Recent Posts
-
Admin
Oct
9
Does your photo gear matter?
October 9, 2007 | 18 Comments
Can a $150 camera take as good a picture or a better :no: picture than a $5000 camera? Is it the quality of the eye or the quality of the lens that makes a photo a great photo? These are the questions that photography guru Ken Rockwell tries to answer.
See his “Why Your Camera Does Not Matter”.
You can also see the comparison between a cell phone camera and expensive SLRs HERE.
Philosphically, I knew where I stood even before I read Ken’s article, but he puts his views across much more eloquently than I ever can. He substantiates his arguments with actual examples and experiments that he and others have performed with different classes of equipment. This philosophy transcends photography and holds true for any walk of life or activity, be it a profession or a hobby.
The verdict: Your camera does not matter.
That is to say that it does not matter in producing the effect that you want to produce. The effect or result is conceived in the mind’s eye and can be accomplished with even the most rudimentary of equipment.
Check out these pictures taken with a cameraphone.
To quote Ernst Haas,
There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.
However, the tool can help you save some time or make it more convenient to convert the idea conceived into a reality. Usually there is a price that you pay for the convenience. That is the price for a fancier camera or a lens in this case. So by all means, go ahead and splurge on expensive gear if you have the means to do it. But do it for the right reasons, and don’t for a moment think that it alone will make your photos better. The way to do that is to learn techniques and practice.
As someone pointed out, “Buying a Nikon doesn’t make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner.”
A serious amateur or even a professional doesn’t necessarily translate to an artist. And knowing every technical aspect of the camera doesn’t mean that you will create astonishing pictures. An optically perfect picture doesn’t mean a good picture. By the same token an artist is not a professional. Personally, I know that B has taken some pictures with our partly damaged non-SLR that are better than what I had taken at the same spot with our SLR.
The picture above (of Seattle) was taken with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel 300D. The picture below was taken from the same spot with our non-SLR Sony Cybershot.
This picture, in my opinion, has better composition and clarity. Both these pictures have not been modified in any way.
Our Sony DSC-W5 is not a crap camera. However, it had a broken LCD screen, which made it impossible to read or operate the various options on the menu. Pretty much all you could do with it was to point at the subject and shoot. (I’m using the past tense, because now the LCD display has been replaced and is as good as new. 
)
We usually carry it as a backup if our SLR battery dies.
For us at Jugalbandi, it is about expressing ourselves and we assume, rather presumptuously, that that is the case for most of our readers. Go out and have fun and create “your” art along the way, the beauty of which is in the eye of the beholder!
Jai
Filed Under: camera, MUSINGS, PHOTOGRAPHY
|
18 Comments
I agree – I purchased my mobile that comes with a camera. Honestly there is no difference between the shots I capture in my mobile and a regular camera. In fact I feel the mobile is far more handy and convenient to use.
Do you have any tips for a person whose hands start shaking the moment she holds a camera
hno: ?? As far as I am concerned, camera does not matter to me bcos anyway I shake my hands and mess up a picture.
As usual, great post Jai.
a tripod – or something with an image stabiliser. even if your hands don’t shake, a tripod makes a great deal of difference. – b.
Yeah I totally agree Jai. Just this week, I was asking Elly of Elly Says Opa! what camera she uses as her pics are always so alive and drool-worthy. She responded shocked that I had asked her, she figured it should have been the other way around. :huh: So then I was telling her what a great eye she has given that she thinks her camera is not that high-tech. :hmm:
I firmly believe it is about the person taking the picture, not the camera.
Very nice subject and I couldn’t agree more with the verdict. Pictures are good if the one taking the picture knows how to, camera is just a medium. We recently went on a trip to San Francisco and I was surprised how good the pictures were, we have a Canon A560, non-SLR
I’m sorry but I don’t get your point about better composition. The two are almost identical except that the second is more ‘zoomed in’. Also, the second has both leaning buildings and the bridge is tilted as well. That takes away from the composition. The second image actually needs more editing than the first.
Clarity with a DSLR depends on how soft the lens is. I get better macros with my 5 year old P&S but lousy landscapes. I get super landscapes with my DSLR but lousy macros. No matter what though, the images are more vibrant with the DSLR because the technology is better. I get a color cast with my Sony.
If you are comparing current P&S and DSLRs, yes there is a lot of truth to what you are saying with respect to results.
When it comes to composition, there’s no doubt that it’s the person behind the camera that matters.
i think the second one is better composed because if you try to crop out the half building to the extreme left of the first pic, you will crop out part of the boat. you can straighten the second pic without cropping out the boat. but i agree, it’s not a very well-composed shot to begin with. – b.
guess composition is an “eye of the beholder thing”…but on other counts, most things fall on an “S” curve. So if we look at it from a “bang for the buck” point of view at the low or high end of the scale, I’ll probably get more for my buck if I invest in improving technique than buying better equipment. That’s all. Sorry for stirring the pot, though we kinda enjoy it around here ! –j
My cellphone camera does a great job with daylight pictures. Night pictures also turn out excellent if my hands remain steady. Any ideas here? Ofcourse, the cell is only a backup for our non-SLR camera.
agree 100% with the verdict
simple is better IMO
So reassuring for a cell phone camera user like me, it work quite well in outdoor photography where one has space enough to compose a shot. In my tiny kitchen even an SLR won’t help
But what about the fact that it is convenient for me to blame my inexpensive camera for my poor pictures?
You know what they say in Hindi: “naach na jane, aangan tedha”. If you can’t dance, blame the uneven floor ;;)
I don’t think phone cameras are not good enough at all like regular digital camera.
During the last 2 year, we have bought 6 Cameras, from Sony Cyber-shot I use to expensive Nikon. I have stayed with my little Sony for years, left the “complicated” one to the husband!
I agree with you totally.
Over the past 5 years, I have moved from a casio compact point and shoot, through to my Canon EOS 10, which is second hand and the most expensive camera I have ever owned. Add to that the lenses I’ve bought. I’ve taken really great photos with them all and the only reason I moved into an SLR is that I can set everything myself, in other words, I’m a control freak. With an SLR you have total control over your shutter speed, aperture etc and you have the option to go auto. That’s an option I very rarely use these days as I’ve got better at judging my shots for myself. The only other consideration is pixel numbers, with a good point and shoot you get print quality shots that you can enlarge. You don’t get that from a camera phone yet.
I agree its the camera operator that determines the picture but I ended up getting a DSLR instead of my P&S to have the speed/faster lens to capture my monkeys (twins). My regular point and shoot invariably would have to use “flash” in the lower lighting and I prefer using the DSLR for the fast moving kids. In terms of landscapes like the city views you presented I agree with you..
Did you see I agreed and disagreed.. not too vehemently though..
:bow:
I used to have an SLR, and after it died, changed to a P&S. P&S because an SLR occupies way too much space in a diaper-bag-that-doubles-as-handbag. and there are some features that i really miss (like awesome zoom), but taking a little time with settings in a manual shooting mode i can still get great pictures.
the move from SLR to P&S is great, but once I move from bulky-diaper and feed bag to decent handbag, i might shift back to an SLR. but thats not in the foreseeable future
Jai & Bee, we were eyeing some SLRs the other day but I was wondering whether such an expense for a hobby was justified. Then I discovered Picnik and found that the make sharper feature was useful, till I noticed it was a premium feature – how do you get such sharp pix with an ordinary digital camera? I’ve got an Olympus uDigital600, it’s two years old.
maybe GIMP has it. most compact digitals take sharp pics without software manipulation. our sony does. – b.
I was wondering :hammer:whether to invest or not on SLR, but now ur post has justified, that its in the eyes of the mentor to take beautiful shots.
I am very much happy with my Sony cybershot ( 3 yrs old, going 4 this Dec :yes: ) But I would one day love to own a Nikon SLR
Padma
Unless you know how to use an SLR properly (D or A), you have many more opportunities to mess up. It is a much more powerful tool, but in general is also much more demanding of its user.
Things I would recommend for anyone wondering whether to buy an SLR is to consider what you use the camera for most frequently. If you take a lot of macros, many good P&S will handle it OK, but for a SLR you really need to buy a macro lens – and that adds a lot to the price. If you take a lot pictures at high zoom – action pics etc – again, you would have to buy the extra zoom lens, and even a relative small zoom is three times the price of a decent P&S. (And of course you would need to carry not only the much larger camera body with you, but also the large additional lenses.)
Not that I want to dissuade anyone serious from buying a SLR but one should consider all the factors and costs involved before making a decision.
I loved my Nikon coolpix 7900. Took great macros and introduced me to the world of photography (of food mostly). And I have seen people take wonderful pictures with that camera that I never managed to. I moved to a DSLR to try for more, but I never intended to stop using the P&S – but I lost it. So now I focus on learning the DSLR. But I agree with you, it’s the photographer and NOT the camera that makes a great shot!