HOLY COW!

[forrest64]

I've owned a 10D for about 5 months now and have acquired both a 17-40mm and 70-200mm L F4 lenses. I've taken several pictures and was mostly impressed with the quality of the pictures. I mean the color, sharpness, etc. Recently I took a couple of pics on my CF card to a photo shop to print 8x10's of my grand children at a carnival. I WAS IMPRESSED. The color was EXCELLENT and I never got the sharpness from any of my 35mm shots I got from this camera. I think one has to print to really see how a camera performs.

Mark

[blacktape]

who said digital isn't better than film? :)

try a 1Ds though... :)

[forrest64]

Many people and many sources have said digital, particularly; the 10D did not produce printed pics better than 35 mm. I disagree.

No I am not going to try the 1ds

[robertwgross]

If you are printing at 8x10, then you can shoot digital or film and you won't see huge differences.

When you get significantly bigger than that, say 16x20, is where you will start to get the benefit of the extra detail of the scanned film image of 100-150MB.

However, very few people print that large or larger.

Digital can be "stretched" larger by interpolation and careful upsizing, but it takes some intelligent effort and experimentation.

---Bob Gross---

[defordphoto]

Consumers are happy as little clams with the 3-4mp cams. Running their little cards over to Wal-Mart for their little 4x6 and rare 8x10's.

The 10D renders excellent photographs and you can upsize to 16x20 fairly easy and without a lot of effort. Anything larger than that requires some intense interpolation, but I have upsized to 30x40 with very impressive results.

In the present pro-sumer world, the 10D is what all the others are measured by.

In the photo-journalist world the MKII is what all others are measured by.

In the portrait, landscaped world the 1Ds is what all others are measured by.

I sense a trend.... :wink:

Canon. Always Canon.

[Aylwin]

I totally know how you feel, Mark. I never truly appreciated how wonderful my camera is until I had my first 8" x 12" printed. When I saw the result, I had a grin up to my ears. :)

I, too, have never gotten prints as good from film. But then again, I could never post-process with film. :wink:

[Ballen Photo]

I wholeheartedly agree that the 10D is capable of taking some VERY SHARP photos. :shock: :shock: :shock:
.......Bruce

[redbutt]

I wholeheartedly agree that the 10D is capable of taking some VERY SHARP photos. :shock: :shock: :shock:
.......Bruce

Put good eyes on a good brain and you'll get good photos. Seems logical to me. :idea:

[Nolz]

I totally know how you feel, Mark. I never truly appreciated how wonderful my camera is until I had my first 8" x 12" printed. When I saw the result, I had a grin up to my ears. :)

i did this for the first time the other day and mate!!!!! detail that i have previously missed on any normal 6x4 print or by zooming in on my monitor (just not the same) it makes me want to get everything printed in an 8x12 but ofcourse i have neither the wall space or the pockets for such a thing :P

[Jesper]

Before I bought my 10D, I was shooting slide film (mainly Fuji Provia 100F, which has very fine grain). I scanned it with my Minolta Scan Dual III scanner (2820 dpi). With my 10D, I can make cleaner (i.e. less noise / grain) and sharper prints than what I've ever made with scanned slides. The Scan Dual III is maybe not the very best scanner and it probably doesn't record all the detail that's in the film, but the 10D is certainly great and a lot easier to work with. :)

[mjordan]

Yes, the 10D takes good pictures... but the photographer gets the credit some of the times.

:wink:


Mike

[forrest64]

I agree Mike but I was writing about the color and sharpness rather than the overall composition of my prints.

Mark

[mjordan]

Mark, I was only half joking (it's common for people to say "your camera takes such great photos), but if the photographer doesn't do his or her part, the best camera in the world won't help them. I'm sure Canon is close to coming out with the camera that will "shoot how I meant, not how I set it", but that's at least a year or two away. :lol:

If you want to talk about quality, there are a lot of point and shoots that can do a great job and don't cost half of what a 10D does. But would you want to own one? :wink:

Mike

[c0ntr0lz]

i printered about 15 8x10s on my home HP photosmart 7350 and hav given away 6 of them. people think they were printer at a photo center. altho it cost me more probably.

[blacktape]

If you are printing at 8x10, then you can shoot digital or film and you won't see huge differences.
---Bob Gross---

The resolution you have will show even at small sized prints. Even at 4x6 to 8x10 sizes, 6MP digicams like the 10D, with L series lenses will produce prints with details superior from 35mm prints.

Likewise, the difference between a 10D and a 1Ds will be visible even in prints as "small" as 8x10. The difference is, of course, more perceptible in landscape shots with lots of details, or buildings with lots of windows, compared to a simple portrait shot.

Again, I've seen a 12x8 print from a 5x4 large format, and even then you can tell it's clearly superior from a 1Ds. :)

[leony]

In all truth you can't compare film and digital. Not unless you're going to have cromes c-printed custom to your liking.

Now, a properly scanned chrome will have more detail than the same size digital chip. But not many people have the use for a 300 MB file. the problem is that very few labs can do a good job at drum scanning.

I've seen magazine covers done from files shot with D30 (that's 3 MP ya'll). The G3 wouldn't be able to do that because of the dynamic range. See, pixels aren't everything with digital. The 8MP Pro-1 will NOT give better prints than 10D or D60 because of the chip's design.

whoever said that they can see a difference between 1Ds and 10D on an 8x10 print, I want you to go to the newsstand and tell me which cover was shot with what camera, and if it was digital in the first place. what you see is the difference in post processing, not what camera captured. there are so many variables between camera and final print that unless you go through exactly the same steps you can't make a definitive conclusion.

a side note about dynamic range: no company publishes it. there is no standard to measure it yet. what canon calls 3.5, nikon might call 4.0 and minolta 3.0. or the other way around.

[Ballen Photo]

I wholeheartedly agree that the 10D is capable of taking some VERY SHARP photos. :shock: :shock: :shock:
.......Bruce

Put good eyes on a good brain and you'll get good photos. Seems logical to me. :idea:

I'd like to put my money where my mouth is. Go to this thread, and click on the link to the large version.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=271909#271909
.......Bruce