Its not the camera

[Harry Behret]

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot. For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717. My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

 

[pete w206566]

Harry Well said, the DSLR may be able to offer more variety of lens capability but in the end the result will depend on his/her ability and creativity( and post processing ability).

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

--
pete w

http://www.wraight.smugmug.com

 

[Shay Stephens]

Well said, it is a good reminder.

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

 

[Andy Williams]

two of my all time favorite shots i've taken, were done with the f717 and a p10. both sony digicams. neither are my 828 and e-hem new dslr

it's definitely not the camera. i know this to be true.

thanks harry

 

[Victor Short]

Each camera has their advantages/disadvantages, but the end result comes from artistic instinct.

BUT, why not have one camera that does certain things great, and then another to compliment the other for things that it might not do so great. Plus, just to have different tools for different situations. While one might do just fine, another with different abilities/qualities just opens up a bit more flexibility.

I would love to have more than one great camera and probably will someday.

All I know is that my best buddy has a 300D and we go out on shoots every weekend. We both shoot the same scenes and both come back with GREAT picutes and crappy pictues. We also both really like each others camera, but at the end of the day, he likes the things that make the 300D what it is a bit better, and I like the things (histogram, swivel, one lens, ect...) that make my 828 the one for me. Now if I could 'borrow' his DReb for a week or two to add to my 828... ;-)

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

--
http://spooky73.smugmug.com

 

[Evil Eggplant]

You are right to a point. A dslr and a 707 will both shoot a sunset, but there are situations where a particular tool does a better job.

You can bang a nail with the side of a pair of lineman pliers, the nail will go in. But wouldn't you want to use a hammer to drive a nail.

My 300d with the 50mm f/1.8 will catch images a sony simply cant. Sorry, it's true.

My 300d with the 50-500 or 400f/4L will do things the 828 will never do.

Not all of it rests on the skill of the photographers, sometimes it comes down to horsepower. Put Dale Earnhart Jr. in a Yugo. No matter how skilled he is as a driver, I will beat him in a race.

A dslr with superior glass will outperform a camera like the sony 100% of the time. Why shouldn't it. With the DSLR you use exactly the right lens for the job. There are compromises with any zoom, even expensive L zooms. My primes will absolutely smoke the CZ lenses used by sony. Not because they're better, but because they're primes. The DSLR body creates a situation much more favorable to the lens/sensor relationship. The tolerances are wider, the DSLR sensor is bigger,there is more space between photosites. Fixed lens digicams make compromises in this area. There is no free when it comes to this stuff.

Andy will still be Andy, but the creative control offered by the DSLR will open doors for Andy that have remained shut up till now.

Hi There, Harry

Regards

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Trying, the first step to failure'- Homer Simpson
http://www.iceninephotography.com

 

[Shay Stephens]

He is not saying that a dslr is bad or having more than one camera is bad, he is merely stating that the camera is not the determining factor in a good photo. It is up to the photographer, not the camera. Too many loose sight of that and chase technology instead of technique.

BUT, why not have one camera that does certain things great, and
then another to compliment the other for things that it might not
do so great. Plus, just to have different tools for different
situations. While one might do just fine, another with different
abilities/qualities just opens up a bit more flexibility.

I would love to have more than one great camera and probably will
someday.

All I know is that my best buddy has a 300D and we go out on shoots
every weekend. We both shoot the same scenes and both come back
with GREAT picutes and crappy pictues. We also both really like
each others camera, but at the end of the day, he likes the things
that make the 300D what it is a bit better, and I like the things
(histogram, swivel, one lens, ect...) that make my 828 the one for
me. Now if I could 'borrow' his DReb for a week or two to add to
my 828... ;-)

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

--
http://spooky73.smugmug.com

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

 

[pete w206566]

Most of your comments are correct but if we put Dale Earnhart in a Yugo and give his car to a three year old who would win?????

sometimes there are different angles.;-)

You can bang a nail with the side of a pair of lineman pliers, the
nail will go in. But wouldn't you want to use a hammer to drive a
nail.

My 300d with the 50mm f/1.8 will catch images a sony simply cant.
Sorry, it's true.

My 300d with the 50-500 or 400f/4L will do things the 828 will
never do.

Not all of it rests on the skill of the photographers, sometimes it
comes down to horsepower. Put Dale Earnhart Jr. in a Yugo. No
matter how skilled he is as a driver, I will beat him in a race.

A dslr with superior glass will outperform a camera like the sony
100% of the time. Why shouldn't it. With the DSLR you use exactly
the right lens for the job. There are compromises with any zoom,
even expensive L zooms. My primes will absolutely smoke the CZ
lenses used by sony. Not because they're better, but because
they're primes. The DSLR body creates a situation much more
favorable to the lens/sensor relationship. The tolerances are
wider, the DSLR sensor is bigger,there is more space between
photosites. Fixed lens digicams make compromises in this area.
There is no free when it comes to this stuff.

Andy will still be Andy, but the creative control offered by the
DSLR will open doors for Andy that have remained shut up till now.

Hi There, Harry

Regards

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Trying, the first step to failure'- Homer Simpson
http://www.iceninephotography.com

--
pete w

http://www.wraight.smugmug.com

 

[kenny62360]

In my opinion, it comes in a package....a master photographer owns the following traits:

1) Master the tools you are working with.

2) Skills to apply the acquired theory correctly for different conditions or situations.

3) Have an artistic eye to make the shot unique and interesting (this is the most challenging and is what sets "the men from the boys".

4) Post processing skills (a must if you want to to take it to the "WOW" level)

Sure if you have the best toy it will add to the final quality but it is critical to have the above basics down first. With out them, the end results will only be point n shoot quality no matter how high-end the tool used.

Kenny

 

[Victor Short]

But was also stating that I understand the want/need for different tools as well.

BUT, why not have one camera that does certain things great, and
then another to compliment the other for things that it might not
do so great. Plus, just to have different tools for different
situations. While one might do just fine, another with different
abilities/qualities just opens up a bit more flexibility.

I would love to have more than one great camera and probably will
someday.

All I know is that my best buddy has a 300D and we go out on shoots
every weekend. We both shoot the same scenes and both come back
with GREAT picutes and crappy pictues. We also both really like
each others camera, but at the end of the day, he likes the things
that make the 300D what it is a bit better, and I like the things
(histogram, swivel, one lens, ect...) that make my 828 the one for
me. Now if I could 'borrow' his DReb for a week or two to add to
my 828... ;-)

Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams

--
http://spooky73.smugmug.com

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

--
http://spooky73.smugmug.com

 

[pete w206566]

In my opinion, it comes in a package....a master photographer owns
the following traits:

1) Master the tools you are working with.

2) Skills to apply the acquired theory correctly for different
conditions or situations.

3) Have an artistic eye to make the shot unique and interesting
(this is the most challenging and is what sets "the men from the
boys".

4) Post processing skills (a must if you want to to take it to the
"WOW" level)

Sure if you have the best toy it will add to the final quality but
it is critical to have the above basics down first. With out them,
the end results will only be point n shoot quality no matter how
high-end the tool used.

Kenny

--
pete w

http://www.wraight.smugmug.com

 

[kenny62360]

That was FAST !!! ;-)

In my opinion, it comes in a package....a master photographer owns
the following traits:

1) Master the tools you are working with.

2) Skills to apply the acquired theory correctly for different
conditions or situations.

3) Have an artistic eye to make the shot unique and interesting
(this is the most challenging and is what sets "the men from the
boys".

4) Post processing skills (a must if you want to to take it to the
"WOW" level)

Sure if you have the best toy it will add to the final quality but
it is critical to have the above basics down first. With out them,
the end results will only be point n shoot quality no matter how
high-end the tool used.

Kenny

 

[Shay Stephens]

You are right to a point. A dslr and a 707 will both shoot a
sunset, but there are situations where a particular tool does a
better job.

True

You can bang a nail with the side of a pair of lineman pliers, the
nail will go in. But wouldn't you want to use a hammer to drive a
nail.

So you are saying that the dslr is hammer and the 828 is a pair of Klein's? Come now, this is an absurd comparison.

My 300d with the 50mm f/1.8 will catch images a sony simply cant.
Sorry, it's true.

I would like to see you prove that one.

My 300d with the 50-500 or 400f/4L will do things the 828 will
never do.

This is true, the focal length is limited to 200mm on the 828.

