On January2007, at 5:48 PM, Don Bryant wrote:
Jack,
Dear Don . . I perhaps will know more re the Canon by the end of next week. I interpreted that it was not like the 5D nor the Rebel but frankly don't know. I'll gladly tell you what I find out.
If you have been testing these cameras, it implies you've not purchased yet.
>
Very perceptive of you, I've not purchased a DSLR yet.
>
I've heard Canon is coming out w/a large chipped, high mpxl camera @ PMA.
A camera such as the Canon 5D allows one to make medium format looking blow-ups to 24x30
with ease, no noise and virtually no sharpening but for using their proprietary software to enlarge.
>
The Canon 5D is out of my budget right now. I've test drove one and I've been very impressed. I know that Dan Burkholder and Kerik Kouklis both use the 5D and produce great work but now I'm evaluating the 10 mega-pixel models trying to making a decision about one of those models. The 5D view finder was a pleasure to look through and the body felt great in the hand.
If you have less to spend i could surely recommend that Olympus 8080 I've used for a couple of years. With the flash it is quite slow but still makes a great image. I've tried 10 mpxl ones and, yes, the Nikon for instance, surely makes better detail in a darker area such as large interior tree branches. And, I mean considerably better.
If Canon does release the camera you speak of it sounds like it will be more expensive than the 5D. I was hoping that Canon might have a FF model in the $1500 price bracket ostensibly to put pressure on Nikon's D200 segment. I cannot understand why Nikon hasn't produce a FF sensor body. Of course if they do I'm sure it will be priced exorbitantly since they do not manufacture their on sensors.
>
If that is not the case, and through testing @ a couple of Expos, I settle on Noise Ninja. With my own
Olympus 8080, a very good 8 mpxl advance amateur camera I regularly blow up images to 22x28.
Admittedly they are not perfect and super sharp etc. but they do look very good. Noise Ninja inhibits
the splotchy look in many open areas such as sky.
>
I made a 12x18 print on my Epson 2200 from an exposure made with the Canon XTi exposed at ISO 1600. I was pretty impressed especially since the lens used was the cheap 18 to 55 mm kit lens. Things have changed a lot in the digital world over the past two years; it appears that film cameras have but little time here on earth. That kind of reality used to bother me but I've accepted the eventuality of the death of film.
I found on the web the Nikon D2x w/two Nikon lenses for $2200± shipped and nearly jumped at it but held my cool.
FYI my partner uses the 5D, runs it through the DxO program, which provides excellent neutral grays. Does not use any sharpening and enlarges it to the 24x30 size in the Canon proprietary software. No Noise Ninja or super-duper Bruce Fraser sharpening. Nothing. It looks like medium format using the William Turner Hahnmhule profile on Moab Entrada Natural (no optical brighteners.
As for film etc. cameras. Of course there is now one or so schools teaching b/w printing an historical process.
It may be funny in a way but it is the reality. There have been similar things like the Daguerreotype disappearing quickly. Dry plate made wet obsolete. RC quick wash color paper and Cibachrome forced Dye Transfer out. Technology wins the game generally always. Tank VS horse: WWI. CD VS vinyl. CD VS Zip & Bernoulli, etc.
Call me a doom and gloomer but I think film is dead meat in all formats, enjoy it while we can.
Don Bryant