Luke

Going to spend some £££ want a canon body that feals like a proper camera...Dont like the cheap feel of the cheaper cameras. Ive had a canon/Kodak that was like a eos 1 and built like a tank . But was only 2.something mega pixels.

Going to sell my mint 1V with pro grip etc to fund.

Is it worth going for???

MartinM

Depends on how many ££££££ and what you really want to do with it

Lots of pixels on a 10D, so great for very big prints and/or heavy cropping. Haven't used one myself but they take fantastic photos

If you really use the 1V to its limits, and appreciate it's facilities, construction quality etc, then you might consider the 1D a better choice.

The 1D has just plummeted (sp?) in price, but still v.expensive though. I haven't done a big search, but http://www.parkcameras.com/cameras/slrcameras/canon.htm have it at about £2270 (you have to buy an EF lens, say 50mm F1.8 at £80, then you get £300 cash back)

Yep, only 4MP, but everyone of them is fantastic, 8FPS for 21 shots, virtually instantaneous shutter release, extremely fast focussing and tracking, built like a tank, really good white balance etc. Downside - it's heavy, no flash on camera (it's a Canon 1-series!) and everyone thinks you're a pro (that has its positives though - people just get out of your way)

If you can stand the wait, here's a composite picture of a young lad running and bowling straight towards me at 8FPS (5.4MB)- could have done with a tad faster shutter speed and the fifth picture is a bit out of focus for some reason (well about 3ft in 20yds - I think it might be focusing on the tennis ball). Have a look at it full size and check the focus points by looking at the grass. 70-200 F2.8 lens.... http://www.milleners.eclipse.co.uk/front_ni.jpg

Edit:forgot the URL. Doh!

Second edit:The 1D has probably plummeted as it will be replaced by something better soon, but I don't really want anything more than the 1D gives me at the moment


[Edited by MartinM - 10/14/2003 10:56:25 PM]

IWatkins

Luke,

I have the 10D after shopping about trying to actually find one. It is well built (magnesium body) and has all the features I would expect. It really is just like using a good film EOS but without the developing costs.

Battery life is very good. Quite often go out all day with just the one battery. I reckon it on average will take 250 - 300 shots per charge but obviously depends how much auto focusing/flash etc. you use. Additional batteries are circa £50. You can get a grip extension that makes the camera look like an EOS 1 familiy member for around £130 and this will take two batteries.

But of course once you have the body you then need lenses, memory cards, USB 2.0 card reader (as the direct cable link is only USB 1.0). If you already have a good selection of lenses then you are laughing. Only gotcha is that some older Sigma AF lenses made before around 1999 won't work with it. However all Canon EF lenses work as far as I can tell.

Only feature I think is missing is a proper spot metering mode. By that I mean a centre 2 or 3% spot mode. However, it does have a centre weighted mode which seems to give similar results and I haven't had a bad exposure yet, well, not when I've done things right anyway.

The 10D has a 1.6x muliplier over 35mm film so for all lenses multiply the focal lengths by 1.6 to get their 10D equivalent usage. Bonus is that your longest zoom lenses will be longer still but your wide angles may not be wide enough.

The 300D has just come out which is cheaper and although has many features of the 10D also doesn't have many of the more advanced features. The 300D is also plastic bodied and is aimed puerly at the consumer market.

Lots of rumblings that Canon are about to launch a new digital SLR in the gap between the 10D and the 1 series. I've not heard anything firm though.

The JPEG output from the 10D is good, usually just needs cropping/resizing for web page usage etc. In fact, it's purely point and shoot mode often gives very good results. But to get the really good shots shoot in RAW format so you can do a lot more post processing like dealing with white balance and sharpening afterwards. If you are going to get serious with RAW output from the 10D you will also be looking at buying a copy of Photoshop CS (Photoshop 8) whioch has been announced will come with direct import of Canon RAW format from the 10D (a loads of others).

Download the Manual for the 10D here (PDF) to see if it will meet your needs.

Some sample shots I've taken can be seen at the following links. Of course these are massively reduced in size and quality.

Bird
Bird
Bird
Sunset
Sunset
Flowers
Clouds

Edited to add that teamed up with a Canon i9100 printer I can easily produce A3 or A4 sized prints that I can say hand on heart look as good a photographic prints. Guess what everybody in my familiy is getting for Xmas ? I just need buy some frames....

Cheers

Ian

[Edited by IWatkins - 10/14/2003 11:41:22 PM]

TopBanana

I've got a 300d which suits me fine. It's basically a cut down 10d, but not by much. The pictures are just as good. The metering is a little over though I'd say, especially in manual mode.

Ian, I've had a chance to run a couple of prints off my i9100, bit was a little disappointed with the default colour profile. What approach have you taken re colour management?

BTW, have you downloaded Breezebrowser yet? It's a much nicer tool for working with RAW shots that Canon's offering.

