Looking to purchase a new camera and asking the experts!

[havoc315]

Done? What's my point? Sure, you can flip a switch, or use Intelligent Auto or whatever it's called, to brighten pictures. But is that really the best way? Or is it the "lazy" way? What about finding great light (with light being one of the most important aspects of a photo)? Finding great color, texture, visual interest? Striving for better composition, etc. Pointing and shooting will always be just that.

There was a photography blog I was reading recently. It featured this absolutely amazing shot, of an amusement park shot from the beach, when the lighting was just perfect. It was truly an amazing photograph. And the photographer discussed how she spent HOURS setting up and waiting for that 1 perfect shot.

I applaud and admire her dedication to her craft, and anyone else with a similar commitment.

Now, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with taking the "lazy way" out. Another poster on the board mentioned how he is going to ride certain dark rides multiple times, in order be able to plan out the focal spots in advance of the ride, allowing him to more quickly compose his shots.

I have young children always dragging my attention. If I said, "give me a couple minutes to compose the perfect shot of the castle" -- my DW and kids would shoot me. Or, let's re-ride that ride, instead of going to get ice cream, because I want to try to get Peter Pan from a certain angle --- I'd get hung.

There is nothing wrong with looking to technology to make your photography easier. The more time and the more commitment you put it, will pay off. You will get better results. There is no magic camera that lets you push the button and instantly get museum worthy pictures. But there is nothing wrong with allowing technology to give you short cuts -- to use technology to get higher quality pictures than you would achieve with a cheaper camera. Just as there is nothing wrong with driving an automatic gear shift, versus a manual shift. Professional racers of course drive a manual, but for most drivers, an automatic gets them where they need to go-- with more simplicity.

Each "photographer" must make their own judgment, balancing complexity versus simplicity, balancing the time they want to devote, balancing costs, and determining the type and quality of the shots they want.

 

[havoc315]

This ho hum snapshot...

... became these with just a little more effort.

(Last two taken with an older camera; first taken with a newer one.)

Not sure what that is meant to demonstrate. It's not an apples to apples comparison, as all 3 shots are composed differently.
And obviously, the best composition is the best photograph.

A true test would need to compare the same composition, same lighting.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Not sure what that is meant to demonstrate. It's not an apples to apples comparison, as all 3 shots are composed differently.
And obviously, the best composition is the best photograph.

A true test would need to compare the same composition, same lighting.

Once again, missing the point.

I'm confident that others get it, though.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

There was a photography blog I was reading recently. It featured this absolutely amazing shot, of an amusement park shot from the beach, when the lighting was just perfect. It was truly an amazing photograph. And the photographer discussed how she spent HOURS setting up and waiting for that 1 perfect shot.

I applaud and admire her dedication to her craft, and anyone else with a similar commitment.

Now, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with taking the "lazy way" out. Another poster on the board mentioned how he is going to ride certain dark rides multiple times, in order be able to plan out the focal spots in advance of the ride, allowing him to more quickly compose his shots.

I have young children always dragging my attention. If I said, "give me a couple minutes to compose the perfect shot of the castle" -- my DW and kids would shoot me. Or, let's re-ride that ride, instead of going to get ice cream, because I want to try to get Peter Pan from a certain angle --- I'd get hung.

There is nothing wrong with looking to technology to make your photography easier. The more time and the more commitment you put it, will pay off. You will get better results. There is no magic camera that lets you push the button and instantly get museum worthy pictures. But there is nothing wrong with allowing technology to give you short cuts -- to use technology to get higher quality pictures than you would achieve with a cheaper camera. Just as there is nothing wrong with driving an automatic gear shift, versus a manual shift. Professional racers of course drive a manual, but for most drivers, an automatic gets them where they need to go-- with more simplicity.

Each "photographer" must make their own judgment, balancing complexity versus simplicity, balancing the time they want to devote, balancing costs, and determining the type and quality of the shots they want.

My fourteen year old daughter likes photography (as do both my kids - the PEN mirrorless we have is actually DS's, also fourteen), and has taken more of an interest in it this summer than previously. Last night she was at a fair and she sent me snapshots as she walked around the fair with her friends. I can assure you she didn't take a ton of time setting up shots, and she was using a phone camera. Yet her *low light* shots were good. Why? Because she's apparently a good student and has paid attention to the lessons I've taught both my kids about photography even though I didn't think all this time she was too interested. We all enjoy, as a family, looking at photos together, especially Disney photos, and we are able to discuss what's pleasing to us and what's not, etc. Both of them are now able to take good pictures just because they've spent a little time learning and doing. (Read: not a lot, lol.) Obviously I also know the challenges that young children and photography have when they're mixed, too. Getting good photos doesn't have to be a major production. I mean, it can be, but it doesn't have to be.

Thank you, but I really can't take much credit. I randomly pointed and shot for the most part. The camera did the rest.

When you see a great photograph, 3 elements go into it:
1-- The composure of the shot. This is basically purely a function of the skill of the photographer, how well they frame the shot. Thats why you often will see cell phone pictures taken by professional photographers, still looking amazing despite the mediocre camera. A great camera doesn't help, except that a good zoom gives you more composure options. In the case of the Rx100, there is a little gimmick where it will automatically suggest a cropping for portraits (while a gimmick, it actually works pretty well). But other than little things like that, the composure is purely the skill of the photographer.

2-- The mechanics of the camera. These standards really haven't changed in years, except that sensors replaced film. So 10 years ago, we would be discussing aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and film. Now, it's aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and sensor, etc, etc. Fundamentally, a top of the line SLR camera and lens from 1998 isn't going to be all that different than 2012.
The big change in technology, is putting some of the superior mechanics into smaller cameras -- So here, I give the RX100 credit -- While the mechanics still can't compare to a high quality SLR, the mechanics are far better than other point & shoots.

3-- The "smarts" -- primarily used for setting exposure. For the most part, you use all those different mechanics to get the exposure --- the right amount of light and focus for the picture you're taking. Now, this is where 2012 is VERY different than 1998. Back before computers had advanced micro chips, the photographer had to use their own skill to properly adjust the mechanics, to get the right exposure.
Now, most advanced cameras have very advanced computers built in, that are pretty darn good at adjusting the exposure, etc.
And this is also where the RX100 stands out -- It has a really smart computer, allowing it to get the most out of mechanics of the camera.

Understanding all the different factors of good exposure is still very helpful, but far less necessary than it used to be.

So I appreciate the compliment on the pictures, but really the camera did most of the work in this case.

 

[havoc315]

Once again, missing the point.

I'm confident that others get it, though.

Apparently I am. Is the point that better composition makes for better shots? That's certainly true.. and I've said it many times.
Is it that taking time to learn how to compose shots is helpful? I've certainly acknowledged that repeatedly.

So I'm really not quite clear on where you are disagreeing with any statement I've made.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Apparently I am. Is the point that better composition makes for better shots? That's certainly true.. and I've said it many times.
Is it that taking time to learn how to compose shots is helpful? I've certainly acknowledged that repeatedly.

So I'm really not quite clear on where you are disagreeing with any statement I've made.

It may not seem it, but my posts on this thread have been less about disagreeing with you and more about presenting alternate information from yours, for others' perusal. It's all good information. Readers can decide where they fit in.

 

[photo_chick]

The main downside of using a film camera as a photography *student* -- is the inability to immediately see your results.

Is that really a downside? Many college photo programs still require students to use a 35mm DSLR in their first class. It does mean you have to wait to see the results, but it also makes you a lot more conscious of the process. In a lot of ways it makes it easier to learn photography because it forces you to slow down and really think about what you have to do for each shot.

