We're moving up to a digital SLR - buying one between us as a Christmas gift to each other. The thing you really can't beat with a good SLR is the lens quality...
We owned one for a while and discovered we never, ever, took it anywhere: we either brought a proper compact when size was an issue or we packed a proper camera.
But that's what happens when your camera collection gets out of control.
The thing you really can't beat with a good SLR is the lens quality...
You might like to read - if you haven't already - the discussion of compacts v SLRs in an earlier photo diary, in ask the experts section at the end
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/10/23/14227/243
e.g.:
You might also want to consider the Canon G10 - though real photo enthusiasts might disagree, but it's more portable and I've found that to be a very important consideration; I'm much more likely to take the Lumix with me than previous SLRs. I'm thinking of upgrading to the G10. The quality of the images is "somewhat amazing" according to this pro: I had become very impressed with the Canon G10 after just a few days of earlier light-duty testing. Each evening that week I would sit with my 15" Macbook Pro reviewing the day's files. At one point I found myself looking at raw files on-screen and not being sure if I was looking at Hasselblad P45+ files or Canon G10 files. That includes at 100% onscreen enlargements. Now, I'm no newbe. After some 50 years in this industry I know what I'm looking at, be it a screen blow-up or a print, and I certainly don't confuse how something looks on a 15" laptop screen (though properly profiled and calibrated) with how it will turn out on a critically produced exhibition-quality print. But nevertheless, I was curious about what I was seeing. In fact I was more than curious, I was somewhat amazed. ... Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints ... In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
I had become very impressed with the Canon G10 after just a few days of earlier light-duty testing. Each evening that week I would sit with my 15" Macbook Pro reviewing the day's files. At one point I found myself looking at raw files on-screen and not being sure if I was looking at Hasselblad P45+ files or Canon G10 files. That includes at 100% onscreen enlargements. Now, I'm no newbe. After some 50 years in this industry I know what I'm looking at, be it a screen blow-up or a print, and I certainly don't confuse how something looks on a 15" laptop screen (though properly profiled and calibrated) with how it will turn out on a critically produced exhibition-quality print. But nevertheless, I was curious about what I was seeing. In fact I was more than curious, I was somewhat amazed. ... Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints ... In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
Now, I'm no newbe. After some 50 years in this industry I know what I'm looking at, be it a screen blow-up or a print, and I certainly don't confuse how something looks on a 15" laptop screen (though properly profiled and calibrated) with how it will turn out on a critically produced exhibition-quality print. But nevertheless, I was curious about what I was seeing. In fact I was more than curious, I was somewhat amazed.
...
Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints ...
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
And it's user interface was designed by someone who hates photographers.
Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints ... In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance. [In the review he also says:] Be aware as well that these comparisons fall down when prints over about 13X19" are made. Once the output resolution drops below 200PPI the advantages of a 39 Megapixel sensor over a 15 Megapixels sensor become evident. And, even when smaller prints are made, cropping becomes an issue. Also, though on prints up to 13X19" differences are almost impossible to see, on-screen at 100% one can fairly easily tell which files are from the G10. There are artifacts visible at the micro detail level and one can easily see other hints of what one is paying for. But, where the rubber meets the road (or more to the point where the ink hits the paper), in medium sized prints it's been almost impossible for experienced photographers who I've shown these comparison prints to to tell the difference. Scary. One final comment. Landscape and nature shots are one thing - models in a studio with fabrics, delicate skin tones and other challenging subjects are likely to be quite another. Also, I have no idea how well these files might hold up to CMYK conversion. We therefore need to keep expectations within reasons. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
[In the review he also says:]
Be aware as well that these comparisons fall down when prints over about 13X19" are made. Once the output resolution drops below 200PPI the advantages of a 39 Megapixel sensor over a 15 Megapixels sensor become evident. And, even when smaller prints are made, cropping becomes an issue.
Also, though on prints up to 13X19" differences are almost impossible to see, on-screen at 100% one can fairly easily tell which files are from the G10. There are artifacts visible at the micro detail level and one can easily see other hints of what one is paying for.
