Wow

[MTalley]

My previous camera (well, I still have it, but it's been relegated to family use) is an HP850 4MP prosumer, 8x zoom (37-300 mm equivalent). I thought it did a darn good job with photos. We did my daughter's senior portraits with it and printed them out on my Epson R800 printer using Epson Premium Glossy. I didn't think it was a bad combination.

Couple of weeks ago, I shot some portraiture for a friend. Inside shots, outside shots, etc. About the time I was post-processing those pictures, another friend called and wanted portraits done, then another, then another.

Well, after running all my photos through NeatImage, then PS to clean them up, I decided it was high time to seriously consider a DSLR, so we went out that night and picked up the DR (300D).

I did some portraits at my daughter's graduation practice a couple of days ago and have been doing a little post-processing on them, blurring some backgrounds, fixing some color problems (shooting in shade, got some yellow cast from the grass reflecting sunlight), etc.

My first shoot (from the HP) asked me to prepare another photo to print out. I opened it up in PS, zoomed to 100% and, Wow, look at all the noise, artifacts and plain old crap in there. Fortunately, it's junk that doesn't show on a print, at least at 5x7 or smaller. I might offer to reshoot any images that they might want 8x10's from.

I'm impressed. Granted, I knew that the 300D would be a lot cleaner than the HP, or I wouldn't have purchased a more expensive camera. But still, for those folks that claim their 4MP - 8MP prosumer camera takes images that rival a DSLR, I challenge them to compare photos at 100% and see. Maybe I'll do a side-by-side with both cameras just for grins.

[robertwgross]

Well, after running all my photos through NeatImage

In NeatImage, did you do an individual noise profile for each individual photo, or did you make one common noise profile and then apply it to all photos? I find a big difference in noise profiles from one shot to another, so I have always gone the individual route.

Fortunately, it's junk that doesn't show on a print, at least at 5x7 or smaller. I might offer to reshoot any images that they might want 8x10's from.

You can have all sorts of color noise junk and it won't show up much at 5x7. When you go to 8x10, 11x14, or larger, noise seems to grow like a fungus.

I've had a 20D for only six weeks, and I could not be happier with its low color noise.

---Bob Gross---

[MTalley]

In NeatImage, did you do an individual noise profile for each individual photo, or did you make one common noise profile and then apply it to all photos?

Each image, individually - 119 in all. :(

The labor alone made the 300D a worthwhile investment. :D

[tim]

Congrats on the new camera :) You might consider a lens like the 50mm 1.4 (or the cheap 1.8) so the backgrounds are blurred already, so you don't have to do it in PS. btw you can get the paid versions of neat image/noise ninja that work in batch mode, or from photoshop, which i'm going to get soon.

[DocFrankenstein]

This it how it actually goes:

4mp HP is a poop camera
Rebel 300D and XT are consumer cams
10D and 20D are prosumer
1 series are professional ;)

EDIT: Has been determined arbitrarily and unarguably by yours truly 8)

[MTalley]

This it how it actually goes:

4mp HP is a poop camera
Rebel 300D and XT are consumer cams
10D and 20D are prosumer
1 series are professional ;)


With prices dropping, and image sensor technology increasing the way they are, I tend to agree with you.

Can I print this out and show it to my wife? :mrgreen:

[MTalley]

You might consider a lens like the 50mm 1.4 (or the cheap 1.8 ) so the backgrounds are blurred already, so you don't have to do it in PS.

Agreed. As much as I want a good zoom (like a 70-200mm or so) lens, with all the portrait stuff I've gotten myself into, a 1.4 or 1.8 would be a better near-term investment.

[felix21685]

how come the 10D is a prosumer camera but the XT is better isn't it ?

[Dante King]

Dont forget the 85mm 1.8 USM. Great for portraits IMHO. Both the 50 1.8 and the 85mm would not set you back much at all.

[DocFrankenstein]

how come the 10D is a prosumer camera but the XT is better isn't it ?
It is and it's not

XT is a toy with a pinhole viewfinder. 10D is metal, has a pentaprism and is sturdier...

[robertwgross]

how come the 10D is a prosumer camera but the XT is better isn't it ?

If you back up a half-step, first examine the Digital Rebel. It was kind of a dumbed-down 10D. In many of the important things, like the main sensor, Canon kept it capable. But in the user interface, they really tried to simplify it for a different type of user, much more consumer-oriented. Lots of the "fancy" options were stripped out, especially the ones that beginners never use.

With that same stream of consciousness, the Digital Rebel XT came along. It had lots of the same consumer-oriented menu interface, yet with the main sensor rather like a 20D. The only thing that surprised me here is that they packaged it smaller than other members of the family, and that is consumer-oriented as well.

In contrast, the prosumer bodies tend to be somewhat larger and heavier. The professional bodies are much larger and heavier yet.

---Bob Gross---

[jobber73]

It is and it's not

XT is a toy with a pinhole viewfinder. 10D is metal, has a pentaprism and is sturdier...

Can you make money using the XT?

