Will resolution always win?

[soufiej]

Thanks to everyone for the input. Please, keep it coming. Ideas are what I need right now.

 

[Gary A.]

If you want an everyday camera that will improve your creative eye, has wonderful IQ, can fit in a coat pocket ... looks like an old rangefinder film camera ... I recommend the Fuji X100T (or X100S). It is a fixed prime lens, which may sound inhibiting but in everyday use is actually quite liberating. When I am going for a scheduled photo opp I take my interchangeable lens camera with a bag full of lenses. When I leave for a regular work day with no photo opp scheduled, I take the Fuji.

Gary
Fuji Fanboy

 

[robbins.photo]

I owned an SX-50 for a while, they are a great little camera. If your shooting in good light, don't really need a high FPS and as long as you can frame the picture more or less how you want it in the final version (keeping cropping to a minimum) you can get some really respectable results. The burst feature on the SX-50 I didn't really find all that useful, it overwhelmed it's buffer often in 1 second or less.

I shoot a lot of wildlife and quite a bit at the zoo, so I needed something that would shoot faster consistently and something with much better lowlight abilities so for me a DSLR was a must. But for a lot of folks the SX-50 can be a great little camera.

 

[soufiej]

If you want an everyday camera that will improve your creative eye, has wonderful IQ, can fit in a coat pocket ... looks like an old rangefinder film camera ... I recommend the Fuji X100T (or X100S). It is a fixed prime lens, which may sound inhibiting but in everyday use is actually quite liberating. When I am going for a scheduled photo opp I take my interchangeable lens camera with a bag full of lenses. When I leave for a regular work day with no photo opp scheduled, I take the Fuji.

Gary
Fuji Fanboy

Uh, am I seeing right? The Fuji X100T is a $1295 camera?

I very much appreciate the suggestion but I am afraid, in South Dallas, a $1300 camera sitting in a Fiat 500's hatch would have a "liberating experience" I wouldn't enjoy.

However, the single lens approach is what is still (slightly) leading me away from the SX50. Forcing myself to see through one fixed lens might not be a bad idea.

Time for a philosophical discussion of this, ladies and gentlemen? Have any of you tried the single camera/single lens approach to kick start some ideas?

 

[soufiej]

I owned an SX-50 for a while, they are a great little camera. If your shooting in good light, don't really need a high FPS and as long as you can frame the picture more or less how you want it in the final version (keeping cropping to a minimum) you can get some really respectable results. The burst feature on the SX-50 I didn't really find all that useful, it overwhelmed it's buffer often in 1 second or less.

I shoot a lot of wildlife and quite a bit at the zoo, so I needed something that would shoot faster consistently and something with much better lowlight abilities so for me a DSLR was a must. But for a lot of folks the SX-50 can be a great little camera.

Thanks. Here's a at-time technical discussion of the SX50 against a DSLR; SX50 beats all my DSLRs: Canon PowerShot Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

and ...


"Comparing the SX50 to DSLRs
The small 1/2.3″ sensor of the SX50 with its 5.6x crop factor allows its inexpensive and lightweight 215mm lens to provide an equivalent 1200mm field of view, thereby putting considerably more pixels on the bird (or whatever distant target) than an APS-C sensor with a 400mm lens shot from the same distance. [Note: The APS class sensors found in many entry-level and mid-range DSLR cameras provide @1.6x crop factor which multiplies a 400mm focal length lens to an equivalent 640mm fov in full-frame terms].
Detail is resolved both by getting close (which the wildlife photographer does via technique and/or stealth), and by involving sufficient pixels in its capture (which long focal length lenses and high quality sensors both help to achieve). The size and quality of the sensor and the sharpness of the lens are two important factors, amongst many, in achieving the detail wildlife photography enthusiasts strive for in their images.
Certainly neither the sensor nor the lens of the SX50 can match the quality of the APS-C/Prime400mm class DSLR combo. Nor are these the only ways in which the DSLR is superior. But the DSLR rig may still not achieve the level of image quality that the SX50 can at typical birding distances, even with deep cropping. Despite pixel size and IQ, there will still be significantly more pixels resolving the details at 1200mm with the SX50 sensor than at 640mm with most DSLR sensors. With good exposures at base ISOs the IQ of the SX50 sensor can be quite good indeed, and the IQ advantage of the larger DSLR sensor will not usually be sufficient to match the level of detail captured even with cropping. Also, unlike most DSLR zoom lenses, the SX50 lens is sharp at full reach and at full wide aperture.

Whereas telephoto zoom lenses for DSLRs (which are neither lightweight nor inexpensive), are generally not at their sharpest either at their longest focal lengths or with their apertures wide open. More expensive “prime” DSLR lenses are typically much sharper at their fixed focal lengths than comparable telephoto zoom lenses at full-reach, but they are also heavy and can be significantly more difficult to use without a tripod.
The SX50 lens also provides its sharp 1200mm telephoto reach from considerably shorter distances where the typical 400mm/DSLR kit is unable to achieve focus. And at these closer distances the SX50 not only captures sharp detail, but also provides the needed depth of field to allow the entire subject to be in focus, which long DSLR lenses often cannot accomplish even at their much greater minimum focus distances.

The SX50 also offers a few other advantages when photographing perching or wading birds and other stationary wildlife: Such as more effective image stabilization for easier hand-held operation; silent shutter actuation which avoids spooking the target when you do get close; and “live view” exposure and DOF (depth of field) simulation in the viewfinder when shooting in Manual mode (a little heralded feature which I personally find to be priceless*) ...

...
Understanding and working with both the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment greatly improves your chances for success.
“SX50 beats all my DSLRs” | Backyard Birding with Kenn & Temple

 

[Gary A.]

A single prime lens forces you to think hard about framing ... about framing creatively ... about lighting ... about everything but focal length. Wide or Long Lens induced optical drama is easy ... drama by composition and/or lighting is harder. It is liberating because you don't think about lens choices as you shut your front door ... or when you see something worth capturing. You know that the success of the image is dependant totally upon your creativity and photographic skill ... not the camera/lens combo. You also learn that you can get by with a lot less gear than what you think you needed with ILC's.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I'm of two minds on this one. First, I'd say most "serious" shooters would say, yes, resolution is why you invest in greater quality in the gear. On the other hand, I have to ask, what is resolution? Is it not the ability to convey the concept behind why the image was captured? I was just looking at a thread which asked for shots taken with "lower fidelity" equipment like cell phones and P&S cameras; It's not the camera, it's the photographer: Photo Assignment | Photography Forum

There are some amazing shots in that thread! No doubt shots that can be criticized for not having sufficient this or that technical ability on display. But, never the less, the images are intriguing to see.

I'm in the middle of deciding on a small camera to carry with me on a day to day basis. It needs to be rather compact though not necessarily a compact camera. I want to be able to use it on a moment's notice without considering lenses and filters and so on. At the moment, I'm in between a Canon G-1X which all reviews agree has excellent resolution for the (refurbished) price due to the large sensor provided; Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : PowerShot G1 X Even on my tablet's screen the sample images are pretty impressive for an all in one camera.

However, the G-1X isn't great for macro work due to the somewhat less than great lens. And its zoom power is ... "mediocre"(?) for the type of photography I see myself doing with this camera.

The alternative at this point is a "super-zoom" point and shoot/compact/bridge camera (ya'gotta love the marketing terms, eh?). I'm still sorting through which of these I would select but all trade zoom capacity for absolute resolution. A tiny, tiny sensor with all of its inherent drawbacks and a relatively slow lens is average for these cameras. They do, however, have that zoom and most do macros rather well given all the limitations they have otherwise. Sample images from this style camera are this group; canon sx50 sample images - Google Search

Or I can take an older DSLR (Rebel XT) that has depreciated in monetary value, stick one half way decent lens on it and carry it. Not as compact and spec-wise mostly inferior to the new cameras but overall a better camera "experience" I would guess.

I have some near 60 year old photos which my aunt took in Havanna just before the country was shut down to Americans. These would have been taken with a Kodak Brownie is my guess. Great photos! Really. Great photos and not just because they were taken by my aunt.

One of my favorite shots I've taken over the years was done with a $10 Kodak plastic camera I had it blown up and it hangs over my mantle.

I understand I have to handle the cameras and decide which is best for me. And I understand "resolution" depends on more than just numbers on a page. I know all the arguments and points for deciding which camera to buy. However, for the purposes of this thread, would the "higher resolution" camera always be your choice in most comparisons? Or, is this just another Canon vs Nikon type question? I'm thinking large sensor vs tiny sensor is not the same chicken and egg discussion.

