Novots Loc: Grand Forks, ND

This reminds me of the saying - the best camera is the one you have with you - so whatever that means to each of us is the right camera.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

I notice you did not include a picture of the Busted theory.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I've posted it before...here it is again

http://douthittfamily.smugmug.com/2013/December-2013/i-cjBkDFW/0/XL/PC020034-20131202-XL.jpg

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Oh, did I mention this was done using manual focusing

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

With that sweet focus peaking feature ha? :)

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Yup...

Photobobhunt

I did that a few years ago by getting a Samsung NX 10 to use when I didn't want to lug the Pentax K5 and related gear.
I liked almost everything about it, expecially the size and weight.
The glass was surprizingly good for kit lenses and I had an adaptor to use my Pentax glass when I wanted to with some limitations.

I couldnt get past the lag time after exposure when the camera was writing to the card. Since virtually all of these are more like Point & Shoots the vewfinder was electronic sow it was unable to take a photo at that time.

Otherwise the 14 meg sensor was sufficient and i had made a few award winning prints up to 16 x 20 .

I did sell it all and purchased a Canon SL10 which is actually smaller than the mirrorless and is a nice little camera but the lenses are full size which can negate the advantage of the small body. I have bee experimenting with old Pentax screw mount Primes and adaptors and am getting a small manual focus camera with nice image quality........its all fun

k2739

My dilemma is just the opposite of yours. I didn't want the weight of a DSLR and bought a superzoom Lumix FZ150 in lieu of a DSLR. I love the camera but the photo quality is not what I want. I just bought a Pentax K5ii and I can already see that the photo quality is much better. I put off getting a DSLR for about 4 years because I didn't want the weight and tried several point and shoot and superzooms but the photo quality just wasn't there. So I guess the question for you is what is most important -- get rid of the additional weight and sacrifice the photo quality.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Why are people complaining about sacrificing image quality going from a DSLR to a smaller camera?? Are your skills not good enough to overcome the "limitations" of smaller cameras?? Not trying to cause an argument or insult anyone in particular, but I have seen tons of photo's on this site taken by people with very expensive equipment that are nothing to be proud of. If you are unable to overcome "limitations" maybe it's really the person that has the limitations and not the camera being used? This response is not directed to anyone or even the OP, just a general statement. So when does it stop?? Image quality that is...How good can image quality go till it's too much and unrealistic? We were all just fine when we were using film cameras and thought they were great! I have seen so many beautiful images taken by people who use cell phones and point and shoots everyday. So tell me once again....WHEN DOES ALL HIS BS STOP???? Just enjoy the process of the art of Photography with what ever you have whether it be a cell phone of DSLR. Some people just make this hobby more difficult than it should be. To me, I could not care less if someones pic has a little bit of "noise" or CA....who really cares as long as it has good composition, subject matter and exposure. 99% of the average viewer is NOT even going to notice if a pic was taken with a DSLR or a cell phone, all they know is that the photographer has moved them emotionally with the image they recorded. :) thats all

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Where can one see your photos?

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Yes, but to get that shot I would say the camera is obviously resting on the table, not a true hand-held situation.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Ok, it boils down to still spending $500 for a good camera. I guess might throw this in, in skimming I haven't seen any mention but the first that comes to mind is that as I serious enough to say I am a professional because I make money from photography, (I am a self-employed artist, and I also do painting images, etc. as well) I would feel that on a professional shoot the client and others would laugh at the tiny camera,(sort of like bringing a knife to a gunfight, notwithstanding the James Coburn (was it?) scene in the "Magnificent Seven" where he takes down a gunfighter in a quick draw to the death with his knife)(better yet comparison- going to a porn shoot with a little one. pun intended). Point and Shoots are basically for personal use, despite how good the images may be, and so far the reviews say technically, in theory, they can't match low light, high ISO, and just plain noise, except in bright sunshiny day situations maybe, although I admit a lot of those sunshiny day samples look incredible. As soon as you get to time exposures, forget it. It is just one of those "when I win the lottery and have money I don't have now" situations, then of course I would buy a few of them, a tiny one for my shirt pocket, a bigger one for my pants pocket, a bigger one for my coat pocket...I would like to have one of those Canon SX10 superzooms to play with. They are basically non-creative cameras, meant for those who just don't need or want options.

amehta Loc: Boston

<ramble>

If our skills are good, we will get better image quality from the better equipment. Of course, if the skills aren't there, it won't matter what you're using. But as you improve, if your equipment improves also, then the results will show that. And if you're trying to make any money from this, part of the issue is exactly what you said, "so many beautiful images taken by people who use cell phones and point and shoots everyday." The key is that our pictures have to be even better technically as well as artistically to make a sale.

And people *do* notice what equipment we use, even if they don't evaluate it right. If a couple meets with a wedding photographer and he's got a Sony RX100, are they going to care that it's got amazing IQ? Or will they be more impressed with the second photographer, since she's got a Nikon D800? Yes, they're going to look at the shots and see if there's a connection with the photographer, but if it's a tie on those, don't you think the equipment could be the tiebreaker?

Another factor is that we won't always know how to do every type of photography. If we have better equipment, and a good understanding of it, we're more able to step into a situation and get a good shot. This is partly because the better stuff gives us more room for error. But it's also because the better stuff is easier to manipulate. If I need to change the ISO as I see some results, it's a lot easier to do on the D800 than the RX100. If I need to change anything with AF, it's no contest.

The impressive looking equipment also creates opportunities to shoot, kind of an all-access pass in place of a press pass. I've been able to work my way to the front of a crowd because the equipment looks impressive (I don't abuse that, I try to go early, but sometimes I do play the trump card). And there was the poster who was at Disney and had some of the female participants in the parade pause for a photo op because he had a DSLR while everyone else had a P&S.

We were not "all just fine when we were using film cameras." Even then a SLR beat a P&S. But we knew we had ISO limitations, even 400 was a visible step down from 100/200. For indoor sports photography, there is no comparison. Were people happy with our shots then? Yes, because our pictures were better than what they could get. But I knew they weren't really very good.

As far as "where does it end", the answer again comes back to physiology (eyes) and physics (sensors and optics). How much IQ we need depends on how big we want to display an image, and from how far away it will be viewed. Of course, ad execs will always want more. But from the physics and engineering limitations, the pace of improvement has already slowed down, but it hasn't stopped. Ask me again in 5 years.

</ramble>

Ga Blue Knight

I think you are right on the button. I have a P&S that I carry 100% of the time and a Fuji X100 for Travel. I just bought a Nikon DF to replace my old F2a for more technical fun stuff It's all about Photography and the image not the tools. I even use my cell phone in jazz clubs etc. Carry what's comfortable for you at the time and place, all of the images will be better than what was possible in the 1950's!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

At 70mm That countertop would have to extend all the way into my walking path, which it certainly does not. Do some research on olympus's 5 axis stabilization and a lightbulb will turn (or maybe not). It's only a 30 x 36 island. That's ok for you to think that I rested it on the counter, but perhaps you didn't take into account that I have mad skills and my gear is superior to you.

Thanks for playing.