Arthur Morris switching to Digital cameras

[Erik M]

[font color=\'#000000\']I'm not sure what the purpose of this post is. I've neen seen anyone (at least in this forum) seriously question whether or not digital or 35mm is appropriate for wildlife, sports, photojournalism. So there's really nothing new in this announcement, other than the admission that Arthur must get quite a few bad exposures and hasn't had time to 'experiment' even after all those years in the field.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Rainer,

Don't look now, but the Canon 1Ds puts film (any film and any print technology) to shame. The contest is over. Finished. Kaput. It's no longer a question in the mind of anyone that has seen the results.

Michael[/font]

[Rainer SLP]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,

well I am still not convinced, because I have seen full samples of landscapes of the 1Ds and they do not convince me.

For me there is still missing something in the digital and I repeat, It is resolution.

If I would go digital for birding at the moment I would choose the D60. Maybe the AF is not as fast as the 1D or 1DS but it has a higher resolution than both. More pixels per Inch.

The future is near and I think I will not have to wait long for the 20 MegaPixel camera I am dreaming off :laugh: 4000dpi

By the way Kaput is written with 2 tt = Kaputt  [/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Within the next 2 weeks I intend on making available a selection of prints from my recent shoot in New Mexico done with the 1Ds. The price of the prints will be reasonable and will also include a CD-ROM containing a RAW file, an unprocessed TIFF file and the final processed file for that image.

Watch for an announcement.

Michael[/font]

[[email protected]]

[font color=\'#000000\']Well, renowned bird photographer Arthur Morris has just announced in his December newletter that he is committed to selling all his Canon film cameras and will be shooting digital exclusively. This, based on his experience with the Canon 1D!

Arthur is generally very slow to change his opinions...quote from his newsletter follows"

"MORE AMAZINGLY...  My very own Canon EOS 1D was waiting for me upon my arrival in New Mexico.  To say that I was totally blown away by my first big-time digital experience is a major understatement.   I have never had more fun photographing birds than I did for those 17 days.  The autofocus on the EOS 1D is incredible.  It's 45 point AF system (though based on the EOS 1v). is faster and more accurate than that on any other Canon camera body that I have ever used.  Some folks disagree, and feel that the 1v's autofocus is on a par with the 1D, but I humbly disagree.  I routinely made sharp flight images with the 600 IS, the 2X II teleconverter, and my new EOS 1D, and with the 1.4X II TC, AF was dead-on accurate and fast, even with the previously-despised 45 point AF!

For months, I have written that digital's post-image production work-flow (processing, labeling, storing, cataloguing, accessing, and distributing the images) scares me the most , and that has not changed one iota.  I am still scared and clueless and will be calling on numerous friends for help.  But, I am, at this point, committed to switching over completely to digital and selling all my film cameras.  (I did expose ten rolls of film at Bosque.)

Why the sudden dramatic change of heart?  Digital is fun.  Digital allows you to experiment creatively (more on that in the next Bulletin which is coming soon). Digital offers immediate gratification and more importantly, immediate feedback.  A glance at the histogram enables you to guarantee that your exposure is what you want.  Digital is an incredible teaching tool.  Digital is the wave of the future, and it is coming fast.  Film and processing costs = zero.  It is environmentally 1,000,000 times better than film.  By utilizing raw mode, it is far easier to save underexposed images with digital captures than it is with film.  Even if it takes a year to master the work-flow problems, I still have a few images on film to market <smile>  It is fun!  More fun than I've had photographing in years (and I've always had tons of fun in the field)!"

<end quote>[/font]

[Rainer SLP]

[font color=\'#000000\']This is interesting because I just came back from a bird shooting at the pacific coast of mexico with an EOS 1V as well as an EOS 1n RS with the lenses 300mm f2.8 IS and the 500mm f4.0 IS. Used the film Fuji Provia 100F and just got them back from the developing Lab and checked them quickly and found some very good under them.

If Arthur Morris is switching over to digital than my chances to sell my bird photographs will rise.

I do not understand how such a good? photographer can switch over to digital knowing that he will not get as many details = resolution with the digital as with film. Yes, again I insist, that there is still far more detail in a film rather than in a digital photography. Let us forget the grain. For the last 100 years we have seen the grain and got used to it.

I have seen a lot of photographies from birds made with digital cameras and every time I wonder how the people can be satisfied with the colour plates the digitals in some areas produce apart from not having details in the feathers, yes especially the feathers.

If you are a serious bird photographer than you should know that birds have sometimes the bad habit of having the same colour on a big area of their body and here the details of the feathers are important to get a structure. Without this structure the bird on the photo looks like if it is stuffed = dead.

I am also tempted to go digital, but until I do not get more resolution I will continue shooting film.[/font]

[Erik M]

[font color=\'#000000\']>Don't look now, but the Canon 1Ds puts film (any film and any print technology) to shame. The contest is over. Finished. Kaput. It's no longer a question in the mind of anyone that has seen the results.<

I certainly want to see the results. I hope, Michael, you're still considering selling comparison medium format and 1Ds images.[/font]

[Roger_Cavanagh]

[font color=\'#000000\']If I would go digital for birding at the moment I would choose the D60. Maybe the AF is not as fast as the 1D or 1DS but it has a higher resolution than both. More pixels per Inch.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']You might get more pixels per inch, but if you fill the frame with the 1Ds, you get more pixels per bird.

And, if you are interested in pictures of birds, shouldn't you see how the 1Ds performs with that subject rather than ruling it out on basis of images of something completely different?

Regards,[/font]

[Rainer SLP]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Roger,

I do not know what type of photography you do, but I do agree with you that the 1Ds gives you more pixels, but here the pixelsize on the chip is more interesting than more pixels or not.

The birds do have a distance to which you can approach them before they fly away. They do not care what camera you have, so this is why I said I would prefer the D60. In any case you get more pixels on the bird than with any other camera.

I just made a comparison taking one of my photos and scanning them at the resolutions and of course I took into consideration the so called focal length differences of each camera and would like to say:

The worst camera in this case is the 1D, then the 1Ds and the best would be the D60. Just by seeing the pixel size of the chip, independently of the chip size, tells you which one has more resolution:

1D   = 2209pixels per inch
1Ds = 2883 pixels per inch
D60 = 3437 pixels per inch (50% more than the 1D and 33% more than the 1Ds)

So for the camera I am dreaming off, the way is not so far away anymore    4000dpi[/font]

[Roger_Cavanagh]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Roger,

I do not know what type of photography you do, but I do agree with you that the 1Ds gives you more pixels, but here the pixelsize on the chip is more interesting than more pixels or not.

The birds do have a distance to which you can approach them before they fly away. They do not care what camera you have, so this is why I said I would prefer the D60. In any case you get more pixels on the bird than with any other camera.

I just made a comparison taking one of my photos and scanning them at the resolutions and of course I took into consideration the so called focal length differences of each camera and would like to say:

The worst camera in this case is the 1D, then the 1Ds and the best would be the D60. Just by seeing the pixel size of the chip, independently of the chip size, tells you which one has more resolution:

1D   = 2209pixels per inch
1Ds = 2883 pixels per inch
D60 = 3437 pixels per inch (50% more than the 1D and 33% more than the 1Ds)

So for the camera I am dreaming off, the way is not so far away anymore    4000dpi[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Rainier,

I see where you're coming from, but you forgot the "stun factor". When the birds see you with the 1Ds, they'll be thinking "Omigod, that guy's got a 1Ds" and forget to fly away.

But you're right, I don't shoot many birds, so I'd rather have the full-frame and the 11mp.

Regards,[/font]