Digital BW, The Print

> 
> BW forum queries, re: Canon D60
> 
> Canon D60 users, help. Is the D60 useful beyond portrait
> applications? Much as I love my EOS1 and 1N, they are pushing 10
> years of fairly heavy use. I like best about them their reliability,
> sturdiness and speed. How does the D60 compare? For example: could I
> shoot the equivalent of eight 36-exposure rolls in a smoky, dusty
> calf-branding session; the equivalent of four rolls using available
> room light on a woman and her three dogs and cat; the equivalent of
> six rolls on a mother-baby series during a three-hour period. Does
> the D60 work in freezing temperatures? How about in low light? (I'm a
> dedicated 400 shooter. Sometimes 800 and 3200.) I could cheerfully
> say goodbye to processing, squinting at negs on a light table, and
> excruciating scanning sessions. Generally, the Piezo-MIS FS prints
> I'm getting please me, though I detect areas of posterization
> sometimes. Would digital capture eliminate this? Guidance needed and
> welcome! Carol
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-----Original Message-----
BW forum queries, re: Canon D60

Canon D60 users, help. Is the D60 useful beyond portrait 
applications? Much as I love my EOS1 and 1N, they are pushing 10 
years of fairly heavy use. I like best about them their reliability, 
sturdiness and speed. How does the D60 compare? For example: could I 
shoot the equivalent of eight 36-exposure rolls in a smoky, dusty 
calf-branding session; the equivalent of four rolls using available 
room light on a woman and her three dogs and cat; the equivalent of 
six rolls on a mother-baby series during a three-hour period. Does 
the D60 work in freezing temperatures? How about in low light? (I'm a 
dedicated 400 shooter. Sometimes 800 and 3200.) I could cheerfully 
say goodbye to processing, squinting at negs on a light table, and 
excruciating scanning sessions. Generally, the Piezo-MIS FS prints 
I'm getting please me, though I detect areas of posterization 
sometimes. Would digital capture eliminate this? Guidance needed and 
welcome! Carol 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jerry Olson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 12:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] D60 info request


  Carol, it's not a pro model camera, but has higher resolution than any
  of the pro models. 
  I certainly wouldn't carry mine in a dust filled room, nor would I carry
  any other camera in such a room, unless everything but the front of the
  lens was wrapped in a plastic bag.  Quality for 13x19 inch prints equals
  film with the D60. D60 only has ISO 1000, not 1600, but you could set it
  for -1 stop exposure, (ISO 2000) and work it out in photoshop. I've been
  using a D30 for about a year and love it. My D60 should have been here
  by now, but they always say in just a few days .... I've never seen
  posterization with my D30. It's great for portraits, the D60 will be greater!

  Jer

  wapitiwilla wrote:
  > 
  > BW forum queries, re: Canon D60
  > 
  > Canon D60 users, help. Is the D60 useful beyond portrait
  > applications? Much as I love my EOS1 and 1N, they are pushing 10
  > years of fairly heavy use. I like best about them their reliability,
  > sturdiness and speed. How does the D60 compare? For example: could I
  > shoot the equivalent of eight 36-exposure rolls in a smoky, dusty
  > calf-branding session; the equivalent of four rolls using available
  > room light on a woman and her three dogs and cat; the equivalent of
  > six rolls on a mother-baby series during a three-hour period. Does
  > the D60 work in freezing temperatures? How about in low light? (I'm a
  > dedicated 400 shooter. Sometimes 800 and 3200.) I could cheerfully
  > say goodbye to processing, squinting at negs on a light table, and
  > excruciating scanning sessions. Generally, the Piezo-MIS FS prints
  > I'm getting please me, though I detect areas of posterization
  > sometimes. Would digital capture eliminate this? Guidance needed and
  > welcome! Carol
  > 
  > 
  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  > 
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  > 
  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > - Include your full name with your message.
  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Austin Franklin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:08 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] D60 info request



  Hi Jerry,

  > Hi Austin,
  >
  > > >   Quality for 13x19 inch prints equals
  > > >   film with the D60.
  > >
  > > Equals WHAT film?  Not ALL film, that's for sure.
  >
  > Certainly NOT!
  >
  > Austin, you obviously see quality in scans I don't see. My D30 gives me
  > extremely sharp,

  Of course.  Line art images are extremely sharp too, but they have no detail
  or tonality ;-)  To me, sharpness isn't an indication of "good" or
  "quality".  If there were tones in the original image that aren't duplicated
  in the recorded image, information has been lost...though the image may be
  very sharp.

  > detailed closeups. It equals provia 100, or supra 100,
  > or Reala 100 etc. I've made the side by side tests.

  What size prints?  For a 4x6, no doubt, and for even some 8x10, but for a 13
  x 19, well, been there, done that...have some on my photo board.  Not even
  close.

  > Believe me when I tell you the
  > 13x19 inch print is great.

  It depends on what you mean by "great".  It WILL be sharp, but it WILL not
  contain the same detail as a print made from film.  It physically can not,
  and really doesn't.  I've been doing this (digital imaging) for a long time,
  and I have a number of digital cameras.  I know the results.  The D-30 isn't
  magic.

  > I just don't care what the technical data
  > says. I have the prints, and I know what I see.

  Same here.

  > I know that the D60 will
  > be much better than the D30, and I'm completely satisfied with the D30,
  > for closeups. I'm quite sure the D60 will give me the results I need in
  > landscape photography.

  If you believe it works for you, that's good!  I am not saying it doesn't
  work for you, as only YOU know that.  But, I'm saying your conclusions as to
  "quality" aren't the same as mine.

  > Remember, I'm only talking about 13x19 prints.

  Me too ;-)

  > When you rez the D30 up to 240 DPI for the 13x19 inch prints, I really
  > can't see any loss in quality. You say there is, in detail, that it just
  > can't be as good.

  Well I CAN see the loss in "quality", as well as many other people can.  If
  sharpness is your primary indication of "quality", then you're going to have
  a different conclusion than someone who has some other property as their
  primary indication of quality.  "rezzing up" an image does NOT provide
  detail that simply is not there in the first place in the recorded image.

  > I am happy with the camera, and I guess this is all that matters to me.

  Bingo!  And that's what matters to you.

  > No, I never EVER said in all circumstances. I'm talking closeups, ( Cat
  > portraits), and Extremely sharp lenses here.

  There's actually something "funny" about that.  Sharp lenses mean nothing on
  this camera.  The issue is there is a "low pass" filter (some call it
  "anti-aliasing" filter) between the lense and the CCD.  Why this is
  important to understand is this filter actually "dumbs down" the lense so
  the MTF of the lense matches the CCD pitch.  The sharpness of the lense, on
  that camera, really doesn't matter...you'd probably get equally as good a
  result with a Sigma or Tamaron etc. lense, than a high end piece of glass,
  as far as "sharpness" goes that is.

  > There is a big difference
  > between Top grade glass and average lenses, and it really shows
  > up in digital.

  Actually, that's is not true, as I stated above.  Most of the web sites that
  talk about this stuff acknowledge this readily.  Even DPReview says that the
  D-60 is probably the first digital camera (as far as the 35mm-esque
  varieties) that the lense might actually matter ;-)

  Regards,

  Austin


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steadman Uhlich [mailto:steadmanuhlich@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:47 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] D60 info request
>
>
> Austin,
>
> The D30 and D60 use a CMOS chip and not a CCD.
>
> Steadman
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Austin Franklin
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:08 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] D60 info request
>
>
>
>   Hi Jerry,
>
>   > Hi Austin,
>   >
>   > > >   Quality for 13x19 inch prints equals
>   > > >   film with the D60.
>   > >
>   > > Equals WHAT film?  Not ALL film, that's for sure.
>   >
>   > Certainly NOT!
>   >
>   > Austin, you obviously see quality in scans I don't see. My
> D30 gives me
>   > extremely sharp,
>
>   Of course.  Line art images are extremely sharp too, but they
> have no detail
>   or tonality ;-)  To me, sharpness isn't an indication of "good" or
>   "quality".  If there were tones in the original image that
> aren't duplicated
>   in the recorded image, information has been lost...though the
> image may be
>   very sharp.
>
>   > detailed closeups. It equals provia 100, or supra 100,
>   > or Reala 100 etc. I've made the side by side tests.
>
>   What size prints?  For a 4x6, no doubt, and for even some 8x10,
> but for a 13
>   x 19, well, been there, done that...have some on my photo
> board.  Not even
>   close.
>
>   > Believe me when I tell you the
>   > 13x19 inch print is great.
>
>   It depends on what you mean by "great".  It WILL be sharp, but
> it WILL not
>   contain the same detail as a print made from film.  It
> physically can not,
>   and really doesn't.  I've been doing this (digital imaging) for
> a long time,
>   and I have a number of digital cameras.  I know the results.
> The D-30 isn't
>   magic.
>
>   > I just don't care what the technical data
>   > says. I have the prints, and I know what I see.
>
>   Same here.
>
>   > I know that the D60 will
>   > be much better than the D30, and I'm completely satisfied
> with the D30,
>   > for closeups. I'm quite sure the D60 will give me the results
> I need in
>   > landscape photography.
>
>   If you believe it works for you, that's good!  I am not saying
> it doesn't
>   work for you, as only YOU know that.  But, I'm saying your
> conclusions as to
>   "quality" aren't the same as mine.
>
>   > Remember, I'm only talking about 13x19 prints.
>
>   Me too ;-)
>
>   > When you rez the D30 up to 240 DPI for the 13x19 inch prints, I really
>   > can't see any loss in quality. You say there is, in detail,
> that it just
>   > can't be as good.
>
>   Well I CAN see the loss in "quality", as well as many other
> people can.  If
>   sharpness is your primary indication of "quality", then you're
> going to have
>   a different conclusion than someone who has some other property as their
>   primary indication of quality.  "rezzing up" an image does NOT provide
>   detail that simply is not there in the first place in the
> recorded image.
>
>   > I am happy with the camera, and I guess this is all that
> matters to me.
>
>   Bingo!  And that's what matters to you.
>
>   > No, I never EVER said in all circumstances. I'm talking
> closeups, ( Cat
>   > portraits), and Extremely sharp lenses here.
>
>   There's actually something "funny" about that.  Sharp lenses
> mean nothing on
>   this camera.  The issue is there is a "low pass" filter (some call it
>   "anti-aliasing" filter) between the lense and the CCD.  Why this is
>   important to understand is this filter actually "dumbs down"
> the lense so
>   the MTF of the lense matches the CCD pitch.  The sharpness of
> the lense, on
>   that camera, really doesn't matter...you'd probably get equally
> as good a
>   result with a Sigma or Tamaron etc. lense, than a high end
> piece of glass,
>   as far as "sharpness" goes that is.
>
>   > There is a big difference
>   > between Top grade glass and average lenses, and it really shows
>   > up in digital.
>
>   Actually, that's is not true, as I stated above.  Most of the
> web sites that
>   talk about this stuff acknowledge this readily.  Even DPReview
> says that the
>   D-60 is probably the first digital camera (as far as the 35mm-esque
>   varieties) that the lense might actually matter ;-)
>
>   Regards,
>
>   Austin
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>

>There's actually something "funny" about that.  Sharp lenses mean nothing on
>this camera.  The issue is there is a "low pass" filter (some call it
>"anti-aliasing" filter) between the lense and the CCD.  Why this is
>important to understand is this filter actually "dumbs down" the lense so
>the MTF of the lense matches the CCD pitch.  The sharpness of the lense, on
>that camera, really doesn't matter...you'd probably get equally as good a
>result with a Sigma or Tamaron etc. lense, than a high end piece of glass,
>as far as "sharpness" goes that is.
>
> > There is a big difference
> > between Top grade glass and average lenses, and it really shows
> > up in digital.
>
>Actually, that's is not true, as I stated above.  Most of the web sites that
>talk about this stuff acknowledge this readily.  Even DPReview says that the
>D-60 is probably the first digital camera (as far as the 35mm-esque
>varieties) that the lense might actually matter ;-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin

> 
> > A long time ago I called Kodak's digital division and asked a few
> > questions, one of them being, how many pixels would it take to equal the
> > information on a Kodachrome ISO 25 film. He said 12 million pixels would
> > equal Kodachrome. Don't know if this is still true, but he seemed to
> > know what he was talking about. That was years ago when a 12 million
> > pixel chip was only a dream.
> > Jer
>