PDA

View Full Version : Does the camera really matter or the angles do?


Captain Gundam
10-02-2005, 11:38 PM
Does it or the angles you can get from it? I've seen pics with low quality cameras and they come out as if a professional type was used. My question is does the type and model of a camera really matter in taking pics?

jtnishi
10-03-2005, 12:08 AM
The type & model of a camera can have an effect on a picture, but your intuition is correct that it's not as important as the person who's using the camera. A good photographer can probably get a good shot from a bad camera, while a bad photographer will have trouble getting a good shot from even a good camera. A good photographer with good equipment can generally have better control over his final product, which is why equipment can matter.

the aj
10-03-2005, 02:17 AM
I've done some photo shoots myself, and I may have a few tips for you. You could use a cell phone with a camera, or a two-thousand-dollar camera, but it doesn't matter unless you do it right. It's sort of like drawing a picture, 'cept with (usually) less time for planning it out. But for me, there are three important factors: light, angle, and pose. Where's the light coming from? Are you shooting up, level, or down? Is your subject paying attention? (sometimes this doesn't matter n 0) Think about this stuff! These things are all important, but if there's one trick I've learned, it's to shoot LOTS of pictures. That way, if there's some small thing you don't like about one shot, you can always look at the next one.... anyway hope this provides.. some people.. with some information. -aj!

Kokuu
10-03-2005, 02:57 AM
It's definitely the photographer who makes the photo, not the equipment. While the equipment can definitely help , in the end it depends on the skills of the photographer- their knowledge of lighting, aperture/shutter settings, composition, and overall creativity. I've seen good photographers do some pretty amazing things with so-so cameras, and I've seen not so good photographers take pretty horrid pictures with good cameras.

Tenchan
10-03-2005, 04:03 AM
Okay, let's be a bit more honest here. A bad camera can mess up even the best photo, for example by messing up the light, that looked so fine when you clicked, in the actual end product. Especially digital cameras. The point is that as a good photographer, you can always make the best out of the camera (and of course the models and surroundings) you have. The key is, like with many other things, practice. And as a result of that, experience. And last but not least, knowing our camera.

dmk26
10-03-2005, 08:24 PM
Yes, the camera matters.
While the general theme here tends to be that a good photographer can take great pictures with a so-so camera, and a bad photographer can take crappy pictures with a great camera, the truth is that a good photographer will have a lot more versatility with a good camera as opposed to a crappy camera.
All things being equal (model, pose, angle and lighting, and for argument's sake, even lenses) what you can or cannot do depends on the camera. For example, if you want to take a picture in bright daylight, your camera may or may not allow you to open up your aperture to a value that you desire. I did a shoot recently with 2 cameras. One had a max shutter speed of 1/2000 while the other had a max of 1/8000. I wanted to get a lot of background blur, so wanted to shoot at about f 1.8. The lighting however dictated that I shoot that at about 1/4000 shutter speed. So obviously I could only use the camera that allowed for that shutter speed.

There are a bunch of similar examples where certain cameras will let you do things that other cameras will not. Better auto focusing, more frames in rapid fire mode, flash sync speed etc. So yes cameras can make a difference by allowing the photographer more versatility and range.

Captain Gundam
10-03-2005, 09:27 PM
I personally think its the photographer that is important. jtnishi,Tenchan, & Kokuu agree with me as well.

Like the saying goes,
"Its swordsman not the sword that makes him the warrior."

Drngd Kreationz
10-03-2005, 09:45 PM
I'm going to answer this by saying that you have to grow into/out of cameras as you learn. someone that isn't skilled enough to use an SLR will not be able to make use of the amount of control an SLR can give you. but as you grow as a photographer you may eventually find yourself limited by a full auto point and shoot and require a better camera like an SLR.. and then the distinctions increase the more you grow.

That's how I feel about it. I can make the most out of my brother's Sony Cybershot and work out almost as good a photo as I do with my Maxxum 5D.

shiroin
10-04-2005, 12:56 AM
having a good camera gives the photographer more control of what their photograph is going to be like.
one of the biggest advantage of having a SLR is that by controlling the DOF, a person can control out much the subject stands out. On the other hand, with point and shoot cameras, a person have not much control over what the camera does.

but having a good camera does not mean every picture that the owner took would be better.

It also depends on the owner himself. My suggestion is just take alot of photos, and do trial and error. (horray digital!!!)

