Greetings, I have been a fan of the DPReview site for a long time. I know people get touchy about what camera systems they like. I am saying this up front because I am not interested in getting into what a friend calls "haterism" (Nikon, Cannon, etc.). I am seeking a better understanding of what I need from my next camera. At the moment I have nothing. Fresh start is coming.
I have a good eye and have satisfied myself and others that I can capture really good shots. But I still don't know a lot about photography (sad to say - I know I am trying to learn this too). I took many great shots with my last camera, a Panasonic Lumex FZ 10. It had a great bit of glass and I took it everywhere I went. I even was caught in a flash flood while carrying the camera. I tossed it across and into the muddy bank and was very lucky to make it out myself. Props to the Panasonic that it kept working after that for many more years.
That I had it with me that day on a hike speaks to one thing I really liked about it. It’s relatively small size and weight and relatively inexpensive footprint allowed me to come across many great shots that, had I a very expensive kit I was afraid of damaging or having stolen if I left it in my truck at a rest stop, I would never have taken out that day.
With that said, it may well be time to get the best. Rugged is important. Ergonomics are important - it has to fit into my hands. That is really what I am asking here, I am trying to understand what is the difference - with low light - between the way Fuji kits (body and lens) are similar too, better than, or not as good as Nikon, Cannon, etc. I know, it's hard to be objective if you already are invested in one of them.
I understand that Fuji is unique because of the way it's chip processes images. Not sure exactly what that means but .. roughly understanding it is enough for now. What I want to know in particular is if this Fuji system that is so different from Nikon, Cannon and the rest is going to respond to subtle changes of low light?
What I like to shoot. As a boy I loved the last page of Life magazine as it was always a photograph that was full page and in B&W. It was just a shot of someone on a street or something very simple - but it always told a story. It was communicating something. I can't imagine spending 10 minutes fiddling with settings in such an instance. So the term "point and shoot" may not be what I am saying but, not getting into ones head and fretting about everything but instead knowing your rig and trusting your gut and then just being ready when the shot appears. That is what I am looking for.
Changing light. I have noticed that there is a lot of subtlety in the quality of light. How many times have I been driving along, seen an amazing shift in the clouds over a field or a building and by the time I thought about it, decided to take a picture of it, and found a place to turn around, it was gone.
I had a friend who was a renowned artist named Valdi Marris. He said he did all his paintings during the first light of morning. He said that this early light is what he called transition light. That means that his paintings are seen by him as he paints them in this type of light. Sure enough, when I looked at his paintings at different times of day, they seem to change a bit. It seems he really had a point about how transition light is a different sort of light than daylight, mid day or midnight light.
Hopefully some of you can understand what I am asking here. I want to take better pictures in the low light of day and dusk. I have not shot raw yet so perhaps this is always going to require post processing in raw, I don't know? I remember once in Boulder Co I was up on a mountain. A road came up from the town. A couple had walked up and were sitting and talking as the sun began to rise over the city. I would have liked to get more separation, more color and more vibrancy from them, their surroundings and also allow the slowly coming brightness on the horizon. My Panasonic did an OK job but it was hardly print worthy.
My human eye sees more subtly in changing predawn light than any camera I have played with so far. Then again I have not played with that many cameras. If anyone knows, how does the Fuji system stack up in this sort of low light condition against Cannon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, et al?
Thanks very much, especially if you took the time to read through this post.
I have a good eye and have satisfied myself and others that I can capture really good shots. But I still don't know a lot about photography (sad to say - I know I am trying to learn this too). I took many great shots with my last camera, a Panasonic Lumex FZ 10. It had a great bit of glass and I took it everywhere I went. I even was caught in a flash flood while carrying the camera. I tossed it across and into the muddy bank and was very lucky to make it out myself. Props to the Panasonic that it kept working after that for many more years.
That I had it with me that day on a hike speaks to one thing I really liked about it. It’s relatively small size and weight and relatively inexpensive footprint allowed me to come across many great shots that, had I a very expensive kit I was afraid of damaging or having stolen if I left it in my truck at a rest stop, I would never have taken out that day.
With that said, it may well be time to get the best. Rugged is important. Ergonomics are important - it has to fit into my hands. That is really what I am asking here, I am trying to understand what is the difference - with low light - between the way Fuji kits (body and lens) are similar too, better than, or not as good as Nikon, Cannon, etc. I know, it's hard to be objective if you already are invested in one of them.
I understand that Fuji is unique because of the way it's chip processes images. Not sure exactly what that means but .. roughly understanding it is enough for now. What I want to know in particular is if this Fuji system that is so different from Nikon, Cannon and the rest is going to respond to subtle changes of low light?
What I like to shoot. As a boy I loved the last page of Life magazine as it was always a photograph that was full page and in B&W. It was just a shot of someone on a street or something very simple - but it always told a story. It was communicating something. I can't imagine spending 10 minutes fiddling with settings in such an instance. So the term "point and shoot" may not be what I am saying but, not getting into ones head and fretting about everything but instead knowing your rig and trusting your gut and then just being ready when the shot appears. That is what I am looking for.
Changing light. I have noticed that there is a lot of subtlety in the quality of light. How many times have I been driving along, seen an amazing shift in the clouds over a field or a building and by the time I thought about it, decided to take a picture of it, and found a place to turn around, it was gone.
I had a friend who was a renowned artist named Valdi Marris. He said he did all his paintings during the first light of morning. He said that this early light is what he called transition light. That means that his paintings are seen by him as he paints them in this type of light. Sure enough, when I looked at his paintings at different times of day, they seem to change a bit. It seems he really had a point about how transition light is a different sort of light than daylight, mid day or midnight light.
Hopefully some of you can understand what I am asking here. I want to take better pictures in the low light of day and dusk. I have not shot raw yet so perhaps this is always going to require post processing in raw, I don't know? I remember once in Boulder Co I was up on a mountain. A road came up from the town. A couple had walked up and were sitting and talking as the sun began to rise over the city. I would have liked to get more separation, more color and more vibrancy from them, their surroundings and also allow the slowly coming brightness on the horizon. My Panasonic did an OK job but it was hardly print worthy.
My human eye sees more subtly in changing predawn light than any camera I have played with so far. Then again I have not played with that many cameras. If anyone knows, how does the Fuji system stack up in this sort of low light condition against Cannon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, et al?
Thanks very much, especially if you took the time to read through this post.
