A picture is the fruit of the combination of many elements: the right scene, under the right light, captured by a decent camera by a capable photographer... There is so much more than this, but let us assume we took into account the most important factors.
Now, the right scene can be prepared by the photographer in his studio, otherwise it is all a matter of chance. The same can be said about the lighting conditions (usually flashes will only give you more light, not better light). These factors are therefore out of our control, now let us see what we can control.
Let us assume we are capable photographers (laugh, please!), we are left with only one parameter to tune up in order to get proper pictures: a proper camera (actually, a proper camera with proper optics, but we shall discuss camera optics in another post). How do we choose a proper camera?
Our resources are mainly: knowledgeable friends, knowledgeable shop owners, Wikipedia and some specialized web-site.
Knowledgeable friends I have plenty. There is my father who was a life-long amateur photographer and proud possessor of Nikon manual cameras in the past and a Canon DSLR right now. Anyhow, he was not able to follow the tide of the change and is struggling to get results comparable with the ones he got in the past. There is my friend Matteo who simply bought a Sony DSLR and shoots like a mad man. His knowledgeable advise is to use a reflex, period. To him, whatever the brand, the camera must picture what you saw at shooting time and he is right: that is the job of a camera: if you do not get the picture you saw at shooting time, what is the purpose of the camera? Now, if the picture you saw and shoot is worse (much worse/unbearable) than you could ever imagine, we have another issue there, but we are assuming we are capable photographers here, remember? There is Otger boasting his camera (an “entry-level” Canon DSLR) is the best in the world, only to complain he cannot afford the upper model...
Shall I go on with this? You can get as many opinions as you look for, because at an amateur level there is actually no right camera for everyone. Manufacturers try to squeeze tons of technology and features inside a camera body, but in the end the camera and the photographer unite like in a marriage: they are made one for the other and vice-versa.
Want me to prove it? Go to a professional photographer, and ask him if he ever saw a colleague of his dropping the best camera on the market just because “the buttons are not where I expect/I am used them to be”. Such and more apparently absurd tales always existed and will always exist.
But this is not a bad thing, as it allows us to avoid the next big danger for an amateur: the knowledgeable shop owner. This guy will usually be a little more skilled than you and I (consider he can use whatever new camera comes in store), and is actually more interested in selling expensive stuff than in helping you with choosing the right camera for you. For one thing, he has the full right to behave so: as he already knows that there is no right camera for anyone, how could he devise the right camera for you? On the other side, more expensive stuff will also provide you with a little more reliability, which is never enough. The market is plagued with crappy stuff and, if you have little or no experience in handling photographic equipment, chances are high you will end up breaking your camera sooner than later.
Is buying branded stuff a good way to avoid unpleasant surprises? No. Google around and you will find plenty of complaints about this or that camera/lens/accessory from a famous brand that broke at the first fall, drop, hit, and it was dearly paid.
Here we come to a sensitive spot: how much does this kind of equipment cost? Surf the web, document yourself, and you will find whatever price from whatever brand. How can you discriminate the quality in this market? My advise is to treat every brand as a different case. Sony, for instance, will cost you less than Canon and Nikon, but all its models will be consistently cheaper than the corresponding ones from the latter two brands and, with the cost, quality is supposed to improve too. On the other side, cheap equipment from Canon or Nikon is not supposed to be good only because it is from this or that brand: if you want more quality, you have to spend more.
So, where are we left? Let us start from scratch: we do not know anything about photography and want to know what camera brands do exist on the market. Wikipedia is good at this. Here you find a very helpful table (at least for those who can read it). First, you see that the big producers are a handful of them, and now you know what the real alternatives are. Then, in this table you find some details that may (or may not) be of your interest, but they do influence the final price of a camera.
The problem with Wikipedia is that it will not go into the details that you want to know, unless you jump from link to link, from article to article, in order to understand every little bit of information written there. A more suitable place for this is a renowned and independent website offering reviews of all the cameras available in the market: DPReview. Go there and you will find all the information you want to know about any camera you may want to buy, with direct technical comparisons between different models from different brands but from the same market segment: that is exactly what you want to know!
Even if you are a niche user (that is my case, for instance, as I want to make astrophotography too), the reviews there explore into every little detail the cameras, therefore allowing you to build yourself a better consciousness of what you need/want to buy.
As a small example, let us compare some Canon cameras for the same customer segment: the Canon EOS 400D, 450D, 500D, 550D and 600D (I am from Europe: they are otherwise known as Digital Rebel XTi, XSi, T1i, T2i, T3i or Kiss X, X2, X3, X4 and X5). Let us go to the requirements I deem mandatory: for astrophotography I want high sensitivity with low noise, a “bulb” exposure mode and the ability to save the images in a lossless raw format with as many bits per pixel (bpp) as possible; for HDRI (High Dynamic Resolution Imaging) I want a wide exposure compensation bracketing. As you can see these are rather odd requirements, let us see if DPReview provides them.