IWatkins

jlanng

I've had no real problems with colours from the printer. I set up the printer to use Adobe RGB profile, I shoot using Adobe RGB for RAW on the camera. Basically I process everything in the Adobe RGB colour space. I've had equally good results doing everything in the sRGB colour space as well. I think the secret is to ensure you use the same colour space throughout and that includes your monitor.

I did try the profile that came with the printer "CNBJPRN2" and found the colours to be a bit muddy/muted regardless of whether everything else is sRGB or Adobe RGB.

I've been using the supplied software, but have played with BreezeBrowser. It is a cracking bit of software but instead of buying it I'm waiting on the new Photoshop.

Cheers

Ian

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Ooh, another DSLR thread - and I almost missed it

I agree with all the above and have just a few further suggestions:

- The (uncorroborated) rumours of the 1D replacement also suggest that the announcement will be made in just a couple of weeks. You might therefore like to wait and see whether they turn out to be true.

- The best deal around on the 1D that I'm aware of is with Warehouse Express who have it for £2199, plus the £300 lens rebate. Martin won't be at all surprised to learn that I'm doing daily window shopping right now

- My D30 has suffered a few firm knocks and still works fine, so if the build on the 10D is similar (which I believe it is), there shouldn't be anything to worry about on that score. It won't feel like your 1V, though.

- Third party batteries are much cheaper than Canon. Reputable brands work fine and there's no reason not to use them IMHO.

- You will be taking a step backwards in terms of AF speed and low-light ability. Can you live with that?

- I like the battery grip, which is an optional extra. Ditto the E1 hand strap.

- You'll want to buy yourself a copy of BreezeBrowser and junk the Canon software. Some people also swear by Capture One which is more expensive. The version of C1 that supports the 1D is VERY expensive, but again, some reckon it's worthwhile.

If you hadn't mentioned the 1V, I'd have been saying 'yes, go for it'. My only concern is that given what you're used to, a 10D might feel a bit cheap and you'll feel short changed.

As a radical suggestion: why not keep the 1V for now and buy a s/h D30 off eBay? That'll give you a feel for what it's like without breaking the bank, then you can always sell it again if you decide to upgrade.

Good luck either way,
Andy.

Luke

Andy

I feel sick when I pick up a D30.. Feels so tacky and cheap. No godd for hitting people with.....
My first digital was the old Canon/Kodak Model based around a EOS1 got it cheap. They where £17000.00 if I remember new!!!!!!! built like a goodun but only 2 million something pixels. I could wait for a bit and see what happens.


Cheers

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

It's not that bad *sob*

On the plus side, the 1D has never been cheaper

A.

dba

interesting letter in this weeks AP about changing printer setings for different digital cameras

well i think its interesting anyway

MartinM

Andy

I wondered why you hadn't contributed within a minute or so of the original post

I thought you might be on holiday - but, by your own admission, you were obviously window shopping for a 1D

I don't follow the rumours much these days about new models/pricing - I think I'm setup for the medium/long term now I've got a 1.4x extender for my 70-200. Mind you, if I found a kosher 400 F2.8 for £500, I'd probably go for it

It's certainly interesting times...as it always has been for digital SLRs and will be for a long time I suspect. I read about tecniques for getting huge dynamic ranges from sensors by effectively exposing them many times during the same exposure which would be a whole new concept

Martin

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

*snigger* I've been hanging out on DPReview more than SN too

A.

TopBanana

DBA - what's AP?

dba

Amateur Photographer,the guy realised taht hye could get better results by not using the colour mgt properties that came with the printer software,i think many people load in the prtinter software and dont realise that the default settings will include some form of manipulation switched automatically on

alistair

As has already been suggested - I think you'll find the 10D a bit lacking after what you're used to.

You should seriously consider Andy's suggestion - I was in Jessops at the weekend and even they had D30's for under £400 - either that of hang on for the 1D replacement.

I've got a D60 and with the grip it's a nice piece of kit. However, it is a bit slow - it takes a good few seconds to turn on, the focussing is OK but slower than you will be used to and the continuous fps will seem a little slow too.

TopBanana

If you ask me, even the best DSLR's aren't quite there yet. I'm not going to blow several grand on one only for it to be outdated in a few years. When they come close to medium format for resolution, and are as fast to use as current high-end 35mm cameras, I might think about it. That's why I went for the 300d.

Ian: thanks of the tip-off. I've now found the colour management stuff in the printer's settings dialog and set it to Adobe RGB.

IWatkins

I am and always have been of the attitude that camera bodies are throw away items. However, you should spend money on the lenses and they will last a lifetime (assuming Canon doesn't suddenly change their mounts).

I bought the 10D as it meets all my requirements (I'm not a pro) but I actually want a 1Ds. The way I see it, I keep the 10D for a few years and then chop it in for whatever the 1D replacement is, or even what the 10D replacement is. And so on and so on over the years.

So when it comes down to it you just buy the body you need, whether that is a top of the range or bottom of the barrel. The investment is all in the lenses.

