Two new SLR's from Canon

“A lot of people I know stick with the 10d because they think the colour is “better” than the 20D. I would like to know your opinion. Thanks.”

I didn’t bother trying the 20D as it wasn’t enough of an improvement to bother with, sorry.

Having been a fairly recent digital convert 3 years ago and only got a dslr this year I have certainly found myself more willing to alter settings etc to get some more interesting images mainly because it costs nothing to experiment on digital and if the result is poor then it is deleted. With slides I had found a couple of settings that worked well so tended to leave well alone (the saying – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it comes to mind). Having said that – it was a slide that had the most success last year in our exhibition.(taken on a old minolta 7000I with a sigma zoom)

Have also seen a major change in a local camera club I belong to, with the vast majority now either using a digital camera + computer or scanning a slide + computer to create images rather than darkroom work. Yes we still have a few members wo use a darkroom but it is far fewer than when I first joined. We now have regular digitial lectures and hold workshops on digital on a regular basis throughout our season. However – when it comes to exhibitions / competitions etc we make no differentiation between digital / traditional work – it is always the image that is judged – not how it was created.

Few have matched his achievements, which weren’t about what equipment he used, but about thinking, planning and arranging great shots. He made the shots happen.

Exactly. To which I would add knowing and understanding the limitations of your equipment and working within them.

I don’t know of anyone who uses medium format for aviation photography, it’s too bulky.

Chap called Charles E Brown took some rather good pictures, looking through a wire frame above a wooden box which would probably qualify as a large-format all-manual.

Few have matched his achievements, which weren’t about what equipment he used, but about thinking, planning and arranging great shots. He made the shots happen.

I don’t know of anyone who uses medium format for aviation photography, it’s too bulky

Cliff Knox does I believe

“The only professions that actually really need digital these days are press and sports photography.”

I’m sorry, are you in the profession? I am, and haven’t touched film – in 35mm or medium format – in the 3 years since I bought a digital SLR. Social photography, function photography, event photography, wedding photography, portrait photography in addition to press and sport photography all say that you are wrong. My portraits are constantly having comments about superior clarity, sharpness and colours in comparison to my competitors. The only wedding photographer I know who still uses ‘wet film’ (where the hell does that term spring from?) is one who has decided that he is too old to change, too old to learn to use a computer, and doesn’t need to change his style or output. And is scared to change. But he requests I bring my digital whenever I help him on a job. And he prefers my colours. And that’s a 10D. Obsolete now.

Damn, why am I retiring this week? I’d better raise some cash for a 5D.

A lot of people I know stick with the 10d because they think the colour is “better” than the 20D. I would like to know your opinion. Thanks.

I basically got told that if i dont have file sizes that are 35MB or upwards i can forget about selling any of my prints! (i have a lot of non av work).

So yeah digital is great if you can affords the £20K digital backs or the Pro digital SLRS. Other wise Medium format and 35mm still rock the roost.

Has national geographic started to accept digital yet? i think they want 35MB’s too.

Yes, National Geographic did a big aviation oriented issue, perhaps it was in 2003, the one with the SR-71 on the cover, and every aviation photo in that issue was done with a 6 megapixel Nikon.

I know several full-time professional aviation photographers doing calendars and lots of other publishing using 6 megapixel digital cameras.

The Canon 1Ds Mk II has a 16 2/3 megapixel sensor because with 8 bits for each pixel that results in a 50 megapixel file, which I believe is industry standard in some fields. However, as I say a great many photos are being published in large sizes from 6 megapixel cameras.

I don’t know of anyone who uses medium format for aviation photography, it’s too bulky. Of course, for landscape and architecture photography it might still rule the roost, but this is an aviation forum so I assume we’re discussing aviation photography.

Richard.

I think one of the “issues” here, is the same one that crops up in many professions and hobbies – some people think that you cannot possibly be getting good results unless you are wearing a hair shirt, whipping yourself, breaking into a sweat and doing it the “old-fashioned hard way”.

There is , with Digital, a temptation to snap away merrily as there are no film costs as such. However, it is my suggestion that just as many people buy film cameras, blast off six rolls of film and then throw it in a cupboard and give up because the results are no good.

Personally, buying my Canon DSLR has for me been the proverbial “breath of fresh air” – i still take time and care over my shots – i still avoid “wasting” shots – BUT….. i absolutely love the immediate results and more importantly, i firmly believe that the canons digital doo-dah cmos sensor gives extremely vivid, detailed life-like results.

I also believe it can capture fine, delecate, low-light situations better than any filmstock can. You have to plan for areas of strong contrast, but no more than you would with transparency stock (i used to take multiple meter readings in tricky situations and average it down to +/- 1/2 stop – still have to with digital !!!! 🙂

I spend as much time with the results in Photoshop as i ever did in the darkroom.

Its just different thats all!! – no worse than film and certainly not “amateur”

Mike

Not High Flight, this:

“They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”

I couldn’t think how to illustrate High Flight!

He neglected one thing though – dust. What a ******* that stuff is.

Just as much a problem with digital capture in my experience… Despite every care, variable position black blobs appear randomly on my digital captures. 🙁 And they are bigger and harder to clone out than dust on film scans.

Incidentally, there is a rather nifty history brush and dust and scratches filter technique that painlessly removes dust from film scans. It’s probably been aired here already, but Martin Evening’s Photoshop books contain a good description of the technique. Works best with a graphics tablet. More to the point, its quick and easy; something cloning never is.

… this pic looks fabulous as a 30×20 and has been on my parents dining room wall for about 10 yrs!

Amendment to the above. Just arrived at my parents house to find said Tornado picture on floor in study. Lancaster now in dining room !!! 😡

Heh,
Guess we are going to have to agree to differ on this DMC 😀 You believe you can’t do it with a digital camera, and ~gosh~ you can’t.

It seems we’re in agreement.

Here’s a shot I took in 1994 using a Kodak 1600 film and a humble Pentax P30 T. The only manipulation was to add the text (very cheesy, I know, I had a couple with different phrases made) – this pic looks fabulous as a 30×20 and has been on my parents dining room wall for about 10 yrs!

The second shot was prob taken in 1992/3 – I’ve recently scanned it at 3600dpi using a budget £200 35mm film scanner and done some minor contrast/brightness adjustment in PSP.

Any guesses as to the venues?? :confused:

( These are posted to prove that I was ‘manipulating’ 10/11 yrs ago … I’m sure my wife would agree!! )

Heh,
Guess we are going to have to agree to differ on this DMC 😀 You believe you can’t do it with a digital camera, and ~gosh~ you can’t.

Breson’s point (well brought in BTW, that’s what I was thinking of) was that the equipment is fundimentally irrelevent to the creation of the photo – that’s why he does not mention any type of camera in his essay. You (not Bresson) eliminate one type of camera.

Whatever – I tip my hat to you; take the pics in whatever way works for you, and that’s the point.

Cheers

Anyway, enough of that. James’ point of “The interesting thing is not what the ‘old’ technology does that the ‘new’ can’t; it’s what the ‘new’ does that you couldn’t do before. There’s been a fair amount of original and imaginative photography posted here that wouldn’t have been taken except by digital photographers – night shots” is rather good. Here’s something I did last week.

Apologies for hijacking, but couldn’t resist posting my take on ‘memorial’ photography

For me the camera is a sketch book, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity, the master of the instant which, in visual terms, questions and decides simultaneously. In order to “give a meaning” to the world, one has to feel involved in what one frames through the viewfinder. This attitude requires concentration, discipline of mind, sensitivity, and a sense of geometry. It is by economy of means that one arrives at simplicity of expression.

… It is putting one’s head, one’s eye, and one’s heart on the same axis.

For some unexplained reason I just can’t really do the last point with digital.

Interesting pic Snapper,
No I can’t guess, but v. atmospheric !

Surely there’s only one poem!!

Although personally I think that ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’ is more inspirational, ‘High Flight’ (assuming that’s what you’re representing) is brilliant, but a bit ‘over-used’. :rolleyes:

If one is silly enough to bang off 1,000 or 36 pics without thinking about it, you’ll get what you deserve.

My point here is that I believe the medium does make a difference. If one has to accept that viewing the image will occur after the shoot with fim, then there is a natural proclivity to ensure the setup is absolutely perfect prior to pressing the shutter.

Every seasoned photographer will extol the virtues of fixed focal lenses over zooms for 2 reasons; they’re generally better, and perhaps more importantly they make you exercise your legs and self criticsm rather than your zoom. I believe the analogy is the same with digital.

Going back to conventional cameras and taking more effort to get good pictures is laudiable – but I fail to see why more care could not have been used with the new kit for the same result. Sure there are different merits, but don’t blame digital for your lack of application to it! 😉

See above. A few years ago I had a fantastic Canon T90 – in terms of features it was easily the better of today’s sub £1000 digital SLRs, but I still put more thought into my photography then, than I seem to do now with my current Nikon 8800.

Interesting pic Snapper,
No I can’t guess, but v. atmospheric effort!

dmchadderton – I wasn’t aiming to snipe at your skills (and thanks for not taking it that way) but the essential point you’ve been making and what I believe is the same; the tools are important, but the brain of the photographer is much more important. If one is silly enough to bang off 1,000 or 36 pics without thinking about it, you’ll get what you deserve.

There is a subtext of digital post production not being ‘proper’ as it’s ‘new’ whereas most photo manipulation using conventional kit is accepted as the norm. One need only go back to the early days of photography to see the practitioners struggling to find the new expression of their medium.

However, for me, being able to take 6 similar but differently arranged shots, allowing for magazine cover format, caption in pic format, etc, is highly useful.

There is no argument that I am more ‘creative’ and ‘imaginative’ with digital than I ever was able to be with conventional; photography. Leaving aside any artistic mertit, there are practical advantages: Being able to take pics in badly lit museums with my little digibox on a mini tripod and having it ballance automatically for daylight quality shots is a massive advantage – thanks Fuji. Finally, as a recording medium, digital has lots of uses. I was able to photograph our bookshelves and CD collection, for insurence purposes, before moving halfway around the world, at the cost of two CD ROMs and within 1 hour’s work – more reliavently, when working on an article, I can take photos of signs, placards and surrounding info for later writing up, without getting my pencil and paper out.

Going back to conventional cameras and taking more effort to get good pictures is laudiable – but I fail to see why more care could not have been used with the new kit for the same result. Sure there are different merits, but don’t blame digital for your lack of application to it! 😉

On the ‘which is better’ it is simple. More and more Digital is the norm and very shortly conventional photography will not be expected, and later viable. Differences in quality are symtomatic of early technology growth, they will not defend the ‘old’ from the ‘new’. Early biros were awful, early colour newspapers were grim…

A DSLR isn’t cheap enough for me yet. When it is, I’ll be there.

never did print or developing work so wouldnt know about the problems.
But to be honest I do have more fun with my TLR’s and they do make street photography a lot easier.

Good glass WILL always make a massive difference. The thing is, sensors are constantly getting better, so will also make a difference. 6 of one etc.

I use my 10D instead of my 6×9 as well as my 35mm. Why? Because scanning is a pain in the arse (tranny), and colour rendition (prints) is inferior to digital with white balance set properly. Oh to go back to the days of failing to filter flourescent lights…..

And I regularly blew up to 12×18 from digital, (10×15 now, due to availability) and did from film, and worked in the processing business for 12 years until Thursday, and agree 100% with Michael. He neglected one thing though – dust. What a ******* that stuff is. The bane of my life until quite recently. ICE.

Anyway, enough of that. James’ point of “The interesting thing is not what the ‘old’ technology does that the ‘new’ can’t; it’s what the ‘new’ does that you couldn’t do before. There’s been a fair amount of original and imaginative photography posted here that wouldn’t have been taken except by digital photographers – night shots” is rather good. Here’s something I did last week. How on earth would that have happened with film? Possible perhaps, but not in half an hour!. One is the original tripod mounted etc etc. The second is stopped down to get a sky more in line with desired effect, plus closer to the original pic. The cross? Lit with my headlights (don’t ask), burnt in at the bottom and dodged out at the top. The moon moved from behind my shoulder, ho hum. Then a ghost image of a dead pilot overlaid. Interpretation of one verse of a poem. Can you guess it from the picture?

I basically got told that if i dont have file sizes that are 35MB or upwards i can forget about selling any of my prints! (i have a lot of non av work).

So yeah digital is great if you can affords the £20K digital backs or the Pro digital SLRS. Other wise Medium format and 35mm still rock the roost.

Has national geographic started to accept digital yet? i think they want 35MB’s too.

Dont get me wrong i use a 300D, Lubital 166U and a Yashica Mat so i do use both. And most of my gallery does have digital but i have found film to be more fun.