Posts
I love photography, but I don't own a DSLR.
Being the sole bread winner for a family of four, non-essential expenses like tool for a hobby has to be justifiable.
And truthfully, I cannot justify spending so much money for a DSLR when I know I don't have the time to fully utilise it since I doubt I will have much time for photography. Also I know that I will want to spend even more for some good quality lenses because after some comprehensive testings I know my existing lenses are just not up to the standard I like.
There is no shame being poor and I can openly acknowledge that with my current income this hobby is just not viable. Even if my imcome increased dramatically, I would also hope to try for a daughter first instead of getting a camera. If wife's willing, of course. =) Sadly as much as I love to have a daughter, current income just cannot afford a third child.
Past experience has taught me to get the right camera the first time round instead of getting one that doesn't meet my requirements albeit cheaper and upgrade later, it will end up more expensive in the long run.
Since I am not new to photography I know exactly what I am looking for in a DSLR body:
- manufacturer: Canon, I am already sold on Canon a long time ago
- sensor resolution: I want something between 16 to 20 megapixel (or better) since that is equivalent to 35mm film scanned and I can get 300ppi (photo quality) prints at 12R size. Plenty enough for my usual need of 4R or 8R size print so I can take photo with cropping in mind
- full frame sensor: I want my wide angle to be wide angle, thank you very much. Extention tube for telephoto is much cheaper than getting the real wide angle lenses. Fisheye lens with only 1.6x the widest angle? No thank you!
- handling: something similar to EOS5, as I am used to that and it's comfortable for me
- functions: manual, shutter priority, aperture priority, focus lock, exposure compensation, bulb and 1/2000 seconds is plenty enough for me, FPS is not critical since I don't take much fast action photo, ISO 50 to 800 is sufficient for my need
- build quality: no plastic body, need to be metal alloy or some sturdy composite for good wear and tear as well as good sealing for the environment. Shutter life at least in the 100k cycle range
Back in September 2008 I already know what DSLR to get, if I ever get one. Been following the releases of new models from Canon but none of the new bodies tickled my fancy.
Anyway, I am writing this as a long-winded way to rant because an old friend of mine refused to discuss camera and photography with me because I do not own a DSLR.
Given that I was discussing camera and photography with a bunch of strangers while waiting for Accom to put my QuadCore together last week, my old friend's stance is like a slap to the face.
Me sad. =(
11 comments:
Dont be sad
if u think good camera not = good photo skill, then u shld not aim for 5DMk2 (given ur limited budget). Any mid-end DSLR like 50D or 550D will do, doesnt matter it is not full frame. If not, 2nd hand 40D or 450D. U can talk, debate...but u will continue to miss the fun of DSLR if u actually own one.
I don't feel like repeating what I wrote in the entry so let's put it this way: if Canon comes out with a DLSR that meets what I need, at a cheaper price, I will be a HAPPY BUNNY! =)
It doesn't have to be 5DMkII, it's just unfortunately the cheapest EOS there is at the time being that meets my requirements. You don't know how disappointed I was when I found out EOS7D is not full frame.
But it's okay, after ranting I realised belatedly that perhaps it's better for me not to discuss photography with those who believe good photograph and photographic skill comes from expensive, most up to date camera model.
It's like saying those driving luxury/posh car will automatically have better driving skill, *snigger*.
Anyway, it's all moot, I don't have the time to dedicate for photography, so even if I win the lottery (which will not happen since I don't but lottery) and have shitload of "free money", DLSR is still not a top priority.
There many kinds of ppl in the world, like someone owns expensive tool but lousy photo skill, or skillful pro with top gear or entry gear. Nobody said u r right or wrong, but the way you argued with ppl, it seems like u r a so called "skillful" fellow who is too poor to own a DSLR. U despise loaded ppl who buy expensive tool despite poor skill.
Hmm... I despise loaded people, I said someone has poor skill?
No idea how that perception was derived but since I never said those or had those intentions, I cannot apologise for what people perceived.
You will never hear me say I am a skillful photographer, because I am not. I am at best an enthusiast. I have no problem with ego and I freely admit my lack of skill in things. In fact, I like to make fun of how craptastic I am in most things. =)
I have nothing against rich people or people with expensive tools/toys (despise is such a strong word). Again I have no idea how that perception came about.
Eh, if I have free money and the time to indulge in photography now, I would go buy a 5DMkII (plus L series lens) in a blink. Based on the perception, does that mean I have to despise myself? =P
Also, I don't recall judging anyone's photographic skill in my discussion so far. Yes, I treat them as discussion, not argument. Please don't put words into my mouth.