Your trying to put your pride in hi res. His res of crap is nothing.

This is from a 6mp cam.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...y_Doll_copyright_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

It is in a number of museum and institution collections.

This was shot with a PS cam.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/'Dancing_Queen_Bride'_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg/1024px-'Dancing_Queen_Bride'_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg

This was shot with a $99 Pentax K1000

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...son_Thailand'_1984_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_LLR.jpg

This was shot with a Leica M240

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...galete_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

No, the Leica is not worth the price. But if you want manual controls and rangefinder then you pay the price.

This was shot with a 12 mp m43

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...Tank_Copyright_2011_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg

If you want the film look you have to make digital have less res. Flatbed scanned color film is about 4mp.

This is Leica MM turned into low res film.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...o._134_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

Your doing your best to talk a great pix. My advice shoot more, overthink and write less. You can use most any cam to shoot a great pix. A crappy photog will always shoot crap.

Now, this pix could have used less noise and better res...a little. But if I was shooting a monster Nikon I would not have been able to carry 2 or 3 of them all day and night like I did the Fuji X.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Bikers'_Mardi_Gras_no._36_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/1024px-Bikers'_Mardi_Gras_no._36_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

 

[soufiej]

Your doing your best to talk a great pix. My advice shoot more, overthink and write less. You can use most any cam to shoot a great pix. A crappy photog will always shoot crap.

Thanks for the advice, I'll try to write less.

You must not have read the thread.

How's that?

 

[Vtec44]

It depends on the type of work that you're shooting for Medium format DSLR's with 50mp has its place somewhere, and so do 12mp DSLR's with insane clean high ISO.

 

[photoguy99]

ilovemycam only ever wants to talk about himself and his photos. It's kind of his thing.

 

[Buckster]

ilovemycam only ever wants to talk about himself and his photos. It's kind of his thing.

Grandiose delusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[enzodm]

SX50 could be a good idea, but do not look only at good examples: with any camera you can select a specific kind of pictures that result well because not limited by camera limits. So, if you are taking pictures of birds in good light, ok, but it could be very different if you need to take pictures of people at home. Anyway, when I cannot bring my dSLR, sometimes I travel with a $80 P&S and is much better than nothing.

 

[soufiej]

SX50 could be a good idea, but do not look only at good examples: with any camera you can select a specific kind of pictures that result well because not limited by camera limits. So, if you are taking pictures of birds in good light, ok, but it could be very different if you need to take pictures of people at home. Anyway, when I cannot bring my dSLR, sometimes I travel with a $80 P&S and is much better than nothing.

I understand each selection has its pros and cons and nothing will be best for all situations. However, even striving for "best" would put me in the DSLR w/ multiple lenses situation that I am trying to avoid. If I went with the SX50 I would, of course, always have my old DSLR gear available to work with.

Birding is a part of what I prefer, so the super zoom might be a good choice for now.
Anyone have an suggestions for getting around the lack of manual focus with the SX50? It is advertised as having a manual focus available but, in reality, the viewfinder/LCD are not sufficient for good MF. The control for the MF is very broad so not really useful for fine tuning. And the camera has what Canon calls "Safety MF" which uses its auto focus system to reselect the "correct" focus after MF has been used to get the camera in the general area. So the auto foucs appears to be undefeatable and shots will be taken with the camera always selecting where to focus.

The G-1X does seem to have straight forward manual focus as an option though.


Vtec44, thanks but I doubt I could afford either option you mention.

And I doubt all the gear Ilovemycam mentions would even fit in a single Fiat 500.

 

[weepete]

I've got my eye on a Rioch GR as a wee carry around camera. The idea of it really appeals to me though it is still on the dear side.

Reading through this thread though I think you are trying to get a small camera that is cheap and will do a bit of everything which is confusing you further. I think for the type of small camera you are talking about you need to decide on one particular type and get one that does that well.

 

[Bebulamar]

First of all I would like to use the word pixel count instead of resolution if that's OK to the OP. If so pixel count does not always win. There are a lot of other quality of a camera than just pixel count. Also very high pixel count do not contribute to quality in most common use of the image.