Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 26, 2006, 12:41 PM   #31
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 59
Default

Well that's that then theKM 5D or 7D it is which ever I can find the best deal for.
DJMic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 12:45 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Sure, give the KM 5D a shot.

Check out B&H photo video online, as a price comparison.

B&H is a name you can trust on the web (and there are a lot you can't trust, unforutnatley).

B&H is pretty price competitive, and yet they are a trustworthy site.

Amazon can be good. Some people have had luck on Ebay, however I wouldn't go for it myself.

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 12:57 PM   #33
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
A 6MP straight out of the camera can deliver a decent 8x10 print.
And, I've got some pretty decent looking 8x10" portraits hanging on the wall from a 2 Megapixel Nikon Coolpix 950, right beside prints from 35mm film that look just fine, too (just as good as the prints from film IMO). ;-)

Two Megapixels is cutting it a bit close for an 8x10" if you want to crop and don't interpolate (you'll start seeing some pixelation of you don't), so 3 Megapixels is a bit better for that size IMO.

Quote:
With the Rebel XT, you can crop away 25 percent of the image and still get an 8x10 print equivalent to a 6mp camera.
There is only about a 16 percent difference between a 6MP and 8MP model as far as pixels per inch of detail is concerned as far has how much larger you can print with one versus the other. That's because you're looking at area (width x height) for computations.

After cropping an image from a 6MP KM DSLR model to get the correct aspect ratio for an 8x10" print size, you'd end up with 250 pixels per inch of detail.

After cropping an image from an 8MP Canon DSLR model to get the correct aspect ratio for an 8x10" print size, you'd end up with 292 pixels per inch of detail.

Unless you're comparing them up close with a loupe (versus normal viewing distances), I doubt you could even see the difference, even if everything else besides megapixels was equal.

Also, more megapixels does not necessarily equal more "real" detail captured by a camera. If you've got more real detail due to sharper images (better lenses, less blur from camera shake or subject movement), then you can always interpolate that real detail to add more pixels.

Chances are, a photographers skill is going to be more important compared to the differences in these camera models (although in low light, the KM model is going to have the advantage of ISO speeds up to ISO 3200, and Anti-shake, so you may get photos that would be blurry with the XT without using a flash or tripod in the same conditions).

I'll take a sharper 6 Megapixel image over a blurry 8 Megapixel image any day of the week.

IMO, AS helps more than most people think it does, even if you're shooting at shutter speeds 1/focal length or faster.

If you're considered about detail, print some photos yourself at the print sizes you'll use. You'll see full size samples in the reviews of these camera here so you can compare detail for yourself, both on screen by viewing them, and by printing if you want to download them.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 1:00 PM   #34
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 59
Default

What program do most pros use for editing thier photos?

Photoshop?
DJMic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 1:02 PM   #35
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

DJMic wrote:
Quote:
What program do most pros use for editing thier photos?

Photoshop?
Yes, I think it's probably the choice for most serious pros.

But, that doesn't mean that other editors can't do just as well (at a lower cost). Photoshop is probably overkill for most camera owners.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 1:08 PM   #36
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BTW, I think we'll be seeing this exact same argument from Canon EOS-30D owners soon (with them arguing that 8MP is enough compared to newer 10 Megapixel offerings from Nikon and other manufacturerr using new Sony 10 Megapixel Sensors that are sure to be introduced).

Only this time around, the Canon owners will be arguing that more megapixels is not very important. :-)

Added:

Also, don't you think this megapixel race is getting a bit out of hand for most camera users that won't take advantage of it anyway, especially since you'll view larger prints from futher away if you do need to print at larger sizes?

Here is an old article comparing a 3MP Canon EOS-D30 to Fuji Provia 100F:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml

Here is another article comparing a 6MP Canon EOS-D60 to Medium Format (645):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../d60/d60.shtml


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 1:30 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

My next DSLR willhave a 16-24mp sensor with much greater dynamic range so hopefully I will notice the difference .

I use RAWSHOOTER to edit my RAW formatted images.

I'd suggest after you get your 5D, try clicking a few RAW formatted shots, then download RAWSHOOTER (free downloadable version).

I have the pro version that cost me $59 to upgrade from the free version.

I use RAWSHOOTER for most of my basic editing.

Then I use Adobe Elements 2.0 for special tweaks for those very special 8x10's.

When you get your 5D, you should definitely check out shooting RAW format at some point.

I only shoot RAW these days with my 20D, but I'm such a snob! lol.

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 1:37 PM   #38
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I haven't tried the latest 2006 version of Raw Shooter Essentials yet.

But, I've found ACR gives superior results as far as color accuracy, with better dynamic range, and less artifacts compared to the older versions of RSE, if you don't want to spend as much time "tweaking" the images.

I may download the newer version of RSE today and see how well it works.

Speaking of Dynamic Range shooting in raw, that is one area the KM Maxxum 5D excels in.

The DR in it's jpeg images are nothing to write home about. But, I think that's because the default camera settings are too contrasty, trying to get more "punch" for less post processing, Dynamic Range improves significantly if you set the camera to a lower value for contrast if shooting JPEG.

But, raw is very nice for Dynamic Range from this little camera (and that's far more important to me compared to more megapixels).

It's Dynamic Range even bested the full frame Canon EOS-1DS Mark II (a camera selling for over $7,000) in tests peformed by Dave Etchells when shooting in raw with both cameras and converting with ACR:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...M5DIMATEST.HTM

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 1:38 PM   #39
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 59
Default

What does RAW do for you
DJMic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 1:48 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Awesome, Jim!

If you shoot JPEG, your camera is taking the image off your sensor and "compressing" it to a JPEG image.

Compressing an image always results in quality tradeoffs.

When you take a RAW image off your camera, you are working with the data from your sensor that has not been compressed and you are working with the highest quality "digital negative".

Then, you can use RAW editing software to make changes to your images "non-destructively". Which means you are making changes without affecting the quality.

Working with RAW, you can boost the exposure, and make all sorts of adjustments that if you tried to do the same with a JPEG, it would start looking like a Halloween shot pretty fast.

So RAW gives you much more latitude for adjustments.

Then, you can "convert" your adjusted RAW image to a JPEG. You can convert to a small JPEG for websites, a medium sized JPEG for newspaper prints, or convert to a HUGE JPEG for printing an 8x10.

Most people here who are "into" the quality thing are shooting RAW.

Much better resulting images after shooting in RAW, adjusting, then converting to a specific file size and image size JPEG to suite your purposes.

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com 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 5:28 PM.