| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2005 09:34:58 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by BradP:
This is a very true statement after one gets profficient with what they have and find themselves not being able to expand their creativity.
Case in point is my Oly E-10. Though a very fine camera, being pretty much limited to ISO80 (160 & 320 are too noisy), 1/640 sec and F11.0 do present certain problems. |
But, you've won your share of awards, problems or not! |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:34:59 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I think that when posting as small as we do here (640 on the largest side), the camera has little to do.
|
Ah, yes, the great leveler.
I have this great story about this fastest, strongest lumberjack ever to fell a tree in the forrests of Maine who is given his first chainsaw, but I'll save that for another time.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:39:11 PM · #28 |
The most expensive camera doesn't dominate the ribbons or the highest score.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:39:51 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by deapee:
I think that when posting as small as we do here (640 on the largest side), the camera has little to do.
|
Ah, yes, the great leveler.
I have this great story about this fastest, strongest lumberjack ever to fell a tree in the forrests of Maine who is given his first chainsaw, but I'll save that for another time. |
A yes, the guy with the white hand.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:46:43 PM · #30 |
We are in general agreement. I don't know what the actual ratio is 90 - 10 or 80 - 20 but it really doesn't matter. The better photographers almost always seem to come up with the better photos. There are, of course, multiple factors involved.
(1) Technical knowledge is important. That is what anyone who tries can learn in order to improve their shots. Things like the rule of thirds, observing clutter in the background, proper exposure, good focus, good lighting. All these things are important to good photography.
(2) Experience, meaning taking lots of photos and observing what one likes and doesn't like in the photos and thinking about what not to do next time is another key. For example it doesn't take long for someone to realize that early morning and late evening are usually better times to get good images than mid-day. This is an aspect of a photographer's image quality that will improve as long as he or she is trying to improve. This is where patience and careful planning come into play.
(3) Good equipment is also a plus. I will comment on this later.
(4)Artistic capability is another key. Others may differ from me but I believe this is an innate gift that some photographers posess much more than others. I don't believe that study can improve on one's artistic talent. Study only improves technique and understanding of photography which are include in points 1 and 2 above.
An outstanding photographer must have all four key elements. Artistic ability is the most important which is why some people can pick up a cheap camera, have little training or experience and do impressive work. Of course, over time their work will improve. It makes people like me who study and understand the technical aspects of good photography, and who have good equipment and learn how to operate it, still be envious of people whit the gift of being able to "see" and capture great photographs.
I didn't elaborate on #3 above because the point of this discussion is equipment. I am in the market for a new camera. In the old days I used Minolta and then moved up to a Nikon FA and competed in slide competitions. I moved up as far as I could go (I reached the highest level) because there is only so far that technique will take you. I just couldn't keep up with the people with the gift.
I dropped out of photography as a hobby until my wife gave me a low-end digital (Sony DSC-S30) a few years ago. I used it mostly for snapshots. However over time, the photo bug crept back in and I have been frustrated with the lack of control and limited output quality of the Sony compared to my old FA slide camera. My study to determine what camera to move up to has been frustrating because there are so many choices but no camera with a low enough price fits my supposed needs.
The dpchallenge website has been a great help in narrowing down the choices, however. Initially I was looking at the "prosumer" cameras with attached lenses becuase on paper they have the funcitonality that I want (control of the camera) but come in a compact size and relatively low price. To get what I want I was looking at the Sony DSC F-828, Nikon 8080, Konica-Minolta DiMAGE A200 type cameras. My greatest concern with these cameras, however is image quality. Finally after looking at the very helpful listings of photographs taken with each model camera on dpchallenge I have come to realize that I really need a DSLR. I didn't want to go that route because of the cost and size of the camera (having a small camera with me all the time has been great). The image quality (primarily sharpness) is obvious when one campares one camera to another. Sharpness is important to the success of many high-scoring photos on dpchallenge. When one combines that factor with the speed (lack of shutter lag, etc.) and other features of a DSLR I don't think I would be satisfied with anything else.
As a result the Nikon D70 is my current target because it is cheaper than the Canon 20D and hopefully I can still use my AI lenses on it (at least in manual mode).
Well that's my $0.02. I don't know why it takes so long to say two cents worth...
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:48:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by deapee:
I think that when posting as small as we do here (640 on the largest side), the camera has little to do.
|
Ah, yes, the great leveler.
I have this great story about this fastest, strongest lumberjack ever to fell a tree in the forrests of Maine who is given his first chainsaw, but I'll save that for another time. |
A yes, the guy with the white hand. |
I don't know. I think you kind of need a visual to complete the story effectivly. Goes something like "Pierre! You cut and load 5 cords of wood a day for me with just the axe and saw. I give you a brand new chainsaw and look! Not even half a load!"
And you have to say it with a French-Canadian accent.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:51:53 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
The most expensive camera doesn't dominate the ribbons or the highest score. |
Well there are a few reasons for that - firstly this site has been around since before the most expensive cameras today existed - also the voting scale has changed - images that scored highly in the early days of dpc would not score as highly today. Secondly there aren't many people here with 1ds's or the like - most of the people who can justify shelling out that kind of cash for a camera are making their living as a photographer :) and don't have the time to be mucking about with good old DPC. I think the most common camera here is a digital rebel - along with camera's like the D70, 10D, 20D and some prosumers i.e sony f828. None of these could be considered a cheap P & S.
Speaking of which - I think it's interesting that when this argument comes up people point at the fact that some of the most successful photogs here don't use dSLR's i.e JJbeguin, and DSidwell - now not to detract from the astronomical talents of those two individuals, but it should be noted that a sony f828 (the camera they use) retails for about 1700 dollars Australian and could hardly be considered a basic camera :). |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:52:58 PM · #33 |
No way..... I won a 3rd place here with my point and shoot digital.
I have also sold prints and won other contests with photos I took using that camera. I think it's how well you know your camera and how good your skills as a photographer are. :)
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:58:11 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by darkornithopter:
Ok I have just been noticing lately that the people with the better digital cameras seem to score better on the challenges. Is this juat the fact that the people with better cameras are better photographers or that a better camera will take better shots? |
Really depends on the challenge. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:04:38 PM · #35 |
If the camera doesn't matter, why would anybody buy a better camera? And what is the purpose of all these lenses?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:04:53 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
... I think you kind of need a visual to complete the story effectivly. Goes something like "Pierre! You cut and load 5 cords of wood a day for me with just the axe and saw. I give you a brand new chainsaw and look! Not even half a load!"
And you have to say it with a French-Canadian accent. |
Like this: "Chaque jours, you coet pour moi uhn lodd cinq corrr de woed avec juste l'axe uhn saue. I, je geeve you uh Stihle brunde 's nou uhn, voilá! Pas de demi, not evn half lode. Fou ça, n'est-ce pas?"
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 22:05:35.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:11:08 PM · #37 |
To answer the original question that started this thread I will answer conclusively with this:
The highest rated picture on this site shot by Langdon with a Olympus Model C-700UZ 1.92 Megapixels camera. End of discussion.
.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 22:14:38.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:13:34 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
To answer the original question that started this thread I will answer conclusively with this:
The highest rated picture on this site shot by Langdon with a Olympus Model C-700UZ 1.92 Megapixels camera. End of dicussion.
. |
In 2002, you could submit a photo that took no skill at all -- and get a ribbon winner...times have changed, so that being the defense isn't good IMO.
Can you elaborate some on the comment you made about posting at 640 pixels?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:25:30 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
To answer the original question that started this thread I will answer conclusively with this:
The highest rated picture on this site shot by Langdon with a Olympus Model C-700UZ 1.92 Megapixels camera. End of dicussion.
. |
In 2002, you could submit a photo that took no skill at all -- and get a ribbon winner...times have changed, so that being the defense isn't good IMO.
Can you elaborate some on the comment you made about posting at 640 pixels? |
The "great leveler"? The resolution at which we post these challenge images and the quality of the CRT and LCD screens on which they are being viewed acts as a leveler of sorts. The image quality of a shot taken with a 16Mp camera will not carry through well to the viewer, thus presenting a more level playing field for those with less capable cameras.
This site wasn't set up so that the person with the best camera can take home all the booty, it was set up as a forum to express and share our artiscic and photographic skills. I think the system works.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:35:24 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
The "great leveler"? The resolution at which we post these challenge images and the quality of the CRT and LCD screens on which they are being viewed acts as a leveler of sorts. The image quality of a shot taken with a 16Mp camera will not carry through well to the viewer, thus presenting a more level playing field for those with less capable cameras.
This site wasn't set up so that the person with the best camera can take home all the booty, it was set up as a forum to express and share our artiscic and photographic skills. I think the system works. |
very good point...elaborated on my original -- makes more sense the way you said it.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:38:57 PM · #41 |
If we all had to take the same picture of the same subject, with the same lighting conditions, the high-end cameras would yeild a better quality image, no question about it.
Now, hand me an unfamiliar point & shoot and an unfamiliar $5,000 dSLR and I bet I could do better with the P&S UNTIL I became familiar with the dSLR.
I can almost guarantee that all my ribbons could have been accomplished with a P&S camera. For those of us with older technology cameras or low MP point & shoot cameras, Photoshop can make up the difference at the screen resolutions we are using here. I can still do some amazing things with my Mavica 1.3MP at 640x480 in it's final presentation.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 22:40:55. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:42:55 PM · #42 |
well the 640 pixel fact certainly does act as a leveller of sorts - there is definately going to be much less of a difference between a 1ds and a point and shoot image at 640 pixels than at fullsize...however, sadly enough poor image quality out of a P & S is still pretty detectable at 640 pixels - just look at my new years resolutions (incidentally my highest score :P) and communications entry - noise galore!
As for langdon's shot, I hardly see how that ends any discussion - the same image submitted to a challenge today would struggle to get above 5.2(no offence to langdon of course!). Also 1.92 megapixels in 2002 was about equivalent to 4 megapixels today - not a professional camera, but not as bad as it seems! |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 11:15:51 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by BradP:
If we all had to take the same picture of the same subject, with the same lighting conditions, the high-end cameras would yeild a better quality image, no question about it. |
So you're sure that a 1ds mark II would look so much better, that there's no question whatsoever about it at 640 pixels wide than a sony dsc-p52 at 640 pixels wide?
I honestly don't buy it.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 11:22:04 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by BradP:
If we all had to take the same picture of the same subject, with the same lighting conditions, the high-end cameras would yeild a better quality image, no question about it. |
So you're sure that a 1ds mark II would look so much better, that there's no question whatsoever about it at 640 pixels wide than a sony dsc-p52 at 640 pixels wide?
I honestly don't buy it. |
Oh, in the right situation (such as a low light or high ISO shot) the difference would be tremendous, even at 640 x 640. But in most situations at that resolution the 1Ds Mark II has no advantage over a camera with 1/4 the Mp.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 11:26:25 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by BradP:
If we all had to take the same picture of the same subject, with the same lighting conditions, the high-end cameras would yeild a better quality image, no question about it. |
So you're sure that a 1ds mark II would look so much better, that there's no question whatsoever about it at 640 pixels wide than a sony dsc-p52 at 640 pixels wide?
I honestly don't buy it. |
Of coarse it would. Sorry but a better camera will take better take better pictures...its just the way it is, no matter what the pixels are.
Having said that.....I will stay with my camera for a long time. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 11:32:56 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by deapee:
So you're sure that a 1ds mark II would look so much better, that there's no question whatsoever about it at 640 pixels wide than a sony dsc-p52 at 640 pixels wide?
I honestly don't buy it. |
I have no way to quantify the dsc-p52 vs. anything else, but the image processors in good quality dSLRs DO have an effect on overall quality. There's no way I can do a 640x480 image with my 5-year old E-10 or a Sony Mavica 1.3MP as good as a 1ds mark II could do. I've tried my E-10 & Mavica under the exact same conditions, at the same initial 1280x960 resolution, and the E-10 blew away the Mavica's image quality. |
|
|
|
02/18/2005 12:20:12 AM · #47 |
Why do we always have to equate megapixels to image quality? "Low end" cameras are at MUCH more of a disadvantage than pixel count, so let's just ignore that. Let's include lens quality. Let's include sensor size. Let's include CCD vs. CMOS. Let's include SLR manual focus as opposed to 1 meter pushbutton increments. Let's include 23 zone auto focus as opposed to center spot only, 3 zone at most. Let's include software algorithms. Let's make sure we include the ability to set different JPEG compression ratios out of camera, 1/2.7, 1/4, 1/8, or whatever. Let's include the ability to use RAW as opposed to a single type of file output. Don't forget the fact that depth of field in PS cams is typically so large that there is no visible background blurring even with several feet of subject/background separation and f/2.0. Oh, and don't forget things like slow curtain flash capability and TTL flash metering.
ALL OF THESE THINGS AFFECT IMAGE QUALITY!!! When those of us who struggled for years with OLD technology, it was not just the number of pixels that held us back. The cameras simply COULD NOT create an image that competes with the DigRebs of today. No freaking way. Yes, the cams had good features and capability, but as time went on, competing with them became more and more hopeless, regardless of photographer capability.
If it's all photographer, folks, why do the wedding photogs carry $15,000 worth of equipment just to shoot a 20 minute ceremony?
Equipment does matter. It gives confidence, it gives capability, it makes adjustments easier to make, it provides dependability, it improves overall image quality out of the camera, on and on and on.
As Brad said, if I put my E-10 beside my Sony S30, there is simply no comparison. Focus is better, focus is QUICKER, flash is more controllable, DOF is controllable, COLOR is better and more accurate, controls are quick and easy to find, camera is more steady to shoot because of a better body design, lens gathers light better and with no distortion.... on and on and on.
Equipment matters. Why do the guys with 20Ds want to deny that so vehemently??????
I'm not saying that the guy with the S30 should give up. I'm simply saying he should concentrate more on subject matter, composition, timing, and things like that than he should the perfect technical image. His photography can improve and become EXTREMELY good, but he simply CANNOT make the same improvements that he could make if he were working with a quality DSLR.
Okay, I gotta shuddup. Sorry, didn't mean to rant. This just frustrates me because the argument always turns to "I can do the same stuff with a $200 cam as I can my $3000 cam, I just like the expensive one because it looks cool...."
Bull.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2005 12:35:09 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by nards656:
If it's all photographer, folks, why do the wedding photogs carry $15,000 worth of equipment just to shoot a 20 minute ceremony?
Equipment does matter. It gives confidence, it gives capability, it makes adjustments easier to make, it provides dependability, it improves overall image quality out of the camera, on and on and on.
. This just frustrates me because the argument always turns to "I can do the same stuff with a $200 cam as I can my $3000 cam, I just like the expensive one because it looks cool...."
Bull. |
Seems you lost the whole point of the thread. If all a wedding photographer had to do is post his images at a resolution of 150K on a website I seriously doubt you would find to many of them that would invest $15,000 into a system.
Of cousre a $7000 dollar camera will give the photographer great advantages over another with a $400 P&S. In a show where the images are blown up above 8x10 the difference would be obvious to a 5 year old. But at a resolution of just 640x640 pixels being viewed on somebody's crusty old 15" CRT that advantage is greatly reduced.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2005 01:34:49 AM · #49 |
Of course great photographers can make great photographs with simple cameras but they are going to be limited by what the camera is capable of. For many photographers that is fine because what they are specializing in is well within the capabilties of these cameras. The better cameras are better because they produce better quality shots and/or they have more options. It isn't an either/or situation. Pros usually have high end cameras so that they have the most options available to them so they can photograph in the widest variety of situations. The resolution is just one factor. If you failed to capture a fast moving object with a point and shoot camera and the results were a blurred shot then it would still be a blurred shot at a 640 x 480 resolution.
T
|
|
|
|
02/18/2005 01:47:44 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by darkornithopter:
Ok I have just been noticing lately that the people with the better digital cameras seem to score better on the challenges. Is this juat the fact that the people with better cameras are better photographers or that a better camera will take better shots? |
To which I must reply ... e301 |
|
