Don't ditch those point-and-shoots
posted on 13th of july, 2011
|
|
|
|
I have a Canon 60D. Expensive camera. 18 mega pixels. Super features. With a Canon 50mm f1.8, it is tack sharp. Worth every unit of currency. Yet, my last eight approvals on DT have come from images shot with my old, faithful Panasonic Lumix point-and-shoot. Why did that happen?
The one reason I can immediately think of is P&Ss are made for everyone and hence come with every feature in small doses. Sharpness, expense, resolution and zoom (how many times have you been asked about your prime lens' zoom capabilities?). But the most important factor is ease of use. You can carry them anywhere and go unnoticed.
So what is the problem with P&Ss? Many, as they turn out. I haven't shot a good low-light shot, ever. Rarely good results indoors. You are pushing your luck at ISO 400. Sharpness: never good 100% at full resolution. And no, it's not a DSLR by a long shot. "Under proper conditions" is an important phrase. Because of the technical deficiencies P&Ss suffer from, you must hope to have lighting conditions in your favour.
What you get from a P&S is an opportunity to take one where a DSLR can't be carried: like in a crowded place, or in a place where you might not want to risk taking an expensive camera along. Sacrifice some resolution off your images, add a bit of sharpness and contrast and you might just get a decent image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments (23)
|
 |
Just a thought that came to me. Do any of you think some stock agencies first look at the exif information to see what camera shot the image? I think I know of at least one agency who automatically rejects images shot with cameras they dont approve of!
They certainly seem to pay attention to it, at least. I've seen blogs here from the reviewers talking about images submitted with specific cameras (i.e. the article on using good lenses with the Canon 7D).
|
 |
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
|
 |
The worst photo I ever took with my p&s is ten times better than the photo I didn't take with my dSLR because it was still at home:-) My little G9 is a terrific all around camera, and it takes better macros than my big Canon with a very expensive macro lens. Besides that, so much of photography has now become about our creative use of equipment, the subject matter, and post processing. With all of the nik filters now available as an app for the iPad2 for just five USD, I wonder how long before cameras simply disappear in favor of smart phones and tablets.
|
 |
@Babar760 I don't know what other stock agencies do, but DT has allowed me to build my portfolio with 2 cameras: a Canon Powershot A700 and a Canon Powershot G9
I know what agency are you refering to, but that one is more a macro stock agency that also sells microstock. I have read that macro works different than micro (prices are also diferent :)
|
|
Never ditch! My canon powershot G9 has help me to build the most of my portfolio!! Now I have just upgraded to a 550D but I will keep the G9, specially for the macro feature :)
|
 |
nice. Even as a DSLR user, I still intend to get a decent P&S shooter. They're totally usable under capable hands, and even those EVIL cameras are worth consideration. :D
Many of my photos were taken with EOS 350D - so old, I believe many of the new generation Compact / EVILs beat it any time in terms of IQ and noise control. :D
|
|
I am just getting in to digital photography at 53 years old. My first digital camera was a Jazz DV 109 and under the best of circumstances got some stunning results.
Now I have a Nikon Coolpix L110 to supplement my Nikon EM film cameras as I like to shoot b&w and prefer film for that.
The Nikon is a real gem and has an incredibly natural look about it for a digital camera.
It's a new learning curve
|
 |
Posted by Onime on July 15, 2011
|
|
Just a thought that came to me. Do any of you think some stock agencies first look at the exif information to see what camera shot the image? I think I know of at least one agency who automatically rejects images shot with cameras they don't approve of!
|
 |
Thank you all for the comments!
@Digikmer: I guess it also comes down to some P&Ss being better than others, but I've noticed that if I shoot in the camera's comfort zone, it results in generally acceptable pictures.
|
 |
Posted by Nero67 on July 15, 2011
|
 |
amen and amen! photographers make photographs, not the equipment. =)
|
|
Too true and well said ... thanks Bevan
|
 |
The good thing that P&S camera is that there is no DOF. So the risk to have your picture rejected because the reviewer estimate that the DOF is wrong or not justified according to his/her perception is less. For me, all my P&S are 100% rejected so I gave up in the matter ;)
|
|
Two things to add. The great thing about DSLRs over P&S is you stand out in a crowd. On the downside, you stand out in a crowd.
|
 |
Nice blog, I can relate. But one thing I like about the "big" dslrs .... you will always look so cool!
|
 |
Nice images, congrats!
|
 |
Great photos and very true!
|
 |
True... Thanks for sharing your experience.
|
|
I agree - in a slightly more limited set of conditions, P&S camera are more than adequate for many subjects... The advantage of being the camera you have with you can't be beat!
|
 |
Great works!
|
 |
Great photos!
|
 |
Very true. . . . . . in fact all my uploaded pictures are with point & shoot !!!!!!!
|
Comments (23) |
This article has been read 1964 times. 2 readers have found this article useful.
Photo credits: R S Vivek. |
|
|
|
About Me
| Search the blogs! |
 |
|
|
|
|
