Any EOS D10 users here?

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Any EOS D10 users here?

Post by Cyclops »

I have one of these on loan and am enjoying using it, but although I've had many cameras, incluidng a canon film camera, its a bit like being thrown in the deep end! There are so many functions and features to go through and as yet I dont have a manual(it will be on its way soon) so any info would be appreciated!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope

Planapo
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe

Post by Planapo »

You mean the Canon EOS 10D, don´t you? :?

If so, you can download the manual as a pdf here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contr ... delid=8772

--Betty

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

I presume you mean The Canon EOS 10D? (It is Nikon models where the D leads the number, as in the Nikon D200. With Canon's the D usually trails the number for it's DSLR's)

Here is a 24 page review of it that may explain some of it's features:-

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/

DaveW

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

yea its the 10D, cant believe I nearly compared it to a nikon ;)
Thanks guys!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

"cant believe I nearly compared it to a nikon"

I am presuming you were just having the usual inter make banter Cyclops? You can only make camera comparisons with what was available at that time. The two leading makes tend to leapfrog each other, Canon has just announced the 50D I believe, another 4 cameras up from the 10D which is now quite an old model in DSLR terms (which does not make it a poor performing camera as the inter model life of DSLR's is now only 18 months on average until they are superceeded), and Nikon has had the D3 and D300 on the market for a while, and no doubt a "D3X" using the new Sony 24 Megapixel sensor is on the stocks, or whatever they will eventually call it.:-

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/10dd100.htm

For years Nikon was the leading Pro film camera, then came autofocus and Canon snatched it's crown for sports photography, but there is now a move back to Nikon's by the sports Pro's since Canon rather shot it's self in the foot with the 1D Mk. III problems:-

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967

http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/#266

There are really no poor camera makers amongst the top brands, only the occasional poor camera model. At the moment Canon's consumer and prosumer cameras seem to be more competitive than it's pro cameras. But I have no doubt they will soon bring out a model to remedy this. Nobody stays in first place forever, Nikon lost out to Canon in the pro sports field and now Canon has lost to Nikon, but it will bounce back just as Nikon did.

If I was not a Nikon user I would be a Canon user, and I probably would not notice any difference in image quality, just differences in how the features on the two marques work. Every maker produces a camera that is not as good as the competition at times, and there is often far more variation in image quality between different cameras of the same model than competing makes.

In spite of ultra modern production methods and supposed inspection facilities non of the camera makers have yet been able to "clone" cameras or lenses so that each is identical to the next, and you will get a bad one creep through from any manufacturer.

I hold all the leading camera manufacturers in high regard, and if a proper scientific blind test was conducted with the same size prints produced from each, I doubt if even the Pro's could tell you reliably which make produced which print. You can always find differences in laboratory tests but these often have little relevance in real life photography.

We tend to follow camera makes with the same enthusiasm supporters follow football teams rather than using scientific judgement, almost akin to a "my country right or wrong" attitude. In our eyes the make we have chosen can do no wrong, otherwise that reflects on our judgement - well at least for a time unless they keep repeating their mistakes!

DaveW

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

The 10D is a fine camera. The biggest "annoyance" is that it takes a few seconds to "wake up" and be ready to shoot. (Current DSLR's are ready to go in about .1 second). The rear screen seems very small after you use a camera with the 3" screen common today. 6Mp is plenty for many (most?) uses, but of course it lags in the current Mpixel "race". But all in all a very capable camera with excellent image quality. (A good used one should be about $275-300 US)

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

I agree Charles,

Megapixels are not everything and more megapixels on the same sensor every 18 months or so often just means more noise on the image at higher ISO's since the pixel sites get smaller and less sensitive to light.

Thankfully, at least on the APS-C sized sensor, the megapixel race is now slowing since it is an area not a linear matter, so keep adding two extra megapixels every new model brings progressively less and less resolution advantages, but more and more noise in spite is advances in noise suppression circuitry around the chip. See:-

http://www.pictureline.com/newsletter/a ... php?id=318

Since it is an area not a linear matter from what I have read, to get the same image quality increase as from a 2 to a 4 megapixel camera having the same sized sensor, it is not a matter of keep adding an extra 2 megapixels or so, as makers are now doing each new camera, but the doubling sequence 2-4-8-16-32-64 megapixels. This is is certainly no longer happening with DSLR's, so your next new camera with a couple of extra megapixels is now less of an advance in image quality than was your previous that added a couple.

We seem to be getting towards the end of the megapixel race on the APSC- sized sensor, which is why both Canon and Nikon are now moving to full frame sensors of 35mm film camera size for their professional cameras. They can then cram on more megapixels each new model but with a greater pixel site size and less density than on the APS-C sensor.

Another view on the magapixel myth here:-

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=434&page=1

DaveW

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

DaveW wrote:We seem to be getting towards the end of the megapixel race on the APSC- sized sensor, which is why both Canon and Nikon are now moving to full frame sensors of 35mm film camera size for their professional cameras. They can then cram on more megapixels each new model but with a greater pixel site size and less density than on the APS-C sensor.
How do you figure that Dave? Canon had just announced the new 50D camera with APS-C and at 15MP, seems like they crammed even more megapixels in it.

Canon also claimed less noise to go with that sensor. Something to do with redesigned photo diode and microlenses. They even extend the ISO up to 12800.

Now granted I know very little about all this technology and we'd have to wait until there's an in-depth review for this 50D but right now the impression that I got from what they're doing with it is confidence.

As for noise, does it mean ISO100/200/400/etc. on a camera with denser sensor would produce more noise than a less dense one? Or does the difference only start to be noticeable as you increase the ISO higher and higher?

I'm asking because I'm looking at one of my photos taken in low light condition with ISO100 and I can honestly say it doesn't need any noise reduction.

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

As for noise, does it mean ISO100/200/400/etc. on a camera with denser sensor would produce more noise than a less dense one? Or does the difference only start to be noticeable as you increase the ISO higher and higher?
All other things being equal (most importantly sensor design fundamentally the same, just differing in pixel density) then yes, but it might not be noticeable at low ISO, depending on the difference in densities... (Are we talking a 12mp P&S with a 1/4" chip vs a 12mp APS DSLR? (huge difference in density, noticeable at all ISOs, or a 12mp 4/3" DSLR vs a 12mp APS DSLR (small difference in density, not noticeable at lower ISOs..)

As sensor technology moves on the difference is tending to come down, unless you are talking drastically different densities.

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

As I understand it, it all comes down to pixel density/size. Unless camera makers like Canon and Nikon can come up with radically new smaller pixel sites that still capture the same number of photons as larger ones at an affordable price, you will have to rely on improvements in the noise suppression circuitry surrounding the chip to counteract the increase in noise with increasing pixel numbers and their diminishing size.

There is technology to do it on the horizon, but at presently $3500 per sensor I don't think either Nikon or Canon will be using it for quite a while yet, also they would probably have to licence it from Kodak.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/21088/page1/

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=noise

As pointed out before, as I understood it just adding 2 more Megapixels increase to each new camera does not have the same quality effect as doubling the number from a 2 Megapixel camera to a 4 Megapixel camera.

To get the same degree of difference in noise and quality you have to continue to double the Megapixels. Therefore going from a 12 Megapixel to a 15 Megapixel sensor makes far less difference to the size/density of the pixel sites than does the increase from 2 to 4.
DaveW

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

DaveW wrote:As I understand it, it all comes down to pixel density/size. Unless camera makers like Canon and Nikon can come up with radically new smaller pixel sites that still capture the same number of photons as larger ones at an affordable price, you will have to rely on improvements in the noise suppression circuitry surrounding the chip to counteract the increase in noise with increasing pixel numbers and their diminishing size.
I don't think they have any problem with that at all. Just look at the point-and-shoot or even the superzoom digital cameras. Their pixel density can get up to a whoppin 35 MP/cm² because of their small sensor size. Even two years ago compact digitals already had around 20+ MP/cm².
DSLR pixel density is nowhere near that.

Compact camera image quality is comparable to a DSLR with a kit lens and looking at images taken using my compact Sony DSC-T10, the noise level at ISO320 is comparable to the image taken using my 450D at ISO800. Considering the difference of almost 10 times the pixel density, that's not bad at all.

I really don't think this MP business is a big deal. Besides, there's not much point in doubling the MP from 12MP to 144MP now is there? I also don't see them enlarging the sensor size on their entry level or midrange DSLR.
As pointed out before, as I understood it just adding 2 more Megapixels increase to each new camera does not have the same quality effect as doubling the number from a 2 Megapixel camera to a 4 Megapixel camera.
I agree that it doesn't have the same impact but have you considered that it might also be caused by the limitation of our own eyes? As the image resolution gets finer and finer, naturally we'll notice less and less improvement. The law of diminishing returns strikes again.

On a different note, I can't wait until HDR cameras are in production. :D

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

P_T wrote:... the noise level at ISO320 is comparable to the image taken using my 450D at ISO800. Considering the difference of almost 10 times the pixel density, that's not bad at all.
Comparing quality vs ISO across different size sensors is fraught with difficulty because the ISO numbers don't mean what most people think they do.

If you compare on the basis of "equivalent images", meaning same FOV (field of view), same DOF (depth of field), and same shutter speed, then comparable ISO ratings scale in proportion to the sensor area.

The reason is simple: equivalent images capture the same light. Larger sensors require spreading that light over a larger area, hence it gets dimmer in proportion to the sensor area. The ISO rating of the larger sensor must be proportionally higher in order to produce a "normal" exposure with the dimmer light.

Given the sensor sizes of your DSC-T10 (5.75mm x 4.31mm = 0.25 sq cm) versus your 450D (22.2mm x 14.8mm = 3.29 sq cm), a more appropriate comparison would be ISO 320 on the small sensor vs ISO 4200 on the larger one.

See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=4108 for much more discussion of this and related issues.

--Rik

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

I suppose it really depends how you view your images. If you are simply going to show them on a computer screen or projection screen then further increases in megapixel numbers are pointless unless you are radically cropping the image, and that is never a good thing if you can avoid it since that also magnifies any faults in the lenses well.

I once read a computer or digital projection screen has only the same resolution as a 4 megapixel camera, so anything above that is lost. Therefore a cheapo old digital compact cameras image on your computer screen will probably look as good as a digital DSLR with the new 24 megapixel sensors when they come out. Only poster sized prints will probably show the difference between present 10-12 megapixel and 24 megapixel DSLR's, unless you always take too small images on your sensor and then crop excessively and enlarge them.

The ideal is always the finished or largest possible image on the sensor and the minimum subsequent enlargement of that image. That is why it is always best to start with the largest possible format and enlarge it the least for the final image. If not large format cameras would have disappeared eon's ago and pictures for all advertising hoardings would be taken on compact cameras. The APS-C and full frame DSLR's would never have seen the light of day and we would all be using detachable lens DSLR compact sized sensored cameras.

If you are printing normal sized prints then again the difference a few extra megapixels make will not be obvious, only if you regularly print to poster size, or crop excessively, are you likely to see much difference.

One problem with noise reduction circuitry is it tends to reduce the sharpness of the image, so if you go down that route in relying on the circuitry surrounding the chip to suppress the extra noise smaller pixel sites bring with them you may eventually finish up with unacceptable degradation of the image.

Remember also you never see the true image your sensor sees, only a softened one to reduce moire pattens, which is then pseudo-sharpened (I say pseudo-sharpened as you only simulate the original sharpness since you cannot put back what was originally removed) either by the in camera processing software, or something like Photoshop. Therefore the original sensor image is heavily modified and to an extent falsified in your final image.

http://www.pyxidium.co.uk/resources/dig ... Size05.pdf

Regarding the Sony and Canon models you mention, I cannot find similar reviews of the Sony but here's one for the Canon. What is evident in comparing it to the Nikon is that the Canon 450D has greater noise reduction applied to the image, which to me then looks less noisy than the Nikon and Canon 400D but makes the image appear softer and less sharp than the Nikon's or 400D on my computer screen unlike the reviewers conclusions, so evidently my eyes prefer the higher image contrast and of course he is seeing prints rather than a computer screen, so highlighting the difference what you view the images on makes.

It seems therefore to be a trade off with noise suppression circuitry as to whether you mask sensor noise at the expenses of image sharpness, or go for a sharper more noisier image. The best method always is the largest least noisy pixel sites in the first place, which means usually the largest sensor for the same megapixel number.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page19.asp

DaveW

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

rjlittlefield wrote:Comparing quality vs ISO across different size sensors is fraught with difficulty because the ISO numbers don't mean what most people think they do.

Given the sensor sizes of your DSC-T10 (5.75mm x 4.31mm = 0.25 sq cm) versus your 450D (22.2mm x 14.8mm = 3.29 sq cm), a more appropriate comparison would be ISO 320 on the small sensor vs ISO 4200 on the larger one.

See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=4108 for much more discussion of this and related issues.

--Rik
That discussion is way out of my depth Rik. I only managed to follow a few posts before I got a bunch of question marks in my speech bubble.

See I'm not a technical person, though I realised there are too many variables between the 450 and the DSC to make a direct comparison so I only did it based on what I saw in the image. I would try to take a photo using ISO 4200 but my camera doesn't have such a high setting.

Dave, I totally forgot about printing. :oops: My mistake.

Anyhow, regardless of how we feel about the importance of sensor size, I don't see camera manufacturer increasing the sensor size for their entry level or midrange DSLR. In contrast, they will keep adding more and more megapixel.

My question is, does this mean DSLR image quality can only get worse as pixel density increases?

One more question, which one would have better quality, an image taken by a 10MP camera or an image taken by a 12MP camera and sampled down to 10MP in photoshop? Assuming other variables are constant of course. Same lighting condition, same lens, same image processing algorithm, etc.

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

DaveW wrote:
I am presuming you were just having the usual inter make banter Cyclops? You can only make camera comparisons with what was available at that time.
Yea was just having a little fun Dave. I've never owned a Nikon,(would quite fancy a FM3A!) but these days like you say one make is pretty much like another. I've never had brand loyalty till now, and thats only due to lens compatibility. I used to have a minolta film slr(X-300) and it was great-always wanted the X 700 but then the 7000 came out and I went off photography for a while.
I soon realised that AF was not a bad thing of course, even tho my cameras are mostly used on manual, apart from the Panasonic which is awkward to focus manually.
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic