Canon --- EOS Rebel -or- PowerShot Pro 1 ??

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/01/2004 05:55:33 AM · #1

Wow.. wondering about the pros and cons on the above 2 cameras. The obvious is that the Rebel can use all Canon EF lenses. But the Pro 1 has 8 Mp. AAARRRGGG!!! Then there is the Nikon 8700 as well...3 very nice cameras all about a grand with a lens (Rebel). I absolutely would want to go with an 8.0 Mp but really want to have lens versatility. I suppose I'll still wait - or get the Rebel anyway. With my luck, they'll come out with an all-new Rebel with the 8.0 CMOS and still price it under a grand... a week after I buy the 6.3 model.

General

Kodak Z7590

04/01/2004 06:09:23 AM · #2

What's the big deal with 8 megapixel camera ? Don't get me wrong , i use a40 that is offcilaly listed as 1.92 pixel and easily i printout 5x7, some one told me 8x10 is possible , so if u buy rebel with 6.3 , which is 3 times what my camera has to offer , how bad will that be instead of buying this 8 megapixel camera.

What sizes would u be intersted in printing out

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon

04/01/2004 06:41:00 AM · #3

easy answer... I want extremely hi-res 8x10 (35mm quality at least)at highest possible dpi print quality. If I could afford to go to 12Mp I would. In other words.. I need to be able to do work that is publishable at magazine format. Right now I scan film images at 2400 dpi and that works pretty well - post edit, BUT a lot is still lost in the translation. I'd love to edit direct from a 6Mp (and up) RAW file.

robsmith

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/01/2004 06:51:12 AM · #4

Originally posted by RickDN:

In that case I recommend a MF camera and a PhaseOne P25 back.

Adrian Tung

04/01/2004 07:00:54 AM · #5

National Geographic used a pair of 4MP Nikon D2H cameras for one of their past stories on aviation technology. Sports Illustrated often uses Canon 1D cameras (also 4MP) for their magazine. Many local magazines where I come from survive on 5MP and 6MP cameras, both prosumer and DSLR.

I too don't see the big deal in 8MP.

My 2 cents...
:)atwl

04/01/2004 07:09:44 AM · #6

well, one magazine that has expressed interest says that they want digital submissions to be 300 dpi for any image size. I just figure that the more pixels you've got on hand the better set you are for any pre-print editing that will be done. In other words - overkill. I suppose that the theory here is that it's better to work with an excess of information then to only have "just enough".

Message edited by author 2004-04-01 07:11:37.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/01/2004 07:17:48 AM · #7

Originally posted by robsmith:

In that case I recommend a MF camera and a PhaseOne P25 back.

I wish !! No, I'm only looking to spend 1200-1500 for the camera and accessories (memory and batteries). I have several Canon EF lenses for my film camera that would be OK with the Rebel. The problem I see with the Pro 1 is that it doesn't use interchangeable lenses. If it wasn't about the money, I'd get an EOS 1D Mark II and be done with it !! (oh baby baby)

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/01/2004 09:05:50 AM · #8

Originally posted by RickDN:

well, one magazine that has expressed interest says that they want digital submissions to be 300 dpi for any image size.

And then there are some magazines that refuse to accept anything digital, saying that the quality "just isn't there", even from an 11MP DSLR like the 1Ds. =]

This has been debated ad infinitum on DPReview in this thread and this thread (some of the more interesting response to read are this one and this one.)

jab119

04/01/2004 09:14:36 AM · #9

there was a thread over at Dpreview.com some time ago that showed the image sizes from different MP settings... the big jump where you would notice a difference was from 1 to 5 MP, then again it was not much difference until you went up to like 14 MP

I tried searching the forum over there but I cant find it.... was an interesting read and will show that 5 or 6 MP is not that much different or any less quality than 8 MP

James

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/01/2004 09:15:32 AM · #10

Given your needs, this really should be an easy decision. Yes, the Pro1 has 8 megapixels, but it also has far more noise. Clean images from a DSLR can be sampled up to 8 megapixels and probably still look better than the Pro1 (assuming you used an L-series lens on the Rebel, too). Interchangeable lenses gives you considerably more versatility with specialized soft focus, macro, fisheye, mega-zoom, tilt-shift and other options available. Plus, the lack of significant shutter lag on the Rebel means fewer opportunities missed. The only real advantage to the Pro1 is portability. Now, Digital Rebel vs. Nikon D70, that's another story...

