| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2003 11:12:28 AM · #51 |
One advantage that DSLR gives you is image quality which is usually better than most digicams. The noise level, etc. will be better at low ISOs and significantly better at high ISOs. But at a resolution of 640x480, as long as you use something like a 3 megapixel camera and above, it really doesn't make any difference because you can't see the noise after you resize (as it tends to do an averaging of the pixels, so the noises are averaged out) Zoom up at original pixels, then you can see a huge difference, but doesn't really matter for DPChallenge.
But you do spend a lot of time in the darkroom to get the images right for a 10D. There usually are needs to adjust contrast and saturation. my Canon G2 when you set the setting right, wouldn't have to be done a thing on these areas, but not the 10D. Images from 10D tend to be flat and without a lot of contrast, which is great for manipulation but not great if you just want a point and shoot :)
And the other area might be fast autofocus, as a lot of digicams are pretty slow. If DPC is solely consisted of sports challenges or wildlife challenges, then i can see the issue on this.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 11:19:51 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's a perfect example of choosing a camera that's right for you. Landscape shots are easier technically to deal with if you have a camera which tends towards the large depth of field...it frees your mental measurabating hand up and uses it to think about photography, which he is clearly excellent at.
'The camera doesn't matter' argument gets old, though, as it does matter if you're trying to do something that your camera can't. Anyways... |
First off Jimmy, take foot, insert in mouth... //www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=164867
//www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=182076
//www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=171102
He is just a great photographer. NOT just with landscapes and still with the 4800... LOL
Camera's and gear DON'T matter. They only matter to amatures like us. Heck, half the images that are ever displayed at the Guggenhiem are shot with polariods for chripes sake...
I have a 1D. Why? Because I need all the help I can get. Guys like Bob above don't because he understands how it is done...
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 11:26:26 AM · #53 |
You forgot one thing: the guy that you have shown also knows a lot about digital imaging and manipulation (most of the portrait shots are manipulated someway, certainly not straight from camera).
Same goes for his landscape shots -- i.e. he uses cloudy balance in daylight to increase warmth (or he does it post-processing).
Originally posted by Davenit:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's a perfect example of choosing a camera that's right for you. Landscape shots are easier technically to deal with if you have a camera which tends towards the large depth of field...it frees your mental measurabating hand up and uses it to think about photography, which he is clearly excellent at.
'The camera doesn't matter' argument gets old, though, as it does matter if you're trying to do something that your camera can't. Anyways... |
First off Jimmy, take foot, insert in mouth... //www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=164867
//www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=182076
//www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=171102
He is just a great photographer. NOT just with landscapes and still with the 4800... LOL
Camera's and gear DON'T matter. They only matter to amatures like us. Heck, half the images that are ever displayed at the Guggenhiem are shot with polariods for chripes sake...
I have a 1D. Why? Because I need all the help I can get. Guys like Bob above don't because he understands how it is done... |
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 11:31:35 AM · #54 |
I have two camera's that I use, one is a cool pix and the other is a Nikon N65, as you can tell these are both very different camera's how ever I think it is more the photographers eye than the camera they use.
I have been published twice, once with each of the camera's. |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 11:34:00 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by Gordon:
My average with that is 5.6 |
Average over one entry? Woah, now that's pushing statistics a little far! :-) |
It's still an average of 5.6 :)
Statistics aside, my point is I scored 5.6 with a $10, 6 year old, 1Mp, fixed focal length, fully auto camera. |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 11:38:57 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by paganini:
You forgot one thing: the guy that you have shown also knows a lot about digital imaging and manipulation (most of the portrait shots are manipulated someway, certainly not straight from camera).
Same goes for his landscape shots -- i.e. he uses cloudy balance in daylight to increase warmth (or he does it post-processing).
|
Yup, its not the camera its what you do with the picture that counts.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 11:40:54 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Statistics aside, my point is I scored 5.6 with a $10, 6 year old, 1Mp, fixed focal length, fully auto camera. |
Which is probably very good the your camera. How would you feel if every week you produced asbolutely phenominal results with your $10 camera, but each time you came 125/250? Wouldn't you think 'Hey, it'd be nice if I could be recognised for doing so well with my camera'?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggested there should be different challenges for different cameras. I think it makes thinks much more complicated and opens a whole HOST of problems in classifying which camera does in which category.
I'm just trying to get across an objective observation on the argument. :-) |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 12:00:29 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Statistics aside, my point is I scored 5.6 with a $10, 6 year old, 1Mp, fixed focal length, fully auto camera. |
Which is probably very good the your camera. How would you feel if every week you produced asbolutely phenominal results with your $10 camera, but each time you came 125/250? Wouldn't you think 'Hey, it'd be nice if I could be recognised for doing so well with my camera'?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggested there should be different challenges for different cameras. I think it makes thinks much more complicated and opens a whole HOST of problems in classifying which camera does in which category.
I'm just trying to get across an objective observation on the argument. :-) |
Thing is I finished in the top 40 with that $10 camera. I normally finish somewhere in the upper third, no matter which camera I'm using out of the 3 digital ones I use. It is only one data point, but my objective observation is that the camera I've used hasn't made much difference to my placings, on average. However, over time my average has improved - I figure that might have something to do with getting better at taking interesting pictures, rather than some direct correlation with the amount of money I've spent. I guess that's probably what I object to in the original premise - the more you spend the better you do on dpc - I just don't see the evidence of that in the pictures I see or the pictures I take. I've seen truely horrible, completely dull, totally unimaginative pictures taken with Canon 1Ds or Nikon D1's I've seen wonderful, charming, interesting pictures taken with Lomo film cameras and shoe boxes with holes punched with a pin.
My expensive cameras just give you more opportunity to hang yourself with the additional flexibility and complexity. You still have to learn how to use whatever tool you are going to use, and actually take good pictures with them.
Message edited by author 2003-09-04 12:02:33. |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 12:01:52 PM · #59 |
Everyones missing the point. I manipulate images in PS (as does everyone) and this guys work crushes mine infact crushes anything I have seen here... That is all I am saying. It is not about gear...
Dave
Message edited by author 2003-09-04 12:02:18.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 12:08:16 PM · #60 |
my highest rated photo came from a lousy chinese toy Challenge: Self-Portrait Revisited
Camera: Founder PhotoPower 245T
Location: Shantou, China, my bedroom //dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=25055 |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 12:13:37 PM · #61 |
I take pictures with toy cameras :)
Toy Camera
Gary Moyer
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 12:15:32 PM · #62 |
If your camera is holding you back from making better photos, then buy a new camera :)
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 12:25:55 PM · #63 |
Dude, read what I first posted in this discussion, above. I'm really happy that you adamantly believe that the camera doesn't matter, and yet spent $4000 on a camera body (you're contracdicting yourself, otherwise there wouldn't be a feature on the 1D which would make a difference in the final product, right?) but the camera does matter if your camera can't work under the parameters where another would. I'm not talking about the possibility of making good shots. You can make incredibly moving shots with a pinhole camera. I'm talking about situations where only certain features on a camera (aperture, shutter speed, low noise) will get a shot for you.
To look at these shots here:
Track and Field w/F717
you may assume that the F717 is an excellent sports camera. Well, it ain't. What you see posted in the examples are shots that turned out. What you don't see are the myriad excellent opportunities I missed 'cause my camera couldn't shoot or focus fast enough. The photos I got don't show that the particular shoot was quite frustrating and unsatisfying. If I had my 10D, I would have been much better off.
Here, on the other hand, I was able to take shots in very, very dim light at f/1.4 (try dialing in f/1.4 on a prosumer, mate) at ISO as high as 1600 (try finding usable ISO 1600 on a prosumer) and hopefully all you'll notice is the people. If I had my F717 along, I would have had to use the flash and I couldn't have acqured the look OR maintained the anonymity. The camera does matter.
Candids with the 10D
Message edited by author 2003-09-04 12:27:00. |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 02:16:22 PM · #64 |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 02:22:21 PM · #65 |
It's not the gear, you're right, but not knowing how images can "look" (i.e. digital processing) can hurt you as well. I think most people concentrate on the equipment front and not necessarily on the post processing efforts, assuming everything else is fine. A slight adjustment on the white balance can change the photograph's mood, for example. Anyway, the examples you have showned illustrate that -- he has thorough knowledge of post processing as WELL as his photographic skills.
Originally posted by Davenit:
Everyones missing the point. I manipulate images in PS (as does everyone) and this guys work crushes mine infact crushes anything I have seen here... That is all I am saying. It is not about gear...
Dave |
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 02:38:33 PM · #66 |
just look at the crap that comes out of my 10D;)....
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 02:46:31 PM · #67 |
If you'll kindly notice, some of the portraits in those links were taken with a Fuji S2 Pro...hardly a point and shoot! Some were taken with a 6x6 large-format camera. Look carefully. All the Kodak shots have a very large depth of focus. Cameras are tools. This photographer and your examples have proven my point precisely.
Originally posted by Davenit:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's a perfect example of choosing a camera that's right for you. Landscape shots are easier technically to deal with if you have a camera which tends towards the large depth of field...it frees your mental measurabating hand up and uses it to think about photography, which he is clearly excellent at.
'The camera doesn't matter' argument gets old, though, as it does matter if you're trying to do something that your camera can't. Anyways... |
First off Jimmy, take foot, insert in mouth... //www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=164867
//www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=182076
//www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=171102
He is just a great photographer. NOT just with landscapes and still with the 4800... LOL
Camera's and gear DON'T matter. They only matter to amatures like us. Heck, half the images that are ever displayed at the Guggenhiem are shot with polariods for chripes sake...
