 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / February 2008Why do you buy a camera?
It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown. I hear things like: * It is not sharp enough. * I does not have a large enough sensor * It has too much, too little contrast * It does not have good colors * The lens fells cheap * The camera feels cheap * The design is too old I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress people. They seldom know how to use the camera. Other people seem to see the tool as more important than the results. Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image. For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?" I see five who say, my camera is not sharp enough. On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a better camera. Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better" equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many well acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results. I am sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.  SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Dia 's Muire duit The last time I decided I wanted a new camera I wanted: Faster frame rate Wider sensor Lower high ISO noise A "spare" body I could convert to Infrared Yes, I know some of that is mutually exclusive. Which is why the last time I got "a" camera I wound up with two... I went from a 20D to a 40D and a 5D. Most of my "upgrades" / acquisitions have been because I have exceeded the camera's abilities and wanted more. Usually that costs more money. :-) And until I no longer hear, "Wow, you must have a really good camera!" I will want something better. :-) For most people it is always easier to externalize fault for bad pictures on the camera than to except fault themselves. It's "too" hard to actually think about what will appear after I push the shutter release before it is pushed. Effort is lacking; they just want wonderful results without thinking. > On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > release before it is pushed. Effort is lacking; they just want > wonderful results without thinking. And sometimes they get them! But for almost every semi serious poster here, I get the impression that less than 1% is just not o.k. A benefit of having top gear is that: There is nothing else to blame but yourself. Well, excepting that your subject gets vaporized a millisecond prior to shutter release. I hate when that happens! SignatureJohn McWilliams > > On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If you are using a laser pointer to illuminate your subject, the military can't be blamed for vaporizing a clearly marked target. :-) Even if you don't use/have top gear the only person to blame is the guy that trips the shutter. You should know what you are likely to get before you push it. > It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I am sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, > using some cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day. I buy another camera when the one(s) I am using cannot accomplish what I want to do. For instance: In 1953, I bought a Praktica FX (a very primitive 35mm SLR) to replace a Kodak roll film camera because I wanted to make 35mm color slides. In 1956, I bought a Nikon S2 to replace the Praktica because I wanted a camera that would not wake the dead every time I clicked the shutter. In 1968, I bought a Canon FT-QL because the shutter on the S2 went south. I also wanted an SLR. In 1988, I bought a Nikon F3 becase the shutter on the FT went south. In 1996, I bought a Nikon N90S because I wanted to use AF. In 2004, I bought a Nikon D70 because I wanted to own a digital camera. It would be nice to own something like a D300, but really the camera is not the limiting factor for my photographs. I just might wait for the next big thing in cameras. Both the N90s and the F3 still take as good a photo as they every did. Jim > Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better" > equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many > well acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results. > I am sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, > using some cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day. I generally agree, but some areas of photography, such as birds in flight, are enhanced by fast focus and AI focus. I don't think A. Adams would disagree. Your newsreader program is probably telling you that the name of this newsgroup is rec.photo.digital. You naively assumed this newsgroup is about photography, an artistic/aesthetic pursuit. As such cameras and lenses should be considered tools and not absolute ends in themselves. The actual name of this newsgroup is Cameraholics.anonymous.net. It is for those obsessed with the technical qualities of digital photographic gear rather than the actual uses to which that gear is supposed to be applied. Sorry for the misunderstanding. > Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better" >equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many well >acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results. I am >sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some >cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day. Absolute statements such of this are never absolutely correct. > It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown. > I hear things like: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > * The camera feels cheap > * The design is too old Maybe I am missing something, but for me those would be reasons why _NOT_ to by this camera. jue On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Dia 's Muire duit I bought a DSLR for many of the reasons you listed above. Shot a couple of events with a Nikon 995 and found; The camera had severe shutter lag, wasn't fast enough The lens wasn't sharp enough The lens wan't fast enough There was too much noise in the images The sensor wasn't large enough The camera was too light to hand hold at telephoto ranges Though late in it's use I found the b&w mode wasn't bad at all. I bought a D200 because Nikon's fast 24mm (shoot alot with fast 35mm on film) was cheaper than Canons (mostly because it isn't autofocus). Didn't buy Canon because the 5D was more than I wanted to spend, but did almost buy a 20D. Didn't want a D70 either because of the awful viewfinder (especially with a slow zoom). The main reason for the digital camera when I had Leica M and Canon FD already was that a magazine approached me with an offer to do some work but they only wanted digital, 8mp or better, no upsizing. Tom I buy gear for the same reason, normally: I'm looking for different capabilities. My last (and very recent) purchase was a G9. My shoulder is causing my a bit of pain as of late, and I really needed to lighten the load when travelling. Image quality is not up to the 5D, but I just can't lug that thing for 8 hours a day without really feeling pain. The G9 fit the bill nicely, too. Nice image quality at lower ISOs (I do miss those high speeds), nice zoom range, full manual control. It's a great travel camera. On Feb 24, 8:42 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some > cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day. Adams used the largest camera he could carry. There are photographers who really did not care that much about what gear they used, but Adams was not one of them. The last new camera I bought was nearly two years ago, I got a Canon 350D to replace my Sony F828, which sounded like it was going to die soon. Mostly I get a new camera when a new one will blow away the one I have. But I may be in the market for a new one before too long, the 350D now has over 50,000 shutter clicks on it, I don't know how much longer it will last. Scott > On Feb 24, 8:42 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Scott Actually Adams used what he felt was the best camera for the job, most of his commercial work was done on 4x5, as were many of his landscapes. He was kind of a cheater with the 8x10 as he has a modified station wagon, Cadillac I believe, that had a roof rack big enough for him to photograph with an 8x10. Where Moon Rise was taken from. In his later years he used a Hassleblad and was even shooting color with it. In the mid '80s he predicted that digital photography would take over from film. That is when video resolution was the norm, in the day 40mb hard drives were considered big. Tom ... > Actually Adams used what he felt was the best camera for the job, most > of his commercial work was done on 4x5, as were many of his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tom He also did a fair amount of work with a 35mm in color. I thought it was good, but I don't believe it ever got to the level of his primary works. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > > On Feb 24, 8:42 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > would take over from film. That is when video resolution was the norm, > in the day 40mb hard drives were considered big. And back then, when optical storage was just dreamed of, nobody knew with what we would be filling our GBs... Then, the best they expected, would be digitalized books, like all books from a university library on a cd-rom... Nobody expected, of course, the internet, the mobile phones, the digital video, the dvds, the modern computer games, digital photography... If you happen to have Reader's Digest magazines from the '80s, have a look at them, you'll see what they expected from 2001. It's quite funny. -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr >"tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net>: >> Actually Adams used what he felt was the best camera for the job, most [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >happen to have Reader's Digest magazines from the '80s, have a look at them, >you'll see what they expected from 2001. It's quite funny. Perhaps you are right in terms of what the average person in the street dreamed of in the 1980's, but it is entirely wrong to say tat "Nobody expected, of course, the internet, the mobile phones, the digital video, the dvds, the modern computer games, digital photography..." The Internet already existed, as did mobile phones and at least the concepts of digital video and digital photography. Modern computer games existed too! I recall in the early 1980's a Data General maintenance tech (at a time when I was using a very highly modified Kaypro portable that everyone else went ga-ga over, and this guy had a home computer that ran DG's AOS system!) describing a version of the classic text base game "Adventure", which was graphics base! And I was, as were the others who heard this tale, in absolute awe of having a simple desktop with that much compute power. The only thing about your list that "nobody dreamed of" that *I* personally wasn't dreaming of, is how damned long it took to become ubiquitous! I was literally expecting 10 years, but it took 20. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only > reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image. I suppose that I could still take pictures with my Pentax K1000. After all, it serves well, takes wonderful photos, and that and its standard 50mm prime are, in some regards, all that I really need. But I'm not about to turn my back on the ensuing 30 years of technology that has gone on around me. dwight |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.