Reading mode: Light Dark

8 x 10s with the UZI

Go to last post
H

hilltopper

Member
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10 prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a 35mm, scanned and then printed out??
 
cutahotha,

While I cannot speak for all UZI owners, I have never been unhappy with an 8x10 print. Do understand that this is with MINIMAL cropping and taken at SHQ setting. I send my digital images to Wal-Mart.com for printing, as they do 8x10's for less than $3.00 each and they are printed on a state-of-the-art processor using archival quality paper.

Not every image is going to be GREAT at 8x10. Those with lots of detail, like a group photo, will be less than perfect. 5x7 is probably a better choice for this image.

Is the UZI image as good as a high quality scan of a 35mm negative? No. While I do not have personal experience with scanning 35mm negatives, my understanding is that the resolution is levels of magnitude higher than the UZI, or any other digital camera at this time. (correct me if I am wrong here).

If you are asking this question, trying to decide if you want to own this camera, I'll tell you taht you will get great images in a variety of settings, you will love the zoom, you will get excellent 5x7 prints consistently, and will produce satisfactory 8x10's most of the time. Everyone who owns this camera loves it!

Jim

--galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3
 
cutahotha said:
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10
prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what
it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
I own a 1.4 mp Oly E100RS and have been printing 8x10's that look no different than a scanned and printed photo from a 35 mm. I honestly don't understand what all the "but-can-it-do-8x10" hoopla is all about. I just wish I had a printer that could print bigger than a regular sheet of paper to see what the actual limits are.

More megapixels comes in handy if you want to crop and print a portion of the image at 8x10. 35 mm is important if you want a poster.

Toby
 
This has been a long debated topic.

If you need to reproduce detail the best you can, the 3.3MP will do a better job, but for most pictures, you can get plenty of ooohhs and aaahhs with the uzi.

As for the scanner, that is dependent upon the quality of the original 35mm and the quality of the scanner. Top quality 35mm original scanned with a great scanner, will beat the quality of the uzi. For a person like me who has a mediocre 35 mm camera, a lack luster scanner, and so so shooting ability, 2.1 MP will do at least as good, if not better.
cutahotha said:
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10
prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what
it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
 
hilltopper said:
What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
Scanners aren't great. You have to get the exposure just right, they'll introduce noise ( on top of grain ) into your picture, and their optics really aren't the best.
 
cutahotha said:
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10
prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what
it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
I recently had to answer that same question to some friends who were considering the 2100. I took identical shots with my 3040 and my 2100, printed 8x10s from them, and had them choose which was better. Two out of three chose the prints from the 2100. And just for icing, I threw in some prints I'd made from some handheld shots at about 1/5' with both cameras. The 3040's image was very blurry due to shaking (I tried 5 times to get a clear shot) whereas I got a sharp image on the first try with the 2100. Three 2100s were sold the next evening.
 
cutahotha said:
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10
prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what
it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
Just lurk around here awhile. You will find a fanatically happy group of people with UZis. We love this camera, and almost always print my favorites at 8 x 10s. I've never enjoyed a camera nearly as much as I do this one. --21oo, B-3oo3o4oJuli
 
Juli Valley said:
Just lurk around here awhile. You will find a fanatically happy
group of people with UZis. We love this camera, and almost always
print my favorites at 8 x 10s. I've never enjoyed a camera nearly
as much as I do this one.
Click to expand...
I just ordered $40 worth of 8x10 prints from my Uzi. I can't comment on the quality yet -- they should arrive next week -- but a few of them have already been sold...
 
Terry Thorn said:
Member said:
What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
I recently had to answer that same question to some friends who
were considering the 2100. I took identical shots with my 3040 and
my 2100, printed 8x10s from them, and had them choose which was
better. Two out of three chose the prints from the 2100. And just
for icing, I threw in some prints I'd made from some handheld shots
at about 1/5' with both cameras. The 3040's image was very blurry
due to shaking (I tried 5 times to get a clear shot) whereas I got
a sharp image on the first try with the 2100. Three 2100s were sold
the next evening.
Click to expand...
There you go....Telling that story again:)
 
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest said:
Just lurk around here awhile. You will find a fanatically happy
group of people with UZis. We love this camera, and almost always
print my favorites at 8 x 10s. I've never enjoyed a camera nearly
as much as I do this one.
Click to expand...
I just ordered $40 worth of 8x10 prints from my Uzi. I can't
comment on the quality yet -- they should arrive next week -- but a
few of them have already been sold...
Click to expand...
Forrest,what printing service to you use? I use Walmart.com and am very happy with my 8x10's from my Uzi. I pay $2.84 for 8x10, .99 cents for 5x7 and .26 cents for 4x6 and pay no shipping at all. I just pick them up at Walmart down the street...Bob--'Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away, and you have their shoes too.'
 
Mofongo said:
Forrest,what printing service to you use? I use Walmart.com and am
very happy with my 8x10's from my Uzi. I pay $2.84 for 8x10, .99
cents for 5x7 and .26 cents for 4x6 and pay no shipping at all. I
just pick them up at Walmart down the street...Bob
Click to expand...
I've been using EZPrints.com for my printing. Their prices seem to be in line with the competition ( $0.15 more for an 8x10 ), but they make prints up to 20x30 inches.
 
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest wrote:

I've been using EZPrints.com for my printing. Their prices seem to
be in line with the competition ( $0.15 more for an 8x10 ), but
they make prints up to 20x30 inches.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Walmart.com is great but they only do up to 8x10. I'll have to try them for larger prints...Bob--'Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away, and you have their shoes too.'
 
I have been satisfied with my UZI's 8x10's so far. When I used to follow the film photography forums the raging debate was if you should use slide film or negatives. Invariably it came down to a question of what the people wanted to do with their film. If they wanted to have prints made to hang on the wall or put in a photo album the answer was negatives. simple. If you shoot for a magazine or want to look at your photos with a projector or loupe, use slides.

The same method can be applied to digital vs. film. If you are going to look at your pictures on a computer screen, or print them on a personal printer, go digital. If you are more interested in hardcopies, and don't ever want to see your prints on screen, use film.

Having said all of that, film is still capable of more resolution and dynamic range. However to get a fim scan that looks as good as or better than the images you will get from the UZI is a real pain. Negatives are color masked (ever wonder why they're orange?), so that the scanner software has to reverse the colors and apply a mask to get the right colors back out. The problem is that every film uses a different mask, so you should have the right one for your film. Add to that the headache of getting your negatives free of lint and dust, and you end up with a convoluted method for getting images onto your computer, which is much simplified by just using a digital camera.

Nathan
hilltopper said:
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10
prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what
it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
 
Hi Brian....

I' did this when I was looking to upgrade my camera. Go to sample photos of some 3mg cameras and download one that looks good to you. Print it out at 8x10 . Then download a 2.1 mg picture.(all of these at full file size) Print this out at 8x10. I bought a C-700. Thats the difference.
Brian said:
If you need to reproduce detail the best you can, the 3.3MP will do
a better job, but for most pictures, you can get plenty of ooohhs
and aaahhs with the uzi.

As for the scanner, that is dependent upon the quality of the
original 35mm and the quality of the scanner. Top quality 35mm
original scanned with a great scanner, will beat the quality of the
uzi. For a person like me who has a mediocre 35 mm camera, a lack
luster scanner, and so so shooting ability, 2.1 MP will do at least
as good, if not better.
cutahotha said:
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10
prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what
it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--TedS
 
fregon said:
Having said all of that, film is still capable of more resolution
and dynamic range. However to get a fim scan that looks as good as
or better than the images you will get from the UZI is a real pain.
Negatives are color masked (ever wonder why they're orange?), so
that the scanner software has to reverse the colors and apply a
mask to get the right colors back out. The problem is that every
film uses a different mask, so you should have the right one for
your film. Add to that the headache of getting your negatives free
of lint and dust, and you end up with a convoluted method for
getting images onto your computer, which is much simplified by just
using a digital camera.
Click to expand...
Nikon have a "slide-copy" adapter for their Coolpix cameras. Imagine the fun! Shoot the same photo twice!
 
My next camera will be a 5mp camera to have 8X10s that look just as sharp as my 5X7s. 3mp images on my C3000Z look less sharp on an 8X10 than they do 5x7 period. Not much, but I do notice. I'm very picky, so for some it's not noticable.

B A H
cutahotha said:
Is most everyone here that owns an UZI satisfied with the 8x10
prints it can make?? Can you tell that big of a difference in what
it can produce and what a 3.3mp or so camera can do??

What do most of you find makes a better print....an image taken
with your digital and then printed out or an image taken with a
35mm, scanned and then printed out??
Click to expand...
-- http://www.pbase.com/gdguidehttp://adigitaldreamer.com/portfolio/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top