Varmint Hunters Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm in the market for a Canon Digital camera. I have my eye on the new Canon Rebel XTI 10.2 mp
Do any of you know anything about this camera? also would I be better suited with say the 30D although it is only 8.1 MP I'm sure the internals are better than the rebel.

This leads to my next Question....

How many megapixels does it take to equal a high end film SLR camera with good quality film?

Thanks in advanced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
You got your eye on the right Canon. The Rebel XTI is lighter, faster, will runs circles around 30D and all for less $. The Rebel XTI is the latest and has the most features. Which only means a newer version of the 30D can't be to far away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,876 Posts
Comparable Pictures

With regard to image performance, it depends on what you want to do. I have a Nikon D70 which is 6MP. To me, it will produce full frame images comparable to a good 35MM up to about a 16x20. More MP would be better, especially if you want to crop small portions of an image and blow them up. If you really want to get great pictures, use a tripod. You should be fine with the 8MP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,725 Posts
How many megapixels does it take to equal a high end film SLR camera with good quality film?
Hey James!

From a technical perspective, no digital camera available will come close to the equivalent BILLIONS of megapixels ("density") a high-end film is capable of. Nor are the digitals capable of meeting film's ability for long term exposures, due to the thermal noise present in ALL electronic devices - (turns black into gray and mitigates subtitle images to obscurity, in some cases.) But, it should also be mentioned that the resolution of today's digital cameras is seldom challenged by the human eye. What's equally important is the lenses and printer's capabilities, anytime resolution is important. It comes down chromatic dispersion and to dots per inch, and then the ability of the printer to accurately transfer ink to the paper at the same resolution - without the ink 'bleeding', beit a function of the materials, or software designed to mitigate the pixelization.

But, for all but an ever narrowing application, digital photograph is "it" for now. Ami has the REBEL - not the XTI - and it is a VERY sweet machine!!! But to go hand in hand with 10+ MP, I highly recommend you look into low dispersion (ED) lenses and the Speedlight flash system which communicates with the camera. Together they combine forces to produce some amazing photo images.

Having said all that...I'm NOT a Cannon fan - I hate it when the machine is trying to out think me. And, since I have a fortune invested in EDs for the Nikon system; that is the route I'll go. However, I have to admit, I enjoy fooling with Ami's Rebel a lot! As I said, for 99% of what most of us use cameras for, the class of digital camera (Rebel) that you are contemplating exceeds those requirements. But, for now you might want to keep your film body around in case you want to make some very sharp poster sized prints someday;)

P.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
Is the 8.0 XT good enough?

Since it still is pretty pricey to me, will it do what the normal person wants from a good digital? I want to be able to purchase a 300 zoom lens for baseball pictures and long range animal photos. Looks like it still is priced around $600 for the camera only.
I had the Canon A1 for over 25 years with a macro 35-140 zoom and a 100-300 zoom. I also had extension tubes which let me blow up locket photos to full size. That was handy for my wife's genealogy habit.
I want a digital that will do everything my film will do. I am not interested in poster shots. Unless Carmen Electra calls me . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,725 Posts
Since it still is pretty pricey to me, will it do what the normal person wants from a good digital? I want to be able to purchase a 300 zoom lens for baseball pictures and long range animal photos. Looks like it still is priced around $600 for the camera only.
I had the Canon A1 for over 25 years with a macro 35-140 zoom and a 100-300 zoom. I also had extension tubes which let me blow up locket photos to full size. That was handy for my wife's genealogy habit.
I want a digital that will do everything my film will do. I am not interested in poster shots. Unless Carmen Electra calls me . . .
Technically, film is still better by far than any digital format you and I could ever afford. But, for "normal" size prints and general usage, most would agree that digital technology, coupled with editing software, will "git r done"! All but the most descerning photogs will be dazzled by 6 Mp capability, to say nothing of higher resolution.

That said, a 10 Mp (read: higher = better) camera will allow you to enhance the focal length of any lens you're using. It gives you the advantage of being able to crop down and blow up a portion of the picture and end up with a better picture than lower resolution (Mp) cameras are capable of.

But, in fairness, here too is where film really shines to this day: One can crop and blow up even a 200 ISO film negative to some amazing sizes and still have a very sharp image by comparision. That said, there is no substitute for a long lens, beit film OR digital format when it comes to fine images.

At this point I hand the baton off to Hu who is a real expert - especially where Canon is concerned.

P.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Technically, film is still better by far than any digital format you and I could ever afford. But, for "normal" size prints and general usage, most would agree that digital technology, coupled with editing software, will "git r done"! All but the most descerning photogs will be dazzled by 6 Mp capability, to say nothing of higher resolution.

At some point the digitals MP has to exceed the quality of film I'm just curious to where that point is.
Also Features i like or would want is FPS and recovery of flash time to be able to take several shots within a 1-2 sec time frame to get that perfect picture.

I do have the Olympus 750 and all pictures i have posted has been taken by this camera and it's great for what it is and i think at time of purchase it was as much as the new rebel's are at now. I hear there will be another price drop so I'm holding out and wil lwait and decide then. Right now I'm just weighing options. I have a EOS Elan so I'm staying with the Canon due to the use of my lenses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
How about a Nikon, James?

James,

I bought a new Nikon D50 for $500 a couple weeks ago, and I'm blown away by what it will do. It's "only" 6.1mp, but as Tinman noted, you'll never know the difference unless you're printing very large images. Also, don't confuse megapixels with image quality, as there's much more to it than that.

