In a league of our own. - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/10/2003 08:31:01 PM · #1

Ok so most members here have great cameras but what about us small fry?
I mean there's minor and major league baseball, there's even a Special Olympics. Why not an occasional challenge just for those of us with cameras of 2 mega pixels or less? I've only submitted into two challenges and for both I was hesitant to do so because I knew I was in over my head trying to compete with Sony-DSC F717's and such. I'm not even suggesting ribbons for the winners; it would just be fun to compete with other less capable cameras. Also, this might be an idea to keep in mind for the future. When this place gets so crowded who is going to want to vote on a challenge with 500 pix?

birgir

Canon EOS-10D

07/10/2003 08:46:40 PM · #2

I like this idea ... I will maybe take out my Canon Ixus V and see what that litle honey can do :)

JPR

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

07/10/2003 08:53:42 PM · #3

i think it's a good idea, but where do you draw the line of what is a good camera and what isn't? I mean, the camera I have now is 3 megapixels, but I desperately want to upgrade to the sony dsc717!

hortopth

Canon EOS-D60

07/10/2003 08:57:16 PM · #4

there is a gap once you move to the digitals which have manual functions.. That makes all the difference in the world. Camera without basic camera controls are certainly limited, but that doesn't mean its not possible to win. I agree though, a new category might be in order eventually (when it gets crowded).

macox

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

07/10/2003 08:57:26 PM · #5

nice idea I'd like to see what's possible to do with a lower resolution camera (and break out my HP c200 though I'd likely be last place as I've gotten used to my camera fixing everything for me)

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

07/10/2003 08:59:40 PM · #6

Well Jason I suggested 2 mega pixels or less... ultimately it would be up to the mods and admins to decided where the line was drawn. That makes two of us that desperately want to upgrade, isn't that Sony a badass camera!

greenem2

Canon EOS-10D

07/10/2003 09:04:17 PM · #7

Stats fo 2.0 MP cameras and below:

1st: 7
2nd: 13
3rd: 14

Also, the difference in megapixels doesn't factor in too much when viewing sizes like 640x480. It does make a difference when printing. There are 2MP dslr's that were once top-o-the-line which will take better photos than a 4MP p&s.

For the purposes of this site, I think the greater advantage lies with cameras that are fully manual and have better color output.

And of course, the biggest factor of all is the person behind the camera.

macox

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/10/2003 09:07:48 PM · #8

maybe it would be best to have a class for cameras without an aperture setting as that's pretty much the dividing line for 640X480 shots

greenem2

Canon EOS-10D

07/10/2003 09:13:40 PM · #9

How about breaking up the challenges like this:

GROUP 1 - people who blame their cameras for poor photos
GROUP 2 - people who praise their cameras for great photos
GROUP 3 - people who are interested in becoming better photographers

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

07/10/2003 09:16:58 PM · #10

See that wouldn't work cuz i'd be in all groups, depending on the photo.

macox

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/10/2003 09:19:15 PM · #11

I'd be in 2 groups with each photo DOH!

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

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

07/10/2003 09:50:38 PM · #12

Originally posted by greenem2:

Excellent... I coulnd't have said it better...

DragonBro

07/10/2003 10:01:02 PM · #13

Great idea, I mean, I've found that with 3.2 its hard because I can get close enough to stuff and have it look good(I only have 2x optical zoom). Thats a good idea!

Gideon
Link

STEINR

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

07/10/2003 10:11:47 PM · #14

How about a challenge based on the photo editting software you use, or no editting software at all. Or have a challenge of PSP users and non-psp-users.

:-)

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

07/10/2003 10:21:11 PM · #15

My highest scoring photos were taken with a 2mp camera before I had ANY editing software at all.
Have you checked out the tutorial called "Cheap enhancements for low end digital cameras"? The things in that tutorial helped me out A LOT with my puny camera. Maybe they'll help you out some too.
~Heather~

RiderGal

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/10/2003 11:37:29 PM · #16

Maybe we could make it 3 mp as the top amount of megapixels... that way I could still compete with my 2.7 mp D1H... hehehe... I'm jusk kidding here guys... the point is, it's not the camera, its the photographer... seriously... in the world of film, some very interesting and worthwhile, and gorgeous photos were taken with pinhole cameras... really how much more lowtech and crappy can you get? hehehe... really I think that lowerend cameras just make the photographer work a little harder to get that awesome photo... I don't think if we seperate in to groups doing it by camera is the right way IMHO.

07/10/2003 11:45:56 PM · #17

This has been mentioned before, but it might be interesting to have one challenge where you either shoot with a small mp camera, OR, you shoot in 640 X 480, and not cropping allowed, or something like that. Having used a "little Sony" for a while before I got my 707, it is definitely different. I agree that most of the responsibility of a good shot depends on what is behind the camera, but having good equipment makes it easier. Lance Armstrong would beat me in any bike race, even if he were to ride a hand-me-down-thrift-store special, and me on the newest, baddest, most technically sound bike developed. No question. It would just be easier for him on a good bike.

Does that make any sense, or do I just need to go to bed?

07/11/2003 03:43:39 PM · #18

No, that makes perfect sense, but on the flip side if Jeff Gordon was racing a dodge neon and I was in a porsche who do you think would win the majority of the time?

I think 1 or 2 challenges a year like this would be more than enuf.... maybe i wasn't clear on that.
Aloha!

07/11/2003 04:44:52 PM · #19

Originally posted by Kali:

Jeff Gordon in a neon. That fits. hahahahahahahahahah

07/11/2003 04:52:17 PM · #20

My husband and I were talking about this thread today when I went to eat lunch with him. I don't know if my previous post was clear about my opinion on it, but I do feel that better equipment helps. Back to bike riding. When I first started, anything with wheels was fine. As I got better, I realized what more "stuff" could help me do. I'm at a level now where my bike is okay by "industry" standards, but for me it is fine. For beginners, kids, whatever, point and shoots work. As you learn more, you want to use more so the better equipment becomes more desireable (though unfortunately, not always obtainable).

Then, my husband made this statement. If we took a picture with our 1.2 mp Sony, and the same picture with the 707, made no adjustments other than resizing them, put them side by side, most people would be able to tell which was which. I am not sure. So . . ..

This weekend, when I shoot, I am going to do it with both cameras. I want to keep everything as equal as possible, so I won't "add" anything (lenses, filters, etc) unless I have it for both cameras. When I "upload" them to our gallery, the only thing that will be done to them is resizing. No post-processing (for this experiment). That way, I will know how they compared when used by an average photographer. (I'm doing a time trial on Lance's bike, and one on mine to keep that analogy.)

If anyone wants to see, I'll post a link, and let you decide. Sort of like a quiz. :-)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

07/11/2003 05:04:36 PM · #21

I tried this a while back and took 3 shots of the same thing,
one with an HP C20 (1Mp, fixed focus, 6 years old)
Canon G2 and Canon D60.

Most people preferred the shot from the C20 and the G2 over the D60 version...

07/11/2003 05:08:35 PM · #22

Yea, but Gordon, you are a good photographer, who can probably manipulate cameras better than the rest of us lowlies. Hahahaha.

Just kidding. I do remember you doing that. I guess this is one of those things where I just have to see for myself.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/11/2003 05:09:06 PM · #23

That's quite interesting Gordon...
I can't wait to see karmats experiment.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

07/11/2003 05:12:05 PM · #24

hmm . .

i could make a list of at least 50 people on this site with higher priced cameras that have never even come CLOSE to getting a ribbon.

It's not the camera ... The best camera in the world isn't going to tell you how to set up your lighting, what angle looks cool, wake you up at sunrise to get that red glow, give you the patience to wait for and stalk wildlife, set up a scene so that the colors not only complement each other but make it 'sing', make you notice the incredible shadows coming through the blinds, take perfectly sharp pics without good technique, locate a pleasing composition, etc etc etc

as long as a camera is of a minimum acceptable level of quality, it can produce winning pics. i would trot out my old tired examples of ribbon winners shot with 1.3 mpx cams but i dont feel like looking up the links yet again. But look for the users 'albright1' and 'sher9204' for examples.

a more expensive camera DOES give you more potential - in that (assuming YOU know how to use it) it lets you get something useable in more extreme situations - i.e. lower light, faster moving, more macro ... And there may be some, in my experience, at 640 x 480 SLIGHT differences in picture quality.

But any camera as described above, if used within its comfort threshold is capable of producing winning pics.

Try to get the most from the equipment you have.