[Bramela]

Ahhh... now I have it Tom. The problem comes down to having hair.
Wish I had some too, my photography might improve immeasurably

[Pumalite]

Great thread. Thanks.

[bt*ist]

Excellent post (right down to the 'Battlestar Galactica' comment!). I 100% agree, and my example for a slight variant on the 'you're as good as your tools' notion is the following shot.

The K10D and a 90mm f2.8 lens is a beautiful thing. But at ISO800 and standing on an elevated platform across the road from a Red Carpet event it is not an ideal camera (or especially lens) combination. Now, if I had a pro camera with usable ISO25600 and a 70-200 f2.8 lens (and/or a closer vantagepoint) I would have had a setting that could freeze the subject and a closer zoom. There would be no need to pan a moving subject at such a ridiculous distance...

... and yet, the shot represents the best I was able to achieve with my tools at hand. Had I had worse tools I could not have taken this shot. And had I been in possession of BETTER tools I wouldn't have had to take a shot with such settings I WOULD'T have taken it! So I kind of won either way.

[rfortson]

In general, I agree with the theme of this thread. However, there is still a lot you can do with a P&S, and in good conditions they will pretty much match a dSLR for usable image quality (you can tell the difference when you pixel peep, though).

Just for fun, see if you can tell which was taken with my new Canon G9 and which was taken with my new Pentax *ist DL.

[pingflood]

I don't think anybody would say that a decent P&S can't put out respectable results (especially when you're looking at web size shots!).

[KungPOW]

In general, I agree with the theme of this thread. However, there is still a lot you can do with a P&S, and in good conditions they will pretty much match a dSLR for usable image quality (you can tell the difference when you pixel peep, though).

Just for fun, see if you can tell which was taken with my new Canon G9 and which was taken with my new Pentax *ist DL.

...snip

Now try it at ISO 1600.

[shuttervox]

Now, if I had a pro camera with usable ISO25600 and a 70-200 f2.8 lens (and/or a closer vantage point) I would have...

...taken the same picture that every other pro red carpet photographer was also
taking, probably.

This is a great example of what I mean. I really like that shot, for the very reason
that it IS such on odd perspective on the whole red carpet thing. Rather than just
being another invasive close up of a famous person, (because we really need to see
more of those...) to me this picture actually says something. I think it says something
about our relationship to celebrity, the tension between wanting to be a part of their
lives and the distance that is forced on our "relationship" with them by the very fact
that they ARE famous, and the weird phenomenon of "tracking" these people with
our feet, our wallets, or in this case, our lenses.

I also like that it's not obvious WHO the person is. Because in the end, does it really
matter? How is one red carpet frenzy over a starlet really that different than the
LAST one, and the next one set to replace her? Same scene, different blonde filling
the role.


Anyway, back to the point... My assertion that sometimes it IS the camera also
applies to the fact the many great photos would not have been taken if not for the
happenstance of interesting situation + skilled photographer + a "lesser" camera.

In general, I agree with the theme of this thread. However, there is still a lot you
can do with a P&S

The vast majority of my recent photos, including many of my personal favorites,
have been taken on my Panasonic LX1. When used within its limits, the images
are very satisfying, and the forced constraints have made be a better photographer.

Just for fun, see if you can tell which was taken with my new Canon G9 and which was taken with my new Pentax *ist DL.

For whatever it is worth, my favorite is No. 2
The Bokah on #1 is interesting, but a bit jarring to my eye...



[kurt]

[rfortson]

Now try it at ISO 1600.

No way. Notice I said in optimum conditions. Even on this G9, anything over ISO200 is really pushing it. ISO 80 is about the only setting where you won't see noise right off the bat.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that you can still get many of the same results from a good P&S, as long as you're in good conditions.

[rfortson]

I don't think anybody would say that a decent P&S can't put out respectable results (especially when you're looking at web size shots!).

No, but some of the things that P&S's are accused of aren't always true. For example, you can get a shallow(er) depth of field with a P&S if you know how to use the various settings. You'll never get the razor thin DOF that a dSLR will, of course.

[dantekgeek]

This has always been an interesting point of contention for me. On one hand, the photographer absolutely has to have the skill. On the other, there are definitely situations where the gear makes a huge difference. Unfortunately, those situations (extreme low light, fast action) are the ones I shoot in most, which means that my camera really does hold me back. I love my K100D, and I do good work with it, but I have no doubt I could get better shots with a K20 or (*drool*) D3.

[pw-pix]

This level of pleasing OOF background can only be achieved with the the narrow DOF caused by high f numbers not found on (any?) P&S cameras.

