Photography: Canon EOS 10D or 350D

**Captain_Rightfoot** · 22nd January 2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by VladTepes
I don't buy the 'washed out colours' argument. Digital cameras are simply different to film ones in the way they need to be set for optimum results. Those used to film SLR cameras will take some getting used to the digitals and, of course, vice versa.

"Daddy, what's film ?"
"That's something I took pictures of my old Land Rovers on"
"Daddy, what's an old Land Rover"
"It those things I keep showing you pictures of that ran on petrol"
"Daddy, what's petrol"

well, you get the idea

Anyway, I think that Noddy used a Digital SLR for the pics he has posted on here (although I'm happy to be corrected) and nobody could say those are not TOP NOTCH pictures.

Digitals don't have washed out colours.. it's just that most of the time they are simply wrong.

The challenge isn't getting them looking ok on a computer monitor.. it's printing them.

The problem is that digital cameras have a white balance function that helps them decide how they will render colours. Unfortunately this is variable. They take a sample of what they see each time they start up. That's why the digital cameras that we had in the desert with us had so much difficulty. The vivid red and blues really causes them headaches.

The way film does it is in the chemistry. It's like having a fixed setting for your AWB. That's why you can put them in a machine for printing, and the machine will use a setting for that type of film. As long as the machine is set up well you'll get accurate colours. You can set them up once for life.

So, if you only want to display things on a monitor.. then all is good. If you want to print them, it's ok too as long as you're prepared to accept that the colours will have varying degrees of accuracy. You can get there if you're prepared to spend serious time tweaking and re-printing. I know of pro's that will spend 3 or 4 days tweaking the colour on one image for entering in a comp or show.

I guess the problem is I'm **really** fussy, and have seen so many digital photos with ghastly colours. I'm the kind of guy that amuses myself by looking at cars in traffic and picking which panels have been re-painted... I think its a great joke.

And I don't doubt that digital is the way of the future. However it's not there yet. While in my local camera shop discussing this the other week all the guys were giving me knowing looks. The guy behind the counter had just spent 7k on a second hand medium format film camera

If you want to see some interesting stuff about the colour and resolution that film can give have a look at this site...

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

**incisor** · 22nd January 2006, 05:00 PM

actually it is harder to display them on a monitor to a standard than print them these days. very very few monitors are colour calibrated to a common standard, while nearly all medium to high quality printers are calibrated to the same standard as high quality digitals are. ALL Apple monitors are calibrated.

**Captain_Rightfoot** · 22nd January 2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by incisor
actually it is harder to display them on a monitor to a standard than print them these days. very very few monitors are colour calibrated to a common standard, while nearly all medium to high quality printers are calibrated to the same standard as high quality digitals are. ALL Apple monitors are calibrated.

I had noticed that my mates 14k Cannon digital has pretty good colours on my Apple

EDIT: Actually what it shows is that he has probably given them the once over... and he uses Apple.. therefor they look sweet on mine.

Further.. I don't want to annoy anyone with my crazy old time views. I didn't want to say that digital sux... I didnt want to say that if you bought one you've made a mistake.

What I wanted to say was that film is still an excellent medium that has some really good properties if quality is your game. Basically I was trying to help by saying if you have an old SLR don't be bummed... Just go out and take some photos

And that a 2 and a bit k splash on a new SLR will buy you a lot of film.

CR over and out 8O

smu · 23rd January 2006, 07:47 PM

I say if you can get it cheap, grab yer photographer mates 10D... it'll be a good camera. I've had a 300D for the last 2 years and it's awesome... I'm no professional, but I think it really boils down to the character behind the lens most of the time. Keep in mind too that because the technology is moving so fast no matter what you get now it'll be outdated in no time too soon anyway !

**Grizzly_Adams** · 25th January 2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
The problem is that digital cameras have a white balance function that helps them decide how they will render colours. Unfortunately this is variable. They take a sample of what they see each time they start up. That's why the digital cameras that we had in the desert with us had so much difficulty. The vivid red and blues really causes them headaches.

Not quite true, it depends on the camera you are talking about. I know with my Digital I can set the white balance manually if I feel the need, though usually I'm happy enough with one of the automagic settings.

Each to his own.

tombraider · 25th January 2006, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Noddy
Grrrrr......

Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:

Strange, I thought only amateurs went Nikon

arent they like the "Mac" of Cameras

- you know for people who cant operate PCs (LMAO - I have both :!: )

But truth be told we have several Landrovers and CANON cameras...

A 10D, 20D and an IXUS...

And I certainly wouldn't have Toyota s#t

8)

Cheers
Mike

**cewilson** · 7th February 2006, 09:28 AM

I personally went for the 350D. Cost me just under 3k for the twins lens kit - but so be it.

I've had a lot of people recommend them to me, and as a very much ameteur, I figure this is a good upgrade for me.

Whilst I understand the arguments between film and digital - I personally think for the average person that digital makes it all so much easier to be able to give it a go.

Digital is technically a one off expense unless you are printing your pics as well - which to me is a big positive in it's favour.

I guess at the end of the day, it's down to what you want as to which way you go. :wink:

**Steinzy** · 7th February 2006, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by tombraider
And I certainly wouldn't have Toyota s#t 8)

Cheers
Mike

That's a Pentax isn't it???

Thread: Photography: Canon EOS 10D or 350D

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions