Some things *I* learned about photography - Pt.13... actually Pt.12a
This is directly connected with the last two posts… So, some sort of an addendum…
30a. You don’t need a DSLR. Since people around me found out, that I like taking pictures (which is kind of easy to find out, because I’m sticking that huge lens in their faces all of the time), I get asked a lot, what camera they should buy.
I really don’t like questions like these, because
I don’t know each camera - actually I only really know my own camera(s)
I’m a pragmatist, so my only honest answer could be: Buy the one that works for you. And that wouldn’t be too helpful, would it?
I don’t want to be blamed, if you don’t like your camera after you bought it.
I honestly believe that, how good your pictures are is not - or only to a very tiiiiiiiiiiiiny, little, smaaaaaall amount - connected to what camera you use.
But these people somehow think, that my opinion counts and I really want to be helpful, so I ask them two questions
How much time are you willing to spend to learn working with your camera?
How much money are you willing to spend? Not only by buying your camera but also by buying extra gear?
Most people I know say (and that is a completely valid argument), that they don’t want to really bother about “learning the camera”. Learning, how a DSLR works takes a lot of time. Of course (many) DSLRs do have auto-modes, that will give you superb results under many circumstances. But the results will - in my experience - if at all only be marginally better than with a good compact camera. So IMHO you don’t really need a DSLR if you just “drive auto”.
DSLRs are like LEGO. If you have one, you can (well, actually you will, if you’re like 90% of all DSLR photographers) start to buy extra gear: Another couple of lenses, a speedlight or two, a tripod, a reflector, more lenses… And that is costly. It’s a big advantage of course, since you can eventually use that extra gear when buying a new camera body (oc you have to stick to the same brand), but it’s costly and time consuming.
To cut a long story short: DSLRs are IMHO only for people who really want to get into “working with their cameras”. The really big advantages of DSLRs come only to play with using different lenses. I know a lot of people who bought a DSLR once, only shoot auto and are happy with the results, but they could have saved a lot of money (and space in the camera bag), if they would have bought a decent compact or bridge camera. I’d even go so far to say, that with todays compact cameras, the results would even be better.
Why? These cameras are bulit to be operated by people who don’t want to bother about settings. And - I repeat - this is a completely valid argument.
It’s the picture that counts and not what camera it has been taken with.
A pair of waxeyes. by Bernard Spragg. NZ Via Flickr: The beauty of having a F2.8 600mm lens. Lumix Fz200.
Also known as wax-eye or white-eye, Zosterops lateralis belongs to the widespread family Zosteropidae. New Zealand possesses one species which is a relatively recent arrival in this country from Australia. Permanent invasion occurred in or before 1856, the birds obviously being carried in flocks across the Tasman Sea by one or more of the weather systems which, in these latitudes, travel in a predominantly east-west direction. By 1861 the species had established a permanent footing in the Chatham Islands. Now it has a wide distribution throughout the country and has even reached as far north as the Kermadecs and as far south as Campbell Island. It may be found in a variety of habitats from sea level to above the tree line but it is not abundant in deep forest. Flocks form in late autumn and winter and in some years these become very common in the lowlands.
Im so confused I keep looking at bridge camera reviews and for the budget I have they seem to all be shit. If anyone knows of any good bridge cameras for under £150 could you please tell me cause I will be asking for one for christmas :D x