But, where the rubber meets the road (or more to the point where the ink hits the paper), in medium sized prints it's been almost impossible for experienced photographers who I've shown these comparison prints to to tell the difference. Scary.
One final comment. Landscape and nature shots are one thing - models in a studio with fabrics, delicate skin tones and other challenging subjects are likely to be quite another. Also, I have no idea how well these files might hold up to CMYK conversion. We therefore need to keep expectations within reasons.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
You also say:
"And it's user interface was designed by someone who hates photographers."
A serious photographer doesn't agree:
I really like the layout of the controls on the G10. I rarely have to use the menu while shooting. The ISO wheel is now under the Mode Wheel and there is an Exposure Compensation Wheel where the ISO wheel is on the G9. I use exposure compensation all the time now because it is so easy to get to. There are two programmable Custom Modes that are selected with the Mode Wheel and there is a Programmable Button on the back. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/10/canon-g10-revie.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/10/canon-g10-revie.html
The Canon wins the user interface battle on at least a couple of additional fronts. It features three top-mounted mechanical controls; one for shooting mode (as does the P6000) and one each for ISO and exposure compensation. These two functions are available on the Nikon via screen menus, but having them as mechanical controls on the camera makes them much more accessible, and therefore the Canon is that much more of a controllable camera, especially for us old-timers who pine for the days of shutter speed dials and F stop rings. These settings visability when one picks the camera up are a real boon when shooting quickly and not being able to take the time to check settings on-screen. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml
You also say: "And it's user interface was designed by someone who hates photographers." A serious photographer doesn't agree:
But, in the case of photography, it is important to know how to get what you seek. That's means an understanding not only of cameras, but light, space, the proscenium, the medium of reproduction, and the ability to predict what objects (including people) are likely to do next.
A knowledge of the media of reproduction is know-how that is sadly lacking in a few ADs that I know. Good photographers will be able to adjust their photographs for the medium, whether print or digital. For print, a good repro house knows what to do for the paper and printing method on your behalf- with a good brief. But it is still worth turning up at the printers in time for the run - small tweaks of the inks can improve an expensive job - the machine minder may be hungover and not concentrating on what is routine.
Nowadays you can do all this repro stuff for print yourself. The tools are in the software many of us use. But you have to know what you are doing.
For screen reproduction, a thorough know-how of compression, and the way different software handles digital file formats, are needed as well as the traditional skills.
All commercial photographs have been manipulated in this way for the last 100 years. Except the sable brush skills of a Chinese political retoucher have been replaced by Lolcat captioning. It is hard to make the argument that news pictures should not be manipulated, when they have always been manipulated. You can't be me, I'm taken
As Ted has said - it is not really the technology, it's what you do with it.
Original caption:
Bert Hardy's Box Camera. In an article three weeks ago Picture Post cameraman Bert Hardy said "It's the cameraman not the camera that wins the prize" We took him at his word and sent him to Blackpool with an ordinary single focus box camera, Those are the photos he took. ca. July 1951 Blackpool, Lancashire, England, UK
But of course, a better camera gives you more options, e.g. if you want really sharp prints at 13 x 19, for example, but a relatively portable camera, the G10 fits the bill. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
Although it wasn't long before Hardy's images of cycling girls and rural landscapes became a feature of the magazine's front and back pages, it was the work of The Bicycle's staff photographer, George Moore, which was to change Bert's career. Moore used a 35mm Leica. Amazed at the detail in Moore's prints Hardy saved up and bought a second-hand model - probably a Leica I - which he described as old, black and with a fixed 50mm f3.5 standard lens. "I never looked back after buying my first Leica," Bert was to say in later life. http://www.photohistories.com/Photo-Histories/50/the-life-and-times-of-albert-hardy-1913-1995
Moore used a 35mm Leica. Amazed at the detail in Moore's prints Hardy saved up and bought a second-hand model - probably a Leica I - which he described as old, black and with a fixed 50mm f3.5 standard lens. "I never looked back after buying my first Leica," Bert was to say in later life.
http://www.photohistories.com/Photo-Histories/50/the-life-and-times-of-albert-hardy-1913-1995
