| Photography Forum: Digital Photography Q&A Forum: |
 |
Q. Ready to take the leap, but.............
Asked by Randall Wood
(K=87) on 3/24/2003
|
Ok. I think I'm ready to take the leap. I've got my name on the waiting list for the next shipmet of D10's at my local camera store.
I think I'm getting cold feet, however. Tell me the truth, can I still get good, no...great prints using digital? I plan to buy a photo quality printer (Epson Photo 2200, Olympus P-400), and the prospect of doing it all myself at home is thrilling (I wouldn take files to the lab if need be). But, it's a little chunk of change, and I guess I want to be sure I'm not going to be disappointed.....any advice?
Currently, I have a Canon 7e, and shoot both B&W and Color. I guess I just don't want to take step back....
Thanks a TON for any info/advice you can provide!
Randy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Moore
(K=5591) - Comment Date 3/24/2003
|
Hi Randy,
It seems it's a day for big debates. This one gets touchy, so I'll do my best to stick to facts, and try not to throw out random opinions.
Quality of a digital print comes down to a few factors:
1. Print resolution
Conventional wisdom says that a visually perfect quality print requires 300dpi (dots per inch) put onto the paper. Many people are satisfied with the quality of prints at lower resolution than that.
If you subscribe to the 300dpi quality level, the D10 (6 Million Pixels) will give you an image of 3000 x 2000 pixels - ie 3000 pixels on the long axis of the frame. Divide this 3000 by 300dpi and you get 10 perfect inches... *ahem*. On the short axis, you get 2000/300 = 6.66inches
So, the D10 will produce a perfect quality print at up to 10x6.6 inches.
If you lower the quality (and thus print resolution), you can get bigger prints. 250dpi for example is only a slight reduction in quality - many people would be happy with that and perhaps not even be able to see it.
Doing the maths again, you get 12x8inch prints at that quality.
Drop it to 200dpi and (I would think) the quality difference will be visible with the naked eye without too much trouble, but you can print at 15x10 inches.
Film comparison:
It's not really entirely valid to assign a "megapixel" count to the quality of film, and films vary a lot in quality. I believe that when such comparisons have been done, numbers between 18 and 28 megapixels are given for 35mm (hotly argued and I'm not going to try and say either figure is correct).
If you scan a 35mm negative/slide with a reasonable film scanner, (perhaps 1/2 the price of the D10), you can get a digital file of around 4000x6000 pixels. This is 4 times as big as the file from the D10, and "theoretically" can be printed 4 times as big. Whether all the information in the scan is actually accurate or even on the original negative is open to argument. If you're going to scan and get digital prints, the quality of the digital file will depend greatly upon the quality of the scanner, as the scanning process can add noise to the image. If you print optically from the film itself of course, you have no added digital noise, but the quality of your original can degrade over time - dust, scratches, etc. (and is subject to the quality of the printing process)
2. Printer Quality and Ink Setup.
Many photo printers are superb at colour printing now. However, the last I heard many of them were rather limited in black + white printing, because these printers use a single black ink cartridge (not all do nowadays!). The use of a single (pure) black means that midtones in a true black + white print are achieved by spreading the ink dots out more. (colour tones are achieved by mixing of inks). Many photographers toned their prints slightly so they are actually printed using colour inks, increasing the apparent quality. This information may well be outdated - printers are increasing in quality all the time.
Film effects
Another thing to consider is that the effects you can get by choosing a different film are no longer available to you in camera. You have speed adjustment in the camera, and increased noise at increased speed gives a "digital" form of grain (It's not the same really, I just can't think of how to describe it and I have no experience of the D10 to be specific - look for reviews with examples). However, other effects - like the saturation you would get from Fuji Velvia for example - must be performed digitally. Of course, working digitally allows you to change the image "post-taking" to a very great extent. Whether this appeals is down to you.
Finally, I would add that you may want to consider the way in which the digital camera market is going in terms of obsolescence. The D10 will be "obsolete" soon - ie you will be able to get a cheaper and better digital SLR soon after the D10. Look at the D1 (4MP), followed up a disturbingly short time later by the vastly superiod D1s (11MP). As for the D10, I believe it's a better spec with a better build quality, for 500GBP less than the D60 - there wasn't that long between the two.
You need to decide if this bothers you or not. Whenever you buy a digital camera, this will be the case, so like with a PC it's just a case of choosing when to jump into that river. I heard rumours that it is already becoming difficult to get parts for a D60, which is rather scary, but that was just a rumour which I cannot substantiate.
