Reading mode: Light Dark

20x30 inch print from S2 looks BEAUTIFUL

Go to last post
P

Paul W. Walters

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Let's see if I can explain my test right. Here's what I did. The largest I print any of my images (film or whatever) is 20" x 30". I wanted to find out how the Fuji S2 pictures would print at that size, however, I am unable to print them myself at that size. So, what I did was change the DPI (without any resampling of the image) of a couple of the downloaded images so that the image would print at 20x30. THEN I cropped a portion of the picture that would be exactly 8x10 of that 20x30 (no resampling or processing). So by printing this out at 8x10 size I can see how an 8x10 portion of a full frame 20x30 print would look. Did that make sence?

The results are BEAUTIFUL! The flower picture looks as good at that much of a crop as any full-frame 8x10 35mm picture I've taken. And the bike picture (that showed a few jaggies) looks BEAUTIFUL! You CAN see the jaggies if you get about 8 inches from the picture, but remember, this is a 20x30 print (just an 8x10 portion of it) so who would get that close? And if you don't know what you're looking for, you don't even notice it.

So my deduction is that the Fuji S2, without ANY processing or modifications, makes a 20x30 picture where the crispness looks as good as a full 35mm negative printed at 8x10. This camera will be what I use in the studio soon. :)

Paul
 
I have an Epson 7600 on order. That will print up to 24" wide. I intend to use this with scans from large format, but I've had some success with certin types of image from my S1 at that size.

Try resampling to 300 dpi for the cropped 10x8 and see if it gets even better. I plan on replacing the S1 with an S2. Your report is very encouraging :-)
--
Q
Paul W. Walters said:
Let's see if I can explain my test right. Here's what I did. The
largest I print any of my images (film or whatever) is 20" x 30". I
wanted to find out how the Fuji S2 pictures would print at that
size, however, I am unable to print them myself at that size. So,
what I did was change the DPI (without any resampling of the image)
of a couple of the downloaded images so that the image would print
at 20x30. THEN I cropped a portion of the picture that would be
exactly 8x10 of that 20x30 (no resampling or processing). So by
printing this out at 8x10 size I can see how an 8x10 portion of a
full frame 20x30 print would look. Did that make sence?

The results are BEAUTIFUL! The flower picture looks as good at that
much of a crop as any full-frame 8x10 35mm picture I've taken. And
the bike picture (that showed a few jaggies) looks BEAUTIFUL! You
CAN see the jaggies if you get about 8 inches from the picture, but
remember, this is a 20x30 print (just an 8x10 portion of it) so who
would get that close? And if you don't know what you're looking
for, you don't even notice it.

So my deduction is that the Fuji S2, without ANY processing or
modifications, makes a 20x30 picture where the crispness looks as
good as a full 35mm negative printed at 8x10. This camera will be
what I use in the studio soon. :)

Paul
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure you're right! Though, one thing to consider is that I printed it with QImage Pro which I heard actually does a resampling of sorts as it prints. So, that might have helped already. But honestly, the picture quality is amazing for a 20x30 size! And the colors are very beautiful also. I'm impressed enough to buy one of these. :) Unless of course something better comes out (for around the same price) by the end of the year when I plan to purchase.

Thanks for your comment!

Paul
QDB said:
Try resampling to 300 dpi for the cropped 10x8 and see if it gets
even better. I plan on replacing the S1 with an S2. Your report
is very encouraging :-)
--
Q
Paul W. Walters said:
Let's see if I can explain my test right. Here's what I did. The
largest I print any of my images (film or whatever) is 20" x 30". I
wanted to find out how the Fuji S2 pictures would print at that
size, however, I am unable to print them myself at that size. So,
what I did was change the DPI (without any resampling of the image)
of a couple of the downloaded images so that the image would print
at 20x30. THEN I cropped a portion of the picture that would be
exactly 8x10 of that 20x30 (no resampling or processing). So by
printing this out at 8x10 size I can see how an 8x10 portion of a
full frame 20x30 print would look. Did that make sence?

The results are BEAUTIFUL! The flower picture looks as good at that
much of a crop as any full-frame 8x10 35mm picture I've taken. And
the bike picture (that showed a few jaggies) looks BEAUTIFUL! You
CAN see the jaggies if you get about 8 inches from the picture, but
remember, this is a 20x30 print (just an 8x10 portion of it) so who
would get that close? And if you don't know what you're looking
for, you don't even notice it.

So my deduction is that the Fuji S2, without ANY processing or
modifications, makes a 20x30 picture where the crispness looks as
good as a full 35mm negative printed at 8x10. This camera will be
what I use in the studio soon. :)

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Being fortunate enough to have an Epson 7500 I printed both an S2 image and a D60 image at 20x30 (the street scene one). Just threw the S2 image at 144 pixels/inch at the printer which gives close to 20x30. I resized up the D60 image so it was the same resolution as the S2 before printing.

There is absolutely no comparison - the S2 "eats" the D60. Also did the little boy (S2 only - no point in doing the others!!). I am confident that you will be able to take images straight from the S2 and output directly at 20x30 with virtually no "darkroom" processing.

As an aside, QImage usually resamples up to 360Pixels/inch but I have found that the Epson drivers did a better job just printing directly from the photo editor and allowing the drivers to res up. Provided you print at an even divisor of 720 (360, 240, 180, 144, 120) as the print resolution. If you don't use these you can often get pronounced moire patterning on problem subjects such as pin-striped shirts.
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
 
I read your post on the edge of my seat waiting to find your results. You're the first person that I know has been able to test the differences between two of these cameras and I didn't know if you were going to agree with me or not until I got to the punch line. :) Cool! Then you DO agree, and you actually were able to test it at a full 20x30 print and compare the same picture between the D60 and the S2 and the S2 seems to be as good as I felt. Very comforting! I like this camera, and can't wait to own one!

Thanks for the test, Doug!

Paul
Doug Jones said:
Being fortunate enough to have an Epson 7500 I printed both an S2
image and a D60 image at 20x30 (the street scene one). Just threw
the S2 image at 144 pixels/inch at the printer which gives close to
20x30. I resized up the D60 image so it was the same resolution as
the S2 before printing.
There is absolutely no comparison - the S2 "eats" the D60. Also did
the little boy (S2 only - no point in doing the others!!). I am
confident that you will be able to take images straight from the S2
and output directly at 20x30 with virtually no "darkroom"
processing.
As an aside, QImage usually resamples up to 360Pixels/inch but I
have found that the Epson drivers did a better job just printing
directly from the photo editor and allowing the drivers to res up.
Provided you print at an even divisor of 720 (360, 240, 180, 144,
120) as the print resolution. If you don't use these you can often
get pronounced moire patterning on problem subjects such as
pin-striped shirts.
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
Click to expand...
 
Paul W. Walters said:
I read your post on the edge of my seat waiting to find your
results. You're the first person that I know has been able to test
the differences between two of these cameras and I didn't know if
you were going to agree with me or not until I got to the punch
line. :) Cool! Then you DO agree, and you actually were able to
test it at a full 20x30 print and compare the same picture between
the D60 and the S2 and the S2 seems to be as good as I felt. Very
comforting! I like this camera, and can't wait to own one!

Thanks for the test, Doug!
Click to expand...
Yes Paul, I think the S2 will be my next puirchase too. I have had many film SLRs and a number of digital cameras but couldn't (until now) justify the cost of a digital SLR. The current crop of 6Mp SLRs just didn't give much of an improvement in picture quality over my trusty Fujifilm 6900z to justify an upgrade. I think digital has finally "arrived" with the S2. 35mm film is now officially "dead"??
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
 
No big deal...I have printed 24 x 30's from my D60...and there are NO jaggies OR artifacts, even 2" from the print. In fact the prints knock the socks off my 2 1/4 prints...even acknowledge by my FILM lab guy.