I have a 1D. Why? Because I need all the help I can get. Guys like Bob above don't because he understands how it is done... |
Message edited by author 2003-09-04 14:50:40. |
|
|
|
09/04/2003 02:52:03 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
just look at the crap that comes out of my 10D;).... |
Some of that is pretty good crap I must say!
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 02:59:14 PM · #69 |
Yeah Jim, your right. Sorry. But the majority are done with the Kodak...
Message edited by author 2003-09-04 15:02:35.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2003 03:25:45 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Originally posted by Nazgul:
just look at the crap that comes out of my 10D;).... |
Some of that is pretty good crap I must say! |
Yeah the pics my Heida gets out of it is high quality crap you are right about that;)
That shows again its not the camera that makes the photos its the person behind it
|
|
|
|
09/05/2003 01:26:57 AM · #71 |
Wow! I go to bed and wake up to a very happening thread :)
Here's a quote from Lenswork about one experienced photographer's comments on photographic equipment.
"When I started photography, I had very little equipment and made horrible photographs. Over the next ten years I bought all kinds of new equipment with very little improvement in my photographs. When I finally learned how to see, I got rid of most of my equipment and my images improved dramatically.
"Said in a parallel way, when I started photography I didn't really feel like a photographer because all of my equipment fit into a small camera bag. I started to feel like a serious photographer when I found myself toting into the landscape several cases of equipment, a rolling cart and a big photograph's vest. I started making good photographs when I got rid of most it [sic]. This may be as simple as this: after I got rid of so much equipment I found I spent my time managing my vision rather than managing my stuff."
Lenswork
Editor's [sic] Comments August - September 2003
Editors: Brooks Jensen & Maureen Gallagher |
|
|
|
09/06/2003 10:30:38 AM · #72 |
If you notice...all those photos with the Kodak 4800 are landscape! Landscapes can be taken well with these cameras, but they can't compete in macro, or close-up. Period.
Originally posted by Ivar:
Holy ......
Those pictures are awesome! Thanks for the link! |
|
|
|
|
09/06/2003 07:21:23 PM · #73 |
The Kodak DC4800 may not have all the bells and whistles of some of the big guns, but I love my little bitty DC4800. I've even won cash and prizes for photos I've shot with it. Actually I received a ribbon here on DPC too. :-) This one.
I hope to get another camera that will give me more options, but somebody will have to pry my Kodak from my hands before I give it up. One thing I like about it is that I can use a macro, and telephoto with it, and an adapter.
Ironically the first prize I ever won for one of my digital images, was a package that included a brand new Gateway computer, plus a scanner, printer, an Intel webcam, and Intel microscope, and magazine subscriptions...all for ONE PICTURE!!! The amazing thing is it was a picture I took with my first digicam, a Fujifilm DX9 Zoom. It isn't even a full MP. The best I can get from it is 640 x 427. I bought it, initially, for my eBay business, and I got hooked!
Although I truly hope for a bigger engine under my hood eventually, I just can't swing it now. The benefit of having to wait, is that I push the envelope all the time with my little camera that could, and end up with some good results, and lots of experience. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/06/2003 07:50:51 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
The Kodak DC4800 may not have all the bells and whistles of some of the big guns, but I love my little bitty DC4800. I've even won cash and prizes for photos I've shot with it. Actually I received a ribbon here on DPC too. :-) This one.
I hope to get another camera that will give me more options, but somebody will have to pry my Kodak from my hands before I give it up. One thing I like about it is that I can use a macro, and telephoto with it, and an adapter.
Ironically the first prize I ever won for one of my digital images, was a package that included a brand new Gateway computer, plus a scanner, printer, an Intel webcam, and Intel microscope, and magazine subscriptions...all for ONE PICTURE!!! The amazing thing is it was a picture I took with my first digicam, a Fujifilm DX9 Zoom. It isn't even a full MP. The best I can get from it is 640 x 427. I bought it, initially, for my eBay business, and I got hooked!
Although I truly hope for a bigger engine under my hood eventually, I just can't swing it now. The benefit of having to wait, is that I push the envelope all the time with my little camera that could, and end up with some good results, and lots of experience. :-) |
So - it isn't the camera, it's just finding the right contests ? :) :)
That is so awesome winning that. |
|
|
|
09/06/2003 11:28:51 PM · #75 |
Nahhh.....it's not the camera. It's all the right circumstances, and the photographer coming together. As for DPC and any other photography sigs, the critiques are the "gold" I seek. Honest opinions and insigts that I may overlook. Ribbons are nice, and I have a bit of a collection from live competitions, but the critique is ohhh sooo valuable.
Getting to know your camera is a major step toward good images. Read, reread, and reread again, your owner's manual.
:-)
|
|
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: 03/14/2025 09:02:13 AM EDT.
