Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Baby photos - rent a Canon 10D or 1Ds?  (Read 5970 times)
jwarthman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« on: August 04, 2003, 07:36:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Danno,
I suppose the easy answer is "it depends..."  ;-)

Seriously, I've owned the D30 and the 1Ds, and for me, the D30 had a much shorter learning curve. Now, if you've used Canon's professional film cameras like the 1V, maybe the reverse would be true. You say you have some Canon glass - on which body(ies) have you used it?

If you're accustomed to making large prints with MF film, I think you'd be much happier with the 1Ds simply because of the extra resolution.

Also, since this is a one-time event, I think your results would be more predictably "good" with the 1Ds. Learning curves aside, the 1Ds has gotten very good reviews, while the 10D has given some people fits with focus issues.

I like your idea of shooting RAW + jpeg. I do the same thing, and it works well for me. I suggest setting the jpeg mode to small/fine so they won't take up too much space on top of the RAW files.

Speaking of space, if you're not shooting digitally now, have you estimated how much storage (int he form of CF cards) you'll need? Will you have access to a computer or other storage device so you can unload your CF cards? Or do you plan on purchasing or renting a huge amount of CF capacity for the weekend?

Last but not least, I highly recommend, whichever camera you choose, that you rent it two weekends in succession, if possible. The first weekend you can become familiar with the camera, and how it reacts with your lenses. You can experiment with the meter and the histogram in the kinds of light you expect to encounter when you photograph your neice. You can get a feel for how you'll transfer your images off your CF cards, and you might try processing a few in Photoshop to ensure you're comfortable with the white balance, etc. By doing this, when the blessed event happens, you'll be spending less time wondering about the camera, and more time making great images.

Hope This Helps!

-- Jim
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2003, 08:42:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I second Joe on the renting the 1Ds. I own one and you can pry it from my cold dead fingers...You haven't really experienced digital image quality until you print a 13x19" from a 1Ds RAW file. Returning the camera will be one of the most painful experiences of your life, if you can manage to wipe the drool off of it.  :p
Logged

Steele
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2003, 02:29:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Danno,
Pardon me while I let me age show just a little. I have been shooting for over 60 years. When I make a landscape image I want a large sheet of film. Large enough to make a huge print that makes me feel the same way I felt when I made the image that cold crisp October morning at sunrise.

I have also done my share of kidnapping  and the best tool for that job is a 35mm -- now days 35mm  digital SLR. You will not be making prints large enough to tax Canon 35mm lenses. The opposite is true. The best lens for photographing babies is a Canon 135 f2.8 Soft Focus.

Monte Zuker, of portrait and wedding photog fame used the D30, then D60, and now 10D for wedding and portraits.

I got my D30 the week my great grand child was born. I was making fantastic images an hour after I got it. I'm now shooting the 10D. The 1Ds will have a longer steeper learning curve. If you want to experience using one, that's one issue. But the higher resolution is not only not needed but is probably counterproductive for what you are going to do.

Enjoy God's gift of the miracle of new life in your family!

Ebert Steele
Logged
Joe Hardesty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2003, 03:00:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But the higher resolution is not only not needed but is probably counterproductive for what you are going to do.
Ebert, can you explain your logic here. Although I have only been in photography 1/2 as long as you, I have never had an occassion where higher resolution was counterproductive.
Logged

Thanks for the memories!
Steele
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2003, 05:43:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
But the higher resolution is not only not needed but is probably counterproductive for what you are going to do.
Ebert, can you explain your logic here. Although I have only been in photography 1/2 as long as you, I have never had an occassion where higher resolution was counterproductive.
Joe,
When making a  portrait image high resolution is usually not not your friend especially for kids and ladies. I have many times made a softer focus lens by smearing something oily on a skylight filter (usually grease from the crease of your nose or the back of your ear, that used to be an art); printing through a panty hose stretched over a hoop; learning how to move it and at what angle under the enlarging lens -- all to defeat the resolution without diminishing the contrast. Portrait lenses that had soft out of focus pearly highlights were prized.

Many people believe that the D30 makes more pleasing images than many cameras with twice its resolution. They argue that the CMOS chip delivers smoother tonal gradations. What ever the reason,  my point is that resolution is not always king.

Steele
Logged
Steele
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2003, 07:26:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Jim,
Your right. Danno is the only one who knows what he wants to do with the final images. That said, my opinions are based on my experience. I can tell you that most people don't want a 20x30 print of a new baby to hang over the mantel. You might, Danno might, but  most people don't. If Danno does he should shoot the med format he is accustomed to. To tell you the truth, if I were to make a recommendation to Danno it would be to use the  equipment he has been shooting for some time. Choose another time and place to experiment with  digital.

The Canon 135 soft focus was not intended to be a recommendation. I was just making the point that it is a principally a portrait lens and it is a soft focus lens. Your right it is somewhat longer than I would like but still a very useful focal length for a tiny baby and the reason it is my "best" lens for  shooting kids is because it is the only soft focus EF lens that I know of.

