Will the 10-D make the grade?

[troswalt]

I'm sick of spending so much money at my lab and not having the control I want over my portraits (which I do professionally in NYC). I very much want to switch over to the digital world, but I can't comprimise quality. I also can't afford the top cameras.

I'm looking at the 10-D, mostly becuase of it's price and it will work with my 100mm 2.0 Canon lense I currently have.

All of my shots get blown up to standard 8x10 master headshot size for reprodution. My question is: will the 10-D take shots that will look as good/sharp as film at an 8x10 print size? If yes, I'd happily switch to digital. I've heard that the 10D isn't tack sharp with any image. Will I have to shoot particularly low ISO's to keep noise down for 8x10 enlargements? Ideally I'm hoping that I'll have increased control with the aid also of Photoshop so I can actually manipulate my photos in ways I never could before.

If anyone has other suggestions as to cameras or techniques for digital portraits, please let me know. You can see my work via the site: www.trevoroswalt.com. I also shoot primarily on location in natural light. thanks!

[CyberDyneSystems]

To get the best and sharpest results from the 10D you will want to shoot in the RAW file format,. and then use a good software app to process the images.

this should in fact be exactly what you are looking for,. as you mentioned that leaving your film processing to someone else was an issue. By shooting RAW and editing in software all post processing decisions are handled by you!

How this differes from other digital environments or even shooting jpeg on the 10D is that in those cases the Camera itself does some degree of "in camera processing" such as applying extra sharpening, contrast, color saturation etc. In this case the Camera itself and its own firmware becomes that "processing lab middleman" to a small extent.

By shooting RAW none of this is applied in Camera,. even the White balance can be altered during processing. (by the way, while shotting RAW the images will retain a record of the in camera processing parameters... so if you should choose these can indeed be applied to the RAW image.)

Lastly, It is certainly my opinion that the 10D's 6 megapixel RAW files are good enough for 8x10 prints and larger.

[clos]

Yes 10D should make the grade as far as quality for 8x10. You should indeed get tack sharp prints if that is what you are going for. You will be amazed at the low noise at even ISO 800. You will probably stick to 400 or less and may even find it superior to film as far as low noise/grain.

Keep in mind of the cameras 1.6 crop factor, your 100mm will behave as a 160mm lens. This may force you to get another lens if this is the only lens you have.

I noticed that you do a lot of black and white photography. Keep in mind that you may find current prosumer printers lacking in this department, this is only what I have heard others here may disagree. (Don't get me wrong I have seen amazing color prints from these printers). You can still have them printed at the lab though.

Check out http://www.luminous-landscape.com/, Michael RIchman has completely switched to digital for the same reaons your describing.

Good luck!

-Clos

[scottbergerphoto]

I'm only an amateur, but I think that the pictures from the 10D are stunning. Here are some head shots with the 10D and the 100-400 IS L. ISO 100 to 400 is noise free.

http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/faces_in_the_park

Scott

[troswalt]

thanks for all the info and links; very helpful.

But as to the 1:6 ratio thing, I've been reading about it around this forum and I"m still a bit confused.
If I shoot on an 85mm on the 10D, I'm under the assumption it'll probably act around 120mm. But does the Depth of Feild act like an 85mm? Meaning, will I get consistent Depth of Feild results via F-stops as I would on a regualr film camera?

On film, I usually shoot around 4.5 with a 100mm lens. What would get roughly this result with the 10D? And is the image I see through the viewfinder of the 10D the actual printed image, or am I seeing the whole image which is later 'cropped'?

thanks!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Depth of feild will act like an 85mm!!!!!

I swear to God! :D (despite what is being bandied about in other threads) the physics of the lens will not change other than the fact that the reduced size of the image sensor will crop off the the usually more distorted outer edges of the image that the lens produces.....


:D

[Webster]

Like CDS says. The focal length multiplier is EXACTLY as if you took a full 35mm film frame and cut it with scissors to the size of the sensor. If anyone can explain how that affects DOF, I'm all ears (instead of being all thumbs, which is my usual condition).

Calling it a focal length multipier makes it easier to comprehend one way, but it guarantees confusion in too many others. I think it's an unfortunate phrase.

[cubfan]

8x10s are stunning on the 10D...better than any 35 mm I've done and rivaling my 645 negatives. I've made 16x20's that are as good as my 645 camera. I use jpeg fine at 100 ASA. I'll never use 35 mm again for portraits.

[vanman]

As I remember DOF is related to circle of confusion (COC), so it is also related to magnification. So the larger you have to enlarge something the more you will notice lack of DOF.
Small sensor equals larger magnification for an equal size print and less DOF.

This is my first posting I hope it makes some sence.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... Hi Vanman,. Welcome :)

But no,. blowing up and iterpolation and printing larger are not the same as lens magnification,. so nope! :)

[troswalt]

So can anyone tell me, which lens will get the results I'm getting now? -- On film, I usually shoot around 4.5 with a 100mm lens. What would get roughly this result with the 10D? And is the image I see through the viewfinder of the 10D the actual printed image, or am I seeing the whole image which is later 'cropped'?

thankya

[clos]

Through the viefinder, you are seeing 95% of what your final print will be. Just as most consumer film SLRs.

-Clos

[Webster]

vanman wrote:
As I remember DOF is related to circle of confusion (COC), so it is also related to magnification. So the larger you have to enlarge something the more you will notice lack of DOF.
Small sensor equals larger magnification for an equal size print and less DOF.


There is no magnification with digital images.

The only size that digital images have is the file size, measured in bytes. When a digital image is displayed or printed, a physical size is chosen and however many pixels are contained in the image file are distributed over that physical size during the rendering process. There is neither magnification nor enlargement involved, because there is nothing to magnify or make larger. Pixels do not actually exist. They are an abstraction that makes it easier for humans to comprehend the mathematical flim-flam that turns photons into images.

Formulae that accurately describe the optical magnification of grains of emulsion have no relevance to the digital world, since there is no magnification going on.

[davekone]

Use your 100mm on the 10d and see the results before you run out to buy another lens. Many people on other forums use the 100mm on the 10d for portraits. The three lenses out there on 10d Portraits seem to be the 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm. Some people have greats results using even longer focal length lenses, I think its a matter of preference.

David

[AJSJones]

vanman wrote:
As I remember DOF is related to circle of confusion (COC), so it is also related to magnification. So the larger you have to enlarge something the more you will notice lack of DOF.
Small sensor equals larger magnification for an equal size print and less DOF.

This is my first posting I hope it makes some sence.

Yup - makes sense because it's correct!
It's true that the image falling on the 10D sensor is identical (except for size) to that falling on a 35mm frame with the same lens. But that's not the point here!

Anywhere you go to try to find the DoF for a particular lens, aperture and distance combination requires you to specify the "circle of confusion" you wish to use. It is NOT an intrinsic property of the lens. It depends on the magnification from the original image (regardless of whether it's captured by a film or sensor) to the print you want. For 35mm images going to 8x10 inch prints, there is a CoC that is accepted by many of the lens manufacturers (it varies over a small range). This is what is used when determining where to put the DoF markings on a lens, or to calculate tables supplied with lenses for 35mm cameras. If they assumed you were going to make 4x6 prints, the DoF scales would be different (larger) but if they assumed everyone made 16x20 prints, the DoF would be smaller. [ i.e., it IS to do with magnification if you make a visible image from the file]

So, a 10D image will be magnified more to create a print of the size for which the DoF values (for a 35mm frame) were calculated, so the DoF will be somewhat smaller. Same would apply to a film frame of 15x22mm using the lens designed for a 24x36 frame.

Then, of course, you get into how many pixels were captured and the resolution of the printer etc if you really want to consider all the things which go into final print "sharpness" and focus issues. That means it's hard to say exactly how much difference it will make..

Andy

[rdenney]

troswalt wrote:
So can anyone tell me, which lens will get the results I'm getting now? -- On film, I usually shoot around 4.5 with a 100mm lens. What would get roughly this result with the 10D? And is the image I see through the viewfinder of the 10D the actual printed image, or am I seeing the whole image which is later 'cropped'?

thankya

Your 100mm lens is 2.32 times the 43mm diagonal of the 24x36 frame you have been using.

You'll get the same magnification (i.e., image) from a lens that is 2.32 times the diagonal of the 10D sensor, which is 65mm. Unfortunately, only zooms lenses cover that range, and you may not like the out-of-focus rendering of the zooms compared to your prime.

The good news is that you can conduct experiments. Buy a compact-flash memory card, and put it in a 10D being demonstrated at a camera store. Take a picture in the store with the lenses that provide that focal length, and with your 100. Upload the contents of the CF card to your computer, print them out, and compare. You get your answer for the cost of a memory card and a $20 card reader assuming you already have a digital photo setup.

If you don't have a digital photo setup, consider the cost of creating one in your decision. This will require:

1. A decent desktop computer with lots of RAM, a very large hard disk, and a high-quality monitor of at least 19 inches (or 17" if LCD).

2. Adobe Photoshop, or some other color-managed editing software. You are a pro, though; use Photoshop.

3. The time required to learn how to use Photoshop.

4. A pro-quality printer large enough for the prints you make. For color, the Epson 2200 would work fine. For black and white, perhaps an older Epson 1200 with aftermarket quad-tone black-and-white inks.

5. A color sensor and monitor calibration and profiling software setup.

6. A properly illuminated work area.

Once you cross this (admittedly significant) hurdle, you'll never look back if your standard print size is 8x10. You'll have so much more control over the characteristic curve that you'll be able to adjust tonality in ways you never thought possible. And you can do filtration after the fact, even for black-and-white. Control over white balance is a wonderful feature for pros--it lets you adjust your color balance to the light conditions (i.e., cloudy, open shade, or sunlit). It won't be as good as what you got with film; it will be better. But you will have to do what you used to get your lab to do, and until you are up to speed it may cost you more in labor.

On the depth-of-field issue, if you are used to using 4.5, then the Canon 24-70 /2.8L will probably give you a thin enough focus zone. You might also try a 50mm f/1.4. That would be equivalent to an 80 on a 35mm camera, but it's fast enough and sharp enough to give you complete control over depth of field, and it has smooth rendition of out-of-focus areas, too.

Rick "who thinks a pro's needs differ from an amateur's" Denney