Then technically it can be a 'professional' camera. ;)

If size and viewfinder were all that mattered, I'd start slapping $3 disposible cameras with a magnifying glass attached into big lead boxes and selling them for 7 grand.

I find the 'sturdy' thing funniest of all. Seriously, how many people have damaged a camera in a way that wouldn't have happened had the camera been 'sturdier' and if so, why don't you take more care with your equipment?

Is this like the 'compensation' many middle aged men make with sports cars?

"My camera is big and heavy" ;)

All kidding aside, Bob kind of nailed it in his response. The only real, tangible, differences between the XT and the 20D are some features/ergonomics and the size.

If all it took to get great shots was a big, heavy camera with lots of easy to use bells and whistles, we'd all be career photgraphers. The XT holds it's own where it matters - image quality. IMHO, it blows away what I've seen on the 10D and Drebel and holds its own as the 20D's equal in that department.

I just can't get hung up on the details like "it's packaged small for consumers" or "the interface is dumbed down for consumers" - I prefer to see the glass as half full and say "my shots look just as good on the XT as they do on the 20D" :)

[robertwgross]

The only real, tangible, differences between the XT and the 20D are some features/ergonomics and the size.

I would not go quite so far with the comparison. However, the list of feature/ergonomic improvements is considerable. It is not just a few items.

---Bob Gross---

[JoeTampa]

I would argue that the 10D and 20D are professional cameras as well - it all depends on what kind of professional and what that professional is shooting. Surely someone shooting portraits for corporate brochures needs nothing more than a 10D, no? The higher fps and megapixels in the 1d/1ds line add nothing to the requirements such a pro would have.

Opinions?

[DocFrankenstein]

jobber - when you compare amateur and professional use, it's the egronomics and all those "little" features that matter. Fast shutter response, better autofocus, larger frame rate...

I do not carry my 300D a lot, but after less than a year of use it's pretty scratched all over the place. That's considering that I practially dont' have time for photography. Had I been a pro and used it daily, it would look like a piece of soap with rounded edges right now.

I don't abuse my equipment and I don't pamper it, I just use it.

[neil_r]

I find the 'sturdy' thing funniest of all. Seriously, how many people have damaged a camera in a way that wouldn't have happened had the camera been 'sturdier' and if so, why don't you take more care with your equipment?

I had a nasty accident photographing a Saxaphone, (faulty quick release plate on ball head). EOS 1D MkII & 50mm 1.4 hit the bell of the sax from about 2.5 - 3 feet. Quickly examined the camera and on the surface only a small dent on the flange where the lens hood mounts. I then looked at the saxaphone and there was a big dent and distortion to the bell. Had it been a 50mm 1.8 or a non metal bodied camera I am sure the Sax would have been fine and the camera/lens would have suffered.

N

NB Please disregard this post when I come to sell it ;)

[robertwgross]

Surely someone shooting portraits for corporate brochures needs nothing more than a 10D, no? The higher fps and megapixels in the 1d/1ds line add nothing to the requirements such a pro would have.

Yes, but there are some fields of professional photography where the high shoot rate and high resolution are virtually essential. Auto sports is the first thing that comes to mind. Maybe shooting wild birds on the fly. Maybe football and soccer and basketball.

---Bob Gross---

[rg-tom]

I'd class the 20D as a budget professional camera as I know plenty of professionals who earn a living with 20D's, and they include sports photographers. I know its not anywhere near as fast as a 1Dii but it is VERY usable for sports, providin the same resolution as the 1Dii, with a slightly reduced focus speed and reduced frame rate

You simply couldn't try to use the Rebel / 350D as a replacement though.

doesnt make me stop wanting a 1DmkII though :rolleyes:

[Perfect_10]

how come the 10D is a prosumer camera but the XT is better isn't it ?
not better .. just newer .. that's evolution .. :)

[Pelao]

The only real, tangible, differences between the XT and the 20D are some features/ergonomics and the size.

Ah, yes - but it is precisely those things that can make a difference. As you say, the image quality from an XT will be as good as a 20D; but how much work is it to get that image? The controls of the 20D allow very swift changes and the camera therefore will appeal more to some advanced amateurs & pros who make frequent changes during shoots, or need to alter settings very quickly to take advantage of an opportunity.

Those few points can make a big difference to some people.

[OviV]

I have owned a Digital Rebel (pre making money off of photography) and now own 2 x 20Ds that I use for mostly sports photography and nature photography. I have put over 10,000 shutter actuations combined on these 2 bodies in the last 2 months. I can tell you that these bodies deal with the abuse (not intentional but necessary) of professional use much better than the Rebel ever would. My DRebel's shutter died at less than 10K actuations. Not sure if this is par for the course but this is my experience. The body always felt fragile compared to the 20D body. I am sure the same applies when comparing the 20 D to the 1D MkII. I will upgrade to the 1D series when money allows because I know there are significant differences that go beyond image quality. If I were using an XT to do professional work, I am sure I could produce as good a picture as with my 20Ds but I trust my cameras to take the beating more than I trust the original DRebel or the Rebel XT and feel confident when I am going to do a shoot that I will have a working camera.

Ovi