Not all of it rests on the skill of the photographers, sometimes it
comes down to horsepower. Put Dale Earnhart Jr. in a Yugo. No
matter how skilled he is as a driver, I will beat him in a race.

That is too large of a comparison, the 828 in this analogy is not the equal of a yugo.

A dslr with superior glass will outperform a camera like the sony
100% of the time. Why shouldn't it. With the DSLR you use exactly
the right lens for the job. There are compromises with any zoom,
even expensive L zooms. My primes will absolutely smoke the CZ
lenses used by sony. Not because they're better, but because
they're primes. The DSLR body creates a situation much more
favorable to the lens/sensor relationship. The tolerances are
wider, the DSLR sensor is bigger,there is more space between
photosites. Fixed lens digicams make compromises in this area.
There is no free when it comes to this stuff.

Outperform 100% of the time eh? Hmm, I would take exception to that. There is no way you can prove that statement. That is just rhetoric.

Hey, how good is the focusing of the f/1.8 lens in low light wide open? I know the f/1.4 can be problematic in this regard.

Andy will still be Andy, but the creative control offered by the
DSLR will open doors for Andy that have remained shut up till now.

Hehehe, oh the vast creativity that is now available. He can now use a narrower DOF. That is earth shaking in it's creative quantum leap his images will now express. Oh and he can zoom farther now too, I forgot that this is also going to make evey picture he now takes vastly superior in artistic content than he could ever hope for before. The creativity simply oozes all over now. Hehehehe

I think composition and lighting make a far greater impact on the creativity and quality of a photo than the focal length or the DOF. But I would agree that those extra capabilities are nice to have. But they most certainly do make the shot for the vast majority of users.

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

 

[Evil Eggplant]

pete-

Don't you think you're reaching just a bit? I really, really made a good point. A race car driver needs a good car to win. It's not all the driver, and it's not all the photographer.

A a dslr with some nice glass simply has more horsepower than a 717 or 828. How could anyone disagree with this?

Most of your comments are correct but if we put Dale Earnhart in a
Yugo and give his car to a three year old who would win?????

sometimes there are different angles.;-)

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Trying, the first step to failure'- Homer Simpson
http://www.iceninephotography.com

 

[Shay Stephens]

My 300d with the 50mm f/1.8 will catch images a sony simply cant.
Sorry, it's true.

I would like to see you prove that one.

Just wanted to add for those who don't know, but the f/1.8 lens is only 1/3 of a stop brighter than the f/2.0 len of the F series cameras. 50mm on the 300D is equivalent to 80mm. This focal length is also within the range of the F series cameras. So unless there is something I am missing, the F series can capture anything that the 300D and the f/18 lens can.

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

 

[Shay Stephens]

Most people are not racing their cars, they are driving to the market or to work in bumper to bumper traffic. Your race car would be highly inconveneint to use in this case and the Yugo with air conditioning and better gas mileage and autoatic transmission looks better and better all the time ;-)

Don't you think you're reaching just a bit? I really, really made a
good point. A race car driver needs a good car to win. It's not all
the driver, and it's not all the photographer.

A a dslr with some nice glass simply has more horsepower than a 717
or 828. How could anyone disagree with this?

Most of your comments are correct but if we put Dale Earnhart in a
Yugo and give his car to a three year old who would win?????

sometimes there are different angles.;-)

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Trying, the first step to failure'- Homer Simpson
http://www.iceninephotography.com

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

 

[pete w206566]

I do not disagree, just offring another viewpoint. difference in horsepower is relative( and not as severe as you state) and the drivers ability is more important when you have a slight differnce in horse power.

Don't you think you're reaching just a bit? I really, really made a
good point. A race car driver needs a good car to win. It's not all
the driver, and it's not all the photographer.

A a dslr with some nice glass simply has more horsepower than a 717
or 828. How could anyone disagree with this?

Most of your comments are correct but if we put Dale Earnhart in a
Yugo and give his car to a three year old who would win?????

sometimes there are different angles.;-)

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Trying, the first step to failure'- Homer Simpson
http://www.iceninephotography.com

--
pete w

http://www.wraight.smugmug.com

 

[Mike Sumaquial]

Really good points. I think DSLRs are favorable in specific situations. The primes are amazing. What I've noticed is that the rate of camera technology is blindingly fast these days, and the picture quality of even the P & S are so much better than years back. With the improvements of photoshop and with the advances in other picture editing software, picture imperfection and manipulation are easily tackled, unlike the days of old where there was only so much we could do in the darkroom.

But what i do think hasn't changed is the art of photography which is a combination of gift and hard work. Compelling images are primarily a product of photographic skill, and to a less degree post-processing. i think post processing skills are over emphasized by the public as well as minor differences in image quality. I think the differences in image quality among DSLRs and digicams in general are getting so small that it is mostly unnoticeable especially after post-processing. But what is really noticeable is a picture that looks flat, doesn't inspire and that's about photographic art and personal technique, no longer image quality.

I think because of improving image quality; the portability of a camera and its useability will be its greatest asset. Portability and useability will help the photographer to improve his art by giving him the opportunity to capture different types of scenes not normally possible with a heavier cam.

But I would rather have both types, DSLRs and digicams just because I love cameras. Take care.

Mike
http://pacificsunsets.smugmug.com/

 

[Evil Eggplant]

First off, Isn't 828 ISO 100 actually slower than ISO 100. I can dig up the spec, Phil's review bears this out, I think. The My little "fabulous 50" at f/1.8 will do bokeh things that the 828 won't. And then there is the whopping noise advantage the dslr has. Bottom line, I will be using a faster shutter speed than you, and my pics will be less noisey. Anything you can do, I can do. Tripod mount or push process. I have pushed low light shots to 3200, then did the same processing you do at ISO 400, and the shots look OK, for what they are.

I can compose and focus with precision and confidence in very low light. Your only hope is that there is enough light, or that your IR emitters and/or HAF has the oomph to reach your subject.

In extreme low light, you know, they type of situation where your EVF is useless, I can see and focus with precision. Good luck when it's that dark and your HAF doesn't have the range. I have been there with the 707. You know what I am talking about. The type of shot that you have to guess distance and focus because the EVF is dark to the point of being useless. Everyone out here, including you and me, has been in that situation. The DSLR handles situations like this with ease and precision.

So that, my good man, is what I can do with my "fabulous fifty" that you cant do with your 828.

Attempting to capture this type of shot with the 828 or 7x7 is exactly like banging in a nail with a pair of pliers, which is exactly what I stated earlier in this thread.

My 300d with the 50mm f/1.8 will catch images a sony simply cant.
Sorry, it's true.

I would like to see you prove that one.

Just wanted to add for those who don't know, but the f/1.8 lens is
only 1/3 of a stop brighter than the f/2.0 len of the F series
cameras. 50mm on the 300D is equivalent to 80mm. This focal
length is also within the range of the F series cameras. So unless
there is something I am missing, the F series can capture anything
that the 300D and the f/18 lens can.

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Trying, the first step to failure'- Homer Simpson
http://www.iceninephotography.com

 

[Matthew Cromer]

For me, the combination of a live LCD and a tiltable body means I can get a lot of shots that would be pretty much unfeasible with any dSLR. Even with the angle viewfinder, you still have to put your eye up to the finder to use it, while with the live LCD your face is off the camera. When I hang the camera off the side of the pier and dangle it over the water for an eye-level view of a duckling, that's a shot that a dSLR can't do.

There are a few shots I take where a dSLR would really improve things (long telephoto shots, low-light action / candids, certain action photos, low DOF portraits) but for the vast majority of my work the 828 is very competitive with a dSLR given proper technique and post-processing.

As far as a creative instrument goes, for me, the live LCD and histogram lets me really enjoy composing as I don't have to put face on camera, exposure is always dead-on before shooting, and the DOF is always accurate. I can adjust focus easily. The camera is light compared to dSLR with comparable focal length lenses and doesn't suffer from mirror slap, so a very light tripod is feasible in all but windy conditions. That means I can carry the camera + tripod on 8+ mile hikes without feeling burdened.

That said, I am definitely gonna pick up some kind of interchangable lens large sensor camera for low-light work and longer telephoto lengths. I'm still waiting to see the AS Minolta offering, and I'm also intrigued with the idea of a 4/3" camera with live LCD (maybe Sony will pull one out of the hat this year). For the kind of work I enjoy the most, the 828 does a great job, so I'm not in any particular rush. I don't want to go out and buy a dSLR system and then discover I'd rather have some newer system with different lenses.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1