 

[megan511]

I will offer this... You should go to a store where you can really feel the cameras in your hand, snap the shutter. Many people love the feeling of the SLR in their hands, love the immediate click of the shutter. Other people may just find it bulky. My DW has always been a point & shoot person, she would never want a DSLR for herself, but whenever she gets her hands on my DSLR, she can't stop clicking. -- For her, the main reason is that typically, a DSLR focuses much much faster than a point & shoot. So the camera isn't constantly refocusing between shots. That said, the RX100 focuses very quickly --- for a point and shoot. I'd say under some conditions it focuses faster than my DSLR, but my DSLR is 6 years old. I know a brand new DSLR would focus faster than the RX100.

This is what we are going to do this weekend or next. I really want to get a feel for the different cameras & see what I would prefer. I have never had a DSLR before so I'm curious to try one out & see what I think & figure out what will work best for me. I'm sure whatever I decide with some time & research I will be able to get some better pictures.

You know, it's funny. There aren't too many people who have the latest and greatest of cameras every year. They often buy a system and stick with it for a good, long time. Sure, they upgrade from time to time. But when they do, they sell their "old" cameras to someone else (who presumably uses them), or, like myself, they keep the old one and use it as a backup, such as at times when switching lenses would be inconvenient. We also from time to time have people come on here who are buying older used cameras cause that's all they can afford. It is often a recommendation made to people who want a nice camera but are just starting out.

So what happens when all these people are walking around shooting with older cameras? Are they getting terrible, inferior pictures? No, they're not - well, unless they're terrible photographers, lol. No, but seriously, they're probably going to work hard at learning and improving their skills as they go along, which will happen naturally as they see what works and what doesn't. This is pretty much how it is with most people wanting to learn. The process can be intimidating at times, and frustrating, but it's also fun, and the rewards are worth it when you begin getting pictures that people ooh and aah over. It's like riding a bicycle, too - once you learn how, you don't forget, and you can also transfer your skills to any bicycle.

But here's the real point I'm trying to make. Getting good pictures is really something you have to work at, at least a bit. Otherwise, and at the risk of getting flamed, you are a "lazy" - and probably unrealistic - photographer. What do I mean by that?? Well, I mean that you (global you) think you'll pick up a camera and get fantastic pictures without putting any effort in at all. And I'll offer that what you'll likely get in that instance is snapshots, not really "works of art". (And granted, that may be all you want, and if that's the case, then more power to you!) But it doesn't have to be that way. With just a little bit of effort, you can get pictures that people ooh and aah over. (And the only person you may care about oohing and aahing is yourself, and that's ok, too! Although as photographers, we tend to be pretty critical of ourselves, and may always strive to do better regardless.)

As mentioned upthread, I've always used a camera system that has had a weak point (and they all have them) of greater noise at higher ISO. The way I worked around it, because I really loved the system, was to learn to shoot using lower ISOs and other principles of exposure and tools of the trade that were available to me (for instance, a tripod, noise reduction software, etc). If my pictures tend to be a little noisy, I'm ok with that - as long as they're otherwise really good (to me - pictures that *I* am happy with has always been my own personal goal). I am intrigued with the newest camera from my manufacturer that offers the latest and greatest sensor that is much better with noise at higher ISO. Does that mean I'm going to run out and buy it? Heck no! I don't HAVE to. If I want to, I can, and surely it might make my life easier and more exciting. But having learned to get the types of pictures I want already, the camera I use doesn't matter too much other than it has to be one I enjoy using, and those are my own. Noise is one factor that may be undesirable in photos, but there is so much more! As I said before - boring subject matter or no subject at all, poor lighting, crooked landscapes, poor focus, blur, etc., may all be more objectionable to the viewer.

