DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Does the camera matter much?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 69 of 69, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/18/2005 01:56:12 AM · #51
Originally posted by ubique:


To which I must reply ... e301


Well Ed is a fantastic photographer and a good example/inspiration to all photographers whether they have an expensive camera or just a point and shoot. Now it should probably be pointed out that his Nikon 5400 is probably bordering on the prosumer range anyway - it has a full range of manual controls and retails for about 1000 dollars down here in Australia (not that much less than my pentax dSLR). Also Ed's skill is partly derived from his terrific abilities with photoshop - another piece of expensive equipment not necessarily available to all.
 02/18/2005 01:58:06 AM · #52
Originally posted by samtrundle:
(snip)..photoshop - another piece of expensive equipment not necessarily available to all.

I would suck if it weren't for PS!
 02/18/2005 01:59:44 AM · #53
:P - well I still like to blame my suckage on the absence of PS! (I don't know what I'll do when I finally get hold of a copy - where will I be without an excuse!).

At this point I'm relying purely on the fact that at the tender age of 22, I've got plenty of time to learn.

Message edited by author 2005-02-18 02:01:10.
 02/18/2005 02:05:49 AM · #54
Originally posted by samtrundle:
:P - well I still like to blame my suckage on the absence of PS!

Hmmm...

samtrundle - Avg Vote Received: 5.8890
BradP - Avg Vote Received: 5.8696

Your high marks and consistency are to be applauded - even if you are a whipper snapper! LOL
 02/18/2005 02:12:52 AM · #55
Hehehe... you are too kind.

It's much easier when the ribbon hogs are arrogant bastards - can't you go and harass an old lady or something, that way we can all go back to hateful jealousy!
 02/18/2005 03:19:24 AM · #56
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 discussion.

.


Place: 1 out of 20

02/18/2005 04:05:02 AM · #57
Originally posted by Geocide:
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 discussion.

.


Place: 1 out of 20


Ahhh. Didn't catch that.
 02/18/2005 04:06:54 AM · #58
Originally posted by samtrundle:
Hehehe... you are too kind.

It's much easier when the ribbon hogs are arrogant bastards - can't you go and harass an old lady or something, that way we can all go back to hateful jealousy!

Thanks. (I think - LOL)

The numbers speak for themselves though - forget the ribbons - mostly luck anyway.
A consistent score in percentages, comments and favorites is more of a mark than a ribbon trinket in my opinion anyway.
Funny thing is, that a lot of my ribbon shots are ones I don't care for that much. They were in the right challenge at the right time, with enough wow factor to pull it off, yet I wouldn't hang them on my wall!

Here's an example:
Go find "Theme from Harry's game" by Clannad or
"The Space Between" by Zero7, play either, and look at this picture:



Now that moves me.

Message edited by author 2005-02-18 04:07:54.
 02/18/2005 04:11:48 AM · #59
"ITS NOT WHAT U HAVE BETWEEN YOUR HANDS, ITS WHAT U HAVE BETWEEN YOUR EARS"
(Richard a coworker of mine and professional photographer for 30 years)

END OF STORY,..........NO?

i think that sumes it up pretty well

_brando_

---->if u need anything other than a shutter and a meidum to capture light, u are spoiled and could not shoot in the 1860s.

-btw 1 don't want any1 breathing down my throut about the above comment i am a purrest and stick with my mind to see the image NOT MY SCREEN.-

Message edited by author 2005-02-18 04:14:23.
 02/18/2005 04:37:30 AM · #60
Very flattering to get mentioned in this thread :-)

Now, the complete package that produced these two shots -



consists of a camera (the Fuji 340) that cost me £120 - a quick 'pricegrab' puts a price of $139 on it - with manual controls to the extent that I can set exposure compensation and choose between five different white balances. They are processed in PSP8, not Photoshop, and that cost me £50. It really is a point and shoot camera. Once one knows how it tends to expose things and meter things, then focus and re-compose is the only creative approach open to you.

could also have been photographed with that camera, but was actually taken with the 5400, which cost new about as much as you can buy a 300D for now. Complete manual controls, though a limited range of exposure, and being a compact-based camera, not many DOF options. It could have been a 'better' shot - i.e. much much cleaner, noise free, had it been shot with a DSLR.

So much for the technicalities. There is a lesson to be learned also from my Bridge II shot, but I'll not mention that yet for fear of giving the shot away. The point is to put in the research as to location (I just have a mental list of places I've been and seen), the best time of day (and the chance to get there at the right time of course), and the patience to wait for the light, or the people ... the moment.

And of course, a couple of years of quite intense thought about photography.

I'm not saying they're the greatest shots - the site has rated them moderately highly in their challenges, a number of times they've been selected favourite, and some photographers I genuinely respect have made favourable comments on them, all of which is flattering - but I thought I would add my part to the argument, seeing as I've been referenced.

e
 02/18/2005 05:21:47 AM · #61
Obviously, it was worth it to the dSLR owners to spend $1500+ for their cams. When you go to pro studios, you don't see PSs, There is a reason.
02/18/2005 06:30:38 AM · #62
There are differences in cameras and lenses. Better cameras are better because they have fewer deficiences and therefore allow one to take photos under more circumstances.

For example I have a Fuji Finepix 2800. For taking web-shots of roses it is the perfect tool. It has sufficient resolution and it's color reproduction is spot on. But for making prints larger than about 4 - 6 inches it is not satisfactory. I have a Nikon 8700. At 8+ megapixels it has the resolution I need for most prints, but it has some problems reproducing colors on the color wheel between blue and red. Specifically, there are a number of (cranberry) red roses that it fails to reproduce correctly. I notice that the lens, at high focal lengths does not produce the bokeh that I loved in an old zoom lens I had on a 35mm camera. But at short focal lengths it does not have the distortion and blur that I found in another 35mm zoom lens. Furthermore, there are a number of cases in which the auto exposure and auto focus really make taking photos quick and easy : action shots, trips where you want to cram a lot in, candid shots of people. And there are a number of cases in which manual versions are definitely superior: macro, still life, etc.

In other words, all cameras have flaws. The flaws limit the kinds of things one can do with the camera. When one is trying to achieve new photographic effects, an easy way to do it is to use technology not widely available. In this sense, if one must be on the leading edge of the field, it helps to have leading edge technology.

In many cases the best photos are the ones that tell a story. In some cases they are the ones that are most atmospheric. In all cases, the photographer's skill counts most. A great photographer can take award -winning photos on junk equipment but a poor photographer is likely to fail with even the best equipment.

As I look at winning photos or highly rated photos and I think about what would stop me from taking a particularly good photo, I frequently see things that make me believe that my own camera may not get me there either because of the optics or because of the color balance or because of the limitations to its manual controls. So I have to find a mode of expression that is consistent with the limitations of my camera. When I chose it I was planning to shoot landscapes in natural light, and that is the perfect kind of photo for this camera. As I anticipate setting up shots in an artificially lit area, the big issue is manual control.

As with any endeavor, choosing a camera is choosing a tool for the task. For fine art, some people like the FujiFilm cameras for their ability to look natural. The S3, for instance, has a wider exposure latitude which means fewer photos in bright light with blown highlights tand big black shadows. I notice a lot of Canons on this site; for capturing most things that are man-made they are probably better. And they clearly are capable of producing fine portraits and landscapes. One report I read showed they have more noise in low light situations. The Nikons fall somewhere in between, so far as I can tell. In the reviews I read on dpreview a year ago I found the color reproduction of the Nikon to be a little less agressive (less oversaturated) than the Canon, and the noise level to be a little lower in many conditions.

But today I really wish I had chosen an SLR so I could change the lenses. And I wish I had a camera with complete manual controls. And, yes, and electronic shutter control so I could automatically synch it to an external flash. Then I could come in out of the woods and shoot photos of all sorts of small and medium sized man-made objects.

02/18/2005 06:41:22 AM · #63
Look at all my ribbon winners... all taken with cheap cameras. However, my ability to shoot great photos in low light (specifically concert photography) has really shot up since I got my DSLR. The flexibility of being able to use interchangeable lenses, very low noise at ISO3200, the ability to generate much larger prints, MUCH faster focusing (especially in low light), a more intelligent button and menu layout and the ability to be taken more seriously as a photographer is why I upgraded.
 02/18/2005 06:45:50 AM · #64
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I'm trying to figure out the pattern but it's not working...LOL

I won a ribbon with my little bitty Sony DSCP32, then I won one with my Kodak DX-6490, and now I've won one with my Rebel. There's no logic there. ROFL!


That's because your just rock! The lady knows how to shoot.
 02/18/2005 06:57:38 AM · #65
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I'm trying to figure out the pattern but it's not working...LOL

I won a ribbon with my little bitty Sony DSCP32, then I won one with my Kodak DX-6490, and now I've won one with my Rebel. There's no logic there. ROFL!


That's because your just rock! The lady knows how to shoot.


I second that Denis. There's no substitute for a well thought out idea Laurie - you have tons of them, I'm sure. ;)
 02/18/2005 06:59:27 AM · #66
Awwwww... thanks!

I just have been really fortunate to learn from all the smart guys here. A year ago I didn't know what SLR meant, and had NEVER thought about the techniques of taking a photograph beyond point and click. Anything I've learned has been because of this place, no doubt. This site and the people who participate here are what rocks! :o)
 02/18/2005 08:26:07 AM · #67
Originally posted by Geocide:
Obviously, it was worth it to the dSLR owners to spend $1500+ for their cams. When you go to pro studios, you don't see PSs, There is a reason.


yeah because they're making 8x10 prints or, in some cases, larger. If they were just posting their images at 640 pixels, you might see the point and shoots there.
 02/18/2005 02:28:30 PM · #68
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Geocide:
Obviously, it was worth it to the dSLR owners to spend $1500+ for their cams. When you go to pro studios, you don't see PSs, There is a reason.


yeah because they're making 8x10 prints or, in some cases, larger. If they were just posting their images at 640 pixels, you might see the point and shoots there.


There are now 7 mpxl P&S cams.
Also, I'm not only talking about digital, in film world the same applies. I really don't understand that so many people can say the cam has very little to do with the images they produce. So all of these people with 2K cams are wasting their money?

Ok, let me explain something. just because the final output if 640pxls doesn't mean a old .3 mpxl camera can compete with a 14mpxl. The higher the resolution if the initial image the better it down-samples, the more accurate the image, there's better glass on the cam, there's all sorts of exposure adjustments...the list goes on.

Jesus people, compare the quality of these images: //dpchallenge.com/camera.php?CAMERA_ID=13
With These: //dpchallenge.com/camera.php?CAMERA_ID=990

Message edited by author 2005-02-18 14:29:34.
 02/18/2005 02:48:38 PM · #69
The camera matters MUCH.
When a camera is limitting the photographers ability to creatively convey what he's try to, there is a problem. Better cameras are less limiting. By using higher quality glass, sensors, processors, and everything else that sets DSLR's apart from P&S cameras, the possibilities are opened, imagination can be unbound and expanded.

The camera matters MUCH.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 06:26:39 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 06:26:39 PM EDT.