"low end" cameras again .. - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/23/2003 07:56:26 AM · #1

There is always a lot of talk on the site about upgrading, getting a better camera, how good a camera do you need to score well, etc etc.

Well, I just thought it was interesting to note that the 3rd place winner in Humor was shot with a 1.3 mpx camera that costs under $200 :).

Going back into that photographer's profile, it seems she has placed in the top 10 or 20 with that same camera 4 or 5 times.

Thereby showing that it's not the size of the sensor, but how you use it! :-D

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/23/2003 07:57:40 AM · #2

... i need a bigger sensor :(

01/23/2003 08:08:11 AM · #3

:-D

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

... i need a bigger sensor :(

Message edited by author 2003-01-23 08:32:47.

01/23/2003 08:24:59 AM · #4

Well, resolution isn't all there is to "low end". If you put a decent 3x optical zoom lens on the Polaroid piece of crap I used to use, it might have been capable of much better photos. Now my friend Annida has it, and she's just discovering its lovely habit of creating blue, red and green lines of noise across photos taken in low light conditions :/. Bleh.

I'm happy that I upgraded :). The difference between my two photo albums is pretty stark.

Annida

Olympus C-4000Z

01/23/2003 08:27:23 AM · #5

Originally posted by lisae:

I have lisa's old camera and it's FRUSTRATING!!!! I want to be able to get a stupid image without those horrible horizontal lines which keep on popping up in darker pictures. *grrr* I'm hunting for something better.

01/23/2003 08:31:01 AM · #6

Hehehe, if you click on the link to that Polaroid under Annida's name, it's all my photos plus her first one.... and she's already doing much better than most of mine did! Her latest entry is rating even higher! BITCH!

Annida

Olympus C-4000Z

01/23/2003 08:35:05 AM · #7

Originally posted by lisae:

OOOOH! you called me a BITCH! you.. you... two pence *bleep*

01/23/2003 08:40:35 AM · #8

please don't take offense -- there's low end and then there's bottom of the trash can covered with coffee grounds and baby diapers :-D.

below a CERTAIN point there are definitely going to be diminishing returns where the limitations of the cheap or possibly out-of-date components are not going to be able to meet the expectations the audience has for image quality. and let's face it, just as with listening to music recordings, there is a minimum level of image quality (by which I mean graininess, sharpness, color rendition) below which the mainstream viewing audience will immediately tune out your work - simply because there are so many other options out there that do meet those minimum levels to which they have become accustomed.

All that said, my point was that you can do a picture that will score well without breaking the bank on equipment, as some seem to believe you need to. And the zoom doesn't have anything to do with it. If all it took was a zoom, everyone on here would have won.

Fujifilm FinePix E510 Zoom

01/23/2003 08:47:28 AM · #9

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

All that said, my point was that you can do a picture that will score well without breaking the bank on equipment, as some seem to believe you need to. And the zoom doesn't have anything to do with it. If all it took was a zoom, everyone on here would have won.

Yes, but having some optical zoom means you can get more out of your lower resolution. Take my "Girl and Black Swan" photo. Many people said in the comments I should have gotten closer, but the swan was only there for maybe a minute. With 1.3 mp, I couldn't crop it very much. Having some zoom just means you have more opportunities to get higher quality photos. It effectively increases the resolution you have available to you.

Gracechild7

01/23/2003 08:49:13 AM · #10

I think at least my best 2 photos were at least composed nicely and had alot going for them. I'm willing to admit that I'm new to this photography thing, but really, I don't think they were such HORRIBLE photos that they couldn't even break a 5.

Tell me honestly. Is it me, or the camera?

01/23/2003 08:52:37 AM · #11

true with distant subjects but the ones that albright1 did well with were not distant, except out the window of an airplane and that was so distant, her zoom wouldnt have been a factor. They were all close enough to walk to.

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

All that said, my point was that you can do a picture that will score well without breaking the bank on equipment, as some seem to believe you need to. And the zoom doesn't have anything to do with it. If all it took was a zoom, everyone on here would have won.