To further illustrate my point above, I'm going to again refer to an article I posted a couple of days ago. It's a good article, demonstrating the use of prime lens vs a zoom lens. (That I posted for the OP to demonstrate the use of various lenses on the NEX vs a zoom lens on a pns.) I'm going to ask you to re-read it, but this time, substitute the concept of "zooming" with "high ISO".

http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/how-a-prime-lens-can-improve-your-photography/

Done? What's my point? Sure, you can flip a switch, or use Intelligent Auto or whatever it's called, to brighten pictures. But is that really the best way? Or is it the "lazy" way? What about finding great light (with light being one of the most important aspects of a photo)? Finding great color, texture, visual interest? Striving for better composition, etc. Pointing and shooting will always be just that.

Since there are people here who are new to this and also want to learn some basics, I'm going to add this book to the link I posted earlier (reposted here as the second link). Don't laugh or discount Kodak cause they've been helping generations of people take better photos! These are really simple to read and will help you on the road to getting better pictures without being overwhelming. It's a good start. Take a look though some of the pages of the first book, it will echo a lot of what's being said here. Something to think about.

Kodak's How To Take Good Pictures: http://www.amazon.com/Take-Good-Pictures-Revised-Edition/dp/034539710X/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Kodak's Most Basic Book of Digital Photography: http://www.amazon.com/KODAK-Most-Bas.../dp/1579907628?tag=vglnkc5948-20

Thanks for the information!

I'm going to go shopping & get a feel for the different camera models to try & see what will work best for me. I feel confident that if I put in the time & research I will be able to get better pictures than what I'm getting now.

I just ordered the Kodak Basic Digital Photography book. I'm excited to get it & start reading/learning.

Thanks for sharing your shots! Hopefully I will be able to learn how to get such clear pictures!

 

[havoc315]

Is that really a downside? Many college photo programs still require students to use a 35mm DSLR in their first class. It does mean you have to wait to see the results, but it also makes you a lot more conscious of the process. In a lot of ways it makes it easier to learn photography because it forces you to slow down and really think about what you have to do for each shot.

I certainly learned on a film camera, but I didn't have a choice. Perhaps you're right. But on the other hand, you can go through 10 rolls of film, and not realize that you didn't get a single usable shot until you get the developed a week later.
The digital camera gives you the advantage to keep re-taking the same picture, immediately after seeing your results, until you get it right. You can immediately see the result of extending your shutter speed or opening your aperture. With a film camera, you won't have any idea if you were over-exposed, under-exposed, etc, until many days later.

So if I was just starting now, not sure if I would want to start with a film camera. Certainly does have some advantages though, as you have stated.

 

[Shutterbug]

This is what we are going to do this weekend or next. I really want to get a feel for the different cameras & see what I would prefer. I have never had a DSLR before so I'm curious to try one out & see what I think & figure out what will work best for me. I'm sure whatever I decide with some time & research I will be able to get some better pictures.



Thanks for the information!

I'm going to go shopping & get a feel for the different camera models to try & see what will work best for me. I feel confident that if I put in the time & research I will be able to get better pictures than what I'm getting now.

I just ordered the Kodak Basic Digital Photography book. I'm excited to get it & start reading/learning.

Thanks for sharing your shots! Hopefully I will be able to learn how to get such clear pictures!

Its probably been mentioned but Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure is another good book.

 

[debbieandroo]

First of all, thank you all for sharing your knowledge on this board and especially on this thread.

Second, thank you, havoc, for your detailed review of the RX100. I wasn't even thinking about that camera until you mentioned that. I'm also looking for a new camera. I have a Fuji S700, a p and s with manual settings that I bought several years ago. I bought it with the idea of it being a starter camera, to whet my appetite for a DSLR one day. I even took an online photography class to get more acquainted with it. I learned a whole bunch, especially in the area of appreciating photography as an art form. It really opened my eyes to the hard work and talent involved in taking pictures.