Bazzar angle yeilded me this:
http://www.deviantart.com/view/23041480/

JadeCat
10-04-2005, 01:24 PM
A good photographer knows how to use whatever equipment they have to its best advantage. A good photographer understands light and how camera sees light...regardless of what camera they have on them.

Terry Richardson, who has shot for Vogue and various other fashion magazines uses small point & shoots. When he forgot his cameras for one trip, he went and bought disposable film cameras at the airport store.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/shopping/articles/fallfashion2001/richardson2.htm

Another photojournalist uses another P&S, and has won awards for those photos
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
using an Olympus C8080.

Yes, better cameras can give you better control over certain things, but you also HAVE to know what you're doing to take better photos.

shiroin
10-04-2005, 11:15 PM
Majoli says. "The screen that pulls out [and] shooting really silent. Digital cameras are great in the night. Depth of field is fantastic; everything is sharp. This was another thing that was really interesting. It's like on video, everything possible is sharp. It's a new way to see the world."

Very interesting approach indeed. The good use of the almost unlimited DOF of P&S cameras. I guess its especially useful for photojournalism, since its purpose is to record events, specially different events that are happening at the same time.

Protrait photography, or other more artistic types of photography does however require the DOF to make the subject stand out. This is more important for protrait photography, since the narrow DOF gives a nice 'fanatical' blurred background. (quoted from a Taiwanese photography site article on lenses that are good for protraits)

Now to reapproach the question. It really depends on the purpose of the photographer and the type of photography that is being persued.

Personally I would love to carry a P&S, if it was not stolen.

shiroin
10-04-2005, 11:19 PM
another personal story that just happened this afternoon.
Classmate and I were shooting a sports event for the school newspaper.
The classmate had a Nikon D70, 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5G and a SB-800.
I only had my Nikon D70s with the 50mm F/1.8D.

When he was asked to photograph this sports star and a student of the school, he failed even with his SB-800. I just went up with full manual setting, and click-click-boom done. :3

Having good equipments does not mean anything. What matters is to know how to use them properly!

TomodachiFriend
10-04-2005, 11:52 PM
Good equipment doesn't make good pictures. It only gives more options and opportunities to a good photographer.

JadeCat
10-05-2005, 12:57 PM
Protrait photography, or other more artistic types of photography does however require the DOF to make the subject stand out. This is more important for protrait photography, since the narrow DOF gives a nice 'fanatical' blurred background. (quoted from a Taiwanese photography site article on lenses that are good for protraits)

Well, if you look at Terry Richardson's website or that article, he also uses P&S, and he's doing portrait photography for big fashion magazines like Vogue, and he's been setting trends in fashion photography for the past year or so.

While most fashion photographers travel with a phalanx of good-looking young assistants wielding lights and oversized lenses, tripods, film bags, and reflectors, Richardson arrives on location with a couple of instant cameras, one in each hand, and nothing else. He doesn't design the lighting, doesn't plan his shoots, forgoes Polaroids, and never choreographs poses. He likes to work with little fuss and no entourage. And yet, in the last few years he has shot campaigns for Evian, Eres, H&M, Tommy Hilfiger, Anna Molinari, A|X, Sisley, and now —one of the biggest scores in the fashion world—the fall campaign for Gucci.

Richardson has wielded his point-and-shoot on Faye Dunaway, Catherine Deneuve, Sharon Stone, the Spice Girls, and a great many famous models. His work has been exhibited in galleries in London, Paris, and New York, and he has been published in magazines as varied as French Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, i-D, Vibe, The Face, and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
-- from http://www.newyorkmetro.com/shopping/articles/fallfashion/richardson1.htm

I don't think it's a hard & fast rule to use a big SLR w/ a lot of lighting equipment for portrait photography.

Some people are going to like Terry's approach, and some aren't. Regardless of that, enough fashion mags and different places like it enough that it's not a hard and fast rule to say "Portrait photography MUST be done w/ DoF and an SLR with a blurred background"

Now to reapproach the question. It really depends on the purpose of the photographer and the type of photography that is being persued.

I definitely agree with you that different types of camera bodies are better for different types of situations. Different lenses are better for different types of shooting.

