What Do We Want Our Cameras For?

[IanForbes]

I've sold thousands of photos to magazines for my articles and other people's stories. I know what most magazines can actually use. Most cameras, even the better quality point and shoot cameras, exceed the qualifications for most published photos in magazines. So that boils it down to the average amateur photographer and his or her needs. How many of us blow up our photos to billboard size? Almost everyone I know keeps 95% of all their photos on their computer for personal use. We use our computers as a projector to show our families the pictures most approprate. The thousands of other pictures just sit there... stored forever.

What use is a picture that nobody is going to see more than once? And, even then only on a computer screen? Most photos taken by good cameras today have to be reduced in size just to be seen. Those snapshots taken with cel phones are adequate for e-mailing pictures. My I-pod does an adequate job if I just want to send pictures to friends. Most people have hundreds of pictures stored on their little point and shoot cameras. It's only when we want to make 16 x 20 inch prints that you start to see the difference in quality.

My next door neighbour in Canada is a professional photographer. It has been his only career for 40 years. He sells his photos to various "stock photo" companies. But, despite most magazines not being able to use the highest quality photos, they still demand larger pixel counts. And, because of the huge increase in good quality digital cameras it is almost impossible now to compete with the amateurs on a regular basis. With so many photos being taken by Joe Average American it's just natural that some picture by an amateur is going to be a prize winner.

Which brings me back to my original question... What do we want our expensive cameras for? Is it worth it to spend $5000 or more on cameras for pictures that nobody but ourselves are going to view?

[astral]

That is a very interesting question, food for thought.

From my point of view I use my camera for three things,

A record when travelling

Family

Local events.

Almost all the images go on the PC with only a few prints made,

but occasinally it is good to be able to make a sizeable enlargement

or crop down without loosing too my detail.

Currently I have a Canon 40D with an assortment of lenses, and have been using an SLR

for 40 years now. I used to lug a bag around with a 21mm + 50mm + 135mm lenses.

I now tend to stick to the 17-85mm that I bought with the camera.

A point and shoot would be lighter.

On the travel side I do like to be able to take photos in low light,

"black cats in coal cellars" as my father would have said,

and I am not sure the noise levels on the P&S would allow that.

I do have a camera on my phone and have tried that on occasions, with

rather blurry results. The same with a friend's P&S, that uses the LCD screen

as the view finder. I concluded that my hands are no longer steady enough for such

cameras. The dSLR, held against my head gives me stability for most shots

and the stabiliser built into the lens helps as well. So I hope to be able to

manage photography for a few more years. I am 63 now.

[IanForbes]

I really posted the topic with my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek. We all want the latest and greatest, and we never seem to have the ideal equipment when we need it most. Because I spend a LOT of time around water I'm constantly in danger of getting my cameras wet. I've lost at least 6 or 7 that way. Once dunked, an electronic item is a paper weight. That really is the case with video cameras. I have at least $25,000 in unused cameras and lenses sitting at home. Some lenses are still useable but others are basically paper weights. When I used to write regularly for a few magazines and newspapers my camera was an important tool that earned me money. It's not so much today and I only dabble in it occasionally. But, I still want good photographs.

Some of my old waterproof housings are more expensive than the the waterproof cameras you can now buy for under $400, and the new cameras give better results for far less bulk. If I'm on an actual photo shoot then I don't mind carrying a big SLR, but by doing so I'm often hounded by tuk tuk drivers who know I'm a tourist.. I'm really impressed by the better quality point and shoot cameras. There is already a discussion going on about the better ones so I won't comment other than I covet one of those as well.

LIke us anglers say... there is no one perfect boat. Yah gotta have one of each. And, being an angler and a photographer... I do.

[svenivan]

Ian, I have been waiting for a couple of years to buy my next camera. The last one I bought was a Sony R1 from Ebay that I bought 2009 (made 2005).

I want to have a camera where I can take good landscape, easy to take snaps on the street and also to take good full HD-videos! !

Every month last year there is a new camera coming up, sometimes point and shoot, sometimes DSLR etc that has some fantastic new qualities, options and functions. And more and more Mpixels !

And they get cheaper and cheaper. Of course I want the best the day I buy something but when shall I take the decision?

Nikon D7000, Canon 7D, Sony A55 etc etc etc.

HELP ! ! ! ! !

[MJP]

Ian, I have been waiting for a couple of years to buy my next camera. The last one I bought was a Sony R1 from Ebay that I bought 2009 (made 2005).

I want to have a camera where I can take good landscape, easy to take snaps on the street and also to take good full HD-videos! !

Every month last year there is a new camera coming up, sometimes point and shoot, sometimes DSLR etc that has some fantastic new qualities, options and functions. And more and more Mpixels !

And they get cheaper and cheaper. Of course I want the best the day I buy something but when shall I take the decision?

Nikon D7000, Canon 7D, Sony A55 etc etc etc.

HELP ! ! ! ! !

You could wait for the Fujifilm HS20 EXR reviews, should be out in March I think.

[quiksilva]

The thing with cameras (and technology of all sorts) is that the best camera for you will always be out in another six months.

As to the OP, one of the reasons I recently scaled up was to learn how to use a camera properly, but I suppose image quality, depth of field, low light performance, remote release, shutter speed and flexibility are all good reasons too.

That said, I'm still keen to get a decent P&S, primarily for my wife but also as a useful size to stow away in a pocket on fishing trips etc.

[canuckamuck]

Interesting discussion. In my former life, my images sometimes wrapped entire city buses or commuter train cars, so obviously I had a desire for massive pixel depth. These days, you are right the vast majority of my pictures exist only as bites, never to printed in any way. But that doesn't make me dismiss image size, because there are always those images that have potential to be commercially useful, and it is such a shame when they are captured in low rez or on a noisy CCD.

After cyclone Nargis, a friend of mine (Burmese) set his camera to low rez so he could save card space. One of the images he captured was extraordinary and really told the story as well as being wonderfully composed. Sadly the image was nearly useless in print. It still bugs me when I think about it, such a waste.

What I think is optimal in a camera is great image clarity and a file size which can print un-interpolated an 11x14 at 300dpi. I think it is a shame how many current cameras hide behind megapixel counts and produce noisy images. As for priorities, I would accept a smaller pixel count for a cleaner image any day. But not too small

Edited January 11, 2011 by canuckamuck

[angiud]

In my case, I would like to change my Canon 450D (12 Mpixels) with something bigger, like 550D or 60D (18 Mpixels). This because it allows me to crop a little my macro pics without any loose in quality.

And change a 600 $ macro lens with a 1200 $ just to improve the quality.

But is just an hobby

[IanForbes]

In my case, I would like to change my Canon 450D (12 Mpixels) with something bigger, like 550D or 60D (18 Mpixels). This because it allows me to crop a little my macro pics without any loose in quality.

And change a 600 $ macro lens with a 1200 $ just to improve the quality.

But is just an hobby

You make a good point about cropping. Very often I see a picture within a picture and I can crop out a tiny portion of the original size. That is why I like my Nikon 200D and will eventually get the best Nikon made.

But, as I've said many times, the camera that you ALWAYS carry with you is the one you'll probably get that picture you treasure. Just today we were saying goodbye to a friend at the airport and I stuck the little Pentax W30 in my pocket before we left. I'm glad I did because I captured a few scenes of the whole group of us saying goodbye. They aren't spectacular pictures, or of any interest to anyone but our group, but who knows when we'll see each other again, and certainly not as a group.The little Pentax W30 takes nice closeups, and better than my Nikon 200D with the 18mm to 200 mm lens. The 18 to 200 is a nice lens and very versatile, but it has its limitations. The Pentax W30 has a slow lens and it's no good in low light, but it's waterproof and I can stick under water and take reasonable pictures... even though not up to the standards of some more recent cameras like the Canon W10.

Like I said... yah need one of everything.

[MJP]

In my case, I would like to change my Canon 450D (12 Mpixels) with something bigger, like 550D or 60D (18 Mpixels). This because it allows me to crop a little my macro pics without any loose in quality.

And change a 600 $ macro lens with a 1200 $ just to improve the quality.

But is just an hobby

You make a good point about cropping. Very often I see a picture within a picture and I can crop out a tiny portion of the original size. That is why I like my Nikon 200D and will eventually get the best Nikon made.

