Don't know if that's a good example Rieva. I sharp shoot an well as photo shoot. There is a big difference with accuracy with guns. ; ) Can't say that a vintage muzzle loader can hit the target or go as far as a riffled barrel breach loader. Both fun though.
Taking a picture might look a bit the same, but really a different game. You can take just as sharp a picture with a well made box pinhole camera as you could with a fancy shmancy camera.
To that end though, yes it is the man behind the technology that masters the use of the tools.
Taking a picture might look a bit the same, but really a different game. You can take just as sharp a picture with a well made box pinhole camera as you could with a fancy shmancy camera.
To that end though, yes it is the man behind the technology that masters the use of the tools.
I think what Rieva says about the "man behind the gun" means WHAT he chooses to shoot. It's very much the same with photography.
About choosing the right equipment: Well, there's no general rule - it has to correlate to the picture you want. Some pictures are best suited for the "low-res style" or polaroid style or whatever, and other types of pictures are best suited with the state-of-the-art high technical quality cameras.
So it's really all about what photographs the photographer wants to make - my advice to 'beginners' is to try out all the different equipment you can get your hands on - borrow your friend's dslr and buy a 5 dollar second-hand camera with its lens cracked.
In the end, it's all about the perfect photograph and NOT what camera you used to get it perfect. The camera is the means to an end.
About choosing the right equipment: Well, there's no general rule - it has to correlate to the picture you want. Some pictures are best suited for the "low-res style" or polaroid style or whatever, and other types of pictures are best suited with the state-of-the-art high technical quality cameras.
So it's really all about what photographs the photographer wants to make - my advice to 'beginners' is to try out all the different equipment you can get your hands on - borrow your friend's dslr and buy a 5 dollar second-hand camera with its lens cracked.
In the end, it's all about the perfect photograph and NOT what camera you used to get it perfect. The camera is the means to an end.
All I can tell you is that I have seen pictures in books taken with disposable cameras ok? it is not the camera is the person behaind it.
ha, ha, a very good theme indeed, a never ending thread?
Of course I agree that it is the photographer who is of outmost importance, but the camera may be decisive if a shot can be taken or not! Different cameras are fit for different tasks:
Just recently I upgraded to an Minolta A2, I do not own any DSLR. I like my camera a lot, but... when I tried to take fotos of people in a bar and moving on the street late last saturday night, or in other words when I tried to take low light shots of moving objects all my fotos turned out useless: Even at the cameras highest ISO setting and widest aperature all fotos were blurred due to too long exposure time and their noise was unbearbale. The same night I also had taken a few shots with a friend's DSLR. All those fotos were perfectly well exposed, not blurred, had correct colors, not too much noise.
- It obviously was the camera and it's low light capacity that had made all the difference!
Of course I agree that it is the photographer who is of outmost importance, but the camera may be decisive if a shot can be taken or not! Different cameras are fit for different tasks:
Just recently I upgraded to an Minolta A2, I do not own any DSLR. I like my camera a lot, but... when I tried to take fotos of people in a bar and moving on the street late last saturday night, or in other words when I tried to take low light shots of moving objects all my fotos turned out useless: Even at the cameras highest ISO setting and widest aperature all fotos were blurred due to too long exposure time and their noise was unbearbale. The same night I also had taken a few shots with a friend's DSLR. All those fotos were perfectly well exposed, not blurred, had correct colors, not too much noise.
- It obviously was the camera and it's low light capacity that had made all the difference!
I have taken the worst pictures with my new D200 than I had with my awful Sony w5.I agree about the eye is the important thing, but the other is to have a camera you know, you love, you care and you know how todeal with it. I think you can do a good photographer even when you are poorenough to canot buy an expensive equipement. I never felt limited with any of my cameras. At all. Sebastian.
your creativity and artistry will make up good images.
The camera is secondary. Of course, your low end camera should be perfectly working well.
:)
The camera is secondary. Of course, your low end camera should be perfectly working well.
:)
Hello
Of course you can also make very nice pictures with a cheaper camera, the only thing you have to take care of is that you can change manually for example the the exposure time. Because if you have a full automatic compacta have much less possibilities for example pictures at night..But for them you have to use a small tripode anyway to get the sharp..I was looking for myself and i found the Canon Digital Ixus 70 or FUJI FinePix S5700 i found them both at pixmania the canon for 222 euro and the fuji for 188 euro..and there are much more offers. Important as well are the pixel, but with 6 mio pixel is already more than sufficient to make very very nice pictures..
Good luck with finding a nice camera and a lot of fun with making pictures.
esther
Of course you can also make very nice pictures with a cheaper camera, the only thing you have to take care of is that you can change manually for example the the exposure time. Because if you have a full automatic compacta have much less possibilities for example pictures at night..But for them you have to use a small tripode anyway to get the sharp..I was looking for myself and i found the Canon Digital Ixus 70 or FUJI FinePix S5700 i found them both at pixmania the canon for 222 euro and the fuji for 188 euro..and there are much more offers. Important as well are the pixel, but with 6 mio pixel is already more than sufficient to make very very nice pictures..
Good luck with finding a nice camera and a lot of fun with making pictures.
esther
The only way to 'improve' your phtography, whatever camera you have, is to get out and use it and take as many photographs as you can afford (in time or pennies) to take. The second most important thing you can do is study the work of as many different photographers as you can (personal websites are a fund of information and training and often lead on to other people's work) and keep going back to the ones that resonate with you.. buy books in preference to magazines and lastly listen objectively and patiently to the views of others on the many debates on photography and art.. but always hold your own views because at the end of the day those are the only ones that matter to you as a photographer / artist... it is your thinking and views that will dictate the direction your photography takes.
Post Edited (1:03h)
Post Edited (1:03h)
If you can overcome the equipment freak bug,then you will realise that a good camera comes into its own when conditions are poor,eg poor light,a fast moving subject,wet,damp,cold and so on.
In perfect bright,warm conditions with a still subject,then you might get a really good shot with a very basic camera.
In perfect bright,warm conditions with a still subject,then you might get a really good shot with a very basic camera.
19.12.08, 07:56
Post 70 of 104
"The camera is my tool. Through it I give a reason to everything around me." - André Kertész
it all depends on what you want to use the camera for, say if you were a prossional photographer taking photos for a wedding then you would be expected to produce the highest of quailty photos for your clients. if you want certain effects then yes, use any camera that is necessary. the pin hole camera made out of a can of coke is still popurlar and very effective.
I would like to know how much difference it makes to have a better lens. I've noticed some very good quality pics on this site which are very sharp, and I can't seem to achieve this. I have a Cannon EOS 400D with the standard lens that comes with it (18mm - 55mm) and was wondering how much a better lens would make my pictures. Is it worth the investment? How much should I spend on a lens? Is there a big difference between the quality of a £200 one compared to a £2000 one?
How much do the expensive cameras (£1000+) improve picture quality? Is it just that the sensors are more sensitive, therefore better in low light and faster shutter speeds maybe used? Also less noise at higher ISO?
I see some people are talking about the photographer's importance, however I'd like to make an assumption that the photographer is competent with whatever camera he or she has. ;)
Kind regards,
Stephen.
Post Edited (18:13h)
How much do the expensive cameras (£1000+) improve picture quality? Is it just that the sensors are more sensitive, therefore better in low light and faster shutter speeds maybe used? Also less noise at higher ISO?
I see some people are talking about the photographer's importance, however I'd like to make an assumption that the photographer is competent with whatever camera he or she has. ;)
Kind regards,
Stephen.
Post Edited (18:13h)
I almost exclusively use old M42 primes on my Pentax dSLR, and find the differences of rendering of different lenses very interesting.
Lenses do make a big difference not only in sharpness but there are many factors, specially color tones and rendering of OOF ( out of focus ) areas, which often make for big portion of a photo and in which many good old lenses excell. Some/many of them compete with very expensive lenses if new.
I am still leaning to isolate the subtle differences between rendering of lenses, but the overall impression of a photo is quite distinct depending on which lens is used.
Stock zoom lenses may not do justice to the camera's ability.
If one does not want to spend big time on good new lenses, old manual lenses offer a good alternative, that is if one can do with manual focus. I enjoy manual lenses much more than auto focus lenses.
For me the lens is much more important than the camera, others may, rightfully, argue that the differences of sensors is more decisive though.
Lenses do make a big difference not only in sharpness but there are many factors, specially color tones and rendering of OOF ( out of focus ) areas, which often make for big portion of a photo and in which many good old lenses excell. Some/many of them compete with very expensive lenses if new.
I am still leaning to isolate the subtle differences between rendering of lenses, but the overall impression of a photo is quite distinct depending on which lens is used.
Stock zoom lenses may not do justice to the camera's ability.
If one does not want to spend big time on good new lenses, old manual lenses offer a good alternative, that is if one can do with manual focus. I enjoy manual lenses much more than auto focus lenses.
For me the lens is much more important than the camera, others may, rightfully, argue that the differences of sensors is more decisive though.
Stephen do you sharpen your shots with photoshop or any other program as a lot of photographes do this including myself,i use photo shop and photocleaner to sharpen photo's which are take in raw program,i have good quality canon lenses but i still have to sharpen them i should say most people do concidering the sharpness of a lot of photos that i see on this site !cheers.Tony.
I do sharpen with Photoshop (although sometimes I forget), but I don't like to do that too much as it's very easy to produce artefacts, emphasize noise and produce halos. I would be interested in which Photoshop sharpening techniques people think are the best to avoid these problems..
I think I will have to test some expensive lenses vs cheap ones to see the difference. Has anyone got a couple of images uploaded to show these differences perhaps?
Thanks,
Stephen.
I think I will have to test some expensive lenses vs cheap ones to see the difference. Has anyone got a couple of images uploaded to show these differences perhaps?
Thanks,
Stephen.