Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 10, 2005, 6:46 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52
Default

Well, back to the original subject. I think the industry is not standardizing on FF. Nikon is certainly a major player in the industry and they have standardized on APS. Canon offers choices ranging from APS to FF. As others here have said, it really depends on your preferences. There are pros and cons to both, but you won't be on a dead end street with APS.
Humrme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 6:55 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Well, back to the original subject.
That was the expected response. Everyone wants to avoid the facts.
Doesn't anyone care to challenge my knowledge of digital technology?
Doesn't anyone have any retorts about my statement that the 20D
truly has a MAXIMUM of 4 megapixel resolution? What's the harm in
speaking the truth?


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 7:11 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3
Default

¬* Hi Ted¬* With prices of non digital slr's dropping as much as they have which 35mm¬* slr would you recommend for landscape photography and why ?
croskuntrhkr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 7:36 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

For landscape photography, you really don't need a camera with all
the bells and whistles. All you really need is a camera body that can
autofocus correctly and hold the film properly. Any SLR from any
manufacturer can do those things. The thing that will affect quality
the most in a film-based system is the lens; which is one thing that
should never be taken lightly. The lens should have good contrast
(so that it won't blur highly contrasting edges) and good resolution
(for resolving the fine details). It should have no barrel or pincushion
distortion, no chromatic abberation, and no light fall-off in the corners.
A prime (non-zoom) lens will match all of these requirements quite
well.

I myself prefer Canon, because they seem to be ahead in nearly every
aspect. Among other things, they were the first to offer an image
stabilized lens for SLRs. They were also the first to offer 35mm lenses
utilizing fluorite elements.

I recently bought a used Canon Rebel 2000 for $85, and then a new
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for $70. When using film, one doesn't need
to worry so much about the camera body. You can use a 40 year old
camera body with the latest film stocks and get the latest quality as
long as your lenses are of sufficient quality.


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 7:40 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

dimagez1 wrote:
Quote:
. The lens should have good contrast
(so that it won't blur highly contrasting edges) and good resolution
(for resolving the fine details). It should have no barrel or pincushion
distortion, no chromatic abberation, and no light fall-off in the corners.
A prime (non-zoom) lens will match all of these requirements quite
well.
good luck!!!
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 7:47 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
good luck!!!
Obviously, no lens is truly perfect! But, the closer you can get
to perfection, the better. I know that many primes have distortion,
chromatic aberration, etc. They will also blur highly contrasting
edges. However, it is usually to an extent that is less than that
of a zoom lens. Maybe I should have said "It should have very
little barrel or pincushion distortion, almost no chromatic
abberation, and very little light fall-off in the corners".


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 8:36 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3
Default

¬*So my Elan 2 e with a L series lens will make pictures equal or better than a 10 mp¬* ¬*digital¬*camera and same lens ?
croskuntrhkr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 8:51 PM   #18
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

dimagez1 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
good luck!!!
Obviously, no lens is truly perfect! But, the closer you can get
to perfection, the better. I know that many primes have distortion,
chromatic aberration, etc. They will also blur highly contrasting
edges. However, it is usually to an extent that is less than that
of a zoom lens. Maybe I should have said "It should have very
little barrel or pincushion distortion, almost no chromatic
abberation, and very little light fall-off in the corners".


-Ted

hehe... i couldnt resist.. :lol:
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 9:27 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
So my Elan 2 e with a L series lens will make pictures equal or better than a 10 mp digital camera and same lens ?
That depends on your concept of "quality". Which is most important
to you: resolution, dynamic range, color accuracy, or graininess?

If you are talking about negative film...and if you mean better in terms
of resolution and dynamic range, then absolutely YES, it will easily be
better than a 10 megapixel digital SLR.

A 10 megapixel digital camera doesn't really have 10 megapixels of
resolution. I explained this in a previous discussion which you can
read here: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=23&page=2
However, a 10 megapixel film scan will truly have 10 megapixels of
resolution. And it doesn't stop there...35mm negative film can easily
be worth more than 10 megapixels. Negative film also doesn't suffer
from typical digital artifacts such as edge halos.

Negative film also has a far wider dynamic range. That is not only
useful for reducing burn-out on bright objects like clouds, it is also
useful for giving you exposure latitude for truly correcting the
exposure errors.

If you need the color reproduction to be a bit more accurate or you
need to have the least graininess possible, then a digital SLR will be
a better choice.

Don't confuse digital SLRs with the typical point-and-shoot digital
cameras that most people use. The latter will actually have far more
"grain" if used with higher ISOs than film of the same speed. For
example, a 6 megapixel image shot using a point-and-shoot digital
camera at ISO 400 will have far more "grain" than negative film of
the same speed. Digital SLRs use larger photodiodes (pixels) than
a P&S digital camera and therefore produce less "grain".


-Ted

dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2005, 9:36 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
dimagez1 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
good luck!!!
Obviously, no lens is truly perfect! But, the closer you can get
to perfection, the better. I know that many primes have distortion,
chromatic aberration, etc. They will also blur highly contrasting
edges. However, it is usually to an extent that is less than that
of a zoom lens. Maybe I should have said "It should have very
little barrel or pincushion distortion, almost no chromatic
abberation, and very little light fall-off in the corners".


-Ted

hehe... i couldnt resist.. :lol:
What? I'm speaking in relative terms. I suppose you think a zoom
lens can match a prime lens any day? Give me a break!


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 PM.