lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

smb wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:43 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> "smb" <justme@here.com> wrote:
>>>> *IF* you assume that there's no difference between (for example, and
>>>> at my peril ) a $150 camera and a $5000 camera.
>>>> To make such an assumption is absurd; if it were so, one or the other
>>>> wouldn't exist. (Well, it would of course, marketing being what it is.
>>>> :0(. ).
>>> Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
>>> bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera.
>> That's simply comlete BS, _unless_ you specify that you are not allowed to
>> print larger than 4x6". And don't care about the vast majority of what are
>> considered "good photographs".
>>
>> Which was KR's claim.
>>
>> Basically, it's an extremely stupid straw man argument. If you want flash
>> snaps of your parties, and won't be printing much larger than 4x6", a P&S
>> camera is exactly the right tool. Doh! How stupid can you get?
>>
>>> Some
>>> of the technical differences are only obvious at high magnification.
>>> Where the expensive camera comes into its own is in extending the
>>> range of conditions where you can get technically good images.
>> Right. The better camera only comes into it's own if you actually care about
>> the images. For example, if you think deer-in-the-headlights expressions
>> with horror-film eyes are "good photos", then P&S onboard flash is even
>> better than the 5D, which doesn't have a flash.
>>
>>>>> Choice of a camera is more often a matter of personal preference and
>>>>> convenience features than it is of actual technical limitations.
>>>> If only. Budget comes into play for the vast majority of us.
>>> Absolutely. But someone with a low budget need not feel he is doomed
>>> to making mediocre photographs. I'm thoroughly convinced of the 90%
>>> / 10% rule, whereby the camera contributes 10% to the success of any
>>> photograph. The 90% comes from who is using the camera.
>> There are a lot of things current P&S cameras can't do. They can't take a
>> decent portrait with the background blurred out of focus. They can't take
>> available light portraits, they can't do bounce flash. The list is quite
>> long, actually.
>>
>> About the only thing they can do is take P&S record shots. (Which is a very
>> useful thing, especially if that's what you need.) But "good photography" is
>> largely out of their range.
>>
>>> I don't know if you know of the legendary photographer Ernst Haas, but
>>> I'm reminded of a remark he made to someone who kept asking him about
>>> the Leica cameras he used in his work... his response was something
>>> like, "Leica, Schmeica, the only thing that matters is in your head."
>> In those days, the alternatives were also 35mm film cameras, and had similar
>> properties to the Leica. Both Nikon and Canon made rangefinders, for
>> example. (Although the Rollei TLR was the main alternative in those days.)
>>
>>>> Yet, those better cameras allow for a vastly greater number of good
>>>> sports shots today.
>>>> As well as low light shots, underwater shots, candid shots, etc, and
>>>> etc, and etc...
>>> Yes, very true. But IMO that's just a matter of using the right tool
>>> for the job. Tools always get better, as do the expectations of
>>> those using them.
>
>> Right. But the $150 P&S camera is the right tool for only one job: P&S
>> record shots.
>>
>>> But back to the $150 vs $5000 camera... anyone who has not mastered
>>> the craft of creating interesting photographs with the lesser camera
>>> will be woefully disappointed with his new expensive camera. The
>>> images may be a bit sharper and better exposed, but will the content
>>> of the images be improved? Hardly.
>> If someone actually understands what good photography is about (i.e. has
>> seen quality portraits, landscapes, architecture) and wants to do that kind
>> of work, they'll instantly see vast improvements in their work by getting a
>> 5D plus the appropriate lenses.
>>
>> Practicing with a P&S won't do them any good at all, since it simply can't
>> do the work.
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>
>
> Sorry, you're wrong. Well, you're right that an expensive camera
> will let you do more things and will give you more ultimate quality,
> but you're totally wrong that a P&S camera is not capable of good
> photography. Check out this gallery to see what a P&S can do in the
> hands of someone who understands photography beyond what you can read
> in the consumer photo magazines:
>
> http://photography-on-the.net/galler...p?exhibition=2
>
> Absolutely superb work by any standards, all done with a now-obsolete
> 3MP P&S. I used to own one of those same models, and I can vouch for
> how good a lowly P&S can be if you know how to use it beyond the idiot
> modes.
>
> If you think holding a 5D in your hands will somehow make you a better
> photographer, you're fooling yourself. However, in the right hands a
> better tool has more potential. But it's still the person holding the
> camera that makes the picture. If you think you need a $5000 camera
> to make good photographs, go for it. The camera companies thank you
> very much.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
I agree that a good artist can do good work with minimal tools. It is
also true that given better tools, the same artist can produce better
work. Given an ignorant person with no talent, or skill, the same
better tools, and it is likely the results will be worse, not better.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:30:33 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:32:30 -0500, smb <justme@here.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:45:04 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:37:36 -0500, smb <justme@here.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:44:29 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 21:23:15 -0000, "Gerald Place"
>>>>><venosa@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>My that's a complicated question! . Surely the skill and aesthetic judgement
>>>>>>of the photographer will always outweigh the any technical considerations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gerald
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see how a camera that can't deliver what the photographer's
>>>>>skill and aesthetic judgement want isn't a technical drawback.
>>>>>While it's always possible for a good photographer to deliver good
>>>>>photos with a pinhole camera, it's obvious that a pinhole camera
>>>>>offers a lot of technical problems for a lot of photography.
>>>>>Yes, the input of the photographer is very important. So is the camera
>>>>>the photographer uses to implement that input.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That may be true, but the fact is that nobody is using pinhole
>>>>cameras. With regard to the cameras that are actually available
>>>>today, the photographer's input is FAR more important than a box with
>>>>buttons and dials on it.
>>>
>>>*IF* you assume that there's no difference between (for example, and
>>>at my peril ) a $150 camera and a $5000 camera.
>>>To make such an assumption is absurd; if it were so, one or the other
>>>wouldn't exist. (Well, it would of course, marketing being what it is.
>>>:0(. ).
>>
>>Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
>>bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera. Some
>>of the technical differences are only obvious at high magnification.
>>Where the expensive camera comes into its own is in extending the
>>range of conditions where you can get technically good images.
>
>*CAN* be. But they are only in certain conditions. In other
>conditions, the $5000 camera produces better pictures.
>If you want to limit yourself to those conditions where the $150
>camera does as well as thew $5000 camera, then *FOR YOU* the less
>expensive cameras is as good as the better camera.
>But those who continue to say the $150 camera is as good as the $5000
>camera don't make that distinction.

No disagreement here. Regardless of the tool, you have to use it
within its limitations.

For the record, I'm not promoting the $150 cameras. I just used that
as an example to show how it's incorrect to assume that the more money
you throw at your equipment, the better photographer you will be.


>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Choice of a camera is more often a matter of personal preference and
>>>>convenience features than it is of actual technical limitations.
>>>
>>>If only.
>>>Budget comes into play for the vast majority of us.
>>
>>Absolutely. But someone with a low budget need not feel he is doomed
>>to making mediocre photographs. I'm thoroughly convinced of the 90%
>>/ 10% rule, whereby the camera contributes 10% to the success of any
>>photograph. The 90% comes from who is using the camera.
>
>Considering the subject matter, composition, decisions as to shutter,
>aperture, etc, yes, I absolutely agree. Never disagreed.
>But if the camera isn't up to delivering a decent photo, no
>photographer will get a decent photo.

Of course. But even $150 digicams these days are quite capable of
delivering a decent photo. You just have to know how to use them and
when not to use them. Sometimes you need a power screwdriver, and
other times a simple hand screwdriver will do the job just as well.


>>
>>I don't know if you know of the legendary photographer Ernst Haas, but
>>I'm reminded of a remark he made to someone who kept asking him about
>>the Leica cameras he used in his work... his response was something
>>like, "Leica, Schmeica, the only thing that matters is in your head."
>
>Yeah, and Bill Clinton said, "I never had sex with that woman..."
>Obviously, if all you want to see is a picture in your head, the
>camera doesn't matter. But, if you want others to see the same thing,
>you need a camera.
>And if the camera you have isn't capable of delivering the image you
>have in your head, but a better camera will, the camera matters, too.

That's a given. The point is that the equipment worshipers of that
day thought they needed Leicas to be as good as someone like Haas.
Today the wannabees think all they need is a full frame dslr with the
latest image stabilized lenses. It's all the same thing.



>>
>>
>>>>That
>>>>being said, if you have specific needs such as shooting sports at high
>>>>speed, you may want a high FPS and good autofocus to make the job
>>>>easier for you. But good sports photgraphers took awesome pictures
>>>>back in the day when these things were not available. The difference
>>>>is that they had to rely on their own skill more than on the camera's
>>>>features.
>>>
>>>Yet, those better cameras allow for a vastly greater number of good
>>>sports shots today.
>>>As well as low light shots, underwater shots, candid shots, etc, and
>>>etc, and etc...
>>
>>Yes, very true. But IMO that's just a matter of using the right tool
>>for the job. Tools always get better, as do the expectations of
>>those using them.
>>
>>But back to the $150 vs $5000 camera... anyone who has not mastered
>>the craft of creating interesting photographs with the lesser camera
>>will be woefully disappointed with his new expensive camera.
>
>I'm not arguing that, and I think I'm being pretty specific about
>that.
>>The
>>images may be a bit sharper and better exposed, but will the content
>>of the images be improved? Hardly. If someone can't get down the
>>basics of lighting, composition, decisive moment to press the shutter,
>>etc with a normal lens, they won't get much of an improvement using a
>>wide angle or telephoto or all the megapixels in the world.
>>
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Steve

On 10 Dec 2006 20:23:39 -0800, "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>smb wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:45:04 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:37:36 -0500, smb <justme@here.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:44:29 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 21:23:15 -0000, "Gerald Place"
>> >>><venosa@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>My that's a complicated question! . Surely the skill and aesthetic judgement
>> >>>>of the photographer will always outweigh the any technical considerations.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Gerald
>> >>>
>> >>>I don't see how a camera that can't deliver what the photographer's
>> >>>skill and aesthetic judgement want isn't a technical drawback.
>> >>>While it's always possible for a good photographer to deliver good
>> >>>photos with a pinhole camera, it's obvious that a pinhole camera
>> >>>offers a lot of technical problems for a lot of photography.
>> >>>Yes, the input of the photographer is very important. So is the camera
>> >>>the photographer uses to implement that input.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>That may be true, but the fact is that nobody is using pinhole
>> >>cameras. With regard to the cameras that are actually available
>> >>today, the photographer's input is FAR more important than a box with
>> >>buttons and dials on it.
>> >
>> >*IF* you assume that there's no difference between (for example, and
>> >at my peril ) a $150 camera and a $5000 camera.
>> >To make such an assumption is absurd; if it were so, one or the other
>> >wouldn't exist. (Well, it would of course, marketing being what it is.
>> >:0(. ).
>>
>> Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
>> bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera.
>
>Impossible. Unless you use some strange cut-off point for your
>valuation of "every bit."

How about plenty of light, static subject, no intention to print
beyond 4x6 for an album or for a web page? Those are the conditions
that a LOT of people shoot under. I'm not referring to making 16x20
fine art prints for a gallery.

(However, you might be surprised at just how good a larger print from
a good P&S actually looks.)

If we're talking about taking available-light action shots indoors at
a basketball game, then of course there is no comparison.


Steve

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:18:36 -0800, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>smb wrote:
>
>> But back to the $150 vs $5000 camera... anyone who has not mastered
>> the craft of creating interesting photographs with the lesser camera
>> will be woefully disappointed with his new expensive camera. The
>> images may be a bit sharper and better exposed, but will the content
>> of the images be improved? Hardly. If someone can't get down the
>> basics of lighting, composition, decisive moment to press the shutter,
>> etc with a normal lens, they won't get much of an improvement using a
>> wide angle or telephoto or all the megapixels in the world.
>
>There is a big difference between film P&S cameras versus film SLRs,
>and digital P&S cameras versus DSLRs. The small pixel sizes in
>cheap digital P&S cameras collect so few photons the images are quite
>noisy. With film, the sensor was the same between P&S versus SLR.
>The differences are clearly shown here:
>
> Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
> Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter
>
>In particular, see the images in Figures 4 and 5.
>
>More here:
>
> A Photographic Image Quality Test Using the Moon
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
>(This test shows the images can be close.)
>
>I have another series of night photography images, taken a couple of
>weeks ago of Waikiki beach and the city with an S70 ($400)
>versus 1D Mark II ($4000). The S70 images at ISO 100 look
>about like the 1D Mark II images at ISO 1600. But the 1D II
>images at iso 100 are quite stunning. I'll add these new
>images to the pixel size web page when I get some time. Note, I did
>this well before I knew about the KR article. My opinion of
>that article and others on his site, are: KR is the Fox News
>of photo web sites: "fair and balanced."
>
>There is more info on performance differences between
>large pixel and small pixel cameras at:
>
> Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary
>
>When P&S cameras have large pixels, like around 6-microns,
>then performance with DSLRs will be very close in many situations,
>including low light and high ISO.

With all due respect, this is all just technical smoke and mirrors for
people who like to measure their cameras. What you say may be true,
but it's really no different from the pre-digital days when the
"equipment measurbators" had to have lenses that tested to the highest
lines of resolution or bodies that had the fastest shutter speeds. It
doesn't really address the point that the camera doesn't make the
image, but the photographer does.

A better camera may give you a sharper, better exposed image under
more conditions, but that doesn't mean that those images are worth
looking at. (I'm not talking about your pictures, I haven't seen
them.)


>
>None of this implies one can't take great pictures with a digital
>P&S camera, just the camera will be a limiting factor in some
>situations, to effectively impossible in others. But when there
>is a lot of light and no need for speed with fast action, the
>current digital P&S cameras do very well.

Exactly !!! I agree 100%.



Steve

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:36:43 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:04:27 +0000, Surfer! <surfer@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>In message <1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>>aniramca@yahoo.com writes
>>>Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
>>>distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
>>>producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ?
>>
>><Snip>
>>
>>In trying to leave out the human touch and talent you are omitting at
>>least 80% of what makes a great image, probably more. I saw a panel of
>>photos done by a guy using one of those disposable cameras. He knew how
>>to use it, the photos were great, the camera was obviously pretty
>>limited in what it could do. I've also seen lots of awful photos taken
>>on various expensive SLRs.
>>
>>Why is it that people want to focus so much on the mechanics of
>>photography rather than the human element? Because money can buy
>>mechanics but not an artistic eye, or talent for spotting a photo? It
>>beats me.
>
>The tool is important.
>If a surgeon tried to remove your appendix with a dull spoon, I think
>you'd object.

Not a good example because a spoon is not a knife. Of course you
should use the right tool for the job. I'd also object if my plumber
wanted to fix my drain with a chainsaw.

>
>Why some people try to make photography all about the photographer
>beats me. Without the camera, photography doesn't exist. It's the
>mechanics of the camera that enables the photographer to capture the
>image his creativity has imagined. If the camera isn't up to the task,
>the photograph the photographer imagined won't be realized.

Nobody said that cameras aren't important. A painter can't create a
painting without brush and canvas, either. The difference is that in
photography there is that subset of enthusiasts who believe that the
medium exists for the tools, not the other way around.

The point is that having the latest and greatest tools is no guarantee
that one's pictures will be better, and the lesser tools can perform
quite well in the right hands.

Again, look at this site:

http://photography-on-the.net/galler...p?exhibition=2

Absolutely remarkable images that captured the photographer's vision
with a "lowly" 3 megapixel p&s.


Steve

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:15:47 +1100, "Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng>
wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>news:uckpn2hpabmvl6rk2qinn1sra33qo3eo2t@4ax.com.. .
>> The tool is important.
>> If a surgeon tried to remove your appendix with a dull spoon, I think
>> you'd object.
>>
>> Why some people try to make photography all about the photographer
>> beats me. Without the camera, photography doesn't exist. It's the
>> mechanics of the camera that enables the photographer to capture the
>> image his creativity has imagined. If the camera isn't up to the task,
>> the photograph the photographer imagined won't be realized.
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>
>
>IOW: "You take great pictures. You must have a really good camera."

LOL! I cringe when people tell me that!


Steve

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:02:17 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>
>> The tool is important.
>> If a surgeon tried to remove your appendix with a dull spoon, I think
>> you'd object.
>
>ROFL. But exactly.
>
>> Why some people try to make photography all about the photographer
>> beats me.
>
>What's funny, though, is that they've got it exactly backwards. The good
>images that have been taken with cheap cameras are invariably taken by
>people with extensive experience with serious cameras and brought that
>expertise to the small cameras. For example, someone who understands
>lighting will drop their G2 into several thousand dollars of studio lighting
>for the fun of it or in place of polaroids. And then some twit comes along
>and says "See, he didn't need that 1Dsmk2 after all." Great.

Well, no.

That's far from invariably the case. You're assuming that someone
has to have the best gear possible to learn the art and craft of
photography. Actually, the opposite is true more often than not. You
learn the basics, and then the extra features and conveniences of the
better gear make it easier to apply what you've learned.

Why do you think that virtually all college-level photography courses
require students to use a manual camera?


>
>> Without the camera, photography doesn't exist. It's the
>> mechanics of the camera that enables the photographer to capture the
>> image his creativity has imagined. If the camera isn't up to the task,
>> the photograph the photographer imagined won't be realized.
>
>Exactly, again.

Not quite exactly. That's like saying that without the automobile,
driving wouldn't exist. Well, duh, tell us something else we don't
already know.... You wouldn't take a Geo on a racetrack, but then
again, driving an Indy car on a state highway is overkill. It's all
about choosing the right tool for the job. It's just plain stupid to
say that the most expensive tools are needed to do every job.


Steve


>

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:25:43 +1100, "Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng>
wrote:

>
>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>news:eliop6$b3l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>
>> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The tool is important.
>>> If a surgeon tried to remove your appendix with a dull spoon, I think
>>> you'd object.
>>
>> ROFL. But exactly.
>
>Phooey!
>That metaphor is an order of magnitude (or more) exaggerated.
>A dull spoon cannot cut tissue. A cheap camera *can* take good photographs.
>Better to say "a sharp kitchen knife", perhaps.
>
>
>>
>>> Why some people try to make photography all about the photographer
>>> beats me.
>>
>> What's funny, though, is that they've got it exactly backwards. The good
>> images that have been taken with cheap cameras are invariably taken by
>> people with extensive experience with serious cameras and brought that
>> expertise to the small cameras.
>
>Rubbish.
>My daughter, seven years old at the time, took a brilliant series on
>kite-flying with her cheap P&S.
>Thousands of other anecdotes lurk beneath the surface.
>
>
>>...For example, someone who understands lighting will drop their G2 into
>>several thousand dollars of studio lighting for the fun of it or in place
>>of polaroids. And then some twit comes along and says "See, he didn't need
>>that 1Dsmk2 after all." Great.
>>
>>> Without the camera, photography doesn't exist. It's the
>>> mechanics of the camera that enables the photographer to capture the
>>> image his creativity has imagined. If the camera isn't up to the task,
>>> the photograph the photographer imagined won't be realized.
>>
>> Exactly, again.
>
>Rubbish again.
>
>Who gets the best results? The experienced master with a $10 35mm
>disposable, or the klutz with the 5D?
>Or do 5Ds have an "auto-compose" function?
>And an automatic spirit level to keep the horizon level?
>(etc.)
>
>Both are important, the user and the tool. The competent user will
>compensate for the inadequacies of the humbler tool, but the tool ain't
>clever enough to tell the klutzy photographer where to point and when to
>press.

BINGO !!

On 10 Dec 2006 23:02:44 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Jeff R. wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>> news:eliop6$b3l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>> >
>> > "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The tool is important.
>> >> If a surgeon tried to remove your appendix with a dull spoon, I think
>> >> you'd object.
>> >
>> > ROFL. But exactly.
>>
>> Phooey!
>> That metaphor is an order of magnitude (or more) exaggerated.
>> A dull spoon cannot cut tissue. A cheap camera *can* take good photographs.
>> Better to say "a sharp kitchen knife", perhaps.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Why some people try to make photography all about the photographer
>> >> beats me.
>> >
>> > What's funny, though, is that they've got it exactly backwards. The good
>> > images that have been taken with cheap cameras are invariably taken by
>> > people with extensive experience with serious cameras and brought that
>> > expertise to the small cameras.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>> My daughter, seven years old at the time, took a brilliant series on
>> kite-flying with her cheap P&S.
>> Thousands of other anecdotes lurk beneath the surface.
>>
>>
>> >...For example, someone who understands lighting will drop their G2 into
>> >several thousand dollars of studio lighting for the fun of it or in place
>> >of polaroids. And then some twit comes along and says "See, he didn't need
>> >that 1Dsmk2 after all." Great.
>> >
>> >> Without the camera, photography doesn't exist. It's the
>> >> mechanics of the camera that enables the photographer to capture the
>> >> image his creativity has imagined. If the camera isn't up to the task,
>> >> the photograph the photographer imagined won't be realized.
>> >
>> > Exactly, again.
>>
>> Rubbish again.
>>
>> Who gets the best results? The experienced master with a $10 35mm
>> disposable, or the klutz with the 5D?
>> Or do 5Ds have an "auto-compose" function?
>> And an automatic spirit level to keep the horizon level?
>> (etc.)
>>
>> Both are important, the user and the tool. The competent user will
>> compensate for the inadequacies of the humbler tool, but the tool ain't
>> clever enough to tell the klutzy photographer where to point and when to
>> press.
>
>
>But what this misses is a rather large part of photography for most of
>us, we want to photograph those things that we want to photograph, not
>just those things that are easy to photograph. So you come with me
>sometime with a cheap point and shoot and try to get the photos that I
>want to get. So What if you can take a good looking photo with a 50mm
>lens, if it is not the photo that I want what good does it do me?
>
>I photograph to capture what is around me and what goes on around me
>and a better camera helps a lot with this. I photographed for many
>years with a film SLR mainly using one 50mm f/1.4 lens, just because I
>got good photos with this setup does not mean that better gear would
>not make a difference, and in fact it has made a huge difference.
>
>Here is just one example where I missed the shot where a better camera
>could have captured it.
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71509490
>
>There was not a lot of light and I was out on a very small canoe in
>water that was not flat, the camera was already well past the ISO
>setting that it could handle and still get a clean image and yet the
>shutter speed was still too slow. With my DSLR this photo would have
>be very doable. So what if at a different time under different
>lighting I could have got a decent photo with the same camera, this was
>the moment in time that the camera was not up to the task of capturing
>it. I also have a number of blurry photos of whale when the light was
>getting low and I was fairly close to the whale, here again a better
>camera would have made all the difference. But my little point and
>shoot is waterproof so that is what I have with me in the ocean.
>
>And no matter how get a photo is from my point and shoot if I had shot
>the same shot with my DSLR it would be noticeably better.
>
>This is a photo of friends of my from the canoe club I belong to, they
>are about 2 seconds from crossing the finish line and taking first
>place.
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61792912/original
>This is not an artistic shot, but it captures exactly the feel I wanted
>to capture, and it was the camera in large part that made it possible.
>What is more if I had a better lens I could have done better on this
>photo.
>
>In this photo there was hardly enough light to read the menus, but I
>got the photo using available light.
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71041153
>This is clearly not a photo of any worth other then me, but to me it
>captures part of an evening with friends at a rather well know pizza
>place in town. If this photos does not measure up to anyone standers
>for artistic merit that is just too bad, it is the photo that I wanted,
>and what is more 20 years from now it will likely have a lot of value
>to me.
>
>So if you are going to try and tell me the camera does not matter I am
>going to ask that you try and capture the photos I want and then get
>back to me.
>
>Scott


All you are saying is that you want to choose the tool that is best
suited for the job. Of course you wouldn't use a cheap P&S and expect
it to give you good action photos in low light. That doesn't mean
that the P&S can't do just as well under other conditions. Lots of
people are doing excellent work with lesser cameras.

One big advantage of a small P&S is that you can take it places you
wouldn't dare take your big dslr rig. Having a picture is often
better than not having one at all.

Steve

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:33:43 -0500
smb <justme@here.com> wrote:

> >IOW: "You take great pictures. You must have a really good camera."
>
> LOL! I cringe when people tell me that!
>
>
> Steve
>
>

The best answer to people who say that if they are also artists of some
form or another is to reply how much you like their work and what
marvellous brushes (et al) they must use, it is surprising how quickly
it quiets them down.
--
Neil
Reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.