| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/11/2003 06:51:39 PM · #26 |
As someone that started here with a 1.2megapix cam (Olympus D-490Z) which I loved (and have a hard time calling "low end) and has moved to the higher end (Sony F-717) which I also love I can tell you this... Yes, it's the photographer more than the camera and yes, a better camera will help you...
Some numbers :
My average score with the Olympus = 5.042
My average score after getting 717 = 5.265
I don't think a .223 increase is all that significant. Especially since other factors have to be considered (I think I've gotten a little better and a lot pickier about what I submit).
That said, I think lower end cams have made some wonderful images here. And when/if you "upgrade" to the other end, keep your "low-end" for a pocket cam... The 717 is nice, but it sure ain't portable :)
|
|
|
|
07/11/2003 07:07:29 PM · #27 |
| My wife just got a Fuji 602 for her birthday (user Eliza), and I look forward to the rivalry of trying to beat her shots with my Optio. But straight out of the camera, there's no comparison, hers blows mine away. Luckily, I'm getting fairly good with Photoshop, so that evens the score a bit! I'm sure I'll borrow it every now and then though... |
|
|
|
07/11/2003 07:38:27 PM · #28 |
| its the EYE not the camera. |
|
|
|
07/11/2003 07:46:20 PM · #29 |
| With my 2.1 megapixel DSC-S50 I have placed 4th, 6th twice and 7th. With my F717 the best I've managed is 27th. Sure the F717 makes a nicer image but it's the subject and no the camera that ulitmately makes a good shot. This is especially true with images on the web...even an image from a 1.3 megapixel camera has to be downsampled for the challenges. The F717 can make much nicer prints but for 640x480 images (especially those at a small aperture) the difference is much more subtle. |
|
|
|
07/11/2003 07:54:28 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by imagesloyola:
its the EYE not the camera. |
Right then my eye must focus very poorly here... not my camera.
 |
|
|
|
07/11/2003 08:02:58 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Kali:
Right then my eye must focus very poorly here... not my camera. |
That's not poor focus, that's shallow DOF.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2003 08:07:53 PM · #32 |
DOF?
Shallow? Get a grip! I'm just trying to make a point that equipment matters... |
|
|
|
07/11/2003 08:34:51 PM · #33 |
and you're missing the point that you have to work inside of the parameters you have. if you do that you increase your odds of success :) ..
it's like the old joke where the person says my arm hurts when i move it like this, and the doctor says ok, so dont move it like that. problem solved.
your camera obviously isnt great for supermacro shots. ok, so dont try those with it. try taking killer shots within its comfort zone ..
see what im sayin'?
ps who's mixer rack :)
Message edited by author 2003-07-11 20:41:18.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2003 09:52:38 PM · #34 |
All said and done - there will always be someone out there with a better camera than you and then there will be someone who is a better photographer than you...
Who do you want to equal? |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 03:32:25 AM · #35 |
| OMG... i can't seem to get thru to you people. I'm tired of talking in circles. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 08:29:31 AM · #36 |
Lets relate
"It's not the length of the wand, but the magic in the stick."
"It's not the size of the boat, but the motion in the ocean."
Give a 2MP camera to someone like Ansel, he is probably gonna take some crappy pics. Leave it with him for awhile, and he will figure out how to use it to acheive the results he wants. He still has the eye for what he wants the camera to capture, he just has to get around the technology and problems with that to acheive it.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 09:07:07 AM · #37 |
Hey I never ever seen Ansel here. Is he a new user or something? ;) lol
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 09:56:59 AM · #38 |
also let's get over the idea that MP is the rating of how good or high quality a camera is. the first affordable pro digital cameras (ie less than 5000 bucks) were 2 mp - the Nikon D1. That camera is still in use today by many organizations, and has better image quality than many inexpensive consumer level cams.
Similarly, Canon's D30, their first 'affordable ' digital SLR camera, is 3mp, and came out 2 and a half years ago. the quality and smoothness of those images is at least equal to the vast majority of high end 5mp cameras today.
it's not just MP - it's other factors like optical quality, noise/graininess, amount of manual control, color rendition.
so just breaking these down (leagues) by straight up Megapixels wouldn't work...
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 10:24:05 AM · #39 |
I agree - MP is a silly way to break it down. The challenge entries are at MOST 640x640. Not exactly a 3MP final shot. It doesn't matter if you have 1 MP or 3, if the cam is decent, the cam is decent. If it's not (my old UMAX Astracam) then it's not.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 10:50:55 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Kali:
OMG... i can't seem to get thru to you people. I'm tired of talking in circles. |
Having gone through the thread up till now I must agree with Kali, there is an inherent difference in cameras where the aspects optics, manual control and sensor noise are the most relevant issues for any picture made, even within their 'comfort zone'. I get many well-meant advices in the challenges to use aspects of my camera that I simply can't control. I have lots of experience in film-SLR's with full manual control and I know what I should do, but even smart compact as the Ricoh cameras that I use don't give me the option.
Where does this lead us? The better photographers, with a better eye for a picture, will make better pictures of course. But, if we are grilled on technical aspects of pictures, as we are in the comments to the challenges, then the better equipment will score higher by nature. That is the comment that Kali wanted to make as I understand it, and I fully agree. To expand that with the many comparisons that have been made: even if you are the best of drivers, a Ferrari race car will outrun you in a compact Toyota no matter what. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 11:51:07 AM · #41 |
it's not a matter of 'getting it', it's a matter of flat-out disagreement :).
my best score ever on this entire site was shot with a cheap point and shoot camera.
My wife has gotten 2 ribbons with the cheap-ass canon a10 i bought her over a year ago.
currently, i have a 4.5 in NOTT, with my fancy camera.
morgan (sorry to single you out, pal, but i'm pretty sure you won't mind) has TWO $5000 cameras and i don't think he's ever broken 6.
and on and on ...
THERE IS NO PATTERN OR RULE! :) ..
lionelm - 10D - no ribbon
achiral - 10D - no ribbon
clubjuggle - minolta dimage 7 - only one pic in the top 20 ever
sher9204 - 1mpx camera - first and 3rd place.
etc etc etc
(let me know if you want me to take your name out, those mentioned above, and I will)
i know people are desperate to believe that this isn't true, that you can just throw money at the problem, but the FACTS prove that it's not that simple. that said, i still expect people to be in denial about this.
this is going to be my last post on this topic; i've spelled it out as far as i can :).
Message edited by author 2003-07-12 11:51:36.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 12:09:46 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by johnmk:
To expand that with the many comparisons that have been made: even if you are the best of drivers, a Ferrari race car will outrun you in a compact Toyota no matter what. |
An incompetent driver will spin-out the Ferarri while I cruise around the course. On a drag strip, my timing off the line might win, while the klutz pops the clutch and stalls the Ferarri ... the facts are that photos taken with cheaper camera beat those taken with the best equipment EVERY WEEK, and, in almost everybody's opinion, worse photos score higher than some better photos. You can't really trust DPC scores as an objective rating of artistic value anyway (although it's about as good a system as any).
Timing, composition, and interest value of the subject are all far more important than the equipment you use. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 12:33:13 PM · #43 |
I think he is some dead guy.
Originally posted by orussell:
Hey I never ever seen Ansel here. Is he a new user or something? ;) lol |
|
|
|
|
07/13/2003 03:53:23 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by greenem2:
How about breaking up the challenges like this:
GROUP 1 - people who blame their cameras for poor photos
GROUP 2 - people who praise their cameras for great photos
GROUP 3 - people who are interested in becoming better photographers |
Originally posted by STEINR:
How about a challenge based on the photo editting software you use, or no editting software at all. Or have a challenge of PSP users and non-psp-users.
:-) |
How about a challenge for people in blue jeans, achallenge for people in brown pants, and a challenge for those who don't wear underwear??? ;)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2003 07:29:42 AM · #45 |
It's hard to become better technically with a lower end camera. You can read all the material you want about aperture and shutter speed, if your camera is a fixed focus point and shoot it's going to be little daunting to experiment with DOF or timed exposure. That said there are those out there who can take even the most low end camera and create great pictures. These people know, almost instictively, what elements make an image good. For the most part that's something I don't think you can learn.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2003 11:40:08 AM · #46 |
| Megapixels are over rated by the camera manufacturers, primarily so they can sell more cameras. So far that seems to be the best way to get people to upgrade. |
|
|
|
07/13/2003 05:23:36 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Kali:
Originally posted by imagesloyola:
its the EYE not the camera. |
Right then my eye must focus very poorly here... not my camera.
|
I think if you would have semi-triggered on the first knob and keeped the focus distance then moved camera to your own position then fully triggered you may have gotten a better shot.
I think it is a lot harder and need more attend to details for low resolution camera to compete but it is posible with the right lighting and proper use of camera. Meaning, know your camera and it ablilities. The camera can only do so much, so you need to take full advantage of all the feature use it to its full potential. (sorry for spelling) |
|
|
|
07/13/2003 06:37:48 PM · #48 |
| My sister-in-law won a contest at the state fair with a picture of a rainbow in front of her red barn, she had one picture left on her 35m deposable camera, so she wanted to use it so she could get it developed, she step out the back door saw a rainbow and snap, go figure! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/11/2025 01:42:56 PM EDT.
