I may not have made myself clear - I don't intend to buy a digicam in lieu of a digital SLR, or a 35mm film SLR, or something else for my landscape or macro (hobby) use.  We're thinking of buying an inexpensive compact digicam for snapshot situations.  Thinking of the Canon Powershot A95 actually.  I guess I was thinking if it made sense to stay with film (either 35mm or medium format), then I might look more closely at something like a Canon G6.

I've been thinking of the Rebel XT approach and plan to look closely.  It sounds like the XT now has many of the features of the 20D.  Makes one wonder what the 30D will be like.....then again it might be some time before that happens.  Course I need some time to save some money anyway  ???

I don't own any EF-S lenses BJL. Rather than sinking money into a EF10-22, I'd rather save up for a 1DsII or 1DsIII. This may be a more expensive choice but I believe it would give me other benefits in landscape photography. I realize this is beyond duranash's budget. I was only sharing my own gear plan for the future.

If all duranash wants is a budget digital camera that allows him to print up to 12x18", then the 350D will do the job nicely.

John - are you saying you can buy the Kodak USED on ebay for 2k or so?  I must say I am very nervous about buying digital equipment on ebay.  That aside, I see your point re: the Kodak camera - a 14meg camera for $500 or so more than a 20D.  I'll spend some time looking and reading about them.

"I shoot an EOS-5, usually with Provia F, scan the images on a Polaroid SprintScan 4000, and like to print the images that I enjoy on a Epson 1270 at around 12"x18" which frames nicely in an 18"x24" frame.  I'd characterize my results as OK."

samirkhansi - FYI - the above is from my original post.  I appreciate your input and I plan to look closely at the new 350D.  I played with a 20D in the store the other day and even my wife was impressed --- right before she asked to look at a Canon A95.  
I wouldn't really say that I'm totally satisfied with my 35mm results - just OK.  I always feel like there could be just a bit more detail.  Fortunately I tend to enjoy what has been characterized as "intimate landscapes" more than the broad sweeping shots.  In the more broad shots, I'm always wishing for a more crisp look at those pine branches in the distance!!!
I'm intrigued by John Camp's comments about the Kodak slr/c.  Just wish I had some way of seeing a comparison between the Kodak and 20D.  I pulled down a couple of shots from Imaging-Resource but I don't think that I got much from that exercise.

Thanks to all for your input.  JimCopeland - the 20D is all I feel I can afford - period!  I'm not even remotely considering a 1DsM2 or even a 1Ds.  The Kodal Pro slr/c sounded interesting, but looks like about $500 more.  I'm in no rush and I have firm information that the Canon 25D or 30D or 20D-XT will be released in August, or February of 06, or August of 06 or maybe a little later!! ???  

I thought of tagging onto Ron123's post (How many pixels for Macro/Landscape?), then thought that might be impolite. But essentially I'm in the same situation he mentions, namely in that I like to shoot landscapes and enjoy playing with macro.  I shoot an EOS-5, usually with Provia F, scan the images on a Polaroid SprintScan 4000, and like to print the images that I enjoy on a Epson 1270 at around 12"x18" which frames nicely in an 18"x24" frame.  I'd characterize my results as OK.  I always use a tripod and try to take care when making images.  

I'm also considering a change to digital in large part because I really hate to scan images -- and I really hate the time I spend dust busting them after I scan them.  And....digital really looks neat!!  And....I'm getting tired of my Granddaughter asking to "see" the picture!!   Unlike Ron123 (I think) my budget only allows saving for a 20D. Given that I'm retired, only shoot for my personal enjoyment, etc., I can't justify going anything more expensive.  I've wrestled with the same comments Ron123 mentions (the 20D results are good "unless you shoot landscapes").  I've wondered if I might be better off buying a used medium format system and just continue shooting film - even though I'd still be scanning.  Then I'd have to buy a new scanner.  The Pentax announcement of a digital 645 sounds interesting, but I'm sure it will be well beyond my budget anyway.

The issue arises right now because my wife & I are contemplating a digital P&S to replace our Pentax 928.  I've thought for some time that I would buy a 20D, and mate it with a smaller, handy walk around lens (17-85 maybe).  Then it would be our only digital camera. Given my wife's aversion to my EOS-5, I suspect she would never touch the 20D, so we're (finally) thinking about a digital P&S.  The kind of P&S may hinge somewhat on what I untimately do regarding my landscape shooting.  Staying with film might steer me toward something my elaborate.  Transitioning to a digital SLR might steer me toward something more simple.

So the question I think is - finally - what are everyone's thoughts on a 20D level camera for landscape work?

And don't forget that you can a 16 meg, 32 meg, a zillion meg landscape by stitching together separate frames.

(Why haven't I seen someone mount 4 C8080s in a frame and shoot a 32 meg shot in one fell swoop?  No more problem with moving clouds and crashing waves....)

I use my 20D to shoot landscapes mostly. I regularly output my pictures to 16x24" with acceptable quality. This is done through a lab using Kodak machine. There were two pictures I grossed up to 6000x4000 pixels and output them to 20x30" with no visible noise.

I must admit I have never shot MF and therefore have never compared my print quality with those from MF. But digital photography is so convenient that I simply lost the urge to shoot film now. I have a 135 film scanner which I have not used ever since I bought my 20D 6 months ago.

I do plan to buy a 1Ds Mark II hopefully within a year.

What about getting the new Digital Rebel XT and then with money saved from the difference between it and the 20D buy a smaller walk-around digital camera like the one you suggested? I wouldn't hesitate to use the Rebel XT or 20D, or any of the other similar brands, for landscape photography. It is not difficult to stitch a few shots together when necessary and you can easily have way more then enough mp for enlargements. For most situations 8mp from these slr's will be plenty with the proper editing. I personally am not sure I would want to have any more mp then that, at least with my current setup. All those large files can really add up and they can take much more time to edit. If I went too much bigger then 8mp then I would need a significant upgrade in processing power and ram.  The occasional stitched photos would be ok but not those huge files all of the time, just too slow. Anyways, I bet that if you got one of the newer dslr's you would love it and it would work very nicely for your needs. Happy shopping.

T

I crave for a DSLR with a large sensor. It is the same reason why landscape photographers opt to use MF and LF cameras. The details will just be that much better on the printout. I know a MF digital back such as the P25 would be even better than the IDsII. But I can hardly afford it.

The other reason is the cropping factor on a reduced frame sensor. I miss my ultra wide angle shots. I hope by the time I have saved enough money to buy the 1DsII, it would have been merged with the IDII and become the IDs Mark III with a large buffer and 8 fps. Further pixel increase to 22 mega pixels won't hurt. Then I would have no reason to consider MF digital gear.

I know I am pixel peeping. But if my prints get a little better without spending a lot more effort, then I will be making better use of technology. The 20D is a good tool as is. But the 1DsIII will be an even better tool with water proofing, etc. So as long as I can afford it, I shall get it eventually. Wouldn't you?  ???

I thought the question was about an "affordable" digital camera.  It just shows that all things are relative

T

Given that there are now many wide angle lenses for the new digital formats, I am not sure what cropping you are talking about: what focal lengths are you using for your ultrawide shots in 35m format?

Anything down to about 14mm has an equivalent:
Olympus 7-14: FOV as wide as about 13 to 14mm in 35mm
Canon 10-22: FOV as wide 16mm 35mm
Nikon 12-24:  FOV as wide 18mm 35mm
etc.

Well, let's review your digital options.

Get a higher meg fixed lens digital, something like the C8080 that was suggested.  Shoot multiple frames and stitch (not very hard, just learn the correct technique).  You'll have to stick to lower ISO settings and won't have extreme shallow DOF capability.

Get a used 6 meg dSLR and shoot multiple frames/stitch.  I would think that either the D60, 10D, or 300D would work well for a landscape camera.

Get an 8 meg Rebel XT and live without the few additional features that a 20D would give you.  (Should be a relatively minor pain for landscape work.)

Bitch.  And keep shooting film and scanning.    :)

I wouldn't want to get shouted down, but you should also look at a good used Kodak SLR/n (if you like Nikon lenses) or SLR/c (if you like Canon.) You can find them for around $2,000 or slightly more on ebay. And in a few months, after the D2x really hits, those prices should come down.

If you're not familiar with them, they are 14 mp cameras made by Kodak on third-party bodies (the Nikon F80, I believe; I don't know who makes the Canon-mount body, but it's not Canon.)

Despite early complaints about the cameras, they are really good for two things: landscapes and portraits. Or, basically, anything that is lit or can be lit, and doesn't move too fast. Go on a dedicated Kodak forum, like the one on Galbraith, and ask around. You will be told that with the advanced firmware updates now being used, the cameras really put out beautiful work. But: they are not sports/action cameras, as they have a low frame rate, and they are not low-light (high ISO) cameras. As long as you stay at or under ISO 400, the camera will match the 1DsII or the Nikon D2x. The complaints you hear about the cameras are usually along the lines of, "I was trying to hand-hold shots of a boys wrestling tournament in a dimly lit gym at ISO 3200 and my shots were all yellow and blurry." Well, you know, what can I tell you? But if you're going to be shooting outside, during the day, or in a studio with strobes, you can get gorgeous shots with the things. The SLR/n accepts all Nikon lenses.

JC

I'm nervous about buying things on ebay, too, so I don't -- I search ebay, find a "buy it now" on the product I want, which usually means that its coming from a company, rather than an individual, and then I check which company it is, look at their ratings, and then call them on the phone. I've been okay that way, but I wouldn't want to buy one sight-unseen from an unknown individual. If you're in a big city, you might also check your local pro store -- they might have some used. But really, I'd wait a few months. With the D2x out, and with the 1DsII doing so well, I think you'll see more and more Kodaks. Kodak has recently announced a continuing rebate on the camera, and I think you can get them for a little less than $3,000 new. By the way, if you decide you can buy new, you must distinguish etween the Pro 14n, which was an early version, and the SLR/n, which was an upgraded version with a different sensor. The second one, the SLR/n, is the one you want. With the SLR/c, only the good sensor was used. Anyway, like I said, ask around.

JC

Hhmmnnn. duranash never did say what print sizes he is looking for. Did you? Heck, you are/were satisfied with 35mm film! When I look back at my 35mm film output it now seems so awful compared to digital. No wonder I always craved a Hassy in those days. I'd say quit fretting. The 350 DRebel will beat the pants off any 35mm film stuff, at any print size, provided you use top notch lenses. At A4 even the 3 megapixel D30 already did that. The only reason to buy the 20D for macros and landscapes is to have a more up-market toy. The image sensors, as far as we hear, are very equivalent, if not identical. If money is in short supply just get the 350D, a nice, top quality zoom and set the camera on the green, full-auto mark for your wife. I doubt that your good lady is less camera-literate than mine... The secret to good prints really lies in the lens' quality. I use a 1Ds exclusively with primes and am fully satisfied that the print quality at A3 or larger is equal to or better than my old standard-to-aim-for Hasselblad with film. 350D prints should already be visibly better than 35mm film at A4, notwithstanding the endless silly resolution nitpicking at PopPhoto. You really will not go back to 35mm film

Sorry to have mnissed that! At glossy 12x18" or A3, assuming decent lenses (I really cannot over-emphasise that) you will see a difference between a 14 megapixel or even an 11 megapixel 1Ds full-format camera and a 1.6x crop 8 MP. Is it measurable? I doubt it, but for whatever reason you will prefer the print from the larger sensor. Perhaps not on matt or lustre papers. If I take a film analogy, an 8x10" glossy print from a Hassy+film will look just a little bit crisper/nicer than one from 35mm, but it's difficult to say why. One can probably set up conditions in which you cannot tell the difference, but in everyday use a difference will be there. By the way, I find it amusing that in these film/digital discussions there's so much talk about quite minute differences. The closest 35mm film ever came to the current DSLR results was from Ektar 25 film. I used to just love those creamy blue skies, yet Kodak discontinued Ektar 25 ages ago because of a lack of buyers! I believe it also did resolve 200 lp/mm, or at least more than any color film currently available. I have thousands of low quality scans (only 1600 pixels wide) from my film days (family pics transferred to the modern age to be viewable on a monitor) and I can instantly tell what came from Ektar 25 and what did not. But I'll bet one cannot put numbers on the difference on such low-res scans. IMHO it's the same effect at A4 and A3 print sizes. The larger sensor or film format somehow just does a better job. I feel that a 1.6x crop DSLR is roughly the equivalent of Ektar 25 in overall "look" and perceptibly nicer than all the faster films, if that's of any help.

Just for reference, I have a 6 mp camera (the Nikon D70) and I get about equal quality 13"x19" prints to what I got with my old film camera.  The scanned film had more pixels, but also more film grain, and 6 mp seems just about enough pixels for 13"x19".  It's true that they aren't as sharp-looking as if they were taken with a 12+ mp camera (with good technique, of course), but they are certainly adequate, and don't have the film grain that limited the quality of that size print for film images.

Lisa

Looks like I'm back to a D70 w/ 18-70mm and the 70-300mm lens for starters.  BUT I am going to buy an Epson 4990 scanner to scan in all of my 2 1/4 and 4x5 film.  So that puts the Canon 20D out of my price availability range.  I'll only have about $2800.00US for the whole thing.

Unfortunately the only truly equivalent 20D level solution is the 20D or a similar dSLR but this doesn't mean you couldn't buy a decent fixed lens digicam which equals the 20D in image quality but under a much more stringent parameter of shooting conditions.

Something like the Olympus 8 megapixel models would equal the resolution of the 20D and provide great landscape potential. But remember we are essentially talking about a low ISO solution. When lighting gets "iffy" then you will be limited to using a tripod and longer exposures to get equivalen results which you would get with the 20D by simply going to ISO 400, etc. You also loose the versatility of OOF backdrops because with the relatively tiny sensor and true short focal lengths everything wants to be in focus. On the plus side for macros you gain an appreciable advantage. Multiply whatever aperture you use with the fixed lens digicam and you have the approximate 35mm equivalency. For example your F4 shots will have the DOF of your 20D at F16. Shots at F8 will have F32 DOF. This makes shooting macros, especially for tiny subjects, much easier. You can hand hold and get macro results with the Olympus which would take a tripod, ring flash and such with the 20D and perhaps still not as satisfactory.

There are trade-offs either way you go.

Best regards,

Lin

Julius, thanks for your insight on using the 20D for Landscape work.  Out of curiosity, what 20D shortcomings are you correcting by buying the 1Ds Mark II?

Lets see, I think I need to emphasize AFFORDABLE     Then again - everything is relative.  All I know is that I'm retired so discretionary $ are not as easy to come by --- AND my lovely wife near fainted when I mentioned the price of a 20D.

If you want large landscape prints with very low noise and not a lot of resolution, a Rebel XT or 20D will be sufficient.

If you want high res pictures that are affordable, go for a used 6x7 or LF system (645 will be ok but not ideal).  I bought a LF system with 3 lenses for around $1500, and the detail for landscapes is almost immeasurably better than any comparably priced digital system.  A good flatbed scanner for 4x5 will run you $300 more.

Before getting a Kodak camera, I would look into the issue of noise.  I'm not talking about shadow noise, but the weird colored noise you get with specular highlights.  This is occasionally a big nuisance with a 1ds and I understand that it's much worse with Kodak cameras.  If you shoot things with water, ice, or snow, you're apt to see this if you're shooting more or less into the sun.  It can be somewhat controlled by NOT shooting to the right of the histogram (or bracketing and blending) for certain subject matter and it can sometimes be fixed with tedious Photoshop diddling, but I certainly would not get any camera that is known to be particularly prone to this type of noise.

Maybe 1ds will get down to affordable levels for you once 1ds2's become a little easier to find and D2X is really happening.  I'm keeping my 1ds kit, but also buying D2X.  I suspect a lot of people will bail on 1ds and buy D2X, however.  I can't imagine a better camera bargain than a 1ds if they get down to around $3000 or less.

The trouble with 20D is that sooner or later you'll be wishing for more pixels.  That's always true, of course, but with a 1ds and good lenses and careful technique you can print up to 24x36 with very decent sharpness.  For landscape shooting (if weight is not a big issue) 1ds is still an excellent camera, even if 1ds2 has some advantages (esp. less noise at higher ISO).  I'm only getting a D2X because of the weight issue.

I purchased a digital p&s (Canon G3) a couple of years ago.  Last fall I purchased the 20D.  Still have the G3.  Even though I love to do landscapes, I found I use the both cameras to shoot kids, friends, family and travel pictures about 80% of the time, the G3 for travel (small and light), the 20D for kids (no shutter lag) and landscapes. When I do landscapes, I stitch if I need the extra pixels or the wide angles, otherwise I find 8 mega pixels adequate (I haven’t printed larger than 11 x 17) .  It depends on how often you plan to print big.  

Sounds like you need to find an affordable compromise with your wife.  I’d suggest the Digital Rebel XT (8MP) or the Digital Rebel(6MP), with either of the kit lenses.  The XT is light weight, no shutter lag (compared to a P&S), is compatible with your existing lenses and your wife may find the size and Full Auto operation less intimidating.

Duranash, If you are currently happy with shooting 35mm and making 13x19 prints on an epson printer you can be assured that you can buy a 20D start shooting and never look back. With good digital technique along with the photo skills you have you should be able to make better prints than ever before. If you are the type of person that is not happy unless you think you have the very best that money can buy than you won't be happy because in the back of you mind you will always lust for that 1Dsm2. Is the 1dsm2 better than a 20D? Sure it is but it should be for another $6500. Is it $6500 better? For some people it is for some it isn't. If you are comfortable with the price of a 20D and want to have a lot of fun shooting and making 13x19 and larger prints get a 20D and go shoot pictures. You should be able to get better quality than ever before.

I think you'll be pretty disappointed with 6-8MP digital compared to your MF and (especially) 4x5 scans.