19Likes
I just viewed the latest facebook photo album of an indian friend of mine. Pretty much every photo was of relatives inside. On the other hand, pretty much every photo I have taken in the last few years was outside (hiking) and involved nice views ....It made me think ... I agree therefore that looking for a good low light level camera if this is the kind of photos your friend will be taking!
-
12-08-2010, 03:36 PM #31
-
-
12-08-2010, 03:41 PM #32
yes...on average most consumers use compact cameras for indoor or low light level photos. but they dont think of this because they think...oh the lights are on in the house so its bright. also, unless you are outside taking photos on a bright sunny day, chances are you will have limited light as well.
if your taking photos in middle of day, or during a hike, chances are every camera will perform good enough.Last edited by BenderBends; 12-08-2010 at 03:43 PM.
-
12-08-2010, 03:45 PM #33
Slightly off at a tangent but ... actually I used to have an SLR (before the digital revolution) but have found that since compacts became so good, actually a good point-and-shoot compact is just as good as an SLR. In our latest hike, my friend took a really high spec d-SLR and I took a waterproof compact set on 'auto' the whole time. Her photos are good - but the difference between the two sets is minor actually and often much more to do with composition than camera! Yet my camera weighed a fraction of hers (a really important consideration when doing long distance hikes).
When it comes down to it, these days pretty much anything will take a half-decent photo and the differences at the top end are hard to spot for anyone but experts! Granny just looks like Granny most of the time.
-
12-08-2010, 04:01 PM #34
couldn't agree more. i rarely want to use my expensive and heavy DSLR with multiple heavy lenses, because I always come back from trips and think...man...this compact is nearly [or just as] good.
thats my point...is that when taking photos in perfect lighting....nearly every camera will perform almost identical. its when the lighting gets more and more limited is when you start to see which cameras perform better.
but whats funniest is...in HK, every HK guy is a professional photographer, and every HK girlfriend is a model. the GF's run around posing and the BF's chase them around in the heat lugging 1000's and 1000's of $$$ in equipment to take their photos "professionally".
And if you notice closely, most of them ALL have a super long telephoto lens....to take standard or close proximity photos. its like they lack all knowledge of photography...and yet they spend so much money on professional equipment, to take average vacation photos of their overly posed GF's.
-
12-08-2010, 06:58 PM #35
Not sure why you think they don't understand photography, using a tele wide open for portraits is a fairly common technique (something like a 200mm for example) as it gives a narrow FOV and shallow depth of field, isolating the subject from the background. Getting closer with a shorter lens and therefore a wider FOV is another approach if you want to put the subject in context more but there's nothing wrong with using a tele. It just depends what you're trying to achieve visually.
Also, although you're right that small sensor cameras usually struggle at higher ISO's but perform perfectly well in bright lighting conditions it's also the case that larger sensor cameras (like DSLRs) also give more control over depth of field which is particularly useful for portraits.
Of course whether it's worth the investment in gear and money in order to take what may or may not be mediocre pictures of their girlfriend in the park is another question, but there are perfectly sound reasons for using a DSLR + tele for portraits from a technical point of view.Last edited by dipper; 12-08-2010 at 07:00 PM.
-
12-08-2010, 07:30 PM #36
agree with dipper. undistorted portraits should start around the 70mm range at the minimum. anything less and you'd notice distortion especially at the edges the wider your focal length goes.
using these long telephotos are usually fast lenses, hence you get the "bokeh" effect. something which a regular point and shoot has a hard time achieving due to how close the small sensor is to the lens.
using a DSLR gives you better IQ (or Image Quality) as well due to the bigger image sensor. as they say, the devil is in the details. you won't see all the minute details from a photo taken with a PnS compared to a DSLR or even a Medium / Large format camera.
-
12-08-2010, 10:12 PM #37
I know all about bokeh, and using proper equipment for best print quality. However ,sot of hk people are using telephotos in the 400mm range I would say based on the sizes I see....from about a foot away.
And...most people don't print them anymore, they only show on digital frames or online...where the viewing sizes are minimal.therefore the image quality is not really far off between the dales and a good compact.
But again...I'm talking about average people taking average vacation snapshots using large telephotos...somehow I don't think they are planning for the composition as you say.Last edited by BenderBends; 12-08-2010 at 10:13 PM.
-
12-08-2010, 11:16 PM #38
-
12-08-2010, 11:17 PM #39
then again they might be rich nerds
a 400mm lens isn't exactly what many would call cheap.
-
12-08-2010, 11:22 PM #40
Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
in Well Being, Holistic and Alternative Treatments: I am offering Mindfulness because it helps me through the
in Youth Groups: The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups is a service organization
in Overseas Properties: For over 15 years Lifestyle Property have assisted clients
![Almond Yoga and Massage [ Straight to your door ]](https://geoexpat.com/media/com_mtree/images/listings/s/12349.png)
in Yoga & Pilates: Yoga and massage - Straight to your door
# Certified
Our