#1  
Old 24-08-2005, 06:20 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 9,019
Canon has just raised the bar...again

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ I don't know how long it will be before the price of this camera comes down to sane levels, but given Canon's 10D/300D and 20D/350D it's probably reasonable to expect a full frame budget DSLR in the not too distant future. Projected price body only is $3299 US
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24-08-2005, 06:28 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,760
Wow, can't wait till it's released as there'll be some cheap 300/350D's on the 2nd hand market.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24-08-2005, 07:53 PM
seeker372011's Avatar
seeker372011 (Narayan)
6EQUJ5

seeker372011 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,651
and possibly Tony's 20D?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24-08-2005, 08:14 PM
rumples riot
Who knows

rumples riot is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Blackwood South Australia
Posts: 3,051
Dont' know if they are really raising the bar that far.

http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ.../d2x/index.htm

I suppose .4 of a mb is a little bigger, but is it a pro cam. Hmmm
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24-08-2005, 08:33 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,760
What's the price of that nikon one Paul? If it's significantly more expensive that's where the Canon will be breaking through.

Will be interesting to see the developments.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25-08-2005, 01:10 AM
Jonathan
Registered User

Jonathan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 442
The cheapest I've seen a Nikon D2X in Australia is AU$6899, pretty expensive for a camera. But it is in the same price as range as the EOS-1D Mark II. The price of the Nikon would probably come down in time and with a bit of competition. I'd love a D2X but it's overpriced for what it is capable of. I'll stick with film for getting high resolution pictures for now. If you want to get really serious the Canon EOS 1Ds II is only AU$12000+!!! and it's only got 16mega-pixels!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25-08-2005, 03:09 PM
MiG's Avatar
MiG
Registered User

MiG is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bentleigh, Melbourne
Posts: 246
In a magazine that I have there is a comparison shot between a 1Ds MkII at ISO200 and some Canon body loaded with ISO200 film. Same lens and shot parameters
The 1D looked much better. It was less noisy and more detailed. Bye bye average film. Ok, it wasn't Kodak tech-pan super high res film, but most people that carry on about film being so superior don't use films like that anyway.

So unless you use special films, the arguments for film are price (1Ds MkII is sort of expensive ) and highlight blowout performance.

I have even seen reputable photographers suggest that photos from old 4 megapixel DSLRs like the D30 and D60 appear to be of a higher quality than film due to the lack of noise. Resolution isn't everything, unless photographing newspapers from long range is your kind of thing.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25-08-2005, 05:15 PM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Canon have released the Australian price at $5500, so you could problably buy it for $5000 AUS shopping around. Remember this is a full frame sensor - i.e the imaging area is 36 x 24mm - this is the first time such a camera has been offered under $10000. The big sensor really counts for ultimate image quality (and the pixels are small enough to challenge any lens). The images from this camera should be awesome and will problably be as good as medium format film. The one thing that sucks is it has its IR cut filter bonded directly to the sensor coverglass

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 27-08-2005, 04:03 PM
Jonathan
Registered User

Jonathan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by CometGuy
Remember this is a full frame sensor - i.e the imaging area is 36 x 24mm - this is the first time such a camera has been offered under $10000. Terry
It's good to see a full frame sensor available for what is a fairly reasonable price as far as DSLR’s go. Hopefully there is more to follow from various manufacturers (Nikon maybe? ) at competitive prices. All we need now is a dedicated astrophotography version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiG
In a magazine that I have there is a comparison shot between a 1Ds MkII at ISO200 and some Canon body loaded with ISO200 film. Same lens and shot parameters
The 1D looked much better. It was less noisy and more detailed. Bye bye average film. Ok, it wasn't Kodak tech-pan super high res film, but most people that carry on about film being so superior don't use films like that anyway.

So unless you use special films, the arguments for film are price (1Ds MkII is sort of expensive ) and highlight blowout performance.

