Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
rainman said:
the same reason why i got some PnS cameras. also street shooting lots more fun and discreet.
Why bigger cams aren't always better
- Thread starter Larry
- Start date
- Status
the same reason why i got some PnS cameras. also street shooting lots more fun and discreet.
smallaperture
Senior Member
Snowcrash said:
Yeah, only a few months ago, I used to keep an Oly mjuII with me all the time. So light, small and convenient to have it with you. With a F2.8 lens and ISO400 film, I can almost shoot anything except pitch darkness.
Now, I got an equally small Canon Ixus - small constant companion that I will never miss a shot, like a beautiful sunset.
SLR and those big lenses also known as phallic symbols are good for photo shoots. For vacation, I prefer to have just a small camera - time to have fun, carefree and not a person who is so engrossed in capturing images and miss the big picture - vacation for fun, relaxation and revitalize....
actually it depends on ur needs......me still using my panasonic LC20..(P&S)..tends to underexpose....but like every camera u have to learn and understand ur camera to fully maximise it..... 
There is no such thing as lousy camera...only lousy photographer who put the blame on camera instead of themself.
There is no such thing as lousy camera...only lousy photographer who put the blame on camera instead of themself.
King Tiger
Active Member
jlpk007 said:There is no such thing as lousy camera...only lousy photographer who put the blame on camera instead of themself.
Totally agree. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
quite cliche, but the best camera is the one you have with you. and we're much more likely to carry a small p&s around all the time.
ever since buying a bigger/more expensive camera, i find that my pix are getting better and better technically (sharper, better exposure etc), but i feel both lehcheh and paiseh to take it out, so don't have as many nice memories of casual outings and parties, friends and family etc...
best of both worlds is to have one big one small?
ever since buying a bigger/more expensive camera, i find that my pix are getting better and better technically (sharper, better exposure etc), but i feel both lehcheh and paiseh to take it out, so don't have as many nice memories of casual outings and parties, friends and family etc...
best of both worlds is to have one big one small?
A bigger camera may not always be better, (and neither a smaller cam better)
BUT
The medium format will give much better quality than 35 mm (NOTE: QUALITY. Nothing to do with how "great" the image is. Nothing to do with "creativity")
AND
A large format will run circles around the medium format (in terms of the "quality")
AND
An ultra large format contact print will run circles around the large format (in terms of "quality")
LIKEWISE,
A Canon 20D will run circles around the Canon D30 (what is that?)
AND
Canon 1DS will run circles around the Canon 20D,
And
Medium format with digital back (maybe) run circles around the Canon 1Ds
Etc Etc
Extremist statements are very often wrong and misleading. How can there be any doubt that more real estate (in terms of film size or pixels count) produce better quality images? Of course (here we go again!) ANY camera can make good images, and some images just cannot be made with a bigger camera. Quick snapshots are not images that the bigger cameras can capture easily.
EVERY CAMERA IS GOOD AND CAPABLE OF MAKING GREAT IMAGES. BUT THE BIGGER CAMERA, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, WILL ALWAYS HAVE A BETTER QUALITY.
BUT
The medium format will give much better quality than 35 mm (NOTE: QUALITY. Nothing to do with how "great" the image is. Nothing to do with "creativity")
AND
A large format will run circles around the medium format (in terms of the "quality")
AND
An ultra large format contact print will run circles around the large format (in terms of "quality")
LIKEWISE,
A Canon 20D will run circles around the Canon D30 (what is that?)
AND
Canon 1DS will run circles around the Canon 20D,
And
Medium format with digital back (maybe) run circles around the Canon 1Ds
Etc Etc
Extremist statements are very often wrong and misleading. How can there be any doubt that more real estate (in terms of film size or pixels count) produce better quality images? Of course (here we go again!) ANY camera can make good images, and some images just cannot be made with a bigger camera. Quick snapshots are not images that the bigger cameras can capture easily.
EVERY CAMERA IS GOOD AND CAPABLE OF MAKING GREAT IMAGES. BUT THE BIGGER CAMERA, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, WILL ALWAYS HAVE A BETTER QUALITY.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
Actually that just proves his argument. The D2H sensor is much bigger than the 5400's sensor.
zaren said:
no worries... just thought it was a timely reminder in the midst of all the new cams and discussions being spawned here...
anyway something to add on. i was just going thru the The Great LIFE Photographers by LIFE magazine yesterday and it was just mindboggling what some of the ingenious and very creative photogs were producing then, with none of the knickknacks and gizmos we all have today.
i remember vividly this image taken of a military helicopter taking off, with light streaks going all the way to the sky... and it was taken in 1949.
ah ok i found it. here it is...
or this amazing portrait of Pablo Picasso drawing a centaur in the air with a flashlight... taken also in 1949.
