Last edited by eikin; 14th April 2008 at 01:51 AM.
Actually still not so bad esp in photography wise, consumers still can choose between film SLR, DSLR, pns, Holga, rangefinder, MF, FF etc etc, but not movie recording.
most of your average joes.. don't know what iso/shutter speed/etc etc is
neither can they really appreciate image quality
like i was exasperatedly trying to explain the difference between a noisy photo and a non-noisy one to a friend who wanted to take up photography, i was told that the blurry, grainy effect is highly desired on his end because it looked "arty" to him
well, art is subjective after all, but i didn't know whether to laugh or cry
Better than explaining half a day about which lens have a better quality, in the end he just want a cheaper one.
that article could be essentially summarised in the portion you quoted though.. about different people having different needs - unhappily buried underneath some long monologue about what makes up a camera which i just read; i do not understand the meaning behind that part in addressing the issue, at the very least, seems very frivolous to me
Last edited by night86mare; 14th April 2008 at 02:48 AM.
Haa, I was also explaining to that guy about the difference between two particular models and he told me he prefer quality, so I recommend the more ex one but in the end he chose totally different and much cheaper one.
the part in red was referring to those whom shoots wif P&S, they would benefit from using a DSLR. Since DSLRs are quicker and more responsive, they would get more of those "candid" shots that they usually take as oppose to those they need to pose. But of course there are just generalisation and there are odds ones that prefers Lomo and such..normally they are at the 2 ends of a bell curve.
BTW, I'm an advocate of using "P"rofessional mode unless you want "creative" shots.
I am amused.
The title of the thread is "Does a DSLR made (sic) a better Photographer"?
I think it is fair to say that a better/more appropriate equipment can enable a user to work better. In this case, a better/more appropriate equipment (DSLR) can potentially enable the photographer to make a better photograph.
Like a sharper knife can slice the sashimi better.
Like a bus can enable the driver to carry more people at one go.
Like a 500mm lens can allow the photographer to take a better picture of a flying humming bird, than a 24 mm lens.
Like the Nikon D3 can enable the photographer to make a "cleaner" image at ISO 3200 than the Olympus E1.
So a DSLR can enable the photographer to potentially make better pictures. Of course this does not mean that good creative photographers cannot make great images with simpler consumer cameras.
But really, does the photographer change when he switches from a consumer camera to a DSLR - and become a better photographer?
Last edited by Anjinnete Ross; 14th April 2008 at 08:18 AM.
i think this thread would be better off with a poll.
You should try it altho I know you shoot landscapes and have all the time in the world to bracket your exposure, no need the speed.
Thanks again for all the advises given by all the bros here...
An average PnS shooter will not become a better photographer the moment he/she lays his/her hands on a DSLR. Sometimes it may be worse because there are certain functions which are never found in PnS. But of course, given time and effort, that person can eventually become a better photographer with a DSLR than stuck with a PnS.
An example is the control of DoF. "A larger aperture can reduce the DoF so that you can use selective focus.." A person using PnS, changing aperture in the manual mode from f/4 to f/5.6 will ask... "Is there any difference? It's sharp all over..." So how is he/she able to learn?
actually in all
owning a dslr just makes u a dslr owner...not a photographer...
or like what i love to say..
owning a nikon dslr makes u a nikon owner, not a photographer...