Reading mode: Light Dark

Phil's comparison to high-end digicams

Go to last post
Jim Coffey said:
How much detail will you lose going from film to digital? That may
be something to consider.
Click to expand...
The Thompson's 6MP scans will be 24bit TIFF's on a CD directly after development.

At home I have a 35mm scanner capable of scanning a 12MP 48bit image. Now I realize 12MP is more resolution than 35mm film actually has on it, but the 16 bit color vs. 8 bit color could be a factor if I want to play with something after the pictures are taken.

I guess the ability to rescan a negative at a higher resolution later with more dynamic range could be useful.

The other issue is how film works vs. digital. Film gets more detail out of the highlights, but looses the shadows. Digital tends to get more detail in the shadows at the expense of washing out the highlights.
 
waterskier said:
I'm preparing for my own wedding and am currently on the fense
about something. The wedding photographer is going to take the
posed shots in medium format for enlargement purposes, but take all
the rest of the ceremony and reception pictures with a 35mm. I was
looking at having Thompson's do 6MP scans of each roll of film. I'm
expecting about ten rolls of 36 shots at about $20 a roll for this.
I'm wondering since this photographer is into digital photography
too and has acess to a 10D and shots with mostly Canon lenses if I
might be better for him to take the shots to a microdrive and just
take them digitally to save me a couple hundred dollars in scanning
fees. Since both would give me 6MP images would I be losing much?
Click to expand...
I'll reluctantly weigh in here. It isn't a simple decision. I have both film and digital cameras. I like both. I also have a Nikon Coolscan IV for doing film scanning. This is a 2900 DPI scanner with 12 bits per pixel and good/excellent dynamic range. I have also looked at 10d photos and am have a 300d on order. In otherwords, I think I am relatively unbiased.

The film has some advantages. For example, the dynamic range you need in shooting weddings is often large. (Black on the men, white on the women, you want detail in both). This is challenging and their are lower contrast films that are sometimes used in wedding photography even considering the already great DR of the film.

On the other hand, the digital has a big advantage as well. Shots at higher ISO are smoother than film. If the shooting is done available light, the digital might look significantly better (less noise vs the grain of the film). Also, you won't get to the idea of the wedding and then find out the camera malfunctioned on all the shots. This happening to my sister (the flash wasn't syncing correctly with the camera).

I have seen examples of wedding photography done with the 10d on the net (their is a fair amount on pbase for example). I would suggest checking them out and seeing if you like it.

If you go with film, the quality of the scanning service is also going to matter a great deal. I would make sure you have tried and like them as well.

Tough call now days. In rec.photo.digital their has been some discussion of this in the past. Some pros have indeed gone digital for weddings. It is nice your photographer is taking the posed shots in MF 8).
 
I am always amazed when I log onto dpreview. Can there possibly be another site reviewing technologically sophisticated, fast-changing, costly products that carries so much exhaustively researched, balanced information and opinions? I don't think so.

We are blessed to have someone like Phil who has constantly raised the bar of digital camera reviewing to the point where no one else, that I know of, can clear it. I, too, hope you are profiting from it, Phil. Handsomely.

Don't get too disgusted with posts from readers who don't fully appreciate your supurb efforts. And don't abandon expressing your opinions for fear of contradiction. It's inevitable.

And whatever else, keep up the good work. Please.

Frank Nesbitt
BYRON_PRINZMETAL said:
Phil,

Thanks for your hard work and your most excellent reviews and a web
site that allows all types of opinions. I hope you and your family
earn a wonderful living from your hard work and you receive much
pleasure. I do know that many, many thousands of photographers are
better because of what you provide.

I do have one comment, what will happen with the canon G series?
It seems to be getting hit from the high end (Sony 828) and higher
end (the 300) and it seems the lowers end is getting much better
(80). IMHO, I do believe there is a place for a high end all in
one camera, but I don't believe the existing G series as we know it
today, will survive much longer targeting this segment of the
market place.

Have a great weekend Phil.
Click to expand...
--
Frank
 
BYRON_PRINZMETAL said:
Phil,

Thanks for your hard work and your most excellent reviews and a web
site that allows all types of opinions. I hope you and your family
earn a wonderful living from your hard work and you receive much
pleasure. I do know that many, many thousands of photographers are
better because of what you provide.

I do have one comment, what will happen with the canon G series?
It seems to be getting hit from the high end (Sony 828) and higher
end (the 300) and it seems the lowers end is getting much better
(80). IMHO, I do believe there is a place for a high end all in
one camera, but I don't believe the existing G series as we know it
today, will survive much longer targeting this segment of the
market place.

