Photog question

[Phil]

I know there are a bunch of decent photogs on here and I was wondering what you thought of this statement:

"A good photographer can do much more with a modern point and shoot than a poor photographer can with an SLR."

[Phil]

Yes, SBS, a good carver can do more on a soft setup than a poor carver on a HB setup. Now that I have given you your pat on the back, may I have some positive input to my question? ;)

It probably sounds like a loaded question. It is not. I am not a photographer and I just wanted to hear the opinions of the photographers on this board.

[Gecko]

a good photographer is someone who understands lighting and composition enough that they aren't using the uzi method of photography. I'm not saying that every picture I take is perfect just that I have a good idea of what's going to work and more importantly what isn't going to work.

[Loc]

I agree with that. In fact I'd take up a one week challenge where I have to use a P&S to take photos and compare them to a poor photographer's week of SLR photos.

[Phil]

Thanks for the input, guys.

[D.T.]

"A good photographer can do much more with a modern point and shoot than a poor photographer can with an SLR."

I agree 100%. Your average person buys a camera, puts it in "Auto" mode and snaps away. Spending some time with the owners manual, learning the purpose of each manual setting will do wonders to help the novice photographer shoot high quality photographs.

For work, I carry my P&S as a back-up for my DSLR. Often times I will grab my P&S because it is easier "trick" or adjust certain settings than the DSLR. That way I can get the shot that I want/need.

[Gecko]

I used to teach photography, my favorite thing to do for semi experienced folks is limit their options and send them out to capture people working. usually I'd take away all but a single fixxed lens and a flash. the photos we got in return was worth listening to all the whining

[Bullwings]

Here's something else too

"A POOR photographer can do much more with a modern point and shoot than they can with an SLR."

I'm a bad photographer, and IMO, if you suck at it (and have no desire to really learn or improve/experiment), you really shouldn't have much more than a point and shoot, you're just wasting your money buying an SLR whose features you're not going to utilize.

FYI: I own a 6 year old P&S 5MP camera....

[benno]

Warning: pic whoring ahead.

I took this with a ****ty Canon P&S:

I had a fashion shoot planned with a bunch of other amateur photogs and models. Unfortunately, my SLR setup got stolen the week before, so I rocked up with this camera:

I bought it on eBay for $13. The other photogs smirked until they saw the results:

I also shoot with an old completely mechanical, manual focus, manual exposure camera that my Grandfather bought brand new in 1959. Here's a few pics from it:

This roll of film (Fuji Velvia) probably cost more than the camera I shot it with (some crappy Canon SLR):

Light is light. How you capture it is irrelevant.

[Allee]

I'm a bad photographer, and IMO, if you suck at it (and have no desire to really learn or improve/experiment), you really shouldn't have much more than a point and shoot, you're just wasting your money buying an SLR whose features you're not going to utilize.

I totally agree. I'm one of those people who has a nice midrange P & S (Canon S5) and leaves it on auto pretty much permanently. I'm too lazy to learn and remember all the buttons that I have to push to use the manual modes. Luckily for me, it's such a friendly camera that it takes great pics in spite of the operator...

I think with a modern camera, anyone with a basic understanding of composition and lighting can take good photos. But it takes a different sensibility to take the sort of picture that makes you stop, look and think. Some people just have that knack of seeing beyond the passing parade and catching the details that most people just glaze over. I take some good pics when I travel, when I have my eyes wide open all the time, but in normal 9 to 5 life, I miss all the nuances. Unlike some of my friends, who take amazing shots of things that I'll just breeze right past - and on base model point and shoots too.

[BobD]

Diverging from the question here, but there are times I really miss my Olympus XA, especially for B&W. Sometimes simple, makes life more interesting.

Cameras have become easier to use, but more complicated to use properly. Having to use reader glasses (as you get to that age) makes using modern cameras for anything other than point and shoot, a real chore. I would love to have a digital SLR that only had shutter speed on the top and aperture on the lens. No having to the press a lot of different buttons, and scrolling through lists of options every time you turn the camera on.

When I retire, I aim to get back to basics, an old Blad, with a few prime lenses, a light meter, and a darkroom.

BobD

Oh, and a 1979 Polaroid, the good old days

[Jack M]

I know there are a bunch of decent photogs on here and I was wondering what you thought of this statement:

"A good photographer can do much more with a modern point and shoot than a poor photographer can with an SLR."

Absolutely true. Case in point, my sister-in-law. She sends out the worst photos of her kids taken with her Nikon D70. Poorly exposed, wrong white balance, bad lighting, bad composition, blecch. The one thing she knows how to do is get an in-focus shot.

Benno - great stuff! Are all those shots on Velvia? Every now and then I take a break from my 5DII and shoot an old Pentax K1000.

BobD - how bout a Leica then? After you win the lottery of course.

Not really related, but a quote I like from a photography forum: "amateurs worry about sharpness, professionals worry about sales, photographers worry about light". Not that I'm photography genius, but it makes me chuckle.

[boarderboy]

Cameras have become easier to use, but more complicated to use properly. Having to use reader glasses (as you get to that age) makes using modern cameras for anything other than point and shoot, a real chore. I would love to have a digital SLR that only had shutter speed on the top and aperture on the lens. No having to the press a lot of different buttons, and scrolling through lists of options every time you turn the camera on.

but it probably won't be cheap.

Witness the Samsung Jitterbug cell phone. Simple, straightforward design targeted at a techno-indifferent population, many of whom were bifocals and could care less about Texting. (My super cheap Virgin Mobile TNT by Kyocera comes pretty close to meeting those criteria.)

I wouldn't be surprised to see a high-end, minimalist digicam slanted toward well-heeled empty nesters who once spent many all-nighters in a darkroom back in the very, very dark ages.

Hope it comes to pass, though I'd likely never buy it.

BB

[Gecko]

Leica X1 is certainly a step in that direction

[benno]

Jack, those shots are a mix of velvia, reala, neopan and I think portra vc. All very nice films. The two middle shot were taken with a leica m3.

BobS, I hear you. The canon g11 is at least a step in the right direction with a hard iso dial.

[boarderboy]

Leica X1 is certainly a step in that direction

BUT at a likely take-home price of nearly $2,000, I'd come much closer to buying the second generation Sigma DP2, roughly $400. Slightly longer lens, but I still find it a very exciting camera.

BB

[Derf]

I like to take some pictures sometimes and I can say you can do a lot if your P&S has some manual settings. It's how I am learning.

Here's a couple of samples:

[Gecko]

BUT at a likely take-home price of nearly $2,000, I'd come much closer to buying the second generation Sigma DP2, roughly $400. Slightly longer lens, but I still find it a very exciting camera.

BB

yeah that's a nice camera....I wonder if that would make my wife happy