How many megapixels?

jwkwd · Dec 15, 2006

I just thought that this was interesting, not that Ken Rockwell is the god of photography or anything. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

cal_gundert05 · Dec 15, 2006

OK, Ken, wanna give me your 5D? :mrgreen:

D-50 · Dec 15, 2006

I agree that the cheaper camera produced a better image in this case although from my own experience I see a very noticable difference in the quality of images produed from my old p&s vs my new DSLR. My DSLR takes much crisper photos than my p&s. Take a look for yourself at your own pictures, dont rely on Ken Rockwells opinion.

Flash Harry · Dec 15, 2006

P & S cameras are configured to produce the goods for the consumer, pro cams set up correctly will outperform the toys, its just a matter of knowing your tools inside out.

Alex_B · Dec 15, 2006

lol .. if i set my raw converter to vivid, then it produces similarly vivid colours on my 5D

.. if I want it more natural in colours, I set it in a different way.. the same holds for JPGs I could produce directly from the camera

I see less distortion of the ground from the DSLR by the way.

Ken tried to use a DSLR the way you would use a P&S .. no wonder he gets not so pleasing results

I do not know what he is trying to prove with this.

Alex_B · Dec 15, 2006

sorry .. should jhave read his text to the end.. I think he is first just trying to be provocative and get people thinking... to then explain them that not everyone needs a pro-ish expensive camera, and that expensive cameras need more expertise to produce good images ...

That is something I totally agree with.

But then again, if you come from shooting slide film on an SLR, the difference to handling a DSLR is marginal. But if you come from P&S it might be hard to master the DSLR.

BTW, shots from the 1Ds Mark II easily look worse if not processed... but you can produce mcuh nicer and versatile images with it

fmw · Dec 15, 2006

"I prefer the image from the $150 camera because it's exposed better. The 5D can get the same results, I just goofed on the exposure. This wasn't intentional, and emphasizes why the photographer is far more important than the camera"

What an idiot! The whole point of this article was that the image from a $150 camera can be the same or better than one from a $5000 camera. Then he says this. It goes to show you, take what you read from the internet with a grain of salt. Some of it is good and some of it is garbage. This fellow has no credibility with me, I'm afraid. Garbage.

Don Simon · Dec 15, 2006

fmw said:
"I prefer the image from the $150 camera because it's exposed better. The 5D can get the same results, I just goofed on the exposure. This wasn't intentional, and emphasizes why the photographer is far more important than the camera"

What an idiot! The whole point of this article was that the image from a $150 camera can be the same or better than one from a $5000 camera. Then he says this. It goes to show you, take what you read from the internet with a grain of salt. Some of it is good and some of it is garbage. This fellow has no credibility with me, I'm afraid. Garbage.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Never turn down an opportunity to bash Ken, that's my motto.
Honestly, I know he offers an 'opinion', but if all I wanted was an opinion I could ask random people on the street. There are other folks around who offer an informed opinion, and provide relevant facts and comparisons. This particular article of Ken's could have been written by anyone on any forum. Actually that's not true; most people would have argued their case better and not ended by undermining their whole argument.

Alex_B · Dec 15, 2006

to me that article seems a bit ... let us say .. pointless, he does not really tell us what his message is.

at least it inspires thinking

fmw · Dec 15, 2006

ZaphodB said:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Never turn down an opportunity to bash Ken, that's my motto.
Honestly, I know he offers an 'opinion', but if all I wanted was an opinion I could ask random people on the street. There are other folks around who offer an informed opinion, and provide relevant facts and comparisons. This particular article of Ken's could have been written by anyone on any forum. Actually that's not true; most people would have argued their case better and not ended by undermining their whole argument.

Having an opinion is fine and stating it is fine. But you look pretty ridiculous when your opinion is, to paraphrase, "I preferred the one I didn't mess up." How can anyone take this seriously?

Don Simon · Dec 15, 2006

fmw said:
How can anyone take this seriously?

You do know this is the Internet, right? :lol:

Alex_B · Dec 15, 2006

ZaphodB said:
You do know this is the Internet, right?

Well, many people are not aware that on the internet they will probably find any sort of statement and opinion somewhere, so they stick with the first thing they find by accident and accept it as general truth.

BTW, Ken seems to like medium format cameras for landscape photography ... still he does not advise people to shoot with APS-film cameras.

Saw his site for the first time today, and I am amazed by so much lack of coherence in and among his articles.
Or maybe it is just because I am not a native speaker (and reader) ...

fmw · Dec 15, 2006

No, Alex. I think you are a gentleman. I suspect you read him just fine.

mysteryscribe · Dec 15, 2006

I'm going to say this you CAN most definitely now and then make a great picture with a $50 pns camera. I wouldn't want to try it every day 500 times a day at say a wedding. In the hands of an experienced photographeer it can be done, Or even just a lucky one.

jwkwd · Dec 16, 2006

I am glad that I am not the only person that has "feelings" about Ken, now, can someone send a donation, since I don't have sponsors giving me equiptment. Oh, I'm sorry, he does'nt do that either