Hobbyist photographer wanting to go beyond the "hobbyist" status

[Greyelf]

So how do you have problems focusing your SX30? Long shots? Closeups? Or just the time it takes to focus?

I'll give you a few examples. First example - my dog was sleeping about 6 feet away. I wanted to get a super close up of her, but didn't want to move close to her because I didn't want to wake her up. The auto focus would never lock on and I had to manual focus. Second example - the bird feeder outside of my office window is about 20 feet away. When I zoom enough so that the bird fills the LED screen, it locks in maybe 10% of the time. Last example - zooming on almost any clouds or rippling water past x15. Again, locks in about 10% of the time. I don't know if it's because it detects too much motion, but all I know is that I never have a problem with the SX20 locking in for me on sunrises/sunsets.

When I first got the camera, I thought maybe the camera was malfunctioning or I was doing something wrong, but I took it to the best camera shop in my area and had a person behind the counter do the same kind zoom close up that I had been trying to do, and it not lock for him either. To be sure it wasn't the camera, he took a new SX30 from behind their counter and did the same test only to find it also didn't lock in. He then told me that he had not heard any complaints regarding this, but couldn't explain why it was happening. I also had him compare the same type of shot to prove that the SX20 would be able to lock where the SX30 wouldn't, and as it turned out, the SX20 was able to lock in an even closer shot. This really perplexed the sales person and he couldn't explain why it was happening. So, now you understand my frustration.

 

[Greyelf]

although its true that the photographer not the camera makes a good pic. Using a p and s is like giving micheal jordan a flat ball. there are alot of helpful people here when it comes to p and s but if you really want to be free a dslr is better.

I would disagree with this analogy. I was able to get decent shots even way back when I used to use a Kodak Instamatic. I just knew what its limitations were and planned my shot accordingly. But, because that was such a simple camera, figuring out what its limitations were was easy. Now, with all of the doo dads on cameras nowadays, it's not so simple to figure out if it's a camera limitation or something I just haven't learned yet.

 

[dallasimagery]

I would head to your local library and check out a few books on photography. Kodak produced hundreds of books on how to take better pictures, in many different areas. There have been thousands of books written about improving one's photo skills.

+1

You'll get all kinds of crummy advice on internet photography forums. Pick up some good books, photography hasn't changed much in oh, a hundred years.

 

[usayit]

Give it up with the bball analogy... it falls flatno matter how yousee it.

Anyone who argues that you need to have lots of gear to be a good photographer is niave. Equipment is the enabler nothing more. You are still the photographer. Of course for some types of photography you need certain types of equipment.... no argued against that fact. In the end you are driving.

 

[usayit]

Again, locks in about 10% of the time. I don't know if it's because it detects too much motion, but all I know is that I never have a problem with the SX20 locking in for me on sunrises/sunsets.

....
turned out, the SX20 was able to lock in an even closer shot. This really perplexed the sales person and he couldn't explain why it was happening. So, now you understand my frustration.

What you are describing sounds like a limitation to contrast based autofocusing. Its a limitation that all cameras that use EVFs have at this time. This is the same limitation that micro 43 cameras have as well as DSLRs in live view mode.

Second complaint sounds like the sx20 has a shorter minimum focus distance.

Not sure.... my Olympus EPL1 has similar behavior but its still a blast to shoot with once I figured its limits

 

[photocist]

IMO, one of the best ways to improve is to take photos and critique yourself.

And do it often as one can.

 

[Aze]

Since this post seems hell bent on needing a good analogy. If you gave Michaelangelo a walmart paintbrush and those watercolors they give kids, he would still turn out something better than a novice with the best canvas, paintbrushes and paints.

As was mentioned here, you're sx's may not be dslrs, but they give you control of the major tenets of photography. If you can master shutter, aperture and iso, you'll be miles ahead. No matter the camera those are the tools a photographer must know.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I believe Posts #3, 4 and 5 have this thread wrapped up. As far as I'm concerned there is really nothing else to say.

But, just for the fun of it...

although its true that the photographer not the camera makes a good pic. Using a p and s is like giving micheal jordan a flat ball. there are alot of helpful people here when it comes to p and s but if you really want to be free a dslr is better.

Wrong. If you want to be free, don't worry about the gear.

not if he cant dribble it.

That analogy is stupid..... Flat ball is more like a broken camera. Both of which is useless regardless of the person using them. Give him a ball from the dollar store... Michael would still perform to the highest degree.

Well considering a bball is a bball regardless of price is why i had to use a flat ball analogy. You can do the same thing with a 3 dollar ball than with a fifty dollar one. You cant get a good pic of a bird half a football field away with a p and s with digital zoom. Now if you gave the same guy a camera with a 400mm focal point he would have a much clearer brighter image.

I agree the analogy is stupid. The "a bball is a bball" comment is as stupid. I believe it was during the last world soccer championship that there was a lot of bitching about the ball being used. Most of the articles made fun of the players for bitching about the ball. Until, that is, the ball was tested and was shown to act as weird as the players had been complaining about. In that case it was too much "would be" science but it still proves the point that a ball is not a ball or, not just any ball.

This is a debate perpetuated by people who are set at convincing people that they achieve better results because they have some sort of gift. It is a myth.

The gear matters...

This may not have been the popular answer, but it's the truth.

No it's not. It's YOUR truth and it's only really valid for YOU. Just like what I say is MY truth and is only valid for ME. My truth however is backed by some 30 years in the business and, yes, they were pretty successful since I paid my bills and raised a few kids

Now, in my commercial work I tend to go with MF digital but I've just spend 2 weeks shooting, AGAIN, with a Kodak Brownie for a high paying client. Why? Because he likes the fact that the images are not perfect... Lack of perfection is an appealing quality these days. Thanks to digital.

although its true that the photographer not the camera makes a good pic. Using a p and s is like giving micheal jordan a flat ball. there are alot of helpful people here when it comes to p and s but if you really want to be free a dslr is better.

I would disagree with this analogy. I was able to get decent shots even way back when I used to use a Kodak Instamatic. I just knew what its limitations were and planned my shot accordingly. But, because that was such a simple camera, figuring out what its limitations were was easy. Now, with all of the doo dads on cameras nowadays, it's not so simple to figure out if it's a camera limitation or something I just haven't learned yet.

I believe this is one of the keys to the kingdom. Most people today can't (or have a hard time trying to) figure out the limitations of their gear and feel everything has to be top-notch 100% of the time. BS. Stop fighting nature and you will get along with nature.

Since this post seems hell bent on needing a good analogy. If you gave Michaelangelo a walmart paintbrush and those watercolors they give kids, he would still turn out something better than a novice with the best canvas, paintbrushes and paints.

As was mentioned here, you're sx's may not be dslrs, but they give you control of the major tenets of photography. If you can master shutter, aperture and iso, you'll be miles ahead. No matter the camera those are the tools a photographer must know.

:thumbup: That is the long and short of it. Learn the basics, the ABCs, don't worry about the gear so much.

Good luck all.

 

[The_Traveler]

Use the equipment you need to make the photos you want; anything more is purely by choice.

 

[Kerbouchard]

No it's not. It's YOUR truth and it's only really valid for YOU. Just like what I say is MY truth and is only valid for ME. My truth however is backed by some 30 years in the business and, yes, they were pretty successful since I paid my bills and raised a few kids

Now, in my commercial work I tend to go with MF digital but I've just spend 2 weeks shooting, AGAIN, with a Kodak Brownie for a high paying client. Why? Because he likes the fact that the images are not perfect... Lack of perfection is an appealing quality these days. Thanks to digital.

Eagerly looking forward to your great shots from a P&S at a dimly lit wedding reception, or sports event, or just about anything else where you can't control the lighting. Oh, wait, that is right...they don't exist. Equipment matters. I seriously doubt you ever paid your bills with a P&S digital camera, which is what this thread is about. The fact that you have a client willing to pay you a lot of money to shoot with a Kodak Brownie is besides the point. We don't all have clients that are nostalgic or deranged.

I specifically said that in perfect conditions the equipment does not matter. Let's assume everybody who was into photography studied everything there was to know about it...Knowing that you need 1/500th of a second to freeze the action at a dimly lit gem doesn't mean anything if you are shooting with a Canon P&S. You can know what needs to happen all you want...I can know I want to be at ISO 200, with an aperture of f/4, at 200mm, with diffused lighting coming from overhead at a 45 degree angle all I want. But that is not reality. More likely, you will be at ISO 3200, aperture 2.8 and still seeing longer than 1/500th of a second. A P&S is simply incapable of taking usable photos in those conditions where as a Nikon D3s with a 70-200 2.8 could do it all day long.

If you want to take pictures of your cat in broad day light, fine. That is up to you. For the rest of us that have to shoot fast moving subjects in challenging conditions, a P&S is simply not an option. As a matter of fact, it's not even a consideration.

Put up or shut up. I started with P&S's...I tried my best to get decent shots of a relatively slow moving baby indoors. Guess what, it didn't work. Even when I moved up to a DSLR, I wasn't satisfied with the results. It wasn't until I had fast lenses, a powerful flash, AND a DSLR that I started to get results that I found acceptable. For you to say that you can achieve the same results with a smaller sensor, slower focusing, P&S with slower access to controls and an inability to add external lighting is ludicrous. It just can't be done. I don't care if you are Ansel Adams. It can't be done.

