Do I Really Need To Spend $1000

[bajasurf]

I visited photographer David Peterson´s site this morning and after viewing his awesome photos taken with a Nikon D40 and KIT LENS(which can now be bought for around $400) I asked myself why in the world do I need to spend $8000, $4000, $2000 or even $1000 for a new camera. I invite you to visit his site and the photos presented are recent.

http://www.abqstyle.com

 

[Pskhaat]

Yes.

 

[goodtimes]

All depends on what you want to do with the images.

For example, the Overland Journal will print a single page photo with a 6.3 mp file...but they don't like a two page spread with that same file...or so I have been told by someone in the know...

Arizona Highways won't print a full page shot from *any* digital image, according to a source who is trying to get some stuff in that publication.

If you are looking for something to e-mail and post on the web....even 6.3mp can be overkill. Some of the images I have floating around the web were taking with a 3.2mp canon point and shoot...and most of bajataco's early images were taken with a litle p&s (not sure of the pixel count), and plenty of those images are simply fantastic.

so do you need to spend a grand or more on a new camera? Depends on what you want to do with the images, and how willing you are to work within the limits of any given camera (keeping in mind that most camera's will outperform most photographers).

 

[articulate]

We should revisit the concept of a rhetorical question.

:snorkel:

 

[neliconcept]

ive seen photographers take better pictures then that with a point and shoot canon g9

its not the equipment but the photographer

however... some cameras give different needs for some

D3 or the 1d series from canon give tracking abilities and high fps for sports and motorsports shooters to capture crisp moments and action shots.

5d is a full frame camera which can be used for weddings and or fashion and whatever and has incredible high ISO capabilities

also those are web viewed images

print them out at 11x14 or 15x20 and find a 5d similar image and print it out at same resolution

you will notice some differences.

 

[tdesanto]

Yes.

In recent years, I've come to appreciate how simple the truth can be at times.

 

[kellymoe]

No.

 

[Brian McVickers]

Maybe-so eepwall:

 

[bajasurf]

While we are on the subject during the holidays I purchased a mint Nikon N90s with 35-105 lens(filter) with camera case and instructions for $105. Shot a couple rolls of expired(3 years expired) Fuji Superia 400 Walmart special. Took the film to the Costco Store in Ensenada and had the film developed and prints(5x7) and a Cd made. A 36 exposure roll developed and 5x7 prints was U.S. $4.30. Both rolls scanned to the cd was an additional U.S. $2.22. In fact as many rolls that can be scanned to a cd is $2.22 total. Since most people are shooting digital the Noristu(spelling?) photo machine is hardly being used so the chemicals are fresh every morning. An 8x10 print is 98 cents, 10x12 is $1.40, 11x14 is $1.88 and a 12x18 is $3.17.The dollar prices are based on the exchange rate I received that day. The operator is a photographer and takes pride in his results. Of course prints from digital cameras are the same prices.

 

[peekay]

Photography, like many other hobbies, e.g. golf, cycling, offroading, etc., has a large number of people who concentrate too much on the equipment part and not enough on the "doing" part. These people spend 99% of their hobby time on internet forums poring over minute details and the latest tech, without actually participating in the hobby itself.

The reality is that 9 out of 10 owners of the latest/greatest tech don't really have the skills to benefit from it and don't really need it.

 

[smbisig]

My answer is yes. I just picked up a Nikon D700 (full frame) to be my main body with my D300 as a second body. I shoot a lot of sports, so the high ISO performance is very important for me. Plus, with the D700, if I ever have a good enough photo for OJ, maybe they will print it as a full spread?

Steven B.

 

[esh]

edit: n/m asshatery from the source

 

[7wt]

I visited photographer David Peterson´s site this morning and after viewing his awesome photos taken with a Nikon D40 and KIT LENS(which can now be bought for around $400) I asked myself why in the world do I need to spend $8000, $4000, $2000 or even $1000 for a new camera. I invite you to visit his site and the photos presented are recent.

http://www.abqstyle.com

Thanks for posting the link. I am of the indian not the arrow school of thought. I can't afford to have the best of everything that interest me so I buy the best I can afford. My D40 fits my needs just fine. It allows me a flat form to learn photography and still allow me a little room to grow. This argument is the same with my other hobbies like my RC heli. I have just decided that it's the journey and not the destination (sound familiar). Sure I could go buy a $2000 heli and fly it just fine but I haven't taxed the capabilities of my $400 one. Same with my camera.

 

[haven]

"It would be hard to capture the [dynamic range] involved"

Here's one approach to incresing dynamic range that will work
with any camera. Set up on a tripod and make two exposures.
The first will be properly set for the deep shadow, the second for
the bright sunlight. Combine the two images in Photoshop using
the "merge to HDR (high dynamic range)" command. Presto.

This technique is easy with a DSLR that has a bracketing function.
But it's also possible to use a $100 point and shoot camera to
good effect. The camera just needs to have some manual control
over shutter speed, while holding the aperture constant.

Here's one tutorial on the subject.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

Here's another
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml

And here's a small gallery of photos created by blending over and
under exposed images.
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?gallery=1

 

[kellymoe]

Photography, like many other hobbies, e.g. golf, cycling, offroading, etc., has a large number of people who concentrate too much on the equipment part and not enough on the "doing" part. These people spend 99% of their hobby time on internet forums poring over minute details and the latest tech, without actually participating in the hobby itself.

The reality is that 9 out of 10 owners of the latest/greatest tech don't really have the skills to benefit from it and don't really need it.

True that!