But, what I am saying is that a good photographer will take what camera s/he has (regardless of whether it's a disposable camera, a P&S, or a DSLR) and use it to the best of his/her ability and take a good photo, regardless of the current lighting situation or subject, because s/he'll know how to manipulate what s/he has and make do with what s/he's got.

tfcreate
10-05-2005, 08:24 PM
The equipment is important, but I never say that there is a "best" camera.
There are cameras that best suit you and how you work. Over the last 30 years I've used everything from Agfas to Yashica, and the only thing I can tell you is that they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Do some homework alittle research and just go from there.

TFC

Captain Gundam
10-05-2005, 11:19 PM
Alright then, I'll everyone's word for it.

Citrakite
10-06-2005, 12:07 AM
As it matters to opening. If you know what your doing even a crappy $5 can give you good pics. For those of us not so photographicly even a 2k outfit doesn't make that bad picture you just took better. It basicly tries to correct for the amatuer move you just made.

Since I don't have any real experience or class learning on Photography I go with a simple easy to use camera. I should take a class if i'm going to be the next Peter Parker.

Captain Gundam
10-06-2005, 10:58 PM
As it matters to opening. If you know what your doing even a crappy $5 can give you good pics. For those of us not so photographicly even a 2k outfit doesn't make that bad picture you just took better. It basicly tries to correct for the amatuer move you just made.

Since I don't have any real experience or class learning on Photography I go with a simple easy to use camera. I should take a class if i'm going to be the next Peter Parker.
aren't we all trying to be the next peter parker?

J Ryoga
10-07-2005, 02:36 PM
Personally, I think the angles make the picture. If you can capture your subject from the right angle (and by right angle I mean whatever angle you are looking for), it makes a world of difference.

quadrain61
10-09-2005, 08:18 PM
edit

lost the main point

Captain Gundam
10-09-2005, 09:34 PM
Um ok....

To be honest, my camera is good for me though I havent unlocked most of the features (Dont like to use the word unused). Like I said its the photographer that is more important. If you give someone an expensive camera, that person can come up with bad shots.

Drngd Kreationz
10-09-2005, 09:59 PM
Give me about 10 minutes while i finish this upload.. I was goofing off at a friends wedding (not staff photographer so I didn't care what I was doing really)
but piss poor lighting, (that whole disco ball DJ in a box lighting package kept on making me second guess everything i metered so i just threw it in programmed mode popped the flash and just shot and prayed..

The photos I'll link to shortly were taken with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D so this is a prime example of garbage quality even with a great cam. I'm almost embarrased to put them up :P

Drngd Kreationz
10-09-2005, 10:38 PM
here.. http://www.geocities.com/drngd_kreationz/craptastic/


now don't get the wrong Idea, I do have alot of better photos from earlier before I got tired of metering, and even giving any thought as to what I was doing.. (but hey a few beers into the night and you just kinda stop caring)

shiroin
10-09-2005, 10:49 PM
http://home.earthlink.net/~quadrain61/w/DSCF0028.JPG
http://home.earthlink.net/~quadrain61/w/DSCF0005.JPG
this was taken with a FujiFilm Finepix S3000

http://home.earthlink.net/~quadrain61/w/DSC_0002.JPG
Taken with a Nikon D70s.


OH YEAH...PHOTOSHOP HELPS!!!!! :thumbsup:

I.E
http://home.earthlink.net/~quadrain61/w/Img0038.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~quadrain61/w/Img0038_2.jpg

to be honest i do not think you are using the D70s correctly... because many of your pictures are blurry, perhaps out of focus or too long shutter speed... whatever the matter is, master the basics before... anything else :)

http://www.deviantart.com/view/23743153/
this is a shot of figures... with the correct manual focus and some photoshopping (brightness, color... blur of the other figure is intended for DOF)

Black Phoenix
10-10-2005, 02:21 AM
I think both matter. But more imortant is the personality of the photograph. Really! My mom does my best pics, while she can see me as anime cheracter! And my friends are not that good... Dunno why, but they just make pics of me. Just me, sometimes similar to character.

quadrain61
10-10-2005, 09:53 AM
to be honest i do not think you are using the D70s correctly... because many of your pictures are blurry, perhaps out of focus or too long shutter speed... whatever the matter is, master the basics before... anything else :)

http://www.deviantart.com/view/23743153/
this is a shot of figures... with the correct manual focus and some photoshopping (brightness, color... blur of the other figure is intended for DOF)


[off topic]
I just got the camera and only using it for a few days now. I'm using the 18-70mm lens that came in the kit. Like a lot of people on the thread said, "practice a lot." I wish I could practice a lot but at the moment I'm going to school and going to work so I don't have that much time. I don't have decent lighting equipment since I don't have the money at the moment to buy any, since I'm a college student, so I'm having to use desk lamps and other stuff laying around to emulate a white background. I also tried to explain how lighting is important in my previous post. Since this is my first full fledged SLR camera I'm still playing around with it since the lens doesn't do macro photography it's kind of hard to focus in the set up I made to take the picture. Those pictures were quick examples I took to show about lighting, but I guess no one understood what I was going for.
[/off topic]

I shouldn't have made this post, so please keep on topic. All I'm trying to say is that both the photographer and camera that makes a difference. Hence the thread title

shiroin
10-10-2005, 12:24 PM
[off topic]
I just got the camera and only using it for a few days now. I'm using the 18-70mm lens that came in the kit. Like a lot of people on the thread said, "practice a lot." I wish I could practice a lot but at the moment I'm going to school and going to work so I don't have that much time. I don't have decent lighting equipment since I don't have the money at the moment to buy any, since I'm a college student, so I'm having to use desk lamps and other stuff laying around to emulate a white background. I also tried to explain how lighting is important in my previous post. Since this is my first full fledged SLR camera I'm still playing around with it since the lens doesn't do macro photography it's kind of hard to focus in the set up I made to take the picture. Those pictures were quick examples I took to show about lighting, but I guess no one understood what I was going for.
[/off topic]

I shouldn't have made this post, so please keep on topic. All I'm trying to say is that both the photographer and camera that makes a difference. Hence the thread title

hehe, neither do I XD
and I only have like what.... three month exp with my camera :p
but then that shot was done with normal room florsence lighting, with a tripod and a ghetto stack of white paper as background XD
its also done with a cheaper lens, the AF Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D

With the AF-S DX 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5G ED (IF), though a good versaile lens, still doen't really satisify me...
1) it is kind of slow... 3.5-4.5, I want to replace it with a 24-70mm F/2.8
2) it gives a ring thing if you shoot at 18mm, try it!
3) it gives a really bad shadow when you shoot at 18mm with flash D:
4) at 18mm it gives a 3% distortion... a very minor fisheye effect
the only reason why I would keep it because it gives me a nice 18-70mm, but if i do buy a 24-70mm i might considering selling that lens to some D50 users XD (they got a really bad kit lens in my opinion, small lens though)

tfcreate
10-10-2005, 07:44 PM
If you're using the auto-focus feature, keep in mind, they can be fooled and some don't react instantaniously. You may have your shot framed, but it may be as long as 1.5 seconds before you actually have a good focus. I prefer manual all the way. The only excpetion will be when something is happening right now and there's no real time to set up a manual shot.
Good choice in the D70, BTW. :bigtu:
TFC

Shiro MS08th
10-21-2005, 02:23 AM
quadrain61: You can try practicing in Aperture priority first, to get the hang of it.
Nowadays when I go for a photoshoot, I usually use Aperture and Manual priority.
For me color balance I like to use Cloudy -1 and Auto -2.

If you like wide zoom and got the money, can try buying those awesome lens.
17-35mm f/2.8
17-55mm f/2.8
12-24mm f/4

But I think the kit lens will be good to use for a learning experience now until you think , you got the need for a better lens, that's the time you already somehow improve and know what you want.

If you're shooting portraits, can get the 50mm f/1.8, and cheap and decent quality at it's price.
85mm and 135mm is a upgrade from 50mm.

shiroin
10-22-2005, 12:56 AM
quadrain61: You can try practicing in Aperture priority first, to get the hang of it.
Nowadays when I go for a photoshoot, I usually use Aperture and Manual priority.
For me color balance I like to use Cloudy -1 and Auto -2.

If you like wide zoom and got the money, can try buying those awesome lens.
17-35mm f/2.8
17-55mm f/2.8
12-24mm f/4

But I think the kit lens will be good to use for a learning experience now until you think , you got the need for a better lens, that's the time you already somehow improve and know what you want.

If you're shooting portraits, can get the 50mm f/1.8, and cheap and decent quality at it's price.
85mm and 135mm is a upgrade from 50mm.
how does 17-35mm f/2.8 and 17-55mm f/2.8 differ? price and optical quality?
i am thinking of a sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 what do you think?

