Pro90 v. Dimage 7i v. E-10

photovoyager · Mar 11, 2003

eggpeg said:
As far as I know it has been discontinued for over a year, unless
you are talking 2nd hand?

Yes. To my surprise the (reputable) online dealer that came out lowest price in my case, happens to still have them. The reason they're cheapest, though, is that they're out-of-state so I don't have to pay sales tax. Also means I can't just drop in and have a look like I do with my local places which don't have any.

eggpeg said:
If you're around the Brisbane area you are free to come have a feel
of mine! I think they are hard to get a hold of these days.

Brisbane, Australia? Thanks for the offer but the airline flight would cost more than the camera

.

eggpeg said:
I think there is not much difference between the UZi and the Canon,
same lens, slightly bigger Mpx for the Canon. I have heard that the
UZi is actually faster then the Canon for use. So probably not much
use in 'upgrading' to the Canon.

Possibly. The only thing I really do like about the UZ is the lens though, it's actually very nice to have all that extra focal legnth "in reserve" if you will. It would give me an external flash shoe, manual white balance, 0.8MP more, etc. Canon took the same basic elements as Olympus but (surprise, surprise) seems to have made a much nicer camera out of it.

eggpeg said:
Another camera you may be interested in is the Fujifilm 602z.
However I myself would choose the 7i or 7Hi over it, purely for the
MPx.

I tried one of those out of curiosity once, not a bad camera but I wouldn't buy it myself. I just don't like the idea of the SuperCCD. Bayer is bad enough, once you get into that I can't even figure out how they get an image out of it! I will admit that when downsampled back to the actual resolution (3MP for that camera) they do look good. Perhaps I'll give it another look.

Regards,

photovoyager - who is as you can tell weary of interpolation and really, really likes the Foveon idea

Aaron Bredon · Mar 11, 2003

cklin said:
I agree that if Minolta engineers were to implement the algorithm
you described, then the processor would have to do 3.5 times the
work it currently does for processing RAW files. However I think
this is mostly a moot point, because the processor would still be
fast enough to do the extra work. The reason I said that is 7i can
do 3 fps (2560x1920 Fine) in standard continuous drive mode, so the
embedded processor evidently can perform Bayer interpolation and
JPEG compression to a full-resolution photo in 1/3 second
(otherwise it would be difficult to explain the difference between
single-burst lengths at different compression levels). This is no
small feat - good Bayer interpolation implementations as
implemented in 7i requires lots of work, and JPEG compression
involves discrete Fourier transforms as well as a final Huffman
tree compression pass. We are talking about lots of work, folks.
It is not reasonable to suggest that a camera that can pull all
these off would lack the processing power to pack the bits. I
personally do not buy that.

The JPEG Compression is done with a separate coprocessor that only does JPEG/MJPEG. This is standard in consumer digital cameras.

Bayer interpolation may be done by the main CPU, but there are decent algorithms that do not take much time.

cklin said:
Now, there is definitely a possibility that the Bayer interpolation
and JPEG compressions are handled by dedicated hardware, which
would explain why DIVU fails to turn out images that are as good as
the Fine JPEG images straight from the camera. If that is the
case, then there is no reason why Minolta cannot use hardware
solutions to pack the bits as well. This is very simple by
designing a memory-mapped I/O device, and I will show you how
(assume big endian):

And that would result in the cost of the camera being higher.
Unfortunately not an option in consumer grade digicams.

And if it was an option, it is cheaper to put a generic lossless compression chip on instead and compress the RAW file to 3MB rather than merely 7.5MB by a custom I/O device.

cklin said:
So let's consider the worst case: the extra work must be handled by
the embedded processor, and it would take 3 seconds (and I doubt it
would take that long). Given that in Phil's tests, writing a RAW
image to the fastest Viking card still takes 12 seconds,
eliminating 1/4 of the writes would make up for the 3 seconds
processing time, and there will still be an increase in
responsiveness for those who use the Microdrive (15 seconds write
time). Besides you get smaller RAW files. (And getting rid of the
in-camera ISO-based multiplication for RAW images can easily save
up enough computation power for this.) So even in that case we are
still better off than with the current situation.

So I stand by what I said: no execuses, Minolta.

(You see, I research each purchase very, very thoroughly. And to
those who are bored but still managed to read this far: thank you.)

And I stand by what I said. I would far rather have Minolta improve the CF write algorithms so that the write itself takes less time. As I said, there is no reason why the CPU cannot write at over 5MB/second, and with a mere doubling of write speed to 2MB/second, you save 5 seconds (except with really slow CF cards). Improving the CF write speed has the potential of producing the most savings with the least effort - if you could actually write at 24x(3.6MB/second), the write time for RAW files would be down to 3 seconds, and JPEGs under a second each on any good CF card or the microdrive. This could quite possibly be accomplished with a firmware update, as many Unix machines with 40MHz CPUs could write much faster than that.

Also, please note that RAW writing is not the priority on non-DSLR cameras. Most people who buy these cameras do not use RAW format, those who do use RAW format usually know that such formats do not allow fast shooting rates, and in 99% of situations, the difference between 15 seconds and even 3 seconds won't make much of a difference, even when speed is an issue (You generally need at least 1 shot/second when speed is an issue)

If you were designing a camera, would you make the camera $50 more expensive than the competition simply to get 3 seconds less write time on a file format that less than 10% of the users will ever use? If your answer is yes, then I am glad you are not designing digital cameras.

Howard · Mar 11, 2003

Hi,

I see your in New York and I'm in northern New Jersey. As for sending an email, your address was not available from the Forum website.

Cruise and Ferry Infromation is a trade publication dedicated to the shipping industry that focuses on passenger carrying vessels. This publication is not available to the general public. Recently they started using TIFF files from my Dimage 7Hi (14.7 megabyte images) in their publications. Thiose images replace pictures taken by a Nikon F4s system with Nikkor lens. In my book, that's enough testimony about the capabilities of the 7Hi.

As you said, the Pro90 does allow in-camera cropping and with the long reach of that lens, you can do plenty. And your right. But the Pro90 does not have a the wide angle equivalent of a 35mm 28 lens and that was one reason why I decided not to consider it. If you don't need a wide angle of that size and don't plan on printing anything larger than 8 by 10, by all means the Pro90 will fit the bill. I also think you can get a good Canon EX flash (220EX) for that camera for less than $200. That flash will not have all the bells and whistles of the 550EX but it is a Canon dedicated flash. And there are probably other older models like the 380EX and 420EX that also work with the camera.

I recommended the 7i from the view of what if you want to print larger than 8 by 10 down the road. That is when I beleive you will miss the extra megapixels of any 5 MP model. On the other hand, if you look at the Pro90 as an interim step to a DSLR at some point, than it makes sense to go that route. Last, I do not consider the Olympus E20 or the Dimage 7Hi as my ultimate 35mm SLR replacement camera. But the 7Hi has proven itself to be a very good for travel or professional field work and the Olympus does a wonderful job back at the studio.

Howard
[email protected]

photovoyager said:
Howard said:

Shortly after I got the C2500L, the Canon Pro90IS came out. I
liked the feel of the Pro90 and the Canon external flash was much
more reasonable in cost and size than the Olympus FL-40

Click to expand...

This is one thing I really don't like about the Oly. I really don't
want to spend $300 on a flash.

photovoyager said:

And while I like the Olympus E-20, I don't miss carrying it on the
road. The lens is absolutely excellent and the camera is a very
capable studio camera. But it is heavy and larger than the others
and I think you will be much happier with the Dimage 7i. While you
can make the arguement that you really don't need 5 megapixels to
create an 8 by 10 photo, I will tell you that from experience you
can never have enough raw data to work with. The Pro90 will give
you enough data for full frame 8 by 10 prints without any
difficulty. But what if you want to crop out a large amount of the
original picture and print an 8 by 10 from the remaining portion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Pro90 will let you do a lot more cropping in-camera!
With 370mm at my fingertips I really can't see doing much cropping.

photovoyager said:

Howard
Staff Photographer, Cruise & Ferry Information

Click to expand...

Cruise & Ferry Information... What is that? Magazine? Web site? You
can send me an e-mail to answer if you like (so as not to go OT
here). I'd send you one but for some reason I can't access profiles
on this site (apparently my browser won't send out the right
"credentials").

Regards,
photovoyager

eggpeg · Mar 11, 2003

photovoyager said:
Yes. To my surprise the (reputable) online dealer that came out
lowest price in my case, happens to still have them. The reason
they're cheapest, though, is that they're out-of-state so I don't
have to pay sales tax. Also means I can't just drop in and have a
look like I do with my local places which don't have any.