If I am a pro or a photography instructor then maybe I will judge other, but since I am not I do not go around telling people they have poor skill. (I would just tell them they have same skill as me, muahahaha! =P)
Anyway, my stance is simple, I do not believe "camera better = photograph automatically better".
I have no implication on anybody's skill, no matter what camera s/he owns, is the believe that "camera better = photograph automatically better" that irks me.
Pls lah, in the discussion nobody said camera better = photograph automatically better. Ppl just wanna discuss the gear feature and spec. It is u who jumpped into conclusion.
Looks like we need a memory refresher...
[direct quote]
but to "some extend", which ___ and ___ will probably agree, if they are using Nikon D3/s instead of their D700 and D90 respectively, they would really get "better photography" using same lens, same setting.... ___ will probably testify to his photos taken with 7D vs his old 1000D...
which the sames also should apply to you as you "dream" about getting Mark 2, else you would have just buy the 1000D since you do not think better camera will give you better photograph, right?
[end quote]
Names and examples used to strengthen the "camera better = photograph automatically better" view.
And of course, trying to get me to fall into that view just because I want a 5DMkII (without understanding why I want one) irked me to no end.
Let's stop before you put more words I didn't say into my mouth and before you start forgetting more stuff you said yourself.
This is pointless.
I didnt quote the above. But it sounds logical. It also depends on how u define "better photography". Let me ask u how u define this?
Signed off ..... Mr Anon
Looks like I am bound to repeat whatever I said or other people said many times over, and over, and over, and...
[direct quote]
When I say "good photography", I think along the lines of composition, angle, light, our pespective and creativity. These are the things that are camera independent and all about user's photographic skill.
[end quote]
I confess I am a sucker for photography discussion, I prefer to call it passionate though. =P
More long-winded stuff incoming! =P
According to the claim, using same lens, same settings, we would get better photo with 7D compared with 1000D (since I am not familiar with Nikon I will use the Canon example). So let us see what's the difference between the two camera that supposedly made this happen:
(1) 7D has 18MP sensor compared to 1000D's 10.1 MP
(2) 7D uses DIGIC4 imaging processor while 1000D uses DIGIC3
(3) both has auto lighting optimser but we will assume 7D's better since faster processor, newer model, like version 2 vs version 1
(4) 7D has lens peripheral illumination correction which automatically even the brightness across the image, 1000D doesn't
(5) 7D has 19 point AF sensors (plus improved AI servo AF predictability), 1000D has 7 (and assuming older AI servo)
Let's see,
(1) MP affects the image size. If bigger image = better photograph then I have nothing to say...
(2) while we probably can't tell the difference in the milisecond range, we can't deny that DIGIC4 lets you shoot faster, AF faster, process the image faster. Does this makes photograph better? I would have thought what it does is to allow the user to take photograph faster, especially in action photography, no impact on still life, scenery. But definately DIGIC4 has an edge to DIGIC3 when it comes to how fast your AF tagged on a moving target (it's moot if the target is still). If it's action photography we are talking about then yes, 7D does give us an edge compared to 1000D, but does that mean better photograph? Better chance at getting in focus image is more like it. So if it's in focus and out of focus photograph comparison we are talking about here, then yea, 7D gives "better" photograph. One would have thought out of focus photograph is a straight delete and retake in digital era though.
(3) will assume here 7D's automatic correction produces image that requires less post-processing using image manipulation software compared to 1000D. So does image brightness/contrast/white balancing is what makes a better photograph? A bit of post-processing will do the job equally fine but okay, I will concede that fresh out of camera 7D will have "less post-processing required" image. Nothing to stop the user from using a custom settings to get the compensation required for desire image brightness/contrast/white balancing if post-processing is such a hassle. But for pure auto-correction, okay 7D is less work. Can't we just like, change our compensation or shuttle/aperture and take another photo if we are not satisfactory with the brightness, etc? Do we really need everything to be done automatically for us? Guess I am the odd one who likes to have as much control as possible on the image I want instead of relying on all the automatic stuff.
(4) I honestly have no idea what this is. =P Guess it helps in image taking stage instead of final image. But see point (3) about post-processing/compensation/retake to correct stuff if the taken image is not satisfactory first time round. Thinking about it, if first time round the image is not satisfactory, it could just be the setting that is not suitable, just retake lor...
(5) number of AF points is a valid one, especially coupled with faster imaging processor, it makes tagging on moving object faster and easier. But again it helps in getting in focus image in action photography, same like (2). I concede for action photography, new processor and more AF points has the edge, and since out of focus photograph is definately bad compared to in focus photograph, I guess that's what makes "better camera = photograph automatically better"?
I am trying to understand why people believe "better camera = photograph automatically better" or think it's logical, can someone enlighten me instead of ask me to "go get a DSLR then we talk"?
??
Post a Comment