*Shiva*
10-23-2005, 04:11 PM
I think a good camera can improve an already great photo, but you need a photoographer with an excellent eye to get the great photo in the first place.

So suffice to say, I think photographic composition skills are most important, and they, in turn, can be enhanced by a quality camera. However, the best camera money can buy can't make up for poor choices by the shooter.

Ami Yuy
10-24-2005, 10:30 PM
Protrait photography, or other more artistic types of photography does however require the DOF to make the subject stand out. This is more important for protrait photography, since the narrow DOF gives a nice 'fanatical' blurred background. (quoted from a Taiwanese photography site article on lenses that are good for protraits)

Well, if you look at Terry Richardson's website or that article, he also uses P&S, and he's doing portrait photography for big fashion magazines like Vogue, and he's been setting trends in fashion photography for the past year or so.

While most fashion photographers travel with a phalanx of good-looking young assistants wielding lights and oversized lenses, tripods, film bags, and reflectors, Richardson arrives on location with a couple of instant cameras, one in each hand, and nothing else. He doesn't design the lighting, doesn't plan his shoots, forgoes Polaroids, and never choreographs poses. He likes to work with little fuss and no entourage. And yet, in the last few years he has shot campaigns for Evian, Eres, H&M, Tommy Hilfiger, Anna Molinari, A|X, Sisley, and now —one of the biggest scores in the fashion world—the fall campaign for Gucci.

Richardson has wielded his point-and-shoot on Faye Dunaway, Catherine Deneuve, Sharon Stone, the Spice Girls, and a great many famous models. His work has been exhibited in galleries in London, Paris, and New York, and he has been published in magazines as varied as French Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, i-D, Vibe, The Face, and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
-- from http://www.newyorkmetro.com/shopping/articles/fallfashion/richardson1.htm

I don't think it's a hard & fast rule to use a big SLR w/ a lot of lighting equipment for portrait photography.

Some people are going to like Terry's approach, and some aren't. Regardless of that, enough fashion mags and different places like it enough that it's not a hard and fast rule to say "Portrait photography MUST be done w/ DoF and an SLR with a blurred background"

What Terry Richardson is not normal portrait photography, it is fashion photography, as you said. There is a difference.

Fashion photography is with the goal of selling the product and using the models and setting to do so. "Fashion photography is a specific type of photography devoted to displaying clothes and other fashion items. However, fashion photography had developed its own aestehtic, in which the clothes and fashions (to which they are explicitly devoted) often take a back seat to exotic locations or even story lines (see Eugenio Recuenco). Fashion photography is most often conducted for advertisements or fashion magazines." - from Wikipedia's "Fashion photography" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_photography)

Portrait photography is with the goal of highlighting the subject. "The intent is to show the basic appearance of the person, and occasionally some artistic insight into his or her personality." - from Wikipedia's "Portrait" artcile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait)

Therefore, when you use the definitions correctly, DOF can play a large role in portrait photography. When you are doing a headshot it is a major component of helping the subject stand out from the background and their surroundings.

Sorry if I sound snarky or anything, but since I do mostly portrait photography, I felt I should help set it straight.

And, on the topic at hand.

Both the camera and the photographer matter. But the photographer has to know what they're doing in order to get the best results out of whatever camera they're using. I could try and use a full on SLR, but until I had more experience with it, I'm afraid I would very possibly get worse pictures than I sometimes get with my SLR-like Nikon Coolpix 8700.

staereo
10-26-2005, 02:34 PM
Apples and oranges.

The talent of a photographer is seperate from the equipment that is being used.

A good photographer can likely take a basic camera and take a decent picture with it.

A bad photographer can take a basic camera and take a bad picture with it.

A good photographer can take high end equipment and take a decent picture.

A bad photographer can take high end equipment and take a bad picture with it.

All that said, a good photographer with equipment that is designed for the job he is doing will get an image equally as improved as the equipment he uses to take the picture with.

If you want to take a macro shot of a marble, and you have a good photographer, he can take an interesting picture of a marble. If he has a macro lens, his picture becomes that much more interesting. If he has a large format camera, his picture becomes stunning.

The fact is, if you shoot sports with a slow lens, your work WILL NOT be as good as if you, the same person, shot with fast glass.

If you shoot with full studio lighting, your picture WILL be better than if you used a built in flash.