Surely you mean low F numbers, as in F2, F2.8

[CalendarGuy]

I always try to keep a small point and shoot in my pocket at work. This day I had a Nikon L6 (ya I said it, NIKON ). It's about the size of a pack of cigarettes. Below are four of about 30 pictures from that incident.

I wish I had my Pentax gear with me, but that's just not practical in my line of work. So, I took advantage of what I had available to me at the time:

[RioRico]

I dearly love my K20D and the imperfect lot of lenses I mount on it. But whether or not it's hanging around my neck, in my pockets are a couple of 5mp P&S cams. One is a Minolta F300-IR (the hot filter has been replaced with a 720nm IR-pass filter). The other is my dearly beloved Sony DSC-V1 (I'm on my third of these, having used up the first two). Both can take pix I'd be hard-pressed to replicate with the K20D.

The Sony V1, with crystal-clear 4X Zeiss optics (7-28mm, equiv. to 34-136mm), offers full manual control from 1/1000-30 secs, f/2.8-8, -+2ev, ISO 100-800 (to 2500 in Nightshot IR mode), has a hotshoe and a wired remote port, etc. It *would* be nice to find a higher-res replacement with the same features and form factor. But pixel count ain't everything, eh? Some of my most dramatic shots are grainy Nightshot images, the spyscope green filtered out and the original colors softly brought out with a little manipulation in PaintShopPro9. Or at ISO 100, f/2.8, focus fixed at .5 or .8 or 1.0 or 1.5 meters, the subject is sharp, the DOF is thin, the bokeh is nice, the grain is minimal.

Ah, but those 5mp pix don't blow up very well, right? Wrong. I'm currently re-reading David Linton's PHOTOGRAPHING NATURE (1964). Let me quote from pages 22-24:

"Quality" is something produced by the person who does the work, not by the equipment with which he does it... Detail, as shown in a picture, is dependent on many factors, of which film size is one of the least important... Motion pictures are made with negatives only half the size of a 35-mm. still negative... and yet no one asks whether they can be enlarged to fill a screen forty feet wide. It is done every night.

Actually, the size of an enlargement is quite meaningless because we automatically hold a small print closer and a large one farther away. A mural-sized print viewed from across the room shows exactly the same definition as a postcard-sized print of the same picture held in the hand. It is only when a small portion of the negative is enlarged that the degree of enlargement becomes important. Otherwise, the care used in exposure and development is much more significant.

I prize my K20D because of the control it offers, the vast assortment of available lenses of various characters, etc. Having 14.6mp images just means I can crop further, not that the images are necessarily any sharper or 'better' than those I can produce with the Sony V1. And with a Raynox macro lens clipped onto the V1, I can just about see my reflection on an ant's ass.

[Timd]

A couple of years ago we went with 2 other families on a camping tour of Namibia. In our party of 14 we had about 5 cameras. It struck me when having an evening looking at all the best photos, that some of the best (most pleasing) photos were taken with the cheapest camera. While these shots did not have fantastic IQ, they captured the moment better than the higher IQ ones taken by the other photographers.

I realised then that my daughter had a natural ability to capture photos and her equipment was limiting her. (Her K200D arives on friday..)

My observation: a bad photographer can take a bad photo with any equipment. A good photographer can take a good photo with any equipment, although he can take a better photo with better equipment. A good photographer is not immune to taking bad shots, either!

It is similar to music: It does not matter how good the instrument is, I will not produce good music from it. However, a top class musician will sound better with a top quality instrument than a cheap instrument and the quality of the instrument must match the musician's ability to play music.

Tim

[Class A]

IDavid Linton's PHOTOGRAPHING NATURE (1964). ...

"Quality" is something produced by the person who does the work, not by the equipment with which he does it...

Excuse me, but ... yawn.

I want to see David Linton do a quality repair of a swiss watch with a hammer.

Motion pictures are made with negatives only half the size of a 35-mm. still negative... and yet no one asks whether they can be enlarged to fill a screen forty feet wide. It is done every night.

And every night the result is the same blurry image. A standard projection from a 3rd generation copy of a small format like that just doesn't look good. Anyone believing this, hasn't seen a nice intermediate copy of a 70mm original. The difference in quality is staggering.

However, a top class musician will sound better with a top quality instrument than a cheap instrument and the quality of the instrument must match the musician's ability to play music.

Bah. Nonsense. Everyone knows that Yehudi Menuhin could have put his bow on a guitar instead of a Stradivari and it would just have sounded great because it is about the person using the equipment, not the equipment.