BebuLamar wrote:
I wonder who here on the UHH are great
photographers with bad cameras?
Doubtful anyone here uses a truly 'bad'
camera. 2nd rate ? Even 3rd rate ? Prolly
some of us, and proud of it !
I think mine are ranked 2nd rate. OTOH
my lenses, according to online opinions,
mostly cover the gamut from 2nd rate to
"not recommended" ... but I do have just
a few modestly spec'd but well regarded
lenses in the "normal lens" range. Clearly
I have not tasted the Kool Aid lens-wise.
Anywho, can someone please name any
actual bad cameras ? I think my worst is
a Sony a3000. I only own it cuz at the
clearance price it was more than worth
the $$ for the lens, battery, and charger.
The a3000 is older tech but back when it
was produced, cameras came with good
outboard battery chargers, and with Sony
the earlier kit lens is vastly preferable to
the current one. IOW the camera body is
basically a free accessory :-)
The a3000 has uglee high ISO noise, an
inferior EVF [but at least it's got one] and
can't do BBAF, which is my 100% method.
Definitely 3rd rate, and and worth every
dime I never paid for it. But "bad" ? NOT !
I use it only with legacy lenses so lack of
BBAF is moot, and only where high ISO is
not needed. 20MP, EVF, Nikon Adapter ...
in most typical shooting conditions it's one
fine rig. But since I favor non-typical, high
ISO situations, I seldom use it. But no way
is it a "bad" camera. And I'm curious about
just what cameras ARE bad cameras.
`