Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
8,606
Likes
18
For your posters of people, I'd get a good prime then and for general shooting a zoom. I would get the XTi just for the more modern autofocus and that extra megapixels.
Originally Posted by nickknutson /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I was planning on blowing up my pictures to poster-size. Would I be okay with a Canon XT (8 MP) or should I pay the extra money for an XTi (10 MP)? What makes the biggest impact on the picture when creating posters?
Yeah, I'd save that $250 from an extended waranty (why too much $$ for an inexpensive camera IMO) and put it towards a camera with more MP. MP doesn't mean everything...but assuming the camera maker is putting it on a larger sensor (at least APS-C) and keeping sensitivity high (so that those pixels will be getting good tonal resolution) then it's worth it to go bigger. Since you've mentioned that you find the Rebels to be a bit short, nicknutson, I'd suggest saving that $250 and spend a little of it on a battery grip. That will add battery life as well as give the body some more meat! Either that, or go for a used 20D. It's features are going to be more robust, even if it's 8MP as oposed to the 10MP XTi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you want poster-sized prints, you might as well invest in a good view camera system, because only sheet film truly offers that kind of resolution.
Tell that to my aunt....who'd a pro photographer who went from a MF Hassy to the Canon 1Ds MkII.
She's adamant that the quality of the Canon is better then any film she had for the Hassy was for large prints.
Originally Posted by nickknutson /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's a good resource for used cameras?
#1 is E-bay. Avoid their "Mint" or refurbished scams from NYC or Brooklyn (those are the bait and switch camera stores in NY). But I have had no problems buying used photo equipment from individuals or camera shops outside of NYC.
If you're thinking of Canon, there's also photography on the net, which has a for sale section:
Originally Posted by Dave She's adamant that the quality of the Canon is better then any film she had for the Hassy was for large prints.
The image quality might be a little better as far as things like image noise are concerned, but film wins out in resolution hands down, no contest. A 4x5 piece of sheet film is equal to probably hundreds of megapixels worth of image data. If the sheet is large enough, you don't even have to enlarge it, you can just contact print it directly onto the paper!
Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif A 4x5 piece of sheet film is equal to probably hundreds of megapixels worth of image data. If the sheet is large enough, you don't even have to enlarge it, you can just contact print it directly onto the paper!
LOL....now that would be an extreme way of making a 4x5 print. Also I'd highly doubt you'd see much of any difference because all that extra resolution would be imperceptible at such an image size
Of course resolution is dependent on how big you want to make your prints. But my aunt has had no problems printing at 24"x18" with the 1Ds: having resolution that's not anyway diminished from MF. Others say that you can easily get into 40" long territory with the 16MP Canon. She likes the 1Ds better then the digital Hassies that go up to 40MP, because they are expensive and aren't portable.
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
8,606
Likes
18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif She likes the 1Ds better then the digital Hassies that go up to 40MP, because they are expensive and aren't portable.
Convenience goes a long way eh?
For casual shooting and learning, it doesn't make sense to get 1DsMKII or medium format. Everybody's got to start somewhere. I just recommended to do a test print to see if he liked the images he'd be getting from the XT / XTi. This stuff is at it's technical limitations for poster sized stuff but everybody has their own evaluation of "good enough" .
nickknutson , bhphotovideo.com and adorama.com have used sections.
Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Convenience goes a long way eh?
Yeah, that and the extra $20k pricetag of a MF digital and the fact you'd need to lug around an external hard drive if you tried to take it on the road
Certainly, the 1Ds isn't a beginner camera, but I think it's a great performance/cost professional camera.
Obviously, digital is like traditional film: the more you enlarge, the more you're going to see pixels/ grain. Even at 8MP, you'll be able to print a large poster sized photo. Close up, it's going to be pixelated...especially the bigger you go. But the whole point of a poster is to step back...just step back further if you print those photos larger
Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL....now that would be an extreme way of making a 4x5 print. Also I'd highly doubt you'd see much of any difference because all that extra resolution would be imperceptible at such an image size
Of course resolution is dependent on how big you want to make your prints. But my aunt has had no problems printing at 24"x18" with the 1Ds: having resolution that's not anyway diminished from MF. Others say that you can easily get into 40" long territory with the 16MP Canon. She likes the 1Ds better then the digital Hassies that go up to 40MP, because they are expensive and aren't portable.
I meant if the sheet of film is large enough it can be contact printed. (Well, technically any film can, but you know what I mean.) If it's really big, you could even enlarge it to billboard size with plenty of resolution left to spare. Even the best and highest quality digital scanning back can't do that.
As for traditional film, digital can't even match that in terms of resolution. A single frame of 35mm fuji velvia film contains 20 megapixels of image data!
Most digicams, even high-end ones like the 1DSMKII still use dumb bayer pattern filter senosrs too, further reducing the amount of detail they can render.
All of that being said, I still love my new camera and digital photography.
Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for traditional film, digital can't even match that in terms of resolution. A single frame of 35mm fuji velvia film contains 20 megapixels of image data!
Most digicams, even high-end ones like the 1DSMKII still use dumb bayer pattern filter senosrs too, further reducing the amount of detail they can render.
All of that being said, I still love my new camera and digital photography.
Well resolution with film was always diminished when you went from one color channel B&W, to 3 channel color film....and then going up on high ISO. Realistically, going above 8x10 with 35mm gave too much grain in my enlargements. I love how I can go to 1600 ISO with my 5D and not get as much grain/noise as I would have with 35mm film.
Yeah, I think Canon is keeping to Bayer pattern for their CMOS because of the improved dynamic and tonal range you get by having each color pixel next to one another. Check out comparisons with the foveon sensors, and Canons still blow them out of the water with detail and tonality. To me, it's amazing to see how they're able to shrink down the pixels while still bumping up the sensitivity. Dynamic range is the main reason why I think digital is at a point where it's surpassing film. Film never really matured much after the 1940s (aside from the camera systems getting more electronics). Digital is always improving. Looking forward to seeing just how many MPs the 1Ds Mk III will be
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