There is a reason photographers like Ansel Adams stated that if they got 1 or 2 great shots a year that it was a good year. The equipment was inferior. Nowadays, anybody who has 12k to drop on a D3s and a 300 2.8 can achieve shots that the photographers of the past could only dream about.

I understand the exposure triangle. I understand aperture, shutter speed, ISO, external lighting, etc. All of that is easy. Taking a shot of a moving subject at the right moment in an average living room is something else. I say that it cannot be done adequately with a P&S. Again, your definition of adequate may differ from mine. Perhaps, you are fine with a direct, on board flash approach.

I would hope that anybody looking to go from a 'hobbyist photographer wanting to go beyond' would have higher standards...and after all, that's what this thread is about.

 

[Joshonator]

This is a debate perpetuated by people who are set at convincing people that they achieve better results because they have some sort of gift. It is a myth.

The gear matters. Outside in nice diffused light in a beautiful location, you can take an equally stunning shot with a $30 p&s or a $6000 DSLR. That is true. Under perfect conditions, the results are almost indistinguishable. Unfortunately, we are almost never taking photos in perfect conditions. There is a reason why people use DSLR's. It is because they find the limitations of the P&S unacceptable.

There are certain photos that will never be possible with a P&S, regardless of your knowledge, gift or skill. I firmly believe that if you hand a complete amateur a top of the line DSLR in auto mode and you hand a top pro a P&S, you will get better images from the amateur. It isn't knocking the pro. It's just that the P&S has too many limitations...focus speed, shutter lag, ISO performance, optics, focus accuracy, DOF control, custom controls, quick access to major controls, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. Almost all of the things that make the pro a great photographer are unavailable with a P&S. About the only thing he has left is composition, and even that is hampered by the shutter lag and lack of DOF control. The reason you see great shots by pros with P&S's is because they work well within the limitations of that gear...namely outdoors in locations that don't have distracting backgrounds and under ideal lighting conditions. That is fine if you want to prove a point that it is possible. Not so great if you just want to take pictures of friends, family, and things that interest you.

If a P&S could consistently deliver the kind of results from a DSLR, the manufacturers would have stopped producing DSLR's a long time ago.

This may not have been the popular answer, but it's the truth, and 6 months from now when you are wondering why you aren't progressing with your P&S, maybe you will think about this thread and realize that you probably reached it's limitations; no matter how many people tell you that it is the photographer and not the gear.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Here's a video with an amateur photographer and a pro camera

Here's a video with a pro photographer and a cheap camera

Which one took better shots?



Btw greyelf, i am glad you're planning to take my advicehttp://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/94700.html, if you can get through a month you should be good.

One other thing i should mention is that my old camera was a fujifilm f1000fd (10mp) now i use a canon rebel XS (10.1mp). Now the rebel XS does perform a lot better with noise and image quality but the real reason i upgraded was because of the buttons. With the fujifilm to change manual controls was very slow and a pain, i would have to go through menus to change the iso and white balance so i usually left it on aperture or shutter priority. With the rebel XS accessing these settings are one button press away so even if I'm in a hurry to take a shot I still have enough time to change all my settings the way I want even when I'm on the go. The main reason for my next upgrade will probably for an dedicated dial for aperture control to make the process even quicker (but i will also welcome the other upgrades that come with getting a higher end dslr). These features are extremely important if you want to catch the decisive moment, otherwise you'll have the tendency to leave it on auto because you don't have time.

The best way to get better is to take/share more photos

 

[usayit]

Kerbouchard,

Equipment is the enabler.... Nothing more.... good skills and talent can only come from within. (the opposite is never true) How did Alex Majoli acheive that level work with simple point and shoot cameras? Why are most here not able to acheive the same level of work with ten times the equipment? You pick and choose from your truth but fail to even address others presented right in front.

You cant expect a great painter to work in the dark or a great athelete to perform without equipment or a sports photographer to produce without the proper equipment No one is arguing counter to that fact... neither did cloudwalker.

the whole put up or shut up response is so immature.... and contributes zero except open one up to personal attacks... Grow up

If the whole concept is too hard to grasp then its a hopeless conversation



ps.. there were great wedding photogs prior to digital.... and most where limited to film at iso 400. Oh my how did the world survive!

 

[Kbarredo]

This is a debate perpetuated by people who are set at convincing people that they achieve better results because they have some sort of gift. It is a myth.

The gear matters. Outside in nice diffused light in a beautiful location, you can take an equally stunning shot with a $30 p&s or a $6000 DSLR. That is true. Under perfect conditions, the results are almost indistinguishable. Unfortunately, we are almost never taking photos in perfect conditions. There is a reason why people use DSLR's. It is because they find the limitations of the P&S unacceptable.

There are certain photos that will never be possible with a P&S, regardless of your knowledge, gift or skill. I firmly believe that if you hand a complete amateur a top of the line DSLR in auto mode and you hand a top pro a P&S, you will get better images from the amateur. It isn't knocking the pro. It's just that the P&S has too many limitations...focus speed, shutter lag, ISO performance, optics, focus accuracy, DOF control, custom controls, quick access to major controls, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. Almost all of the things that make the pro a great photographer are unavailable with a P&S. About the only thing he has left is composition, and even that is hampered by the shutter lag and lack of DOF control. The reason you see great shots by pros with P&S's is because they work well within the limitations of that gear...namely outdoors in locations that don't have distracting backgrounds and under ideal lighting conditions. That is fine if you want to prove a point that it is possible. Not so great if you just want to take pictures of friends, family, and things that interest you.

If a P&S could consistently deliver the kind of results from a DSLR, the manufacturers would have stopped producing DSLR's a long time ago.

This may not have been the popular answer, but it's the truth, and 6 months from now when you are wondering why you aren't progressing with your P&S, maybe you will think about this thread and realize that you probably reached it's limitations; no matter how many people tell you that it is the photographer and not the gear.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Here's a video with an amateur photographer and a pro camera

Here's a video with a pro photographer and a cheap camera

Which one took better shots?



Btw greyelf, i am glad you're planning to take my advicehttp://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/94700.html, if you can get through a month you should be good.

One other thing i should mention is that my old camera was a fujifilm f1000fd (10mp) now i use a canon rebel XS (10.1mp). Now the rebel XS does perform a lot better with noise and image quality but the real reason i upgraded was because of the buttons. With the fujifilm to change manual controls was very slow and a pain, i would have to go through menus to change the iso and white balance so i usually left it on aperture or shutter priority. With the rebel XS accessing these settings are one button press away so even if I'm in a hurry to take a shot I still have enough time to change all my settings the way I want even when I'm on the go. The main reason for my next upgrade will probably for an dedicated dial for aperture control to make the process even quicker (but i will also welcome the other upgrades that come with getting a higher end dslr). These features are extremely important if you want to catch the decisive moment, otherwise you'll have the tendency to leave it on auto because you don't have time.

The best way to get better is to take/share more photos

This isnt really fair though the camera is cheap but I bet the processing program they used arent. Also they are at very different skill levels. I know you were trying to prove the other guy wrong.. But put it this way. Give 2 pros the 2 different cameras and have them shoot the same subjects in the same location. For example a bird on top of a tree. The guy with a 300mm zoom dslr will get a much better picture than the pro with a cheap p and s with a digital zoom function. Its kind of like mma. the best lightweight fighter is good only in his division but if he fought a heavyweight he would lose. Now if the best heavyweight will probably beat any lightweight.
A p and s is good as long as you stay within your limitations but if you have a good dslr then your only limit is your mind.

 

[Joshonator]

Of course the equipment matters, but an amateur with even a top of the line camera will not consistently take better shots than a pro with a half decent P & S. Even without post processing her pictures would look like crap next to his. Maybe not in terms of image quality, but in terms of how interesting/pleasing to look at (how good the shot is).

This is the statement I completely disagree with "I firmly believe that if you hand a complete amateur a top of the line DSLR in auto mode and you hand a top pro a P&S, you will get better images from the amateur."

He said a P&S not a crappy P&S, and assuming it had similar specs in terms of zoom range, megapixels etc, I think a pro will outperform an "complete amateur" any day if you were to take the pictures they both took and hung em up in an art gallery.

 

[Kbarredo]

Of course the equipment matters, but an amateur with even a top of the line camera will not consistently take better shots than a pro with a half decent P & S. Even without post processing her pictures would look like crap next to his. Maybe not in terms of image quality, but in terms of how interesting/pleasing to look at (how good the shot is).

This is the statement I completely disagree with "I firmly believe that if you hand a complete amateur a top of the line DSLR in auto mode and you hand a top pro a P&S, you will get better images from the amateur."

He said a P&S not a crappy P&S, and assuming it had similar specs in terms of zoom range, megapixels etc, I think a pro will outperform an "complete amateur" any day if you were to take the pictures they both took and hung em up in an art gallery.

I totally agree with you. What i dont agree with are people who claim that its all about the photographer and equipment doesnt matter. Of course equipment matters as long as you have the skills to get the full perfomance out of it. Now if your knowledge is only good enough for p and s then yeah getting a dslr wont help. But if you are a good photographer and all you have is a p and s then your skill level is hard to show.