In your last point about resolution, the stated purpose for the rental was to shoot the new baby,  not do landscape photography. I say again, resolution is not always king.

Steele
Logged
DannoPiano
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2003, 07:05:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I've pretty much decided to with the 10D for 2 reasons. First, I value having a preview of a camera I can afford and might actually buy. Second, the extra resolution doesn't justify the expense in my case, and part of my motivation to go digital was to take 100's of photos without all of the associated costs of film and developing - to save money. It's doubtful I need the resolution of the 1Ds (omigosh, did I really just say that?), and if I do think a particular shot deserves it I'll shoot MF film for that occasion. Another way of looking at this is to find out if the 10D's resolution will actually satisfy me should I choose to buy one. Heck, I might even be disappointed if I previewed the 1Ds and bought the 10D!  

Thanks again everyone for your input.
Logged
robertprice
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2003, 09:01:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Johnathon,
I follow the same practice as you, but simply go about it a different way.  Like you, I use the clone tool to hide flaws, and sharpen the layer to taste.  I then create a duplicate layer, soften the duplicate layer, and then simply erase away the areas I want to have sharper.

Not necessarily a better method, just different.  

doc
Logged
ratz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2003, 07:04:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Quote
But the higher resolution is not only not needed but is probably counterproductive for what you are going to do.
Ebert, can you explain your logic here. Although I have only been in photography 1/2 as long as you, I have never had an occassion where higher resolution was counterproductive.
Joe,
When making a portrait image high resolution is usually not not your friend especially for kids and ladies. I have many times made a softer focus lens by smearing something oily on a skylight filter (usually grease from the crease of your nose or the back of your ear, that used to be an art); printing through a panty hose stretched over a hoop; learning how to move it and at what angle under the enlarging lens -- all to defeat the resolution without diminishing the contrast. Portrait lenses that had soft out of focus pearly highlights were prized.

Many people believe that the D30 makes more pleasing images than many cameras with twice its resolution. They argue that the CMOS chip delivers smoother tonal gradations. What ever the reason, my point is that resolution is not always king.

Steele
Yes in these kind of shots you don't really want to see every pore and pimple. You know it's the whole glamour photo thing, why would you want to have to retouch it out later in Photoshop?

Anyways I think that is what Steele is getting at.
Logged
DannoPiano
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2003, 06:57:28 PM »
ReplyReply

My neice is due to be born any day now, first grandchild in the family, so it's a big deal for everyone. I'm the photographer in the family, and I've gladly promised to take lots of pictures. The problem is, I'm planning to move across country within weeks after the blessed event, and so I'm trying to plan a way to take the most pictures possible in a short amount of time. This got me thinking about going digital and renting a camera for a weekend.

I have several Canon lenses, so the choice is either a 1Ds or 10D for the weekend at $190 and $100 respectively. The big question: Will it be worth the extra $90 to get the extra pixels and features in a 1Ds or is the 10D "good enough"? Is there anything I should know before taking my first plunge into digital? Will I be in over my head if choose the 1Ds?

My plan is to shoot RAW with jpgs so I can get immediate feedback but still be able to edit things later in Photoshop. That way family can get quickies until I can get them "perfect".

I've taken many portraits and I do prefer MF, especially when I know I'll be making larger prints. I think I can pass off some of the expense to family.

Thanks in advance for any advice or help!
Logged
Joe Hardesty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2003, 07:53:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Jim give you some good advice.

I have used both of these cameras and they are two very different beasts. The user interface, controls, and functionality are quite unique. You need to spend some time with both to see which is going to be the most intuitive since you cannot afford a long learning curve.

All things being equal, and since you like MF and may opt for larger prints and perhaps need to do some serious cropping, the 1Ds will give you everything you could want.

The 1Ds has one serious downside; after using it for a weekend, you may not be able to resist buying one!
Logged

Thanks for the memories!
KMOlender
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2003, 11:44:39 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing to remember is that the 10D has a 1.6x cropping factor.  A 20mm lens has a 32mm angle-of-view.   A 16 mm lens has a 25.6 mm angle-of-view.
 
That can help get some tight shots of the baby and other folks, but it could make it tough to get some of the wider-angle group shots in the hospital and indoors when the baby goes home, depending on how much room you'll have at home, in the delivery room, and so on.
Logged

Kurt O.
jwarthman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2003, 03:18:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Ebert,

Quote
You will not be making prints large enough to tax Canon 35mm lenses.

If Danno plans to make 8x10 prints and smaller, I agree that either body will provide suitable resolution, and 'most any Canon lens will deliver sufficient detail to the sensor. But we don't yet know what size he may want to print. What if he were to get a single shot of the family that's simply gorgeous, and a family member really, really wants a 20 x 30" print for over the piano? ;-)

Quote
The best lens for photographing babies is a Canon 135 f2.8 Soft Focus.

Are you considering the "crop factor" when you recomment the 135mm lens? Or would a shorter lens be a better choice when shooting with the 10D?

Quote
The 1Ds will have a longer steeper learning curve.

This really depends upon which Canon bodies Danno is familiar with! I suggest that, if he's been using the 1V, then the 10D will have a steeper learning curve. On the other hand, if he's been using something like the Elan II, I agree that the 1Ds will have a steeper learning curve.

Quote
the higher resolution is not only not needed but is probably counterproductive for what you are going to do.

Until we know what size prints Danno plans to make, I think we can't really say how much resolution is needed. I have made many, many 12 x 18" prints using a D30. In the last 9 months, I've made many of the same size prints using a 1Ds. The difference in resolution is clearly visible at this size! If I'm strictly making close-in portraits of a single person (baby :-) - especially if I'm using soft focus, then the added resolution may not matter much. On the other hand, if I'm shooting a group of people or a landscape, I appreciate the added resolution I get with the 1Ds.

Another important factor, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is that the 1Ds seems less likely to produce out of focus images than the 10D. Since this is a one-time event, I would personally err on the "overkill" side rather than risk a bunch of poorly-focused images.


Hope this helps!

-- Jim
Logged
DannoPiano
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2003, 04:10:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, everyone, for the input.

I'm still waffling between the two, for various reasons. To answer a few questions...

I've got an Elan 7 as my 35mm. I'm not intimidated about using a more sophisticated camera, but I was only slightly concerned with the learning curve (the geek in me would enjoy it). I would be more interested in the increased resolution of the 1Ds than it's numerous features I wouldn't have time to take advantage of.

I've got 4 lenses, a 28-55 zoom, 75-300 zoom, a 50 prime, and an 80 macro. None of the L variety.

As far as print size, who can say? Being the first grandchild on both sides, doting grandparents might want to "go big". I won't be printing myself but taking them to a local pro shop.

The plan: I'll be renting the camera for a weekend after the baby has come home for awhile. I'm planning a semi-formal setting, more than just candid photos, perhaps even attempting something Geddes-like (yes, Mom is up for it and excited). My brother has a computer at home and I was planning on downloading the RAW files as I go and burning them to CD for manipulation later. That way I can take as many as I like (and save a fortune on film!) and get some feedback as I work. The rental includes two 512MB cards and a reader (and two batteries with charger) so I should be well equipped even at someplace other than my home computer.

I gotta admit the cheapskate in me would like to go with the 10D. Also, I would like to buy a 10D in the next 6 months and this is my best excuse for trying one out. But if I am going to rent why not get the best and go with the 1Ds? But for evaluation purposes I think it might be best to stick with the 10D since I can't possibly afford the 1Ds any time soon. (Thinking "out loud" here...)
Logged
AWeil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2003, 06:56:22 PM »
ReplyReply

And taking the risk of sounding even more oldfashioned: For the same reason as described above, in film you have so called 'portrait' film. They are soft in contrast and gentle in color, yet just sharp enough. The idea is to spare the audience realism and let your model look beautiful. Similar example: The nikon 105mm makro lense is not a good tool for portraits. It is simply too sharp, presenting everything 'skin-deep', wrinkles and pores. People don't like that.
A.WEil
Logged
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2003, 10:32:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Steele raises a good point. You often have to be very careful not to get too much "resolution" in portraits.

There's also the question of how large a file you really need for any given print size. We've been doing our portrait services digitally for the last 3 years now and eleven before that with film, and a lot will depend upon whether you are printing your own or having it done through a lab. In the latter case, the three labs we use are more or less uniform in their recommendations. Here are the pertinent details from one's chart:

Print Size Pixels File Size
4x5 1250x1000 4mb
5x7 1750x1250 6mb
8x10 2000x1600 10mb
11x14 2800x2200 20mb
16x20 4000x3200 40mb
20x30 6000x4000 60mb
30x40 8000x6000 80mb

If you are printing your own, it boils down to your own skills in Photoshop or similar, and the capabilities of your printer.

Hank
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2003, 05:44:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm a 1Ds user, and I do portraits. The extra resulution is great for eyelashes, hair, and clothing details. To avoid highlighting Cousin Suzy's acne, I use a combination of the healing brush and selective sharpening--I sharpen the clothing, hair, lips, eyes, etc, and don't sharpen the skin where the blemishes live, or the background. After selective sharpening, I may run a mild soft-focus action if the image warrants it. The result is an image that can be printed large, showing a high degree of detail, but is still flattering to the subject. It's a much better approach than smearing the whole image with a soft-focus blanket.
Logged

Alan Schietzsch
Guest
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2003, 10:40:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to agree with steele; in portraiture, resolution can be too much. You do want to see eyelashes, but do you want to see clumps of mascara on eyelashes? Likewise, you want to see skin tones and contours, but you do not want to see wrinkles, pores, or other defects. Certainly those fine details are acceptable in a "character" portrait, where the intent is different, but for a pleasant or flattering image, a softer rendition is often preferable. Your clients be much happier.

Alan Schietzsch
interpolatethis.com
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad