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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Does the quality of camera realy matter?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 48 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/07/2003 03:51:20 PM · #26
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
just keep obsessing how you have the wrong camera. that will help you grow as a photographer ;) ..

btw what do us people with 'nice' cameras blame when we get scores in the 4's? :)


Hey I'm not blaming my camera for my descent shots... I've even said it before that I've enjoyed the hell out of my camera. So if you can find where I've blamed my camera PLEASE show me.
And I'm not obsessing, just trying to make a very valid point.
Just one more thing... since I've been playing around with cameras of 2+MP all those submissions are to date my highest rated pix. Wrap your noodle around that one.
 10/07/2003 03:54:41 PM · #27
Originally posted by Konador:
THE VOTERS!

The voters never understand art...
 10/07/2003 03:54:43 PM · #28
Kali is right!We aren't blaming our cameras for our scores, I'm actualy very pleased with my scores.I know that I'm just a begginer, I'm just saying that it would be nice to have a better camera.
 10/07/2003 04:00:38 PM · #29
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
btw what do us people with 'nice' cameras blame when we get scores in the 4's? :)


1) Well, there's always the "I stink as a photographer" reason, but it's not very popular.

2) People don't understand how my clever interpretation of the challenge topic DOES meet the challenge. (See reason #1.)

3) Photography is an art, and as such, quality/value/beauty is subjective. Whilst the majority of people don't appreciate my work, there are a brilliant few who actually see the true glory and beauty of my masterpiece and give me a 10, while all the other ignorant members give me a 1 -- the math just works out to a 2.5. (See reason #1.)

I'm reminded of something a friend of mine once said about graphic art. "I can buy the state of the art computer and state of the art graphics programs -- and still draw like a 5 year old." It comes down to talent. Boy, I wish I had some -- or maybe I should say, some more.
 10/07/2003 04:00:42 PM · #30
Originally posted by tkalect:
Kali is right!We aren't blaming our cameras for our scores, I'm actualy very pleased with my scores.I know that I'm just a begginer, I'm just saying that it would be nice to have a better camera.

...nuff said...

Message edited by author 2003-10-07 16:01:31.
 10/07/2003 04:01:16 PM · #31
One thing I can say about lower end cameras, my scores jumped a fair amount when I upgraded from my 1.3MP to my 3.2MP A70.

My Profile

Average with 1.3MP camera: 4.6735
Average with 3.2MP camera: 5.7064

As much as anything, rather than just resolution I think a lot of it was focusing and lens quality.

There is a time difference between my old/new camera submissions, but I didn't pick up any new knowledge between those times.
 10/07/2003 04:02:00 PM · #32
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

h) the hope/hype that maybe it actually *is* THAT MUCH BETTER :-D

i) ZOOM, zoomzoomzoom
j) We like getting new toys, especially gadgets with lots of new buttons on them : )
 10/07/2003 04:04:43 PM · #33
As I said in the begining of this discussion, we don't have much manual options.It's all automated.
 10/07/2003 04:48:37 PM · #34
Personally, I upgraded from a Coolpix 885 to a Canon 10D so I could have more control over how I shoot. I don't think owning one makes me a better photographer in any way. I shot thousands of photos with that little Coolpix; a few of which that I thought were good. Now I hope to shoot 1000s more with the 10D and perhaps a few of them will be good as well.
10/07/2003 05:02:27 PM · #35
ultimately it's not my job to 'figure out why so and so's pictures arent cutting the muster on dpc'. .

there are enough successes with low end cams and enough 'failures' with high end cams that it's not nearly as cut and dried as some people would like to believe. . .

however, if one personally feels that it's the camera that's truly what's holding them back, one has 3 options:

1) get a different camera

2) try harder to do better with what you have

3) do nothing and give up

that's it. it's up to you. no one else. And since it has been done (winning) with low end cameras that means that it it can be done. Ask yourself "am I not as good as the people that did that? "

Look at the pics in the links I posted below. Those are EXCEPTIONAL subjects - which is what it usually takes to win. No, they're not out of focus questionably lit blurry pictures of common or pedestrian subjects. Such things don't win, no matter what cameras took them.

Believe me, I know more than one person that has had a rude awakening when they bought a new camera expecting manna to fall from the sky - but it didn't.

So that's all there is to it .. in a nutshell .. I'm trying to help empower you but the rest is up to you.
 10/07/2003 05:10:27 PM · #36
One other thing.

I love having the sound of that shutter click back with the 10D!
With the olympus I kept waiting for that sound and it never came :(
Now if they could only add the rewind sound back in just for kicks!

LOL (Just kidding)

Calvus
 10/07/2003 05:14:42 PM · #37
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
however, if one personally feels that it's the camera that's truly what's holding them back, one has 3 options:

1) get a different camera

2) try harder to do better with what you have

3) do nothing and give up


Yeah and poverty is a state of mind.
If it's not about the camera, then all the 10D owners would have ones like mine!
 10/07/2003 05:54:39 PM · #38
i guess you'll be going with what's behind door #3 then .. :)

Originally posted by Kali:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
however, if one personally feels that it's the camera that's truly what's holding them back, one has 3 options:

1) get a different camera

2) try harder to do better with what you have

3) do nothing and give up


Yeah and poverty is a state of mind.
If it's not about the camera, then all the 10D owners would have ones like mine!


Message edited by author 2003-10-07 17:55:30.
 10/07/2003 05:56:12 PM · #39
It's the MONEY that counts..
 10/07/2003 06:04:08 PM · #40
Its the experience of the person behind the lens that counts. The fact that most people attempt to buy that with more expensive equipment, leads to expensive to produce, poor quality pictures.