Finally, unless you plan to throw away the 7e, you're not losing the option of film.
If you're still in doubt, especially about quality etc, you should read reviews and view examples of the output from the camera. I don't know about where you are, but there are in depth reviews of the D10 in many of the UK magazines at the moment.
HTH, sorry it's so long!
Chris
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 3/25/2003
|
Chris, that's a wonderful reply to Randy's question, but I feel the need to comment on several sections.
"Conventional wisdom says that a visually perfect quality print requires 300dpi (dots per inch) put onto the paper"
I think you're confusing pixels per inch (ppi) and dots per inch (dpi). Printing at 300dpi would yield a low res image, far from photo quality. The 300ppi measure is usually cited, as it's the max the human eye is capable of discerning. However, when talking about large format prints, it's generally conceded that 200ppi is adequate for photo quality, as the viewer won't be getting very close to the print anyway.
"If you scan a 35mm negative/slide with a reasonable film scanner, (perhaps 1/2 the price of the D10), you can get a digital file of around 4000x6000 pixels. This is 4 times as big as the file from the D10, and "theoretically" can be printed 4 times as big."
Recent studies have shown that the max useable information from a 35mm print is in the range of 6MP. I'd have to do some searching to find the articles on the study, but if I come across one, I'll post a reference.
"Another thing to consider is that the effects you can get by choosing a different film are no longer available to you in camera. You have speed adjustment in the camera, and increased noise at increased speed gives a "digital" form of grain"
If Randy is considering the new Canon 10D (both he and you used the designation D10), noise is a non-issue. It's "iso" range is 100 to 3200, and it's remarkably free of luminance noise. You might want to check out Phil Askey's evaluation at the following link.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos10d/page8.asp
"The D10 will be "obsolete" soon - ie you will be able to get a cheaper and better digital SLR soon after the D10."
The fact that a particular model is discontinued hardly makes it obsolete. My CP995 is still extremely useful, and only suffers in comparison to Nikon's current split body model in terms of pixel count. For web presentations and prints up to the max size of normal carriage width photo printers, that's not an issue.
Many of the experts I've read feel the quality gap that has existed between film and digital slrs has virtually been eliminated with the current generation of 6MP digicams. There's only one area in which the film camera continues to excel - dynamic range.
All of the above is jmho, Chris. It should make for some interesting debate.
Warm regards, Frank
|
|
|
|
Chris Moore
(K=5591) - Comment Date 3/26/2003
|
Hi Frank,
I was interested to read your reply, and I don't really want to get into a digital-film debate - I certainly believe there is great value to both technologies. However, I must respectfully disagree with some of your comments.
Firstly, dpi and ppi. I'm sorry to say I think it's you who is confused on this one. DPI refers to printed resolution. PPI refers to monitor display resolution. If you want to get even funkier, SPI (Samples per inch) refers to scanner resolution, and LPI (lines per inch) is used alongside DPI when talking about printers though LPI is a signicantly different thing from DPI - it comes down to multi-dot halftone spotting used by a printer when attempting to reproduce midtones with spaced out black dots. A printer with high DPI and low LPI will print coarser pure B+W midtones than one with high DPI and high LPI (I _think_ this no longer has such significance is a multi-shade black ink system is used).
300dpi IS the "perfect print standard". In practise the terms are often used interchangeably, because a 6x4 source scanned at 300spi and printed at 6x4 at 300dpi is identical in quality. The confusion comes when the image is enlarged. A 35mm film scanner scanning at 4000spi is scanning a frame around 1 inch by 1.5 inches. If this is printed at 20 x 30 inches, the print resolution is 200dpi. The scan resolution is still 4000 spi. To add further confusion, if it is displayed on most monitors, the apparent size will be enormous, and the display resolution 72ppi. Additional confusion is caused by the fact that in order to lessen the complexity caused by all these different terms for the consumer, manufacturers of hardware (especially scanners) and software use "dpi" for everything.
If you want some further evidence of this, here are some websites that describe in (nauseating) detail the difference:
http://desktoppub.about.com/library/weekly/aa101800b.htm
http://www.tildefrugal.net/photo/dpi.html
>Recent studies have shown that the max useable information from a 35mm print is in the >range of 6MP. I'd have to do some searching to find the articles on the study, but if I >come across one, I'll post a reference.