However, my plan for getting a DSLR has been hampered by the impracticality of me using it regularly. I don't really like 'messing' with a bigger camera. My Fuji, which did beautiful macro shots but did not do well in low light or indoors, is still big enough that I have a difficult time carrying it by hand. And forget about me being quick enough to catch good shots when I had to pull it out of my camera bag! I keep reading that the best camera to use is the one you have with you. So now, I want a true pocket camera and the Canon S95 and S100 had caught my attention but at a $350-400 price point, I was a little hesitant.

Now, I'm drooling over the Sony RX100 but choking on the $650 - what's a girl to do!? Still deciding and hoping the price will go down in a few months?

Anyway, not to re-visit the p and s vs a DSLR debate, but I just wanted to post my appreciation for everyone who contributed to this thread - I learned a ton! Thanks!

Havoc, no pressure but I'm looking forward to your RX100 Disney pictures, too!

And, pea-n-me, that err mouse? gerbil? is adorable. If I had seen him in real life, I might not have thought that.

 

[havoc315]

First of all, thank you all for sharing your knowledge on this board and especially on this thread.

Second, thank you, havoc, for your detailed review of the RX100. I wasn't even thinking about that camera until you mentioned that. I'm also looking for a new camera. I have a Fuji S700, a p and s with manual settings that I bought several years ago. I bought it with the idea of it being a starter camera, to whet my appetite for a DSLR one day. I even took an online photography class to get more acquainted with it. I learned a whole bunch, especially in the area of appreciating photography as an art form. It really opened my eyes to the hard work and talent involved in taking pictures.

However, my plan for getting a DSLR has been hampered by the impracticality of me using it regularly. I don't really like 'messing' with a bigger camera. My Fuji, which did beautiful macro shots but did not do well in low light or indoors, is still big enough that I have a difficult time carrying it by hand. And forget about me being quick enough to catch good shots when I had to pull it out of my camera bag! I keep reading that the best camera to use is the one you have with you. So now, I want a true pocket camera and the Canon S95 and S100 had caught my attention but at a $350-400 price point, I was a little hesitant.

Now, I'm drooling over the Sony RX100 but choking on the $650 - what's a girl to do!? Still deciding and hoping the price will go down in a few months?

Anyway, not to re-visit the p and s vs a DSLR debate, but I just wanted to post my appreciation for everyone who contributed to this thread - I learned a ton! Thanks!

Havoc, no pressure but I'm looking forward to your RX100 Disney pictures, too!

And, pea-n-me, that err mouse? gerbil? is adorable. If I had seen him in real life, I might not have thought that.

Some have questioned whether there is a market for a $650 point and shoot. Debbie, you are the market. Someone passionate about photography, who just doesn't want the bulk of a dslr. (or as a second string camera to a serious hobbyist/professional in addition to their dslr )

I have a dslr, which I loved. But it was getting old in the tooth -- as shown by some of the test pics. Only 10 megapixel, few advanced features, Iso topping out at a noisy 1600.
So I could have considered just upgrading my dslr.. But...

I've been to Disney twice in recent years. First trip, I had the camera out constantly. I was excited to process raw pics. Second trip, it seemed burdensome to take the camera out of the bag, to change the lens. I was satisfied on many occasions to just get family pics with DW's fair point and shoot. And I passed up scenery pics (DW doesn't like scenery pics, so isn't super patient to pause to take them).

When I got home, I regretted not taking more pictures.
So the rx100 has rekindled my passion a bit. Ability to take pictures better than my dated dslr, and don't have to lug around a big camera and lenses. But I think I'll stick to jpg shooting.
I'll keep my dslr. May still use it, especially if I need a big optical zoom, or I really want to take staged portraits.

In terms of price, I'm sure it will come down, but I don't know how much or how fast.
But to help you rationalize --- it's very very close to dslr quality, and cheaper than investing in dslr with comparable lenses. To get a dslr with the same basic abilities as the Rx100-- body and lenses -- you would probably need to spend at least $800-1000.

 

[debbieandroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by debbieandroo

First of all, thank you all for sharing your knowledge on this board and especially on this thread.

