Finally did it!

Musty wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
I think it is just terminology. You are saying:

high-end == professional

I am saying

1) high-end == "top of the line" consumer (20D is top of the line consumer -
in my opinion).
2) professional == a level above that and for only very few consumers


Musty is correct; Alan, tho, will not budge. So says a fiver.

--
John McWilliams

"Jimbo" wrote in message
...
I remember a few years ago a 3-4Mp Pro was High end, now there not worth
much, the D70 or 20D makes a much better picture than the older High end
Digitals.
The camera does not make the Pro, its how the camera is used.

Stricky speaking in marketing terms, of course, Canon calls the "1" series
line the "pro" cameras, similar I think as Nikon have done with their
single-digit naming scheme for their pro models.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:23:23 -0700, "Sheldon"
wrote:

I finally got my order in for a D70 with the kit (from a reputable dealer at
a good price). I'm having all my older lenses converted to use with the new
camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
photography -- my old Sony digital is giving me all kinds of problems.

I just wanted to thank everyone for answering all my stupid questions, and
thanks to everyone who even e-mailed me images and set me straight on where
to buy.

I guess this is just the beginning of my visits to this newsgroup. I used
to take photos for a living, and I'm very excited about getting back into
photography again.

Thanks.

Sheldon



You're welcome - you're gonna LOVE yer D70!

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Sheldon wrote:

camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
photography

That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.

I understand what you are saying, but from where I'm coming from this IS
high-end. I just want/need a camera that will take superior photos and one
that gives me far more control than I have now. I desperately need more
control over focus and depth of field, and this should give it to me, along
with the ability to take photos that can be published. I can always fall
back on my film Nikons if necessary, but having a chance to use my favorite
lenses on a digital camera should be a lot of fun.

As for some of the other comments: Today's newer cameras may give the
photographer more time to spend composing, but an awful lot of great photos
were taken with manual cameras and light meters. The camera can help, but
it's the photographer that makes a great photo. Yeah, if you can shoot 20
fps at a sporting event your good photos are just dumb luck, IMO.

I've had Hasselblads (sp?) and 4x5s, but my best work was always done with a
35mm SLR. And, if you can believe it, I shot some photos for a magazine
with a 1.2megapixel P&S Sony. While I certainly could have used more
megapixels, the photos themselves were great. Fortunately, they didn't have
to be blown up very much for the article, and the 8x10s I made looked
"pretty" good if you didn't put your nose up to them.

I do a lot of PowerPoint presentations (thank god this thing is deductible),
and it's far more camera than I need for that, except my photos can be more
creative now.

Thanks again.

Sheldon


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

rubish snipped

Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a
MF camera (film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here
in this ng are the 6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus
and finally K-M are targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower
end' professionals who do not need large enlargements. Surely the
number of pixels will increase over time, but so it will for 'high end'
cameras. There will always be a gap, as there is in most domains.


Rubbish snipped

The "product posters" at this link http://www.tecphoto.com.au/example.htm
were shot with a Nikon D100 by a full time professional photographer who
didn't even use full camera resolution or RAW capture for the work. He
knows we could enlarge his images just as long as they were focused
correctly. Image sensor density has very little to do with image
quality. Just like it always has been, the camera only hold the lens.

The client of the photographer who took these images is ecstatic with
the sharp, clear, full resolution 24" x 36" posters we created, just
like all our clients are amazed and satisfied with our posters and
catalogues. Hi-end digital enlargements from cameras "targeted at
amateurs". Gives the comparison between film and digital a wee bit of a
different slant in the real world than the world of Alan Browne's mind.

You really do need to get out more Alan. The world of Professional
Photography is a lot different to the one in your mind. My digital print
centre does work for about 40, full time professional photographers and
two newspapers who use our facilities for printing their sales photos
larger than A4 size.

I'm the only one still using medium format gear and even then, I use
digital for 60% of my work too. The only grip I have with my "High end"
D20 and 1D is they can't handle the extremes of climate that my old
Mamiya's can. Oddly enough, my ratty old SD9 Sigma keeps going when the
Canon's die. Pity about the pics!

This post is not intended as a commercial post to a group whose charter
forbids it. I have provided the link above which has no advertising in
it except to promote the process we developed to enlarge digital images
and this process is not for sale. I simply demonstrates that you don't
need a $5,000 digital camera to be a professional photographer.

I felt so strongly that Alan Browne was providing wrong information to
people which has the potential to cause those people to spend hundreds
of dollars more than they need to when buying a camera, that I deemed
this link important in contradicting his statement, otherwise I would
have continued to withhold my identity and post under "invented" names
in the spirit of the charter of this group.

Doug

In article , says...
I felt so strongly that Alan Browne was providing wrong information to
people which has the potential to cause those people to spend hundreds
of dollars more than they need to when buying a camera, that I deemed
this link important in contradicting his statement, otherwise I would
have continued to withhold my identity and post under "invented" names
in the spirit of the charter of this group.

