Why your camera doesn't matter.

[jpeyton]

Taken with a Canon A620.

The A620 is discontinued, but the A630 that replaced it goes for about $190.

 

[Deadtrees]

Give the man a better camera and you'll be 'more' suprised.

 

[foghorn67]

ummm, silly baiting topic. Yes, you can take superb shots with a 1DMkIII, an ancient AE-1, or a superzoom digital compact with a tiny sensor.
But after you find a niche, then you ask yourself if your current setup limits you. If it does, upgrade. If not, keep shooting with what you have.

 

[rodneyxiii]

I marked Wilson Tsoi as an "interesting" person on photo.net last year. I was inspired by the incredible images he created with the point and shoot cameras.

 

[ThePresence]

Of course having a great camera setup does not give somone ability or an artistic eye. But it gives someone incredibile opportunites if he already has these atributes.

 

[Aharami]

he's doing manual bracketing -

3 exposures with aperture priority at 1/2000 sec. (-2 exp. comp. for sky,) 1/500 sec. (-1/3 exp. comp. for mid,) 1/100 sec. (+1.3 exp. comp. for shadow detail,)

Thats pretty cool. I usually just set mine to auto bracketing and let it fire off three shots. camera decides Tv and Av.

 

[pontifex]

there's no way those are directly from the camera. looks like a lot of photoshopping and even HDR stuff going on there.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: pontifex
there's no way those are directly from the camera. looks like a lot of photoshopping and even HDR stuff going on there.

he definitely does HDR in a lot of his pics. but they are cool nevertheless

 

[Rottie]

I am so impressive! I am happy with Powershot A610

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: pontifex
there's no way those are directly from the camera. looks like a lot of photoshopping and even HDR stuff going on there.

Bingo. If you've got the time and talent to play around in post, you can make some pretty amazing shots. Even straight from the camera though one can get some pretty nice photos with a P&S. When most people see a photo, they aren't looking for the ultimate sharpness or scrutinizing everything for evidence of chromatic aberration, they're looking at the composition. A DSLR is great, I love mine, it makes it easier to play with settings and make adjustments, but it doesn't make my photos any better.

ZV

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: pontifex
there's no way those are directly from the camera. looks like a lot of photoshopping and even HDR stuff going on there.

Bingo. If you've got the time and talent to play around in post, you can make some pretty amazing shots. Even straight from the camera though one can get some pretty nice photos with a P&S. When most people see a photo, they aren't looking for the ultimate sharpness or scrutinizing everything for evidence of chromatic aberration, they're looking at the composition. A DSLR is great, I love mine, it makes it easier to play with settings and make adjustments, but it doesn't make my photos any better.

ZV

In certain situations, a piece of equipment is essential to getting a shot which is what always annoys me about the statement in the title. Try telling NFL photographers that the equipment doesn't matter -- those close-up, razor sharp action shots on the field are simply not possible, for the most part, without some serious equipment.

Ultimately, you cannot consistently take good, pleasing photos without a good photographer, but sometimes, you cannot get a shot because of the technical limitations of your equipment. No amount of photographic skill can change the aperture or focal length of your lens.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: pontifex
there's no way those are directly from the camera. looks like a lot of photoshopping and even HDR stuff going on there.

Bingo. If you've got the time and talent to play around in post, you can make some pretty amazing shots. Even straight from the camera though one can get some pretty nice photos with a P&S. When most people see a photo, they aren't looking for the ultimate sharpness or scrutinizing everything for evidence of chromatic aberration, they're looking at the composition. A DSLR is great, I love mine, it makes it easier to play with settings and make adjustments, but it doesn't make my photos any better.

ZV

In certain situations, a piece of equipment is essential to getting a shot which is what always annoys me about the statement in the title. Try telling NFL photographers that the equipment doesn't matter -- those close-up, razor sharp action shots on the field are simply not possible, for the most part, without some serious equipment.

Ultimately, you cannot consistently take good, pleasing photos without a good photographer, but sometimes, you cannot get a shot because of the technical limitations of your equipment. No amount of photographic skill can change the aperture or focal length of your lens.

