Camera Comparisons

Camera Comparisons

22 posts
30 Oct 2013
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
I decided it was time to upgrade my bridge camera. Looking around on the internet it seemed that they all have their pros and cons (sounds like my social life!). So, in the end I bought, for better or worse, a Fuji SL1000, having been very impressed by the Fuji S9600 I was looking to upgrade on.

Following that purchase I had a bit of a session test shooting both Fujis and comparing the results alongside my K20D. The conclusion was that in many respects there was little to choose between them in practical results. I was reminded of a description I read of the average HiFi nut in the days of those round black things called LPs. They spend a fortune on the hardware and then have a half dozen test records and an LP collection that they listen to mainly to check the silences between the noisy bits rather than enjoying the music.

In photography terms, it's a bit like spending more time analysing the colour / white balance, grain structure under immense enlargement, and other technicalities while ignoring the possibility that the picture has no artistic merits whatever. Composition is all, IMO. OK, professionals, and I mean those who actually earn all their living from photography, may need to concentrate on the technicalities, but I suspect that even for them, the most important thing is that their camera produces acceptably accurate results every time they press the shutter release.

I certainly found the SL1000 up to snuff for the sort of use I require of it. The only issue I had was the constant amazement that some utter berk at Fuji decided there was no need to have a facility for a lens hood, the most basic and effective photographic accessory of all time.

Posted 30 Oct 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
If you're one of those people who don't care about techical aspects then surely you should simply get to a decent camera shop and see what one feels best in your hands. Personally the technical aspects are the deal breaker for me (and I'm sure many others) as I know from experience that anything pro-sumer or pro-grade will have superb handling (the only exception to this was when I tried a 'Blad H3D but that's another story), and IMO it's the finer details such as noise, sharpness, dynamic range etc. that distinguish cameras of the level I'm looking. For the record, I've never bought a camera by trying it first.
Posted 30 Oct 2013
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
RedChecker
If you're one of those people who don't care about techical aspects then surely you should simply get to a decent camera shop and see what one feels best in your hands. Personally the technical aspects are the deal breaker for me (and I'm sure many others) as I know from experience that anything pro-sumer or pro-grade will have superb handling (the only exception to this was when I tried a 'Blad H3D but that's another story), and IMO it's the finer details such as noise, sharpness, dynamic range etc. that distinguish cameras of the level I'm looking. For the record, I've never bought a camera by trying it first.
'One of those people'? A bit (quite a bit actually)patronising but perhaps unintentional, so never mind. Every camera I've ever bought I have handled first. My interest lay in getting the best bang for the bucks, which, of course, has to include the technical specs. I was just pointing out that a photographer equipped with the most basic, but functional camera, can produce images that will knock the socks off those produced by an inept and artistically incompetent photographer who happens to be able to afford the very best that Japan has to offer.
Posted 30 Oct 2013
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Sdeve
I decided it was time to upgrade my bridge camera. Looking around on the internet it seemed that they all have their pros and cons (sounds like my social life!). So, in the end I bought, for better or worse, a Fuji SL1000, having been very impressed by the Fuji S9600 I was looking to upgrade on. Following that purchase I had a bit of a session test shooting both Fujis and comparing the results alongside my K20D. The conclusion was that in many respects there was little to choose between them in practical results. I was reminded of a description I read of the average HiFi nut in the days of those round black things called LPs. They spend a fortune on the hardware and then have a half dozen test records and an LP collection that they listen to mainly to check the silences between the noisy bits rather than enjoying the music. In photography terms, it's a bit like spending more time analysing the colour / white balance, grain structure under immense enlargement, and other technicalities while ignoring the possibility that the picture has no artistic merits whatever. Composition is all, IMO. OK, professionals, and I mean those who actually earn all their living from photography, may need to concentrate on the technicalities, but I suspect that even for them, the most important thing is that their camera produces acceptably accurate results every time they press the shutter release. I certainly found the SL1000 up to snuff for the sort of use I require of it. The only issue I had was the constant amazement that some utter berk at Fuji decided there was no need to have a facility for a lens hood, the most basic and effective photographic accessory of all time.
Clearly it depends what and why you are taking photographs. For many people a mobile phone pretty much meets their needs (and budget). If your camera suits your requirements then that's lovely, but there is no reason to think that your requirements would be the same as many other people. I can't really see the point of your post - do you expect everyone (or anyone) to say 'wow thanks!' It seems rather pretentious to claim that you need a bridge camera to achieve a decent composition - surely a smart phone should be enough for anyone. Using a more limited camera as a matter of principle is more like insisting on recording music on two tracks because that's all you need for stereo (or isn't mono really enough to capture the spirit of the music) whilst claiming that 24 track recording is a waste of money.
Posted 30 Oct 2013
Edited by stolenfaces 30 Oct 2013
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
stolenfaces
Clearly it depends what and why you are taking photographs. For many people a mobile phone pretty much meets their needs (and budget). If your camera suits your requirements then that's lovely, but there is no reason to think that your requirements would be the same as many other people. I can't really see the point of your post - do you expect everyone (or anyone) to say 'wow thanks!' It seems rather pretentious to claim that you need a bridge camera to achieve a decent composition - surely a smart phone should be enough for anyone. Using a more limited camera as a matter of principle is more like insisting on recording music on two tracks because that's all you need for stereo (or isn't mono really enough to capture the spirit of the music) whilst claiming that 24 track recording is a waste of money.
I can't really see the point of your reply. None of it reflects accurately what I've said, or why I was saying it. I have not made any such claim as you suggest, nor have I proposed any such principle. As for expectation of a response, I had none and didn't express any. It was just an observation. If you don't care for it then I can only suggest you spend your time responding to posts that you do care for. That way we each may spend our time in accordance with our interests.
Posted 30 Oct 2013
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Sdeve
I can't really see the point of your reply. None of it reflects accurately what I've said, or why I was saying it. I have not made any such claim as you suggest, nor have I proposed any such principle. As for expectation of a response, I had none and didn't express any. It was just an observation. If you don't care for it then I can only suggest you spend your time responding to posts that you do care for. That way we each may spend our time in accordance with our interests.
What did you say then ? I can only see you saying that an expensive camera doesn't make you a better photographer which is of course true. But why do you think a Bridge camera isn't unnecessarily expensive but an SLR is ? To me composition also includes depth of field, your abilities in this area are going to be somewhat limited with a bridge camera.
Posted 30 Oct 2013
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
Blimey, it's like asking someone the time then walking off as they pull their jumper back from their wrist.

I'd suggest you tell us stuff, it'll save anyone wasting time trying to be helpful answering a question.

Posted 30 Oct 2013
shapeman
Photographer
shapeman
I have seen great images produced on a £20 camera off Ebay & back in the 30's, 40's etc some of our most respected Photographers plied their trade with fantastic results.

So what makes a great image

Camera
Lens
Photographer

I also prefer light as my basic accessory



Posted 30 Oct 2013
tarmoo
Photographer
tarmoo
Buying a camera is only a small part of the investment required over a number of years. Lenses, dedicated flash units etc can cost thousands. You are buying into a system, so choose a brand which has the best selection of lenses and other accessories and us likely to be around in ten years time. I would suggest Nikon or Canon are the best bets. You will waste a lot of money by switching brands all the time. Choose one brand and stick with it.

Posted 30 Oct 2013
ChazPhotos
Photographer
ChazPhotos
shapeman
I have seen great images produced on a £20 camera off Ebay & back in the 30's, 40's etc some of our most respected Photographers plied their trade with fantastic results. So what makes a great image Camera Lens Photographer I also prefer light as my basic accessory
I think you have this the wrong way around Photographer has to be first then lens camera is last. The photographer mind and eye are whats impotent, with out this you cant start. AS for bridge camera well they work for snaps but after that I think it a bit of luck, you never get wildlife or sports with such a shutter delay. I think a entry level dSLR will do much better in the hands of a good photographer, add a good lens and your there.
Posted 31 Oct 2013
shapeman
Photographer
shapeman
ChazPhotos

I think you have this the wrong way around Photographer has to be first then lens camera is last. The photographer mind and eye are whats impotent, with out this you cant start. AS for bridge camera well they work for snaps but after that I think it a bit of luck, you never get wildlife or sports with such a shutter delay. I think a entry level dSLR will do much better in the hands of a good photographer, add a good lens and your there.



Sorry  to clarify

Lens

Camera

Photographer 


this was a question? To me these do not matter what matters is Light a Keen eye  (OK and today Photoshop)
Posted 31 Oct 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
ChazPhotos

I think you have this the wrong way around Photographer has to be first then lens camera is last.


Nonsense.  A beginner photographer cannot expand their knowledge/skills if the tools they have are severly crippling from the start.  This is why many college/university courses insist on film SLRs as a pre-requisite as they're cheap (second hand) and have all the manual control you need to learn what does what (shutter speeds, ISO, aperture, DOF etc.).
Posted 31 Oct 2013
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
It makes me grin all this photographer first stuff, whilst its true, there ought really be an assumption that anyone joining a site such as this has it in mind they are capable of evidencing their vision photographically. Doesn't it?

Yes, you can make a painting with your fingers and crushed up berries on the wall of a cave if you like. But some decent paper, pencils, light and paints will allow development. Same goes for cameras, you need a camera over which you can gain control of its various actions, and with capabilities which exceed your current requirements if at all possible. That gives room to grow and new things to try.

While I'm doing artsy comparisons, if you've a crappy rusty stringed guitar made of plywood, you may endure an become a gifted player, but it'll slow you down and make life harder to actually learn and produce something beautiful sounding.

There, that's off me chest. Get a Nikon or a canon. That way you've a wealth of new and second hand choices available, a massive range of lens option, accessories for next to nowt off eBay and a route to progress in line with your needs which continues to grow.



Posted 31 Oct 2013
Gerry99111
Photographer
Gerry99111
With cameras, a lot depends on what you want to achieve and are capable of. A lot of my photography with the exception of full indoor studio work I could not achieve with a bog standard DSLR let alone a bridge camera. Its a tool to me that gives me the ability to produce work in low light with genuine shallow depth of field and great tonal range just not possible with these other cameras.

In addition it has been dropped several times while out in the mountains and subjected to extremes of heat and cold. I can perch it on a rock and it wont slip in 80 mph winds.

If you only shoot studio lit model work at F8 then you can produce reasonable standard work with a lesser camera.

Now if I had less ambition and less interest in creating the suite of images I can do and was a happy camper snapping random nudes in models bedrooms, then a more basic camera will suffice as I am unlikely to ever see the real benefit.

The two factors or gear and what you want to do with it are intrinsically linked.

- If the your ability outstrips the capability of the camera - you will be left wanting more
- If your ability is adequately satisfied by the camera choices, then buying a better camera will not produce better results and then its a choice if you have the money spare or think one day with effort you may get better to exploit its full potential.

My camera is not the best I can buy but it does the job very well. There are times when I would happily chuck it over its temperamental focussing and there are cameras that now give all I want plus the focussing is perfect. But I cannot justify the additional cost.

Posted 31 Oct 2013
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Gerry99111
With cameras, a lot depends on what you want to achieve and are capable of. A lot of my photography with the exception of full indoor studio work I could not achieve with a bog standard DSLR let alone a bridge camera. Its a tool to me that gives me the ability to produce work in low light with genuine shallow depth of field and great tonal range just not possible with these other cameras. In addition it has been dropped several times while out in the mountains and subjected to extremes of heat and cold. I can perch it on a rock and it wont slip in 80 mph winds. If you only shoot studio lit model work at F8 then you can produce reasonable standard work with a lesser camera. Now if I had less ambition and less interest in creating the suite of images I can do and was a happy camper snapping random nudes in models bedrooms, then a more basic camera will suffice as I am unlikely to ever see the real benefit. The two factors or gear and what you want to do with it are intrinsically linked. - If the your ability outstrips the capability of the camera - you will be left wanting more - If your ability is adequately satisfied by the camera choices, then buying a better camera will not produce better results and then its a choice if you have the money spare or think one day with effort you may get better to exploit its full potential. My camera is not the best I can buy but it does the job very well. There are times when I would happily chuck it over its temperamental focussing and there are cameras that now give all I want plus the focussing is perfect. But I cannot justify the additional cost.
I would broadly agree with this, but I think it is important to recognise that the best camera is the one you have with you. If your best camera and lenses are too heavy they may spend most of their time not by your side. For nearly 20 years I was happy with my Nikon FM with Nikon E 75-150mm f3.5 zoom (manual focus of course) for studio work. It was reliable and my eyes were good enough to get good focus (especially at f8 or f11 in studio conditions). Sometimes people would turn up with a F4 with little idea how to use it, and some with new-fangled auto-focus whose lenses continually hunted for focus. To be fair I did use different film stocks and also had a Bronica ETRS that I also used sometimes. I think that where you have a modest budget it is necessary to get a camera that will suit your primary area of photographic interest (and for some people like the OP that might be a bridge camera) but look to have a longish term plan for improving your equipment, particularly if your areas of interest expand. Most people will find a camera with interchangeable lenses offers the best value upgrade path, and most people will find Nikon or Canon to offer the biggest scope for expanding their equipment to suit many different areas (especially due to the huge s/h market in these brands and the number of people offering Nikon and Canon equipment for hire).
Posted 31 Oct 2013
Edited by stolenfaces 31 Oct 2013
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join