4 replies to this topic

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

I am no photographer or someone that interested in it at all.

I just bought an old Cannon digital camera for £40 and see what I can get out of that old hardware.

So I went out on my BMX and took a few pictures. Trying to cover as of its function much as possible.











It seems rather good for £40, good flash and pretty much good image overall. Seems to work well as my random point and shoot or when I am bored, I can play with ISO and other stuff as well.

[Camille]

a photography thread eh?

haven't seen one of those in a while...

oh and good pictures for such a cheap camera. don't be fooled however, people often forget it's the photographer that takes the pictures, not the camera. the camera simply records.

yes i'm looking at you €3000 camera owners that can't make decent pictures

[Shirou]

The more expensive the camera, the more it usually leaves to the photographer. It takes a skilled photographer to succesfully wield a $3000 camera, with manual sharpness settings and all kinds of other stuff to take into account. Its much easier to fuck up a picture with those.

Consumer cameras do all the work for you to get decent but not super pictures.

Edited by Shirou, 11 October 2010 - 19:09.

[Sgt. Nuker]

While I do prefer Nikon over Canon, there is one field where Canon prevails over Nikon, and that is the realm of "point-and-shoot" cameras. It really is no surprise that your images look as they do, and there is something to be said for the amateur photographer (that's you mate ) who took the photos. However, and I'm sure you already know this, ISO will only get you so far. It'll take a camera with more settings to net you more options as far as depth of field and sepia settings (not to mention auxiliary flash(es) and various lens options). Then, of course, you didn't get this camera to make a career of snapping still shots, so for what you've spent, I'd say you made out like a bandit.

[Camille]

Shirou, on 11 Oct 2010, 19:09, said:

The more expensive the camera, the more it usually leaves to the photographer. It takes a skilled photographer to succesfully wield a $3000 camera, with manual sharpness settings and all kinds of other stuff to take into account. Its much easier to fuck up a picture with those.

Consumer cameras do all the work for you to get decent but not super pictures.

you're very, very wrong. almost all camera's nowadays have an AF/MF switch and those are €300-€600 range cams. not only that but many of the more expensive camera's have an array of correction software, digital stabilizers, automatic colour correction and the likes that cheaper camera's don't have. so yeah, you could say that the less expensive cams are more "raw" than the higher-tier ones.

thing is, expensive camera's can make beautiful pictures due to their huge sensors, fast processors and correction software. therefore it is more of a task to create good pictures with lesser camera's, which ultimately results in more interesting imagery since most owners of expensive camera's can make even a dog turd look nice if you know what i mean. there's no real effort required.