jonathan_richardson2 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 I am new to photography but i am slowly building up a portfolio. Many people tell me that you need an expensive camera to get good shots! I don't think this is nesseserily true, within limits, as i have been using an 80 pound camara and have captured some good photos. What are your veiws?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_fennema Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Some of the best pictures I've taken have been with a $20 Holga. A crappy camera that goes with you everywhere is a lot better than a Hasselblad kit that sits at home. Of course, if I were a studio or portrait photographer, I might have a different opinion on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_villarmia Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Don't your arms get tired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_richardson2 Posted August 4, 2004 Author Share Posted August 4, 2004 Lol! Thats the currency pounds (?) not in weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 No, it doesn't matter. Joke: a Canon 1Ds would take as good pictures if it sold for $100. The only difference is that I'd have one. Seriously, equipment for equipment's sake doesn't matter. Good equipment can make a difference, but only if you need it. And "good" doesn't necessarily mean "expensive". I was taking pictures at a trade show yesterday. I needed the shots to be take with a digital camera. Took my 10D, popped a 420EX flash on it, and my 17-40/4L. Approx $2500 woth of gear. Could I have done with a 300D instead? (not really, I used FEC for pretty much each shot). A P&S? (not really, I needed ISO 800 to get the background correctly illuminated). A less powerful flash? (not really, with my bouncer I was sometimes firing at full power). So, in that case, equipment did matter. In early April I carried a camera when skiing. I wanted a camera capable of taking good pictures, one that wouldn't get too much damage in my backpack, one that I wouldn't worry about much if I broke it. The last element is definitely a case of "the cost matters", because I took a $50 6x6 metal TLR up there but wouldn't have done it if it was $500. In some instances there's no way around expensive equipment. If you want a good 400mm lens for 35mm, you'll have to spend quite some money. If you want a good 800mm lens for 35mm you'll have to spend much more money. If you want a good 1200mm lens for 35mm you'll have to spend even more money. After playing with several cheaper alternatives I put down the money for a Canon 400/5.6L lens and the quality of the images blew me away. Compared to cropped images from the long end of a x-300mm consumer zoom there is absolutely no doubt about which picture was taken with the good lens. Joke: the pictures would have been as good if the 400/5.6L cost $100, the difference is that my wife wouldn't have been angry at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 If you used a more expensive camera for that image it would likely not be any better. So spend money on film (or memory cards) and practice to get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 No you don't - almost any camera will do.<BR> <P> <center> <img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images%205/SF7-31-04Web/image/ threebuildings.jpg"> </center> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 >>Joke: a Canon 1Ds would take as good pictures if it sold for $100. The only difference is that I'd have one.<< It's clearly a joke because I know that you would have at least 5 ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_gillette Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Of course cost matters. It doesn't change your vision or your talent but it certainly increases your ability to get the right tool for the job or reduces the frustration level of working with a less than optimal tool. I'd suggest it's a lot less important in film cameras than digital. You can get an "entry" level film slr for well under $200 and assuming you don't use it in a rain storm or wallow in mud and sand with it, it will be very similar in performance and abilities to significantly more expensive cameras. There are some very good 35mm P&Ss. Inexpensive digitals are far more compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Getting "good shots" is such a vague term. Good comes in many different flavors. For *learning* there are at least two separate concerns: 1) how to frame, perspective, colors, space, subject matter, etc... 2) technical aspects (metering, aperture VS shutter, etc...) No.1 can be achieved with any camera including a cheap throw away kind. No.2 requires a manual camera with interchangeable lenses. A long while ago a well known Photographer published an entire collection shot entirely with a MINOX 35. It was great work. You can give a cheap camera to a great photographer and he/she will come up with exibition quality work. Give a great camera to a lousy photographer and you have junk. That is it, in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyb Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 I agree with above, a top line camera when used properly will make a great shot even better but will never assist you to take great shots, that is up to the skills possesed by the photographer. Buy / keep what you can afford and fight hard for your shots. Cheers, Matty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 With digital the cost is important since up to a point it determines the quality of the sensor. With film it is less so but expensive models have better viewfinders (and faster x-sync though I don't find that very important). Obviously lenses matter as does film. I used to have a very cheap camera filled with expensive film. I had friends with expensive cameras filled with cheap film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Don't quit your day-job, Honey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dzeanah Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 I think it's fairly common for someone to pick up a cheap camera, decide this whole picture-taking thing is cool, master the camera and start to take some striking images, then decide to get "serious" with the result that they get bogged down in this whole equipment-fetish mentality that you see on places like photo.net. More than 80% of the cameras out there are capable of producing publishable/gallery/"professional" quality work. The secret is deciding what level of quality and capability you're happy with, and sticking with it long enough to become comfortable enough with your equipment to translate your vision onto paper. That's it. If you're happy with what you've got, then cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 A quality camera will not, by itself, guarantee quality photographs. <br> A good photographer will make quality photographs regardless of what equipment they use. <br><br> Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Also, to follow on to Godfrey's position, sweating the details in after exposure processing will many times make the difference between ending up with a great print versus one that's mediocre. The nice thing about post processing is that it usually takes very little time once you get the hang of it. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_richardson2 Posted August 5, 2004 Author Share Posted August 5, 2004 Yeah i agree with that. when it comes to printers you get what you pay for! (Well at least most of the time) and its not all in the res! I agree with Godfrey its the photographer not the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen_S Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Asuming you are happy with the picture quality you are gaining a more expensive digital camera would just deliver a better handling / performance. The picture you posted could be taken with a tripodmounted LF monorail. If you were interested in playing animals / children or sports you might like a faster camera. I miss some shorpness in your picture. The focus seems to be located on the leaves at the top and I would like more depth of field. To get it I'd try to stop down to f22, maybe crank up ISO or use a tripod. I believe it is very important to find out if one is able to see the picture. Next decission is what quality you like to take home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topher Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 A better camera (which might be a more expensive one) will not make your pictures better; it will make taking those pictures easier. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now