Hasselblad vs.1D?

[JKeena]

I am soon to be graduated photog major looking for a new camera with a budget of under $2000. All I shoot now is sports (skateboarding, biking) and fashion and I am looking to invest in something that will last me a while into the future. So it comes down to these criteria...
I am always shooting for my portfolio with nothing printed bigger then 11x14 in. I am reluctant to enter the digital world because I do not want to sacrifice image quality of prints. So first off, what MP rating is equal to 35mm and medium format for printing? I am not liking film do to paying for so much slide film, paying for developing, and driving over 45 minutes to the nearest lab. However, much of skateboard photography in the good mags isshot with medium format and with a fisheye. SO, I own a Canon 15mm fisheye which I use with my 35mm. I looked into the 20D but on that camera my 15mm becomes a 28mm!! No thank you! My next option would be the 1D (for under $2000, ebay) which my 15mm would stay under 20mm (i think, correct me if I'm wrong) but with 4.2 MP is that print worthy for "magazine size prints"? And the 1D still came with a CCD sensor and not a CMOS which I'm not too sure about. I also need to have a 1/250 sync speed. The other option is to stick with film and buy a Hasselblad 500($300 ebay) and a Hasselblad Fisheye 30mm($1000, ebay). But keep paying for film and processing...

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I am totally in the dark here and need some guidance. Anyone shooting action sports with digital SLR have any ideas for me? Anything!! Please help! Thank you -Justin

[almo]

I would go digital. Why does it have to be a 1D? What is wrong with a 20D or even a 10D? May pros use these cameras, and both are higher in MP'age than a 1D. Put a vert grip on one of these cameras and you wouldn't know the diff.

I don't think you can really compare a film camera to a difital. If you want to shoot film then get the hassy, if its digita you want then get a canon.

good luck.

[Michael Fanelli]

I am soon to be graduated photog major looking for a new camera with a budget of under $2000. All I shoot now is sports (skateboarding, biking) and fashion and I am looking to invest in something that will last me a while into the future. So it comes down to these criteria...
I am always shooting for my portfolio with nothing printed bigger then 11x14 in. I am reluctant to enter the digital world because I do not want to sacrifice image quality of prints. So first off, what MP rating is equal to 35mm and medium format for printing? I am not liking film do to paying for so much slide film, paying for developing, and driving over 45 minutes to the nearest lab. However, much of skateboard photography in the good mags isshot with medium format and with a fisheye. SO, I own a Canon 15mm fisheye which I use with my 35mm. I looked into the 20D but on that camera my 15mm becomes a 28mm!! No thank you! My next option would be the 1D (for under $2000, ebay) which my 15mm would stay under 20mm (i think, correct me if I'm wrong) but with 4.2 MP is that print worthy for "magazine size prints"? And the 1D still came with a CCD sensor and not a CMOS which I'm not too sure about. I also need to have a 1/250 sync speed. The other option is to stick with film and buy a Hasselblad 500($300 ebay) and a Hasselblad Fisheye ($1000, ebay). But keep paying for film and processing...

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I am totally in the dark here and need some guidance. Anyone shooting action sports with digital SLR have any ideas for me? Anything!! Please help! Thank you -Justin

First, there is no "pixel equivalent" to film grain. Apples and oranges. Second, any DSLR will beat the overall quality of 35mm film.

Medium format is another question. Some of the higher end cameras meet or slightly beat MF but its not common. If you want the best image quality and can afford the very high costs of using MF film cameras, go for the hassy. Otherwise, a much cheaper Canon 20D will exceed the quality of what you are using now.

Also, the 15mm lens does not become 28mm. This is something you will have to deal with if you go to MF as well. The 20D only crops off the edges, reducing the angle of view. The DOF, magnification, and perspective are still 15mm. In MF, a 45mm lens is "wide angle (about 22mm equivalent for 6x7) but has the DOF, magnification, and perspective of a 45mm lens.

[Photo-John]

I've sold plenty of EOS 1D photos to magazines. There are plenty of camera snobs out there that will tell you the 1D isn't good enough. My suggestion is not to tell people what camera you're using. Good photos will speak for themselves. Find out what resolution they need and deliver your images at that resolution. They won't know the difference. I guarantee it. Content is king. If you know how to set up your photos, resolution isn't a problem - at least not with the EOS 1D.

[Stephen Lutz]

If I'm not mistaken, the original 1D was built to specs required to produce full, two page photos in Sports Illustrated. Again, from memory, I seem to recall that the criteria for the Canon and Nikon pro cameras of that day were based on SI's needs. I also recall you can configure the 1D to use the color space SI requires for pre-press. You set the color space, and upload the images to SI and then they could pretty much use it "as is."

So, if my memory is correct, I can't imagine why a 1D wouldn't be perfectly suited to your needs.

[JKeena]

Thanks for the help! I am still wary about switching into the digital realm but I'm still looking into what my first investments should be. I'll keep researching. Thanks again! -Justin

[Lionheart]

You're not giving up anything in quality going digital. I've got six 20x24 inch color prints (yes real honest to goodness photographic emulsion coated paper) from MPIX that are way sharper than anything I've ever seen from medium format film (including my own 20x24 wedding portrait which was shot by an excellent pro on a Hassy) in the same size prints. I've got a 20x30 inch print in my office from the 4 mp EOS-1D that's at least as sharp as anything I've seen that size from medium format film. You can't go wrong with digital. If you want real photo prints from digital, they'll be at least as sharp if not sharper than film on film paper, especially if you send it to a place like mpix.com. I'd go for the 20D, btw, and if you really need wide angle, there are at least two very sharp choices out there (both Tokina and Sigma make a 12-24mm zoom that are reasonably priced). I love film, but the only reason I'd shoot film these days is for the nostalgic value.

[another view]

You probably want the faster AF of a pro body for shooting sports. Of course, a 'Blad is manual focus so that's a whole different type of shooting. There are motor driven MF cameras, but 2fps is very fast here - and nothing compared to DSLR's or 35mm SLR's.

DSLR's crop the edges off the frame - they don't alter the focal length. Problem is that your fisheye not only won't have that wide angle of view anymore, but it won't look much like a fisheye either (most distortion is in the area that would be cut off).

Here's another one to throw at you - Nikon D2H with their 10.5 DX fisheye. The camera (if you can still find one) is $2K, lens about $600. The camera was just replaced by something that's not a huge upgrade so they cut the price from $3200. It's 4mp and reportedly is fine for double-truck magazine images (two pages wide). I haven't shot one but have handled it and it feels great. The 10.5 fisheye was developed especially for Nikon DSLR's. With their software, you can take the distortion out and get about 120 degree angle of view or something amazing like that.

[SigmaSD10]

[QUOTE=Michael Fanelli]First, there is no "pixel equivalent" to film grain.

Yes there is, you just have to have the right DSLR to obtain it.
Noise in underexposed Sigma SD10 images is as near to film grain as you will find.
This has to do with the fact only the SD9 and SD10 DSLR's use the Foveon X3 CMOS sensor which just like film has a stacked colour layer construction.

Apples and oranges. Second, any DSLR will beat the overall quality of 35mm film.

Many have compared good SD10 images with those taken with Velvia film.

Medium format is another question. Some of the higher end cameras meet or slightly beat MF but its not common.

Many photographers viewing large SD10 prints for the first time, without knowing what camera they were taken with, often ask "so what medium format camera were these taken with"!

If you want the best image quality and can afford the very high costs of using MF film cameras, go for the hassy. Otherwise, a much cheaper Canon 20D will exceed the quality of what you are using now.

The SD10 matches the 20D for resolution but its images are sharper and most good SD10 images have the unique Sigma "3D look", plus its currently about 2-3 times cheaper than the 20D!
BTW though the 20D and SD10 may equal the quality of 35mm film, have no illusions, neither can attain Medium format quality and even the 1Ds struggles to get anywhere near as it has an inferior Bayer type sensor and often vignetting and edge sharpness problems.
Any Mamiya Medium format camera on the other hand would get extremely close results to the equivalent Hassy and I am sure they would better suit your budget, but only if you really prefer to work with film.
Although I dont use a Mamiya medium format camera I do use several Mamiya 645 medium format lenses on my SD10.
The cheapest to buy new is probably the 80mm f2.8N "normal lens" (equivalent to a 50mm on 35mm format) but its actually the sharpest Mamiya lens I have!
I also have the 45mm f2.8, the 150mm f3.5 and the the 210mm f4, which is a better lens than the 45mm and 150mm.

Also, the 15mm lens does not become 28mm. This is something you will have to deal with if you go to MF as well. The 20D only crops off the edges, reducing the angle of view. The DOF, magnification, and perspective are still 15mm. In MF, a 45mm lens is "wide angle (about 22mm equivalent for 6x7) but has the DOF, magnification, and perspective of a 45mm lens.

The SD10 crops slightly more than the 20D at about 1.7x so a 20mm lens would have the same FOV as a 34mm lens.
I can hear you groaning out loud but dont worry Sigma make some excellent very wide lenses which easily get around the crop problem.
They make a 12-24mm EX, a 15-30mm, EX, a 17-35mm EX, a 18-50mm EX and they have just bought out a 10-20mm EX zoom, which has a FOV eqivalent to a 17mm-34mm zoom (BTW its rectalinear at 10mm, not a fisheye!)
If you prefer wide primes they do a 8mm EX fisheye, a 14mm EX, a 15mm EX and then it jumps to 20mm onwards.
The 15-30mm zoom is one of their best wide angle lenses and its very sharp, I dont know anyone that is unhappy with it.
The 12-24 is not as sharp and personally I think its a bit of a compromise lens as some have had a few grumbles about the edge sharpness at 12mm, but otherwise its quite good.
It is hoped the new 10-20mm will be a bit better even though its wider.
If I could afford to buy Sigma lenses then I would of course use them exclusively but I dont actually use any Sigma lenses myself and I prefer using manual focus M42 screw mount lenses and M645 lenses, both of which work very nicely with the Foveon X3 sensor behind them!

Regards

Alf.

[Michael Fanelli]

There is no pixel equivalent to film. Over the years, people have realized that grain and pixels are so different that no direct comparison can be made. Compare the results, not some imagined "equivalents." DSLRs are all cleaner and clearer than film.

[QUOTE]Noise in underexposed Sigma SD10 images is as near to film grain as you will find.{/QUOTE]

No it isn't and thankfully so. You don't want a sensor that is as noisy as film grain unless you are looking for special effects.

This has to do with the fact only the SD9 and SD10 DSLR's use the Foveon X3 CMOS sensor which just like film has a stacked colour layer construction.

Too bad theory and practice don't match. Fovean is a small company without a lot of money to improve their technique. Improvements come very, very slowly. Three layer has potential but what counts is the final result. Fovean doesn't justify the hype.

Many have compared good SD10 images with those taken with Velvia film.

See above. Being "as good as film" is not an asset!

Many photographers viewing large SD10 prints for the first time, without knowing what camera they were taken with, often ask "so what medium format camera were these taken with"!

All DSLRs have the same effect. The digital image is percieved as clearer and sharper because of the lack of grain. Fovean is, at best, average in this respect. Side by side with MF film, the differences show up.

The SD10 matches the 20D for resolution but its images are sharper and most good SD10 images have the unique Sigma "3D look", plus its currently about 2-3 times cheaper than the 20D!

No, it doesn't. Read the tech reviews. For resolution, it was a reasonable match for the 6 MP 10D but not as good as the 20D. Again, the potential is there but the glacier-slow progress of Fovean allows other sensor makers to stay ahead.

Yadda, yadda, yadda

There is NOTHING magical about the Fovean sensor. You can rave all day about the technology but when it all comes home, the final image quality counts. Fovean has MANY problems: softer images as the ISO goes up, problems with noise in the red channel, color bleeding, hue shifts, and really bad long exposure properties.

The Sigma is just one camera among many good choices. Please don't turn this into some silly Apple-fanatic-like post.

[SigmaSD10]

"There is no pixel equivalent to film. Over the years, people have realized that grain and pixels are so different that no direct comparison can be made. Compare the results, not some imagined "equivalents." DSLRs are all cleaner and clearer than film."

Bayer sensored DSLR's blur out noise though its often still visible, in the shadows for instance.
The Foveon X3 has no blur filter and noise in underexposed images that are brightened later in SPP can have noise exactly like film grain.
You obviously are not a Sigma SD user as you would know exactly what I mean.


Quote>"Noise in underexposed Sigma SD10 images is as near to film grain as you will find."

"No it isn't and thankfully so. You don't want a sensor that is as noisy as film grain unless you are looking for special effects.

Its not noisy unless you underexpose badly. If you had read my replies properly you would have already gathered that much.

"Too bad theory and practice don't match. Fovean is a small company without a lot of money to improve their technique. Improvements come very, very slowly. Three layer has potential but what counts is the final result. Fovean doesn't justify the hype."

Then you must be living in dream land....Open your eyes and you will see the Foveon X3 does justify the hype!

All DSLRs have the same effect. The digital image is percieved as clearer and sharper because of the lack of grain. Fovean is, at best, average in this respect. Side by side with MF film, the differences show up.

As do the differences between medium format and the 20D or any other sub 8mp DSLR come to that.
If you had been paying attention you would have seen that is exacly what I said earlierI

"No, it doesn't. Read the tech reviews. For resolution, it was a reasonable match for the 6 MP 10D but not as good as the 20D.

Obviously you have'nt seen the same tests I have then! In direct comparsion tests, conducted by users that have both the SD10 and 20D, the resolution results were practically identical.
ie The 10.2mp Foveon X3 sensor is directly equivalent to a the best modern 8mp Bayer
sensor.
However in at least one particular test the 20D consistantly missfocussed an awfull lot of the time where the SD10 nailed the focus on virtually every shot.

"Again, the potential is there but the glacier-slow progress of Fovean allows other sensor makers to stay ahead."


Lets not forget that the SD10 has been out for around 2 years now and it was as good then as the 20D is now.
So they are hardly staying ahead, more like they are trying to stay neck and neck with the SD10!

"There is NOTHING magical about the Fovean sensor."

I dont believe in magic, I believe in what my eyes show me and they show me that the SD10 is still top of its class.
Anyone can see this clearly when they compare full sized images from the SD10 to any of its Bayer sensored competitors....Buts thats only if you can find any to compare with ones from the SD10 in the first place!

You can rave all day about the technology but when it all comes home, the final image quality counts.

Exactly why I have an SD10!....Image quality matters more to me than anything else.
If I wanted a bigger buffer, faster shot to shot speed and usable very high ISO for taking shots of fast paced sports action shots say then the SD10 would not be the right camera for that job and the 20D would suit that purpose better. Fortunalty for me I have no interest in shooting sport action shots.

"Foveon has MANY problems: softer images as the ISO goes up,

Actually I find there is practically no need to use anything higher than ISO100 99.9 % of the time.

"problems with noise in the red channel,"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?

"color bleeding"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?

"problems with noise in the red channel"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?

" hue shifts"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?


, and really bad long exposure properties."

Now that bit is true but what you obviously dont realise is that long exposures of more than ten seconds are really not necessary with the SD10.
Long exposure night shots taken on Bayer sensored DSLR's often look as though they were taken in the daytime, which I am sure you will agree, sort of defeats the object of taking them at night in the first place!
The trick to taking good nightshots with the SD10 is to use the highest aperture and shutter speed you can get away with whilst staying at ISO100.
I can get very good nightshots at 1/2 sec, f8 and ISO100 and they look like they were taken at night as they should!

"The Sigma is just one camera among many good choices. Please don't turn this into some silly Apple-fanatic-like post."

It always makes me wonder why Canon and Nikon DSLR users, are always so touchy?
If the DSLR market is really such a level playing field, why are their users egos so easily bruised when a user of another brand dares to question the lacklustre performance of their camera.
If they are so sure that they have the best camera they could afford and that it is no worse than any of its competitors then what have they got to worry about?
There is a term for this problem, its called "camera snobbery", and for some reason I have'nt been able to fathom it seems to be a bigger problem for Canon users that for users of any other brand.
Hey, even I suffer from it too at times, as when I see how well the SD10 performs in the image quality dept compared to its more expensive rivals its hard not to look down on them as somehow inferior camera's.... Its just human nature I guess and it should'nt be seen as making me a Sigma fanatic or making Michael a Canon fanatic.

[Lionheart]

It always makes me wonder why Canon and Nikon DSLR users, are always so touchy?
If the DSLR market is really such a level playing field, why are their users egos so easily bruised when a user of another brand dares to question the lacklustre performance of their camera.
If they are so sure that they have the best camera they could afford and that it is no worse than any of its competitors then what have they got to worry about?
There is a term for this problem, its called "camera snobbery", and for some reason I have'nt been able to fathom it seems to be a bigger problem for Canon users that for users of any other brand.

Here I was enjoying my dinner of lamb shoulder chops with wild rice and a Fuller's London Porter (two actually-I have a very large stein) , and then I read this. Hey Alf. Even I have to take offense at this post. I'm pretty open minded about camera gear, even if I am a Canon user. Remember, I chose Canon over Nikon 16 years ago when the market was 90% Nikon. However, there is nothing lacklustre about the performance of my Canon equipment. In the end, digital imaging boils down to skill in post processing, regardless of the initial quality of the actual capture. I've got 20x24 inch photos (yes, real photographic emulsion coated prints) from my 1D Mk II hanging in my practice's reception area of our medal winning cases from AACD that are EASILY sharper than anything I've seen from a MF Hasselblad at the same size print. We're talking being able to count every hair on the patients head and (ugh) face. I've never seen this level of sharpness and clarity from film, EVER. And I've got 20x24 inch wedding portraits shot by an excellent pro from my wedding, shot from a Hassy, that aren't even close. The 6x6 and 8x8 inch prints in my wedding album aren't as sharp as the 20x24's sitting my office, and those are the ones that should be scalpel sharp compared to a 20x24 from any medium. I also have a 20x30 inch print from the 4 MP EOS-1D MkI in one of my operatories that is easily as sharp as anything I've ever seen from 35mm, at any print size. The biggest factor in final print quality is still post processing-making sure you've worked the image correctly for the intended print size. And as far camera snobbery, well, I think you might be mistaking a person's passion for his or her personal equipment for "snobbery". We're all passionate about the gear we carry, that's why chose it in the first place. The passionate Canon users just happen to outnumber the passionate Nikon users who just happen to outnumber the passionate everything else users out there ;) .Just like you and your passion for your Sigma SD10. Who knows what will be the popular make of camera in another 16 years? Sorry Alf, don't mean to blow steam here, but even I'm a little bit hot about this last post-and that takes a lot for a guy like me.

[mdmc]

I think that you should stop trying to blow Sigma sunshine up our A$$E$ & start taking and posting pictures here, no matter what the camera!
I didn't just run out and buy a d70, I looked at all the available options and was waiting to see what minoltas camera would be like. The minolta turned out to be like $1500 and that was too much for me.
I did see images posted on the review section of this site that are breathtaking taken with the sd10, and took a serious look at it.
Its a 3.1 MP camera capable of making 9x13 prints and cant shoot jpeg!
Nikon d70 max print size10x15, cannon 20d print size 11x17, and they can both shoot jpeg
I know for a fact that I can set the d70 to basic large files, and get around 300 pics with adequate detail, and make a decent 12x 18 print. Ive never shot in RAW on purpose, the one time that i did by accedent i was just luky that it was set to raw + jpeg.
I'm not a big fan of any manufacturer, but i'm happy with what I have.
As far as the Sigma goes, from what I've read, the main draw back is that its too light to be used as a boat anchor. On the bright side, if you have a large desk, it makes a nice paper weight.
I know this post was harsh, but it seems to have been invited.
Mark.

[SigmaSD10]

[QUOTE=mdmc]I think that you should stop trying to blow Sigma sunshine up our A$$E$ & start taking and posting pictures here, no matter what the camera!
I didn't just run out and buy a d70, I looked at all the available options and was waiting to see what minoltas camera would be like. The minolta turned out to be like $1500 and that was too much for me.
I did see images posted on the review section of this site that are breathtaking taken with the sd10, and took a serious look at it."
"Its a 3.1 MP camera"

I am afraid Mark you seem to be making the all too common mistake of comparing the SD10 to a 3mp Bayer sensored camera, which of course its not, and it does not behave as such.
To get a better idea how the Foveon X3 actually works and to compare it correctly to a Bayer sensor you should really look at it in the following way:
The Nikon D70 has a 6mp monochrome sensor. Over each photosite is an applied colour filter so to get a colour image the pixels must be interpolated using a complex algorithm which often has to fill in the blanks by guessing whats there.
There are twice as many green filtered photosites as there are red and blue or to put that numercally thats 3 million green photosites, 1.5 million red photosites and 1.5 million blue photosites.
The D70 has a 6mp image output size but its only has around 1.5mp "true colour" resolution often somewhat less.
In fact the only time it is possible to obtain a full 6mp resolution D70 image is in monochrome, where every photosite is counted.
The SD10, on the other hand has a 3.4mp x3 stacked photosite sensor.
Each photosite does not require an applied colour filter, the colour is determined by how deep into the silicon each colour can penetrate and the output of each photosite is read off seperately.
There are the same amount of photosites for each colour or to put that numerically thats 3.4 million green photosites, 3.4 million red photosites and 3.4 million blue photosites, making a total of 10.2 million seperate photosites. The SD10 has an 3.4mp image output size but it has 10.2mp of resolution data, in true colour.
In practice however it seems this is reduced to around 8mp of resolution data making the SD10 a direct competor with an 8mp Bayer sensored DSLR, such as the 20D.
...And you will recall, earlier on I mentioned that the SD10 has been shown in tests, performed by users who own both cameras, to be a match for the 20D in terms of resolution.

"capable of making 9x13 prints"

Again, you are incorrect Mark, as you are attempting to directly compare the SD10 with a 3mp Bayer sensored camera.
The SD10 is easily capable of perfectly sharp A0 prints and there have even been occasions where SD10 images have been used on huge outdoor advertising boards!
In case you are unaware of the dimensions of an A0 print, thats 46.8" x 33.1" (118.9cm x 84.1cm).
Here is one such example:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7182672

"and cant shoot jpeg!"

True it does not take in-camera jpgs, only Raw files, but as you know RAW files offer much greater control of the final image, which is why RAW is widely used by Professional Photographers, plus you get no reduction in image quality as you get with jpgs.

"I know for a fact that I can set the d70 to basic large files, and get around 300 pics with adequate detail"

"adequate detail"?....That may be enough for you but I prefer to aim for maximum detail.

", and make a decent 12x 18 print. Ive never shot in RAW on purpose, the one time that i did by accedent i was just luky that it was set to raw + jpeg."

Perhaps you should try using RAW more often as you may be supprised by how much it can improve the image quality you can obtain.

Regards

Alf

[mdmc]

Max print size 9x13. Thats a quote from pop photo. their tests and reviews are good enuogh for me.
Mark.

[Michael Fanelli]

"Foveon has MANY problems: softer images as the ISO goes up,

Actually I find there is practically no need to use anything higher than ISO100 99.9 % of the time.

Most photographers do. Variable ISO is one of the many advanced options available with digital cameras compared with film. The fact that you are locked on ISO 100 is not something to brag about.

"problems with noise in the red channel,"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?

"color bleeding"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?

"problems with noise in the red channel"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?

" hue shifts"

???...Can you clarify this and show me a good example to show if your views are justified?

The best non-biased review with examples of these problems are located on dpreview. Go look at it.

, and really bad long exposure properties."

Now that bit is true but what you obviously dont realise is that long exposures of more than ten seconds are really not necessary with the SD10.

Huh? Does it have some magic time-altering feature? Or are you just limited in the exposures you make and are turning it into some sort of generalization?

If you are happy with your Sigma, good for you. There are others who feel the same way. But there is a fanaticism that has creeped into your post that is just asking to be flamed. This is a camera, not a religion. I use Canon because of very specific reasons I've outlined ad nauseum in past posts. Those who read my posts also know that I complain about Canon a lot. I often recommend Nikon, Pentax, and now Minolta to others. Very few people here are fanatics, they choose their equipment for specific reasons. You have locked yourself on Fovean, a nacent and proprietary technology that hasn't gone very far yet. That's a fact, pure and simple. Maybe it will improve to the point where others will license it. For now, it is limited and has problems that need to be fixed. That is going to take a while.

[Trevor Ash]

Hey, I'd love for someone to educate me about the SD10 and explain the merits of the technology in the camera. But what matters to me is the end result, not the algorithms or hardware that does it.

I'm serious Alf, post some photos that help emphasize the reasons the technology in that camera is good. It's a lot more difficult to argue results than it is technology. Well, it would be a different argument anyway

You're not going to convince me it's a better camera by explaining how the pixels are captured and comparing that with other cameras.

[Stephen Lutz]

I love this thread!

Anyway, what was the question again.... oh, Hassy or 1D for "magazine ready" publishable quality photos of skateboarders....

Answer: 1D. Enough mega pixels, fast, fast, fast focusing, configurable color space. Designed for the professional sports photographer. Not a knock on the hassy, but, well, you got to have the right tool for the job. It isn't fair to complain about a screwdriver not making a good hammer, so just get the 1D and forget about it. (The hassy would be a great choice for studio, and/or wedding photography.)

[SigmaSD10]

Max print size 9x13. Thats a quote from pop photo. their tests and reviews are good enuogh for me.
Mark.

Well not that I dought the validity of their reviews or anything but obviously they have'nt seen these:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7182672

Or this:

http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/42557324/original

Regards ;)

Alf.