If you learn how to use your equipment to the best of its ability, then you'll make great pictures, even with a shoe box and a bit of tape and some light sensitive film.

If you don't have a clue about what you are using or its limitations, you'll make terrible pictures no matter how much money you spend.

Its a sad fact of life that money doesn't make up for lack of experience. only experience makes up for it.
 10/07/2003 06:06:05 PM · #41
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i guess you'll be going with what's behind door #3 then .. :)

Originally posted by Kali:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
however, if one personally feels that it's the camera that's truly what's holding them back, one has 3 options:

1) get a different camera

2) try harder to do better with what you have

3) do nothing and give up


Yeah and poverty is a state of mind.
If it's not about the camera, then all the 10D owners would have ones like mine!

Ugh... did I say anything like that? NO! Then don't put words in my mouth. I'm going to do none of the above. More likely I will continue on with my camera in the fashion I have been doing; learn all I can about which camera(s) I intend to buy when I have the dough to do so. Take two pix exactly the same with 2 different cameras to show you the difference... since talking in circles isn't getting us anywhere.
 10/07/2003 06:17:40 PM · #42
I wrote it, got it out of my system, and now I'm editing myself. Y'all have fun.

Message edited by author 2003-10-07 18:20:12.
 10/07/2003 06:42:15 PM · #43
That's a totally irrelevant comparison, Kali.

Just because you take 2 pictures of something mundane with 2 different cameras and one has less noise or grain or whatever, totally still doesn't mean that you're going to have any more luck finding, framing, exposing, and finishing a picture of something that's AWESOME.

The cleanness or saturation or speed or whatever isnt going to magically summon the best light or the best angle or a bridge from the mist or an eagle to the balcony.

The camera can't help you find those subjects or create those opportunities. only you can. and that's the point you keep missing/ignoring.

I'm not talking about a half point difference in mediocre score with mediocre subject, i'm talking about amazing pics that make people go 'wow'. sorry but that doesnt come from the camera.

Those ribbon winners below didn't come from the camera, they came from the photographers that found or created them.

Anyway, since you seem pretty much attached to your premise, and none of my points have seemed to make an impression on ya, this will be my last post on this subject :)

(..no animosity, just done with this discussion :) ..)

Originally posted by Kali:
Take two pix exactly the same with 2 different cameras to show you the difference... since talking in circles isn't getting us anywhere.


Message edited by author 2003-10-07 19:02:06.
 10/07/2003 07:05:48 PM · #44
If you can't take a good picture with a camera with 1.3 pixels then you won't beable to take a good picture with a 3.2 or 6.0 and above.

Learn to use the camera and take good pictures with it, and when you master that, then you are ready for a better camera.

Really, I thought my camera was the fault of my bad pictures, but it wasn't. It was me all along. I needed to learn how to use it. Read the manual, use a tripod, take thousands of pictures.

Practice is what makes you better, not the camera!

Message edited by author 2003-10-07 19:06:35.
 10/07/2003 08:20:25 PM · #45
I really think the answer is it depends. It depends on the circumstances. How the photo is being used and what kind of photo you are trying to take. Of course you can take great pictures with just about any camera but if you want the very best results consistently in all kinds of shooting situations then you need to combine a high level of knowledge with high level gear. The question was, does the quality of camera really matter? And I say yes it does it many situations. That pro photographer who is taking incredible pictures with the simple pin hole camera is good enough to know the limits of that camera and shoot accordingly but if he were to try to shoot a sporting event then he would need to use another camera more suited for action.

T
 10/07/2003 09:53:09 PM · #46
Just take a look at this members cameras, photographs and ribbons!
I think this answers the question very well.

Jean-Jacques Béguin is truly becoming or is a Master Photographer.

The quote from his bio: Photography is a fine way to show what the world can look like when it is seen with trained and enthusiastic eyes.

//www.dpchallenge.com/profile.php?USER_ID=3585

Calvus

Message edited by author 2003-10-07 22:04:43.
 10/07/2003 10:33:10 PM · #47
I've seen this argument many times with musical instruments, maybe an analogy is in order. A virtuoso musician can make ANY instrument sound good, but they will prefer to play the best instrument they can. It matters, but the difference between using cheap and expensive gear becomes less the better the artist they are. But they will still want that edge, and the ability to lower the barrier between themselves and their expression.
I'm sure it's similar with Photography.
The ability to express yourself without having to spend as much effort coaxing your equipment.
 10/07/2003 10:56:42 PM · #48
Well said Bob...

I can't believe how many times this argument comes up. There is a fundamental difference between taking a photograph which will score well at DPC, and photographing a given subject well. You can plan a style of photo which will win at DPC using, for example, a Pentax Optio S, as Bobster has proven time and time again. All photography is NOT about scoring well at DPC, though. SOmetimes it's about flexibility in capturing a given subject. Me, I'm more interested in the things that I photograph than the photograph itself.

I've taken some candids in nasty lighting conditions at ISO 800-3200 at F/1.4 and they've turned out beautifully. Even with my F717, this would have been impossible without flash. Well, it's hard to maintain a candid situation with flash. As Gordon said above, as cameras get more expensive their abilities at the extremes are better. I can do things with my 10D that I simply can't do with my F717. Does this mean that the F717 can't take beautiful pictures? Of course not. Does it mean that I can take beautiful pictures in a greater range of situations with the 10D? Absolutely.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 06:07:41 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: 08/29/2025 06:07:41 PM EDT.