"Which camera to chose?" - a few thoughts...
Jul 24, 2010 13:26:34 GMT
Post by rikita on Jul 24, 2010 13:26:34 GMT
I am admittedly no expert on cameras, I am happy with the one I have (a Nikon D70), had a similar before that (a Nikon F60) and haven’t looked much at other ones. When I have another one in my hand (like my dad’s Lumix) I am usually confused because everything is a tiny bit different…
Anyway, a lot of people say that a camera is only as good as the photographer, while others seem to see a good (i.e. expensive) camera as the main cause for good photos. I would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. A good camera doesn’t help you much, if you don’t know what to do with it – but with a low quality camera you can only do so much, and some problems just are due to the camera. To use an extreme example, once when my old camera was broken while I was traveling in Peru, I had to use those one-way cameras you can buy in tourist stores. Can I tell a difference? Obviously. My photos from Machu Picchu and from the Colca Canyon serve as memory, but nothing more. I tend not to show them to people, because they are blurry and the colors don’t come out very well. I can also tell the difference between pictures I took with friends’ point and shoot-cameras and my own… So, in my opinion, it is worthwhile investing some money into your camera.
One problem that has already been discussed is the question of whether the camera should have a view finder. In my personal opinion: definitely. I usually use the view finder in mine anyway, even when it isn’t absolutely necessary. I think you can see more in detail what is in the picture and what isn’t when you look through the viewfinder. Also, of course, a viewfinder is very important in bright sunlight, as you then sometimes just don’t see what is shown on the screen. I don’t know if this is a problem with modern cameras anymore – but at least with older ones it used to be important to preferably get a camera where the viewfinder shows you what is in the picture – and not something more, and then you have to tell by some small lines in the viewfinder where exactly the picture ends. If you want to take a picture quickly, that can be a cause for cut off parts of the picture. With an SLR, of course, you look through the lens anyway, so what you see is exactly what will be in the picture. With at least the older point-and-shoot cameras (this might be different for digital ones) where you just looked through a small window rather than the lens, there was always the problem that for close ups the angle ended up being slightly different.
Should you use film btw, it is worth investing in a more expensive place to develop it and make prints. At least in my experience, those 5 cent a piece prints done at the local supermarket show a clear lack in color and sharpness – and sometimes even the negatives get scratched. But even at more expensive places it isn’t always good. For example, I once wanted some flower photos printed for a calendar. Since I wasn’t happy with the prints I decided to print them again, this time at my dad’s computer, as he has a photo printer. The different was very clear. The following photo, for example, looked like a red circle without hardly any contrasts in the inside on the print from the store. In my home-made print, on the other hand, the different lines from the different petals could be seen very well.
I always use a very big quality setting on my camera (so far I used the biggest jpeg setting, now I am planning to even try out the RAW setting) – even if I in the end just post a small version of the photo, I like having it in a good quality. For comparison, I have some photos that I got scanned at a photo store before I had a digital camera, and thus only had the quality they scanned it in. These photos just don’t look as sharp and good as I would like them to… I have seen a lot of photos online at different places that just didn’t look “right” somehow, not fully sharp, and where I suspect it is not any problem with the photographer but just with the quality the picture is in… (The following is one of those scanned pictures I mentioned that kind of illustrates what i mean with the picture somehow just not looking very sharp and good).
In other words, if you want to make good photos, of course a good camera isn’t everything – but it is definitely a good start. If you like photography, it is money (and time, since you need to take the time to learn all you can about your camera and how to use it) well invested. Don’t just take the first one that is on offer, but spend a moment to investigate what camera is good for you. And if you are serious about photography, a digital SLR is definitely worth considering. You can of course keep a point and shoot as second camera, there are situations when it comes in handy, but when you have a good camera you will soon notice the differences…
Anyway, a lot of people say that a camera is only as good as the photographer, while others seem to see a good (i.e. expensive) camera as the main cause for good photos. I would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. A good camera doesn’t help you much, if you don’t know what to do with it – but with a low quality camera you can only do so much, and some problems just are due to the camera. To use an extreme example, once when my old camera was broken while I was traveling in Peru, I had to use those one-way cameras you can buy in tourist stores. Can I tell a difference? Obviously. My photos from Machu Picchu and from the Colca Canyon serve as memory, but nothing more. I tend not to show them to people, because they are blurry and the colors don’t come out very well. I can also tell the difference between pictures I took with friends’ point and shoot-cameras and my own… So, in my opinion, it is worthwhile investing some money into your camera.
One problem that has already been discussed is the question of whether the camera should have a view finder. In my personal opinion: definitely. I usually use the view finder in mine anyway, even when it isn’t absolutely necessary. I think you can see more in detail what is in the picture and what isn’t when you look through the viewfinder. Also, of course, a viewfinder is very important in bright sunlight, as you then sometimes just don’t see what is shown on the screen. I don’t know if this is a problem with modern cameras anymore – but at least with older ones it used to be important to preferably get a camera where the viewfinder shows you what is in the picture – and not something more, and then you have to tell by some small lines in the viewfinder where exactly the picture ends. If you want to take a picture quickly, that can be a cause for cut off parts of the picture. With an SLR, of course, you look through the lens anyway, so what you see is exactly what will be in the picture. With at least the older point-and-shoot cameras (this might be different for digital ones) where you just looked through a small window rather than the lens, there was always the problem that for close ups the angle ended up being slightly different.
Should you use film btw, it is worth investing in a more expensive place to develop it and make prints. At least in my experience, those 5 cent a piece prints done at the local supermarket show a clear lack in color and sharpness – and sometimes even the negatives get scratched. But even at more expensive places it isn’t always good. For example, I once wanted some flower photos printed for a calendar. Since I wasn’t happy with the prints I decided to print them again, this time at my dad’s computer, as he has a photo printer. The different was very clear. The following photo, for example, looked like a red circle without hardly any contrasts in the inside on the print from the store. In my home-made print, on the other hand, the different lines from the different petals could be seen very well.
I always use a very big quality setting on my camera (so far I used the biggest jpeg setting, now I am planning to even try out the RAW setting) – even if I in the end just post a small version of the photo, I like having it in a good quality. For comparison, I have some photos that I got scanned at a photo store before I had a digital camera, and thus only had the quality they scanned it in. These photos just don’t look as sharp and good as I would like them to… I have seen a lot of photos online at different places that just didn’t look “right” somehow, not fully sharp, and where I suspect it is not any problem with the photographer but just with the quality the picture is in… (The following is one of those scanned pictures I mentioned that kind of illustrates what i mean with the picture somehow just not looking very sharp and good).
In other words, if you want to make good photos, of course a good camera isn’t everything – but it is definitely a good start. If you like photography, it is money (and time, since you need to take the time to learn all you can about your camera and how to use it) well invested. Don’t just take the first one that is on offer, but spend a moment to investigate what camera is good for you. And if you are serious about photography, a digital SLR is definitely worth considering. You can of course keep a point and shoot as second camera, there are situations when it comes in handy, but when you have a good camera you will soon notice the differences…