Do Not PANIC

[JWP]

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3 sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at 186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am I missing something here? John

 

[Forrest41926]

I shoot landscapes myself, and I'm waiting for enough money to purchase a 1Ds, not for the 11 mpx sensor, but for the full-frame CMOS chip.

Your analysis, below, makes sense to you , and that's what matters, as it's your $1,200, right? So who cares what us morons in an Internet forum think?

But you asked if you're missing anything, so here's my answer: a landscape, in print or on screen, should look natural . If you read the Rebel D's review, and look at the comparisons with other dSLRs and with a high-end prosumer cam, well, all the dSLR images look natural, kind of film-like ... while the high-end prosumer cam looks digital, obviously oversharpened and overprocessed. That's straight out of the camera.

In practice, I make fantastic 10x15" prints from my D60 and a softish 16-35L ( which I've replaced with a sharper 15-30 ).

There's also the small matter of what pics can be shot with either camera ... this one took a 30 second exposure and a 16 mm lens:

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

 

[John K]

Well done! That's the type of shot I like to take. Looks like it came out of a dream.

 

[Mike G61010]

Your analysis, below, makes sense to you , and that's what
matters, as it's your $1,200, right? So who cares what us morons
in an Internet forum think?

Agreed.

But you asked if you're missing anything, so here's my answer: a
landscape, in print or on screen, should look natural . If you
read the Rebel D's review, and look at the comparisons with other
dSLRs and with a high-end prosumer cam, well, all the dSLR images
look natural, kind of film-like ... while the high-end prosumer cam
looks digital, obviously oversharpened and overprocessed. That's
straight out of the camera.

Don't forget the cropping with prosumer cameras. My 7hi has done quite well for me, but there have been times where I wasn't thinking about composing for the print crop I wanted.

Just kinda handy to have a 3:2 in that regard.

Mike.

 

[JWP]

Dear Forrest, "So who cares what us morons in an Internet forum think?". I certainly don't consider you a "moron" nor do I consider 98% of the posters here morons. I will say that in most cases prosumer digicams do overprocess and oversharpen images. What I like about the S50 is that, to me, it doesn't oversharpen the images compared to other cameras that I have used. And some are very terrible. I also know Photoshops USM very well to get that extra oomph I desire. I can set the S50's peramaters (minus on the contrast, minus on the exposure) to get wonderful results. Sure I have a few limitations I can live with for now. With respect to your opinions, John l

Your analysis, below, makes sense to you , and that's what
matters, as it's your $1,200, right? So who cares what us morons
in an Internet forum think?

But you asked if you're missing anything, so here's my answer: a
landscape, in print or on screen, should look natural . If you
read the Rebel D's review, and look at the comparisons with other
dSLRs and with a high-end prosumer cam, well, all the dSLR images
look natural, kind of film-like ... while the high-end prosumer cam
looks digital, obviously oversharpened and overprocessed. That's
straight out of the camera.

In practice, I make fantastic 10x15" prints from my D60 and a
softish 16-35L ( which I've replaced with a sharper 15-30 ).

There's also the small matter of what pics can be shot with
either camera ... this one took a 30 second exposure and a 16 mm
lens:

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

--
JWP

 

[Forrest41926]

Dear Forrest, "So who cares what us morons in an Internet forum
think?". I certainly don't consider you a "moron" nor do I consider
98% of the posters here morons. I will say that in most cases

That was a joke... The point is it's your money, so do whatever with it makes you happy. $1,200 is a lot, and if a vacation, a mutual fund, a used car, or a congressional hooker would be money better spent, then by all means forget about the dSLR for a couple years!

extra oomph I desire. I can set the S50's peramaters (minus on the
contrast, minus on the exposure) to get wonderful results. Sure I
have a few limitations I can live with for now. With respect to
your opinions, John

As long as you can work around the limitations ( and probably learn something in the process! ), then keep your S50 and be happy with it. Life is too short...

 

[Bruce Oudekerk]

You might be right, but I think there's a significant probability you are at least somewhat off track.

All pixels aren't created equal. In the real world the extra dynamic range and low noise allow the D60/10D/300D to look better at extreme enlargements than their small sensor cousins. I own an Oly E20 and am very pleased with it but I will not compare its ability to enlarge like my friend’s D60 and 10D. I suspect that when the dust clears the new 8 MP Sony F828 will prove to be another step up toward, but still below, the present 6MP SLRs in terms of overall picture quality. I guarantee there will be a lot of hand wringing, arguments and discussions over the next few years when the MP stops being the ONLY key factor in the digital camera race…its just one critical factor.

…At any rate I suggest you should experiment with printing a good 6MP landscape from a 10D or 300D…yours or someone else’s pic…before you make any decisions. Print it BIG. I suspect you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Bruce

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

 

[JWP]

I thoroughly understand that there is more to life or digital photography than megapixels. I have a couple of SLRs' going back to my original Nikon Photomic FTN. That DSLRs' are superior to digicams in overall image quality is a given. DSLR - noise is really a non issue, although at ISO 50 noise on my S50 is a non issue to me. I simply feel that overall I can wait for the larger megapixel sensor Dslr that will be a quantum leap over my present system. Thanks for your time and input. John

All pixels aren't created equal. In the real world the extra
dynamic range and low noise allow the D60/10D/300D to look better
at extreme enlargements than their small sensor cousins. I own an
Oly E20 and am very pleased with it but I will not compare its
ability to enlarge like my friend’s D60 and 10D. I suspect that
when the dust clears the new 8 MP Sony F828 will prove to be
another step up toward, but still below, the present 6MP SLRs in
terms of overall picture quality. I guarantee there will be a lot
of hand wringing, arguments and discussions over the next few years
when the MP stops being the ONLY key factor in the digital camera
race…its just one critical factor.

…At any rate I suggest you should experiment with printing a good
6MP landscape from a 10D or 300D…yours or someone else’s pic…before
you make any decisions. Print it BIG. I suspect you’ll be
pleasantly surprised.

Bruce

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

--
JWP

 

[John Davis]

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

JWP: I fully agree that YOU should wait.

Others: If you understand the issues, you should ignore JWP's perspective.

John

 

[Steve110587]

there's more to an SLR than just the pixels. the lenses ... the external flash .. the low lite performance....etc....

if none of the other features of the camera are important.. be happy with the s50.

for me, I've been brought up on SLRs. the s45 I have has some of these limitations and i welcome the rebel with open arms.

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

 

[gkat]

I'm panicking. Sorry.

 

[clayge]

I go into DSLR for 1 BIG reason, the color just looks
very natural on a DSLR, all PS camera sucks in my opinion.

I have compared images from a 10D to many PS cameras and 10D kick their butts.

 

[randy jk]

Yes, I think you are missing something. Pixel count is vastly overrated, just one factor to consider. I have a g2 which is very similar to the S50 and recently moved to the 10D. I believe the bigger image sensor and lens quality I can put on the 10D gives me the tools to take way better pictures than I can get from the G2. In fact I know this is the case. People always say that its the photographer, not the camera. There is some truth to that, but the equipment makes a huge difference. Either that or my photography skills just happened to jump overnite, coincidentally same time as I got the 10D.

Its your choice to wait but you are only depriving yourself of something you could have today at a very low cost.

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

 

[eshropshire]

I think if you are happy with the S50 then keep it, but I fully disagree with your reasoning.

I do a lot of landscapes and I use to think my 5mp D7i did a good job. I printed up to 13x19, but mostly 8x10s. Then I got a 10D. Sorry those old images are so bad I had to take them all down. For me it is hard to believe I even liked the large images printed at 11x14 and above. I can fully see the jaggies when comparing to the 10D images.

If you want the word of someone else then read this article.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

Enjoy your camera
Ed

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/Index.html Old Pictures

 

[livedistortion]

I understand where you're coming from JWP, but I agree with Ed and Randy. I think most of the quality you are looking for is there right now at 6MP.

I do a lot of landscapes and I use to think my 5mp D7i did a good
job. I printed up to 13x19, but mostly 8x10s. Then I got a 10D.
Sorry those old images are so bad I had to take them all down. For
me it is hard to believe I even liked the large images printed at
11x14 and above. I can fully see the jaggies when comparing to the
10D images.

If you want the word of someone else then read this article.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

Enjoy your camera
Ed

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/Index.html Old Pictures

 

[Rybber]

But you asked if you're missing anything, so here's my answer: a
landscape, in print or on screen, should look natural . If you
read the Rebel D's review, and look at the comparisons with other
dSLRs and with a high-end prosumer cam, well, all the dSLR images
look natural, kind of film-like ... while the high-end prosumer cam
looks digital, obviously oversharpened and overprocessed. That's
straight out of the camera.

You're absolutely right about that! The images I've seen, look much more film like than those of my G3. And I like it!

--
... Greets, Rybber
http://www.pbase.com/rybber

 

[dchao]

I have an S50 now and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution > with the 4/3

NO - the Canon S50 is using sensor of 1/1.8 " in real term = 7.18mm x 5.32mm, which is how big the pencil eraser at end of a pencil is.

A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution.

NO - First you don't use the term "3/2 sensor" for cameras with sensor ratio other than 4:3. Second, the physical size of the 300D sensor is 22.7mm x 15.1mm. 9 times bigger area-wise. When the light entering through the lens is low, there are a few photons, the bigger sensor will always be more sensitive. Also a smaller sensor can't handle light with strong contrast as well as a big sensor, S50 has more CA and blooming than 10D.

Pixel is not everything!

 

[JWP]

Are you saying I can't make great pictures with the S50? I have always agreed that a larger sensor is superior than a small sensor, as far as CA, noise etc. But the sensor has a set maximum resolution irregardless of it's physical size. You seem to be a little confused on some of these points. John

I have an S50 now and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution > with the 4/3

NO - the Canon S50 is using sensor of 1/1.8 " in real term = 7.18mm
x 5.32mm, which is how big the pencil eraser at end of a pencil is.

A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution.

NO - First you don't use the term "3/2 sensor" for cameras with
sensor ratio other than 4:3. Second, the physical size of the 300D
sensor is 22.7mm x 15.1mm. 9 times bigger area-wise. When the
light entering through the lens is low, there are a few photons,
the bigger sensor will always be more sensitive. Also a smaller
sensor can't handle light with strong contrast as well as a big
sensor, S50 has more CA and blooming than 10D.

Pixel is not everything!

--
JWP

 

[zettlers #105592]

oh well – for sunsets and cats – the most popular motives here on the forum – just about any camera will do : )

I have an S50 now and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution > with the 4/3

NO - the Canon S50 is using sensor of 1/1.8 " in real term = 7.18mm
x 5.32mm, which is how big the pencil eraser at end of a pencil is.

A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution.

NO - First you don't use the term "3/2 sensor" for cameras with
sensor ratio other than 4:3. Second, the physical size of the 300D
sensor is 22.7mm x 15.1mm. 9 times bigger area-wise. When the
light entering through the lens is low, there are a few photons,
the bigger sensor will always be more sensitive. Also a smaller
sensor can't handle light with strong contrast as well as a big
sensor, S50 has more CA and blooming than 10D.

Pixel is not everything!

--
JWP

 

[Dave Lewis]

I have decided to wait for a DSLR in the Rebel price range to come
along with at least a 10 megapixel sensor. Why? I enjoy landscape
photography and need all the detail I can get. I have an S50 now
and make great 11x14 prints at 180 pixel resolution with the 4/3
sensor. A 300D at 11x14 with it's 3/2 sensor makes 11x14 prints at
186 pixel resolution. Only a 6 pixel difference. I'm sure that at
low ISO's the prints would be comparable. My point, for me, is why
spend 11 or 12 hundred bucks (xtra battery, memory etc.) for an
outfit that would only progress my photography very marginally. Am
I missing something here? John

As a 10D user and also a Minolta F100 and Olympus Stylus 400 (both 4 mg cameras) user, I can guarantee you, you just have no idea what you are missing in a Canon DSLR with its greater sensor size with its almost total lack of noise and greater capability with a whole host of Canon lenses. You might well take wonderful pictures with your little 5 mg consumer camera but what you will get with the Rebel D will be light years ahead of what you are currently enjoying.
--
Dave Lewis