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

04/01/2004 09:26:57 AM · #11

There are five 8 mp digicams (Canon Pro1, Nikon 8700, Olympus 8080, Minolta A2 & Sony 828) currently available. All use a CCD sensor(probably all from the same maker) that is the same size as earlier 5mp sensors. Do 3 million more smaller pixels create better images? Theoretically they do but beyond a certain range of image size you will still be depending on software to enlarge your images; and for web images, like dpc challenges, you probably can't see any difference. The Sony got ripped in reviews for image quality. The Nikon and Oly seem like slightly upgraded versions of previous models (5700 & 5060) equiped with the new 8 mp sensor. The Pro1's claim to fame is the "L" lens but reviewers don't seem to be as impressed with it as I had expected. The A2 has a seriously improved viewfinder and Anti-Shake. Because of ring type controls for zoom and manual focus, a socket to connect to studio lighting systems, and a very full range of exposure controls (ISO 64) some reviewers say it is the most "35mm like" of this generation. Which best meets your intended uses?

General

Kodak Z7590

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/01/2004 09:42:15 AM · #12

Well i too had same perception as you about printing quality is better if your camera has as much mega pixel one can afford.

Well to be honest i dont much about PS( most of members are aware this fact, because of my past post) , after reading How to create Printable Images , i am easily able to create great amazing images of 5x7( i will Try 8x10 asap) from my 1.92 mega pixel camera.

If you follow the tutorial you will have a great result and no need for 8 megapxel camera for 8x10, it will be great as 35mm.

I have read post of people creating poster 16x20 from sub 5 megapixel camera ( 2-5 mega pixel).

My freind Rahul from India, He is professional Fashion Photograpger, He has lots film equipment,great studio, medium format camera yet he is still using canon 10d, I hope it helps.
Go for rebel with accessories

Message edited by author 2004-04-01 09:43:29.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/01/2004 10:25:37 AM · #13

From looking at the samples from the Pro-1, owning a Sony 828 and a Digital Rebel I would suggest that you will get clearer, more detailed pictures from the Rebel than you would with a small sensor 8MP digital camera. The larger sensor in the rebel really makes the 6MP sing. If it were my money I would put it into the Rebel. One thing that I have noticed with DSLRâ��s is that itâ��s usually only a matter of time before you start wanting more lenses, battery grip, cable releaseâ�¦. Buying accessories for a DSLR can get addictive and VERY expensive if you donâ��t watch out.

Greg

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

04/01/2004 10:56:24 AM · #14

I had actually considered replacing my 10D with a Canon Pro-1 or Leica Digilux 2 to lighten my load. I had convinced myself that I would get more of the images that I want if I had a more subtle camera that was small enough to always be there. (My dream is a digital Leica M(not the Epson thing with small sensor)) Anyway.... the biggest difference is in the amount of noise produced by the smaller sensors. ISO100 is not bad all around, but the noise from my 10D at ISO1600 is about the same as the noice from the Pro-1 and D2 at 400. I put a couple of example images here, 10D vs D2. It's not a review quality comparison, but the difference in noise is visable.

Dibutil

Canon EOS-20D

04/01/2004 12:34:54 PM · #15

Originally posted by coolhar:

...Do 3 million more smaller pixels create better images? Theoretically they do...

Please, do not forget about noise. My 7Hi suffers from it a lot and the A2 has the same sensor size - thus more thermal fluctuations in each pixel. I do not believe that the processing algorithm will acoommodate for all of such noise.

And do not forget also that CMOS is less noisy than CCD by it's nature ;-)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/01/2004 12:35:46 PM · #16

I'd like something that can give me good prints at 40x50.
I have a potential opportunity to sell images at that size in the near future, when some things get sorted out.

8Mp is not nearly enough.

Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/01/2004 01:18:04 PM · #17

It depends on what the images are of. I have seen some excellent prints at around that size that were produced with a 1D Mk 1. If you are wanting to print landscapes or large group photos then I totally agree with you that 8MP isn't enough.

