Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Ray on January 11, 2005, 07:31:39 am
-
To quote a cliche, that really is a no-brainer. The 20D is better on so many different levels, you'll wonder why you've delayed so long.
-
For a symmetrical camera collection wait till next year for the launch of the 30D
-
Indeed there will be so many improvements, its too much to sum them all up.
But it's maybe more valuable to know how it will change your workflow and tool (lens / software) decisions, depending on what and how you shoot.
- You can start using RAW all the time. The larger buffer and non-blocking operation of the in-camera processing sees to that. Thus: adjust workflow to all-RAW if you like. depening on your photography, this is valuable or not.
- (if not for DOF or AF performance reasons) less demand for extreme fast glass indoors, high ISO on the latest generations DSLR is very very good. This means less weight in a backpack (compare weight of 2.8 to f4 lenses), less expensive lenses to buy. Even if you have fast glass, you'll get even more usable shots in even more dark situations.
- Forget the hesitant AF of the d30 and get used to getting a fast lock in situations where the 30 hunts during what seems like forever.
- If switching to RAW, think about more processing power & memory requirements (also due to increase in res) of PC.
hope this helps!
-
Hay Photograafdigi,
Could you give a short, or point me to some discussion about ISO. This is something I have not fully understood with digitral cameras. I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the better the photo, but that may have just let out my ignorance.
Thanks, Stephen
-
The ISO question actually raises some interesting issues. With film, there is a general increase in grain with increasing ISO (altho with film to film variation within ISO also). With digital, there is generally decreased signal noise ratio with increasing ISO (I don't know if there are other issues also). What I haven't seen is a figure or graph of the relative change for film or digital with changing ISO. Do the state of the art digital cameras have less deterioration in image going from 100 to 400 than film? There could actually be a theoretical advantage in shooting at a higher ISO if it allowed an f stop approaching the lens optimum (eg f8) provided that the degree of image deterioration with increasing ISO is minimal. Any thoughts?
-
The biggest difference in my experience (from LF, MF, and 35mm to digital) is that with film, resolution decreases at higher ISO (large chuncks of chemicals i.e. grain).
With digital, the pixels remain the same size for all iso's (its the same sensor). Thus resolution remains the same.
But since the signal needs to be amplified (as mention earlier by another poster), the S/R ratio gets worse. As a result, some noise appears, in the form of 'jitter' in what should be 'even' areas.
The good news is, that noise can be countered (up to a level of course) by software reasonably well. Additionally, with the latest sensors, the S/R are quite good, starting with a better image is always the best way of course.
So (concerning high iso) digital has the advantage of (A) not losing resolution, and ( the 'grain' (noise) can be 'processed' easier to be less objectionable (something harder with film grain within a traditional process).
To quantify by purely personal subjective evaluation, i'd say that digital has a 2 stop advantage with iso as for usability of the shots (I now have 1600 shots enlarged that now look what I was used to with 400 film, 400 digital shots look like 100 film did).
-
So it's a virtual setting, if you will?
Maybe not so virtual as it does change the bandwidth of the sensor? Is that another way of saying the same thing?
If this is the case what is the proper use of the ISO Setting. Maybe this should become a thread in itself. Ill do that, start anoter thread.
Thanks for keeping track of this initial question and adding to it.
Stephen
-
My first real digital camera was the Canon D30. I got it months after they came out. I have been considering the 20D. Has anyone made that leap and if so are the really impressed or just so-so? Also I would get the 17-85 IS lens if that really added to my overall tools.
At present I have the D30
Canon EF 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 lens
Sigma 14 mm 2.8
Canon EF 50mm 1.4
Thanks for all your input in advance,
1hart1
-
I've made the jump.
and actually, well, the 20D is better in all respects.
except for the banding in the image. note: this is only in the lower region of the histogram. it's not serious but it's there. just something you don't expect after having used the D30.
and mine's also got some hot pixels, nothing the noise reduction can't handle.
-
Thank you all,
By symmetrical you mean that I wll have a more rounded collection of tools if I wait for the next generation?
Is there some news as to the "30D"?
I definatly have been dancing with what Ray said. Thats why I posted here.
Thansk for the feedback!
-
Very good post. thanks, does fill in some gap's. thanks for the flash fill.
stephen
-
Could you give a short
In short, digital cameras have only one ISO. The rest is in-camera compensation and processing for underexposure, equivalent to push-processing of film.
The 20D has more sophisticated in-camera processing than the D30.
-
For a symmetrical camera collection wait till next year for the launch of the 30D
symmetrical! What a concept! I love sarcasm.
-
What Id like to know is iwhat the ISO setting actually do for the digital camera? Do they adjust the sensitivity of the transistors? Or some algorythem approximating this sensitivity. as firtual ISO? IS it there to really give us something?
-
AFAIR, ISO sensitivity is done by changing the polarization of the sensor cells (CCD or CMOS), and or amplification of the analog signal.