New Gear. Drool!!!!

[Zeb@adobeforums.com]

After looking at these EOS 1DMkII images I don't feel that I'm missing as much as I thought I was.
<http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/html/eos1dm2_sample_1e.html>

[Todie@adobeforums.com]

You may have.
(in RAW, not JPEG)

[ashley_karyl@adobeforums.com]

I printed a couple of the other shots after uprezzing to 20x30 inches at 300dpi and they looked pretty good and roughly equal to medium format film quality. the 1D is an improvement on the 10D in every sense but not enough in terms of resolution to make me want to buy one at that price. The 1Ds still seems to be the only camera out there with enough quality to do any job I could ever throw at it.

Its worth mentioning that Canon have said other sample images will be released in about a month or so using final production cameras and not a pre-release model as in this case, so we may see some further improvement. Rumours about the update to the 1Ds include a 15MP Fovean type sensor in which case any arguments for continuing to use film will be forgotten very quickly.

[Zeb@adobeforums.com]

It was the inconsistancy between the left and right sides of the frame that concerned me most, it could have just been that particular zoom lens or sensor misalignment or something else completely. The lower right image quality of the night time shot (7) was poor.

[ashley_karyl@adobeforums.com]

I see what you are saying about image 7. It could be an issue with a pre-release camera in which case they would have been better not to have shown it or maybe it was a weakness in the quality of the lens. Perhaps the biggest current limitation in the quality of digital capture is not the sensors but the lenses which were originally designed for film and just don't cut it anymore.

Wide angle lenses in particular seem to suffer badly at the edges where a good sensor shows up any weakness in resolving detail. With my own camera I have noticed that I can shoot at F2.8 using the super sharp 100mm macro and the image will show good detail straight out of the camera, whereas with the 28mm lens everything appears pretty soft unless I close down a couple of stops and its not just a question of depth of field. Many lenses have trouble providing sufficient resolution to allow digital capture to really shine.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

There's almost too much information for me to digest here. I'm so dense with cameras anyway... really need to take a class. I think I'll watch the reviews and make my decision based on that.

[Zeb@adobeforums.com]

What do you want to know?

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

Zeb: I guess I want just the basics that will help me determine which new digital is best. I get conflicting reports from my friends. The digital I currently own is the Nikon 990 and I pretty much use the automatic settings for most everything. I want to buy a newer digital with the best quality, highest resolution, and ease of use possible for around $1,000.00.

I like the Nikon and wanted to buy another one... but I've been getting advice against it. I've seen some of the Canon's shots and am very impressed. I also have been told that the Canon is cheaper and the lenses are better.

Yet... I was impressed with Bonnie's Nikon D100 when she brought it to PSWorld last summer.

It would help if I understood all the terminology, etc. but have a full plate for learning new stuff right now.

[Zeb@adobeforums.com]

There you go!
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04020908canonpro1.asp>
Anything else I can help you with?

[Cindy@adobeforums.com]

Linda, that camera is probably a very good camera if you want a fixed lens meaning you cannot buy lenses for this camera. It might not be a bad idea for you since you like automatic settings etc. Just be aware that if you ever want more of a zoom for this camera you cannot change it.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

Zeb,

This does look pretty exciting. Thank you!

Gee, then I read Cindy's post... no telephoto lens can be added? :(

[Zeb@adobeforums.com]

There is an extender which makes it into a 300mm equivalent, but no interchangeable lenses. Less problems with dust on the sensor.

See also:
<http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/glossary>
for general information about digital cameras.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

Please bear with me and what might appear to be foolishness.

How far would this lens reach in lay terms... Say I wanted to zoom in on the stork that visited our pond last week. I'd say he was 200 feet away. Would I be able to get a good closeup shot of him with this lens?

[Zeb@adobeforums.com]

Nope, 300mm is about a 6x in binocular terms. You would need a super telehoto lens on an SLR but they are serious money.
Check out the 1200mm f5.6L Canon lens ~$60 000.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

lol... I'll pass on that...

So how many feet away could I shoot and get a good closeup?

Linda

[Cindy@adobeforums.com]

Linda I don't think you will be happy without the ability to add a zoom lens. The one I used at the zoo was a 75-300mm. I would like more and have that option.

If I were you I would go to a camera store and have them set you up with a camera and a 75-300 mm zoom. Then go out of the store and have a look at some signs or something so you can see for yourself just how much of a zoom you get. You don't have to buy it and I am sure they would be more than happy to help you out.

I do have a 28-135mm zoom which is what I keep on the camera most of the time so the lens that which that camera Zeb suggested is a really good range so it just depends on what you want. The built in lens is also equivalent to Canons "L" glass which is really good glass.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

I just checked to see what my Nikon 990 Zoom is and I believe it is 8-24mm. If this Canon is 28-200 mm, that's quite a difference. It might be all I really need.

[Zeb@adobeforums.com]

To be fair you didn't include bird photography in your requirements. That camera is not really suited to long range bird photography, but you could set up a small 'hide' and use remote control. Amazingly it has a 3cm (just over one inch) close focus so if you could get close enough you should have a pretty detailed photo. Your 990 was a 38-115mm equivalent so the Canon is nearly twice that plus it has over twice the number of pixels so you should see a dramatic increase in picture quality.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

Cross posted with you Cindy... I'm reading your post #75 now.

[Cindy@adobeforums.com]

Check out the 1200mm f5.6L Canon lens ~$60 000




"L" glass is Canons best. I personally cannot afford the "L" glass in this stage of the game and I get pretty fair photos. I wouldn't get the "L" lenses until I started making serious money with my camera.