Cheap shot challenge ! Very interesting link.
Discussion
http://petapixel.com/2014/08/23/cheap-shot-challen...
Great link , I think this is such a good example of why DSLRs are recomended !
Great link , I think this is such a good example of why DSLRs are recomended !
I think the quality of the better gear is quite noticeable. It's funny how you can look at a picture and it's only when you see something better do you really realise what you're missing. It's the same for me with music and hifi
That said, it's diminishing returns and with the better kit costing 10x the amount it would be hard for some to justify that much, luckily there are plenty of price points inbetween.
That said, it's diminishing returns and with the better kit costing 10x the amount it would be hard for some to justify that much, luckily there are plenty of price points inbetween.
I use a Sony RX100 and a Canon 5DMk3 with L lenses.
The Sony is great and portable on a day like today with the sun shining. But as soon at things get more marginal that's when the Canon scores. They are different tools for different circumstances but often using a non-DSLR is something you should do once in a while to show yourself why it's worth carrying all the DSLR stuff!
The Sony is great and portable on a day like today with the sun shining. But as soon at things get more marginal that's when the Canon scores. They are different tools for different circumstances but often using a non-DSLR is something you should do once in a while to show yourself why it's worth carrying all the DSLR stuff!
ExPat2B said:
http://petapixel.com/2014/08/23/cheap-shot-challen...
Great link , I think this is such a good example of why DSLRs are recomended !
Not quite sure what you are saying here.Great link , I think this is such a good example of why DSLRs are recomended !
t.Well my point was twofold.
1st : I thought it was interesting how close you could get given the price difference. And I thought the differences themselves were interesting.
2nd : A lot of people turn up on this forum wanting a bridge camera, or compact, and don't realise that an older DSLR is still capable of getting great shots at the same price point. A DSLR opens you up to the whole world of photography, like Macro, long exposure etc, sharp fast primes, things you would otherwise miss with a fixed lens camera. This link is great example of how even the most basic tools can get within spitting distance of the most expensive gear, and why people recommend a DSLR.
1st : I thought it was interesting how close you could get given the price difference. And I thought the differences themselves were interesting.
2nd : A lot of people turn up on this forum wanting a bridge camera, or compact, and don't realise that an older DSLR is still capable of getting great shots at the same price point. A DSLR opens you up to the whole world of photography, like Macro, long exposure etc, sharp fast primes, things you would otherwise miss with a fixed lens camera. This link is great example of how even the most basic tools can get within spitting distance of the most expensive gear, and why people recommend a DSLR.
ExPat2B said:
This link is great example of how even the most basic tools can get within spitting distance of the most expensive gear, and why people recommend a DSLR.
Not sure I can agree with that. I have a 40D that used to be my old back up body, my nephew now uses it. It comes nowhere near what my 5D3 (or even 1D3) can do when it comes to low light, focusing, noise handling, flexibility with the final image and ergonomics.
Saw this article linked on TP earlier and thought it was a particularly simplistic test. It completely ignores the areas where the more expensive gear starts to make sense and entirely plays to the middle ground where both cameras will perform admirably. Had one of the tests been shooting in low light at iso 1600 or tracking a fast moving owl or printing A1, the D40 would have looked hopeless in comparison.
I'm no gear snob, I still regularly use my trusty old D200 but I know where its strengths and weaknesses lie. It's not exactly eyebrow raising that it's still capable of superb results in the right conditions (and someone else's hands! ) but new gear has moved the game on in so many area that it simply opens new doors.
The other failing of this test to me is the chosen "cheap" lens is also regarded as being one of the sharpest lenses out there and would cost around £200 here second hand. It's by no means a bargain basic lens.
I'm no gear snob, I still regularly use my trusty old D200 but I know where its strengths and weaknesses lie. It's not exactly eyebrow raising that it's still capable of superb results in the right conditions (and someone else's hands! ) but new gear has moved the game on in so many area that it simply opens new doors.
The other failing of this test to me is the chosen "cheap" lens is also regarded as being one of the sharpest lenses out there and would cost around £200 here second hand. It's by no means a bargain basic lens.
Gad-Westy said:
Saw this article linked on TP earlier and thought it was a particularly simplistic test. It completely ignores the areas where the more expensive gear starts to make sense and entirely plays to the middle ground where both cameras will perform admirably. Had one of the tests been shooting in low light at iso 1600 or tracking a fast moving owl or printing A1, the D40 would have looked hopeless in comparison.
Quite.Try taking wedding photos indoors with no flash at 5000 ISO with a D40 and see what the bride and groom think.
GetCarter said:
Gad-Westy said:
Saw this article linked on TP earlier and thought it was a particularly simplistic test. It completely ignores the areas where the more expensive gear starts to make sense and entirely plays to the middle ground where both cameras will perform admirably. Had one of the tests been shooting in low light at iso 1600 or tracking a fast moving owl or printing A1, the D40 would have looked hopeless in comparison.
Quite.Try taking wedding photos indoors with no flash at 5000 ISO with a D40 and see what the bride and groom think.
This shot however sums up for how important taking a nice photo rather than having all the gear is:
The shot on the left has more detail when you look at it 100% and less noise etc... but the shot on the right is by far the more pleasing image.
Interesting debate (the wider one anyway, that particular test appears to be a bit flawed). It's always amusing to think that not so long ago something like a 5D MkI would have been the wedding camera, whilst many of the pictures then were undoubtedly great (and it's still a great camera) things have moved on a staggering amount in a short space of time and all of a sudden the performance of said camera is 'not good enough' for many.
I had a nose back at my motorsport stuff with a D50 recently, 6MP and often heavily cropped, primitive AF system compared to kit now, yet my photos were getting picked up left right and centre and turned in to some huge prints etc.
Reyland Escort Cosworth by Harry_S, on Flickr
That was taken 7 years ago. If I ever start getting kit envy I just need to look back...it makes the debate on upgrading from a D7000 to D7100 (for example) seem a little foolish.
The one point I do agree on is that if you're starting out there is no need to splash out on the latest and greatest gear (unless you can comfortably afford and want to). Staying on the motorsport theme, technique and practice will wipe out thousands of pounds of difference in kit for many types of shot (particularly panning).
This was taken by myself recently with an 1100D and Tamron 70-300, total cost less than £300. I've seen plenty of guys on forums come and go with a much, much lower overall standard of photo who are absolutely insistent that they need better gear because they are being held back by their current kit, it's very very difficult in these days of instant everything for some people to hear that they just need to practice, not throw money at it.
IMG_1104 by Harry_S, on Flickr
I had a nose back at my motorsport stuff with a D50 recently, 6MP and often heavily cropped, primitive AF system compared to kit now, yet my photos were getting picked up left right and centre and turned in to some huge prints etc.
Reyland Escort Cosworth by Harry_S, on Flickr
That was taken 7 years ago. If I ever start getting kit envy I just need to look back...it makes the debate on upgrading from a D7000 to D7100 (for example) seem a little foolish.
The one point I do agree on is that if you're starting out there is no need to splash out on the latest and greatest gear (unless you can comfortably afford and want to). Staying on the motorsport theme, technique and practice will wipe out thousands of pounds of difference in kit for many types of shot (particularly panning).
This was taken by myself recently with an 1100D and Tamron 70-300, total cost less than £300. I've seen plenty of guys on forums come and go with a much, much lower overall standard of photo who are absolutely insistent that they need better gear because they are being held back by their current kit, it's very very difficult in these days of instant everything for some people to hear that they just need to practice, not throw money at it.
IMG_1104 by Harry_S, on Flickr
Edited by ukaskew on Monday 25th August 06:33
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff