What camera do you use ? And any simple tips.

close
more_vert
Mustard M
Mustard Jul 17, 2013 11:23:58
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
I did say expensive DSLRs provide more flexibility, and you choose your lenses to suit the type of shots you are looking for, and the other stuff you've described above are the 'bells and whistles' in my post, but the main 'thrust' of my point, which remains true, and is, in my opinion, a very important point, is that you do not need an expensive camera in order to take what could be considered good photographs.
I agree that that is true in certain conditions, but equally it is true that you do need DSLRs if you want to capture an image in many other situations. Equally, the image quality of most DSLRs will outshine most compact cameras in a wide variety of situations.

"My post was not inverted snobbery, and people who know how to use a high-end DSLR can still be idiots you know Mustard."

Totally agree. I see them all the time. Most people I see with DSLRs would be far better off with a decent compact camera.

--------------
"I can think of many stone circles that I couldn't have captured in their entirety without being able to swap out to a wide-angle lens."

Incorrect
-------------

No it's not. I've been to stone circles where I couldn't obtain the distance that I needed to get the whole circle in frame without a wide-angle lens. I don't see how you can dispute that, unless you're suggesting photo-stitching, which isn't really a solution at all.


-------------
"I also wouldn't have been able to take interior pictures of burial chambers in low light without the high-ISO performance of my current camera."

Incorrect
-------------

No it's not. You can not take a picture in low light if the camera you're using is incapable of doing so. The best you could hope for is a long-exposure image with a ton of noise - assuming that taking long exposures was an option in the first place. You my of course be referring to flash or illuminated photography, but that isn't the same thing as taking pictures in low light.

-------------
"I wouldn't have been able to take illuminated shots of standing stones without the use of wireless flash guns."

Incorrect
-------------


No it's not. I do actually know what I'm doing with my camera, and there are many shots I've taken like this that would simply not have been achievable any other way. Torches or other light sources are an option in certain situations, but when moving quickly to capture the sky or remaining light before it changes, off-camera flash guns are the only way to capture the image.


-------------
Your expensive DSLR makes it easier for you to do these things, correct. These things are not impossible with lots of cheaper compacts, it just requires more imagination. Im surprised at you.
-------------

Incorrect ;) In certain situations, there may be cumbersome, awkward workarounds that will enable you to produce *an* image, but those workarounds won't be available in all situations, and will often not let you capture *the* image that you wanted.

I think we agree on the fundamental point that expensive gear is no substitute for a skilled/creative photographer, and expensive cameras do not automatically produce good images. However, speaking from pretty extensive experience, there are many, many, many shots that I could not have captured without the kit to do so. I've seen 16yr old eastern European kids with more creative talent in their little finger than I have in my entire body take some amazing photographs, but with all the skill in the world their compact camera is never going to auto-focus, track and bust like a DSLR if they're trying to capture a plywood lance as it shatters during a joust re-enactment. DSLRs *will* enable you to capture images that you otherwise couldn't have captured, but as you rightly say, they are not a substitute for imagination.

E Evergreen Dazed
Evergreen Dazed Jul 17, 2013 11:31:02
Replying to Mustard

Mustard wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
I did say expensive DSLRs provide more flexibility, and you choose your lenses to suit the type of shots you are looking for, and the other stuff you've described above are the 'bells and whistles' in my post, but the main 'thrust' of my point, which remains true, and is, in my opinion, a very important point, is that you do not need an expensive camera in order to take what could be considered good photographs.
I agree that that is true in certain conditions, but equally it is true that you do need DSLRs if you want to capture an image in many other situations. Equally, the image quality of most DSLRs will outshine most compact cameras in a wide variety of situations.

"My post was not inverted snobbery, and people who know how to use a high-end DSLR can still be idiots you know Mustard."

Totally agree. I see them all the time. Most people I see with DSLRs would be far better off with a decent compact camera.

--------------
"I can think of many stone circles that I couldn't have captured in their entirety without being able to swap out to a wide-angle lens."

Incorrect
-------------

No it's not. I've been to stone circles where I couldn't obtain the distance that I needed to get the whole circle in frame without a wide-angle lens. I don't see how you can dispute that, unless you're suggesting photo-stitching, which isn't really a solution at all.


-------------
"I also wouldn't have been able to take interior pictures of burial chambers in low light without the high-ISO performance of my current camera."

Incorrect
-------------

No it's not. You can not take a picture in low light if the camera you're using is incapable of doing so. The best you could hope for is a long-exposure image with a ton of noise - assuming that taking long exposures was an option in the first place. You my of course be referring to flash or illuminated photography, but that isn't the same thing as taking pictures in low light.

-------------
"I wouldn't have been able to take illuminated shots of standing stones without the use of wireless flash guns."

Incorrect
-------------


No it's not. I do actually know what I'm doing with my camera, and there are many shots I've taken like this that would simply not have been achievable any other way. Torches or other light sources are an option in certain situations, but when moving quickly to capture the sky or remaining light before it changes, off-camera flash guns are the only way to capture the image.


-------------
Your expensive DSLR makes it easier for you to do these things, correct. These things are not impossible with lots of cheaper compacts, it just requires more imagination. Im surprised at you.
-------------

Incorrect ;) In certain situations, there may be cumbersome, awkward workarounds that will enable you to produce *an* image, but those workarounds won't be available in all situations, and will often not let you capture *the* image that you wanted.

I think we agree on the fundamental point that expensive gear is no substitute for a skilled/creative photographer, and expensive cameras do not automatically produce good images. However, speaking from pretty extensive experience, there are many, many, many shots that I could not have captured without the kit to do so. I've seen 16yr old eastern European kids with more creative talent in their little finger than I have in my entire body take some amazing photographs, but with all the skill in the world their compact camera is never going to auto-focus, track and bust like a DSLR if they're trying to capture a plywood lance as it shatters during a joust re-enactment. DSLRs *will* enable you to capture images that you otherwise couldn't have captured, but as you rightly say, they are not a substitute for imagination.

This conversation could go on for some time if I countered, so i'm not going to. Its boring for everybody else and is not really giving any helpful information. I see where you are coming from, and I think were both right, the truth is somewhere in the middle but i'm buggered if i'm going to spend the morning arguing about it just to get there. :)