Lucky, all the stores don't stock them here anymore...

photovoyager said:
Brisbane, Australia? Thanks for the offer but the airline flight
would cost more than the camera .

Yea thats me! Hmm it doesn't always work out that way, I could fly to singapore and buy my camera and stay there for three nights and fly back again, and it would be cheaper then buying here! Unfortunately, the flight is hell (I hate long flights) so I will stay with the more expensive option and buy here.

photovoyager said:
Possibly. The only thing I really do like about the UZ is the lens
though, it's actually very nice to have all that extra focal legnth
"in reserve" if you will. It would give me an external flash shoe,
manual white balance, 0.8MP more, etc. Canon took the same basic
elements as Olympus but (surprise, surprise) seems to have made a
much nicer camera out of it.

From what I know (I could be wrong) Olympus took the lens from Canon? Canon came out with the Pro90, then sold the lens to Olympus, who released their UZi and undercut the Pro90 prices, which didn't impress Canon. So it is basically the same lens.

photovoyager said:
I tried one of those out of curiosity once, not a bad camera but I
wouldn't buy it myself. I just don't like the idea of the SuperCCD.
Bayer is bad enough, once you get into that I can't even figure out
how they get an image out of it! I will admit that when downsampled
back to the actual resolution (3MP for that camera) they do look
good. Perhaps I'll give it another look.

I liked it, but didn't love the images it was putting out. Liked the feel of the camera a lot though.
Good luck with the decision

Bry

photovoyager said:
Regards,
photovoyager - who is as you can tell weary of interpolation and
really, really likes the Foveon idea

photovoyager · Mar 11, 2003

Howard said:
I see your in New York and I'm in northern New Jersey. As for
sending an email, your address was not available from the Forum
website.

OK, now I really feel like an idiot!

Howard said:
Cruise and Ferry Infromation is a trade publication dedicated to
the shipping industry that focuses on passenger carrying vessels.
This publication is not available to the general public. Recently
they started using TIFF files from my Dimage 7Hi (14.7 megabyte
images) in their publications. Thiose images replace pictures
taken by a Nikon F4s system with Nikkor lens. In my book, that's
enough testimony about the capabilities of the 7Hi.

It really is. My reason for asking, BTW, is that I'm a ship nut myself. I don't doubt the capabilities of the camera. The 7Hi even feels nice but I don't think I could bite the bullet and pay that much for a camera I don't think I'll keep for that long.

Still, I'm impressed... I never got an F4 but it was, to me, the Rolls-Royce Corniche of cameras to my eye when I first started photography (using a hand-me-down Pentax ME, which was actually a very nice machine that I still have). After using Nikon for a couple of years (literally) it grew on me, in a bad way, and I was about to switch to either Canon or Minolta when I started fooling around with digital, and I got hooked by the idea that there would be now lousy photo labs to screw up my film, and my cheap side also loved that photos I didn't like could vanish with no consumables consumed. So digital it has been for a little over six months, messing around with the Olympus of which I have since grown sick.

Howard said:
As you said, the Pro90 does allow in-camera cropping and with the
long reach of that lens, you can do plenty. And your right. But
the Pro90 does not have a the wide angle equivalent of a 35mm 28
lens and that was one reason why I decided not to consider it. If
you don't need a wide angle of that size and don't plan on printing
anything larger than 8 by 10, by all means the Pro90 will fit the
bill. I also think you can get a good Canon EX flash (220EX) for
that camera for less than $200. That flash will not have all the
bells and whistles of the 550EX but it is a Canon dedicated flash.
And there are probably other older models like the 380EX and 420EX
that also work with the camera.

The 220EX is like an SB-22 in Nikon terms. The 420EX is not old (it is in fact newer than the 550EX, just less sophisticated/powerful) and would be the Canon flash I'd use with the Pro90.

Howard said:
I recommended the 7i from the view of what if you want to print
larger than 8 by 10 down the road. That is when I beleive you will
miss the extra megapixels of any 5 MP model. On the other hand, if
you look at the Pro90 as an interim step to a DSLR at some point,
than it makes sense to go that route. Last, I do not consider the
Olympus E20 or the Dimage 7Hi as my ultimate 35mm SLR replacement
camera. But the 7Hi has proven itself to be a very good for travel
or professional field work and the Olympus does a wonderful job
back at the studio.

None of them would be anything more than an interim step. Why?

