Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Choice--Rebel XT, D70, or Oly?

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:40:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am thinking of going DSLR in the next month or so and am seeking a little
input to assist me in making a choice. I like ALL the offererings from C, N
& O but am a bit concerned with committing to the 4/3 O system--not that it
would all that bad.

What I want is a good outdoor action shooter to use at motocross tracks. I
don't really want to spend the $ on a 20d and it is not a sealed camera as
is the Oly E-1. But the 20d has the sequential speed and is an 8mp camera.
Also, both the Rebel XT, the D70 and the E-300 really look good too (they
are not sealed either), and when I compare the features that I like, more
often than not, the E-300 wins out (not even considering 4/3 pro and con).
BUT--there is not any used glass out there except expensive Oly glass.
Which brings me to my next few questions:

For a nice, do it all system of any of the above cameras I have mentioned,
what lenses and flash units would you guys suggest I get. I don't need top
notch glass like Canon L simply because it costs too much! Also, I am not
interested in extreme close up stuff or prime lens either, but the Canon EF
50mm f1.4 USM looks sweet for low light. I am not too familiear with Nikon
glass yet but am studying it.

For example, I think I could really cover most of my needs with the Oly f2.8
lens that comes with the E-1 along with the Oly 50-200 f2.8 zoom. I would
like to get just two zooms for starters, and for the Oly, I already have an
FL-40 flash to get me buy.

What would you all suggest for a couple of good Canon and Nikon lens to
cover at least in 35mm SLR terms, 28mm wide angle through say 400mm tele or
even a bit more? Auto focus lenses only.

What about a flash unit? Manufacturer dedicated, or some aftermarket thing?

Thanks all. Rudy

More about : choice rebel d70 oly

Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:40:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My novice opinions...

I like my Nikon D70 and have read many reviews praising the Nikon 80-200
f2.8 lens which seems like the range you'll want. I think the Canon Rebel
XT takes good pictures but it is missing some key features you may want for
action shots. I don't know much about the olympus.

It sounds to me like you really want the Olympus based on your post. If you
want to go Canon it may be a good idea to wait for the 350D rebel which has
alot of upgraded features over the 300D(XT?) Rebel. For example, the 350D
rebel will have similar continuous shooting speeds to the Nikon D70 (about 3
fps).

www.dpreview.com has good comparisons of features and even sound files
illustrating the continuous shooting speeds of the models you're
considering.

-Paul H.



"Rudy--K8SWD" <rudym@net-link.net> wrote in message
news:112s3eo3et4r6cf@corp.supernews.com...
> I am thinking of going DSLR in the next month or so and am seeking a
little
> input to assist me in making a choice. I like ALL the offererings from C,
N
> & O but am a bit concerned with committing to the 4/3 O system--not that
it
> would all that bad.
>
> What I want is a good outdoor action shooter to use at motocross tracks.
I
> don't really want to spend the $ on a 20d and it is not a sealed camera as
> is the Oly E-1. But the 20d has the sequential speed and is an 8mp
camera.
> Also, both the Rebel XT, the D70 and the E-300 really look good too (they
> are not sealed either), and when I compare the features that I like, more
> often than not, the E-300 wins out (not even considering 4/3 pro and con).
> BUT--there is not any used glass out there except expensive Oly glass.
> Which brings me to my next few questions:
>
> For a nice, do it all system of any of the above cameras I have mentioned,
> what lenses and flash units would you guys suggest I get. I don't need
top
> notch glass like Canon L simply because it costs too much! Also, I am not
> interested in extreme close up stuff or prime lens either, but the Canon
EF
> 50mm f1.4 USM looks sweet for low light. I am not too familiear with Nikon
> glass yet but am studying it.
>
> For example, I think I could really cover most of my needs with the Oly
f2.8
> lens that comes with the E-1 along with the Oly 50-200 f2.8 zoom. I would
> like to get just two zooms for starters, and for the Oly, I already have
an
> FL-40 flash to get me buy.
>
> What would you all suggest for a couple of good Canon and Nikon lens to
> cover at least in 35mm SLR terms, 28mm wide angle through say 400mm tele
or
> even a bit more? Auto focus lenses only.
>
> What about a flash unit? Manufacturer dedicated, or some aftermarket
thing?
>
> Thanks all. Rudy
>
>
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:40:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Oops...

Just realized the Rebel XT is the new Rebel 350D. So disregard my comments
about the D70 having better continuous shooting (fps). I think either model
would work fine you. Try them out and pick the one you like best.

"hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 0l583$20v$1@news01.intel.com...
> My novice opinions...
>
> I like my Nikon D70 and have read many reviews praising the Nikon 80-200
> f2.8 lens which seems like the range you'll want. I think the Canon Rebel
> XT takes good pictures but it is missing some key features you may want
for
> action shots. I don't know much about the olympus.
>
> It sounds to me like you really want the Olympus based on your post. If
you
> want to go Canon it may be a good idea to wait for the 350D rebel which
has
> alot of upgraded features over the 300D(XT?) Rebel. For example, the 350D
> rebel will have similar continuous shooting speeds to the Nikon D70 (about
3
> fps).
>
> www.dpreview.com has good comparisons of features and even sound files
> illustrating the continuous shooting speeds of the models you're
> considering.
>
> -Paul H.
>
>
>
> "Rudy--K8SWD" <rudym@net-link.net> wrote in message
> news:112s3eo3et4r6cf@corp.supernews.com...
> > I am thinking of going DSLR in the next month or so and am seeking a
> little
> > input to assist me in making a choice. I like ALL the offererings from
C,
> N
> > & O but am a bit concerned with committing to the 4/3 O system--not that
> it
> > would all that bad.
> >
> > What I want is a good outdoor action shooter to use at motocross tracks.
> I
> > don't really want to spend the $ on a 20d and it is not a sealed camera
as
> > is the Oly E-1. But the 20d has the sequential speed and is an 8mp
> camera.
> > Also, both the Rebel XT, the D70 and the E-300 really look good too
(they
> > are not sealed either), and when I compare the features that I like,
more
> > often than not, the E-300 wins out (not even considering 4/3 pro and
con).
> > BUT--there is not any used glass out there except expensive Oly glass.
> > Which brings me to my next few questions:
> >
> > For a nice, do it all system of any of the above cameras I have
mentioned,
> > what lenses and flash units would you guys suggest I get. I don't need
> top
> > notch glass like Canon L simply because it costs too much! Also, I am
not
> > interested in extreme close up stuff or prime lens either, but the Canon
> EF
> > 50mm f1.4 USM looks sweet for low light. I am not too familiear with
Nikon
> > glass yet but am studying it.
> >
> > For example, I think I could really cover most of my needs with the Oly
> f2.8
> > lens that comes with the E-1 along with the Oly 50-200 f2.8 zoom. I
would
> > like to get just two zooms for starters, and for the Oly, I already have
> an
> > FL-40 flash to get me buy.
> >
> > What would you all suggest for a couple of good Canon and Nikon lens to
> > cover at least in 35mm SLR terms, 28mm wide angle through say 400mm tele
> or
> > even a bit more? Auto focus lenses only.
> >
> > What about a flash unit? Manufacturer dedicated, or some aftermarket
> thing?
> >
> > Thanks all. Rudy
> >
> >
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:01:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Are you considering the Pentax *ist DS as well?
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:55:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rudy--K8SWD" <rudym@net-link.net> wrote in message
news:112s3eo3et4r6cf@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

> What would you all suggest for a couple of good Canon and Nikon lens to
> cover at least in 35mm SLR terms, 28mm wide angle through say 400mm tele
or
> even a bit more? Auto focus lenses only.
>
> What about a flash unit? Manufacturer dedicated, or some aftermarket
thing?

The E1 has been discontinued, but you may still find one out there. Olympus
is expected to either replace the E1 and E300 or exit the D-SLR business, as
4:3 has not been a success.

The Rebel XT or the D70 should really be your only considerations. Each has
its pros and cons, and either would fit your needs.

For Canon, 18-55 (kit lens), 28-105, 100-300. Use only the manufacturer's
flash.

See http://digitalslrinfo.com for more information.

Steve
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110351715.570687.276400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Are you considering the Pentax *ist DS as well?

The *istDs isn't a good choice for what he is doing, due to the ISO noise
issues at 800.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:13:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
: "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:1110351715.570687.276400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: > Are you considering the Pentax *ist DS as well?

: The *istDs isn't a good choice for what he is doing, due to the ISO noise
: issues at 800.

Since the Pentax *istDS uses the same sensor as the D70, how does it have more
noise? I do not count post-processing noise filtering (hint: in-camera JPEG
construction counts as post-processing).

Seems like something to consider at least as much (if not moreso) than the
smaller-sensored Oly.

-Cory

--

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:53:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No, I did not consider the Pentax, Minolta, or others. I am really leaning
towards the new Rebel XT and the 20D Canons.

Where do you get your info on Oly discontinuing the 4/3 stuff? I'll have to
check the Oly site and see what's up!
Rudy
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:W%EXd.6316$CW2.2954@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Rudy--K8SWD" <rudym@net-link.net> wrote in message
> news:112s3eo3et4r6cf@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> What would you all suggest for a couple of good Canon and Nikon lens to
>> cover at least in 35mm SLR terms, 28mm wide angle through say 400mm tele
> or
>> even a bit more? Auto focus lenses only.
>>
>> What about a flash unit? Manufacturer dedicated, or some aftermarket
> thing?
>
> The E1 has been discontinued, but you may still find one out there.
> Olympus
> is expected to either replace the E1 and E300 or exit the D-SLR business,
> as
> 4:3 has not been a success.
>
> The Rebel XT or the D70 should really be your only considerations. Each
> has
> its pros and cons, and either would fit your needs.
>
> For Canon, 18-55 (kit lens), 28-105, 100-300. Use only the manufacturer's
> flash.
>
> See http://digitalslrinfo.com for more information.
>
> Steve
>
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:29:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rudy--K8SWD" <rudym@net-link.net> wrote in message
news:1130rbv48cslj46@corp.supernews.com...
> No, I did not consider the Pentax, Minolta, or others. I am really
leaning
> towards the new Rebel XT and the 20D Canons.
>
> Where do you get your info on Oly discontinuing the 4/3 stuff? I'll have
to
> check the Oly site and see what's up!

The E1 is out of production. No replacement was introduced at any of the
recent camera shows, where new models are usually shown.

As to 4:3, when it started, it was hyped as much as APS, but no camera
manufacturers, other than Olympus, decided to adopt it. 4:3 has inherent
problems, which preclude it from ever being successful, mainly the reality
of semiconductor physics as it relates to pixel size and noise.

I can't imagine ANY reason to choose the Evolt over the the Rebel XT, other
than the Evolt is very cheap, due to the rebate and price cuts.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 2:32:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rudy wrote ...

> Where do you get your info on Oly discontinuing the 4/3 stuff? I'll have
> to check the Oly site and see what's up!

Olympus is not discontinuing the 4/3rds system. In fact, at the recently
held PMA show, they displayed three new zoom lenses for that system. Earlier
this year, they announce an agreement that will see Matsushita (Panasonic)
join the Four Thirds system. Information at the following link:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0501/05011301panasonicfour...

The Four Thirds system makes particular sense for non-traditional SLR
makers, like Panasonic, as it gives them a base of lenses to enter the
market with.

Rob
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 5:32:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <rO4Yd.637267$6l.573845@pd7tw2no>, basic-wedge@shaw.ca
says...
> The Four Thirds system makes particular sense for non-traditional SLR
> makers, like Panasonic, as it gives them a base of lenses to enter the
> market with.

There were other Four-Thirds "partners" at launch.

None of them have done anything.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:47:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
> : "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:1110351715.570687.276400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> : > Are you considering the Pentax *ist DS as well?
>
"> : The *istDs isn't a good choice for what he is doing, due to the ISO
noise
> : issues at 800."

">Since the Pentax *istDS uses the same sensor as the D70, how does it
> have more noise?"

According to reviews in Norwegian magazaine "Foto" and British "Practical
Photography" the *ist DS got very little noise at higher ISO's like 800,
1600 and 3200, allthouhg a small tad more than EOS 20D.
March 11, 2005 1:32:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean wrote:

SNIP

> In 10 years, the current crop of digital bodies will be relics of the

> early years. In 5 years, they'll be antiquated. But I'm wagering that
the
> bodies that replace them will retain backwards compatibility with
lenses,
> so I'd put more effort into picking a lens system than I would into a

> body, and I'd keep my current puchases in perspective. We're not
buying
> lifetime cameras. At 20+ years old, my OM bodies are still great
tools
> for working with 35mm fim. I have no such expectation of my E-1, nor
> would I of any digital currently sold by Nikon or Canon.
>

Well said. The technology of digital imaging is not mature, no matter
what people are saying. The potential of digital is huge; it WILL
surpass 35mm someday soon, but not yet. OTOH, optics is a 100+ year old
(or 500+ year old, if you go back to the first lenses) field, and,
barring a quantum change in the technology (a new glass, for instance)
won't change anytime soon.

The part about OM bodies is telling. I'm still using my Nikon FG-20
body - it was introduced in 1983 - and it still gets great results.
Just like the first day I used it. My digicam will last 5 years max
before it ages past usability (due to silicon degradation, if nothing
else).

ECM
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 3:06:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"-T-" <leijon7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
> > : "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > : > Are you considering the Pentax *ist DS as well?
> >
> "> : The *istDs isn't a good choice for what he is doing, due to the ISO
> > noise issues at 800."
>
> ">Since the Pentax *istDS uses the same sensor as the D70, how does it
> > have more noise?"
>
> According to reviews in Norwegian magazaine "Foto" and British "Practical
> Photography" the *ist DS got very little noise at higher ISO's like 800,
> 1600 and 3200, allthouhg a small tad more than EOS 20D.

Agreed. If you look closely at the noise graphs on dpreview, you'll see that
the D70 and friends (cameras with the same Sony sensor) do quite nicely at
ISO 400 through 1600. The big difference is the 300D/10D's ISO 100 vs. the
D70's ISO 200. If you need a really wide dynamic range image, you're best
off with a 10D (or 1Dmk2, but that's a different class camera).

The 20D Canon low noise is really only impressive in that they kept the
noise under control (again, looking closely it's only _slightly_ improved)
despite providing more pixels. I'm a bit irritated that the 20D's ISO 100
noise is worse than the 10D. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 3:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d0r1tq$p8p$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
> I'm a bit irritated that the 20D's ISO 100
> noise is worse than the 10D. Sigh.

The difference is so slight you can't even notice. Besides, more pixels
on the 20D means the noise is less visible on the same-sized print.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 5:01:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Although newsgroups are full of partisans who insist their camera is the
only "real" camera, you will get fine results with any of the cameras you
are considering. The key is to actually handle them, consider what
equipment you already own (compatibility issues), and see what works for
you.

Most of all, remember that digital cameras are computers, and like
computers, whatever you buy will be obsolete in a couple of years. Unlike
film cameras, the odds that you're going to buy ANY current digital body
and use it for 20 years are slim to none. Lenses, on the other hand, should
remain current for yars, surving a variety of body changes.

So buy the brand you think offers the best glass, and don't lose too much
sleep if the other guys on the newsgroup think you cheaped out on the body.
And keep in mind that a good photographer with a milk carton pinhole camera
will make better images than a bad photographer with $30,000 worth of
technology hanging around his neck. Equipment matters, but remember to put
more time and energy into composition than you do into picking a camera.

BB (who couldn't be happier with his E-1, fwiw, but then I still love my
OM-1 and TLR, too.)
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean wrote:
> Most of all, remember that digital cameras are computers, and like
> computers, whatever you buy will be obsolete in a couple of years. Unlike
> film cameras, the odds that you're going to buy ANY current digital body
> and use it for 20 years are slim to none. Lenses, on the other hand, should
> remain current for yars, surving a variety of body changes.
>

With my current camera I can print the images out at something like
24"x32" at decent quality, how big will they print at in 2 years' time?

Do you see my point?

Tom
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:33:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in
news:4231b2c9$0$38043$bed64819@news.gradwell.net:

> Barry Bean wrote:
>> Most of all, remember that digital cameras are computers, and like
>> computers, whatever you buy will be obsolete in a couple of years.
>> Unlike film cameras, the odds that you're going to buy ANY current
>> digital body and use it for 20 years are slim to none. Lenses, on the
>> other hand, should remain current for yars, surving a variety of
>> body changes.
>>
>
> With my current camera I can print the images out at something like
> 24"x32" at decent quality, how big will they print at in 2 years'
> time?

Bigger. But for that matter, I can do the same thing with the OM-10 my
mother gave me in 1978. Tere are lots of billboard size prints made from
the lowly 35mm negative. Resolution out of the camera is only one of
dozens of issues to consider, and its one that is easily worked around.
If resolution out of the camera was the primary issue, we'd all still be
using large format film cameras

> Do you see my point?

I don't think you got mine. My Apple IIc with the souped up 512K RAM
expansion and 5 meg hard drive was a major PC in 1986. Who could imagine
ever needing more speed, ram, or storage? My first modem was a screaming
300baud modem (because only business users and people with more mon ey
than sense could ever need 1200 baud!). Obviously by 1990, the IIc was an
antique, and by 1995 it belonged in a museum next to a stone tablet and a
chisel. The Pentium II 166mhz tower I used for an office server a few
years ago is now so obsolete even the local schools and social service
agencies won't take it as a donation.

In 10 years, the current crop of digital bodies will be relics of the
early years. In 5 years, they'll be antiquated. But I'm wagering that the
bodies that replace them will retain backwards compatibility with lenses,
so I'd put more effort into picking a lens system than I would into a
body, and I'd keep my current puchases in perspective. We're not buying
lifetime cameras. At 20+ years old, my OM bodies are still great tools
for working with 35mm fim. I have no such expectation of my E-1, nor
would I of any digital currently sold by Nikon or Canon.

BB
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:15:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> skreiv Fri, 11 Mar 2005 04:06:59 +0100

> D70's ISO 200. If you need a really wide dynamic range image, you're best
> off with a 10D (or 1Dmk2, but that's a different class camera).

In the review of Pentax *ist DS was aslo impressed by the great dynamics,
which was among the best they ever tested from any camera. Specially at
200-400 ISO, but also top at 800 and 1600.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:48:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean wrote:
> In 10 years, the current crop of digital bodies will be relics of the
> early years. In 5 years, they'll be antiquated. But I'm wagering that the
> bodies that replace them will retain backwards compatibility with lenses,
> so I'd put more effort into picking a lens system than I would into a
> body, and I'd keep my current puchases in perspective. We're not buying
> lifetime cameras. At 20+ years old, my OM bodies are still great tools
> for working with 35mm fim. I have no such expectation of my E-1, nor
> would I of any digital currently sold by Nikon or Canon.
>
Oh I hadn't seen the tests indicating expected lifetimes of digital
cameras, what were the results?

Tom
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 12:58:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in
news:42320465$0$38045$bed64819@news.gradwell.net:

> Barry Bean wrote:
>> In 10 years, the current crop of digital bodies will be relics of the
>> early years. In 5 years, they'll be antiquated. But I'm wagering that
>> the bodies that replace them will retain backwards compatibility with
>> lenses, so I'd put more effort into picking a lens system than I
>> would into a body, and I'd keep my current puchases in perspective.
>> We're not buying lifetime cameras. At 20+ years old, my OM bodies are
>> still great tools for working with 35mm fim. I have no such
>> expectation of my E-1, nor would I of any digital currently sold by
>> Nikon or Canon.
>>
> Oh I hadn't seen the tests indicating expected lifetimes of digital
> cameras, what were the results?

Are you suggesting that you expect any camera currently offered by Canon,
Nikon, or Olympus to still be a top of the line professional camera in 10
or 20 years? Do you use a 10 yr old cell phone? Do you use a 10 yr old
computer? If you have satelite TV, do you have the same receiver you had
10 years ago? Do you have the same sort of internet connection you had 10
years ago? Do you still listen to vinyl records or cassettes? How often
do you use floppy disks?
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 1:40:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> writes:

> Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in
> news:4232209a$0$38045$bed64819@news.gradwell.net:
>
>> Barry Bean wrote:
>>> Are you suggesting that you expect any camera currently offered by
>>> Canon, Nikon, or Olympus to still be a top of the line professional
>>> camera in 10 or 20 years?
>>
>> I'd be surprised if the same models were still being sold, but some
>> professionals already have everything they need in the current crop of
>> cameras. Sure they can use more features, more megapixels, larger
>> sensors, but as you say, if that was all it was about we'd all be
>> using the biggest most expensive camera we could get. As long as they
>> still work they will still produce the images the photographer takes,
>> if they're good enough now they'll be good enough in 10 years.
>
> The difference is that digital standards are still changing. A 16
> megapixel sensor is impressive today, but who knows what the next
> generation of image software may require? In 10 years, we may be looking
> at multi-gigapixel sensors, and the same agencies and publications that
> require a 30 meg tiff today may require a 30 gig tiff. Storage standards
> could also easily change

The future is of course somewhat uncertain. However, I don't think
it's likely that anybody will soon start requiring 30 gig tiff files.
What would they do with them? Why would they need significantly more
than 300DPI at output size? In the end, the standards for photography
are set by the human visual system, and *that* isn't changing very
fast.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 1:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean wrote:
> Are you suggesting that you expect any camera currently offered by Canon,
> Nikon, or Olympus to still be a top of the line professional camera in 10
> or 20 years?

I'd be surprised if the same models were still being sold, but some
professionals already have everything they need in the current crop of
cameras. Sure they can use more features, more megapixels, larger
sensors, but as you say, if that was all it was about we'd all be using
the biggest most expensive camera we could get. As long as they still
work they will still produce the images the photographer takes, if
they're good enough now they'll be good enough in 10 years.

> Do you use a 10 yr old cell phone? Do you use a 10 yr old
> computer? If you have satelite TV, do you have the same receiver you had
> 10 years ago? Do you have the same sort of internet connection you had 10
> years ago? Do you still listen to vinyl records or cassettes? How often
> do you use floppy disks?

They're all irrelevant, outside changes have made them pretty much
necessary now. If you want to access web content you have to have a fast
connection to have any hope of accessing most sites in less than an
hour, and content just gets larger. You need larger computers to process
the larger and increasingly dynamic content, streaming movies etc. -
that said the older computers can still do the job they used to do, it's
just that the jobs being required of them have changed.

Under what circumstances do you envision the image produced by a digital
camera _needing_ to be better than it currently is? I'm not saying that
in 10 years' time cameras won't have several hundred megapixel sensors
with better filters and more in-camera features for processing them -
what I'm saying is that an 8 megapixel camera can produce output more
than good enough for a great many uses and it will still produce the
same quality output in 10 years if it hasn't actually broken.

So if it's not about megapixels and the camera could physically continue
to produce the same quality images, what is it about?

I just hate this idea repeated constantly that 'obsolete' directly and
absolutely equates to 'useless'.

The most likely thing that will require an upgrade is the changes in
connection protocols, cables, sockets and an inability to connect your
particular type of memory card to a computer in any way, but as long as
you can get the image off the camera and onto the network...

Tom
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 5:17:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in
news:4232209a$0$38045$bed64819@news.gradwell.net:

> Barry Bean wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that you expect any camera currently offered by
>> Canon, Nikon, or Olympus to still be a top of the line professional
>> camera in 10 or 20 years?
>
> I'd be surprised if the same models were still being sold, but some
> professionals already have everything they need in the current crop of
> cameras. Sure they can use more features, more megapixels, larger
> sensors, but as you say, if that was all it was about we'd all be
> using the biggest most expensive camera we could get. As long as they
> still work they will still produce the images the photographer takes,
> if they're good enough now they'll be good enough in 10 years.

The difference is that digital standards are still changing. A 16
megapixel sensor is impressive today, but who knows what the next
generation of image software may require? In 10 years, we may be looking
at multi-gigapixel sensors, and the same agencies and publications that
require a 30 meg tiff today may require a 30 gig tiff. Storage standards
could also easily change

>> Do you use a 10 yr old cell phone? Do you use a 10 yr old
>> computer? If you have satelite TV, do you have the same receiver you
>> had 10 years ago? Do you have the same sort of internet connection
>> you had 10 years ago? Do you still listen to vinyl records or
>> cassettes? How often do you use floppy disks?
>
> They're all irrelevant, outside changes have made them pretty much
> necessary now.

And you think there will be no changes in digital photography in th enext
10 years?

> Under what circumstances do you envision the image produced by a
> digital camera _needing_ to be better than it currently is? I'm not
> saying that in 10 years' time cameras won't have several hundred
> megapixel sensors with better filters and more in-camera features for
> processing them - what I'm saying is that an 8 megapixel camera can
> produce output more than good enough for a great many uses and it will
> still produce the same quality output in 10 years if it hasn't
> actually broken.

Not the point. My apple IIc would still run Appleworks and serve as a
fine word processor, but how am I going to exchange files with my
colleagues who al use the latest version of Word under XP or OS X? And
when my colleagues are all printing their reports at 2400 dpi, my work is
going to look pretty amateurish on my old 9 pin tractor dot matrix
printer. And where am I going to buy floppies? You don't even have to go
that far back - I literally can't give my old Pentium II away. Even the
charities don't want it.

But when you can buy a 500 megapixel 90D, D700, or E-90,

> So if it's not about megapixels and the camera could physically
> continue to produce the same quality images, what is it about?

We're not talking about the same quality images. Each generation of
digital cameras takes better images. More information, less noise, and
faster processing will set new standards (just as they have in the past
5-10 years).

> I just hate this idea repeated constantly that 'obsolete' directly and
> absolutely equates to 'useless'.

If your camera produces images in an obsolete format, stores them on
obsolete media, and doesn't interface with your new computer, its pretty
damned close to useless.

> The most likely thing that will require an upgrade is the changes in
> connection protocols, cables, sockets and an inability to connect your
> particular type of memory card to a computer in any way, but as long
> as you can get the image off the camera and onto the network...

Go to any computer shop and look at the older computers that "just" need
those same things. Why pay $400 for an upgrade when the same $$$ will buy
a newer, faster, more capable machine? If your 20D requires a $400
upgrade, or you can buy a 40 megapixel wifi enabled, new generation flash
50 gig memory card body for $500, what are you going to do?
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 12:05:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:48:20 +0000, Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx>
wrote:

>Barry Bean wrote:
>> In 10 years, the current crop of digital bodies will be relics of the
>> early years. In 5 years, they'll be antiquated. But I'm wagering that the
>> bodies that replace them will retain backwards compatibility with lenses,
>> so I'd put more effort into picking a lens system than I would into a
>> body, and I'd keep my current puchases in perspective. We're not buying
>> lifetime cameras. At 20+ years old, my OM bodies are still great tools
>> for working with 35mm fim. I have no such expectation of my E-1, nor
>> would I of any digital currently sold by Nikon or Canon.
>>
>Oh I hadn't seen the tests indicating expected lifetimes of digital
>cameras, what were the results?
>
>Tom

What Barry's saying is that, while the actuasl bodies being sld today
may be as functional in 10 years as they are today, their feature set
won't increase/improve. They will be overtaken by advances in both
technology and manufaturing.
Thgus, while the lifetime of the bodies themselves may well be over 10
years, their position in the lineup of cameras will be too low to make
them worthwhile for serious consideration as much more than low-level
(entry level?) devices.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:48:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in
> news:m2br9pxyrj.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:
>
>>> The difference is that digital standards are still changing. A 16
>>> megapixel sensor is impressive today, but who knows what the next
>>> generation of image software may require? In 10 years, we may be
>>> looking at multi-gigapixel sensors, and the same agencies and
>>> publications that require a 30 meg tiff today may require a 30 gig
>>> tiff. Storage standards could also easily change
>>
>> The future is of course somewhat uncertain. However, I don't think
>> it's likely that anybody will soon start requiring 30 gig tiff files.
>> What would they do with them? Why would they need significantly more
>> than 300DPI at output size?
>
> Are you serious? You should print this post and go look at it again in a
> few years.

Yes, I'm serious.

Prints from the traditional photo media don't have over 300 pixels per
inch in them generally, and nobody seems to find that a problem.
That's because the human eye really can't resolve much better than
that at print-viewing distances.

> Look at graphics and printing standards in the past 20 years. A 300dpi
> printer used to be impressive, and publishing houses used to consider the
> 1200dpi lasers the very heighth of print quality.

Nonsense. Film recorders were around 2540dpi, and *those* were
considered adequate professional quality. On the other hand, 300 line
halftones were reserved for the top coffee-table books. Remember that
all these numbers aren't directly comparable -- you need a 2540 dpi
film recorder to adequately image halftones at high resolution.

> Digital photography is a VERY young art/industry with constantly changing
> standards.

But photography as a whole, and graphic printing as a whole, are NOT
young industries. And the human visual system is the final arbiter of
quality. There's no point in producing quality that the viewers can't
see.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 7:21:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in
news:m2br9pxyrj.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:

>> The difference is that digital standards are still changing. A 16
>> megapixel sensor is impressive today, but who knows what the next
>> generation of image software may require? In 10 years, we may be
>> looking at multi-gigapixel sensors, and the same agencies and
>> publications that require a 30 meg tiff today may require a 30 gig
>> tiff. Storage standards could also easily change
>
> The future is of course somewhat uncertain. However, I don't think
> it's likely that anybody will soon start requiring 30 gig tiff files.
> What would they do with them? Why would they need significantly more
> than 300DPI at output size?

Are you serious? You should print this post and go look at it again in a
few years.

Look at graphics and printing standards in the past 20 years. A 300dpi
printer used to be impressive, and publishing houses used to consider the
1200dpi lasers the very heighth of print quality.

Digital photography is a VERY young art/industry with constantly changing
standards.
March 12, 2005 9:10:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>But photography as a whole, and graphic printing as a whole, are NOT
>young industries. And the human visual system is the final arbiter of
>quality. There's no point in producing quality that the viewers can't
>see.

I agree, but I think the manufacturers will push it anyway. Bragging
rights and marketing departments go hand-in-hand. They need it to keep
driving sales.

As with most technologies, I think the future camera models will simply
improve upon what we currently have, with technology trickling down so
entry level cameras will one day have full-frame sensors. The pro models
will simply have more features and options just as they do today with
film cameras.

However, that doesn't mean today's smaller frame digital cameras won't
be just as useful 10 years from now. The DSLR I own today I expect to
still use as my primary camera in 10 years. Most of the glass I have
will still be in use and will be some 20 years old, but still fully
functional.

I moved from film to digital just last year as I was waiting for a model
to come along that offered what I needed. I now have that and will keep
it for many years. I won't be upgrading every few years as new models
likely won't offer anything I really need.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 12:45:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2ekekd4sh.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:
>
>> But photography as a whole, and graphic printing as a whole, are NOT
>> young industries. And the human visual system is the final arbiter of
>> quality. There's no point in producing quality that the viewers can't
>> see.
>
> Can you see noise in digital shots taken at ASA 3200? Can you shoot
> basketball in a dark gym with no flash and get the sort of pictures you
> want? How about night time street photography or taking pictures in a dark
> club? Could you find a use for the ability to shoot noiseless pictures at
> 6400ASA or 12800 ASA? Can you pick a detail out of a shot and blow it up to
> a usable 20X30?

I'm nearly certain I never said that digital photography had reached a
peak of perfection from which there was no possible improvement! We
were talking about more resolution fairly specfically. More
sensitivity and less noise would be very welcome.

> For that matter, if you could have http://gigapxl.org/ in a DSLR size
> package for under a thousand dollars, would you still be happy with your
> Current digicam?

I'm not sure. *Today* the cost of the disk space might overwhelm the
inconvenience of carrying multiple lenses. Also, how does the
diffraction limitation play into this? That will limit possible
enlargement before sensor resolution, quite possibly.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 5:46:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2ekekd4sh.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:

> But photography as a whole, and graphic printing as a whole, are NOT
> young industries. And the human visual system is the final arbiter of
> quality. There's no point in producing quality that the viewers can't
> see.

Can you see noise in digital shots taken at ASA 3200? Can you shoot
basketball in a dark gym with no flash and get the sort of pictures you
want? How about night time street photography or taking pictures in a dark
club? Could you find a use for the ability to shoot noiseless pictures at
6400ASA or 12800 ASA? Can you pick a detail out of a shot and blow it up to
a usable 20X30?

For that matter, if you could have http://gigapxl.org/ in a DSLR size
package for under a thousand dollars, would you still be happy with your
Current digicam?
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:11:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns96176975C837Ceatmorecotton@207.14.113.17>,
bbbean@beancotton.com says...
> Look at graphics and printing standards in the past 20 years. A 300dpi
> printer used to be impressive, and publishing houses used to consider the
> 1200dpi lasers the very heighth of print quality.

Apples and oranges... and the issue isn't even fruit.

I don't know any publishing house that used a laser printer for anything
other than invoicing, but...

Most commercial printing processes use/have used 3600 DPI+ on the image
setters/direct to plate processors. Even then, you're still screen at
150-200 LPI, which means your actual usable resolution is still limited
to... you guessed it: 300 DPI. Printing technology isn't going to go
much further than that. Continuous tone will become more common, cost
will decrease and quality will increase, but you're not going to see any
additional detail.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:36:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote:
>
> The most likely thing that will require an upgrade is the changes in
> connection protocols, cables, sockets and an inability to connect your
> particular type of memory card to a computer in any way, but as long as
> you can get the image off the camera and onto the network...
>
> Tom

I think the driving factor with new digital SLRs is actually marketting.
The difference between many of these cameras are features they seem to
intentionally leave out of other cameras. I doubt the 20D costs anymore
to make than the 350D for instance. Really, what it comes down to is
that you must purchase a camera you think you can use for several years
.... and then quit looking at the new cameras until you find a limitation
with your current camera that requires you to search out a new camera.
I am pretty new to all this, but what I am seeing is that for my
purposes, I expect to be using the same D-SLR for many many years.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:46:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote:
>
> Not the point. My apple IIc would still run Appleworks and serve as a
> fine word processor, but how am I going to exchange files with my
> colleagues who al use the latest version of Word under XP or OS X? And
> when my colleagues are all printing their reports at 2400 dpi, my work is
> going to look pretty amateurish on my old 9 pin tractor dot matrix
> printer. And where am I going to buy floppies? You don't even have to go
> that far back - I literally can't give my old Pentium II away. Even the
> charities don't want it.
>

Consider this though. Somebody still using Microsoft Word 6.0 on
Windows 3.11 can print a document that looks fabulous and unless
somebody knows exactly what they are looking for, there will be no way
to know that the document was printed from a 13 year old software
package. Further, current software is still capable of opening files
from Word 6.0 (indeed, the file format is little changed). In short, I
hope I am still using the same D-SLR in 10 years, whichever it may turn
out to be that I buy.

> We're not talking about the same quality images. Each generation of
> digital cameras takes better images. More information, less noise, and
> faster processing will set new standards (just as they have in the past
> 5-10 years).
>

Isn't that all relative? There is a difference between technical
quality and perceived quality. There is a point of diminishing return,
and by what I have been reading, there is a convergence around 10 to 11
MP.

>
> If your camera produces images in an obsolete format, stores them on
> obsolete media, and doesn't interface with your new computer, its pretty
> damned close to useless.

See my comments above. JPG won't be going anywhere, and there will be
backward compatibility for 20 years! TIFF, the same thing. NEF?
Probably.

>
> Go to any computer shop and look at the older computers that "just" need
> those same things. Why pay $400 for an upgrade when the same $$$ will buy
> a newer, faster, more capable machine? If your 20D requires a $400
> upgrade, or you can buy a 40 megapixel wifi enabled, new generation flash
> 50 gig memory card body for $500, what are you going to do?

There is a significant difference with your analogy and the facts around
camera usage. The end result for most photographers will be a print
[ignore the web for the time being]. A computer alone is useless, it
needs software. Software changes on a regular basis, and demands more
and more from the computer it runs on. Since filesharing is an issue,
software upgrades are more or less mandatory and thus eventual hardware
upgrades are as well. However, sharing prints doesn't have this
limitation. Thus, the driving force behind a camera upgrade based on
obsolence ceases to exist. This is the very reason film photographers
routinely use 20+ year old cameras for their everyday photography needs.
Now, if you are trying to share your digital images on the web, the
facts become a little bit more murky. However, it is clear to me that it
will be always possible to convert the old formats to the new formats,
but the other direction may become impossible. Now ... how often do you
take somebody elses NEF or JPEG and try to load it into your camera? I
think never ... so who cares if you camera can handle the newest formats
or not? You will always be able to convert from old to new format. If
you store your images in a lossless format, you won't have any issues at
all!


--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:10:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:42370359$0$23087$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:

> Consider this though. Somebody still using Microsoft Word 6.0 on
> Windows 3.11 can print a document that looks fabulous and unless
> somebody knows exactly what they are looking for, there will be no way
> to know that the document was printed from a 13 year old software
> package. Further, current software is still capable of opening files
> from Word 6.0 (indeed, the file format is little changed). In short,
> I hope I am still using the same D-SLR in 10 years, whichever it may
> turn out to be that I buy.

I hope you can, too, but you're being unrealistic if you think that DSLRs
are anywhere near as mature as word processing software. DSLRs and the
demands placed on them are also considerably more complex than word
processing software. There came a point at which word processing software
essentially did everything one could ask of it. DSLRs aren't yet to that
point.

And I remember the hell we went through when Pagemaker, Illustrator, and
Photoshop were making versions taht weren't backwards compatible. If you
had an old version of pagemaker, you could ship a document to somone, but
if they made changes, you couldn't read them. And if the client demanded
some bell or shistle the latest version of Pagemaker didn't handle, you
had to stand on your head and whistle Dixie to deliver what they wanted.

>> We're not talking about the same quality images. Each generation of
>> digital cameras takes better images. More information, less noise,
>> and faster processing will set new standards (just as they have in
>> the past 5-10 years).
>
> Isn't that all relative? There is a difference between technical
> quality and perceived quality. There is a point of diminishing
> return, and by what I have been reading, there is a convergence around
> 10 to 11 MP.

In 5 years, if they're still saying that, you'll have a point. But I
don't belive that will be the case.

>> Go to any computer shop and look at the older computers that "just"
>> need those same things. Why pay $400 for an upgrade when the same $$$
>> will buy a newer, faster, more capable machine? If your 20D requires
>> a $400 upgrade, or you can buy a 40 megapixel wifi enabled, new
>> generation flash 50 gig memory card body for $500, what are you going
>> to do?
>
> There is a significant difference with your analogy and the facts
> around camera usage. The end result for most photographers will be a
> print [ignore the web for the time being].

You can't ignore the web, and with more and more devices being designed
to store and display pictures, we could very easily reach a point at
which prints are reserved for enlargements.

> A computer alone is
> useless, it needs software. Software changes on a regular basis, and
> demands more and more from the computer it runs on.

Given that a DSLR is a computer, the exact same thing is true of a DSLR.

> Since filesharing
> is an issue, software upgrades are more or less mandatory and thus
> eventual hardware upgrades are as well. However, sharing prints
> doesn't have this limitation.

But sharing graphics files could.

> Thus, the driving force behind a camera
> upgrade based on obsolence ceases to exist.

Only if we accept your argument that only prints matter. Even putting
aside the web, the simple fact is that it takes computers, software, and
printers to get to prints. And any working photographer is dealing with
printers, designers, and editors all have their own software/hardware
demands.

> However, it is clear to me that it will be always possible to convert
> the old formats to the new formats, but the other direction may become
> impossible. Now ... how often do you take somebody elses NEF or JPEG
> and try to load it into your camera? I think never ... so who cares
> if you camera can handle the newest formats or not? You will always
> be able to convert from old to new format. If you store your images
> in a lossless format, you won't have any issues at all!

Assuming you have limitless time and the new formats don't also include
information your current DSLR doesn't record.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote:
>
> I hope you can, too, but you're being unrealistic if you think that DSLRs
> are anywhere near as mature as word processing software. DSLRs and the
> demands placed on them are also considerably more complex than word
> processing software. There came a point at which word processing software
> essentially did everything one could ask of it. DSLRs aren't yet to that
> point.
>

I think you missed my point though. A computer is no good without software.
That software is the interface to the outside world. With a DSLR, the
interface to the outside world is only two things; the print or the soft
image. A print will not be obsolete no matter how you look at it [just
as film is alive and well, because the print it creates is the same
product]. An image will also not be be obsolete, in the sense that it
can always be upconverted [especially if it is stored in a lossless
format] in some form. There is always backward compatibility. Further,
image formats do not obsolete in the way that computers themselves do.
The GIF and JPEP formats have been around for 20+ years. A lossless
format like a DIB, NEF, etc will likewise not be a problem as all the
original data is there. If newer cameras begin to store more data, that
will not affect the ability of later software to convert older files to
prints in the same manner is they are today. My point was that
computers are not a good analogy to use to prove camera obsolecense.


> And I remember the hell we went through when Pagemaker, Illustrator, and
> Photoshop were making versions taht weren't backwards compatible. If you
> had an old version of pagemaker, you could ship a document to somone, but
> if they made changes, you couldn't read them. And if the client demanded
> some bell or shistle the latest version of Pagemaker didn't handle, you
> had to stand on your head and whistle Dixie to deliver what they wanted.
>

Again, not relavent to the the DSLR consumer. You won't be loading
photoshop onto a DSLR ... and the implication being that you don't have
to load new software onto a DSLR, thus the DSLR won't have any trouble
continuing to do what it was built to do ... take pictures. A computer
becomes obsolte because it can not longer run the latest software. It
is the reverse scenario. You load the output of your DSLR onto a
computer.

>
> In 5 years, if they're still saying that, you'll have a point. But I
> don't belive that will be the case.
>

If my pictures still are what I want and if the camera still does what I
need [in other words, if I have not grown bigger than the camera], then
I fully plan to be saying the same thing in five years. After all, the
same will happen with a film camera .. if I outgrow it, I do.

>
> You can't ignore the web, and with more and more devices being designed
> to store and display pictures, we could very easily reach a point at
> which prints are reserved for enlargements.

I made that point because once the file leaves the DSLR, it can be
manipulated, altered, reformatted, whatever. It won't be any less
webworthy in 10 years than it is now. Granted, it won't be video, so
perhaps that is a deficit for the future web, but as an image, a RAW
file coming from the current camera will convert fine to any future
format the web will use. If I need to do something extremely esoteric
for a future web technology ... that is out of scope for the feature set
of ALL cameras at this time.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:42375c47$0$15544$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:

> Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote:
>>
>> I hope you can, too, but you're being unrealistic if you think that
>> DSLRs are anywhere near as mature as word processing software. DSLRs
>> and the demands placed on them are also considerably more complex
>> than word processing software. There came a point at which word
>> processing software essentially did everything one could ask of it.
>> DSLRs aren't yet to that point.
>
> I think you missed my point though. A computer is no good without
> software.

As is a DSLR.

> That software is the interface to the outside world. With a
> DSLR, the interface to the outside world is only two things; the print
> or the soft image.

You left out the firmwear, the hardware connection to the computer, the
processing software, the printing software, and the eventual printer.

> A print will not be obsolete no matter how you
> look at it [just as film is alive and well, because the print it
> creates is the same product].

If all you want are prints, why go digital?

> An image will also not be be obsolete,
> in the sense that it can always be upconverted [especially if it is
> stored in a lossless format] in some form.

Possibly, but there's no guarantee. How can I read my old Appleworks
files? You know anyone who stil has a 5.25" drive on their computer, an
OS that will recognize ProDos, and a word processor that will read the
files?

> There is always backward
> compatibility.

Hardly.

> Further, image formats do not obsolete in the way that
> computers themselves do. The GIF and JPEP formats have been around for
> 20+ years. A lossless format like a DIB, NEF, etc will likewise not
> be a problem as all the original data is there. If newer cameras
> begin to store more data, that will not affect the ability of later
> software to convert older files to prints in the same manner is they
> are today. My point was that computers are not a good analogy to use
> to prove camera obsolecense.

And I obviously disagree with that point. To my mind, digital cameras are
simply the latest and greatest computer peripheral, and they have a
minimum of 5 or 10 years to go before they can be considered "mature" in
any sense.

>> And I remember the hell we went through when Pagemaker, Illustrator,
>> and Photoshop were making versions taht weren't backwards compatible.
>> If you had an old version of pagemaker, you could ship a document to
>> somone, but if they made changes, you couldn't read them. And if the
>> client demanded some bell or shistle the latest version of Pagemaker
>> didn't handle, you had to stand on your head and whistle Dixie to
>> deliver what they wanted.
>
> Again, not relavent to the the DSLR consumer. You won't be loading
> photoshop onto a DSLR .

You do, however, have to get your images out of your DSR and into
Photoshop, or something similar.

>> You can't ignore the web, and with more and more devices being
>> designed to store and display pictures, we could very easily reach a
>> point at which prints are reserved for enlargements.
>
> I made that point because once the file leaves the DSLR, it can be
> manipulated, altered, reformatted, whatever.

That's the whole point.

> but as an image, a RAW
> file coming from the current camera will convert fine to any future
> format the web will use.

Are you being serious?

> If I need to do something extremely esoteric
> for a future web technology ... that is out of scope for the feature
> set of ALL cameras at this time.

My point exactly, but it won't necessarily have to be al that esoteric.
March 16, 2005 3:51:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson wrote:


>
> So if it's not about megapixels and the camera could physically continue
> to produce the same quality images, what is it about?
>

I've mainly made 8X10 size prints from any camera format I've owned. I own a
small house and prints much bigger than this just look silly hanging on the
walls. The camera I have now prints 8X10 at 300DPI with no upsampling. As
long as it continues to do this, I'll be happy.
--

Stacey
March 16, 2005 3:55:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rudy--K8SWD wrote:

> I am thinking of going DSLR in the next month or so and am seeking a
> little
> input to assist me in making a choice. I like ALL the offererings from C,
> N & O but am a bit concerned with committing to the 4/3 O system--not that
> it would all that bad.
>
> What I want is a good outdoor action shooter to use at motocross tracks.
>



Only you can really decide. A canon might be your best bet if you think you
need high ISOs, but if you're shooting in daylight, that isn't much of a
concern. Any of these will work and you need to look at the features and if
the lenses offered cover what you shoot with the quality you need at a
price you can afford. If you have to use lower end glass to afford it on a
certain model, the results will suffer more from this than what body is
used. It's still mainly about the glass even if some people think
otherwise.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:35:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Tom Hudson wrote:
>
>
>
>>So if it's not about megapixels and the camera could physically continue
>>to produce the same quality images, what is it about?
>>
>
>
> I've mainly made 8X10 size prints from any camera format I've owned. I own a
> small house and prints much bigger than this just look silly hanging on the
> walls. The camera I have now prints 8X10 at 300DPI with no upsampling. As
> long as it continues to do this, I'll be happy.

What camera is it?

--
Ben
!