Yes, but having some optical zoom means you can get more out of your lower resolution. Take my "Girl and Black Swan" photo. Many people said in the comments I should have gotten closer, but the swan was only there for maybe a minute. With 1.3 mp, I couldn't crop it very much. Having some zoom just means you have more opportunities to get higher quality photos. It effectively increases the resolution you have available to you.

01/23/2003 08:55:01 AM · #12

Originally posted by Gracechild7:

Gracechild - I think it's a combination of you being a very creative person, and your image quality being low. There are photos you've taken that I personally love, but are more along the lines of "digital art", so are voted down on this site. I'm especially referring to "We Wear the Mask that Grins and Lies" when I say this. I LOVE that photo.

Fujifilm FinePix E510 Zoom

01/23/2003 08:58:59 AM · #13

gracechild, I agree about the composition, but here's an analogy, and I make this analogy because it seems really apt to me, as a musician.

I've written and recorded a lot of songs on 4 track cassette .. they were imho good songs with strong melodies, good playing, imaginative arrangements, neat sounds. other musicians thought they were great.

but often people, esp non musicians, werent able to hear past the fact that they didn't sound like they had been recorded professionally. people get conditioned to a minimum level of production value and then it becomes harder for them to look past that. Partly it's because since there are so many things around them bombarding them that do have high production value, they cannot distinguish if the lower quality is a mistake, or an equipment shortcoming, or what.

when i moved from 4 track cassette to recording on computer, my sound quality increased exponentially. i re-recorded some of the same songs in that new medium and people were like wow you've gotten much better. the truth was it was the same thing, just with higher production values.

so i think yes, older or lower end equipment past a certain point can diminish the perception of the quality of your work.

Originally posted by Gracechild7:

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/23/2003 10:56:40 AM · #14

Originally posted by lisae:

A lot of time I think people don't make best use of their 'inbuilt zoom' and stand too far away from the subject. Walking closer can often be all it takes (though not always possible, of course)

Gracechild7

01/24/2003 10:57:04 AM · #15

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by Gracechild7:
I think at least my best 2 photos were at least composed nicely and had alot going for them. I'm willing to admit that I'm new to this photography thing, but really, I don't think they were such HORRIBLE photos that they couldn't even break a 5.

Tell me honestly. Is it me, or the camera?

Gracechild - I think it's a combination of you being a very creative person, and your image quality being low. There are photos you've taken that I personally love, but are more along the lines of "digital art", so are voted down on this site. I'm especially referring to "We Wear the Mask that Grins and Lies" when I say this. I LOVE that photo.

I didn't expect that particular photo to do very well, simply because it was so far outside what voters on this site like. That I'm willing to accept. I am also willing to accept that the photos that scored lower than that were taken before I had a good grasp of how to make my camera do things like, say, focus (yes, there was a time I just didn't know -hangs head sadly-) and not leave artifacts all over the place in low light conditions.

But for my top 2 photos, Towers and Unicorn and Foal... I had such high hopes for those. They are regular everyday photos that the voters shouldn't really have a problem with. I know the quality on them isn't the best, and because of that I don't really have a chance of ever doing really well, but doesn't composition and effort count for something??

hardwaybets

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

01/24/2003 11:29:04 AM · #16

As I am a modest man of modest means, I have been saying that "size doesn't matter" for years. Oddly enough, to compensate for my pixel deficiencies I did upgrade to the Nikon D100. Ah the peculiar psychology of men!

Seeker

Canon EOS-30D

01/24/2003 11:30:29 AM · #17

Gracechild,

I believe your camera IS holding you back scorewise. I looked through your photos and you have a good eye IMHO. Having attempted to compete with a Aiptek 1.3 megapixel camera just to see what it was like I can relate to the limitations of the tool. The dynamic range of the lower end cameras and the low resolution is causing much of the "oversharpened" and "overexposed" comments on your shots. Yes, your composition is good but the limits of your camera is impeding your talent. I guess it's like pictures in the art world, someone may have talent with crayons and can create nice works of art but I doubt it could compete with paint. I'm willing to bet that the shots you mentioned (just under 5 which is "average") would have been high 5's or 6' or better with better equipment. Should you get a camera worthy of your skill we'll all be in trouble in future challenges. Remember, this opinion was worth every penny paid for it .