I recently compared a print (12x15) from a friends 20D and my 35mm slide scanned with a good desktop film scanner. To my eyes there was no difference at all. I do not see any reason to stay with 35mm film now and plan to purchase a digital body soon (yes, ok I'm late I know). This will be strictly for travel/portrait and candid shots. For landscapes I still plan to stay with 645/45 untill I can afford a body like 5D. Of course I do not want to buy a Pro body as budget does not allow it. (I recently purchased a better scanner, 2100 and added a lense to my 645 outfit.)
What I plan is a 50mm prime (likes canons plastic wonder or canons 50mm macro which I have used before) and a 20 or 17mm. I would love to have a 17-40L like lense but again budget limitation is there. I'm thinking hard if EOS350 should be my choice or should I buy a EOS300 or Nikon equivalent and upgrade later. I will not print anything larger than 12x15 from this.
1. Now 6mp should not be a problem upto 11x14 /12x15, or?
2. Changing lenses will attract dust but how bad is this compared to say keeping the camera with a zoom all the time. I do not want to buy any cheap zoom lense for sure. I plan to buy only two lenses as of now. And will mostly settle for 20/50 combo or may be 17/50.
I plan to purchase everything used except the camera.
1) For the most part, yes, but it's really a subjective call. You will need to interpolate up to get to this size. Remember that smaller prints will be viewed at a closer distance so the effects of interpolation may actually be more distracting than in large pritns (again - all subjective).
2) Even keeping a lens on all the time you will still get dust. Don't ask me how. Even the "weather sealed" 1Ds accumulated dust on the sensor with a lens attached. It is frustrating but all things considered much easier to deal with in Photoshop than scanning artifacts.
Hello Guy,
Thanks for your reply.
I will mostly be doing album prints or an occasional A4. There are two reasons why am considering this -
Film cost is increasing and so is the development. So when we go outdoors/travel I do not want to carry a small camera for this reason and a larger camera is not used most of the time. I have realised that I rarely get a good outing in terms of quality pictures during my first visit. Why waste? If I know the place well or have studied it carefully for the possibilities then I can carry my MF outfit and make images. For travel-candids all I need is a digiSLR.
How do you deal with dust? Does the problem really get worse by changing lenses often, I mean more prone?
Posted by Mel Ladewig on April 3, 2006 at 10:35 AM
I'd probably opt for the 350. I don't think the cost difference between the 300 and 350 is that great and the 350 has a couple of features that I would want. Faster startup, longer battery life, better high ISO performance. Waiting for a Digicam to wake up drove me insane. With my XT, I like that it is ready almost instantly.
The 17-40 may still work for you, but it is not a very fast lens. It is approximately the same price as a 50/1.4 and 20/2.8 combined, but if you are looking at the 50/1.8 it'll be a bit more expensive.
Also at 17mm, there is a Tokina 17f3.5 that is reasonably priced.
I just resigned myself to cleaning the sensor (using a sensor brush) after every trip. It takes a few minutes and gets rid of the larger particles. The smaller stuff I handle in Photoshop.
Guy
Posted by Mel Ladewig on April 3, 2006 at 10:45 AM
BTW, the cameras have a sensor cleaning method. The camera has a cleaning function, which opens the shutter to allow access to the sensor. There are a few cleaning methods mentioned here. I've not had dust problems with my XT yet. I've only snaps about 2000 pics though.
Hi Prashant,
I have the 350D XT and I really like it (My In-depth review here). It has an excellent image quality (very good resolution and low noise), and it is quite cheap (here in Italy it costs 630 euro; in USA it is 600$).
If you use a good lens and ISO 100, you have enough detail for prints up to 45 x 70 cm (18x27 inches). You can see some examples here, and in this page you can download some JPEG and RAW full size samples.
Thanks everybody!
Juza I have already seen your review. Just downloaded few jpgs. I must say they are very 'clean'. So if I print at 240 they should be OK upto 12x15, I guess.
Coming from Velvia, I really did not believe that dropping to 240 dpi on prints from digital capture was going to be a good idea. It is not a problem at all.
For film, unless I am really desperate, I won't print under 360 dpi (and never above). For digital capture, I am completely comfortable printing at 240 dpi, although if I have the pixels available without interpolating, I'll go higher. The latter depends on print size.
Dan,
I normally print all my 645/67/LFRFB files at 300DPI. My older scanner could only upto 1100 on MF slides. But now with newer 4000 DPI scanner I can make wonderful large prints and the scan is very near to that od drum quality. Although everything is relative.