Here's an extreme crop of one of those:


Paul W. Walters said:
Thanks for your comment!

Paul
QDB said:
Try resampling to 300 dpi for the cropped 10x8 and see if it gets
even better. I plan on replacing the S1 with an S2. Your report
is very encouraging :-)
--
Q
Paul W. Walters said:
Let's see if I can explain my test right. Here's what I did. The
largest I print any of my images (film or whatever) is 20" x 30". I
wanted to find out how the Fuji S2 pictures would print at that
size, however, I am unable to print them myself at that size. So,
what I did was change the DPI (without any resampling of the image)
of a couple of the downloaded images so that the image would print
at 20x30. THEN I cropped a portion of the picture that would be
exactly 8x10 of that 20x30 (no resampling or processing). So by
printing this out at 8x10 size I can see how an 8x10 portion of a
full frame 20x30 print would look. Did that make sence?

The results are BEAUTIFUL! The flower picture looks as good at that
much of a crop as any full-frame 8x10 35mm picture I've taken. And
the bike picture (that showed a few jaggies) looks BEAUTIFUL! You
CAN see the jaggies if you get about 8 inches from the picture, but
remember, this is a 20x30 print (just an 8x10 portion of it) so who
would get that close? And if you don't know what you're looking
for, you don't even notice it.

So my deduction is that the Fuji S2, without ANY processing or
modifications, makes a 20x30 picture where the crispness looks as
good as a full 35mm negative printed at 8x10. This camera will be
what I use in the studio soon. :)

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
Sorry,

Got the wrong size:


Andrew Chiciak said:
Here's an extreme crop of one of those:


Paul W. Walters said:
Thanks for your comment!

Paul
QDB said:
Try resampling to 300 dpi for the cropped 10x8 and see if it gets
even better. I plan on replacing the S1 with an S2. Your report
is very encouraging :-)
--
Q
Paul W. Walters said:
Let's see if I can explain my test right. Here's what I did. The
largest I print any of my images (film or whatever) is 20" x 30". I
wanted to find out how the Fuji S2 pictures would print at that
size, however, I am unable to print them myself at that size. So,
what I did was change the DPI (without any resampling of the image)
of a couple of the downloaded images so that the image would print
at 20x30. THEN I cropped a portion of the picture that would be
exactly 8x10 of that 20x30 (no resampling or processing). So by
printing this out at 8x10 size I can see how an 8x10 portion of a
full frame 20x30 print would look. Did that make sence?

The results are BEAUTIFUL! The flower picture looks as good at that
much of a crop as any full-frame 8x10 35mm picture I've taken. And
the bike picture (that showed a few jaggies) looks BEAUTIFUL! You
CAN see the jaggies if you get about 8 inches from the picture, but
remember, this is a 20x30 print (just an 8x10 portion of it) so who
would get that close? And if you don't know what you're looking
for, you don't even notice it.

So my deduction is that the Fuji S2, without ANY processing or
modifications, makes a 20x30 picture where the crispness looks as
good as a full 35mm negative printed at 8x10. This camera will be
what I use in the studio soon. :)

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
Doug Jones said:
Yes Paul, I think the S2 will be my next puirchase too. I have had
many film SLRs and a number of digital cameras but couldn't (until
now) justify the cost of a digital SLR. The current crop of 6Mp
SLRs just didn't give much of an improvement in picture quality
over my trusty Fujifilm 6900z to justify an upgrade. I think
digital has finally "arrived" with the S2. 35mm film is now
officially "dead"??
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
Click to expand...
Well, to be absolutely fair...you'd really need to see a direct comparison shot using 35 mm. As great as both the Canon and the Fujifilm look, you cannot dismiss 35 mm. without a valid side-by-side comparison.
Best..Howard

PS-I'd sure like to see more comparing the Fuji and the Canon! Right now, I'm not convinced that one is better than the other.
 