I have even seen reputable photographers suggest that photos from old 4 megapixel DSLRs like the D30 and D60 appear to be of a higher quality than film due to the lack of noise. Resolution isn't everything, unless photographing newspapers from long range is your kind of thing.
I'd imagine a 1Ds MkII with 16 mega pixels would out perform a normal ISO 200 film. It'd want to otherwise you'd feel pretty ripped off buying a $12000+ camera.
MiG, I take it that when you say "noise" from film you mean the grain of the film? Film doesn't (and can't) have noise! It can appear to have noise when you scan the negative or slide, but it is caused by the negative scanner itself and has nothing to do with the actual negative, and there are ways around it, depending on the scanner and software, but it does happen.
Don't break out into a funeral just yet because "average" film is far from dead. The only thing that will kill it in the very near future is the marketing and advertising campaigns of the digi cam manufacturers. I have scanned my own negatives many times and regularly compare notes with others that do the same. The conclusions that we usually come to are that Kodak Gold 100 (a fairly cheap film) is equivalent to around 12MP before there are any real signs of the grain in the film showing up, and HD200 film is about the same resolution (and costs about $4 a roll). The scanner I use is capable of 4000dpi (equivalent to well over 20MP) and a good quality film won’t show any grain at all. Remembering also that the grain in a film is a random pattern rather than square pixels in a uniform pattern, therefore it is far more forgiving when it is enlarged. Under normal conditions there aren’t any advantages in digital for getting better colours than film either, except for astro work and other unusual conditions but they can be compensated for by choosing the correct film for a few extra $’s.
I know this information may surprise some people, and others will think I'm full of it (and that's ok ), but I'm speaking from my personal experience and the experience of others more knowledgeable in this field than I am, so I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm dribbling on about. I'm not bagging digital cameras, but the convenience does come as a compromise on quality in comparison to film. There are many aspects of digital that I like and it is well proven to have its place, especially in astronomy where it outperforms film. But film has been getting needlessly sledged in recent years with incorrect information and unsubstantiated biased opinions by lots of people who really don’t know what they’re talking about, and all for no particular reason other than they own a digital camera and therefore it’s newer and better than the film camera someone else is using. There are too many pro’s (and amateurs) out there using too many types of film in many different situations for it to be redundant. Film is by far the most economical way of taking high quality photographs, and the only way of taking super high resolution photo’s but eventually digital will take over, but not for a number of years yet. And yes I do own a digital camera and plan to buy another before much longer, so I have been on both sides of the fence, but I choose to use film nearly all the time, especially when I’m after quality results. I hope I’ve cleared up some “grey areas” in peoples knowledge of film and what it really is capable of and why I don’t get particularly excited when a $5000 (or more) camera is really only doing what can and has already been done by film cameras for a fraction of the price.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27-08-2005, 04:31 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
Moderator

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 33,156
wow, awestruck!!! Can't wait until I can afford one
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 28-08-2005, 02:08 PM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Jonathan,

From the bench tests I have seen there is some difference of opinion on comparative resolution of film versus CCD. One test - for instance - puts a 6 Mpx DSLR at 80% resolution of ISO100 film. Yet another (reputable) test demonstrated 35mm ISO100 film scanned with a Nikon 4000ED actually outresolves a 16 Mpx 1Ds mk2! So your observation is about midway between these and I don't think your being unreasonable with your observations .

It appears one area that digital has surged ahead is in high ISO images - for instance the full size sample ISO1600 images from the 5D is simply amazing. Even with my 'lowly' 300D I am able to image stars down to 16th magnitude with a normal 50mm lens, 1 hour exposure from suburban Brisbane.

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 28-08-2005, 10:41 PM
MiG's Avatar
MiG
Registered User

MiG is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bentleigh, Melbourne
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
I'd imagine a 1Ds MkII with 16 mega pixels would out perform a normal ISO 200 film. It'd want to otherwise you'd feel pretty ripped off buying a $12000+ camera.
Between my brother and I, and our G3 and 20D, we've taken about 21,000 photos. I'd feel pretty ripped off if we hadn't been using digital. Let's see, ($6.72 a roll of film + $9 development + $2.5 postage)/36 x 21,000 = $10,328.
This is using Kodak ISO200 4 pack, basic glossy prints from extrafilm.com.au.
1 hour development at a pharmacy I found online is $17, which pushes the cost to $13,836.

Quote:
MiG, I take it that when you say "noise" from film you mean the grain of the film? Film doesn't (and can't) have noise!
Grain is noise. The term noise is much broader than patches of colour inaccuracy. But I think you're right about the colour noise being aliasing due to the scanning process.

Quote:
The conclusions that we usually come to are that Kodak Gold 100 (a fairly cheap film) is equivalent to around 12MP before there are any real signs of the grain in the film showing up, and HD200 film is about the same resolution (and costs about $4 a roll). The scanner I use is capable of 4000dpi (equivalent to well over 20MP) and a good quality film won’t show any grain at all.
That seems rather optimistic, especially if you look at the issue from an image quality perspective.

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f....summary1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml


Quote:
But film has been getting needlessly sledged in recent years with incorrect information and unsubstantiated biased opinions by lots of people who really don’t know what they’re talking about, and all for no particular reason other than they own a digital camera and therefore it’s newer and better than the film camera someone else is using.
And on the other hand, here are examples of some of the people that digital has been getting sledged by:
*people who don't like this new fandangled digital crap and provide lp/mm of slow films on extra high contrast images as evidence.
*people who really don’t know what they’re talking about but use film due to nostalgic value, classic status, digital being mainstream or the x-factor.
*people who shoot large format film Fair enough.

Having said that, I'm considering getting a film body for experimentation and to have a body to put the opposite focal length range lens on, "just in case".

Last edited by MiG; 28-08-2005 at 11:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29-08-2005, 02:55 AM
Jonathan
Registered User

Jonathan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by CometGuy
From the bench tests I have seen there is some difference of opinion on comparative resolution of film versus CCD. One test - for instance - puts a 6 Mpx DSLR at 80% resolution of ISO100 film. Yet another (reputable) test demonstrated 35mm ISO100 film scanned with a Nikon 4000ED actually outresolves a 16 Mpx 1Ds mk2! So your observation is about midway between these and I don't think your being unreasonable with your observations .

