Finally did it! - Photography

[Sheldon]

I finally got my order in for a D70 with the kit (from a reputable dealer at
a good price). I'm having all my older lenses converted to use with the new
camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
photography -- my old Sony digital is giving me all kinds of problems.

I just wanted to thank everyone for answering all my stupid questions, and
thanks to everyone who even e-mailed me images and set me straight on where
to buy.

I guess this is just the beginning of my visits to this newsgroup. I used
to take photos for a living, and I'm very excited about getting back into
photography again.

Thanks.

Sheldon
net

[Alan]

Sheldon wrote:
 

That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

[Rick]

"Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
news:csm8qd$hkt$gazeta.pl...
| Sheldon wrote:
|
| > camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
| > photography
|
| That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.
|
|
| --
| -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
| -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
| -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
| -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

High-end is a relative term. Going from a Brownie to a 110 camera looks like
high end to the person with the Brownie. To Alan, the D70 is high-end, as it
is to a lot of people.

Rick

[Alan]

Rick wrote: 

Nope. To Alan, the D70 is pretty basic DSLR.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

[Musty]

"Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
news:csm8qd$hkt$gazeta.pl... 
>
> That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.
>[/ref]


I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a full pro
camera. A porsche carrera turbo is a high end sports car, but it is not a
professional race car.

It may be just terminology, but I consider digital cameras into the
following categories

P&S compact - eg Canon SD300
P&S prosumer - eg Olympus C-8080
SLR consumer/high-end - Canon 300D
SLR high end - Canon 20D, Nikon D70 (borderline)
SLR professional - Canon 1Dx, Nikon D2X

D70 and 10D are less high end than 20D because they are older and are not as
fast. But 20D is a VERY fast camera and with a rich set of features to the
point that I have seen pros use them. I have seen pros shoot with 10D.

With anything you have to distinguish high-end from professional. If
spending over $2000 on a body and lens is not high-end, then what is?

[Alan]

Musty wrote:
 
>>
>>That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.
>>[/ref]
>
>
>
> I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
> consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a full pro
> camera. A porsche carrera turbo is a high end sports car, but it is not a
> professional race car.[/ref]

Whatever a Porche is or isn't is very immaterial. In photography, 35mm (where
these 70D's and Canon 20D's evolve from) is not high end. It has its high end
in cameras like the EOS-1v, F5 and Maxxum 9, but the 20D, D70 and Max 7D do not
in any way measure up to the capabilities of the film 'kings'. And those film
kings in 35mm are certainly not 'high end' in photography in any sense.
 

The Hassy H1 is an SLR. 6x6 cm film or smaller 22 mpix digital. That's high
end. (And there are scanning backs that go much higher).

 

You'll see pros shoot with lesser cameras than that. But if they have
commercial accounts for advertising, etc., they will need MF.
 

$2000 on a body and a lens? That's toyland where pros are concerned. Pros, or
their companies, are buying $4000 - $8000 full frame DSLR's. The top of this
range, the 1Ds Mk II is encroaching on MF. That is definitely high end where
"35mm" ish DSLR's are concerned. The D70 is a relative toy.

It depends on the profession.

With the 1Ds Mk II or even the recent Nikon 12 Mpix, one has the tools one would
expect to satisfy many, but not all pros.

Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a MF camera
(film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here in this ng are the
6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and finally K-M are
targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower end' professionals who do not
need large enlargements. Surely the number of pixels will increase over time,
but so it will for 'high end' cameras. There will always be a gap, as there is
in most domains.

It is no different really from the fact that professionals in the pre-digital
era used mainly MF and LF cameras for serious commercial work in advertising,
modeling, weddings, architecture, landscape, etc. 35mm was not enough for many
applications then, and it isn't any more applicable now. For sports it is
highly applicable, but most pro photogs have been shooting the high end Canons
and Nikons, not the consumer cameras.

I don't mean to put down the consumer oriented cameras, I hope to get a Maxxum
7D soon myslef. But despite my esoteric collection of glass, it will not be any
more 'high end' than my pro Maxxum 9 35mm body is with the same collection of
glass. Same goes for the 70D+any collection of glass or the Canon 10D/20D and
any collection of glass. Fine enough, but not 'high end'.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

[Musty]

"Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
news:csmhjj$2ot$gazeta.pl... [/ref][/ref]
lines. 
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
> > consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a full[/ref][/ref]
pro [/ref]
a 
>
> Whatever a Porche is or isn't is very immaterial. In photography, 35mm[/ref]
(where 
end 
do not 
film 
>
> The Hassy H1 is an SLR. 6x6 cm film or smaller 22 mpix digital. That's[/ref]
high [/ref]
not as [/ref]
the 
>
> You'll see pros shoot with lesser cameras than that. But if they have
> commercial accounts for advertising, etc., they will need MF.
> 
>
> $2000 on a body and a lens? That's toyland where pros are concerned.[/ref]
Pros, or 
this 
where 
would 
camera 
are the 
not 
time, 
there is 
pre-digital 
advertising, 
many 
Canons 
Maxxum 
be any 
of 
and 

The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras, and
again you keep bringing a professional context in (I completely agree with u
that the 20D is below par compared to the cameras which you mention).
High-end is a consumer concept, so these _are_ high end digital cameras, but
not professional. And $2000+ on a consumer camera is about as high as people
will spend (definitely not $8000 body - with another $20K on lenses - its
just not worth it for consumers and hobbyists). I am not naive about what
pros can spend on equipment. I would rather (and have) put my money into
things like property and investments since my profession is an an engineer
and not a photographer. I get excellent results with my 20D and 2 lenses
(17-85 and 70-200 f/4L). I plan to get more L glass in the near future.
So for a hobbyist like myself (and probably many others on this group) -
professional equipment is just that - its professional. BTW, I plan to buy
a "pro" body once they reach the $4K level - any higher and its not worth it
for me. I think I will have to wait about 2 years to get a 1Ds MkII like
camera for that price.

I think it is just terminology. You are saying:

high-end == professional

I am saying

1) high-end == "top of the line" consumer (20D is top of the line consumer -
in my opinion).
2) professional == a level above that and for only very few consumers

[Alan]

Musty wrote:
 
<snip>

Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

[Jimbo]

I remember a few years ago a 3-4Mp Pro was High end, now there not worth
much, the D70 or 20D makes a much better picture than the older High end
Digitals.
The camera does not make the Pro, its how the camera is used.




"Musty" <net> wrote in message
news:0gAHd.34927$texas.rr.com... [/ref]
> lines. [/ref][/ref]
full [/ref][/ref]
not 
> >
> > Whatever a Porche is or isn't is very immaterial. In photography, 35mm[/ref]
> (where [/ref]
high 
> do not [/ref]
those 
> >
> > The Hassy H1 is an SLR. 6x6 cm film or smaller 22 mpix digital. That's[/ref]
> high [/ref]
> not as [/ref]
> the 
> >
> > You'll see pros shoot with lesser cameras than that. But if they have
> > commercial accounts for advertising, etc., they will need MF.
> > 
> >
> > $2000 on a body and a lens? That's toyland where pros are concerned.[/ref]
> Pros, or 
> this 
> where [/ref]
one [/ref]
MF 
> are the [/ref]
do 
> time, 
> there is 
> pre-digital 
> advertising, [/ref]
for [/ref]
is 
> Canons 
> Maxxum [/ref]
not [/ref]
collection [/ref]
10D/20D 
>
> The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras, and
> again you keep bringing a professional context in (I completely agree with[/ref]
u 
but 
people 
buy 
it 
consumer - 

[Musty]

"Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
news:csmkkh$h01$gazeta.pl... 
> <snip>
>
> Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.[/ref]

Umm, lets do a context check here:

NG name : r.p.digital.slr-systems (dont see anything about 35mm or MF in
that name).
More important (the OP said): "I'm looking forward to my adventures in
high-end digital
photography". Thats right "digital".

So you may not agree that this thread is about digital SLR (or perhaps you
are just dis-agreeing with me in general), but the context does not lie.
Only _you_ have brought in talk of professional film medium format
photgraphy, film "kings", et al.

Anyway, I will just go on merrily in my naive bliss and snap away with my
consumer grade POS 20D. Its funny, but a very good friend of mine who _is_ a
pro photographer has very good things to say about the 20D and "instructed"
me to not even consider going the 1D/1Ds route (tried to keep me sane).

[John]

Musty wrote: 

Musty is correct; Alan, tho, will not budge. So says a fiver.

--
John McWilliams

[Dave]

"Jimbo" <net> wrote in message
news:com... 

Stricky speaking in marketing terms, of course, Canon calls the "1" series
line the "pro" cameras, similar I think as Nikon have done with their
single-digit naming scheme for their pro models.

[Bob]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:23:23 -0700, "Sheldon" <net>
wrote:
 

You're welcome - you're gonna LOVE yer D70!

[Sheldon]

"Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
news:csm8qd$hkt$gazeta.pl... 
>
> That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.[/ref]

I understand what you are saying, but from where I'm coming from this IS
high-end. I just want/need a camera that will take superior photos and one
that gives me far more control than I have now. I desperately need more
control over focus and depth of field, and this should give it to me, along
with the ability to take photos that can be published. I can always fall
back on my film Nikons if necessary, but having a chance to use my favorite
lenses on a digital camera should be a lot of fun.

As for some of the other comments: Today's newer cameras may give the
photographer more time to spend composing, but an awful lot of great photos
were taken with manual cameras and light meters. The camera can help, but
it's the photographer that makes a great photo. Yeah, if you can shoot 20
fps at a sporting event your good photos are just dumb luck, IMO.

I've had Hasselblads (sp?) and 4x5s, but my best work was always done with a
35mm SLR. And, if you can believe it, I shot some photos for a magazine
with a 1.2megapixel P&S Sony. While I certainly could have used more
megapixels, the photos themselves were great. Fortunately, they didn't have
to be n up very much for the article, and the 8x10s I made looked
"pretty" good if you didn't put your nose up to them.

I do a lot of PowerPoint presentations (thank god this thing is deductible),
and it's far more camera than I need for that, except my photos can be more
creative now.