I'd be interested to read the study. As I said, I don't subscribe to any particular figure myself, but 6MP is drastically lower than any estimate I've previously heard from several reputable UK magazines. If this is the case, how do you explain that a 35mm frame can be enlarged with high quality to a greater degree than a 6MP camera image, or do you dispute that claim? (I've not tried it so I can't claim to have seen this, only read it many times). Anyone?
>If Randy is considering the new Canon 10D (both he and you used the designation D10), noise >is a non-issue. It's "iso" range is 100 to 3200, and it's remarkably free of luminance >noise. You might want to check out Phil Askey's evaluation at the following link.
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos10d/page8.asp
I looked at the link you gave. Certainly the 10D performs far better in this comparison test than the D60. However, that's not the point I was making. I specifically said I had no experience of the 10D. What I did say was "you get increased noise at increased speed giving a "digital" form of grain."
If you look at the ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 test images on the link you posted, I'm sure you'll agree that what I said is precisely what is shown. The ISO 1600 and 3200 test images are significantly noisier than those at lower speeds, giving an effect not unlike (though not the same) as grain. Note, that my comments about grain and noise are not by way of a cricicism of digital (or film) noise/grain effects. In fact, I like the effect of high grain for a lot of my work. I can imagine situations when a high noise effect might be desired.
On the matter of obsolescence, I refer you to my original statement in which I qualified my use of the term.
"The D10 will be "obsolete" soon - ie you will be able to get a cheaper and better digital SLR soon after the D10."
I did not state that the 10D (Not D10, I'll give you that one! :) will become any less of a camera than it is the day it is bought, and I also indicated that the above will apply whenever you purchase a digital camera (at least in the forseeable future). When I purchase a new computer, I choose what I buy carefully, avoiding the bleeding edge where you pay a high price premium for a small performance increase that has minimal value as little as 6 months later. I imagine that a similar thing might apply to digital cameras, so I raised it as something for consideration. In my personal opinion, the advances being made in digital cameras are such that I (personally) would be happier to wait a year or two. Note that I did not suggest that this applied to Randy - I indicated that this was a personal choice. IF the rumour about it becoming difficult already to get parts for a D60 is true, then I submit that the term obsolescence MAY be used in a broader sense than I stated above.
I'm sorry if this seems an aggressive response, it is not intended in that way! :)
Best wishes,
Chris
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 3/26/2003
|
"Firstly, dpi and ppi... DPI refers to printed resolution."
Agreed. But it generally takes more than one dot to reproduce a pixel... usually 3 or 4. That's the reason I disagreed with your earlier statement that, "Conventional wisdom says that a visually perfect quality print requires 300dpi (dots per inch) put onto the paper"
"PPI refers to monitor display resolution."
Image files have no physical dimensions, just pixel counts, but Photoshop computes the pixels per inch one will have available when sizing an image file for printing. It's generally agreed that 300ppi on this scale will yield the maximum quality prints.
"If you want to get even funkier, SPI (Samples per inch) refers to scanner resolution..."
No, I don't want this to get any funkier [lol]. Since all of my images come out of my camera digitized, I have no need to scan, or to learn the language of scanners.
"I'd be interested to read the study. As I said, I don't subscribe to any particular figure myself, but 6MP is drastically lower than any estimate I've previously heard from several reputable UK magazines."
Here's a link to an article from Nikon-Euro.com
http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro_en/faq/general/en/FAQ_gen_en_75.htm
and a lengthy article (sorry) on image sharpness that compares film and digital.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
Let me know what you think.
On the matter of obsolescence, I refer you to my original statement in which I qualified my use of the term.
"I did not state that the 10D (Not D10, I'll give you that one! :) will become any less of a camera than it is the day it is bought, and I also indicated that the above will apply whenever you purchase a digital camera"
Actually, all cameras are subject to this phenomena, as the major difference between a dslr and an slr these days is the target, not the camera.
"I'm sorry if this seems an aggressive response, it is not intended in that way!"
I didn't take it that way at all, Chris. It's just a friendly conversation.
Regards, Frank
|
|
|
|
Chris Moore
(K=5591) - Comment Date 3/28/2003
|
Hi again!
Randy, sorry if we're hijacking your thread! :)
"it generally takes more than one dot to reproduce a pixel... usually 3 or 4. That's the
reason I disagreed with your earlier statement that, "Conventional wisdom says that a
visually perfect quality print requires 300dpi (dots per inch) put onto the paper""
I see what you're driving at now. Perhaps it IS now necessary to use pixels per inch in
order to defend ourselves from inaccurate claims by printer manufacturers. In any event,
we're both talking about the same thing - 300 pixels reproduced in each inch on the page. If
any further evidence is required of how frequently the two terms are interchanged, see the
article you referred me to on Norman Koren's website in which the distinction between a "dot" as a
manufacturer's claimed dpi figure and the "dot" as a pixel is discussed. He uses the two
terms to mean the same thing quite liberally even in that article!
From the above, you'll see that I did read the article you posted - in fact I read all the
sections of the image sharpness tutorial with great interest. (Though I must admit I skipped
many of the formulae, being willing to trust the author's maths!). Then I went to luminous
landscape and read most of what was on there too.
So it's humble pie time... evidently the previous articles I've seen are now outdated or
were never accurately enough researched. I certainly can't argue with Norman's awesome
scientific study. I read it carefully and learned a lot from each of the chapters. Knowledge
is Power.
So I'll buy the conclusion that the 10D can produce prints to the same standard as Provia
100 and that the 1DS surpasses 35mm film to a dramatic extent.
That's quite a change in my "belief system" - it's a bit of a shock to find out I've got so
out of date. Not that I was anti-digital in any way, just that I didn't think digital was
the equal of 35mm yet. Oh well, learning never hurt anyone - let it not be said that when
confronted with immense volumes of highly convincing evidence, I bury my head in the sand! :)
So would I buy a 10D tomorrow? Well, 3 days ago I'd have said "not a chance, I'd rather buy
a Mamiya RZ67". Today, I still say "no", but a large part of my reason has gone, and the
Mamiya plan is looking in need of a rethink. How scary is that?
So what still puts me off the likes of the 10D?
a) I'm in love with some of the qualities of the Eos3 I have which I _think_ the 10D isn't
quite up to... please do correct me if I'm wrong! - specifically near instant response when
the shutter button is pressed and superb AF even in low light conditions. I _think_ the
digitals (with the exception of the 1d/1ds) can't equal the 3 in these areas - is that right?
b) I love wide angle lenses... like 17mm, which I use all the time. 1.6x focal length
magnification is unacceptable for me. (Though at the other end of the scale, I could happily
cope with my 400mm becoming 640mm :)
So... I wouldn't mind an EOS 1DS - that'd solve both of the above :)
c) I still go with my obsolescence issue. At this point, I know that 1 year from now, there
will be a significantly better spec'd dSLR at this price point. There will also be a better
spec'd dSLR at the 1DS price point. The existing bodies will still be stunningly great kit of course.
I think that right now, the pace of change is intense, but in perhaps 3 years it will slow significantly.
The top of the range dSLR will probably still be at the same price level as the 1DS is now, but it will
be (even) better. The 10D price point may well hold something not so different from the 1DS by that time. I cannot
help comparing the pace of change for the dSLRs with that of the film SLRs. The D60 was
superceded after almost exactly 1 year. Similarly the 1D. The Eos3 has been around since
98 and doesn't appear to be going anywhere. The 1V since 2000 and before it, the 1N since
94. I know the digital pace of change isn't going to drop to that level in the very near
future, I just know that I can very happily wait a couple of years enjoying my film camera
then go dSLR at a significantly higher technology level than today's.
So, I'm going to put the Mamiya money under my mattress, and top it up as and when possible.
A few years from now... I expect it's dSLR time. :)
Of course, this has strayed from Randy's original post, and now applies to my thoughts not his so shouldn't
be taken as me advising Randy or anything of that nature!
Frank, I've enjoyed our discussion, and the learning experience! While we're on the subject,
what _is_ the state of inkjets for b+w printing these days? Are the issues with single ink
cartridge that I mentioned a thing of the past as well?
Chris
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 3/28/2003
|
Hey, Chris, I'm glad we sorted out the print issue. Having to translate three languages (camera, scanner, and printer) that use the same words differently is terribly confusing... and I don't discount the notion that it may have been done intentionally by the marketing types to keep us users off balance.
"learning never hurt anyone - let it not be said that when
confronted with immense volumes of highly convincing evidence, I bury my head in the sand!"