Juza,
I just printed your Phalaenopsis Orchid image on A4 with Epson 2100. Hmm, that is for sure attractive. I might end up with a 350D soon atleast for general purpose images. For landscapes I'll be very sad not to see those slides from LF though.
Actually the output resolution (dpi) depends on the device you're printing to - you don't get to decide. So for example - if printing to an Epson UC inkjet printer, your image will be printed at 360dpi, no matter what you set it to. If you set your image to 240dpi, the printer driver will interpolate it for you.
This is really getting exciting for me. I was somehow very fond of MF slides. If this is what is possible with a 8MP camera then 12+ MPs must be great!
Hi Prashant,
have you received the landscape images? I ask that beacuse they are pretty large and I know that some mailboxes does not like large attachments.
Juza,
I got the files! Thanks. I could not print them, ran out of Cyan on 2100. Bummer!
Have you printed to to A3? How was it? I plan to get 350D and a 17-40L soon.
I made a large print of the Perino Waterfall photo, and it looked great (at least IMHO). That photo was taken with the 17-85 IS - good, but not exceptional...with the 17-40 L you will get even better results
Discussion
17 repliesWhat I plan is a 50mm prime (likes canons plastic wonder or canons 50mm macro which I have used before) and a 20 or 17mm. I would love to have a 17-40L like lense but again budget limitation is there. I'm thinking hard if EOS350 should be my choice or should I buy a EOS300 or Nikon equivalent and upgrade later. I will not print anything larger than 12x15 from this.
1. Now 6mp should not be a problem upto 11x14 /12x15, or?
2. Changing lenses will attract dust but how bad is this compared to say keeping the camera with a zoom all the time. I do not want to buy any cheap zoom lense for sure. I plan to buy only two lenses as of now. And will mostly settle for 20/50 combo or may be 17/50.
I plan to purchase everything used except the camera.
Thanks for your time,
2) Even keeping a lens on all the time you will still get dust. Don't ask me how. Even the "weather sealed" 1Ds accumulated dust on the sensor with a lens attached. It is frustrating but all things considered much easier to deal with in Photoshop than scanning artifacts.
Guy
Thanks for your reply.
I will mostly be doing album prints or an occasional A4. There are two reasons why am considering this -
Film cost is increasing and so is the development. So when we go outdoors/travel I do not want to carry a small camera for this reason and a larger camera is not used most of the time. I have realised that I rarely get a good outing in terms of quality pictures during my first visit. Why waste? If I know the place well or have studied it carefully for the possibilities then I can carry my MF outfit and make images. For travel-candids all I need is a digiSLR.
How do you deal with dust? Does the problem really get worse by changing lenses often, I mean more prone?
The 17-40 may still work for you, but it is not a very fast lens. It is approximately the same price as a 50/1.4 and 20/2.8 combined, but if you are looking at the 50/1.8 it'll be a bit more expensive.
Also at 17mm, there is a Tokina 17f3.5 that is reasonably priced.
Guy
I have the 350D XT and I really like it (My In-depth review here). It has an excellent image quality (very good resolution and low noise), and it is quite cheap (here in Italy it costs 630 euro; in USA it is 600$).
If you use a good lens and ISO 100, you have enough detail for prints up to 45 x 70 cm (18x27 inches). You can see some examples here, and in this page you can download some JPEG and RAW full size samples.
Juza I have already seen your review. Just downloaded few jpgs. I must say they are very 'clean'. So if I print at 240 they should be OK upto 12x15, I guess.
For film, unless I am really desperate, I won't print under 360 dpi (and never above). For digital capture, I am completely comfortable printing at 240 dpi, although if I have the pixels available without interpolating, I'll go higher. The latter depends on print size.
I normally print all my 645/67/LFRFB files at 300DPI. My older scanner could only upto 1100 on MF slides. But now with newer 4000 DPI scanner I can make wonderful large prints and the scan is very near to that od drum quality. Although everything is relative.
I just printed your Phalaenopsis Orchid image on A4 with Epson 2100. Hmm, that is for sure attractive. I might end up with a 350D soon atleast for general purpose images. For landscapes I'll be very sad not to see those slides from LF though.
Guy
have you received the landscape images? I ask that beacuse they are pretty large and I know that some mailboxes does not like large attachments.
Let me know your impressions on the prints
I got the files! Thanks. I could not print them, ran out of Cyan on 2100. Bummer!
Have you printed to to A3? How was it? I plan to get 350D and a 17-40L soon.