Doug



I have had one of my photos used as a 3' x 4' poster, and it was a crop from
a shot taken by an 8mp Sony F828. (probably about 6mp, I never checked)

The shot was made in poor light at the extreme end of the range of the flash
I was using.

20 minutes of post work later, it was (to me) only a "passable" 8x10, but the
Trainer of the horse involved was thrilled with it, and I gave her the photo
on a CDrom. (its is the only photo I have ever sold the copyright for, but I
was well compensated for that picture)

She had it made into a poster to hang at the "Ohio Quarter Horse Congress" to
help advertise the horse (the worlds largest/longest horse show, 35 thousand
horses shown over 21 days 24/7) last October. Most of the horses that go
there are intended to be sold while there.

The horse was sold for $122,000 during that show.(good price for a 3 year old
basicly un-proven mare) The trainer credits the poster for getting the buyers
attention.

Needless to say, I have been well advertised by "word of mouth" (and the fact
that she keeps showing that poster all over New England) and I have been
contacted by enough people to keep me busy this summer.

The poster was very sharp and very well done, with no noticeable changes from
my own post work in PhotoShop (my work was mostly curves, and levels, with a
(very) little unsharp masking) other than whatever algorythm they used to re-
size it.

I dont know who did the poster, but it proved to me that 8mp is enough, and
that the "Point and shoot" camera I was using can be "good enough" for
commercial work.

I intend to buy a good DSLR, but Im holding on waiting for one of leaders to
put "self cleaning" into a better camera than those available with it right
now (a couple of Olympus models). Horse Shows are a TERRIBLY dusty
environment, and I dont like to stop and clean the sensor every hour or so.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:59:19 GMT, you, "Musty" , wrote
in :

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote:

The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras,
and
snip

Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.

Cheers,
Alan.

Umm, lets do a context check he

NG name : r.p.digital.slr-systems (dont see anything about 35mm or MF
in that name).
More important (the OP said): "I'm looking forward to my adventures in
high-end digital
photography". Thats right "digital".


An H1 with a 22 Mpix back is both SLR and digital. Also it's arround
where "high-end digital photography" should be at the moment. Higher-ends
in consumer stuff is nowhere high enough for digital photography.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:45:27 GMT, you, "T.N.T." ,
wrote in .disorg:


Higher-ends in consumer stuff is nowhere high enough for digital
photography.


Should have said "nowhere high enough for high-end digital photography".



--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

Jimbo wrote:

I remember a few years ago a 3-4Mp Pro was High end, now there not worth
much, the D70 or 20D makes a much better picture than the older High end
Digitals.
The camera does not make the Pro, its how the camera is used.


The pj cameras were in that range, but the MF folks were already running up very
high pixel counts. Further cameras like the Kodak 14 were aiimed at pros.

It's not only what the pro can do, it is who he doing it for. A 4 Mpix camera
cannot be used for fashion spreads unless the images are quite small. What
works for a news photo does not work for a landscape poster... etc.

While it also true that an idiot cannot do much with the best camera in
existance, it is equally true that commercial photographers must deliver to
spec. A low pixel count camera won't meet commercial photography specs.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Musty wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Musty wrote:


The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras, and

snip

Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.

Cheers,
Alan.


Umm, lets do a context check he

NG name : r.p.digital.slr-systems (dont see anything about 35mm or MF in
that name).
More important (the OP said): "I'm looking forward to my adventures in
high-end digital
photography". Thats right "digital".

Exactly, so an H1 would be considerably more "high end" than most of the cameras
we talk about. It's a system. It's an SLR. It's digital back is 22 Mpix
(currently).


So you may not agree that this thread is about digital SLR (or perhaps you
are just dis-agreeing with me in general), but the context does not lie.
Only _you_ have brought in talk of professional film medium format
photgraphy, film "kings", et al.

Just to exemplify comparable "high end" cameras.


Anyway, I will just go on merrily in my naive bliss and snap away with my
consumer grade POS 20D. Its funny, but a very good friend of mine who _is_ a
pro photographer has very good things to say about the 20D and "instructed"
me to not even consider going the 1D/1Ds route (tried to keep me sane).

Do as you like. But don't associate consumer or prosumer cameras with "high
end". Even if this group was strictly the 35mm ish sized SLR's, the Canon 20D
would not be high-end, nor the D70. The 1Ds Mk II would definitely be "high
end". Beyond that, accepting MF, then the Mamiya 645AFD and Hassy H1 and other
systems with digital backs are another cut above.

It's not just pixel counts. The 1Ds Mk II is full frame and fairly low pixel
density. So not only more pixels, but low noise and full use of the lens.

The 20D is indeed highly capable and unless you typically make prints of 24" x
16" then, yes, a 1Ds MkII would be terrible overkill and very expensive. Canon
will replace the 20D soon enough, probably at 10 or 12 Mpix... so it is cheaper
to get there incremntally and you can probably fetch $500 for the 20D at the
time. I believe your pro friend was just helping you from buying more camera
than you need for your use. You can always rent a 1Ds Mk II if you need one for
a special occasion like a wedding.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.