But, as I've said many times, the camera that you ALWAYS carry with you is the one you'll probably get that picture you treasure. Just today we were saying goodbye to a friend at the airport and I stuck the little Pentax W30 in my pocket before we left. I'm glad I did because I captured a few scenes of the whole group of us saying goodbye. They aren't spectacular pictures, or of any interest to anyone but our group, but who knows when we'll see each other again, and certainly not as a group.The little Pentax W30 takes nice closeups, and better than my Nikon 200D with the 18mm to 200 mm lens. The 18 to 200 is a nice lens and very versatile, but it has its limitations. The Pentax W30 has a slow lens and it's no good in low light, but it's waterproof and I can stick under water and take reasonable pictures... even though not up to the standards of some more recent cameras like the Canon W10.

Like I said... yah need one of everything.

For most people (mainstream consumers) owning one camera is enough, although they need to be of a small form factor, they do not necessarily need to be pocketable. How long until we get a true all-in-one superzoom?

The Fujifilm HS20 EXR looks promising. Also the Sony HX5V if it shot in RAW.

A fun thread would be specifying the ultimate consumer camera.

[astral]

A fun thread would be specifying the ultimate consumer camera.

Please feel free to start the thread with your thoughts.

[MJP]

A fun thread would be specifying the ultimate consumer camera.

Please feel free to start the thread with your thoughts.

I've been trying, but I've already tied myself in knots, rather confused myself. So I'm going to pass this baton to yourself or other far more experienced photographers than me.

Right now it's a Fujifilm HS20 EXR with a wide angle f1.4 lens and an APS-C sized sensor, all the Sony HX7V tech and the ruggedness of a Panasonic FT2.

[Whale]

"What do we want our expensive cameras for? Is it worth it to spend $5000 or more on cameras for pictures that nobody but ourselves are going to view?"

I think it is, although the need to spend 5000 on a body is probably a thing of the past for 99.9% of us. I have spent 5000 on a lens though, and would do so again. There's niches throughout photography that only an slr system can achieve.

[MJP]

"What do we want our expensive cameras for? Is it worth it to spend $5000 or more on cameras for pictures that nobody but ourselves are going to view?"

I think it is, although the need to spend 5000 on a body is probably a thing of the past for 99.9% of us. I have spent 5000 on a lens though, and would do so again. There's niches throughout photography that only an slr system can achieve.

It's right up there with private pilots licenses regards cost!

One could get drawn into a dangerous addiction and I'm only glad it's so difficult to buy online in this country or we should surely starve (surrounded by 'L' lenses).

[IanForbes]

I know the technology is already out there. There are photos taken from space that can read a newspaper from a thousand miles away. I watch skiing films showing close-ups of men coming down mountains, and the video is taken from the opposite mountain, several miles away. It's amazing stuff, and we can all look back at how far technology has already come in the few short years that digital photography was made available to the public at a reasonable cost.

[neverdie]

Hi chaps.

Interesting topic.

Lets not kid ourselves about the Prosumer type cameras though. Whilst they are good & probably more than enough for someone like me, they certainly are along way from churning out the same quality and features of the higher end DSLR's.

The high end DSLR market is a multi-million dollar market & meanwhile whilst the prosumers are making leaps and bounds with technology, so's the higher end of town. Both Canon & Nikon will release newer models of FX DSLR's at some stage during this year & I am sure some of the results will be outstanding.

I'd say, for good portion of the population, the prosumer end of the market is certainly where its at & its only going to get better but at the same time there will for now & also into the forseeable future be plenty of people lined up to part with large amounts of cash to buy the top end stuff.

[MJP]

I know the technology is already out there. There are photos taken from space that can read a newspaper from a thousand miles away. I watch skiing films showing close-ups of men coming down mountains, and the video is taken from the opposite mountain, several miles away. It's amazing stuff, and we can all look back at how far technology has already come in the few short years that digital photography was made available to the public at a reasonable cost.

Miniaturization! Ruggedization! Otherizations!

You've got to hand it to the Japanese, they really are impressive.

Edited January 11, 2011 by MJP

[neverdie]

I know the technology is already out there. There are photos taken from space that can read a newspaper from a thousand miles away. I watch skiing films showing close-ups of men coming down mountains, and the video is taken from the opposite mountain, several miles away. It's amazing stuff, and we can all look back at how far technology has already come in the few short years that digital photography was made available to the public at a reasonable cost.