Thanks again.

Sheldon 

[Ryadia]

Alan Browne wrote:

<rubish snipped> 

<Rubbish snipped>

The "product posters" at this link http://www.tecphoto.com.au/example.htm
were shot with a Nikon D100 by a full time professional photographer who
didn't even use full camera resolution or RAW capture for the work. He
knows we could enlarge his images just as long as they were focused
correctly. Image sensor density has very little to do with image
quality. Just like it always has been, the camera only hold the lens.

The client of the photographer who took these images is ecstatic with
the sharp, clear, full resolution 24" x 36" posters we created, just
like all our clients are amazed and satisfied with our posters and
catalogues. Hi-end digital enlargements from cameras "targeted at
amateurs". Gives the comparison between film and digital a wee bit of a
different slant in the real world than the world of Alan Browne's mind.

You really do need to get out more Alan. The world of Professional
Photography is a lot different to the one in your mind. My digital print
centre does work for about 40, full time professional photographers and
two newspapers who use our facilities for printing their sales photos
larger than A4 size.

I'm the only one still using medium format gear and even then, I use
digital for 60% of my work too. The only grip I have with my "High end"
D20 and 1D is they can't handle the extremes of climate that my old
Mamiya's can. Oddly enough, my ratty old SD9 Sigma keeps going when the
Canon's die. Pity about the pics!

This post is not intended as a commercial post to a group whose charter
forbids it. I have provided the link above which has no advertising in
it except to promote the process we developed to enlarge digital images
and this process is not for sale. I simply demonstrates that you don't
need a $5,000 digital camera to be a professional photographer.

I felt so strongly that Alan Browne was providing wrong information to
people which has the potential to cause those people to spend hundreds
of dollars more than they need to when buying a camera, that I deemed
this link important in contradicting his statement, otherwise I would
have continued to withhold my identity and post under "invented" names
in the spirit of the charter of this group.

Doug

[Larry]

In article <net>, com says... 

I have had one of my photos used as a 3' x 4' poster, and it was a crop from
a shot taken by an 8mp Sony F828. (probably about 6mp, I never checked)

The shot was made in poor light at the extreme end of the range of the flash
I was using.

20 minutes of post work later, it was (to me) only a "passable" 8x10, but the
Trainer of the horse involved was thrilled with it, and I gave her the photo
on a CDrom. (its is the only photo I have ever sold the copyright for, but I
was well compensated for that picture)

She had it made into a poster to hang at the "Ohio Quarter Horse Congress" to
help advertise the horse (the worlds largest/longest horse show, 35 thousand
horses shown over 21 days 24/7) last October. Most of the horses that go
there are intended to be sold while there.

The horse was sold for $122,000 during that show.(good price for a 3 year old
basicly un-proven mare) The trainer credits the poster for getting the buyers
attention.

Needless to say, I have been well advertised by "word of mouth" (and the fact
that she keeps showing that poster all over New England) and I have been
contacted by enough people to keep me busy this summer.

The poster was very sharp and very well done, with no noticeable changes from
my own post work in PhotoShop (my work was mostly curves, and levels, with a
(very) little unsharp masking) other than whatever algorythm they used to re-
size it.

I dont know who did the poster, but it proved to me that 8mp is enough, and
that the "Point and shoot" camera I was using can be "good enough" for
commercial work.

I intend to buy a good DSLR, but Im holding on waiting for one of leaders to
put "self cleaning" into a better camera than those available with it right
now (a couple of Olympus models). Horse Shows are a TERRIBLY dusty
environment, and I dont like to stop and clean the sensor every hour or so.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

[T.N.T.]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:59:19 GMT, you, "Musty" <net>, wrote
in news:XKAHd.34965$texas.rr.com:
 
>> <snip>
>>
>> Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan.[/ref]
>
> Umm, lets do a context check here:
>
> NG name : r.p.digital.slr-systems (dont see anything about 35mm or MF
> in that name).
> More important (the OP said): "I'm looking forward to my adventures in
> high-end digital
> photography". Thats right "digital".[/ref]


An H1 with a 22 Mpix back is both SLR and digital. Also it's arround
where "high-end digital photography" should be at the moment. Higher-ends
in consumer stuff is nowhere high enough for digital photography.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

[Ed]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:27:26 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <ca> wrote:
 
>
>That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.[/ref]

You obviously haven't seen the work of Max Lyons, beginning with the
"lowly" Nikon CP-990.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

[T.N.T.]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:45:27 GMT, you, "T.N.T." <ca>,
wrote in news:utopia.disorg:

 


Should have said "nowhere high enough for high-end digital photography".



--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

[Alan]

Jimbo wrote:
 


The pj cameras were in that range, but the MF folks were already running up very
high pixel counts. Further cameras like the Kodak 14 were aiimed at pros.

It's not only what the pro can do, it is who he doing it for. A 4 Mpix camera
cannot be used for fashion spreads unless the images are quite small. What
works for a news photo does not work for a landscape poster... etc.

While it also true that an idiot cannot do much with the best camera in
existance, it is equally true that commercial photographers must deliver to
spec. A low pixel count camera won't meet commercial photography specs.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.