Equipment has a HUGE impact on your work. So does talent. But they are independant of each other, and both impact a final image. If youre good, and you have good equipment, you will be better than if you have bad equipment. Same idea in mind, a monkey can screw up a picture taken with a hasselblad h1d just as easily as he could with a point and shoot.

You need talent to shoot photography. Once you've got that going for you, your equipment CAN be your bottleneck, your equipment must grow with your skill. (Eccentricity aside)

Bruce

Kakadokichikun
10-26-2005, 05:27 PM
Personally, I think sometimes even cheap cameras such as disposable ones can take really good pictures if you use the right angle, sunlight and scenery.

Sorry if I didnt read all the posts, I just thought of answering the topic question.

tfcreate
10-26-2005, 09:11 PM
Oh.... I never answered the question.
My answer is yes.
TFC

Efecss
10-28-2005, 08:57 PM
I feel that it's 1/3 equipment, 2/3 photographer.

Like the cleche says: "Good equpment makes good workers." But, in a way, if you reverse the saying to: "Good workers make equipment good." Meaning that if you have a good eye for something, and know how to use it properly, you can make incredible pictures.

Like these I just recently put up.

http://images.cosplay.com/showphoto.php?photo=511344
http://images.cosplay.com/showphoto.php?photo=510864

(And the picture didn't scan in right, I think it's because I scaned it in from a print, and the glossy paper wreacked some havok...)

But, on the flip side:
http://images.cosplay.com/showphoto.php?photo=512426
I think I had a beam in the way, or was just not paying attention to the angle.

But, I think this saying from a famous photographer (Who for the life of me, I can't remember right now.) "It is not the viewfinder that makes the picture. It is the eye of the photographer."

BionicSlime
10-29-2005, 01:51 AM
This is kind of funny because I just recently decided to stop using my advantax camera and just rely on disposables. The camera always pumped out crappy pictures, no matter what angle or light setting I seemed to set it on. And it got me mad because it's ruined some of my best shots at most of my con visits.

So I decided to stick with disposables. Honestly, they turn out just fine for me and I really don't want alot of camera crap just to take a photo. I mean no offense to anyone who uses lots of equipment, but for me, a simple disposable click works just fine for me.

staereo
10-29-2005, 03:30 AM
Disposable cameras are set up to produce an acceptable print over a much wider range of circumstances than other cameras.

The thought is: we'll make the camera which you cant really expose bad, but in the same way, you lose the creative control to create an image thats stunning under most circumstances.

Cherry_Blossom
10-29-2005, 12:56 PM
I think a good camera helps. I do think that good pictures are the products of the photographer, lighting, model, and the camera. I don't think one is less important then the other, and one is more important then the other... well, obviously the picture doesn't get taken if someone isn't taking the picture.... but I think all contribute. I know that my camera is a 3.2 mega pixel Kodak digital camera, and my pictures come out terrible... however, outside during the day, the pictures come out amazing, it's just lighting and the photographer for that... and my camera eats through batteries like me through oreo cookies after working from 3am to 10am.... so yeah...


I say that the camera really doesn't matter, only because mine sucks and I still can get very nice photos out of it.

staereo
10-30-2005, 11:58 AM
You can get nice photos out of a camera that 'sucks'. But the 'terrible' pictures that you take with that same camera might not be terrible if you had a better camera because the image sensor would be more able to produce a quality image under unsatisfactory conditions.

Shiro MS08th
10-31-2005, 06:53 AM
how does 17-35mm f/2.8 and 17-55mm f/2.8 differ? price and optical quality?
i am thinking of a sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 what do you think?

Price difference is several hundred dollars in Singapore Currency.
Optical quality, 17-35mm f/2.8 is the best quality wide angle zoom range in the lens selection.
Some people swear by it.

Well, I never have the money to buy it or even tried it before.
So can't really comment, you can try to go to shops and test it out.

The 17-35mm also can use for film bodies, while the 17-55mm can't.
Cause 17-55 is DX only for DSLR bodies.

On sigma I'm not sure.
The only 3rd party lens I've used before is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.

Some review of the 3 lens.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1735.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm

Captain Gundam
10-31-2005, 11:13 PM
Wow. Well its not the camera though the better the camera the more you can do with it. If you cant take pics since you dont know how, all the equipment is useless.

didjiman
11-03-2005, 03:01 AM
Yes...