Cheers

Ian

dba

how long does the previous poster think it will take until digital catches up with medium format? I would have thought that is still a long time off,i mean years and years

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Reviews of Canon 1DS vs Medium Format:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml
http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html

D60 vs Medium Format:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review.../d60/d60.shtml

TopBanana

MF-quality SLR's? We're only talking a couple of years I reckon. Maybe 5 years before they are available for under a grand? We also need computing power and storage technology to catch up so that image capture is near instantaneous.

IWatkins

Well, you can already get digital backs for medium format but they are five figures. Even so, the quality of output is mind blowing, but there again you do need some computer power to process the output...

I would also say less than five years until you can buy a DSLR that meets or exceeds the quality of the best 35mm film cameras and probably the same amount of time for medium format.

Even so, I would suggest that film isn't ever going to die for ever.

Saw a stat the other week that suggests that more digital cameras are now being bought than film cameras worldwide. That can only mean one thing, digital cameras will start to get even cheaper as the competition hots up and I see that as a good thing

Cheers

Ian

dba

I don't quite understand how its only 5 years away,i thought that mf or even quality 35mm film is over 20million pixels? and the rest,nearer 30 million? I might not understand how these work

Luke

What digital will produce a good 22x 18 etc etc ???

One day for sure but going to cost a mint when its new.

Luke

Theres one in loot complete with battery grip for £850.00 !!!!

Going to wait until the next new one comes out and then buy a good 10d and battery grip.. used one today and decided....

IWatkins

dba,

Yes I've heard figures of approx. 22 million pixels to recreate a good 35mm frame. However, I've seen side by side tests by Kodak printed onto photo paper at A2 that you couldn't tell the difference until the number of pixels dropped down below 13 million. Sure, if you are taking shots to blow up to poster size than you will see the difference, however, on a 8 x 10 print you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between a 6 megapixel DSLR and a scanned 35mm film shot.

Cheers

Ian

ozzy

Any opinions on the new Canon 300D DSLR? At £700 for the body, it's very attractive for a new DSLR.

I have an aging Fuji compact digital and new new Canon 300V SLR. Having consider a £500 compact digital I'd be interested in going for this budget digital SLR as I could start investing in decent lenses and equipment that could be shared between cameras.

Stefan

[Edited by ozzy - 10/19/2003 5:28:27 PM]

TopBanana

My 300d is great! Same sensor as the 10d. Worth getting the 18-55mm EF-s lens with it too.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

More often than not, the amount of actual detail in an image is limited by technique rather than pixel count - in order for extra pixels to be worthwhile, you need a really sharp lens, accurate focus and a solid tripod or fast shutter speed. Without these, the extra pixels will show you exactly how fuzzy the image was.

With that in mind, I still have my ageing 3 megapixel D30. Most of my shooting is hand-held, so I really don't think I have much to gain most of the time by upgrading to a model with higher resolution. I also shoot a lot of cars and motorsports, so there's simply not much detail to capture anyway.

Occasionally, though, I do feel that extra pixels would be nice. This year's holiday (snaps!) was spent shooting landscapes, with good use made of a tripod and a lot of care and effort going into getting the best possible quality. I ended up leaving the D30 in the bag much of the time and shooting high definition slide film with my EOS 33 instead. It's for this reason, and the slow (but ultimately accurate) auto-focus, that I'll probably be upgrading to the rumoured 1D replacement.

As to the 300D (review), I've no doubt that it's a great little camera. The sensor and electronics are straight from the 10D, which means fantastic image quality. If you like your 300V then you'll get on fine with the 300D. If you're expecting the responses and build quality of a £700 camera, though, you'll be disappointed.

Andy.

IWatkins

</anorak mode on>

The sensor in the 300D is not the same sensor as in the 10D. The design is similar, the specs are similar, the fabrication method is similar and it gives the same output number of pixels, but it isn't the same.

</anorak mode off>

Saying that you would hard pushed to see any difference. If anything the 300D tends to slightly over expose compared to the 10D, but again you would be very unlikely to notice. And that is probably more down to the image processors rather than the sensor itself.

Cheers

Ian

dba

cheers Ian,interesting stuff.However,you mentioned a scanned print from a 35mm neg,I am more interested in comparisons with a 7x5 print from a 35mm neg,rather than a scan(I use a Contax G1 with the Zeiss 45mm).I'm assuming a scan would be poorer than a decent print from a decent lab? dunno,i dont have a neg scanner

I love my 3mp digital camera for family pics,and playing about with the shots and printing quick copies for the mother,and the quality is fine,but it can't replace the Contax for pure resolving power and contrast.I am genuiney interested though how the top end 1ok digital cameras compare

Its not so much the pixel count that bothers me,its the contrast and resolution that can't compare

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

dba: I think you'll find most labs print these days by scanning the negative and printing from the scan.

Contrast is - to the best of my knowledge - down to the quality of the lens, not the film or sensor. Most p&s digital cameras have lenses that are questionable at best, especially given that they have small sensors which will show up any limitations. With a DSLR, of course, you can fit as good a lens as you can afford.

Potentially interesting articles:
Canon D30 vs film

Canon D60 vs medium format

All about lens sharpness

Andy.