Hardly. It's to your credit that you've been willing to wade through those articles and examine the ideas pressented with an open mind. Your reaction has been very useful to me, as well. I have to admit that much in those reports is over my head, and I've accepted them as a juror might accept the testimony of an expert witness. The knowledge level evidenced in your earlier posts made you the ideal candidate to evaluate those conclusions :-).
"So would I buy a 10D tomorrow? Well, 3 days ago I'd have said "not a chance, I'd rather buy a Mamiya RZ67". Today, I still say "no", but a large part of my reason has gone, and the Mamiya plan is looking in need of a rethink. How scary is that?"
I certainly wasn't trying to "convert" you, Chris. There are still weaknesses in dslrs that need to be addressed, such as the focal length multiplier, and the limitations in dynamic range. But recent announcements about Nikon's dx lenses and Fuji's new approach to dual sensor sites encourages me that progress is being made in these areas.
"Frank, I've enjoyed our discussion, and the learning experience!"
Me, as well, Chris. Sorry I can't help you on the printer issue. Virtually all of my work is in color, and I'm still quite pleased with the results of my aging Epson Stylus Photo 1200.
Best regards,
Frank
|
|
|
|
Shawn Kellogg
(K=454) - Comment Date 3/29/2003
|
I own the Canon 10D and love it! What store are you on a waiting list at, I may be able to help. as for printing I have used the olympus 400 and it is Very over priced for what you get! As for the post about the "soon to be obsolite Canon 10D I would like to know who he knows at Canon letting him know that kind of info. Shawn
|
|
|
|
David Grundy
(K=1571) - Comment Date 4/1/2003
|
In answer to your question Randall, I have been bitten by the digital bug for several years now and satrted with a Sony Mavica (now handed down to son), went on to a Nikon Coolpix 995 (handed on to wife, who incidentally is now also bitten by the digital bug) and I have at the moment ended up with an Olympus E20P and I still ahve the bug.
Go for it man and amaze yourself, keep your film cameras, and I still have four and use them now and then, but the fact you are able to develop and print your own images is a big big bonus in not having to go down to the print processing store.
Developing and printing is just the start, using software you can change just about everything in your pictures to the extent that they don't look like the original shot.
Like I say, go for it, the biggest pictures are not always the best, 7" x 5" is still a good size for most shots.
Best of luck with whatever you decide to do.
Regards,
DGr
|
|
|
|
Chris Moore
(K=5591) - Comment Date 4/1/2003
|
Hi
I don't plan to continue this discussion as I think I've been reasonably clear on what I know and don't know, and not attempted to stuff any opinion down anyone's throat. However, as I find myself addressed in person, I suppose this is in reply to Shawn in particular...
Shawn, I don't know anyone at Canon who needs to tell me anything to support what I said. From the very first post, I have stated what I meant by "obsolete" - ie superceded by a superior model. I've also clarified that I mean this in comparison with film camera bodies. I think I've been quite clear I'm not against such progress either. I have also given release dates for comparison between film and digital SLR bodies.
On what "knowledge" am I confident in what I say? Well, as someone who has worked for many years in the design of embedded systems, ranging from electronic warfare to mobile telephones, and someone who builds personal computers for fun, I am reasonably informed of the technical advances made in such fields over a short period of time.
Having looked at the current state of technology and the likely future limitations in terms of hardware, cost and physics, and putting this in perspective with the current rate of new camera release, I am confident in my judgement that the 10D will be replaced with a new model within a short period of time (1-2 years).
This is simply a result of the extremely high rate of technological advance in digital equipment, where film benefits from having experienced a far longer period of development. Personally, I think swift advance in this area is a brilliant thing, not something to be feared, ignored or denied.
At no time have I attempted to put this across as other than "my opinion".
If you believe you can put forward an informed opinion and explain why you believe that the 10D will NOT be replaced with a superior model in the next couple of years, I invite you to do so, and will read with interest and an open mind. Chris
|
|
|
|
Randall Wood
(K=87) - Comment Date 4/9/2003
|
Hey!! Thanks for all the comments. I went ahead and got the D10, and am very happy with it. I have a few pictures uploaded, and I'll let y'all be the judges. Here's a link to one:
http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=115338
I also bought an Epson Stylus Photo 2200, and am absolutely tickled to death of the quality!!!
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 4/9/2003
|
Terrific, Randall, but now that you own one, you should start calling it by its proper name.
Tell me about that 28-135 IS lens. Have you tried any telephoto shots hand held yet? And did it cost more than the camera?
|
|
|
|
|