:-)

Any case, I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but the best camera for a particular photog is one that he or she can work well with (Split infinities united!) For example, (If you care about such things:) if you need to bump up the ASA/ISO on your digital camera to get the shutter speed or aperture you want, can you do it in less than 3 seconds before the moment disappears?

Remember, there are only 5 things you control in a camera, composition/perspective, aperture/depth of field, shutter speed/illusion of motion, focus, (and with DSLR) ASA. Learn them well :-)

shiroin
11-04-2005, 11:08 PM
in extreme conditions, one is bond with a certain combo of shutter speed/aperature and ISO to get enough light...

and there is one element that is forgotten, artificial lighting, external flash!

staereo
11-05-2005, 05:57 AM
From the way I understand Shiroin's post, I tend to agree. The camera, while your main tool for recording your photographs, is only one piece of equipment you're using. You can get away with much more imperfections in your composition when you have a better camera, but there are other methods for making up for imperfect conditions.

As stated, quality of your lighting, be it flashguns, studio flashes, hot lights, etc, makes a giant difference in the quality of your image.

Lenses are a giant factor too, not so much for the money that you drop into the speed of your lens, but also the quality of the glass.

Bruce

Vincent-D
11-06-2005, 08:26 PM
I tried to read all the posts here but I skipped ahead from page 2 because I noticed everyone was thinking about the camera model and lighting... but there's so much more to know what to deal with, which by the way... camera's model and your "artistic" talent are not gonna matter.

These what matters together AT the same time.

Media Type
Environment
View & Focus Point


Media Type:
There's Digital and Photographic Film.

A movie tape you put in your VCR is digital because the picture was recorded into their magnetial tape... which is not something that you can see with your bare eyes. Only VCR can display what's on the magnetial tape through your TV.
Some camera used magnetial tape which most companies admits that they aren't digital, but I'd like to call it digital because it was used by its recorder. It's like they are claiming a half full glass of milk is half empty. Otherwise... how are you going to convert lightwave to magnetial code without digital recording system?

Alright, now that you know the digital, it has their own way to pick up lightwave and convert that to digital picture. However, every companies aren't sharing "how to make digital camera", thus each one has their own way, a bit different from others.

What does it say about the photographic film? Not much, because companies can't change the way chemical pick up lightwaves, thus they go find different chemical that pick up differently.

So... should you worry about knowing what model to use to grasp your vision into a picture? No, not really, almost each one of products resulted slightly differ in color and contract.

You only need to worry about thinking ahead whenever you plan to do with the picture. If youre planning on taking a whole bunch of pictures... go with digital to avoid wasting your time with ordering and processing the films.
If youre planning on capturing a picture at high speed (capturing in fast motion)... go with film.

However... you need to make sure you decided that choice for a very long time till you mastered with it. By that, you'll know the way camera gonna pick up before it did. Thus, you'll build a new talent by heart. Then you can move on with better camera model if it ever got made better. (I'm not saying start with the older model)

Environment:
This is almost everything to make your picture very natural. It deals with lighting, ambience, and medium. Contract isn't everything.

http://www.uua.org/staff/ctaylor.jpg
This picture is directed environment... which is not very natural.
Contract is mildly strong.

http://molbiol.ru/forums/uploads/photo-1073.jpg
This picture undirected environment... which is natural enough as you see with your own eyes. (That's not me, btw.)

So what should you do? Don't use light blub just because you think it NEEDS light, just let the room be itself, adject your camera to pick up more lights. If youre taking picture outdoor in the daylight and need to shine a bit more light on the shadowing side (to avoid strong contract level), use bright-colored (or just plain white) flat surface to reflect soft light.

PS: Camera Flash is evil of everything... even in your family & friends. (redeyes)

View & Focus Point:
This is almost the most part of your artistic talent, but really just to realize a whole new ways to look at.

"Viewing" point is common but often forget in the process to take a picture. The best way to ensure that youre about to take the best view.... NEVER EVER just stand and shoot. Why? Duh, we all can stand and look with our own eyes. Even if you think it won't look good... just go ahead take pictures or look at bug's, bird's, on-your-knee, standing-on-a-chair views. Some of those view will look better than you could with your own eyes at standing point.

Focus Point is the coolest part when it come to controling your camera setting. It create beauitful depth in the picture... THAT is why so many photographer use manual camera.

However, if youre one of those people who like to use a disposable, point and shoot camera... Just don't shoot too close, simple as that. (4ft is a good close distance in most general standard cameras)




So, all this to sum up to one thing... It really doesn't matter what camera model you use, it's the Enviroment and View & Focus Point that matter to you. Media Type is just an extra thing to concern on what you want to do with it.

Captain Gundam
11-06-2005, 11:47 PM
um ok D. i'll take your word for it

staereo
11-07-2005, 01:41 AM
O.o

Ummmm...

I was all ready to come into this thread and reply to the new posts. Unfortunately, D has confused me beyond all repair.

I will do my best though, to take my time and reply one step at a time, since I've nothing better to do with my time at 2 am this morning. Well, maybe I do, but Im both lazy and not yet sleepy, so Ill post anyways.

The difference between digital and film in cameras is a big one, we all know that. But as I could say for every point here, I think more emphasis of this post as been on quality of the type of media you choose to shoot with, not necessarily the media itself.

Both film and image sensors do pick up light. Film by photo sensative chemicals. Image sensors by measuring and recording of light absorbed by receptors in the sensor.

There is a big big difference here. Some people do prefer film, because it is a warmer, and typically more naturally saturated image, like the nice velvia 50 film photographers go gaga over. Image sensors of today, however, pick up more light information than film is able to. This can come in the form of noise as well as haze and other undesirables. What it also means is that image sensors have now surpassed film in ability, and the idea that film was more expandable is a thing of the past.

But while some film is better than others, some image sensors are better than others. It just happens to be, when you buy a camera thats digital, youre choosing the quality of 'film' that you will use through the life of the camera.

So is that an important factor? Yep! One of the largest if not, the largest factor in buying a camera.

Composition is important, this is very true. SOOOOO important, but the fact is, two equal photographers, from the same angle, one with a better tool to take the photograph, the better equipment will make the better image. So quality IS a factor, and it ISNT all about composition.

I have a dslr. I think quite a few people here do. If not, they may have a normal slr. I think you'd find that focus is faaaar more often a constant and the FLOW of light is what they vary. The flow of light is the reason people buy SLR or manually adjustable cameras.

Focus is rarely a creative tool. And focus has only a small part in DoF. That only establishes your point of focus, but the foreground and background depth from that point are changed with tools that are completely seperate from focus.

Those, too, involve flow of light.

I read in an article a really clever way of explaining the factors of an exposure. I always remember it, even now, when I snap with settings in my head as second nature.

Exposing a photograph is like filling a bucket.
A properly exposed picture is a bucket full right to the top.

Light is your water.

The bucket is your film/image sensor.

Your iso/iso equivalant (asa) is how big your bucket is.

The aperture is how fast you flow the water into the bucket. (ie from drops, to chugging)

Your shutter speed is how long you pour for.

Anyways,

As established, good equipment is useless if you dont know how to use the features that make it 'good'. But I am a firm believer that equipment is OFTEN a bottleneck in photography. Thats why its such an expensive hobby. You constantly find yourself having to run out to buy equipment, because the equipment you have isnt fast enough/bright enough/clear enough/close enough, etc, etc etc...

Bruce

didjiman
11-11-2005, 08:29 PM
...
Exposing a photograph is like filling a bucket.
A properly exposed picture is a bucket full right to the top.
...
Bruce

Bruce, you probably know this, but the only thing I would add is that this implies there is one "correct" exposure. While most of the time it may be true, sometimes you may want to expose for the middle gray, or the highlight, or the shadow etc. A simple example is a backlight situation - some times you do want the silhouette effect!

staereo
11-11-2005, 09:31 PM
Right, but whatever exposure youre going for is where the bucket is full. If you were AIMING for a silhouette, then the bucket is full when you get one. ^^ See what I mean?

And there is a such thing as over exposed and under exposed. You lose image data when you are either of these. Sure, you may do it on purpose, and that would be where your bucket was full. HOWEVER, in case and point, they do call it OVER exposure and UNDER exposure because you are OVER or UNDER something. hehehe.. And that over and under would be a completely and properly exposed image. Sometimes we dont want a properly exposed image, but that means that WE are going outside the box, not that the box has changed.

Either way, that is meant to be that the bucket is full when you get the exposure youre looking for. All of the rules still apply, even when trying to underexpose, or overexpose.

Bruce

Captain Gundam
11-12-2005, 12:24 AM
ok.. I'll make sure that doesnt happen then.