Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Need advice on hi end camera

May 18, 2005 10:56PM PDT

Hi all, I need your advice. I am looking to start a new career. In a perfect world I would like to make my living doing weddings. I have a long way to go before I can get there. I am planning on getting into some photo classes at the Tec School this summer, and putting some ads in the paper to do some free shots at weddings to get some experience. And if they like what they see they can pay me something or let me use them as references for future jobs. I will need the camera for school. So what I need to know is what camera would be the right choice. I don?t mind spending the money now for the best. I don?t want to have to buy a camera for school and then a 2nd for work down the road. I would like to get the right one now. So can you please tell me what digital would be right for someone who would like to make a living at it? And any tips you might have for me with schooling or things I should consider would be great. Thanks for your time, Jared.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Well discussed and written about.
May 18, 2005 11:18PM PDT

Just one book about it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817433252/103-9316299-4952625?v=glance

There are dozens out there but a brutal lesson you don't
have to learn firsthand (well, some must) is that one
camera will never cut it. Your new career will end when
your one camera decides to stop working at the job.

Everyone I know that does this carries no less than 3
cameras. And while many have digital, it's just one of
the mix and film still rules since the look and feel is
still what the customer is expecting.

Hope this helps,
Bob

- Collapse -
Thanks
May 18, 2005 11:40PM PDT

Thanks for the link to the book. Yes I know that one camera will not do it. But I would like to start with a good one. I also would be curious how many pro's are 100% digital. Anyone out there know?

- Collapse -
None.
May 18, 2005 11:54PM PDT

Here's why. Even at 16 megapixels, that's not enough to crop a section, then blow up to 8x10 and hold up to intense scrutiny.

You still get to use film.

Bob

- Collapse -
I'm not sure I could say many pros are 100% digital, but
May 19, 2005 2:59PM PDT

I suspect the number is rapidly climbing into the 70-80 percent range if not higher. Those I know of include Vincent Versace, Jay Maisel, and Graham Nash. There are many others.

BTW, 16 megapixels is about the amount of data that 35mm film holds. I have seen where pros are using digital cameras that produce 100megapixel images.

- Collapse -
Highly debatable.
May 19, 2005 9:33PM PDT

The sub 100 iso film grain still blows away that 16MP camera.

I read a recent article in which you should think of the digital camera as "film" and not a camera. Ponder this long enough and a light will come on.

Bob

- Collapse -
I don't see much difference between an iso 40 film and
May 20, 2005 11:40AM PDT

a Canon 1DS. Do you? (Follow the image links)

Output from the 6mp 10D in most photographic situations is as good or better than my 4000 dpi film scans from 35mm Provia F ISO 100 film. Images from the10D resolve as much or more detail than 35mm Provia F ISO 100 film scans when the same lens, f stop and focal length setting is used (see Oceanside Harbor #2 image comparisons). The 10D's 22.7 mm (about 7/8 inch) length imaging sensor, which has 3072 pixels, produces an image equivalent to a 3436 dpi 35mm film scan. Since there is no film gain and digital noise is almost non-existent in this camera?s output at ISO 100, images can be resized up to 5500X3600 pixels and beyond and the resulting prints are beautiful. I printed the Santa Ysable Farm 35mm film scan and the same 10D image resized up to 5500X3600 pixels to 12X18 on my Epson 2200 printer. Even with very close inspection both prints looked virtually identical. In my opinion the lack of visible film grain gave the visual quality edge to the 10D print.

The Canon 1Ds 11mp DSLR outperforms 4000 dpi 35mm film scans by a significant margin and may be competitive with medium format scans of 6X6 and 6X4.5cm films

The Canon 1Ds Mark II 16.7mp DSLR makes images that are very competitive with 6X9cm medium format scans. 1Ds Mark II images may even compete with 4X5 scans when the 4X5 scans are done on a scanner like the Epson 2450/4870 series scanners. For a little hard copy comparison I cropped off the top and bottom of the original 1200 dpi 4X5 scan (5584X4407 pixels) of the 2004 Oceanside Harbor photo (to give it 6X9 proportions). I then resized this image up to 7200X4800. I also resized the 1Ds Mark II Oceanside Harbor image (originally 4992X3328 pixels) to the same dimensions (7200X4800) pixels or16X24" at 300 ppi output resolution). I cropped each of these images in half and pasted each of the remaining halves into a new canvas side by side. Lastly I cropped the center of this new 7200X4800 pixel combination image down to 3600X5400 pixels. This new combo image is the equivalent of the central part of the original content at 16X24" and 300ppi output. I printed the 3600X5400 pixel image to 12X18" (300ppi) and was surprised that I found the 1Ds Mark II side of the combo image to look sharper and cleaner. I thought maybe I was just seeing what I wanted to see so I showed the 12X18" combo print to my wife. She also picked the 1Ds Mark II image as being 'slightly sharper and a little more detailed'.

I believe that if I had drum scanned the 4X5 chrome and printed this comparison at the equivalent of 30X40", the 1Ds Mark II image would probably not fare quite so well. Nonetheless, I was surprised at how well the 1Ds Mark II side of the combo print compared to the 4X5 side at the equivalent of 16X24" at 300 ppi. The bottom line is that 4X5 film, when properly scanned, (drum scanned) is capable of producing more detailed images than any of the DSLR cameras. I suspect that the difference in detail would be noticeable in prints of 20X30" and larger.


In the images I looked at, the Canon 1DS was equaling the iso 40 film used for comparison.

You can pick up any number of photo magazines that all document what is going on. Film is not dead, but it is fading fast. How does film compete with a high resolution passed in real time to a computer with a high resolution monitor so that a photographer can see the image, and decide what still needs to be done? Look at the current issue of Digital Photo Pro where you will see the work of Micheal Grecco described. The article makes it clear that he still uses film, but works primarily in digital, and we're talking heavy duty pro here where removable 300gig hard drives are stored in lead lined bags to preserve the images being processed. Even photo mags that aren't primarily digital tell the same story.

There is also the issue of getting the film properly processed which can add to the quality problems in film.

- Collapse -
What are you selling?
May 20, 2005 12:30PM PDT
- Collapse -
Give me a break! Many of my best shots are made in low light
May 20, 2005 2:09PM PDT

In fact, they're made in the dark. I don't think a film camera could take these shots. You may be a digital camera fan, but I'll bet you're not using a high end camera.

Also, combine that high end camera with software like photoshop, at the low end, and raw file formats, and the capabilities leapfrog beyond anything film can do. Raw allows me to 'expose and develop' each part of a negative differently. Thus, the exposure on one person can be reduced while the exposure for the person next to him/her is increased. Where would you use that? I used it indoors on a stage which was very unevenly lighted with nasty shadows. Film has to be sent to a processor where the photographer has little or no control over what is done.

Again. I'm hearing the pros say that film is not dead...yet. However, most of their shooting is digital.

- Collapse -
About film processing.
May 21, 2005 12:28AM PDT

" Film has to be sent to a processor where the photographer has little or no control over what is done. "

Sorry, but the local shop is not in a mall, but caters to photographers. You can chat with the person that will do the processing and even help with it.

You must be thinking of commercial film processing for the masses.

Bob

- Collapse -
I recently uploaded a photo to such a local shop as part of
May 21, 2005 1:15AM PDT

a school project exploring the subject of color control. I provided explicit instructions on what I wanted them to do. The resultant print was ruined because it depended on being very low light. Their equipment's built in algorythms (a VERY expensive Fuji machine) rebalanced the photo automatically, and brought up the light levels. Yes, this problem could be overcome, but illustrates the vaguaries of the color management process.

Even if you can talk directly to the technician, you're still at the mercy of his skills, his equipment, and his understanding of what you want to do in the photo. None of this is a factor in a digital workflow. That's why pros have their own equipment and staff.

There's also the problem with film that you've never seen the image. You don't know how to optimize the development process. With raw files, you directly control and adjust image development. If it's prints, you're using guesswork and intuition. That's a far more expensive process than adjusting tone curves or building masks in photoshop where you precisely, and interactively control the process.

Did you ever print an image from film? It's very much a trial and error process that takes a lot of experience and skill. How likely are you to find that at the local mom & pop photo shop that caters to photographers? Answer? Not likely. You have a better chance if you are dealing with a large shop that specializes in high end image processing. What are the odds that these local shops will survive? Not very good.

- Collapse -
Some pros colleage said :
May 19, 2005 12:03AM PDT

You'll definitely need a variety of camera, range from digital to film camera. It depends largely on what you really want to shoot and what circumstance ! Comparing to the digital camera, film output is equivalent to roughly that of digital 22-mega-pixel camera. Now a day, there're very few digital cameras shooting at that range regardless the extreme costs ! For wedding couples, many are likely to demand some enlarged portrait or studio photo alike. That's why the full-size film camera has still not many competition from the digital camera. Most professionals I know still hang to the film camera, instead of digital, regard the DOF and picture details. I suggest that you get started with the photography courses, join some photographing clubs, and read a lot. Technology does grow fast, the digital camera techonology still evolves, not yet steady. I'd say that you spend for what you need for now. Once, the career turns out successfully, you may consider another leap. Just my personal perception, you many disagree. Good luck.

- Collapse -
Let's put it this way. I go to a school which claims to have
May 19, 2005 2:52PM PDT

a very good photo program. They are tearing out their color film facilities. I suspect most pros are increasingly shooting digital. It's MUCH faster, and MUCH cheaper in every aspect of the process.