DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 10D or Rebel?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 108, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/26/2004 02:37:09 PM · #51
Originally posted by EddyG:
The smaller the sensor, the noisier the image is gonna be at higher ISO's[...]

You probably mean it's related to pixel pitch. For the sake of comparison, here are the pixel pitches of a few cameras:
D60/10D/300D 7.4 µm
1D MkII 8.2 µm
1Ds 8.8 µm
D70 7.9 µm
E-1 6.8 µm

As you can see the the E-1 is in the same class as the 10D. For a pro camera (and considering it's body build quality is closest to the MkII) I would expect better than this, but it's not outrageously small.

Question: Has dpreview.com changed their noise calculations? The 10D review's luminance graph doesn't match the 10D's graph in the E-1 review.

Originally posted by EddyG:
The ISO-noise comparisons of the 2X-crop factor E-1 compared to something like the Digital Rebel (which has a slightly larger sensor and a 1.6X crop factor) are night-and-day difference.

At ISO 1600 and above it is a night and day difference, while below 800 that's hardly the case (they are quite comparable). The turning point is 800, but with NF on (and perhaps other DSLRs do this automatically - who can say for sure?) it's still about the same as the 10D.

I don't think it's fair to say it has a 2X crop factor. You can compare the crop factor for a 10D sensor to a 35mm film frame because they're similar, but the E-1's aspect ratio makes it harder. The E-1 has a 2X crop factor in one direction (horizontal fov) and 1.77X in the other (vertical). That means for many print sizes/ratios (5x7, 8x10, 11x14), the usable crop factor is actually closer to the vertical, 1.77X. I know the Oly marketing material keeps using 2X all over the place, but the simplification is understandable.

In terms of usable f-stops (Airy disks in prints) the E-1 is in the same class as the 10D/300D/MkII/D70. For maximal print quality, it's in the same class as the 10D/300D, but slightly out-classed by the MkII and D70. (This has nothing to do with maximum high quality print size of course - The MkII is in a class of its own there.)

Unless Olympus has a revolutionary breakthrough some time soon (as in make their own or wait for Kodak to get up to speed), they'll probably always been playing "sensor catchup". That's not altogether bad, but it does mean they'll be relegated to the smallest share of this market segment. They have a rightful place in the pro market though; the E-1 is an outstanding piece of equipment.

Message edited by author 2004-06-26 14:50:59.
 06/26/2004 02:48:20 PM · #52
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
In fact, a sports shooter with an Oly will probably be laughed out the stadium.

And while they're busy laughing, the E-1 shooter is catching the shot of the day. Excellent!

Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Find me a pro sports shooter that doesn't primarily use 200/300/400 fixed length telephotos.


Ahh, you must mean this fantastic piece of equipment (definitely not cheap). Olympus has been making great lenses for many years. Their selection is small, but adequate, even for a pro.
06/26/2004 02:52:35 PM · #53
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Ahh, you must mean this fantastic piece of equipment (definitely not cheap). Olympus has been making great lenses for many years. Their selection is small, but adequate, even for a pro.

That's one of the three I mentioned. Also, for indoor sports I want a wide open fixed focal like a 50/1.8 (pref. 1.4), 85/1.8, etc..
 06/26/2004 03:38:46 PM · #54
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
That's one of the three I mentioned. Also, for indoor sports I want a wide open fixed focal like a 50/1.8 (pref. 1.4), 85/1.8, etc..

50mm/2.0

Again, not the same selection, but adequate. I haven't seen any low light shots with that lens, so who knows how well it performs.

Message edited by author 2004-06-26 15:40:42.
 06/26/2004 03:40:16 PM · #55
I forgot to mention the E-1 records 14-bit data, compared with the Canon's which record 12-bit. I'm not sure about the Nikon.
 06/26/2004 04:09:12 PM · #56
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
50mm/2.0

I've always wondered what the difference is between a macro lens and a normal lens in terms of regular use.. I understand it can focus closer.. Does this affect the use of the lens as a normal non-macro 50?
 06/26/2004 04:28:11 PM · #57
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I should quickly note that for pro photos you have to make sure your original photo is going to look just as good billboard size as it does 4x6 and olympus or sony or whatever just can't do that...neither can the 300D, don't get me wrong.

The 300D sensor is the same as the 10D, Lori. As such, it's mostly about the glass you put in front of the camera. With a good quality fixed focus or one of the higher quality L-range lenses the system is perfectly capable of printing to billboard size. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone on DPC has mentioned printing a billboard from a D30 or D60.


You also need to realise that the typical billboard is printed at around 9dpi. With a 3000 pixel wide image, that's roughly 27 feet without any interpolation...
 07/09/2004 08:44:05 AM · #58
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:


That 300D firmware hack was another contributing factor, since I know I can use it if I want to add a few of the 10D features that I like, but which are missing from the 300D.


Can someone please clarify "the 300D firmware hack"! I've been trying to find out where and how to upgrade my DR's firmware and now I find that there are hacks too!?
07/09/2004 08:52:33 AM · #59
Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned but I'm not sure how the auto focus systems compare between the 10D, D70 and the 300D. I know the 300D you are a lot more limited in how you can control the AF, but I don't know if it is the same system 'under the hood'

As I shoot more sports, I'm becoming increasingly dis-satisfied with the D60 AF. I understand that the 10D is slightly better but again, you'll probably need to consider manual focus/ zone focus techniques for a lot of real action shots. This means having a lens with a decent focus ring for a start and as bright and clear a viewfinder as you can get. Unfortunately none of the current DSLRs have any real features to support manual focus which is frustrating and the AI focus on the lower end cameras (10D, 300D etc) leaves quite a lot to be desired.
 07/09/2004 08:54:01 AM · #60
Originally posted by greenfuse:
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:


That 300D firmware hack was another contributing factor, since I know I can use it if I want to add a few of the 10D features that I like, but which are missing from the 300D.


Can someone please clarify "the 300D firmware hack"! I've been trying to find out where and how to upgrade my DR's firmware and now I find that there are hacks too!?

I asked that question before and was directed here
 07/09/2004 09:23:13 AM · #61
Thank you!!

Originally posted by Bran-O-Rama:
Originally posted by greenfuse:
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:


That 300D firmware hack was another contributing factor, since I know I can use it if I want to add a few of the 10D features that I like, but which are missing from the 300D.


Can someone please clarify "the 300D firmware hack"! I've been trying to find out where and how to upgrade my DR's firmware and now I find that there are hacks too!?

I asked that question before and was directed here

07/09/2004 09:33:32 AM · #62
Glad I could be of assistance :D

After much thought, I decided I'm going to save up for the 10D because even if the DReb's firmware was identical, the 10D still has better hardware. I tend to shoot a lot of action shots so I could use the extra buffer and fps the 10D offers.
 07/09/2004 09:34:48 AM · #63
Originally posted by Gordon:
Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned but I'm not sure how the auto focus systems compare between the 10D, D70 and the 300D. I know the 300D you are a lot more limited in how you can control the AF, but I don't know if it is the same system 'under the hood'

As I shoot more sports, I'm becoming increasingly dis-satisfied with the D60 AF. I understand that the 10D is slightly better but again, you'll probably need to consider manual focus/ zone focus techniques for a lot of real action shots. This means having a lens with a decent focus ring for a start and as bright and clear a viewfinder as you can get. Unfortunately none of the current DSLRs have any real features to support manual focus which is frustrating and the AI focus on the lower end cameras (10D, 300D etc) leaves quite a lot to be desired.


Gordon,

what do you mean by, "Unfortunately none of the current DSLRs have any real features to support manual focus..."? What should the camera have to support this other than a manual focus mode?

Thanks!
 07/09/2004 09:52:23 AM · #64
make it simple on yourself and get the best of both worlds and get a Nikon D70.

The best thing to do is go over to the dpreview forums for each camera and troll the messages...you'll soon find out which is the best choice for you..
 07/09/2004 09:57:19 AM · #65
Originally posted by Gordon:
Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned but I'm not sure how the auto focus systems compare between the 10D, D70 and the 300D. I know the 300D you are a lot more limited in how you can control the AF, but I don't know if it is the same system 'under the hood'

As I shoot more sports, I'm becoming increasingly dis-satisfied with the D60 AF. I understand that the 10D is slightly better but again, you'll probably need to consider manual focus/ zone focus techniques for a lot of real action shots. This means having a lens with a decent focus ring for a start and as bright and clear a viewfinder as you can get. Unfortunately none of the current DSLRs have any real features to support manual focus which is frustrating and the AI focus on the lower end cameras (10D, 300D etc) leaves quite a lot to be desired.


You should have a look at the E-1. I can understand if you don't because you may have alot Canon glass but, although the E-1 is not known as a sports camera the auto focus is almost always dead on. Does not have any of the focus problems the 10D and 300D have. Plus the fact it is weather proof there are know worries about getting it a little wet. I looked at the 10D before I bought the E-1 and, the 10D is a nice camera but I don't like CMOS sensors because of the lack of dynamic range. I think the E-1 has a much better build quality then any of the other DSLR in it's price range. The only thing I don't like about it is the higher noise at 800 ISO and up but they clean very nice with Neat Image and I don't shoot that high most of the time anyway.

Tom
 07/09/2004 10:11:31 AM · #66
Originally posted by TomH1000:


You should have a look at the E-1. I can understand if you don't because you may have alot Canon glass but, although the E-1 is not known as a sports camera the auto focus is almost always dead on.


How well does it handle tracking moving subjects ? Do you have any samples say with cars, people running, cycling, football etc ? Is there any manual focus assist ?

What options are there for fast glass (2.8 or so) in the 200mm to 300mm range ? Are there fast 50mm in the 1.4 (1.0-1.8) range ? A lot of sports I can get access to is badly lit (not pro level obviously) so fast glass is a must.

Can you use ISOs up around 1600 or so ? You mention the 800 isn't really useable without a lot of extra work.

What is the frame rate like ? more than 3 frames per second ? Does it have a large buffer depth ?

Message edited by author 2004-07-09 10:15:45.
 07/09/2004 10:12:29 AM · #67
Originally posted by wackybill:

Gordon,

what do you mean by, "Unfortunately none of the current DSLRs have any real features to support manual focus..."? What should the camera have to support this other than a manual focus mode?

Thanks!


Large, bright viewfinders. Split screen/ ground glass focus assistance etc - all the things cameras used to have before auto focus systems got in to everything.
 07/09/2004 10:14:55 AM · #68
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by wackybill:

Gordon,

what do you mean by, "Unfortunately none of the current DSLRs have any real features to support manual focus..."? What should the camera have to support this other than a manual focus mode?

Thanks!


Large, bright viewfinders. Split screen/ ground glass focus assistance etc - all the things cameras used to have before auto focus systems got in to everything.


Now I understand. Back to black and white photography class camera view finders. :o) They were rather easy to manual focus not that I think about it.

Thanks!
 07/09/2004 10:16:28 AM · #69
Originally posted by wackybill:

Now I understand. Back to black and white photography class camera view finders. :o) They were rather easy to manual focus not that I think about it.
Thanks!


Not sure that it would help a whole lot with sports/action though - but as it is I have to use manual most of the time anyway to get anything sharp enough to print resonably large.
 07/09/2004 10:21:24 AM · #70
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by wackybill:

Now I understand. Back to black and white photography class camera view finders. :o) They were rather easy to manual focus not that I think about it.
Thanks!


Not sure that it would help a whole lot with sports/action though - but as it is I have to use manual most of the time anyway to get anything sharp enough to print resonably large.


I have been using my DR in the sports mode which uses the Al Servo and have had reasonably good results shootint baseball games. Not a lot of movement granted but I have been able to keep it sharp while snapping off pictures of the runner sprinting around the bases. I have however switched to manual a few times while panning.
 07/09/2004 10:29:59 AM · #71
Originally posted by wackybill:

I have been using my DR in the sports mode which uses the Al Servo and have had reasonably good results shootint baseball games. Not a lot of movement granted but I have been able to keep it sharp while snapping off pictures of the runner sprinting around the bases. I have however switched to manual a few times while panning.


The focus on my D60 is fine, in bright light on fairly stationary subjects - either far enough away that they aren't moving much relative to the lens, or just not moving that fast.

The problems start when trying to use the focus tracking features for people moving quite quickly or in tight zooms - e.g., runners running directly towards the camera, cyclists moving towards/ across the plane etc. I get some sharp shots, but it is mostly accidental. The focus points are covering contrasty areas of the subject completely, throughout the tracking period - the camera just doesn't keep up or track well, even when it claims to have a lock.

I probably get something like 10%-20% really sharp, useable images, even at high shutter speeds (1/500 and faster) another 10%-20% are vaguely acceptable but I'm kinda fussy I guess.

I would like to reliably be able to get at least 1 sharp image out of a burst of 3. One shot mode is useless in this situation, as the subject motion is too much by the time focus is achieved (focus to shutter delay). Manual/ zone focusing works well though.
 07/09/2004 11:03:58 AM · #72
Originally posted by Gordon:
[quote=TomH1000]

You should have a look at the E-1. I can understand if you don't because you may have alot Canon glass but, although the E-1 is not known as a sports camera the auto focus is almost always dead on.


How well does it handle tracking moving subjects ? Do you have any samples say with cars, people running, cycling, football etc ? Is there any manual focus assist ?

It has a number of different focus modes one of them being Continuos Auto Focus mode. Very fast and accurate. And yes there is manual focus assist. Here is a sample
//www.deltonalakes.com/gallery/album02/P2150894
more here:
//www.deltonalakes.com/gallery/album02

What options are there for fast glass (2.8 or so) in the 200mm to 300mm range ? Are there fast 50mm in the 1.4 (1.0-1.8) range ? A lot of sports I can get access to is badly lit (not pro level obviously) so fast glass is a must.

The 50-200 lens (100 - 400 35mm equiv.) is a 2.8-3.5 lens. There is also a 300mm 2.8 prime lens (600 35mm equiv) but it cost about $7000 but a very nice lens. There will be a 150mm 2.8 prime coming this fall also. There is a 50mm 2.0 out there also.

Can you use ISOs up around 1600 or so ? You mention the 800 isn't really useable without a lot of extra work.

The noise is not that much worse then the 10D to tell the truth and because of the kind of noise it is (very film like) it cleans very easy with one pass of Neat Image and I think looks better then the 10D images after processing. Yes a little more work on higher ISO shoots but almost none on normal shoots. They are great right out of the camera. Here are two at ISO 800 under low light and auto WB
//www.deltonalakes.com/gallery/lowlight/3131744_NI_after?full=1
//www.deltonalakes.com/gallery/lowlight/3131742_NI_after?full=1
One at 1600 ISO
//www.deltonalakes.com/gallery/lowlight/3272093_G?full=1
One at 3200 ISO from the Pepsi 400 race in Daytona
//www.deltonalakes.com/gallery/pepsi_400_04/7033961_NI?full=1

What is the frame rate like ? more than 3 frames per second ? Does it have a large buffer depth ?

Frame rate is the same as the 10D, 3 per second but can go 12 frames where the 10D can only go 9 and it can go 12 using tiff files also. Plus the E-1 has the fastest write speeds out of all the DSLR's.

