20d or medium format?

[Big Mike]

20x30s are not meant to be looked at with a microscope.

I whole heartedly agree. Firstly, big prints are meant to be viewed from a distance of at least a couple feet. Secondly, I'd bet that most people who don't hang out on a photography forum all day (customers), would not even notice grain/noise that we would find unacceptable.

 

[jadin]

I'd personally go with the 20d, I prefer digital over film. The 20d will print just fine at those sizes (150 pixels per inch).

If you wanted larger than the dimensions you listed, then the 20d wouldn't work.

I print 16x24 at 300 dpi from my digital rebel and they look great. I've sold several prints at that size. I've also printed and sold a few 20x30s at 200 dpi which also look incredible. 20x30s are not meant to be looked at with a microscope.

The dRebel is 6.3 mp I believe. The 20d is 8.2 mp. So you'd be able to go even bigger than that. I just did a rough calculation I guess I had my numbers wrong somewhere...

 

[voodoocat]

That may be true but not everyone would accept that quality hanging on their wall.... I know I wouldn't.

 

[jadin]

300 dpi isn't good enough for you? Crikey!

 

[voodoocat]

300dpi only specifies the print process. :roll: You should go compare a 16x20 print enlarged from a 20D or any other aps sized sensor on the market and one made from a 645 or 6x6cm slide or negative. You can't resolve detail that wasn't there to begin with no matter what dpi you use.

 

[Digital Matt]

I never said a enlarged 6.3mp image was the same, or looked as good as an enlarged MF film shot. I was just correcting Jadin about print sizes one can get from a 300D/10D/20D. I think it's high enough quality, and I'm the artist. My standards are strict. I'm not saying I woudln't shoot in MF if I could. I won't hesitate to print a 16x24 or a 20x30 from my digital rebel however, and I won't hesitate to sell them.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[ksmattfish]

Since you already have a 10D, I say try out the medium format film. I don't think you have to spend anywhere near $1800 though. You can probably find a good used mf camera outfit for under $600, maybe under $400. That way you can try out mf film, and still have $1200+ left for a 21D, or whatever the next Canon DSLR will be if you decide that mf film isn't your style.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

I never said a enlarged 6.3mp image was the same, or looked as good as an enlarged MF film shot. I was just correcting Jadin about print sizes one can get from a 300D/10D/20D. I think it's high enough quality, and I'm the artist. My standards are strict. I'm not saying I woudln't shoot in MF if I could. I won't hesitate to print a 16x24 or a 20x30 from my digital rebel however, and I won't hesitate to sell them.

Just my 2 cents.

now this brings up an interesting point. (or two)
the 10d has, what, 5.4mp res? the 20d 8.2. i might be swayed that the convenience of the digital sells it, if it can come close enough to the quality of the mf. i have sold a few 16x20" and 20x24" that were both shot with the 10d. i was happy enough with them, because everyone i showed them to went nuts on 'em and the customers were quite pleased. but here's the thing: i noticed a million and one things that i found unacceptable, and the day will come when i try to sell to someone as demanding. so, how high does the res have to get before the digital slr equals the power of the mf? and i don't mean richness of tone or color quality, i mean the sharpness.
while i'm at it, how much, ballpark, will i pay to have a roll of mf film developed and scanned?

 

[aggiezach]

I never said a enlarged 6.3mp image was the same, or looked as good as an enlarged MF film shot. I was just correcting Jadin about print sizes one can get from a 300D/10D/20D. I think it's high enough quality, and I'm the artist. My standards are strict. I'm not saying I woudln't shoot in MF if I could. I won't hesitate to print a 16x24 or a 20x30 from my digital rebel however, and I won't hesitate to sell them.

Just my 2 cents.

now this brings up an interesting point. (or two)
the 10d has, what, 5.4mp res? the 20d 8.2. i might be swayed that the convenience of the digital sells it, if it can come close enough to the quality of the mf. i have sold a few 16x20" and 20x24" that were both shot with the 10d. i was happy enough with them, because everyone i showed them to went nuts on 'em and the customers were quite pleased. but here's the thing: i noticed a million and one things that i found unacceptable, and the day will come when i try to sell to someone as demanding. so, how high does the res have to get before the digital slr equals the power of the mf? and i don't mean richness of tone or color quality, i mean the sharpness.
while i'm at it, how much, ballpark, will i pay to have a roll of mf film developed and scanned?

Well I think that all comes down to Sensor size.... While you can pack as many pixels as you want into a rectangular area, the fact remains that the size of that rectangle will affect the shaprness of the image (at larger sizes) more than anything else. You also have to think about this.... When you pack more and more pixels into the same area you tend to get more noise (they try to fix this with software and the post processing on the camera and they are getting so much better at this) But when you enlarge images to the sizes you're talking about, these things become more and more noticable. so basically it comes down to this... I say go with the Medium Format and take some killer portraits that will still be sharp as a tack at 16x20 and larger!

Now if I'm totally wrong on this, disregard this entire post...


Zach

 

[jadin]

Well you're right about the importance of sensor sizes, but for the most part dSLR's are plenty big to create noise free images even at those sizes.

The ones that really suffer are the compact digital camera's.

More info available here - http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm

Comparisons of the 10d and 20d in noise tests - http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp

 

[Osmer_Toby]

anyone here have mf film scanned? what size file do you get and how much do you pay to have it done?

 

[Digital Matt]

Osmer_Toby, the 10D is 6.3 mp fyi.

 

[ksmattfish]

anyone here have mf film scanned? what size file do you get and how much do you pay to have it done?

My local photo lab has different prices depending on what sort of quality you want.

Scanning services can add up quick. You can get an Epson or Microtek flatbed scanner with film scanning drawer for around $500 that does a very good job. I've been using a Microtek i900 which will scan up to 3200 ppi (7200x7200 for a 6x6cm neg).

 

[Osmer_Toby]

anyone here have mf film scanned? what size file do you get and how much do you pay to have it done?

My local photo lab has different prices depending on what sort of quality you want.

Scanning services can add up quick. You can get an Epson or Microtek flatbed scanner with film scanning drawer for around $500 that does a very good job. I've been using a Microtek i900 which will scan up to 3200 ppi (7200x7200 for a 6x6cm neg).

must give you some hellacious sized files, tho, huh?

 

[ksmattfish]

must give you some hellacious sized files, tho, huh?

I normally only use the scans for posting on my website, photo forums, etc... so I rarely scan very big. I'm afraid it would kill my computer!

From a 4x5 it's 12800x16000 at 3200 ppi. Definately too much for my computer.