Photographic vanity ? ? ?

[Sutton Warrior]

Having just purchsed a Nikon D40X body only, 12 months 'Gt' for £150. Had a problem with it initialy which I reported was sorted very satifactorly. Now had time to read and fiddle, the mind is working overtime. The options on a digital camera are numerous, mind blowing on ocasions . . . However, the few pics one has taken says, this is every bit as good as my D80, 'toung in cheek' . . . better? Perhaps not, but its certainly as good . . .

 

It takes pictures in RAW format, which makes it as good as any other camera with a 10mp sensor, the cost of some are considerably higher! One suspects a fairly large hike money wise to get to 'semi pro standard of build', but, essentialy they still shoot RAW which is the leveler?

 

Question, go back a few years, to the days of film, the camera body was a means of firing a shutter and controling the few settings. It wa the glass that was the glas that was the quality factor of the final image, the film and the processing in the dark room, talking proper skills here.

 

RAW and some decent glass, I would sugest all you need is a basic body like a D40X . . . and a decent eye.

 

Are we the victims of advertising, our own photographic vanity and a desire to have the best, what is the best? and why? . . . ? . . . 4 wheels, an engine and a stearing wheel = a car. What = a camera???

 

SW

[MrWiggly]

What = a camera???

 

Basically .. A lightproof box with recording medium at one end, and a pinhole at the other. And that gave you a "RAW" image.

 

All other attachments are in the quest for better results from the pinhole.

 

There have been some absolutely brilliant photographs produced with the most basic of equiment, which many today would classify as "Old fashioned" or even "Useless".

 

As always technology will advance, and there is always something "better" around the corner that the technofile must have, believing that this is the road to better results. This is not always the case. Like all processes that rely on "art" or "craft" it is down to the individual to produce results that not only satisfies themselves, but hopefully others.

 

The advance of photographic technology, especially during the last 25 years, has been nothing short of amazing, and I am sure that there are more marvels to come.

 

But there is still the art and the soul and the vision that needs to be applied ... no matter how much equipment is avaliable, or how deep the pocket is.

 

As always ... It aint what you got ... It's how you use it !

Edited November 1, 2008 by MrWiggly

[Peter Waller]

But it does help to have the best tool for the job! My little Kodak crapmatic would be pretty darn useless for offshore power boat racing from the beach, or deep sea diving!

[Sutton Warrior]

What = a camera???

 

 

But there is still the art and the soul and the vision that needs to be applied ... no matter how much equipment is avaliable, or how deep the pocket is.

 

As always ... It aint what you got ... It's how you use it !

 

 

Thats exactly my thoughts. Fine tuning of basic skills . . .

 

SW

[Chippy]

I hate to rain on anyone's parade here, but it's a bit like saying "why are all cars the same, after all they do is get us for A to B".

 

There are enormous differences between cameras with, lets say, the same MP count.

 

The best camera in the world is the one that suits YOUR needs.

 

Do you need to shoot 10 frames a second? Do you need to be able to stand out in pouring rain for hours on end without worrying whether your gear is going to get wrecked? etc etc

 

It is true that a basic camera in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, will (excluding the odd lucky shot) produce a better pic than a top of the range camera in the hands of someone that hasn't got a clue.

[Sutton Warrior]

It is true that a basic camera in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, will (excluding the odd lucky shot) produce a better pic than a top of the range camera in the hands of someone that hasn't got a clue.

 

Chippy, this pharagraph of yours summs it up admarably, its basics and the eye. All else, with respect to this thread, is guilding the lilly, some worth while, some expensive pointless adittions? Which is why; . . . it requires a "fairly large hike money wise to get to 'semi pro build standards' . . . ". Thats build quality, water proof, 10 frames per second etc., not fancy gismoss, without which, the camera would still operate perfectly well.

 

SW

[Alnath]

glass, glass, glass and glass.

[Westie]

glass, glass, glass and glass.

 

I'd have to agree with that. I've got one pro grade lens and it blows my other lenses away in terms of colour rendition, contrast etc, although I'd probably be hard pushed to see the difference in small prints that I run off for friends/family. Bigger pictures, then yes, I can see a quite marked difference. Shame my pocket doesn't allow me to indulge myself, otherwise I'd happily have a 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 200-400 f4 in the Nikon range. Mind you, I wouldn't have a wife after a spending spree of that nature. I doubt I'd have the support of my bank manager either. But you can still dream.

 

LOL.

[Sutton Warrior]

I'd have to agree with that. I've got one pro grade lens and it blows my other lenses away in terms of colour rendition, contrast etc, although I'd probably be hard pushed to see the difference in small prints that I run off for friends/family. Bigger pictures, then yes, I can see a quite marked difference. Shame my pocket doesn't allow me to indulge myself, otherwise I'd happily have a 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 200-400 f4 in the Nikon range. Mind you, I wouldn't have a wife after a spending spree of that nature. I doubt I'd have the support of my bank manager either. But you can still dream.

 

LOL.

 

 

Think you might have made a point there Westie. Top glass is always going to be at the top of the list, IMHO, but most cant afford it??? I cant anyway, might find a used bargin one day, (keep the D80 just in case) . However, how often do I print my pics out . . . almost never and if I do, I only have an A4 printer. Can the differance be seen at A4? As you say, on computer its near imposible I suspect? . . . . Then again, we used to have a member who specilised in wild birds, cant remember his name. He had fairly basic kit if I remember, but had a prime 4 or 500 lense, always shot in RAW, his work was outstanding viewed on the computer screen. A Mallard duck sticks in my mind! Anyone remember the guy?

 

SW

[Alnath]

I cant tell the difference of images taken on my old 350D, still in use but a bit croaky 20D and 40D using the same lens but if i look at images taken on a 350 quid Tamron lens (which lets be honest still ain't cheap is it) and then at images taken using my L lenses the difference is shockingly different. The L lenses are a million miles ahead.