Greg

Sammie

Olympus OM-D E-M5

04/01/2004 03:12:19 PM · #18

All of you probably know this already but I didn't until recently - there's a place on the Internet Steve's Digicams that reviews all the cameras. Pictures are taken with each camera of the same places and the same objects so you can see how they compare in the full size images.

It's really interesting to see how differently each camera takes the same shot. The Nikon 8700, Canon Pro 1 and Sony F828 are all very similar. The Canon Pro 1 has a bit less noise than the other two, to my eyes. I noticed a much bigger difference in the color each camera reproduced. The Sony duller colors, especially in the greens. The Canon is very bright, almost overexposed in some places.

You can also very easily see that there is even less noise when you move up to the Nikon D70 and the Rebel.

However, at the low ISO's the 8mg pixel cameras are very similar.

04/01/2004 03:39:16 PM · #19

Are you saying that the noise on the 8MP digicams is similar to that of the DSLRâ��s at low ISOâ��s? If so I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. With my Sony 828 I could find plenty of noise (especially in the shadow areas) even at ISO 64 that I never find in my rebel pictures at ISO 100. Maybe some of the other 8MP digicams are better but I can tell you from first hand experience that the 828 is pretty noisy even at its lowest ISO setting.

//www.pbase.com/dadas115/sony828

Greg

04/02/2004 07:59:31 AM · #20

Originally posted by dadas115:

Yeah, it will get interesting... 90% of what I shoot is outside. A split of scenics and macro. (Like rivers and flowers). I only have to worry about 8x10 at the most, preferably at 300dpi for print. A 6.3Mp just barely fits that criteria at RAW or TIFF. I'm afraid that even JPEG compression may compromise some quality when it's that close. (RAW is 3072 x 2048, I think, for the Rebel). Then you have noise and other anomolies. So, I think it's a close deal for pro work. So, maybe Canon will come out with a 12Mp+ CMOS ?? Like a bigger better version of the 6.3 ?? (yeah, I know... a week after I spend all my money...)

04/02/2004 08:37:22 AM · #21

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

I put a couple of example images here, 10D vs D2. It's not a review quality comparison, but the difference in noise is visable.

Oh great... I just spent a while out at Steve's Digicams ((//www.steves-digicams.com/)) looking at the D60 and the 10D.
Hey, I really like that 10D !! Looked at Nusbaum's link there. Yeah, I see differences but would have loved to see some outdoor comparisons, exact same shot on both cameras. To get back to it... Steve's did a side by side tech D60 vs. 10D. Looks like the 10D is a bit more versatile in some key areas. I ask- how often do you need to push ISO to 1600 ?? I do have one EF lens that is pretty slow (5.6) and think that 1600 may get used a time or two outdoors.
I can squeeze the 10D on budget.. actually I could do the D60 as well but not sure it's worth the extra money vs. the 10D. So, now it's 10D vs. Rebel. 10D looks better !!

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/02/2004 09:36:03 AM · #22

If all you are doing is 8x10 prints then the Rebel should be way more than enough. At the places I have had prints made I couldnâ��t tell any difference between 1D, 1Ds and Rebel files at 8x10. This is from a local shop and also from prints using an Epson 2200. When going to larger sized prints the differences start to show up. I have found that usually when a magazine or other publisher gets snooty about accepting digital files I just have a print made and send it in and havenâ��t had any trouble at that point. Maybe there will be a difference if you use a better printer, but really for a properly exposed and post processed file the 8x10 prints from a Digital Rebel are absolutely fabulous.

Greg

Dibutil

Canon EOS-20D

04/02/2004 09:49:12 AM · #23

So far on steves-digicams the best resolution/definition camera is Sigma SD10! Check this image and compare with the others:
take a look at the digits on the green dumpster in the center. Every other camera has the same scene and none come close to the clarity of details like this one.

There is always something to dream about...

audioaltima

04/02/2004 09:53:26 AM · #24

In many cases, you'll be able to print larger with an image from the Rebel than with an image from the Pro1 shot at the same settings. This is simply because the noise level on the rebel is quite noticably less than on the Pro1, F828, and 8700.

There is way more to picking a digital camera than megapixels alone. Way, way more :)