It appears one area that digital has surged ahead is in high ISO images - for instance the full size sample ISO1600 images from the 5D is simply amazing. Even with my 'lowly' 300D I am able to image stars down to 16th magnitude with a normal 50mm lens, 1 hour exposure from suburban Brisbane.

Terry
Hi Terry,
I’m not surprised there’s differing opinions out there as far as film goes. Some people writing reports and articles throughout the world choose to exaggerate the results either way to make a point, that’s why I only judge it by my own results and give my opinion from there. Digital comes in to it’s own in astro work that’s for sure - one of the biggest disadvantages of film. I’m still trying to figure out which DSLR is best for me to buy. Until then I’m going to try out some astro photo’s on Fuji Provia 400f for a bit of fun and some practice.

MiG, Judging by your response to my earlier post you’ve misinterpreted and/or misunderstood what I’ve posted. I’m sorry if the way I’ve written it has misled you as it appears to have done, it was certainly not my intention.
I’m really not the slightest bit interested in entering a pathetic argument over film versus digital and misunderstood technicalities with anyone. I’ve learnt what the advantages and disadvantages of each are first hand and have come to my own conclusions for now, which does not require me to discredit or question the usefulness of either type of camera. I merely stated some of my experiences and observations relating to film in response to an earlier post and unfortunately you’ve taken it the wrong way, as shown in your last response.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29-08-2005, 06:03 PM
rumples riot
Who knows

rumples riot is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Blackwood South Australia
Posts: 3,051
Alright, I have heard enough. I was doing film long ago when I lived in Brisbane and here in Adelaide. In fact I have been doing my own film since I was 14. I also have done my own b&W processing for years before I discovered Digital. Digital is by far superior in my opinion and I will tell you why.

My 6.1 megapixel Raw images will blow up to 1200 x 900mm without even showing the slightest hint of degradation in quality. You try doing that on 100ASA film or Techpan 2415. You won't even get past 600x350mm without grain showing itself. That is a fact. I am doing this now and a 12megapixel camera has the capacity to make images that are 2mx 1.6m without degradation in image quality.

Quite frankly some of you arguing here need to do some real photographic work. I do this for a hobby and I really know. Digital surpasses all film, that is why all the pros now use digital, and I know lots of them. When was the last time you saw a photojournalist at a sporting match loading film. Or in a studio loading film. And, that is also why Kodak sacked 4000 workers in the UK and US. They are now going over to digital. Full frame or not, digital out performs in blow up over film. Thats the bottom line. And that is all that matters.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 29-08-2005, 06:25 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 9,019
IMHO your quite right Paul, I've heard it all before, vinyl vs CD, Moving coil vs moving magnet phono cartridges, there will always be a few people who believe the old media is better. The only annoying thing about digital is the high cost, but as Mig pointed out the ongoing costs are minimal. There is one area where film still rules and that's large format. I know of one operator with a large format (landscape) film camera that is used to produce images for printing and subsequent sale. He does however scan the film for processing and printout. One thing that annoys the hell out of me is that our current version DSLR's are going to become obsolete very rapidly and for that reason I am very reluctant to spend serious money on quality lenses...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 31-08-2005, 06:39 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 25,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolite
One thing that annoys the hell out of me is that our current version DSLR's are going to become obsolete very rapidly and for that reason I am very reluctant to spend serious money on quality lenses...
Phil,

I don't understand?
I thought the lenses are what you keep and use from camera body to camera body.



Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-09-2005, 06:34 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 9,019
Andrew, some of the shorter focal length lenses (e.g. Canon 17-55, Tokina 12-24) are specially made for the current crop of DSLR's and will not clear the mirrors on conventional 35mm film SLR's (and presumably those of full frame DSLR's) because the rear of the lens protrudes further in to the camera body.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-09-2005, 09:47 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 25,732
Oh Thanks Phil,

That's good to know.

BTW Have you heard that Mamya is releasing a medium format DSLR.
Apparently 22MP but thats all I know so far. Price must be astronomical, pardon the pun....




Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-09-2005, 10:10 PM
cometcatcher's Avatar
cometcatcher (Kevin)
<--- Comet Hale-Bopp

cometcatcher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloudy Mackay
Posts: 6,542
I totally agree with Paul in post #14. I've also been doing my own processing since I was 16. Tech Pan 2415 is very good but definitely not grainless, especially after gas hypering. It's useless for astronomy without hypering anyway.

Digital has so much wider dynamic range with astronomy compared to film. I'd be happy with a 3mp DSLR.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-12-2005, 10:22 PM
Benny L (Ben)
Registered User

Benny L is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carmel - Perth Hills
Posts: 303
PR Agencies in Perth offers the CANON 5D for $4920 if memory serves.

www.praimaging.com.au

with all digi cams you are better off getting a camera with a bigger sensor and less resolution rather than the other way around.

the 5D is a good upgrade for a 20D/10D/350D user but if you are a 1D series user i feel that you would be taking a step backward.

the hasselblad H2D 22mp med format DSLR retails @ $35,990

phaseone released a 40mp digi back for any med format, retails @ ~ 50K
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement