| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2004 05:44:36 AM · #1 |
hi there!
i'm thinking of getting a new digi-cam rather soon. my main reason for upgrading is because i want to be able to enlarge pitucures and still have excellent high quality prints up to 18x12inch.
i'm looking at the c-765 and i was wondering if anyone in here knows or even better: has one of these and made some big prints with it.
or what do you think? is this camera able of excellent big prints?
my other thoughts we're: getting the digital rebel by canon. i know, it's a big price difference, but if the reason why im upgrading is picture quality, then i don't want to be dissapointed when i see bad results with my newly bought camera. rather spend more and have the quality i'm looking for.
i'd just like to know if point+shoot models nowadays are up to great big prints or if you should step up to the slr (digital rebel).
if the 4-5mp cams are not as good as i thought then i might just have to get the slr, because i don't think the 8mp models (nikon 8700, olympus 8080, minolta dimage a2) are a decent option. they almost cost as much as the rebel and due to their smaller sensor they have much noise in their pix.
suggestions, ideas, but especially experiences with 4-5mp or with 8mp cams regarding big print quality is what i'm looking for, i hope someone can help me out here!
thanx,
shadow.
Message edited by author 2004-06-13 05:45:54. |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 05:58:46 AM · #2 |
I can get 16x20 prints from my Canon G2 4mp camera, so any 4mp or 5mp camera should be good for 18x12. The thing you have to worry about though is noise. Lower end cameras, even if they have high mp, generally have smaller sensors so noise is much more of a problem, specially at any ISO above 100. This will show up even more in enlarged prints, but isn't always a problem. If you want really high quality prints with no noise and very sharp, the Rebel or Nikon D70 is the way to go. Canon's are more famous for their low noise though. If you do go to DSLR bear in mond that you'll need to spend a bit more on some nice lenses if you want the flexibility of a lower end cam, and especially if you want really sharp photos. Some of the cheaper lenses can be a bit soft, which again affects how your prints will look.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2004 06:39:52 AM · #3 |
hmmm, your post leaves me undecided!
first you say that you get good results from your G2, but then again there's maybe too much noise!
as i can tell you use a digital rebel as well.
maybe you can help me with another question:
do you usually shoot in raw and work with each picture on your pc, or do you sometimes shoot in the highest jpeg quality without working on them via pc?
what i mean is:
how are prints if you don't work with them on the computer before you get them printed? do you get good results (prints) from your rebel if you just shoot at the highest jpeg setting without changing anything afterwards on the computer?
and how about differences between the 2 parameter settings (parameter 1 & parameter 2 - or are there more than just these two) again WITHOUT working on them?
thanx. |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 06:45:21 AM · #4 |
Firstly, the Rebel is definatly better for prints. I can get up to 20x30 on a photo that I have cropped. I would never be able to do that on the G2. Also I have the potential to take much better overall shots with the Rebel due to all its features and it's responsiveness.
I never do anything with a photo without post-processing it. I always adjust colours, brightness, contrast, etc, even though I've only recently started shooting in RAW. You could get good results without processing on the PC, but you will always get better results if you do editing. Also, if you want to get the largest prints, like 16x20 and 20x30, you need to resample up. The image wouldn't be good enough to get this big without resampling.
Resampling is where the original image quality is important. I can resample a Rebel photo up really big with hardly any quality degradation, but with the G2 photos they always became splotchy, noise was exaggurated as it was resampled, and the edges became very soft. The Rebel is definatly the way to go if you can afford it :)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2004 07:04:03 AM · #5 |
by resampling i guess you're talking of "interpolation", right?
is that also possible if you took the picture in jpeg, or will this only work on the raw format?
it would be quite annoying if it only works on raws, because who knows which pic you might wanna posterize -> i can't just take every pic in raw format (the size and amount of time it takes to write...)!
and my second question:
if you take a raw picture - do you work with it on the computer when it is still in the raw format, or is the first thing one has to do, changing it into jpeg and then working with it?
i know that adobe cs can convert raw into jpeg, but if one has to work with the raw first to do all of the editing, can adobe cs do that too?
if raws get converted into jpeg before you work on them, then what is the program "C1" for? is it just another way for converting raw into jpeg? |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 07:08:41 AM · #6 |
You can resample with JPGs or RAWs. I make slight adjustments to the exposure and whitebalance in RAW in Photoshop CS, then I work on it as a JPG. C1 is just an alternative to using photoshop for RAW editing and conversion.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2004 07:25:50 AM · #7 |
alright,
thanx for helping!
shadow. |
|
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: 06/23/2025 06:27:49 AM EDT.