1. I expect that the "digital side" will continue to improve at a rapid rate, and perhaps eventually Foveon will license its patents out allowing us to have their technology, which appeals to me greatly (the cobbled-together SD-9 doesn't).

2. Even the Oly's viewfinder is not quite what I want and furthermore I do like interchangeable lenses though the D7i/Hi have plenty of range, though of course 24-400 would be ideal we may well not see anything like that on a digicam for a long time (on the wide end).

3. Even if it wasn't for number one, I would not spend the $$ for a D-SLR now even if I had it because I find this FourThirds business intriguing. I hate the idea of lenses that only "sorta" work with digital. (Exception: MAYBE the 1Ds though Olympus would venture otherwise.)

Anyhow, thanks again for the help. It is nice for a change to see forum participants who are not just cheerleaders for "their manufacturer"!

Regards,

photovoyager - who will be making e-mail available in profile before I log off today

photovoyager · Mar 11, 2003

eggpeg said:
Lucky, all the stores don't stock them here anymore...

Ritz' web site has them along with the company I may well buy from (reputable and cheap on digicams - http://www.buydig.com ). Aside from that I can't find any. I wish there was a way to know if any local Ritz outlets still had 'em, short of calling or visiting each one (they're about as common as McDonald's here).

eggpeg said:
eggpeg said:

Brisbane, Australia? Thanks for the offer but the airline flight
would cost more than the camera .

Click to expand...

Yea thats me! Hmm it doesn't always work out that way, I could fly
to singapore and buy my camera and stay there for three nights and
fly back again, and it would be cheaper then buying here!
Unfortunately, the flight is hell (I hate long flights) so I will
stay with the more expensive option and buy here.

Now I would be the opposite! Free vacation

!

eggpeg said:
From what I know (I could be wrong) Olympus took the lens from
Canon? Canon came out with the Pro90, then sold the lens to
Olympus, who released their UZi and undercut the Pro90 prices,
which didn't impress Canon. So it is basically the same lens.

I think so. But how come Canon says 37-370mm while Oly claims 38-380mm, and then why does my Oly have a 49mm filter thread while the Canon is 58mm?

Still, considering that Canon IS the company that developed IS, and that the specs seem essentially the same, I would think that the unconfirmed theory that both are the same is likely true.

eggpeg said:
I liked it, but didn't love the images it was putting out. Liked
the feel of the camera a lot though.

Indeed. Any respect I had for SuperCCD was after looking at Phil's review. Yuck. Even before I understand how digital images were made (believe me it took a long time - I'm awful with understanding electronics though I can use them quite well) I thought they looked awful, and now that I've become a sort of professional review-reader while agonizing over the least unsuitable digicam ;-), I realize that what that is is over-processing. That's why Foveon images have a certain "snap" and SuperCCD or (IMHO) Nikon D1x images look "funny" - all that interpolation, fancy algorithms or not, manages to make the image "artificial" in look, feel, and reality.

eggpeg said:
Good luck with the decision

Thanks for the help. IF I happen to be in Brisbane before the end of the month (no chance), I'll check you out

.

Regards,
photovoyager

cklin · Mar 11, 2003

Aaron Bredon said:
And that would result in the cost of the camera being
higher. Unfortunately not an option in consumer grade
digicams. And if it was an option, it is cheaper to put a
generic lossless compression chip on instead and
compress the RAW file to 3MB rather than merely
7.5MB by a custom I/O device.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the cost issue. The custom device I described, with the additional logic needed to fit it to the memory bus, will need only hundreds of transistors at most. The design is simple and uses only standard techniques (I have already done it.) Fit it onto any existing custom-made chips connected to the memory bus and you are done. This will take little space on the chip (MIPS R4000, released in 1992, contains 1.35M transistors) and therefore would cost little (less than $1?), if anything in terms of hardware costs.

And we can still go the purely software route. On a 50MHz processor, 10 extra instructions (I am being generous here, as in your algorithm it only takes 2.5) for each pixel will only translate to 1 seconds more processing time, which should be very acceptable to most.

Aaron Bredon said:
And I stand by what I said. I would far rather have
Minolta improve the CF write algorithms so that the
write itself takes less time.

I did not comment on this issue in my previous response because I agree with you completely. They indded should aim for higher write speeds, current performance leaves a lot to be desired.