I agree and disagree. Parting of being a good photographer is knowing the strenghts and weaknesses of your equipment and only playing towards its strengths. If you have a 50 mm lens, taking landscape shots is not usually in your best interest. Certainly a P&S limits what you can do, but you can definitely take consistently good photos with them.

That being said, sometimes I feel as though people get far too obsessed with owning the latest and greatest. Investing thousands of dollars into photo equipment is awesome, but only if you know how to use it. Ultimately, a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera.

 

[DrPizza]

That's pretty much what they said though: A good photographer can take good photos with just about any camera. However, as has already been said, no matter what, you need specialized cameras (lenses and other equipment) for specialized situations. For the people who want to be able to capture it on film, for *any* "it", it's worth them to invest the money in the equipment. For people who are just shooting pictures of the family reunion, then perhaps it doesn't make sense for them to spend a bundle.

For what it's worth, both of my kids have gone through several sports seasons. It's been virtually impossible to get good pictures of them on the field while sitting in the stands or bleachers with my p&s. This is the last year for my older son; I plan on getting a DSLR and appropriate lens, especially so I'll have those memories recorded.

 

[Kaido]

I've taken some amazing shots with my Canon A75, a nice little 3.2mp point-and-shoot. Sometimes it amazes me. Nothing like the guy's work in the OP's link, but still pretty surprising for such a non-professional camera

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: pontifex
there's no way those are directly from the camera. looks like a lot of photoshopping and even HDR stuff going on there.

Bingo. If you've got the time and talent to play around in post, you can make some pretty amazing shots. Even straight from the camera though one can get some pretty nice photos with a P&S. When most people see a photo, they aren't looking for the ultimate sharpness or scrutinizing everything for evidence of chromatic aberration, they're looking at the composition. A DSLR is great, I love mine, it makes it easier to play with settings and make adjustments, but it doesn't make my photos any better.

ZV

In certain situations, a piece of equipment is essential to getting a shot which is what always annoys me about the statement in the title. Try telling NFL photographers that the equipment doesn't matter -- those close-up, razor sharp action shots on the field are simply not possible, for the most part, without some serious equipment.

Ultimately, you cannot consistently take good, pleasing photos without a good photographer, but sometimes, you cannot get a shot because of the technical limitations of your equipment. No amount of photographic skill can change the aperture or focal length of your lens.

I agree and disagree. Parting of being a good photographer is knowing the strenghts and weaknesses of your equipment and only playing towards its strengths. If you have a 50 mm lens, taking landscape shots is not usually in your best interest. Certainly a P&S limits what you can do, but you can definitely take consistently good photos with them.

That being said, sometimes I feel as though people get far too obsessed with owning the latest and greatest. Investing thousands of dollars into photo equipment is awesome, but only if you know how to use it. Ultimately, a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera.

I've been reading Outdoor Photography for awhile now, and they are big proponents of taking landscape shots with non-wide angle lenses.

Tell me though -- how do you get a wide angle shot without a wide angle? You made my point for me. And, none of what I wrote disagrees with your last sentence.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I agree and disagree. Parting of being a good photographer is knowing the strenghts and weaknesses of your equipment and only playing towards its strengths. If you have a 50 mm lens, taking landscape shots is not usually in your best interest. Certainly a P&S limits what you can do, but you can definitely take consistently good photos with them.

That being said, sometimes I feel as though people get far too obsessed with owning the latest and greatest. Investing thousands of dollars into photo equipment is awesome, but only if you know how to use it. Ultimately, a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera.

I've been reading Outdoor Photography for awhile now, and they are big proponents of taking landscape shots with non-wide angle lenses.

Tell me though -- how do you get a wide angle shot without a wide angle?

Autostitch.

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

Although it can take quite a few pictures to capture some subjects:

http://trikster2.dphoto.com/#/album/1395/photo/50457/

I think it took about 35 shots to kind of get the landscape above with my 50mm lens. And I still missed a spot. Doh. Kind of hard to go back and fill it in......