Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Expensive cameras
Page <<first <prev 8 of 12 next> last>>
Nov 18, 2014 14:01:13   #
huskyrider705 Loc: Phenix City, Alabama
 
n3eg wrote:
I remember that camera. It was for the "selfie" market before people knew about selfies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7k2uwJmwxo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9lvcFlUBxM

According to Wikipedia, the singer in the commercial is Barry Manilow, and the girl with dark hair is Ali MacGraw.


Yea, I had that camera back in Jr High School.

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 14:22:56   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
Yooper 2 wrote:
Photos from a $300.00 camera will never match photos from a high end camera. Not even with post processing. Serious photographers buy the best equipment they can afford. A $300.00 camera might take decent photos but don't expect to get professional looking results. You can expect to be limited in what the camera can accomplish.


Pretty much, you'd need to be a professional to get professional results from professional level equipment.

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 14:52:27   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Far North wrote:
Pretty much, you'd need to be a professional to get professional results from professional level equipment.

Or just an experienced amateur.

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2014 15:02:19   #
venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.
 
So far this has been very interesting....

Not so very long ago,,, the kudos for a $400.00 Camera were flying around these forums non stop..... Now the X has gone from 50 to 60 and "I can't wait to get one of those"

Seems that to some point at least... THE WOW of some $400.00 cameras exceeds that of the $4000.00 ones...

Just a humble opinion from a snapshooter not a "Photographer"

Mike

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 15:08:43   #
SonyBug
 
magicray wrote:
I think the OP's point was geared toward the evolution in PP.


I looked at both pictures and could find no difference. I mean NO difference. I did not take them into PS and overlay them to be sure, but within reason, they look like the same picture posted twice.

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 15:19:10   #
WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN
 
joer wrote:
There is a difference not only in the image but in how the camera functions.

Use a top on the line camera and you will never be satisfied with "El Cheapo".

You get what you pay for nearly all the time.


You know what gets me?

A person will purchase a top of the line pro Nikon or Canon body and hang an ultra-zoom Samyang or some other off brand lens on the front. They will then wonder why their photos don't have the crystal clarity and "Pop" of a Nat Geo photographer. "I used the same focal length lens and the same pro body", "What happened".

DUH!

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 15:48:45   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
mwsilvers wrote:
Absolutely agree, but that is not what the OP was saying. He implied there is no reason to buy more expensive cameras because as the end of the day the results from a $300 camera would be just as good. Of course you can get great shots from a $300 camera. To a great extent its more about the photographer than the camera. What's missing in a $300 camera is the refinement, the improved sensor with higher resolution, less noise and better low light performance, the larger feature set with greater control over the results, the better build, the greater shutter life, the brighter view finder, the higher specifications, etc. I don't think any one is criticizing $300 cameras. They are generally quite a bargain today and can do quite a lot for very little money, but they are certainly not in the same league as cameras like a Canon 5D III or a NIkon D810 or even a lower priced Canon 70D or Nikon D7100.
Absolutely agree, but that is not what the OP was ... (show quote)


Of course the $300 camera today has a greater feature set than older $5000 camreas had including better sensors and yet those were good enough for professional grade photos. Just a thought.

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2014 16:13:14   #
Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana
 
Jim Bianco wrote:
Why buy an expensive camera if you are going to process them anyway,just buy a 300.00 camera you could make the pics just as good. Jim Bianco


Buying a quality camera is somewhat like buying a pro line set of golf clubs: you want to feel like you have the best equipment you can afford, have the confidence that if everything goes right good results will be forthcoming, and that the equipment can not be blamed for poor results.

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 16:14:46   #
jsenear Loc: Hopkins, MN.
 
MT Shooter wrote:
Because many people use their camera HEAVILY or like to print large and/or need to crop deep, and can use many of the features available in upper end cameras like weatherproofing, high MP sensors, multiple memory cards, faster and more accurate AF systems, external settings controls rather than menu based controls, much longer shutter life expectancy, and a plethora of lesser reasons. One needs to choose a camera that meets THEIR needs, not the needs of others. If a $300 camera will do the job for you, then by all means get it. If it won't do the job, then buy one that will. Simple.
Because many people use their camera HEAVILY or li... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 17:10:16   #
wfmiller Loc: Morgantown, PA
 
Far North wrote:
Pretty much, you'd need to be a professional to get professional results from professional level equipment.


Please allow me to humbly disagree with this statement!!

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 17:24:33   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Architect1776 wrote:
Of course the $300 camera today has a greater feature set than older $5000 camreas had including better sensors and yet those were good enough for professional grade photos. Just a thought.

The bar keeps getting lifted, but even the $5000 FF cameras of several years ago still have features and images quality that new tiny sensor $300 cameras do not.

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2014 17:45:30   #
WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN
 
Indiana wrote:
Buying a quality camera is somewhat like buying a pro line set of golf clubs: you want to feel like you have the best equipment you can afford, have the confidence that if everything goes right good results will be forthcoming, and that the equipment can not be blamed for poor results.


Amen to that one.

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 18:31:46   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
Dlevon wrote:
I think I have hundreds, make that thousands, of happy accidents!


Try Imodium

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 18:50:38   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
venturer9 wrote:


Seems that to some point at least... THE WOW of some $400.00 cameras exceeds that of the $4000.00 ones...
Mike


#9, if you could kindly provide a short-list of which those $400 cameras are, I'd like to get a couple of them!
They will save me a lot of money!! :lol: :lol:
SS

Reply
Nov 18, 2014 18:56:57   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
wfmiller wrote:
Please allow me to humbly disagree with this statement!!


Let me put it another way, then. The equipment is only as good as the operator. It's like a high performance race car. A professional racer who know what he's doing with it can accomplish great thing with it. On the other hand, a casual driver who has the same car isn't going to be able to do what the pro driver can do. But it does make for some bragging rights, just having it. The equipment doesn't make the photographer. It helps, but the guy behind the lens needs to know how to use his or her gear and how to take a good photograph.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 12 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.