Aaron Bredon said:
If you were designing a camera, would you make the
camera $50 more expensive than the competition
simply to get 3 seconds less write time on a file format
that less than 10% of the users will ever use? If your
answer is yes, then I am glad you are not designing
digital cameras.

My primary concern is space consumption; added responsiveness is merely an extra bonus to the proposed change. For those 10% who uses the RAW format (mostly serious photographers that would spend more on equipments, i.e. those Minolta is more interested in) the extra $50 (if hardware changes are really necessary and that costly) can be easily recovered by improved storage efficiency. Almost one extra roll of film (100 to 133) on a 1GB CF disk; that can be a major improvement.

I cannot see what I did wrong in my analysis. Still, I believe that you are right, that there must be some hidden costs that makes this option infeasible (or at least not preferable) that I failed to take into consideration. Why? Despite what I said in frustration (no execuses!) I think Minolta engineers already knew what I know, and they have already considered every option I outlined. If they had not done it on their flagship digital camera, there must be a good reason behind it. So let's put an end to this issue, shall we? Hopefully Minolta will be able to overcome the technical difficulties, and give both of us (and many others as well!) a pleasant surprise.

Dr. Don Sandell · Mar 11, 2003

photovoyager said:
I have been holding off buying a decent digital camera for some
time, waiting for PMA. The Canon 10D is a VERY pleasant surprise
but by the time you add a decent lens, it is just too expensive for
my budget. So I will have to bite the bullet and buy a so-called
"pro-sumer" camera (something I've been trying not to do for about
six months now, waiting first for Photokina and then PMA).

The subject line gives you the choices. I must have a TTL finder,
optical preferred but EVF is a liveable compromise if it's a good
one. I have excluded Sony's F-717 because I do not like Memory
Stick and furthermore find it to be painfully uncomfortable to use
(just too short for me). The Minolta Dimage 7Hi is excluded
because, though it does remedy the "cheap feel" problems of the 7i,
none of the other improvements mean much to me (I don't do much
action) and the price difference is just not justifiable to me. The
Olympus E-20 is excluded because I will not use Microdrive and
can't justify spending a bit over $200 just for extra resolution (I
don't do prints larger than 8 x 10).

The pros and cons of each camera as I see them:

Canon Pro90IS PROS:

Usable RAW file format

Lithium-Ion battery

E-TTL flash hot shoe, flash can be also used with the EOS when I

finally get one

Lens which has IS and impressive low distortions

Manageable file sizes (even in RAW, hence "Usable RAW format")

CONS:

EVF, not optical, finder

37mm wide end is a bit troubling

$899 is a lot for a camera which is pretty old and only 3MP

(though that's enough resolution for me)

Minolta Dimage 7i PROS:

Cheap ($639)

Ideal focal legnth range (28-200mm - this is really the one big

thing that this camera has going for it)

Real zoom ring (unlike Canon's fly-by-wire)

CONS:

Feels as cheap as it is

Not really ergonomic to hold

Massive RAW files, so I'd have to settle for JPEG

NiMH AA batteries instead of the preferable Li-Ion

EVF, not optical, finder

More noise than I'd like to see

Olympus E-10 PROS:

Wonderful build quality (feels like a camera, not a piece of

consumer electronics)

Real optical viewfinder

Very fast lens

CONS:

Low ISOs only

Huge RAW files and a RAW format that isn't great anyhow

Takes AA NiMH batteries, which furthermore are not included

External flash is outrageously expensive

140mm telephoto is acceptable but not great

I'm posting this in Canon Talk, Minolta Talk, and Olympus SLR Talk
to see how owners feel about their cameras in relation to the
competition and why they chose them.

Note that prices are from Worldwide Direct ( http://www.buydig.com )
because their prices are the lowest of any REPUTABLE place I've
found. I prefer B&H of course, but by the time you add in sales tax
(I live in NY state) the price difference is in the hundreds. From
what I can find, Worldwide seems to have a good reputation.
Comments on them are welcome too.

Thanks for the help. Planning on purchasing by the end of the month
and will update on decision-making progress.

Regards,
photovoyager

Hate to post this 3 times in one evening but what the hey.

At the $650 pricepoint the 7i beats the snot out of anything else on the market today. If you need the sync flash and larger buffer (more memory)

the the 7Hi is great. But you also have the privilage of paying 12-$1300

for the Hi. For me, went the 7i. And with the $ I saved (going with the 7i vs. 7Hi) I purchased a fast 512meg CF card, bunches of 2000mAh AA's, a better charger, a digipower Li ion battery pack, AND the brand new Canon i950 photo printer. Still had a few bucks left over.

Bought mine at Worldwide Direct also. No pressure from them to purchase

overpriced stuff I didn't want, although they did mention the bigger CF card, extended warranty etc. I said "no thanx" and I promptly got the camera ordered for $639. Bought it from "Simon" there.....was very curteous and didn't cop an attitude when I turned down the
accessories.

photovoyager · Mar 11, 2003

Dr. Don Sandell said:
Hate to post this 3 times in one evening but what the hey.

Hopefully not all to my posts... I am of course reading my thread in all three forums so it's not necessary to post more than once.

Dr. Don Sandell said:
At the $650 pricepoint the 7i beats the snot out of anything else
on the market today.

True, but my pricepoint is not limited to $650. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying that much

!

Just curious, did you consder the E-anything in that purchase? I'm assuming the factor that decided in favor of the Minolta was price (for me it would more likely be the wide zoom range).

Regards,
photovoyager

Jeremy Rosenberger · Mar 11, 2003

I'm weighing in a little late here, but I have to agree that the inefficiency of storing 12-bit samples in 16-bit fields is inexcusable.

Writing to flash memory is slow. I'm not sure just how slow, but considering that a typical CF card performs on the order of a slow hard drive (specifically the MicroDrive), I think it's safe to say it's a few orders of magnitude slower than writing to RAM. Accessing registers in the CPU is of course a couple of orders of magnitude faster still. Given these relative speeds, packing 12-bit samples efficiently isn't too much to ask, even of a modest 90MHz RISC CPU. A few flash write cycles could concievably take as long as the entire packing (in RAM) process.

At 90MHz, even 7 instructions per two pixels would take very little time (let's assume that the CPU can execute an average of one instruction every two clock cycles):

(1 sec/90x10^6 cycle)(2 cycle/1 instr)(7 instr/2 pixel)(5x10^6 pixel) = ~~0.4 sec~~

to pack 5M pixels worth of information. Obviously RAM access is much slower than this, but that just further illustrates the point: there's more of a bottleneck in writing 2.5MB of (useless) information (to a medium much slower RAM) than in using additional CPU cycles to more efficiently pack the data.

So why does it make sense to conserve some (cheap) CPU cycles at the expense of some (very costly) flash write cycles?

Also, arguing that the 16-bit MRW format allows Minolta to upgrade to 16-bit ADCs later is a non-starter: They could do this anyway. The version information stored in the MRW file could easily be used to indicate that the CCD data is in 12-bit, 16-bit, or xx-bit format--there's no reason why all future MRW files must retain precisely the same format, sample size and all.

Finally, I've noticed that LZW compression on a MRW file doesn't do very much, compressing by perhaps ten percent. There are probably more effective lossless compression algorithms for image data, and the image data itself could possibly be arranged in a manner conducive to being compressed, but I haven't tried very hard to experiment.

Cheers,
Jeremy

--
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
http://www.frii.com/~jeremy/

Howard · Mar 12, 2003

Hi,

I believe that having interchangable lens capability with prime and zoom lenses provides the best end result. However, until the focal length multipler is 1 or 1.1 on a $3000 or lower price DSLR, I cannot justify it. Given evolving technology, while I don't the Kodak D14n to get it right completely, it is target for others to match or beat by offering a body with 1.0 focal length magnification and very high file capacity for less than the D14n $4100 street price.

Nikon seems to leaning towards a smaller G series lens to compensate for the 1.5 focal length multiplier. I hope they rethink this and position the D100 and others like it as an exceptional prosumer camera that competes with the Canon 10D and others in that price range.

In any case, when someone, and I think it will be Canon, decides to take on the Kodak 14n, we will likely see exceptional professional equipment at a price that makes it possible to buy a complete system without breaking the bank. For two-page magazine publication spreads, I scanned my 35mm transparencies into 40 megabyte TIFF files which the D14n can match since it has 41 megabyte TIFF file capture ability. But from what I have read on the Kodak SLR forum, Kodak needs to improvement a few things before they can take on the upper end of the Nikon and Canon product lines.

Howard

photovoyager said:
Howard said:

I see your in New York and I'm in northern New Jersey. As for
sending an email, your address was not available from the Forum
website.

Click to expand...

OK, now I really feel like an idiot!

photovoyager said:

Cruise and Ferry Infromation is a trade publication dedicated to
the shipping industry that focuses on passenger carrying vessels.
This publication is not available to the general public. Recently
they started using TIFF files from my Dimage 7Hi (14.7 megabyte
images) in their publications. Thiose images replace pictures
taken by a Nikon F4s system with Nikkor lens. In my book, that's
enough testimony about the capabilities of the 7Hi.

Click to expand...

It really is. My reason for asking, BTW, is that I'm a ship nut
myself. I don't doubt the capabilities of the camera. The 7Hi even
feels nice but I don't think I could bite the bullet and pay that
much for a camera I don't think I'll keep for that long.

Still, I'm impressed... I never got an F4 but it was, to me, the
Rolls-Royce Corniche of cameras to my eye when I first started
photography (using a hand-me-down Pentax ME, which was actually a
very nice machine that I still have). After using Nikon for a
couple of years (literally) it grew on me, in a bad way, and I was
about to switch to either Canon or Minolta when I started fooling
around with digital, and I got hooked by the idea that there would
be now lousy photo labs to screw up my film, and my cheap side also
loved that photos I didn't like could vanish with no consumables
consumed. So digital it has been for a little over six months,
messing around with the Olympus of which I have since grown sick.

photovoyager said:

As you said, the Pro90 does allow in-camera cropping and with the
long reach of that lens, you can do plenty. And your right. But
the Pro90 does not have a the wide angle equivalent of a 35mm 28
lens and that was one reason why I decided not to consider it. If
you don't need a wide angle of that size and don't plan on printing
anything larger than 8 by 10, by all means the Pro90 will fit the
bill. I also think you can get a good Canon EX flash (220EX) for
that camera for less than $200. That flash will not have all the
bells and whistles of the 550EX but it is a Canon dedicated flash.
And there are probably other older models like the 380EX and 420EX
that also work with the camera.

Click to expand...

The 220EX is like an SB-22 in Nikon terms. The 420EX is not old (it
is in fact newer than the 550EX, just less sophisticated/powerful)
and would be the Canon flash I'd use with the Pro90.

photovoyager said:

I recommended the 7i from the view of what if you want to print
larger than 8 by 10 down the road. That is when I beleive you will
miss the extra megapixels of any 5 MP model. On the other hand, if
you look at the Pro90 as an interim step to a DSLR at some point,
than it makes sense to go that route. Last, I do not consider the
Olympus E20 or the Dimage 7Hi as my ultimate 35mm SLR replacement
camera. But the 7Hi has proven itself to be a very good for travel
or professional field work and the Olympus does a wonderful job
back at the studio.

Click to expand...

None of them would be anything more than an interim step. Why?

1. I expect that the "digital side" will continue to improve at a
rapid rate, and perhaps eventually Foveon will license its patents
out allowing us to have their technology, which appeals to me
greatly (the cobbled-together SD-9 doesn't).

2. Even the Oly's viewfinder is not quite what I want and
furthermore I do like interchangeable lenses though the D7i/Hi have
plenty of range, though of course 24-400 would be ideal we may well
not see anything like that on a digicam for a long time (on the
wide end).

3. Even if it wasn't for number one, I would not spend the $$ for a
D-SLR now even if I had it because I find this FourThirds business
intriguing. I hate the idea of lenses that only "sorta" work with
digital. (Exception: MAYBE the 1Ds though Olympus would venture
otherwise.)

Anyhow, thanks again for the help. It is nice for a change to see
forum participants who are not just cheerleaders for "their
manufacturer"!

Regards,
photovoyager - who will be making e-mail available in profile
before I log off today

Aaron Bredon · Mar 12, 2003

Jeremy Rosenberger said:
Finally, I've noticed that LZW compression on a MRW file doesn't do
very much, compressing by perhaps ten percent. There are probably
more effective lossless compression algorithms for image data, and
the image data itself could possibly be arranged in a manner
conducive to being compressed, but I haven't tried very hard to
experiment.

Maybe LZW doesn't compress much, but a ZIP file will compress an MRW down to around 7MB, an ACE or RAR file will compress down to around 5MB.

The Loner · Mar 12, 2003

You say that you can't afford the new Canon DSLR, yet not long ago you were at the Rob Galbraith forums relentlessly grilling Kodak DSLR owners about their cameras! Now you have posts strung out all over this forum.

Are you just window shopping, or is this some kind of a hobby for you?!?

photovoyager · Mar 12, 2003

JohnM. said:
You say that you can't afford the new Canon DSLR, yet not long ago
you were at the Rob Galbraith forums relentlessly grilling Kodak
DSLR owners about their cameras!

I was looking at refurbished 520s as a comparitively cheap way to get into D-SLRs. In the end I decided against it because of money (not cheap enough).

Regards,
photovoyager

Dr. Don Sandell · Mar 12, 2003

photovoyager said:
Dr. Don Sandell said:

Hate to post this 3 times in one evening but what the hey.

Click to expand...

Hopefully not all to my posts... I am of course reading my thread
in all three forums so it's not necessary to post more than once.

photovoyager said:

At the $650 pricepoint the 7i beats the snot out of anything else
on the market today.

Click to expand...

True, but my pricepoint is not limited to $650. Don't get me wrong,
I don't mind paying that much !

Just curious, did you consder the E-anything in that purchase? I'm
assuming the factor that decided in favor of the Minolta was price
(for me it would more likely be the wide zoom range).

Regards,
photovoyager

Yes, didn't like the Oly at all. Many things were involved.......and no price wasn't the deciding factor
1. 28mm (equiv.) WA
2. Faster foucs and better focus in low light
3. Very crisp edge to edge GT lens
4. Liked the feel of the Minolta in my hands

Dr. Don Sandell · Mar 12, 2003

JohnM. said:
You say that you can't afford the new Canon DSLR, yet not long ago
you were at the Rob Galbraith forums relentlessly grilling Kodak
DSLR owners about their cameras! Now you have posts strung out all
over this forum.

Are you just window shopping, or is this some kind of a hobby for
you?!?

Personally I use these forums not only for a place to learn, but a place for entertainment also. Is that a bad thing?

photovoyager · Mar 12, 2003

Dr. Don Sandell said:
Yes, didn't like the Oly at all. Many things were
involved.......and no price wasn't the deciding factor
1. 28mm (equiv.) WA
2. Faster foucs and better focus in low light
3. Very crisp edge to edge GT lens
4. Liked the feel of the Minolta in my hands

Funny, number 4. is just the opposite for me

. The original 7 was truly awful to hold, the 7i so-so. I was very surprised at how much of a difference the nicer finish on the 7Hi made, it was genuinely comfortable, and I normally don't like small cameras.

The Oly build quality etc. are really top-notch IMHO. On the other hand as I said the Minolta is extremely attractive from the practical point of view. The WA would come in handy and of course I have no complaints about price! It just doesn't "feel" right. The 7Hi does, but there's no way in hell I'm spending almost twice the price just for that.

Regards,
photovoyager

Dr. Don Sandell · Mar 12, 2003

photovoyager said:
Dr. Don Sandell said:

Yes, didn't like the Oly at all. Many things were
involved.......and no price wasn't the deciding factor
1. 28mm (equiv.) WA
2. Faster foucs and better focus in low light
3. Very crisp edge to edge GT lens
4. Liked the feel of the Minolta in my hands

Click to expand...

Funny, number 4. is just the opposite for me . The original 7
was truly awful to hold, the 7i so-so. I was very surprised at how
much of a difference the nicer finish on the 7Hi made, it was
genuinely comfortable, and I normally don't like small cameras.

The Oly build quality etc. are really top-notch IMHO. On the other
hand as I said the Minolta is extremely attractive from the
practical point of view. The WA would come in handy and of course I
have no complaints about price! It just doesn't "feel" right. The
7Hi does, but there's no way in hell I'm spending almost twice the
price just for that.

Regards,
photovoyager

In my opinion the "feel" of the camera in your hands is paramount!

Search

Pro90 v. Dimage 7i v. E-10

photovoyager

Senior Member

Aaron Bredon

Forum Enthusiast

Howard

Leading Member

eggpeg

Forum Enthusiast

photovoyager

Senior Member

photovoyager

Senior Member

cklin

Member

Dr. Don Sandell

Senior Member

photovoyager

Senior Member

Jeremy Rosenberger

Leading Member

Howard

Leading Member

Aaron Bredon

Forum Enthusiast

The Loner

Senior Member

photovoyager

Senior Member

Dr. Don Sandell

Senior Member

Dr. Don Sandell

Senior Member

photovoyager

Senior Member

Dr. Don Sandell

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts