Slashdot Mirror
The Difference Between Film and Digital Photography (Video)
Sally Wiener Grotta and her husband Daniel wrote some of the first books and articles about digital photography. Sally was an award-winning photographer in film days, and has maintained her reputation in the digital imaging age. In this interview, she talks about how to buy a digital camera -- including the radical idea that most people really don't need to spend more than $200 to take quality photos. (We had some bandwidth problems while doing this remote interview, but the sound is clear so we decided to run it "as is" rather than try to remake the video and lose the original's spontaneity.)
I read that as "The Difference Between Film and Digital Pornography (Video)"
Please slashdot, direct me to the 200$ camera that makes good shots, and video (this is 2013, cameras should do video without too much moire or sensor overheat) of low light theater settings.
I was thinking a nikon 5200 with some hdmi recording to compensate for the 29 mins recording artificial limit. Or a non eu market panasonic gx7 which looks cooler. All of the above means shelling out some $$$.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Hey, it's clickable! I learn a bit about slashdot everyday!
At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,
Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products. I guess your opinion is also that only those who drive for a professional living should be allowed to buy a Porsche or those who make their living from cooking should be allowed to buy $300 knives.
Apparently it's your belief people shouldn't be allowed to buy what they want with their own money just because they enjoy a product.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
A sixty-second commerical? Nope.
We're nerds. Not blind consumer-sheep. We want to know what she thinks, how the sensors work, what makes the cameras good. We don't want to know that the interviewer has a smartphone with an integrated camera, and that he's about to buy his new camera as a phone from BestBuy because he dropped his old camera.
This is a professional here, stop thinking you know *anything* about the intricacies of her job and show some respect. Imagine interviewing Linus or Wozniak and telling them that you're going to buy a new keyboard because you spilled coffee on the old one. Then asking them for recommendations on what brand of bluetooth keyboard you should get to go with your $120 tablet. I'm surprised she didn't hang up out of sheer frustration.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
I don't seem to have a problem sharing photos from my CSC; a friend of mine only has an Internet connection through his smartphone and he seems to be able to share photos from his DSLR just fine.
What are we doing wrong?
dSLR's "should" be used by whoever the hell wants to use them. That's as absurd as saying that pianos should only be used by professional pianists because anyone else can get a harmonica. Who says?
I've got iPhone 4, Nokia 920, Nikon LS120, and Canon Rebel T3. For taking product photos (and I am not a professional), the T3 blows all others out of the water. The LS120 is somewhat disappointing given the specs, and the 920 easily takes better photos than the iPhone 4.
Surprisingly, the Nokia 920 takes the best video of the bunch, at least when it comes to my son's hockey games. I haven't taken any video with the T3, so I guess my statement is somewhat stupid.
Never been a problem for me either. Pop SD card into computer, grab pictures, pull out ones that don't suck, upload to Facebook.
Taking advantage of the conversation audio was probably much better than trying to reshoot it while reading off a transcript. Good call there. That said, cutting from video of a person to a similarly framed still of a person is not a big improvement from a cinematic perspective. If you want to do more of these, and you want something to show when the video goes wonkey, you should get some other cutaway material. A great example in this case would have been some stills from her portfolio, Ken Burns style, with some simple annotations of what we are seeing. Another easy option would be occasional reaction shots of the interviewer. Obviously, you have4 complete control over that half of the connection so you can always capture decent quality video on your side. (It's a good excuse to clean up your bedroom, if nothing else.) You could also have images of the things that are being talked about. Pictures of cameras, screenshots of software, etc. At around 10:30, you say "I will have this cheapie as a spare" as you cut away from the video. Would have been perfect to cut away to a shot of the cheapie tos how what was being talked about. Or a shot from the cheapie. Etc.
And of course if you have more technical interviewees, you can ask them to record video of themselves on the call and send it to you after, while you have an audio Skype call for the interview. You can spend as long as you need downloading the already recorded video after the fact.
That said, good job providing the transcript below the video. Excellent model to follow.
i see a lot of parents with DSLR's on the playground. lugging around the camera in a pouch and the accessories to take a few photos of their kids. sometimes they scream at their kids so they can get that nice shot
me, i have my iphone. i'll take 10 or 20 photos in a few seconds of my kid in action and keep the best one. its also small enough for me to go into knee deep water and get some awesome action shots of my kid playing in ocean waves as they splash around him
as image quality is far less important than image usability via social media sharing.
Uh, right.
You can keep your pathetic little phone camera or your overpriced point'n'shit. I'll stick to my T2i with an L-series 24-105mm.
Hope you enjoy grainy, blotchy, shitty pictures.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Come again? I shoot for my own pleasure. I really don't give a shit if a bunch of retards on Facebook see it or not.
At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,
Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products.
I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.
Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Shooting video of your son's hockey games with the Canon SLR will be a disaster unless you are prepared to manually focus all the time; the autofocus systems in SLR's don't work in movie mode. (Some of them don't work at all, and some of them just suck; I don't know which the T3 is.) The one exception is the Canon 70D, which has a fancy split-pixel sensor that lets it AF during movie shooting.
The exceptions are the Sony SLT cameras, which send 2/3 of the light to the sensor and 1/3 to a dedicated AF sensor, and the Olympus and Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras, which can use the readout from the main sensor to autofocus. (This is the same thing that the SLR's try to do when autofocusing in movie mode; the Micro 4/3 cameras just manage to not suck at it so badly.)
You just used one of the oldest misdirections in the book - pivoting from "what people should do" to "what people should be allowed to do." Start watching for this and you see it all the time.
We're nerds. Not blind consumer-sheep.
What?!?
I've lost feeling in my toes...
I can't typea
Ahhhhh DUUUH
F/oss, Linux, Apple, Buffalo,
Really,
Guys.
F/OSS!!!!
Not consumer sheep?!
RMS dictating what you should do?!
Not sheep?!
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
Unfortunately, the cheapest item in any category is often that cheap because it simply is crap. I used to do this for power tools for example, just occasional little diy projects around the house - so I figured cheapest is good enough. When I finally tried a decent drill and impact driver, I just could not believe the difference. Where the problem starts is that an _expensive_ item in the same category doesn't automatically mean it is not _also_ crap...
For 95% of what people take pictures of in the real world, yeah, a camera built into a smart phone is probably good enough. However, if you're shooting:
Then you need something like a DSLR with a real shutter & aperture and honkin' big sensor, and hopefully expensive lenses that can take advantage of all of the above. Spending $200 on a hands-on photography class will have much more impact for most people than spending the money on an expensive camera, and then hoping you getting better results when you push the button (which ain't happening).
True, but the tone of the comment, when looked at in its entirety, was one of, "Only professionals should be using this stuff," meaning the OP doesn't believe non-professionals should be allowed to use the equipment.
I try not to do what you said but I do make exceptions. Such as this one.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'm not a professional photographer, but I do not like point-and-shoot cameras, shutter lag, limit of lens choices (actually no choice just the one), terrible f-stop range, terrible noise on sensors, tiny sensors, and they are way too light to be able to make steady shots, and not seeing through the lens at what you're shooting is totally weird with the electronic lag of CCD to LCD display.
With a DSLR I can shoot with very high shutter speeds, having the ability to change lenses allows me to get either macro close or very far objects closer up. You can also clip on filters to change the image, like polarisers.
Most people will not need a DSLR, but to claim that those cameras are only for professionals is rubbish. Even a cheap DSLR will out do a point-and-shoot. And let's not even get into thiny pinhead size sensors in mobile phones and claim that it's genuinely 8MP+.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
How is it that all of this technology - image stabilization, megapixels, digital zoom... How is it with all that, so many of those digital photos are blurry garbage?
And yet our photo albums and history are filled with incredibly sharp photos that were shot on film. All without image stabilization technology. All without instant feedback on quality, or taking the same photo a dozen times.
Digital photography: never in history have so many people been able to take so many lousy photos, and share them.
What you describe has nothing to do with the equipment but entirely to do with who is using it. Said parents could be just as obtuse with an iPhone, and you could shoot 20 photos in burst mode and wade out knee deep with a DSLR as well.
I use both. For the casual aw-isn't-my-kid-cute stuff the phone camera is fine. But for wide-angle, low-light, no-flash indoor photography it just has to be a DSLR because camera phones don't do that.
Maybe in your universe. In my universe, camera phones are still relatively poor even when compared with even my original Canon 300D DSLR from a decade ago. Compared with my current 6D, the difference is night and day. Literally. The amount of light is proportional to the square of the lens diameter, which effectively means that I can take high-ISO handheld photos with my 6D in an only partially lit parking lot at night that are similar in quality with pictures shot using my year-old cell phone during the day.
This is not to say that camera phones aren't good. They're great within very well-defined limits. On various photography boards, they have a saying that the best camera is the camera you have with you. If I don't plan to take photos, I always have my phone with me, which lets me shoot acceptable photos so long as the lighting is at least moderately decent, and so long as I can get close enough to not need to use the zoom. However, when I'm traveling or doing anything where I think I might want good pictures, I always drag my DSLR along, because A. there's never enough time to foot-zoom a quarter of a mile, and B. I appreciate shallow depth of field.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,
Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products. I guess your opinion is also that only those who drive for a professional living should be allowed to buy a Porsche or those who make their living from cooking should be allowed to buy $300 knives.
Apparently it's your belief people shouldn't be allowed to buy what they want with their own money just because they enjoy a product.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
Did she really say those things? (The video won't play for me.)
So, really, all those prosumer and entry level DSLRs are only to be used by people who get paid to take photos? I think that would be news to... almost everyone, I'd guess.
I'm a professional photographer. (In that, I make part of my living from photography.) I got into the profession by buying a digital SLR and learning how to use it, in particular how it is different from the film cameras I had previously owned. I learned about post processing and presentation and how to sell photos off a website. I have my photos on display on three art-related websites and have my own website from which I sell photos. During this process, I purchased two professional digital SLR bodies for specific purposes -- one for sports photography (high FPS, good in low light) and one for portrait photography (slower FPS, higher resolution). My first body went to my daughter, who has her own website for displaying her artistic photos (but hasn't gotten paid for it, yet) and she recently upgraded to a prosumer body.
So.... how does one get started on a track that eventually leads one to professional photography, without a DSLR? The ability to change lenses is pretty important.
If she's saying that the proles should be using pocket cameras, I would say it depends on what they use them for. Daughter now owns two DSLRs but also has a waterproof pocket digital camera and a gopro. The waterproof camera goes with her everywhere, because the best camera is the one you have on you. It's pretty good about deciding focus and exposure and will do things like macro and panoramic and HDR in software. But there's very little control of the photographic process. It's very good at taking average photos. She's managed to do interesting things with it, (through unusual composition or picking the "wrong" preset, tricking the camera into doing what she wants) but for certain kinds of photos there's no substitute for complete control over the process -- exposure, depth of field, white balance, and type of lens -- macro, extreme fisheye, (6mm) long telephoto (500mm) and very fast (f1.2). Not to mention quality of the glass. These are the places where pocket cameras fall short.
Point is, she doesn't get paid to do this, (although she may someday) she's working out her artistic flair.
When people ask me what kind of equipment to buy, my first question is "what kind of photos do you want to take?" It's a vital question. If they want snapshots, I recommend one of the rugged and/or waterproof pocket cameras. If they want any kind of creative control, the question gets a lot more complex.
"Only used by professionals"? Really?
"if no one sees your photos"... true, but... instagram, deviant art, flickr, hell even Facebook. Lots of opportunities to display your work. I guess I don't get it. (I really wish the video would work so I could see the comments in context.)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I liked what she had to say, especially: "The camera doesn't take the picture, the human does." -- that's very important. It's always been possible to take *great* photos with very inexpensive gear, if the composition, subject and lighting are all great.
Most people don't need anything more than a decent $200 or even $100 camera. The trouble is that if you want to go to the "next level" -- you need to spend two or three times that (or lots more), and you can then get into low-light territory, which (IMO) is where all the excitement is. A truly *usable* 6400 or 12800 ISO is unbelievably liberating, and that's now here for well-under $1000.
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
This strategy works sometimes, but you often won't know what you're missing. I prefer the strategy of getting the top of the line of a broadly produced product - typically less expensive than the custom or specialized products, but you get value from the economy of scale, along with the features they cripple in the lower models hoping to up-sell.
I see now that the comments were from another commenter, not TFA. I think (some of) my comments still stand, though.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Well, there's a lot of different mindsets on things.
Me? I've always been one of those that when I set my mind to something or wanting something, a nice camera for instance...I'd research the hell out of it, drive everyone around me mad incessantly talking about it, and then saving and buying the absolute best of xyz I could afford. I never liked much the idea of compromising and buying something 'small' or cheap, learning to use it, then buying slightly better...then upgrading that...etc.
That may work in some cases, but I just never wanted to go that route....I'd much rather put off immediate gratification, and save and buy NICE and QUALITY the first time around, as best I could.
