[OT] Re: [NBLUG/talk] Digital cameras

[Eric Eisenhart]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:06PM -0800, S. Saunders wrote:
> On Fri, January 20, 2006 09:22, Eric Eisenhart wrote:
> > And, of course, Canon and Nikon are the two companies you
> > really want to go with if you want a Digital SLR.
> 
> Errrr... why?
> 
> Maybe Canon & Nikon's top-of-the-line are REALLY the best ones on the
> market (tho IMHO that's open to debate), but comparing their mid-range and
> entry level models... are (e.g.) Nikon's D50 and the D70 really any better
> (either in absolute terms, "better cameras," or relative terms, "better
> values") than, say, the Olympus Evolt series (specially the 500, which you
> can get in a 2-lens kit for sub-$1K) or the KonicaMinolta's 5D or 7D, with
> antishake in the body (and thus reliably 2-3 stops faster than competitors
> without antishake (and those with all antishake in-lens = re-buying
> antishake with every lens))?

I haven't really looked into it in great detail, but everything I've heard
is that in the "mid-range" area, Nikon and Canon have the best optics
(lenses, that is).  Nikon ahead of Canon slightly in that area.  Both have a
lot of choice of lenses, too.  Makes progressing from the mid-tier to the
high-end easier.

It all depends on what you're going to do, and what you think you're going
to do in the future.

The big feature that drives up cost is how big the high-speed buffers behind
the imaging is.  For instance, that's the biggest difference between Canon's
"Prosumer" and Canon's "Pro" DSLR cameras.  Well, that and how easy the UI
makes it to adjust various settings.

KonicaMinolta might be a really good idea or a really bad idea right now;
they're getting out of the camera business:
http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_03_01.html

> > If you're interested in photography where RAW format actually makes
> > sense (high-quality images that you can adjust the whitebalance on
> 
> Whitebalance, sharpening edges, etc etc etc.  There's a fair bit of lossy
> in-camera processing other than whitebalance...

Whitebalance is the biggest one that non-RAW images always throw out.  Edge
sharpening is pretty hard to detect if you turn the JPEG quality setting up
all the way.  Whitebalance information is also the bit that's often
encrypted.  Well, technically not the whitebalance information, but what the
CCDs actually told the camera, that is, the image information that doesn't
need whitebalance in the first place.

Honestly, most people have no need for RAW format.  JPEG is good enough, and
your memory cards will go a lot further if you don't do RAW or even TIFF.

> > Maybe even push some buttons; they've got some 39-megapixel units
> > now...
> 
> ?:-)
> 
> Can you make a case for me, for 39MP's?  99% of even pro work, afaict,
> needs no more than about 10-15MP, really.  That gets you an 11x17(ish)
> image as crisp as ASA25 can get...  Barring some scientific work, some

Hasselblad's 39MP units are 39MP medium-format digital backs.

That is, they're working towards being digital competition for the film
cameras that take those 3'*2' pictures with beautifully high resolution that
you can find in art galleries.  Either that, or being able to do 11x17(ish)
after cropping.  I've heard some of the artsy magazines have resolution
requirements simply too high for a full-page shot to be done with 15MP *or*
with 35mm film.

When you say "ASA25", you must mean 35mm film.  Hasselblad's medium format
film cameras have a film area over twice that size.  (56mm*41.5mm vs.
24mm*36mm) *That's* the kind of camera that their 39MP units replace.  And
note that with that kind of camera, the body and the back are separate units.

> military work, and a few other applications, I really don't see 39MP's as
> all that desirable a feature, other than for bragging rights.  It's like
> the 250mph+ supercars (Maclaren F1, Bugatti Veyron) -- where ya gonna
> drive those suckers* at anything over half-speed???  And you spent a cool
> million, or more, for those bragging rights.

You need 39MP if you want to be the next Ansel Adams.  More, actually. 39MP
probably still isn't enough for that.  (it's enough for the calendar
reproductions most of us get to see, though) Maybe if you wanted to be the
next Ansel Adams you'd buy a Hasselblad setup and buy both a film back and a
digital back and use ASA 6 film for your "Ansel Adams" shots and go digital
for studio work, moving targets, etc.

Also good for 

I've seen photos in galleries that were done with medium format (film) or
large format (film; no digital large-format yet) cameras, and that sort of
thing is just not anywhere near possible with 35mm film or the 20-25mm
digital sensors of most DSLR cameras.  Instead of a poster-sized, amazingly
crisp black-and-white picture with all sorts of visible detail, I'd've been
staring at film grains the size of ants or jagged pixel that size.

And you'd have to be a pro to buy a Hasselblad with a digital back.  I think
a reasonable setup will cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $15K.  Or
crazy.  But I'd still totally drool near it.  ;)  (careful not to get any
drool *on* it!)
-- 
Eric Eisenhart
NBLUG Co-Founder, Scribe and InstallFest Coordinator
The North Bay Linux Users Group -- http://nblug.org/
eric at nblug.org, IRC: Freiheit at fn AIM: falschfreiheit