 |
| Picture by Mark Bass. Find me on Google+ |
A recent conversation I had sparked me to think about the actual value of expensive camera gear for the average person. It's not a surprise that after a big event in a person's life like, for example, having their first child, it is pretty common to have the urge to rush out and buy high end cameras and gear to capture those first valuable memories of life. But will taking out a second mortgage on your home to finance the best camera gear result in better pictures?
In short ... no.
I have heard several times in the past, people say "that is a great picture, you must have a really nice camera!" Every time I hear this, I think of a quote by professional photographer Scott Bourne: "Thanks, I got my camera at the same place Shakespeare got his pen." I admit that yes, I do have a fairly nice camera. But that is largely because I am a gadget head, and I like control over the process. But outside of creating artistic images, I am beginning to use it less and less to simply capture memories. The reason for this is simple. You can create images that are just as impressive with virtually any camera, including basic point and shoot cameras, and yes, even that camera in your phone.
Myth 1: A good camera makes a good picture...
Here's a secret ... a camera doesn't make the picture. The photographer makes the picture. A good picture comes from composition and experience.
 |
| Picture taken by Lisa Bettany using an iPhone 4. Check out more of her work at http://mostlylisa.com/ |
 |
| Picture taken by Trey Ratcliff using a Samsung Galaxy Nexus. Check out more of his work on Google+ |
Myth 2: More megapixels is better...
Here's the thing about megapixels ... the more pixels you cram on a sensor, all other things equal, the worse your pictures will look.
At the most basic level, photography is about capturing light. There is really not much more to it than that. In the film days, the light would have to be burned into the film in order to capture the picture. Digital sensors aren't much different in that regard. What people have trouble understanding is that the more pixels on the sensor, the smaller the each pixel is going to be on the camera's sensor. The smaller surface area for an individual pixel means that less light will hit that pixel, which also means that it will be less sensitive to light. The less light it is able to record, the more the camera will need to amplify the light signal in order to compensate.
Think of a stereo. The more you turn up your amplifier, the more noise you will get from the speakers. The amplifiers used in cameras suffer from the same affliction. Except in this case, the noise is visual, and will appear similar to the grain that we used to get when we used high ASA film. So, keeping all other things equal, increasing the pixel count will result in noiser, lower quality pictures.
But don't I need more pixels if I want to print out the picture?
How big do you want to blow up the picture? Have you ever had a problem with not being able to blow up a picture big enough when captured on film?
Film is comprised of vertical and horizontal fibers. When blowing up the picture, these fibers have the same effect of digital pixels. If you blow it up enough, you will eventually get pixelation, just like with a digital picture. Standard film is equivalent to 10-12 megapixels in the digital world. Therefore, if you have a 12+ megapixel camera, you have already surpassed film's ability to print your pictures onto wall sized posters.
Also consider this ... a 1080p HD TV has a resolution of 1080 x 1920.
1080 x 1920 = 2,073,600 pixels.
A high definition TV is about 2 megapixels. I have a 1080p projector in my basement, projecting onto a 106 inch screen, and the pixels are barely noticable from a foot away. If a 2 megapixel image looks good blown up to 106 inches, imagine how big you could blow up a 10 megapixel image...
Don't let megapixels fool you. They are meaningless.
Okay, so what is the advantage of an SLR then?
Yes, SLRs have the potential of caturing sharper images with less aberations. This is true. But the question is how noticable will this be to you, and how much is the very small improvement worth to you?
The real advantage of an SLR is control. But to take advantage of this control, you need to understand the technical side of photography. You need to understand light, you need to understand all elements of exposure, and you need to know how all adjustments relate to each other.
If you buy an SLR, and put it in automatic mode, you are throwing your money away. You should have just bought a point-and-shoot for a fraction of the price. However, if you want the control, and are willing to screw up every now and then, then an SLR is a great choice.
What is the best camera for me?
As the saying goes: "The best camera is the one you have with you." These days, you can take excellent pictures with the camera in your phone, and this truely is something you have with you. And the apps that are available for your camera phones now adds a lot of appeal. Two things to watch out for though, is the delay (amount of time between pressing the shutter button and the actual image capture), and the shutter speed (amount of time the shutter stays open). Too much delay will risk missing that moment, and slow of a shutter speed will result in motion blur and will make your images appear out of focus. Neither of these are desirable.
However, if you like control, have an artistic mind, and also like learning about the technical side of how things work (and are also willing to drop far too much money), then an SLR may be for you.
Just don't let the marketting fool you into thinking more is always better...