I've been that way on lots of things. My cookware, is mostly All Clad SS. My knives are Wusthof Trident. Yes, each piece can be pretty $$. I didn't buy the whole set at once....but piece by piece as I could afford it. And along with some choice cast iron stuff, I will have cookware that will last my lifetime and is quite good as a kitchen tool.
I've done the same with my camera. I got the bug about a year and a half ago. I ended up on a video shoot I saw them filming with a Canon 5D2...I'd never seen a DSLR used for video and was curious.
I researched and was getting close to pulling the trigger on one, and found the new 5D Mark III was coming out...so, I waited about 6 more mos...saved and bought one in June after their release.
I have been THRILLED with my choice. A whole new world has opened up to me. I'd never had a real digital camera before, aside from phone and one old point and shoot someone gave me a decade ago. But this new 5D3 is amazing. It can shoot in extremely low light conditions.
I've since then, been learning lighting (both video and stills), I've been learning the post processing tools now...I work with Davinci Resolve for color grading. I got the Adobe Production Premium CS6 suite of tools to learn PS, Premier, AE, etc....
So, I think the thing is...if you're really interested in something...research it, find what you really want....save and buy the best you can. Good tools will last you longer, and in some few cases, can save you money in the long run if it is something you will stick with.
I don't generally fritter my money away on crap. I save and when I have enough for something I want, I pull the trigger and buy something VERY nice, once or twice a year usually. I never have buyers remorse either.
At this point, I'm spending even more money (photography *is* an expensive hobby if done right) on lighting equipment for video, flashes and soon strobes for stills. And glass...that is where you DSLR money is best spent. I just rented the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens, for a video shoot I did recently for charity. I hate sending that lens back, but I know now...next thing I'm saving for, is a copy of that lens for myself.
If you're not into photography, don't bother buying something nice....but for any hobby or any thing you like doing and appreciate quality and being able to do things....save and buy the best.
Ever since I was a young kid, I worked and saved...and have always had nice stereos (still important to me), nice cars, etc...and now cameras.
In many cases, you get what you pay for.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your profanity and stunning insights such as "Uh, right" have won me over. I realize now that I am truly less of a man than you because I do not use the same camera as you do. Can you please share with me the secrets of your success - the car you drive and the breakfast cereal that you eat? Also, I need to know what brand of cellphone and garbage bags you use because these things are the true measure of a man.
http://xkcd.com/1014/
> Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.
Ignorant nonsense.
A better device allows for taking photos under conditions that a lesser device is simply incapable of managing. As a camera, a phone is actually a step backwards from film cameras in terms of features and ease of use.
While it's true that more expensive "pro" cameras are a matter of greatly diminishing returns, they too have their uses and situations for which they product useful output rather than a pointless blur.
It doesn't take a lot of skill to benefit from better gear. That's one of the great things about modern technology.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Is this the slowest of slow news days?
love is just extroverted narcissism
"People who don't make their living from pictures but insist on using equipment this expensive have more money than sense"
A lot of fancy cameras could be considered jewellery given how many are owned but never used to their potential. Lots of camera enthusiasts think of Leicas as jewellery no matter who is using them (thanks to their hilariously high prices)
I now know not to take classes from her, she clearly knows very little about digital photography. She may be a great photographer, but her technical understanding is very very weak.
What's obscene here is the idea that you have to buy a device with Facebook built into it in order to publish things via Facebook. One should be able to easily combine devices that conform to open standards to achieve things with technology the engineers never thought of.
Profanity is not an inappropriate response to proprietary walled garden nonsense.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Me? I've always been one of those that when I set my mind to something or wanting something, a nice camera for instance...I'd research the hell out of it, drive everyone around me mad incessantly talking about it, and then saving and buying the absolute best of xyz I could afford.
I respect that approach, and it probably works for you. For me... I learn best by doing, and until I've used something a bit I don't really get a solid feel for what I want. Once I've played around with something and find myself saying stuff like "I wish it could do XYZ", then it's time to do some research and pony up for a legit item.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
The point in having dSLR is everybody seeing your dSLR.
Well, if you have a nice DSLR, you're also likely using some nice tools, like Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture to post process or "develop" your images...and you can easily post to social media (if you're into that type thing) directly from there.
You don't have to send everything you shoot immediately from then and there. Frankly, most images people send out immediately aren't worth looking at...
Personally, I like to shoot pics....and with good ones, I've actually had made into wall sized prints, even cropped in, my 5D3 has good enough resolution to make them look nice on the wall.
Also, what about photo books? Things like that are really nice to give as gifts. They will hang around and be appreciate much longer than a small, crappy, out of focus blurry pic on a Facebook wall.
Depends on the person and the quality they want out of things. To some people, low res mp3's on cheap earbuds are enough....I like good quality sound myself.
I listen to higher quality res mp3's on high end earbuds while at the gym, but for home listening, I play either from CD or flac lossless ripped files, on Klipschorn speakers off a couple of nice tube amps. It depends on if you like quality and thing it is worth the time, price and effort.
If it isn't...go with the cheap crap....
People use to carry much more bulky gear just a few short years ago before digital cameras, and didn't really have much a problem with it...they took billions of pictures before there was social media, and those family albums are still valuable today to those families.
Not everything is only valuable for 20 minutes you know.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I see people who go out and buy 800$ DSLR cameras, have no idea how to use any of the functions, just keep it in auto, making their pics no better than a cheap point and shoot. They don't know what shutter speed, iso, white balance is or what the difference between a 55-80mm lens and a 75-300mm.
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
While this works for a great deal of things, there are some that this shouldn't apply to. Such as cars, parachutes, chainsaws, fire extinguishers....
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
It's really quite stupid to state that photos not on a social network are useless:
You might want pictures to put on your own wall?
Portraits of your own family?
Perhaps social networks mean that people are more inclined to view hundreds of slightly interesting pictures instead of a a few nicer ones (since the cost of a photo is now approximately zero), but not everyone shares that opinion. (This is not to state that "good" photos can only be taken on expensive equipment.)
And well....some people have a lot more disposable income than others.
To them, $3K is not a lot of money, more like $300.
People seem to forget that a lot of people make a decent amount of money...so, much of it depends on what you have coming in...and what is important to you. Maybe owning a house having 3 kids is what you want. Others may want a smaller house, or just rent...no kids and have more disposable income to buy toys with. Nothing wrong with either one, but doesn't show a lack of "sense".
My first DSLR was a Canon 5D3. it isn't top of the line, but it was a bit pricey, and I've had a blast with it. I've been learning so much on how photography works and what can be done with it (and videography too). I put it on manual about and 2nd day I had it and have been learning since then how to shoot and get the effects "I" want.
Some people like and value nice things. I've never bought anything really that I can think of...as "jewelry" that others can see, with the exception of a couple of actual pieces of jewelry, and even those, like my cars and other toys...have been bought for ME, and no one else.
Nothing wrong with liking nice things...I doubt in most cases it is bought just to show off to others.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not only that, but the thesis that one can take "good" photos varies hugely with the definition of what a "good photo" is. It's one thing for social media; perhaps another for family; another for marketing; another for deep space; another for stacked macros and stacked low light; another for historical archives; another for forensic analysis; another for HDR; another for sports and other rapid-motion incorporating shots; another for time lapse; another for journalism... you get the idea.
DSLRs are to point and shoots what high end sports cars are to volkswagons. They have a great deal more potential, said potential rather easily tapped by one with expertise in hand, but getting that potential out of them requires more than picking them up and pushing a button without some supporting knowledge.
The biggest upside, at least in my opinion, is that if you decide to go for a DSLR, all that's between you and expertise is your learning capacity and available time. Truly invest the one in the other and you'll never, ever consider going back to a point and shoot.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Says the person that sounds like they don't make enough money to buy nice things they want...?
I'd say frankly, that in this day in age, most high end DSLR owners don't want to promote the fact they have a $$ piece of equipment around their necks...due to some asshole wanting to rob and steal it from them.
I just don't get the point of so many people these days, spouting off that "They only buy xyz for other people to look at it".
Ok, I'm sure some do, but I don't believe the majority do. I'm of the thought that most of the people bitching about what others buy and why, have serious self image problems themselves because they can't work for and make enough money to buy nice things, and are jealous.
Maybe you should spend less time worry what others buy and own....and spend more time educating yourself and trying to get a better paying job for yourself?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Between film and digital photography? I heard no such discussion. Slashdot, please take your editors out behind the barn and shoot them.
On another note: Right at the end of the video, we all heard someone's camera ring with an incoming call. This is a problem I've never encountered with my SL66.
Have gnu, will travel.
No. No, it did not have that tone at all. Your reading is an enormous stretch, and does not mean that at all, and unbiased native speakers of English will not interpret it the way you have. I don't know if English is a second language for you or if you same some bias here, but your reading is not accurate.
The comment was no different than telling someone about to spend $5,000 on a PC that only hardcore gamers or media composers should spend that sort of money, that if you're just web surfing and writing an occasional paper something much less expensive will suit your needs. Absolutely no intent to institute some legal restriction can be inferred from such advice.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Funny....that manual pulling of focus hasn't seemed to hurt the movie industry for oh say......forever?
If you have a DSLR and are wanting to shoot video, you know what is required of you. If you want auto focus, then don't use it...but you CAN get extremely high quality video from a DSLR. It is a different shooting style. But it isn't a problem.
I recently shot a video of a party doing some bar hopping...I used my 5D3, and with its extreme lowlight capabilities (along with some VERY fast glass that you'd not gonna get one a consumer video camera), I was able to get some very nice footage. I had my RODE video mic parked on the hotshoe and get some good audio I can use too.
A little more effort, sure....but, after a little magic in post...I should be putting out a very nice final product everyone will enjoy. It will be a cinematic look...with good cuts, background music..etc.
Heck..if you do want something more dedicated...maybe look at the Blackmagic pocket camera that is now starting to come out....VERY nice images from that.
But really...manual focusing isn't THAT hard...and the tv and movie industry have been doing manual focus for generations now.
Besides...how are you going to play with depth of field creatively...if you're depending on the camera computer to figure out what YOU want....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No, no. This is being cute.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
I did the opposite and started out by buying one of the more expensive consumer-level dSLRs (a Nikon D7000) without having a clue about photography. The idea was this:
a) A camera like that will not be the limiting factor - my own skills will be
b) It's expandable by a myriad of objectives and accessories if I want to get more advanced
c) If it turns out this photography thing wasn't really for me, I'll still get great vacation pictures with the auto mode!
I think some hobbies are just like that - you can't have gear with too poor quality or it will affect your experience so badly you'll lose interest. Learning to play the guitar on a cheap guitar that can't keep the tuning sucks. Learning astronomy on a cheap toy-level telescope is just as bad. Photography might be a different beast, but to me it seems you can't go wrong by buying quality gear from the outset.
For instance, I did not know that "P" was the professional setting on my camera..?!?!.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why would you be surprised that someone buying an entry level ($800, your number) DSLR would be a beginner?
When they spend $3000 or $5000 or more on the camera -- plus perhaps as much on lenses -- and they don't know how to use any of it, now we're talking smile-into-your-napkin time. Even so, there's nothing saying they won't learn how to use it eventually.
After all, it's a lot more fun learning to play guitar on a Martin dreadnaught than it is on some cheap box from the low price specials category of Musician's Friend. You dig?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm not at all demeaning SLR's for video -- they do it very, very well, as you say. (Hence my first sentence: if you are prepared to manually focus, it will work, otherwise not.)
The issue is that the people who do manual focus pulling are very very good at what they do. Most DSLR owners, even ones who are excellent stills photographers, are not experienced with video manual focus. It seems that you are; good for you. Lots of folks aren't, and I know of quite a few people who have gotten rude surprises when they find that the video on their new SLR disables autofocus. A hockey game isn't exactly the easiest of targets, if you're new at that sort of thing -- especially if you're using nice fast glass.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
Agreed.
But on the other hand, since nobody has seen Mozumder's photos, any camera he posses is useless as well, according to his rules.
Only an idiot would assume a camera phone is the way to go for anything but the most trivial subset of general purpose photography.
and 99.9% of camera phone shots are never viewed, by anyone but the phone owner, and at least 40% of them aren't even viewed by the owner except to delete them.
Maybe most people don't need a dSLR with the quality of some of the Mirrorless cameras on the market today. There is very little real need for reflex cameras at all, since all they do in introduce another source of vibration.
But to assume that they are useless and no one should have one is just silly.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Something I've realized in my career as a photographer is that newer isn't always better. I started off doing it as a hobby with a Canon point-and-shoot with CHDK firmware, and eventually I bought an entry-level Canon DSLR when I decided I wanted to focus on photography.
My photos taken during the period when I was using the DSLR were generally crappy. I experimented some, learned about aperture and shutter speed, but mostly kept it on program mode. I had a few good photos, and thousands of bad ones.
In late 2010, I decided to take a black and white photography class at college. It required a film camera, and we would learn to develop our own film and print photos with enlargers. My friend happened to have a camera he wasn't using, which he very graciously gave to me: a Mamiya 645 medium format SLR.