If you really want to learn more about this camera you should check out
//www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1022
They are all very helpfull and can answer any questions you may bave.

Tom

Message edited by author 2004-07-09 11:53:48.
 07/09/2004 11:49:04 AM · #73
Originally posted by TomH1000:
Plus the E-1 has the fastest write speeds out of all the DSLR's.

Don't think that's quite true. DPReview lists it as an "incredible" 3.7 MB/sec with a SanDisk Ultra II CF card, which is much faster than the 10D (which only hits 1.4MB/sec) -- but the Canon 1D Mark II writes out raws to the same CF card at 4.0MB/sec, and to a SanDisk Ultra II SD card at 7.1MB/sec. =] (And with a 40 frame buffer that continues to empty, even while you are actively auto-focusing, taking more pictures, etc. waiting for the buffer is rarely an issue.)

Also, according to Phil's review, the E-1 auto-focuses about as fast as the 10D and the continuous AF is not as good as "some other DSLR's", so I'm not sure Gordon would see a big difference between an E-1 and a 10D in terms of AF performance. Another issue with the E-1 is the lack of a histogram in the post-shot review; I find that to be an invaluable tool.
 07/09/2004 12:17:53 PM · #74
Yeah, I think what I'm really wanting is a camera with a decent AF. Unfortunately that comes at a price and only in the pro level bodies at the moment. I've tried a 10D and have various friends who use one and is better than the D60 but has similar issues, that are just totally different when compared to a 1D or 1DII.

I've been stressing the limits of the D60 AF a lot recently (bike riders at 30mph, about 4 meters from the camera, that sort of thing) Even with a long lock on time and good tracking - it just doesn't keep up. I'm not sure a 1D would actually do much better in that sort of environment though.

Cars traveling parallel to the film plane, at quite a distance is a very different situation (like the examples shown for the E1) - the D60 handles that stuff pretty easily - as the focus distance isn't changing much at all.

Message edited by author 2004-07-09 12:23:18.
 07/09/2004 12:23:07 PM · #75
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by TomH1000:
Plus the E-1 has the fastest write speeds out of all the DSLR's.

Don't think that's quite true. DPReview lists it as an "incredible" 3.7 MB/sec with a SanDisk Ultra II CF card, which is much faster than the 10D (which only hits 1.4MB/sec) -- but the Canon 1D Mark II writes out raws to the same CF card at 4.0MB/sec, and to a SanDisk Ultra II SD card at 7.1MB/sec. =] (And with a 40 frame buffer that continues to empty, even while you are actively auto-focusing, taking more pictures, etc. waiting for the buffer is rarely an issue.)

Also, according to Phil's review, the E-1 auto-focuses about as fast as the 10D and the continuous AF is not as good as "some other DSLR's", so I'm not sure Gordon would see a big difference between an E-1 and a 10D in terms of AF performance. Another issue with the E-1 is the lack of a histogram in the post-shot review; I find that to be an invaluable tool.


Well no doubt the Mark II is faster. I guess I should have said in it's price range. As far as auto focus goes, I have used both the 10D and the E-1 and found in the real world that the E-1 was much faster and accurate then the 10D. If you like I can point you to a great deal of former Canon 10D users that now shoot with the E-1 that will agree. Now don't get me wrong, I think the 10 D is a nice camera but for me ( and a growing number) the E-1 is much better. It does not get the respect because it does not have the Canon or Nikon name and to tell the truth I get very frustrated with this because the E-1 is a very well designed camera. It is built for digital from the ground up. When I read post from here like "I would get laughed out of a stadium if I was using an E-1" or something to that effect, well maybe you can see my frustrations. Times are changing my friends. Some may remember that when 35mm first came out all the pros laughed also.

Tom

Message edited by author 2004-07-09 12:23:39.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:19:37 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:19:37 PM EDT.