Have a great weekend Phil.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry to see that you are getting bashed for a rather harmless statement that you made. I really don't believe you were bashing the review, you have even restated what you meant to say originally. I think you do have valid points and so do others. I am a bit surprised at how Phil reacted as well.....(I guess I had kept him way up high on a pedestal in my mind bcos of this site and his great reviews but to see him react like the mere mortals took me by surprise....silly me)

oh well....

C1
 
Henk Van Wulpen said:
I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :
  • they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you
need/have.
  • to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you
typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.
  • switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.
  • not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.
  • there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the
weirdest angles or positions.
  • they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.
Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100
Click to expand...
Henk, Phil was only talking through the same decision process that most potential buyers will be going through. For alot of people who are shopping in this price range, they need to make the decision as to which features they can live without. It's a question of value for the dollar, really.
The 300D is simply a better value when you get right down to it.

In the end, it's all about light!
 
Terry M said:
But you don't REALLY get DSLR performance in the all-in-one cameras.

You may get comparable or even better image quality at low ISOs (as
in the comparison to the G5) but you don't get the full package of
performance pluses that a DSLR provides:
  • lower noise throughout the ISO range
  • faster focus
  • faster capture, i.e., frame rate AND buffer performance
  • wider variety of lenses that are tailored to the job at hand
  • more capability to use in a studio situation.
  • this is a personal one, but in my experience, DSLRs are easier to
use. I don't like menu-driven little cameras with teeny-tiny
multi-purpose buttons.
Click to expand...
It is for these reasons that alot of higher-end prosumer digicams are going to be nothing but bug splatters on the 300D's windshield. Those of us that have been waiting for DSLR performance at a lower price will vote with our wallets for the 300D. The Coolpix 5700, Sony 828, Minolta 7i/7Hi and A1 will all need to drop significantly in price or they won't sell. The 300D will push down prices on all of the prosumer digicam market.
Exciting times!!!!
--
In the end, it's all about light!
 
Wat een gezeur zeg.

Ten eerste mag je best je mening geven Henk. Dat is prima!
Ten tweede begrijp ik niet waarom Phil zich aangevallen voelt!
Ten derde is het zijn werk om soms een aantal dagen lang door te werken.

Dat hoort nu eenmaal bij zo'n "job". Dus laat je geen schulgevoel aanpraten en zeker niet door een Amerikaan.....lol.

Groet, Arno
 
colorOne1 said:
Sorry to see that you are getting bashed for a rather harmless
statement that you made. I really don't believe you were bashing
the review, you have even restated what you meant to say
originally. I think you do have valid points and so do others. I am
a bit surprised at how Phil reacted as well.....(I guess I had kept
him way up high on a pedestal in my mind bcos of this site and his
great reviews but to see him react like the mere mortals took me by
surprise....silly me)

oh well....

C1
Click to expand...
The intention may have been harmless, and in fact, it could have been posted in a way so that Phil could use the points to build on his strength and provide even better reviews in the future. I am sure the guy is mature enough to learn and grow. But when someone totally focuses on the perceived negative, and perists throughout, it gives the impression that they are trying to slam someone.

The interesting thing is, when you look at many other threads, this very topic of the G5 vs 300D was of great interest to so many people. So, Phil's instinct to place this new camera against the G series turned out to be a very appropriate point of comparison.

IMH, you may want to provide some background, balance the negative against the positive, and then present your point of view. Otherwise, emotions and misunderstanding block the view and nothing good comes out at the end. This is not just true in the forum setting, but in the work place and at home as well.
 
expected the prospective purchasers would do, not about the intrinsic value of one type of camera over another.

If there can BE any such thing....
 
I thought about the F828 and the 300D, I fully understood that each respective cameras has it advantages and disadvantages, the price being so close and Phil was correct, as a prospective customer it does make want to weigh up the option of which camera to buy even though I might end up joining different clubs.
GBear said:
expected the prospective purchasers would do, not about the
intrinsic value of one type of camera over another.

If there can BE any such thing....
Click to expand...
 
Henk Van Wulpen said:
It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :
Click to expand...
Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
  • to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you
typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.
Click to expand...
For best quality, you do not want zooms. I have five lenses from 20mm to 105 Macro, none of these are zooms. I have no plans to buy a single zoom. There is no way that the best possible zoom could ever beat the best possible prime.
Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
  • there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the
weirdest angles or positions.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is a major strength of the SLR construction. The LCD finder consumes energy, and since it gives live preview it means that the sensor and color filter are exposed to light all the time. This will shorten the life span of these expensive and sensitive parts. With a SLR camera you do not consume additional energy no matter how much you use the viewfinder, and the sensor never sees light until the picture is taken. This is technically the only sensible system.
Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
  • they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why a cheaper compact model is suitable for travel and walking about in town.
Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR.
Click to expand...
I have tried both, and the compact version is preferable if one goes into town and want to be as inconspicuous as possible. However, when the highest possible image quality is paramount, and if one wants a better construction, a high-quality optical viewfinder that does not consume additional energy and a system that shields the camera's most sensitive parts from light until the moment of exposure, there is and will be no substitute for a SLR.

But I would save for a better construction than the 300D. Solidity pays in the long run.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
 
Please read the posting rules again.
Arno said:
Wat een gezeur zeg.

Ten eerste mag je best je mening geven Henk. Dat is prima!
Ten tweede begrijp ik niet waarom Phil zich aangevallen voelt!
Ten derde is het zijn werk om soms een aantal dagen lang door te
werken.
Dat hoort nu eenmaal bij zo'n "job". Dus laat je geen schulgevoel
aanpraten en zeker niet door een Amerikaan.....lol.

Groet, Arno
Click to expand...
 
I've read part of this thread, so I might have the same opinion as others, or might be repetitive ;)

A few points
  • There is nothing stopping a user from having both if they already have a pro-sumer model.... I myself have a Nikon CoolPix 5000 and would never sell it for the exact reasons you pointed out... it does in some situations lend me a more creative angle, it is lighter, etc
  • At the same time, a DSLR and a pro-sumer, are not really competitors for most of the world... it is for those who like to do photography, basically always in a proper photographic position. Which is what I would buy the camera for.... more conservative stuff in general as far as angles and thought behind the picture go :)
So basically, I think its certainly reasonable to believe that someone with a 300D or DSLR in general, would have another camera for either, snap shots, odd angles, or light weight carrying.....

I would love to have the 300D kit, and I might get it, I don't know.

although I have one question, possibly a stupid one :-D

I noticed there are parameters etc etc, can I just set the contrast, sharpening etc to 0? is that possible? I don't want to be stuck having all this custom stuff on all the time, I like to shoot with no sharpening or any other in camera enhancements, and do anything I need to do later.

Just a couple cents thrown into the foray ;)
Henk Van Wulpen said:
I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :
  • they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you
need/have.
  • to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you
typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.
  • switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.
  • not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.
  • there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the
weirdest angles or positions.
  • they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.
Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100
Click to expand...
 
I think you have to read the rules for yourself!
It's not forbidden!
It was a message only for Henk, not for you.
Please read the subject first!
Regards, Arno
 
Per Inge Oestmoen said:
viewfinder that does not consume additional energy and a system
that shields the camera's most sensitive parts from light until the
Click to expand...
What is the problem with the extra energy? You can use a G2/G3 all day for pictures with live preview and flash for some pictures and in the evening the camera has still power left. I bought a spare BP-511 but never had to use it.
Per Inge Oestmoen said:
But I would save for a better construction than the 300D. Solidity
pays in the long run.
Click to expand...
Yeah and next year they are both obsolete. The new ones will be better, cheaper, ... :-)
 
BuddahBobb said:
I noticed there are parameters etc etc, can I just set the
contrast, sharpening etc to 0? is that possible? I don't want to be
stuck having all this custom stuff on all the time, I like to shoot
Click to expand...
This is not a stupid question, because with the 10D it is the same problem but vise versa.

As I understand the 300D you can have to presets. One with agressive sharping and one with sharping like the 10D. You can also make your own settings with sharping -2 but then I don't know if these settings are active for all modes. With the 10D you have only one preset and your personal settings are not active in all modes which is a real pain for people who just started to learn about DSLR.
 
Gabriel Mauron said:
Henk Van Wulpen said:
I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :
  • they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you
need/have.
  • to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you
typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.
  • switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.
  • not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.
  • there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the
weirdest angles or positions.
  • they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.
Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Phil, love your review. Very informative. I have been researching and comparing cameras for months now. Your reviews have been extremely helpful to me as I weigh the advantages and disadvantages of certain cameras. Keep up the great work!

Doug
 
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