Second, thank you, havoc, for your detailed review of the RX100. I wasn't even thinking about that camera until you mentioned that. I'm also looking for a new camera. I have a Fuji S700, a p and s with manual settings that I bought several years ago. I bought it with the idea of it being a starter camera, to whet my appetite for a DSLR one day. I even took an online photography class to get more acquainted with it. I learned a whole bunch, especially in the area of appreciating photography as an art form. It really opened my eyes to the hard work and talent involved in taking pictures.

However, my plan for getting a DSLR has been hampered by the impracticality of me using it regularly. I don't really like 'messing' with a bigger camera. My Fuji, which did beautiful macro shots but did not do well in low light or indoors, is still big enough that I have a difficult time carrying it by hand. And forget about me being quick enough to catch good shots when I had to pull it out of my camera bag! I keep reading that the best camera to use is the one you have with you. So now, I want a true pocket camera and the Canon S95 and S100 had caught my attention but at a $350-400 price point, I was a little hesitant.

Now, I'm drooling over the Sony RX100 but choking on the $650 - what's a girl to do!? Still deciding and hoping the price will go down in a few months?

Anyway, not to re-visit the p and s vs a DSLR debate, but I just wanted to post my appreciation for everyone who contributed to this thread - I learned a ton! Thanks!

Havoc, no pressure but I'm looking forward to your RX100 Disney pictures, too!

And, pea-n-me, that err mouse? gerbil? is adorable. If I had seen him in real life, I might not have thought that.

Some have questioned whether there is a market for a $650 point and shoot. Debbie, you are the market. Someone passionate about photography, who just doesn't want the bulk of a dslr. (or as a second string camera to a serious hobbyist/professional in addition to their dslr )

I have a dslr, which I loved. But it was getting old in the tooth -- as shown by some of the test pics. Only 10 megapixel, few advanced features, Iso topping out at a noisy 1600.
So I could have considered just upgrading my dslr.. But...

I've been to Disney twice in recent years. First trip, I had the camera out constantly. I was excited to process raw pics. Second trip, it seemed burdensome to take the camera out of the bag, to change the lens. I was satisfied on many occasions to just get family pics with DW's fair point and shoot. And I passed up scenery pics (DW doesn't like scenery pics, so isn't super patient to pause to take them).

When I got home, I regretted not taking more pictures.
So the rx100 has rekindled my passion a bit. Ability to take pictures better than my dated dslr, and don't have to lug around a big camera and lenses. But I think I'll stick to jpg shooting.
I'll keep my dslr. May still use it, especially if I need a big optical zoom, or I really want to take staged portraits.

In terms of price, I'm sure it will come down, but I don't know how much or how fast.
But to help you rationalize --- it's very very close to dslr quality, and cheaper than investing in dslr with comparable lenses. To get a dslr with the same basic abilities as the Rx100-- body and lenses -- you would probably need to spend at least $800-1000.

Thanks....I think I am just about to buy a new camera!


Posted from DISboards.com App for Android

 

[Pea-n-Me]

First of all, thank you all for sharing your knowledge on this board and especially on this thread.

And, pea-n-me, that err mouse? gerbil? is adorable. If I had seen him in real life, I might not have thought that.

I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion, and thank you for saying so.

Remy is a teddy bear hamster. He is the most adorable little guy imaginable, and has the personality to match! I love taking pictures of him!

 

[binkblum]

Confused more than ever. From the replies on the thread, decisions should be based on post photography skill set?

 

[zackiedawg]

Confused more than ever. From the replies on the thread, decisions should be based on post photography skill set?

If that's the takeaway you're getting from the ongoing discussions above, I'd say to tune them out. Post photography skills have absolutely nothing to do with good photography skills, camera skills, great photos, successful photography careers, or anything to do with the camera you buy.

There are some who have a very strong opinion that post processing is where a photo really becomes a photo, and others who have a very strong opinion that post processing has nothing to do with capturing a great photo. The truth is probably somewhere in between, with good camera skills being utmost, a good comfortable camera setup contributing to the process, and post processing skills good to have if either you need them or if you WANT to post process because you enjoy it.

When it comes to photography, there are always very strong opinions and people who can be completely unbiased in other things often can't help but assert their preferences when it comes to cameras and photography. The simple truth hidden in all of it is that there is NOT a single camera brand that is 'better' than the others, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a decision to shoot RAW or JPG which are both viable options, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with post processing or not post processing your photos. It's all about enjoying photography, and getting what you want out of it...however that can be achieved.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

If that's the takeaway you're getting from the ongoing discussions above, I'd say to tune them out. Post photography skills have absolutely nothing to do with good photography skills, camera skills, great photos, successful photography careers, or anything to do with the camera you buy.

There are some who have a very strong opinion that post processing is where a photo really becomes a photo, and others who have a very strong opinion that post processing has nothing to do with capturing a great photo. The truth is probably somewhere in between, with good camera skills being utmost, a good comfortable camera setup contributing to the process, and post processing skills good to have if either you need them or if you WANT to post process because you enjoy it.

When it comes to photography, there are always very strong opinions and people who can be completely unbiased in other things often can't help but assert their preferences when it comes to cameras and photography. The simple truth hidden in all of it is that there is NOT a single camera brand that is 'better' than the others, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a decision to shoot RAW or JPG which are both viable options, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with post processing or not post processing your photos. It's all about enjoying photography, and getting what you want out of it...however that can be achieved.

Justin I think you nailed it. Everyone has opinions of what photography would, should or could be. With today's equipment there is a great variety of available options to the photographer. I never lock myself into a position that causes my equipment to do something it can't do and then complain about the camera! That's ludicrous. The majority of time, I carry two DSLR cameras. One newer than the other. I never ask the older one to take lowlight pan shots because, when it was designed, the technology was not available to allow for that. The newer camera can do it. The older one takes phenomenal images when there is good light, otherwise I have to assist it with a flash. Many times I will choose the older camera with it's CCD sensor over the newer CMOS sensor, IF the conditions are right. Sometimes I will shoot JPEG if I need the higher burst rate and buffer or if not then RAW/JPEG. On Saturday, I had two completely different shoots at two different racetracks. I could not shoot them the same and that was the fun part. I had to change the setups on both cameras. I think it is fabulous that we have these options, embrace them and enjoy the photography! I can't imagine what is coming in the future, but I can't wait to see. It will be fun!!

 

[photo_chick]

Confused more than ever. From the replies on the thread, decisions should be based on post photography skill set?

There are some who have a very strong opinion that post processing is where a photo really becomes a photo, and others who have a very strong opinion that post processing has nothing to do with capturing a great photo. The truth is probably somewhere in between, with good camera skills being utmost, a good comfortable camera setup contributing to the process, and post processing skills good to have if either you need them or if you WANT to post process because you enjoy it.

I agree here. Post processing is never more important than what goes on in camera, but it does play a role. How much you do of it depends on how much control you want over the final image. For a casual photographer there is nothing wrong with being happy with the jpegs that come out of your camera just like there is nothing wrong with sending film to the lab and letting them do the work. But just like a photographer might have stepped into the darkroom with film when they wanted to step up thier game, there is a time when many want to do some post processing.

 

[megan511]

I just wanted to post an update & say I got a camera! When I get a chance to play with it I will try & post some pictures.

Thanks again for all the detailed responses & information. You have all been so helpful & I'm glad others have learned a lot from this thread as well.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I just wanted to post an update & say I got a camera! When I get a chance to play with it I will try & post some pictures.

Thanks again for all the detailed responses & information. You have all been so helpful & I'm glad others have learned a lot from this thread as well.

Well what did you decide to get and why? Don't keep us in suspense!