Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 6, 2005, 4:24 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Bobzart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8
Default

:?: Has anyone heard if KM is going to come out with a 9D digital SLR? I currently shoot with a Maxxum 9 and all KM lenses and flashes. Is the 7D up to wedding photography or should I wait for KM to come out with a higher res. digital? Is there anyone out there using the 7D for wedding photography, and if so, what is your opinion of this camera?:O
Bobzart is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 13, 2005, 11:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
KM_krazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
Default

Bobzart wrote:
Quote:
:?: Has anyone heard if KM is going to come out with a 9D digital SLR?
There is a rumor that KM will be coming out with a 14MP 9D. . .
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...65&forum_id=84
KM_krazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2005, 7:03 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Bobzart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8
Default

I sincerely hope you're right. Quite frankly, it is dissapointing to sit by and watch Canon come out with improvements on their already improved digital professional cameras while we still wait. If I didn't love my Maxxum 9 so much, I would be a new convert by now. If Canon came out with a camera that would accept Minolta lenses and flashes, now that would be another story!
Bobzart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2005, 8:12 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

You need to ask yourself, are you willing to spend that kind of cash? The Nikon,Canon,Kodak cameras with that kind of megapixel range run from around 4000$ to 6000$ for the body. I'd expect Minolta to be in the same ballpark if they came out with similar technology. If you are doing weddings you doneed backup, so that is 2 bodies at minimum.

I know many shooters successfullydoing weddings with the Nikon d100/d70 and Canon 10D/20D. So I'd say theMinolta 7d is at least up to the same level as these cameras. Whether these cameras are reallyup to doing weddings is another story.

:-)Of course Minolta will come out with a newer model, they have to if they want to keep playing the upgrade game along with all the other manufacturers. :-)

For me the minimal increment of going from 6mp - 8mp or 6mp - 12mp is not worth the costs involved. My current body is 8mp and I can't see updating it until at least a 100% resolution increase is available at a reasonable cost.

Here is a little MegaPixel "upgrade "comparison table I found in the currentCountry Images Camera Club newsletter http://www.country-images-newmarket.com/.

Peter.


Attached Images
 
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2005, 6:50 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

The 7D will give you 20x30 prints at 200 dpi right from the camera

At 8x10 you can't tell the difference from film (if printed properly and not 'overworked')

Just don't forget to set the sharpness at +1 or +2 as the default 'neutral' setting is rather soft and involves mucho post processing

The plus side is that it will you almost the same control as a 'soft focus' lens for portrait work!

Your auxilliary lights/strobes will work with the PC terminal (possibly with hi speed sync at all speeds)

The 5600hs flash is a wonderful off camera wireless slave!

GO FOR IT - THIS IS A PRO CAMERA PRICED FOR AMATEURS
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2005, 7:07 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
The 7D will give you 20x30 prints at 200 dpi right from the camera

A 200 dpi print at a size of 20x30 inches would require an imagesize of 4000 x 6000 pixels (24 Megapixels).

The 7D produces a maximum image size of 2000 x 3008 pixels (6 Megapixels). This works out to approximately 100 dpi at a 20x30 inch print size (20 inches * 100 = 2000, 30 inches x 100 = 3000).


BTW, here is a handy chart that gives resolution requirements for some of the common print sizes at 150, 200, and 300 dpi:

http://www.cordcamera.com/products/d...ct_ratios.html

Do you need to have 200 dpi for a nice looking print at 20x30"?

Well, that depends on the subject, viewing distance, etc.

Of course, you can interpolate an image to increase it's resolution to prevent pixelation (but that won't increase the detail captured by the camera).

I've seen some nice prints at larger sizes from lower resolution images. In fact, I know someone that recently had a 20x30" print made from an image that was less than 3 Megapixels after cropping, and they are pleased with it. The printer used software to perform the needed interpolation and preparation.

But, the 7D does not produce an image size large enough for 200 dpi prints at 20x30 inches "right from the camera". ;-)



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 8:52 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

sorry that i misspoke



what i meant was that if you do not postprocess much you can make an acceptable 20x30 'right out of the camera' if you set your p-driver to 200 dpi
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 9:01 AM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Trust me... I'm not an expert on dpi, etc.I just wanted to clarify the actual pixel density of the image at this print size, since you do see users wanting to know how large of a print they can make a various dpi levels from a given model.

The quality you can expect at a given print size depends on some variables (especially the type of subject). Lin Evans has some good posts on this topic here in the forums. See Lin's two posts in this thread for a great explanation of this:


http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=37

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2005, 5:11 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 35
Default



There is a huge difference between theory and what you can do in the real world. There is alos a huge difference between "lab talk" about what should be, and what really is.

I am a photographer. I don't like weddings but I do plenty of them. I use the Canon 1D MKII and the 20D. I like the 20D better strange as it may sound.

Contrary to everyone wanting bigger and bigger megapixels, I use the cameras at the medium size setting and save in the normal compression. Sounds strange huh. It works just fine and my books are ALL 20x10 and 18x12 spreads. Quality is impecable. I am shooting JPG and not RAW - ouch, how many fainted on that one.

You need to realize that photography is a business, and unfortunatley it has gotten mixed up with the analness (if that's a word) of the hobbyist and the pixel perfectionists. In the business world, we are covering events and producing results, not making every car a Bentley or Rolls Royce.

I assure you that quality is paramount, but having 100 extra buckets of quality that will never get used and to have to carry as extra bagage is a money burner in the business world. I get fantastic prints up to 16x20 if needed from the medium setting. I rarely have to print that large from wedding pictures though, but it can easily be done, and be done with great quality.

Contrary to popular opinion, JPG files can easily be corrected, actually easier that RAW files and with no degrading the picture quality either. So all the tools are there and can be worked by those that learn how to do it.

Doing portraits, product photography and landscape/architectural photography I do in fact use RAW. There is a reason when to use different settings but most people are stuck on the"Goodest Best Best Highest Ever Nothing Less" setting even though that setting isn't needed for every job or for home hobbyists for every single picture. The first Kodak that was touted as replacing film, and did a doggone good job was almost a $30,000 camera and had about 1.8 megapixels. Soon after a 2.1 megapixel camera was a dream camera. The 3.2mp camera was a knockout, and so on. For "wedding photography"and oh my -including the formals, 4mp is all that is needed.

I have just ordered a 7D and a few lensesfor testing purposes. The ability to capture the pictures that brides want is so much more a paramount conversation than how many pixels do you have. I could do a whole wedding comfortably with a 3mp camera. Dynamic range is the important thing and not pixels. 95% of the folks have no clue how to increase the dymanic range and to also work within it's boundaries. The Fuji series have the best dynamic range (no I don't have one). The Canon 1D MKII and 20D are next. And everything in the Nikon line except for the D70 is the worst. Yet I would be able to shoot a wedding with a D100 and stay indide it's DR limits because I know what I am looking for (no, I don't really want to though).

The AntiShake of the 7D will give me more than any other camera. Plus I can shoot at Large/Standard and get ooddles of pixels to work with. What I can't wait to see is how the dynamic range is on the camera. If it is decnt or even good, the I think I am going to be thrilled. There are not to many pro's in tune with the exististance of the 7D because it doesn't say Nikon or Canon on it. But it still is a sweet offerering for the wedding and event market. If Canon or Nikon were to ever release a body with image stabilization in it, the 7D would probably just be a cult camera.

I'll let you know how it does in the wedding business in a few weeks.

~Peter


PS I would be interested in the 9D too, more for body function and features than the megapixel race. Whatever megapixels it offers will be nice because you can control the size of the output to your taste on any of these cameras. A 9D with great dynamic range, great focusing and so on would be very welcome. So would a 20D or 30D with image stabilization in the body
Peter Gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2005, 1:48 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Bobzart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8
Default

Peter, I am very interested in your opinion of the DR using the Maxxum 7D. Please post as soon as possible.
PS, Thank you for your informative reply.
Bobzart 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 3:16 AM.