Having upgraded frm a P&S to a DSLR here's my 2 cents.
Having come frm the Sony P&S family, I was full of praise for this first P&S camera I'd owned, for its compactness and ruggedness (that is until the CCD chip broke down and costs me $236.40 to repair it. Ouch!). It had served me well during my overseas trip without the burden of me lugging a 1kg bag full of gear.
However, I slowly came to realise the limits of my P&S. Whilst it gives me great pictures, instant sharpness and I only needed to concentrate on composition plus the lens that gave me a wide sweeping view of the entire scenery, I felt I wasn't getting enuff out of it. The lack of manual controls and the eventual demise of the CCD chip turned me to DSLR.
Though I do envy those who carry cams that are like juz 10% the weight of my 300D at times, its juz the weight difference between P&S and a DSLR that turns my face green. I guess that's all about it.
Of cos, there's a world of difference switching frm a P&S to DSLR in my pictures for me. Maybe its my skill level dat 'powered up' after learning so much. I'm not sure. But one thing for sure, I'm NOT DUMPING my Sony (after repairs of cos) as it is still very useful and the sentimental value attached to it.
Having come frm the Sony P&S family, I was full of praise for this first P&S camera I'd owned, for its compactness and ruggedness (that is until the CCD chip broke down and costs me $236.40 to repair it. Ouch!). It had served me well during my overseas trip without the burden of me lugging a 1kg bag full of gear.
However, I slowly came to realise the limits of my P&S. Whilst it gives me great pictures, instant sharpness and I only needed to concentrate on composition plus the lens that gave me a wide sweeping view of the entire scenery, I felt I wasn't getting enuff out of it. The lack of manual controls and the eventual demise of the CCD chip turned me to DSLR.
Though I do envy those who carry cams that are like juz 10% the weight of my 300D at times, its juz the weight difference between P&S and a DSLR that turns my face green. I guess that's all about it.
Of cos, there's a world of difference switching frm a P&S to DSLR in my pictures for me. Maybe its my skill level dat 'powered up' after learning so much. I'm not sure. But one thing for sure, I'm NOT DUMPING my Sony (after repairs of cos) as it is still very useful and the sentimental value attached to it.
I concur 100% with what I think is the "REAL" reason for this thread, and that is that one should not be apologetic with the equipment one has. And this is particularly important for "novice" and "newbies" who may be intimidated by some of the cameras one see in photoshoots. I have seen cameras that can be successfully used as missiles!
Enough have been said about the fact that it is the photog and his/her vision that is the most important. There is absolutely no question that the vision is paramount. But the photog should also have an awareness of the limitations of one's equipment. There is little point to use a low end P&S to try to take the face of a spider. However, excellent shots of models can be taken with just about any camera.
Having said that, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL (emphasised!), the bigger the film, the bigger the sensor, the more pixels, do in general give better quality. Pointing out exceptions to the "generalisation" do not prove anything. I am not talking about the image content. I am talking about image quality. Some of my favorite photogs use 35mm only!
For myself, I use 35mm rangefinder/SLR to medium format rangefinder/slr to large format. I always have my Leica Minilux in my pocket when I travel for really quick shots.
I must admit that some of my more memorable shots were taken with my Minilux!
I like portraits, and had use 35 mm SLR to 645. But having photographed with a largeformat and saw the difference in quality, I wonder if I can be happy with a smaller camera. Of course quick changing scenes are harder to photograph, and I must change my mindset in the way I do my photography!
Enough have been said about the fact that it is the photog and his/her vision that is the most important. There is absolutely no question that the vision is paramount. But the photog should also have an awareness of the limitations of one's equipment. There is little point to use a low end P&S to try to take the face of a spider. However, excellent shots of models can be taken with just about any camera.
Having said that, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL (emphasised!), the bigger the film, the bigger the sensor, the more pixels, do in general give better quality. Pointing out exceptions to the "generalisation" do not prove anything. I am not talking about the image content. I am talking about image quality. Some of my favorite photogs use 35mm only!
For myself, I use 35mm rangefinder/SLR to medium format rangefinder/slr to large format. I always have my Leica Minilux in my pocket when I travel for really quick shots.
I must admit that some of my more memorable shots were taken with my Minilux!
I like portraits, and had use 35 mm SLR to 645. But having photographed with a largeformat and saw the difference in quality, I wonder if I can be happy with a smaller camera. Of course quick changing scenes are harder to photograph, and I must change my mindset in the way I do my photography!
- Status
Similar threads
