't matter if it can't be caught on photographic paper. It can be seen
on a slide or neg, but that is of little use to most people.
I can get far more good shots with a DSLR than I ever could with film camera.
That's because the limitless control over shots and tweaking in a digital
darkroom are free.


I too get great shots but they are not as pin sharp as film at 6 Mpix.
The smaller grain size of film and the smaller area of the CMOS chip
mean that the sensor does not live up to the diffraction limited
performance of a good lens. Another fact that is not recognized by most
is that the limuiting resolution of the image is less than that expected
from the pixel count by a factor of 2 or more due to the bayer mask
processing in the camera CPU. Have a look at the dark signal from your
camera in raw mode if you don't believe me.

Cheers