Can i take professional pictures with a 10 MP camera???

[davidfromoz]

First of all you have an excellent camera there. I am sure you are going to enjoy it.

Can you take professional caliber pictures with it? I'm going to say yes.

Can you do it as reliably and in difficult conditions as somebody with a top of the line professional camera? No. Lower frame rate (for capturing action, worse high ISO performance, no weather protection and probably a host of things I don't even know about will prevent that. Thats why the E410 is less than $1000 and some cameras are many thousands of dollars.

cheers,
david

 

[Village Idiot]

Olympus has some great glass. It's uber fast with a lot of their telephoto zooms being f/2.0 instead of f/2.8....but it's uber expensive. The 35-100 f/2.0 is something like $2199 when Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 averages $1600 (Yes, they're the same lenses considering Oly's 2.0 crop factor).

And I thought your thread title was funny as hell. I just delivered one 30x45 and four 26x34 pictures to a client made off of 8mp files.

 

[prodigy2k7]

You can take a professional picture with a 5MP camera

Shoot, my first camera wasnt even a SLR (Canon PowerShot S2 IS) and im getting published in a book.

 

[Mystwalker]

Olympus has some great glass. It's uber fast with a lot of their telephoto zooms being f/2.0 instead of f/2.8....but it's uber expensive. The 35-100 f/2.0 is something like $2199 when Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 averages $1600 (Yes, they're the same lenses considering Oly's 2.0 crop factor).

And I thought your thread title was funny as hell. I just delivered one 30x45 and four 26x34 pictures to a client made off of 8mp files.

WOW! Olympus has a f/2.0 zoom?

Never saw one from Canon nor Nikon so thought it was not technically feasible :lmao:

 

[prodigy2k7]

anything is possible, only limit is the size and weight and what people are willing to pay and lug around

 

[christopher walrath]

I gotta tell ya I think it is possible to take professional pictures with a 3-4 MP camera. The professionalism is in the photographer who has cultivated there creative eye, who have presented themselves and their photography well, who has learned more than could be imagined about light and photography and always on the lookout for more. Being a pro does not depend on whether there's a paycheck involved. Professionalism is the setting apart of one's self from the pack by preparation, education and presentation.

 

[Phranquey]

I gotta tell ya I think it is possible to take professional pictures with a 3-4 MP camera.

It's possible to take professional pictures with a $5 homemade pinhole camera...It's not what you got, it's how you use it.

 

[Jedo_03]

Maybe another way to look at it would be to say that a 10Mp camera has the ability to make images that contain enough pixel information to satisfy the PRINTER'S needs at a news magazine to re-produce the image in the next edition of that magazine...
HOWEVER / BUT ... It has to satisfy the EDITOR first...
Now (as we all know) the EDITOR is far more discerning / picky / choosy as to what constitutes an acceptable / good / professional image...
Jack once took a 10Mp 'candid' of John Howard (Pres. Bush's friend): head and shoulders: not wearing his glasses/spectacles... so how 'professional' is that not??
OK - so NOT a professional portrait of said J Howard (well, HE wouldn't have bought it...) - BUT... how NEWSWORTHY was the pic..??
Hell... Yeah... newsWORTHY... little Johnny without his specs...
So... an AMATEUR snap suddenly has the potential to be PRINTED in some news magazine - WoW... Jack suddenly becomes a professional photographer - Jack shoots with a 10Mp rig - Jack gets published - Jack get paid - so suddenly Jack is a PRO...
RIGHT...???
WRONG...!!!
Guess what..? the 10Mp picture was so badly under-exposed and blurred and the WB was all-to-c*ck and the guy in the pic was hardly even recognisable as Howard and the EDITOR emailed Jack and told him that his 10Mp image was unusable cr*p and that Jack needs to work harder at his day job and spend more time on an 'informative' forum like "The Photo Forum" and learn all there is to know about his 10Mp camera and practice every day with his 10Mp camera and submit some more images in 4 or 5 years time for consideration...
SHORT ANSWER: Having a 10Mp camera doesn't even guarantee an acceptable AMATEUR image - let alone a PROFESSIONAL image...
Jedo

 

[JerryPH]

The short answer is that good photography skills can extract the best picture out of a specific camera.

So, though a good photographer can extract nice pics out of an average camera, using a camera of higher standards will cause the resultant pictures to be better.

The catch is that if you are a crappy photographer, no matter what camera we put into your hands, anything that comes out of it will be... crappy.

If I bought a Nikon D3 today, I am 100% sure that my pictures would be vastly improved right off the bat, over what I take now with my D200... however they would improve even further once I master the functionality of that camera AND better my own personal photography skills.

Wait. I've just received an epiphany... Wow, with a D3... I could RULE THE WORLD!! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 

[christopher walrath]

I agree with Jerry for the most part. Give me a new H3D and I would be happy as a pig in crap. My pictures would be better perhaps, but not the photography. And therein lies the point I think. A better camera can improve the quality of the image you already take. Improving the ability that drives that quality is up to you.

 

[cdanddvdpublisher]

Number of megapixels has little to do with the quality of a photo. 10 is fine. Even 6 is fine. Taking professional looking photos requires an eye for the shots in the first place, and a kick butt lens after that. All the camera body does is record it.

+1. The number of megapixels has a lot more to do with the size at which your shots can be printed out; it's all about having a good eye and recording the image with a great sensor (which is why some people may be a bit anti-Olympus)

 

[Mav]

Olympus has some great glass. It's uber fast with a lot of their telephoto zooms being f/2.0 instead of f/2.8....but it's uber expensive. The 35-100 f/2.0 is something like $2199 when Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 averages $1600 (Yes, they're the same lenses considering Oly's 2.0 crop factor).

WOW! Olympus has a f/2.0 zoom?

Never saw one from Canon nor Nikon so thought it was not technically feasible :lmao:

Yeah the f/2.0 zooms are interesting, but the catch is in the 2.0x crop factor. They have more trouble at high ISO, more difficulty getting tight depth of field and subject isolation, and thus need the faster speed in the lens. The smaller sensor is what allows them to do that. The amount of glass needed to make an f/2.0 zoom for a 1.5/1.6x sensor DSLR would be cost and weight prohibitive.