Miniaturization! Ruggedization! Otherizations!

You've got to hand it to the Japanese, they really are impressive.

not so flash with their economy. it seems they also let idiot politicians destroy their futures with stupid decisions and one track minds......bit like other parts of the world these days

[MJP]

I know the technology is already out there. There are photos taken from space that can read a newspaper from a thousand miles away. I watch skiing films showing close-ups of men coming down mountains, and the video is taken from the opposite mountain, several miles away. It's amazing stuff, and we can all look back at how far technology has already come in the few short years that digital photography was made available to the public at a reasonable cost.

Miniaturization! Ruggedization! Otherizations!

You've got to hand it to the Japanese, they really are impressive.

not so flash with their economy. it seems they also let idiot politicians destroy their futures with stupid decisions and one track minds......bit like other parts of the world these days

Just demographics and bubbles. Still likely the richest country on earth due to their incredible engineering and production. When you're that good nothing else, especially bankers/politicians/other lying scum . . . matters.

The UK is a whole different kettle of truly rotten fish. That said, is there a digital camera manufacturing facility in the UK?

Anyway, OT . . .

So, extremes of today. Just looking at Phase One cameras on Flickr. Bonkers!

Oh Flickr is just so good

[Kan Win]

Hi IanForbes,

What use is a picture that nobody is going to see more than once?

That's a very good question.

The answer this is on me web-page

http://www.pbase.com/profile

http://www.pbase.com/win13

1. These pages have been viewed a total of 892,079 times (to date)

2. Welcome to Kan Win's photos - Thailand as I see it.

3. Yes, they will look only once, and/or steal a photo or two, but this world is large and folks who wish to see "Thailand as I see it" are free to do so. This is why I post my pictures that are viewed all around our World.

As for Cameras

Oly C2500L 100k in Thai Baht

Oly C8080W 100k in Thai Baht

Oly E-3 100k in Thai Baht

All with added extras btw.

Coming soon Oly E-5.

Sawadee

Edited January 11, 2011 by Kan Win

[MJP]

You guys have way too much money!

[MRToMRT]

If you just want "snapshots" your iphone is good enough. If you are happy with that functionality and file quality then that is all that counts.

Or was your muse/query really about the practices of the print media industry regarding their own quality requirements?

Edited January 12, 2011 by MRToMRT

[IanForbes]

If you just want "snapshots" your iphone is good enough. If you are happy with that functionality and file quality then that is all that counts.

Or was your muse/query really about the practices of the print media industry regarding their own quality requirements?

Good point. Many people just want a few photos to e-mail to friends and family. Most low end cameras, or cameras on cel-phones and I-Pods are fine for that. But, like Kan-Win said, a lot of serious photographers like to share their ideas and pictures. This particular forum is proof of that. I have close to 10,000 photos on various forums that can be viewed by the public. Most are my own photos, but a few are just funny stuff I've received in the mail. I use pictures all the time to illustrate a topic, or just make people laugh.

the internet is a marvelous tool for business, as well as being a social interaction for people to communicate all over the globe. There is no question that a photograph can be worth a thousand words. Many of my best friends today came about by meeting people through the internet and all its various functions.

Look how many people were informed of the tsunami tragedy in 2004 by private video clips from people who were there. Youtube is one of the most popular sites on the internet and a lot of it was taken by amateurs.

[neverdie]

You guys have way too much money!

Ohhh, you can never really have too much of the folding stuff MJP.

Of course some people like one thing and would be prepared to outlay a small fortune on that and others like other things and their money goes in that direction.

:jap:

[xen]

I have one SLR ,a Olympus 510 which i use for the more major shoots that i do but it is a pain in the proverbial to lug it around most of the time. I like the quality of the detail it will provide and the versatility - different lens etc even tho most of the work i do is wide angle but sometimes details with the zoom are required.

And because i will use it mainly for landscapes ,gardens, parks, and streetscapes i like the fact that i can identify plant species from the photos.

The rest of the time i will take a point and shoot . I have a Sony W180 which takes reasonable shots and a Cannon ixus 100 IS that has the advantage that it is so small that i compare it with a back-up .22 shooter in a ankle holster that can be used in an emergency and is easily concealed. It is great for that street shot of that lady whose beauty takes yr breath away altho i very rarely get away with that.

I doubt that i will replace these for some time as i don't require the extra megapixals that are on sale now. And i have no need for movie mode. The way i see it use a movie camera for movies. Also on these point and shoots these two cameras of mine still have a view finder - just a feature i like on any camera. Trying to compose a shot on a screen with finger marks, scratches (I don't allow my screens to have these but i have used a few cameras like that) and the sun reflecting on the screen , then a viewfinder is a must . i have been told i am old fashioned for that preference.

[ballpoint]

Which brings me back to my original question... What do we want our expensive cameras for? Is it worth it to spend $5000 or more on cameras for pictures that nobody but ourselves are going to view?

I don't know if it's necessary to go that high, but it certainly is worth it to spend a couple of thousand on a decent camera. I have pictures on my laptop that are of no worth or interest to anyone other than me, but to me they are priceless and irreplaceable. Family and friends who have passed away, places that have since changed beyond recognition, and other treasured memories; the only physical record of which is a file on a computer (and backed up on a hard drive at home). Sure, it may be argued that you don't need a high end kit for this, and I'd agree with that to some extent, but you only get one chance at some of these photos. Stack the odds in your favour by using a decent camera. As an example, I have some photos I took a few years back of my grandfather, the last time I saw him before he passed away. They were taken in his house, in fairly dim light. On a recent trip back to NZ I compared them with some my brother took at the same time using a point and shoot. His are fine, but a bit grainy and with no real detail available. Mine are clear. Every wrinkle is countable, the background of his living room shows up in high detail. Would I be happy if I only had photos of the same quality as my brother's? Yes, because of the memories they give me. Am I happier that I have my better quality ones? Definitely.

[astral]

You guys have way too much money!

That may be so, but there is no point in money in the bank if you do not enjoy life........

However I seem to remember a saying about the camera being less important that the photographer behind it.

A $5000 body is outside my budget.

Interesting analogy to Private Pilot's License.

At least with photography you can take it in stages,

Buy a dSLR with a kit lens,

then add another lens or a flash gun,

then another lens.

Upgrade to a better camera body

and so on, over a number of years

Then age starts to kick in.

The super SLR's are heavy beasts and a pain to lug around.

Memories captured in photos are important in my book too.

Not only my own photos, but those of my father and my grandfather.

[IanForbes]

Good reply, Ballpoint. It matches the other post who said he can crop a large format photo down to the essentials. You can't do that with cameras shooting in low resolution. I have some old, black and white photographs of my grandfather who was in his 20s at the time. That was in the 1880s. The photos are cracked wtih a few missing pieces along the cracks, but everything else is in sharp detail. I photoshoped the pictures back to their original form. Or, at least close to the original. The pictures are of no value to anyone outside our family, but priceless to us. That is why I make printed copies and save all sorts of stuff on files that someday might be useful.

[MJP]

Which brings me back to my original question... What do we want our expensive cameras for? Is it worth it to spend $5000 or more on cameras for pictures that nobody but ourselves are going to view?

I don't know if it's necessary to go that high, but it certainly is worth it to spend a couple of thousand on a decent camera. I have pictures on my laptop that are of no worth or interest to anyone other than me, but to me they are priceless and irreplaceable. Family and friends who have passed away, places that have since changed beyond recognition, and other treasured memories; the only physical record of which is a file on a computer (and backed up on a hard drive at home). Sure, it may be argued that you don't need a high end kit for this, and I'd agree with that to some extent, but you only get one chance at some of these photos. Stack the odds in your favour by using a decent camera. As an example, I have some photos I took a few years back of my grandfather, the last time I saw him before he passed away. They were taken in his house, in fairly dim light. On a recent trip back to NZ I compared them with some my brother took at the same time using a point and shoot. His are fine, but a bit grainy and with no real detail available. Mine are clear. Every wrinkle is countable, the background of his living room shows up in high detail. Would I be happy if I only had photos of the same quality as my brother's? Yes, because of the memories they give me. Am I happier that I have my better quality ones? Definitely.

Stop it, stop that right now. Stop making me spend money.

[neverdie]

I was so inspired by this thread that I raced out to the Camera shop yesterday and bought a new speedlight & its a real cracker. TY very much :jap: .

Mee thinks astral is right!