You sure produced a stunning image from your D60! It looks even better than a conventional film image!
Andrew Chiciak said:
Got the wrong size:


Andrew Chiciak said:
Here's an extreme crop of one of those:


Paul W. Walters said:
Thanks for your comment!

Paul
QDB said:
Try resampling to 300 dpi for the cropped 10x8 and see if it gets
even better. I plan on replacing the S1 with an S2. Your report
is very encouraging :-)
--
Q
Paul W. Walters said:
Let's see if I can explain my test right. Here's what I did. The
largest I print any of my images (film or whatever) is 20" x 30". I
wanted to find out how the Fuji S2 pictures would print at that
size, however, I am unable to print them myself at that size. So,
what I did was change the DPI (without any resampling of the image)
of a couple of the downloaded images so that the image would print
at 20x30. THEN I cropped a portion of the picture that would be
exactly 8x10 of that 20x30 (no resampling or processing). So by
printing this out at 8x10 size I can see how an 8x10 portion of a
full frame 20x30 print would look. Did that make sence?

The results are BEAUTIFUL! The flower picture looks as good at that
much of a crop as any full-frame 8x10 35mm picture I've taken. And
the bike picture (that showed a few jaggies) looks BEAUTIFUL! You
CAN see the jaggies if you get about 8 inches from the picture, but
remember, this is a 20x30 print (just an 8x10 portion of it) so who
would get that close? And if you don't know what you're looking
for, you don't even notice it.

So my deduction is that the Fuji S2, without ANY processing or
modifications, makes a 20x30 picture where the crispness looks as
good as a full 35mm negative printed at 8x10. This camera will be
what I use in the studio soon. :)

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
 
Do the D60 and S2 start to approximate medium format quality at 20 by 30? or at 12 by 16?
netrox said:
Andrew Chiciak said:
Got the wrong size:


Andrew Chiciak said:
Here's an extreme crop of one of those:


Paul W. Walters said:
Thanks for your comment!

Paul
QDB said:
Try resampling to 300 dpi for the cropped 10x8 and see if it gets
even better. I plan on replacing the S1 with an S2. Your report
is very encouraging :-)
--
Q
Paul W. Walters said:
Let's see if I can explain my test right. Here's what I did. The
largest I print any of my images (film or whatever) is 20" x 30". I
wanted to find out how the Fuji S2 pictures would print at that
size, however, I am unable to print them myself at that size. So,
what I did was change the DPI (without any resampling of the image)
of a couple of the downloaded images so that the image would print
at 20x30. THEN I cropped a portion of the picture that would be
exactly 8x10 of that 20x30 (no resampling or processing). So by
printing this out at 8x10 size I can see how an 8x10 portion of a
full frame 20x30 print would look. Did that make sence?

The results are BEAUTIFUL! The flower picture looks as good at that
much of a crop as any full-frame 8x10 35mm picture I've taken. And
the bike picture (that showed a few jaggies) looks BEAUTIFUL! You
CAN see the jaggies if you get about 8 inches from the picture, but
remember, this is a 20x30 print (just an 8x10 portion of it) so who
would get that close? And if you don't know what you're looking
for, you don't even notice it.

So my deduction is that the Fuji S2, without ANY processing or
modifications, makes a 20x30 picture where the crispness looks as
good as a full 35mm negative printed at 8x10. This camera will be
what I use in the studio soon. :)

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
In my opinion, the S2 surpases 35mm quality at 20x30. I don't know about the D60. I think the D60 is very nice, but not quite as nice as the S2 regarding the prints. The picture posted in this thread shows exceptional quality, but I suspect it is not posted at 100% size. I'd like to see a full size picture (small just to show the area of the full frame) then the cropped to have some real idea of what percentage of the frame is being shown. There is detail in the S2 prints that is just not there in the D60. But, it's a very small amount of additional detail. I feel BOTH cameras are excellent cameras!

There was a post referring to a person's comparison between the D60 and Medium Format in a different thread. I don't remember the site, but the person stated that up to a point, the D60 was as good if not better than film. But there are positive aspects of both film and digital so it's up to the individual to decide.

One thing I feel is that 35mm HAS BEEN surpassed by this most recent release of DSLR cameras.

Paul
Joe Melillo said:
Do the D60 and S2 start to approximate medium format quality at 20
by 30? or at 12 by 16?
Click to expand...
 
Adrian Gilbert said:
Doug

Nice Panos on your website - Are these shot with a 6900z or from film?
Click to expand...
Thanks for you comments Adrian, I am still trying to find the time to put a lot more of my work up on the site!!

All the balloon panos are done with the 6900z. Virtually straight from the camera and stitched. I do use manual settings for panoramas and lean a little toward the under-exposure side but probably less than 1/2 a stop. Basically expose more for the sky to avoid it being overblown. You get some great saturated (and accurate) colours this way. The sea-scape and lake panos were done with my older Coolpix 990 but 990 shots always needed a lot of "digital darkroom" work to get them presentable and the sky was always very noisy.
All the best,
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
 
I have a print of this boy that is 24 x30...it has been rezed up in PS to
a 80mb file. The print far exceeds the quality of the post I displayed in this

thread. Professional photographer peers of mine actually gasp when I take the print out of its tube and unfurl it. The print was produced by Millers Lab
on I believe a Lightjet printer.
Paul W. Walters said:
There was a post referring to a person's comparison between the D60
and Medium Format in a different thread. I don't remember the
site, but the person stated that up to a point, the D60 was as good
if not better than film. But there are positive aspects of both
film and digital so it's up to the individual to decide.

One thing I feel is that 35mm HAS BEEN surpassed by this most
recent release of DSLR cameras.

Paul
Joe Melillo said:
Do the D60 and S2 start to approximate medium format quality at 20
by 30? or at 12 by 16?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
I've actually printed a pretty impressive 20x30 picture from a 3.1MP image. I worked with it in Photoshop and sized it up, did some USM on it, and by the time I was done it looked beautiful! It looked as good as my 35mm 20x30 prints at least. My Nikon 5000 does even better! And the D60 looks great! However, the S2 impresses me even more.

When I made the comment about your picture, I just meant it was really hard from what you posted to tell anything other than that you have an excellent control of lighting and composition. As far as telling the quality of the D60, it's impossible from a picture that small UNLESS you included a re-sized full crop version so we could at least see what portion of the image it was from. But your statement says it blows people away, and I believe you! I just can't tell that from the picture you posted at the size you posted it. If I found out that was a picture of a family, and the dog, and the cat, and the grandpa, and mom and dad, and you just cropped one small section which included the boys face, it would have meant something. But I had no way of being able to tell that!

But the picture was gorgeous! Beautiful lighting and focus!

Thanks for sharing! I think the new cameras (D60, D100, and S2) are all able to out-do 35mm, and make beautiful prints!

Paul
Andrew Chiciak said:
Paul W. Walters said:
There was a post referring to a person's comparison between the D60
and Medium Format in a different thread. I don't remember the
site, but the person stated that up to a point, the D60 was as good
if not better than film. But there are positive aspects of both
film and digital so it's up to the individual to decide.

One thing I feel is that 35mm HAS BEEN surpassed by this most
recent release of DSLR cameras.

Paul
Joe Melillo said:
Do the D60 and S2 start to approximate medium format quality at 20
by 30? or at 12 by 16?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the kind words, Paul;

What I was trying to say was that the print, in most peers eyes exceeded

anything they have seen from medium format, not just 35mm. I'm not saying the D60 is the endall, because it is not...all these digicams seem to

fall down on scenics, esp. those depicting foliage for some reason...the trees always look kind of mushy or digital if you know what I mean. However, I was a fuji S1 man before this and I can say that the Canon definitely blows that camera away. The fuji was really good a producing good skin using flash, very neutral and consistent. Not so good outside in
open shade. The worst thing about the S1 was that you were able to tell
it was digital in anything over a 5x7, nothing obvious, but it was there, kind
of a mushy pulpy kind of thing. Not so with the Canon, prints done well look

absolutely film like. It is not great above 200 iso, but it is passable. I'm just hoping the next generation has everything, because I would like to eliminate my $8000 yearly film bill, not to mention processing. It also nice to
be able to see your results instantly and adjust accordingly. Also nice to give
customers something to take home right after a sitting. If the Fuji is a giant

step over the D60, I will look at it, but if its a subtle difference, I don' think
it will be worth the price difference. Anyway, heres the rest of the image:

 
Wow! That picture shows off the D60 (and your command of lighting) even more with the dark areas. Very good job! The D60 is beautiful, and if I owned one, I wouldn't be looking to upgrade it for a while. I feel the S2 has a bit sharper of an image, but it's VERY subtle! I currently own a CP5000, and believe it or not, I've ended my use of 35mm film EVEN with this camera. I do studio work and have found that I get a better picture with my CP5K than with my F100 and 35mm film.

Here's a crop at 100% resolution of an image I took with the CP5K:



Here's the full picture (re-sized) to show what portion of the picture the crop is from:



If you want to see the full picture at full resolution, go to:
http://www.pbase.com/image/2407356/original

I've taken thousands of pictures in the studio, and I just grabbed one real quick for this post. I didn't process the picture at all. It's as is from the camera.

Obviously not the quality you achieve from a D60, but it still shows how digital is improving! I look forward very happily to replacing my CP5K at the end of this year with whichever camera I prefer by then. :)

Thanks for posting your picture and for all your insight!

Paul
Andrew Chiciak said:
Thanks for the kind words, Paul;

What I was trying to say was that the print, in most peers eyes
exceeded
anything they have seen from medium format, not just 35mm. I'm not
saying the D60 is the endall, because it is not...all these
digicams seem to
fall down on scenics, esp. those depicting foliage for some
reason...the trees always look kind of mushy or digital if you know
what I mean. However, I was a fuji S1 man before this and I can say
that the Canon definitely blows that camera away. The fuji was
really good a producing good skin using flash, very neutral and
consistent. Not so good outside in
open shade. The worst thing about the S1 was that you were able to
tell
it was digital in anything over a 5x7, nothing obvious, but it was
there, kind
of a mushy pulpy kind of thing. Not so with the Canon, prints done
well look
absolutely film like. It is not great above 200 iso, but it is
passable. I'm just hoping the next generation has everything,
because I would like to eliminate my $8000 yearly film bill, not to
mention processing. It also nice to
be able to see your results instantly and adjust accordingly. Also
nice to give
customers something to take home right after a sitting. If the Fuji
is a giant
step over the D60, I will look at it, but if its a subtle
difference, I don' think
it will be worth the price difference. Anyway, heres the rest of
the image:
Click to expand...
 
Great work, Paul,

That's very impressive for a point and shoot. I agree with you about
35mm. I think what most people don't realize is that you have to learn the

characteristics of ANY camera to get the most out of it. Digital has its own set of problems and once you work them out, it is a great tool.

Andy
Paul W. Walters said:
Here's a crop at 100% resolution of an image I took with the CP5K:



Here's the full picture (re-sized) to show what portion of the
picture the crop is from:



If you want to see the full picture at full resolution, go to:
http://www.pbase.com/image/2407356/original

I've taken thousands of pictures in the studio, and I just grabbed
one real quick for this post. I didn't process the picture at all.
It's as is from the camera.

Obviously not the quality you achieve from a D60, but it still
shows how digital is improving! I look forward very happily to
replacing my CP5K at the end of this year with whichever camera I
prefer by then. :)

Thanks for posting your picture and for all your insight!

Paul
Andrew Chiciak said:
Thanks for the kind words, Paul;

What I was trying to say was that the print, in most peers eyes
exceeded
anything they have seen from medium format, not just 35mm. I'm not
saying the D60 is the endall, because it is not...all these
digicams seem to
fall down on scenics, esp. those depicting foliage for some
reason...the trees always look kind of mushy or digital if you know
what I mean. However, I was a fuji S1 man before this and I can say
that the Canon definitely blows that camera away. The fuji was
really good a producing good skin using flash, very neutral and
consistent. Not so good outside in
open shade. The worst thing about the S1 was that you were able to
tell
it was digital in anything over a 5x7, nothing obvious, but it was
there, kind
of a mushy pulpy kind of thing. Not so with the Canon, prints done
well look
absolutely film like. It is not great above 200 iso, but it is
passable. I'm just hoping the next generation has everything,
because I would like to eliminate my $8000 yearly film bill, not to
mention processing. It also nice to
be able to see your results instantly and adjust accordingly. Also
nice to give
customers something to take home right after a sitting. If the Fuji
is a giant
step over the D60, I will look at it, but if its a subtle
difference, I don' think
it will be worth the price difference. Anyway, heres the rest of
the image:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
It's a point and shoot, but I of course set everything to manul and use multiple lighting and so forth. But I HATED this camera when I first got it! I preferred my old Kodak DC4800! But now I love it. So, like you said, it's LEARNING the equipment. Though I'm still more than happy to upgrade to a D60, D100, S2, or whatever is the best around the end of the year!

Take care,
Paul
Andrew Chiciak said:
That's very impressive for a point and shoot. I agree with you about
35mm. I think what most people don't realize is that you have to
learn the
characteristics of ANY camera to get the most out of it. Digital
has its own set of problems and once you work them out, it is a
great tool.

Andy
Paul W. Walters said:
Here's a crop at 100% resolution of an image I took with the CP5K:



Here's the full picture (re-sized) to show what portion of the
picture the crop is from:



If you want to see the full picture at full resolution, go to:
http://www.pbase.com/image/2407356/original

I've taken thousands of pictures in the studio, and I just grabbed
one real quick for this post. I didn't process the picture at all.
It's as is from the camera.

Obviously not the quality you achieve from a D60, but it still
shows how digital is improving! I look forward very happily to
replacing my CP5K at the end of this year with whichever camera I
prefer by then. :)

Thanks for posting your picture and for all your insight!

Paul
Andrew Chiciak said:
Thanks for the kind words, Paul;

What I was trying to say was that the print, in most peers eyes
exceeded
anything they have seen from medium format, not just 35mm. I'm not
saying the D60 is the endall, because it is not...all these
digicams seem to
fall down on scenics, esp. those depicting foliage for some
reason...the trees always look kind of mushy or digital if you know
what I mean. However, I was a fuji S1 man before this and I can say
that the Canon definitely blows that camera away. The fuji was
really good a producing good skin using flash, very neutral and
consistent. Not so good outside in
open shade. The worst thing about the S1 was that you were able to
tell
it was digital in anything over a 5x7, nothing obvious, but it was
there, kind
of a mushy pulpy kind of thing. Not so with the Canon, prints done
well look
absolutely film like. It is not great above 200 iso, but it is
passable. I'm just hoping the next generation has everything,
because I would like to eliminate my $8000 yearly film bill, not to
mention processing. It also nice to
be able to see your results instantly and adjust accordingly. Also
nice to give
customers something to take home right after a sitting. If the Fuji
is a giant
step over the D60, I will look at it, but if its a subtle
difference, I don' think
it will be worth the price difference. Anyway, heres the rest of
the image:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
 
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