Being limited to 15 shots a roll helped my skills immensely. I started carefully considering each photo I took, since I could only take a few at a time, and each one cost me money (in film and chemicals). My compositional skills went from "occasionally lucky" to "I can look at and evaluate my own photos and use elements I like later on". I learned how to expose correctly (the camera is manual with a built-in light meter), how to take great landscape photos lit only by the full moon, and (later) how to scan and process my film photos on the computer, so I could put my Photoshop skills to use and show my photos to people.
One of the most helpful parts of switching to film, though, was the quality. The 645 format (each photo is 6 cm by 4.5 cm on the negative) inherently gave me better resolution than my DSLR. Photos that would have turned out disappointing on the DSLR turned out great with the Mamiya, because film has so much more dynamic range than digital (no matter how hard digital tries with new sensors and HDR gimmicks). I learned to use the grain structure of each kind of film to my benefit, and to create specific effects.
I now use a Pentax 67 camera for a great deal of my work; an Olympus OM-4Ti and various film point-and-shoot cameras fill in when I don't want to carry around an enormous chunk of steel and glass. Not only are the 35mm film cameras smaller than their digital equivalents, but they cost less (for the cameras and lenses both), and especially with the point-and-shoots, take better photos than equivalent digital cameras.
I have abandoned digital photography entirely. I have spent, in total, less on my entire ensemble of cameras, lenses, film, chemicals, and equipment than I would have spent to buy a prosumer DSLR and one or two lenses of lesser quality than the ones I own now. I have to spend 45 minutes to an hour to scan each roll of film, much less process each photo, I had to upgrade my computer to hold twelve gigabytes of memory to process the biggest photos comfortably, and 190-megapixel photos occupy most of my hard drive space; my best camera is hard to transport easily without a suspension backpack, and I love it. With Kodak Alaris continuing Kodak's film lines, and with Fujifilm and Ilford still devoted to upholding film photography, I do not think me switching back to digital is in the cards in the foreseeable future.
http://pinopsida.com
No where did he suggest that the purchase of DSLRs should be legally restricted to professional photographers. My thing is bikes, I have quite an expensive bike, and I am fully aware of what a waste it is. Whenever people ask me about bikes, I tell them not to buy an expensive one. I do not think that they should be prevented from buying an expensive bike if they want one, just that it would be a waste for them. Similarly it would be a waste for you to buy a DSLR.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.
Except even the simplest thing, like taking a shot of a friend and having the depth of field short enough that the background is out of focus, is beyond the point-and-shoot. Sure, not everybody needs the top camera, but the benefits of the physics of SLRs is still massive.
What you saw is an improvement from the last video I watched on Slashdot. The guy got up and left the room and no one edited this out the video. So there was just minutes of his empty chair and dead air. As I sometimes tell posters, you're creating something to be viewed by hundreds of people. Show them some respect and spend a few minutes saving each of them a few minutes hundreds of times over. I'm glad they have transcripts, because I can read them far faster than watching any video.
At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals...
Thousands of Canon DSLR-wielding astrophotographers are laughing at you right now.
If "quality" means "good enough for facebook" or "your mom will love it" then yeah, $200 is a fair number.
I, like many I'm sure, have taken a few amazing photos with crap gear (like a plastic 35mm thrift store find). I've also had my share of lousy photos with expensive gear (like a month's salary DSLR). But I've never had a better-than-mediocre photo come out of mediocre gear.
Maybe one should, but as of today it is much easier to share from a phone that has it built in than going through software for the DSLRs. It is *possible* to share otherwise, but it's not as easy, at least not with the software I know about.
When I see a title like "The Difference Between Film and Digital Photography", I expect to see exactly that in the article (or in this case, video). Apparently, that was not really discussed. Yeah, one is film and it is cumbersome, while the other being digital, is much easier to share with others. However, what I was really expecting, is how it affects the images that are captured. What is the difference at the grassroot level between the two? When I'm taking pictures, I want to know what the advantages and disadvantages are, or something on those lines. I did not get what I was expecting. It would have been a safer option to just call it "A conversation about digital photography with Sally Wiener Grotta". Yes, I'd still have watched it, but I would'nt have been so disappointed. :(
Geekism is your _only_ God!
Low light means you want the largest sensor well size you can (ie biggest individual-sized pixel), and a wide aperture lens. A few P&S cameras have both, but you're better off with an actual DSLR.
In terms of a body: the Panasonic GH2 is pretty popular among videographers for quality and controls; there are a bunch of firmware hacks out for it. If you don't mind not having video, you can pick up a used Canon 40D for peanuts, and it's a fantastic camera, and close to your price range.
In terms of lenses, you'll want the widest aperture lens you can afford. The simple/cheap way to do this is a fixed (prime) lens; figure out what focal length you need (for non-photographers, the "mm" in "100mm lens", aka "zoom factor".) Canon and Nikon both, for example, sell a 50mm f/1.8 lens that costs about $50-60. Even with the crop factor, might not be quite enough for your purposes, however.
Please help metamoderate.
Ken, is that you?
Dude, you can get arrested for doing things like that.
Seriously, though, DSLRs are amazing, so long as you actually learn to use them. I almost laugh out loud on a regular basis when on holiday every time I see someone with an entry-level DSLR in full auto mode with a kit lens, shooting some artefact or monument with the built in flash. Those sorts would do better with an all in one bridge camera and spend the difference in the hotel bar.
Good points all. Just a small addendum/correction: replace
"Ken Burns style"
With
"although not Ken Burns style, as that has been overused lately, and makes it harder to appreciate the image"
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
So much angst.
He's saying that a Stratovarius violin won't sound any better than a Yamaha violin in the hands of an ameteur.
Once you reach the limits of the Yamaha, then move on...
SLR cameras are bulky.
The golden rule of photography is "the best camera is the one you have with you."
Most people will end up leaving a dSLR at home because of the size/weight whereas they will almost always have thei cell phone on their person and can more easily justify stashing a small "point and shoot" camera in a pocket/purse. For this reason you should not buy a dSLR unless you actually need some of it's features.
gah, i am showing my age. i though most people take photos with their mobile phones, not cameras. only nature and sports photographers use expensive $5,000 DSLR cameras. just saying
Captain Semantics awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy..... [our hero flies off into the sunset]
What is a "photography expert" ? This is by far the most pointless and ridiculous story I've come access on slashdot in a long time. Ohh wow she has a medium format digital camera but until recently had no clue on how to use the camera on her phone... oh please !
Far from me to criticize anyones art, but I expected to be impressed at least with some of the images of her website. While many of the photos are nice they are far from what I would expect from someone that teaches a "Master photography" class.
I don't know of any phone, point-and-shoot, or DSLR that makes it hard to upload photos. Facebook's app is available to you free if you want to do it from your phone, and anyone can plug their camera into their computer, choose what they want to share, and click a couple times on a website. Who exactly is having a problem?
Or unless you WANT to own one.
This Idea that I have to justify a NEED might work in a top down command economy like North Korea, but even the former Soviet Union doesn't believe in that nonsense any more.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
"Going through software" is difficult? You mean that software that pops open when you plug in the device and displays thumbnails on your screen? That arcane, inscrutable software with the "share" button to upload to Facebook? What are you, a yak-herder?
The sad thing is that they're just a decent lens and one rotation of the dial away from good pictures (P instead of full auto so that the flash doesn't pop up). I'd estimate that 95% of my shots are done at full auto (including auto ISO) or, at most, full auto with the exposure dialed up or down, because it is fairly rare to have enough time to set up a shot in manual mode, and the best shots are the ones you didn't miss. It's that 5% where I'm shooting under challenging circumstances and take the time to do a full manual setup where the DSLR shines, of course.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The camera is easy. My $180 dSLR has a plenty good sensor for what you're doing, though you need a lens set up for your very rare, obscure challenge. Try an 80 mm f1.4 prime lens.
It's till stupid.
A Camera, especially a good camera, will last for years. It's a device one can grow into. Take some point and click and the one day decide to try and figure what to adjust to get a good picture of some with a sunlit window behind then. Then maybe reduce blurs.
In 5 years you can still have the camera, and it will still take great shots AND still be growing into it.
Now, something like Gold Clubs. Yes, it would be a waste to get custom clubs for a beginner. They don't have extra features, and have a limited life.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You're him! You're the guy with the L glass on the 5DmkIII that never leaves P mode!
Did you buy the lens before or after you bought your Canon T2i? It seems an odd choice from a crop sensor camera.
Aperture 3 will connect to both facebook and flickr. Develop the raw file. Upload. done.
The point of having a dSLR is being able to change your lens. With a largish sensor, you can also control the depth of field by adjusting the aperture. The viewfinder is also quite useful-- LCDs tend to wash out in bright sunlight, and of course, with a DLSR, you can stabilize the camera against your skull.
I liked her video on accessorizing your camera.
Tell that to my Nikon 1. These little mirrorless cameras are the unsung heroes these days. The convenience of a point and shoot with the speedy focus of a DSLR. They have manual settings to boot (albeit cumbersome in certain situations). Need a slightly different focal length, no problem they are interchangeable just like their bigger cousins and even can use the bigger SLR lenses with an adapter. Since it is mirrorless it has an ungodly frame rate. Its high ISO performance looks alot like film.
Don't get me wrong, it hasn't replaced my D300 for action photography or the D7000 for low light work. It did move the D70 to the closet probably never to return and will spend more time with me than the D40.
People shouldn't get all worked up over what she said about cell phone cameras and $200 cameras being good enough. What she was saying is that for the intended presentation (online @ 72dpi) almost anything will work. Go to print a 10X14 @ 300dpi with your phone, I dare you. That little sensor has real problems with noise so that even if you had the pixels to print that large, they would be very ugly pixels indeed.
I see, so it's like the way you save up your use of all caps words.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
The the person behind the camera sees his own potos. That counts above anything else, if you have any artistic fiber in you.
I've done chemical photography since 1979, and digital since 2000.
What I have found to be the major difference betwen Digital and film photography is the way it handles light. This is very quantifiable.
Film has a portion ot light effect that it responds to in a linear fashion, which is to say that the film reacts fairly linearly to the amount of light hitting it. At the bottom (dark) end of the response of th efilm, it flattens out, as well as at the top (light) end.
While this is awkward to write about, in graphical fashion, it makes good sense, and if you have a doubling of light and graph it, it makes the traditional "S" curve. At the bottom, there isn't as much difference between doubling the amount of light, and also at the top.
In practical terms, this means that there is less contrast in both the darkest areas of a photo, and also the lightest areas of the photo. In the middle, there is "normal" contrast range.
In digital, the S curve is greatly diminished, leading to more of a straight line from the lightest the camera will show, and the darkest.The contrast range is more constant
This is a big part of what people see when they can tell the difference. between the two forms of photography.
If you want to come pretty close to imitating film response, take the image into Photoshop, select "Curves" and imitate that S curve.
Now as for the other technical issues, Cell Phones have a really big limitation. They use tiny little sensors, which in order to have a normal photo, need lenses of extremely short focal length. This ends up making for pretty "lensy" photos, and even the zooms don't actually zoom, they enlarge an area. This means no lens effect other than the wide angle look.
As for the other parts, the artistic issue, good photos can be made with any camera. People have been using plastic DIana Cameras for years to make art. A good photographer can make great art. Unfortunately, not everone has the eye or figures out how to do it, and we can now make really bad photos pretty easily. But we can always learn.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well, of course not...everyone knows that "P" is for professional, so you set that one your camera to get professional results, eh?
[rolls eyes].
Actually, I experimeted the first 2x days with full auto, and then trying the shutter and apeture priority settings, and since then, I've pretty much had it set to full manual and learning how to work it that way.
It isn't that hard once you practice a little.
This weekend, I'm actually about to set the 5D3 for back button focus and see how that works for me.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
LOL, I know, right?
I think I've read that this indeed was a very well done spoof, and that either her or maybe her husband really is a true pro, and this was done to poke fun at the large numbers of folks, that get some sort of DSLR and hang their shingle out (usually just on FB), and are actually charging people for images.
A funny site for what is going on as pro photography can be seen here at You Are Not A Photographer.
Warning...some of these and the comments about them can and will make you spew your coffee on the computer monitor.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"Yesterday I bought a camera that's so advanced you don't even need it."
-Steven Wright
I have an M3 and a few Summicrons and I love using them. I save most of my earnings and buy what I want regardless of its price. I'm sorry that pisses you off. When the revolution comes you can have me sent to the guillotine and you can seize my stuff. That's what you people want, isn't it? Admit it. Your relationship with money is polluted. It has warped you.
and I agree with you.
I still have 2 canon 1D bodies with L lenses. I use them for work. But for fun, I use a T3i and a zoom lens because of portability. I wish I could get a pancake lens if I could. Most of my "fun" shots are still cityscapes or slow wildlife, so I can sacrifice autofocus speed and even low light. I try to channel my inner Cartier-Bresson and take whatever life will give me.
However, when I have my 1D, I'm all tense and ready to get that moment worth a thousand bucks. It's no fun, I shoot with both eyes open, and all that gear gets incredibly heavy after a while. I seriously don't see why photography would be "fun" with all that pro gear unless you get your jollies in showing off. It's not like driving a fancy pickup truck on the highway to show how "manly" you are, but it's more like driving an excavator down the highway. But for the jobs that requires it, I see the pro gear as an investment with real financial returns - otherwise, it's a waste of money.
I also started with your philosophy - my first digital camera was a Pentax, and I moved up from there. I did a lot of lens buying/selling on ebay until they were nonexistent; then bought them off B&H or Adorama's used dept, and finally just bought the top shelf equipment new. This took several years in progression, and it forced me to understand the limits and appreciate what I was really buying by starting from the el-cheapo lenses and bodies.
I agree with you to some extent but when I work on a photo shoot, or assist in one, cameras do sometimes fail. Lenses break or "disappear." The art buyer on set doesn't really know what you're using or really care, because he hired you for your talent and service, not as a technician. Anyways, those photographers I've worked for, and even myself, sometimes had to rely on the crappier backup cameras but we knew its limits and compensated with the other gear that wasn't broken - lighting, forcing the talent to work harder, have the assistants setup more cards, or fix it in post (worst case scenario).
Years ago I saw a kid just like you shooting college or pro football (can't remember which) where his camera locked up during the game. I think it was a canon 20D since it used to have that snag. Anyways, he freaked out and had no idea what to do and the other body was a lesser Nikon D70 I believe. I think he ran back to the media room to consult with the editor or find out how to unlock his canon in an online forum.
Anyways, the professional can use whatever camera or lens is thrown at him. Just as a professional piano player can perform anywhere, from a music hall with a grand piano and maximize the sound, or a county festival with an electronic keyboard. It's not the tool what matters, but how the professional leverages when it counts. Photography is always easy - it's when things go wrong is when experience kicks in. Sort of like an airline pilot.
I don't disagree that the 5D is a fine camera, but between all those generations the benefit is marginal. I would've just bought the 5DII and made some money in those 6 months (and probably more) than get the 5DIII. I would never shoot anything above 800 ISO anyways, but hiring grip and lighting instead. The art buyer doesn't really need anything above 4k, and videos are useless at high ISO unless you're doing basic narrative with no post (color grading, chroma key removal, integrating CG assets). Even with magic lantern, it's hard to do much post work. I'd rather rent a Red with Contax lenses if we're going "high end."
To me, a low-end camera is a $100 Kodak camera/ video combo you find at Best Buy, not the previous generation of the 5D. Or even the T3i, which by the way, I can shoot better than newbs with a Red camera outfit.
First of all, you don't sit there and talk about your own crappy camera phones with a professional photographer any more than you would talk about your stupid dell keyboard with a professional hacker.
Secondly, the camera you use makes a *huge* difference. One of the online dating sites, for example, did a comparison between people's photo ratings and the quality of camera used and found there to be a strong correlation. I am not saying everyone should run out and buy an overpriced Leica or something like that - just that even a simple DLSR used in point-and-shoot mode will be WORLDS better than a camera phone. In fact my 5 year old DSLR has some advantages over my brand new top of the line camera phone. (I have an Xperia Z, which has one of the best cameras in a phone that money can buy - but it's still a camera phone!)
Certainly the theme that you don't need to spend tons of money is true. You can buy a used SLR camera on the cheap and learn how to use it. And a good point and shoot camera is not that expensive and still much cheaper than a new fancy top-of-the-line camera with features you won't know how to use, and still much better in photo quality than a phone will be. It actually makes me feel sad to see all these photos on facebook or whatever where people are taking grainy blurry shitty photos of someone's going away party, etc. That's their last chance, and because they thought their phone would be fine, they got stuck with shit photos.
Anyway, putting photos on a social media site or not means about zero to me. I don't want to share all of my photos with the whole world. Some are for my private use, others are to share with everyone online, while some are for my close friends only. You can very easily take your photos on a decent camera and then upload them to a web site later - in fact, I nearly always do. In fact, my camera will even send the photos to my phone via WiFi.
I use Auto on mine SLR most of the time too, because it works rather well (it knows when to use the flash for portraits even if it's bright out, etc.) - but auto sucks for some things. I can never get good photos of my fish with my camera phone or SLR in auto mode because... they tend to move, and the camera always focuses on the wrong thing. With manual focus it's easy. Also I like making some blurry photos in city scenes by setting long shutter times, and sometimes shallow field depth is useful.
As someone who is both a pianist and a photographer, this metaphor is way off.
A better comparison is more like
cheap 55-key Casio keyboard - decent upright piano - Bosendorfer concert grand (or Stradivarius violin; Stratovarius is a metal band which most definitely doesn't make violins).
cameraphone - consumer digital SLR - Phase One medium format back
Here, the first one will let you do some very limited things, and its output is fine for some purposes but not suitable for many. The second one is a complete tool, letting you do everything (change lenses and control shutter speed and aperture for the camera; use basically the whole range of notes that are musically useful on the piano) and gives good output. (There are shots from $500 consumer DSLR's that are printed six feet tall and hung in the Smithsonian's gallery of wildlife photography, and they hang without shame next to shots done with the best money can buy.)
Ordinary DSLR's don't cost that much, compared to some other things people buy (like violins and pianos). You can get a very decent one for a few hundred bucks. While there are a lot of folks running around with cameras that have lots of expensive features that they have no need for (the "full frame" craze comes to mind), there are also a lot of folks who use every bit of what their consumer DSLR will do.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/nokia/
They really did bring about a revolution in photography. At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals, as image quality is far less important than image usability via social media sharing.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
What do you mean "no one" ? _I_ see my photos. It's enough for me. The others may look at them if they ask nicely. dSLR allows me to shoot different things the way I want to without hauling stadium floodlights with me. I easier macros, I get easier bird shots, I get subject separated from background. It allows me, as a hobbyist, much more "creativity" in what I do. I use my phones camera (the baest camera is the one you have with you), my point-and-shoot(very compact, for the occassions where I know I want to take better pictures than my phone would allow, but it still has to fit in my pocket), a mirrorles dSLR (a new one, slower to use, but nice control ans this one is also very small, most likely will replace my point and shoot) and a dSLR (When I want all the control current technology and my budget allows ).
I think there is a point here. A number of people I know who have DSLR's but never move the setting off auto, or touch any of the settings. The question is whether they would of been better of getting a cheaper high end compact.
I only got A DSLR when I felt I had reached the end of the capabilities of the compacts I had. Low light performance was especially a issue. But whatever camera I had the main issue is composition. $1000 of camera is not help with that.
Some of my favorite photo's were taken with a $200 compact. Also note that 95% of the worlds greatest photo's were taken with cameras whose capabilities were far less than you can get on a average digital camera.
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
I think some hobbies are just like that - you can't have gear with too poor quality or it will affect your experience so badly you'll lose interest. Learning to play the guitar on a cheap guitar that can't keep the tuning sucks.
Well Sea Sick Steve and his 3 stringed guitar would probably disagree with you...
Another example would be why start driving in a small hatchback when you could just go and buy a F1 car....
Personally I think it is more important to learn things like composition, light and to develop your own style. You don't have to spend $1000's to do that. In fact all the functions tend to get in the way. You are so busy trying to locate the right mode you miss the shot. Or worse do not take the camera out with you because it is to heavy or worry about it being stolen or damaged.
My advice is to start simple. It will take a while to learn the camera, but at the same time you will be learning your basic skill. At some time you will become frustrated because the camera will not do what you want, then look at changing. Even then do not go to the top of the range. Unless your income is from photography you are unlikely to reach the limits of even a modest DSLR.
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
Actually, with Stradivari violins, there is a twist: There was a blind comparision with a Stradivari, an off-the-shelf violin and a violin made from plastics, and the preferences of the professional listeners were quite evenly distributed. It seems as if there is some kind of placebo effect at work here: just knowing that you are listening to someone playing a Stradivari (who nearly invariably is someone who is very good at playing the violin) adds to the listening pleasure.
Kind of depends on what kind of thing you are buying. In powertools for example the cheap ones are really so bad they are borderline dangerous, and are often also borderline unusable. It's ok if you only want to drill one hole once a year, but if, for example, you buy them to do carpentry as a hobby, your hobby will end real soon when you cut your fingers off, or just get frustrated at how diffucult everything is. (because the tools suck)
I find using the Av mode the best compromise. It's fast, and I can control the one thing the camera can't possible guess right. I mean, usually I want "normally" exposured photos, not too dark and not too white. Depth of field is the thing my camera can't just quess, as sometimes I want blurry background, and sometimes everything needs to be sharp.
That's just not true. You can get perfectly fine point-and-shoot cameras with all the advantages you ascribe to DSLR cameras. In fact, you can nowadays even get point-and-shoot cameras that will show you a clearer picture through the electronic viewfinder in the dark than you could ever get through a DSLR viewfinder with your own eyes.
Many of the compact cameras listed here will outdo many cheap DSLRs.
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-compact-camera-2013-34-reviewed-963985
And for lens changing needs there's a multitude of system cameras with similar features and interchangable lenses.
Nevertheless, I prefer my DSLR over my point-and-shoots too, but that does not have that much to do with the mirror and the analog viewfinder. And you're damn right DSLRs are not only for professionals. However, compact cameras are not only for amateurs either.
Also, in good lighting conditions those "pinhead" sized sensors (they're a bit larger than that) in mobile phones are just fine and when combined with a good lens many of them deliver the equivalent of the megapixels they're marketed to deliver. In good lighting conditions, that is..:) And due to the extremely long depth of field these tiny things offer, they're absolutely superb when it comes to "macro" photography and other types of photography that require a rather long depth of field. Proper (expensive:)) phone cameras will at F2 get the equivalent depth of view of your DSLR at F8, enabling you to take great sharp pictures in situations where your DSLR will require a tripod or (expensive) image stabilization.
The same goes for compact cameras with medium sized sensors, by the way. There really are quite advantages to small sensors and it is exactly for those reasons that professional photographers will every now and then choose to use a compact camera for specific jobs.
0x or or snor perron?!
My first DSLR was a Canon 5D3. it isn't top of the line, but it was a bit pricey, and I've had a blast with it. I've been learning so much on how photography works and what can be done with it (and videography too). I put it on manual about and 2nd day I had it and have been learning since then how to shoot and get the effects "I" want.
You bought a nice camera! If you haven't tried "Magic Lantern" yet, you should check it out. It takes it to another level. I Don't have a mkIII, or even mkII, I have a t2i, which can use "Magic Lantern", but if I didn't have family/kids/mortgage etc. I would have that camera! It's a very nice camera and a very nice camcorder in one package.
If you do your research and if you are willing to learn what you can do with your camera, then of course you should get a nice camera if you an afford it! You'll get the full benefit, professional or amateur. A nice camera also allows for a greater range for what you can learn. There are a lot of people who spend as much money on playing golf and are not professionals, but not as many people question the cost or time. Compared to the old days, when you needed a darkroom and had to buy film/chemicals/photographic paper/enlarger, you can buy a nice dSLR and not spend as much as back then.
I'm not surprised. I hadn't heard about that one, but I had heard of something they did with flutes: they had professional flautists listen, blindfolded, to a top-grade expensive flute, and then one made from concrete. They couldn't tell the difference. I can see it mattering a bit more for an instrument where the body itself transmits strong vibrations, but the Stradivari thing has always had the air of hype around it.
There was a semi-related thing with pianos: Kawai, a piano maker, started using plastic parts in the action of their pianos. They were really doing it because the plastic was more durable than wood, and so the part-plastic action would sound good for longer than a wooden action that might sound appreciably worse in a few years, but their competition derided them for making "plastic pianos".
Interesting. I've never had much trouble shooting fish. Try more light. Or bigger fish. ;-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I'm DYING to get ML on my 5D3..however, it is still in alpha, and with that you must set the bootflag and as far as I can tell, once that is done, you can't remove it.
So, I'm waiting for ML to get the 5D3 version ready more for prime time before I risk putting it on my camera.
I desperately want to get to shoot true 14bit RAW video out of it!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There are plenty of people who learned to play on a bad guitar. There are plenty of people that never learned to play on a good guitar.
A lot of great photo's are taken with camera's that are not able to do half of what your phone can do, let alone a DSLR. With movies it is even worse.
Just because a movie is mad with a RED camera does not mean it is a good movie. As we all know, even having great actors is no guarantee for that.
Composition is a much more important aspect of a photo then the quality. With a limited camera you will learn on a complete different level. Look at the photo's of e.g. Vivian Maier and the camera she used (most of the time) was not even able to take color.
First learn to make photo's and when composition is right, upgrade your gear.
Car example: If you want to race with a car, you do not start with an F1 car and say "I am the limitation." somebody already tried that and failed. (and even he started not with a F1 car.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
With a DSLR, I feel the need to post-process. I've actually been considering picking up a cheap p&s 'cause I'm tired of all the camera phone shots of an event posting on social media before I get back home and tired of hauling around gear. It's become a joke in my family that I take pictures, but no one ever sees them. What is perhaps most interesting about this feeling, is that it came after a finally got the fast walk-around lens I wanted. Go figure.