Pros using the Canon 10D

[RGorrill]

In the current issue of Digital Imaging Magazine - October 2003 - there is a great article based on the cover of the magazine entitled "Douglas Kirkland on the Canon 10D". For anyone who has any doubts about what a top notch pro thinks of the 10D I can say just read the article. He has participated in nearly every "A Day in the Life" shoot and is well known for his photos of the stars including the shot of Marilyn Monroe who was draped in nothing but a sheet.

To quote the article he said, "For me, the 10D is the most advanced form, its price, its quality, its definition. I use the10D if I'm making pictures that will be used up to 2x3 feet in size, 24x36 inches in size. I know that the file size will be very good for that." He also said, "The quality of the camera has exceeded what we ever expected."

I, too, have made prints from my 10D that were 2x3 feet in size and they are sharp and impressive. My usual output is the 13x19" prints and I am mounting two shows in the near future where at least half of the images will be from my Canon 10D.

Bob

[openspace]

Amen. Some experts are beginning to question whether anything beyond a 6 or 7 megapixel sensor is even really necessary. The 10D can generate beautiful poster size prints.

[defordphoto]

Amen. One nice thing about the 10D is its color accuracy. Very, very nice. I can't really think of anything I don't like about the 10D. There are things I'd like to see it have in the future, but this is one sweet camera. I see the 10D being in my bag for some years to come. Not that I won't buy a new camera in the future, just that the 10D will become my trusty backup cam and/or the second cam to hand around the neck at sports events.

[RGorrill]

I currently have 6 prints on display in a medical office building and the prints are 13x19's. Three are prints made from Canon 10D files and the other three are made from digital files created from film - both negative and slide. All six are sharp, beautifully detailed, and of very high quality and nobody can tell which is which.

They were printed on both the Epson 2000P and the Epson 1280 and for the Canon 10D files the ppi was at 192 ppi whereas the ppi for the other files from film were at 300 ppi. Even coming in as close as a foot the prints are equally as sharp and with great detail.

The only thing about having more pixels to play with is if you wanted to crop the images. For me, I learned long ago to crop in the camera as I used a tremendous amount of slide film for presentation work.

Bob