The new Rebel is great (my brother-in-law has one), and most of the reviews I read agree that it's a little better than it's current competitors. However, there's no reason to spend $800+ when the Nikon D50 and D40 both sell for less than $600. The bottom line is that both of them are much more camera than most amateurs will EVER USE.

Good shopping and good shooting to you, whatever you decide.

Sid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Sid,

The reason I'm needing to go with the Canon is for lenses. I already have 2 lenses that will work on the Digital SLR's so I really don't wish to invest in more lenses.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't more mp create a more colorful and clearer picture? I know quality lenses are a key to great photos as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
The wife got a Canon Rebel XTi for Christmas and we are both pleased with the capability of the camera. Your use of lenses on hand is a great idea. There is a new Canon 75-300mm lense with immage stabalization that is on our next lens to purchase list. The wife enjoys her outdoor photography and this camera is a huge step up from the Sony MVP CD1000 digital that she was using. Instant recording of the immage is great. I'm still trying to figure out where to plug the coffie pot in but I'm sure it will make a great cup of coffee too. :D

We have two Cannon A-1's that are great film cameras and they are still used in our photography. We have found that the Rebel XTi can do as much as the A-1's and probably more but we are still in the learning process using the new Canon Rebel.

As for me, I'm looking for a good sale on the Canon S3 to stick in my day pack for hunting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Megapixels?

James,

The lenses are a good reason to stick with Canon, and the XTi is a great camera.

More megapixels CAN help create better pictures, but they're far from the most important factor. When I was shopping, one of the photography magazines had an article applauding Nikon for not "buying into" the hype about megapixels, and instead providing more features that photographers can use. It sounds like you're locked into the XTi, but if you're interested I'll see if my brother still has the magazine.

Sid

Sid,

The reason I'm needing to go with the Canon is for lenses. I already have 2 lenses that will work on the Digital SLR's so I really don't wish to invest in more lenses.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't more mp create a more colorful and clearer picture? I know quality lenses are a key to great photos as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,725 Posts
Here's a place to get some of the answers...

At some point the digitals MP has to exceed the quality of film I'm just curious to where that point is.
Also Features i like or would want is FPS and recovery of flash time to be able to take several shots within a 1-2 sec time frame to get that perfect picture.
(Deep breath)...

First of all, more pixels = better resolution, as you know. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - and the camera lens, not the film or pixel density. And, there is soooo much more to digital photo quality than pixel count; e.g., dynamic range, color redition/saturation, etc. And, as for pixel count, choosing a camera or comparing them by pixel count is like choosing a sports car by the manufacture's horsepower spec alone! It would take to long to go into it all here, so here's a couple of my favorite links on the subject. (There is a ton of info here to flesh out the terms, as well as the smoke and mirrors. )

http://www.123di.com/Affiliate.asp?affid=052

http://www.dpreview.com/

Regardless of all the hype and BS claims, it is generally true that images taken with a 6 Mp SLR, such as a Rebel, are as good as (ISO200) film (to the eye) in an 8x10 image. But, those quality lenses of yours in a Rebel DSLR would put most of those digital minicams claiming twice the Mp to utter shame. If the lens is crap, high resolution crap is still crap!

Where film walks away from contemporary digitals is density and lack of "noise". Film's density really stands out when you crop and blow up a portion of an image, especially with a slower film e.g., ISO 50 (or less). If you find yourself in a situation where you might want to take a photo of a distant object, but don't have a lens as long as you would like, take your film body with a lower ISO film and shoot it anyway (off a tripod, hopefully). Then blow it up. (For giggles, compare it to a digital SLR using the same lens. That will give you a first hand look and comparision. YOu be the judge as to where one equals the other!:)

As for "noise", long "bulb" exposures in most digital cameras will result in gray instead of black. And, there is some loss of detail in shadowy images, like "grain" in fast (ISO 1600) films or when one "pushes" an ISO up a couple stops. Long time exposures and high (special) density applications go beyond what the "snap shot" public is interested in, and there is where the money trail leaves off. Digital advances into the deeper applications professional photogs might employ are going to have to overcome the R&D hurdle first. (Course, the military has no R&D restrictions, and someday we may benefit from some of that top secret technology, if any:rolleyes: )

I'm in the Nikon boat - like you I have too much invested in "ED" lenses to change horses now. So, I think I'll keep my film body and when I can afford their 12 Mp cameras, I'll bite. Meanwhile, I'll play with Ami's Rebel (6Mp), stay at 8x10s for now, and seldom miss anything in the mean time. And, we haven't even touched on the digital processing suites e.g., Photoshop and Adobe Foxfire!

Hope this helps.

P.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
Another Source of Info.

Go to your Public Library and look at the Nov. 2006 Issue of Consumer Reports . For your fast action , long range shots consider the Super- Optical Zoom ( 10X to 15X ) Cameras with Image Stabilization . High Pixel Count USUALLY ( but not always ) means better pictures , because lens Quality is very important . I have seen alot ( and I mean a LOT ) of surprisingly good 8x10 Baby pictures taken with a very old Fuji 2 MP Camera . I don't know how the guy does it ! Consumers says a good 5 MP Camera should be fine for most people , but if you Crop or Poster size then " at least " a good 7 MP Camera is needed . Other factors are Reliability , Shutter Lag , Next Shot Delay , etc. .....all this stuff is Tabulated in CU . My problem is that every time I get ready to buy , something better and cheaper comes out ! :D
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top