On page 21 of the EOS 400D review we read that this camera does provide a lossless raw format, a sensitivity of 1600 ISO, a bulb mode, compensation of up to ±2.0 EV (bracketing is not mentioned). I keep totally out of the game the camera resolution or other things you will hear people boasting about, as I am not interested in them. This is a very important step: what kind of photography do you want to make? Then decide your camera based on these requirements.
On page 23 of EOS 450D review we find that this camera comes with a 14-bpp raw format, and basically the same features of its predecessor. But a comparison between the chroma noise curves (page 20 for the 450D review and page 18 for the 400D) shows that the even without enabling the noise reduction, the newer camera behaves at least as well as its predecessor, which is to be considered a major improvement, as to tinier pixels (over the same sensor size the newer camera sports 12.2 megapixels vs. 10 of its predecessor) should correspond higher noise levels. Considering that the former camera comes at the same price and packs some improved technology, the choice follows easily on this model.
The next model, the 500D, is certainly a major improvement from many points of view, but let us see if that is gold for our application: raw, 14-bpp fine, the sensitivity jumps up to 12800 ISO (!) but on page 15 we see that only the black noise (i.e., read-out noise) is comparable with its predecessor. There is no sense for our application to push further in sensitivity, as we see that with ISO's, noise too is dramatically increasing. But we already expected this to happen as the newer camera sports 15.1 megapixels over the same sensor format.
The next camera is a true show-stopper: with its 18 megapixels, EOS 550D features a chroma, black and grey noise (page 14) lower than 500D. This is a true advancement, as images taken at 3200 ISO feature the same or less noise than a 450D at 1600! As for the exposure compensation, it now ranges ±5.0 EV (but still, this is not the automatic bracketing): this camera is a small wonder.
Shall it be surpassed by its latest sibling? If we take a look at the graphs on page 10 of the EOS 600D review, we immediately see that the black noise at very high ISO (> 1600 ISO) for this camera is higher than for its predecessor, while at lower sensitivity values it keeps unchanged. Observing the other main features, we discover that nothing has really changed that would make us prefer this camera over its predecessor, and considering that newer models always do cost more, our choice would go, obviously, to the 550D: our choice is done!
Why did I choose Canon cameras instead of Nikon? My personal taste would be for Nikon, but only very recently Nikon introduced a truly raw format. You can read here a direct comparison between the two (in French) and about the infamous Nikon noise suppression “mode 3”.
What about me? I am a proud possessor of a 450D, but I bought it when 550D was not on the market yet, and we have already seen that 500D would have not fit my needs.
Here the fool who allegedly says his camera is the best in the world.
ReplyDeleteSimply two points:
- We have same camera model (yes, that “entry-level” Canon DSLR). I'm the one who would like to change it and you are the one who says that it is better than newest models, remember? You are closer to say its the best camera in the world than me.
-I've never complained I can't afford the upper model in a photographic conversation. I've expressed a wish of having better/newer/fancier gear, sure. (As it could seem you say I complain my gear about my bad/poor quality photos: NEVER. I'm the one responsible of my bad photos, not my gear.)
For the rest of the post: its your way of choosing gear. I have my own. Which in my opinion makes your point: when looking for a camera people should choose according to what is gonna do with it.
Main problem when buying first DSLR: you don't know even if you would like to have a DSLR. So, when asked I always say the same: Are you sure you want a DSLR? If so, buy from the brand (Nikon or Canon) you know more owners (so you can borrow their lenses and learn) and choose the model according to your budget. Once you discover you like this world, probably you will build an opinion of what camera you should build.
Otger
Hello Otger,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was clear that I was picking a very special case, as I believe that would be the case for anyone. This is why I go into details: in order to let people take a stand for their own requirements. Then, if my camera is better for me than for you, why not? This is not because it is absolutely better (I also tried to make clear that there exist no such a thing like THE camera), but because my needs are better fulfilled by that camera than yours.
As for your wishes, too bad for you: I have a very special list of friends' wishes that comes handy in special happenings. So I take the camera out of your line :D
And for picture quality, hell, yeah: I know you are the man!
Yes, it is my way of choosing gear, I am glad you agree with it: sources are useful to make analytical comparisons and build up an idea, but you should choose based on your needs. The thing is: where to look for a reliable source of information? That's the actual topic of this post.
Yes, point-and-shoot cameras are getting better and better, but you know that when you set the "portrait" mode, camera will do all the job for you without understanding what you are seeing. Good pictures come from photographers, not cameras, which is the same concept you expressed about claiming responsibility for your own pictures. DSLR's give you the chance to go manual, change lenses and actually play with them. You know that only too well.
To me, there is actually no doubt.
Thank you for your visit,