You Don't Need An Expensive Camera...

the good old sun is one of the best light sources around... and it's free!

It is not the camera that makes good pictures. It is the Photographer! This site is a perfect example. In the right hands, an old, cheap 110 Instamatic film camera could produce stunning shots.

By the same token, put a $5,000 Canon or Nikon digital SLR in the hands of someone who has no clue and all you will get is junk.

Many years ago when digital cameras were first reaching to professional levels, we published at least one cover shot that was taken with a Nikon 2.1 megapixel digital camera. And I think there may have been a few 2-page spreads published with that same camera.

Today, anything less than 12 megapixels is almost considered a toy!

Well guys, here is another good example of a relatively inexpensive camera taking great shots.

My feature layout article (Feb / March 2012, Run 255) plus the dramatic cover shot was taken with my Canon point and shoot.

I have a Canon Rebel with multiple lenses but usually grab my G12 for most pictures.

Donald

Doc

Amazing Thanks for sharing

steve

I not certain how long I've had it, but I am quite fond of my 6.0 Megapixel Pentax D100.

The photos are sharp enough for me, and I have no intention of replacing it. 

For once I agree with Rich.

Just because it's called a "point 'n' shoot" doesn't mean that's how you have to use it. Take some time and compose the shots.

Yeah, I know, I can't believe I said that.

Above 3 or 4 megapixels the lens is a bigger factor in image quality than the sensor is.  The whiz-bang features of new cameras certainly help an amateur make better pictures, but nothing replaces the ability to frame a shot, or a rudimentary understanding of how light works to make an image.

Vulcan...Frank...all I can say is...ROTFL!!   

While I'm not a truly serious photographer, that was what I thought of when I saw the pic of Frank's Sony. 

I had a Sony from about 12 years ago (DSCF505V) and people who were more into photography than me always spoke highly of the Carl Zeiss lenses Sony was using. 

The particular camera I had was a "cheating" 3 MP, as it had a 3 MP sensor, but only ~ 2.6 MP (or maybe 2.3, it's been a while) of the sensor was available because they put it in an existing body from the model that preceded it.  As a result, not all of the sensor was available for the photo. 

Still took plenty good shots for me, and compared to other "true" 3 MP cameras of the time, I didn't see any significant differences notable via casual review, even if zooming in on the PC a little.

-Dave

This guys work is the new German layout of the net......posted many times here and on every car site I visit!!!

i don't really want to hijack this string into a camera review, but i recently saw a camera that made me make the jump from a P&S back to an SLR (i haven't had access to since the last roll of film i bought more than a decade ago) and i can think of two things might convince someone to upgrade...      1) i really missed my 300mm telephoto lens and     2) 16.2M pixels is a lot of bits but very rarely do all those pixels make the final cut (crop), and i've found many a good picture within a picture post processing those extra-large images with Photoshop.

Good photography is a LOT more difficult than most people realize.

If a point and shoot was all you needed, most photos would be stunning.

They're not.

There are the issues of subject, composition, lighting, depth of field, exposure, knowledge of color temperature, understanding the digital processing and saving of different types of files, i.e. compression . . . . 

Oh . . . yes. The modeling.

How many photos have an unidentifiable subject?

Objects and areas that detract from the overall image?

Areas too dark or blown out?

Foreground or rear out of focus?

Under/Overexposed?

Color too yellow or too blue?

Use of the wrong file or misunderstanding of resolution versus size?

Scrappy

Well, regular Point and shoot cameras are limited with their crop sensors.  Most DSLRs have a crop sensor which changes how wide you can go on any particular shot.  My Canon T4i has a crop sensor and a 50mm prime is more like shooting with an 80mm lens.  Also the ability to control the Aperture and shutter speed IMHO are necessary in shooting any layout photos.

No matter what camera you have.  Learn how to use the White balance functions and get a tripod.  Any camera that gives you control over ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed is a plus. A decent tripod will eliminate the need for a flash as you can paint the scene with a flashlight on a long exposure setting when shooting darker scenes.

Ted

This was done on a low light, no flash shot.  The aperture was cranked down, that is why the star effect is coming off the lights.  I used and LED flashlight to try and cheat a little, but you can see it on the front of the trolley.  Now that the layout is better situated I will work at some more shots like this.

Crop sensor???

Hi Rich,

most cameras have have a crop sensor or a sensor that is smaller than full frame like in the canon 5D.  the crop changes the actual focal length of your lens, so even though your lens may say 24 mm for instance, depending on the size of the sensor, your focal length could be much higher than 24 mm and you really are not as wide as you think.

Tmack, you have the concept sort of correct, but your understanding of the process is way off base. Focal lengths of lenses don't change depending on the size of the image sensor, but beyond that I don't know where to begin to try to explain where you're off base. 

For example, I've been using digital cameras for over 10 years and I never heard of the term "crop sensor" before reading your post. Where did you get that?

Uh, We had a "crop censor" when we were in the federal government's CDRP program

years ago.

Rich,

You're probably right, there is a better way to explain it.  All I know is that if I take my 50mm prime and put in on my T4i with it's APS-C sensor I get a 80mm field of view.  While that may not change the physical focal length of the lens it still makes me adjust.  If I put that same lens on my Son's 5D he gets the full field of view.

My EF-S lenses have a smaller field of view, so if I put them on my Son's 5D there would be vignetting created as the field of view on the EF-S LEs cannot cover the entire sensor.

"Crop sensor" has indeed come into use as a kind of opposite to "full frame sensor".   It is really just a way to explain the concepts of digital photography to old-school "35 mm" folks.   A "full frame sensor" is one the same size as a piece of 35mm film.  Anything smaller is called a "crop sensor", because if used with a lens designed for film, the results will in effect be cropped.

I agree with Rich, though, that it is kind of misleading to talk about "focal length" in this regard. That would be like saying that cropping the image in Photoshop changes the focal length.  Such a claim doesn't really make much sense.  Focal length is more-or-less a measure of the ability of a lens to magnify (under most circumstances). Cropping an image does not change the magnification ability of the lens, it simply throws away some of the information that would otherwise be available in the image. This is true whether the cropping is done in the sensor or in Photoshop.  So called "digital zoom" is basically the same thing:  it is simply a crop operation done by the camera, rather than by post-processing.   It almost never makes sense unless you don't have the ability to crop after the fact.

Rich:

You need to visit some digital camera forums.  Crop Sensor is the typical way to refer to the 1:1.5 or 1:1.6 reduction is size of the sensors in most consumer DSLRs. 

Also since most of us grew up on full frame 35 mm cameras and understand the coverage angle of lenses in standard 35mm camera lens equivalents, it is common to refer to the 35mm equivalent lens when talking about the lenses for crop sensor cameras.  So a 50mm lens on a 1:1.6 crop sensor camera would have the viewing angle of standard 80mm lens on a full frame camera (50mm x 1.6).  Likewise to get the viewing angle of a 24mm wide angle lens of a full frame camera a 15mm lens would be required (24 / 1.6)

Nikon uses the terms DX and FX for their two sensor sizes.

here is a pretty good explanation of the difference.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Lea...-and-fx-formats.html

i use a D5100 which has the smaller DX sensor, but i use a 28-300mm FX lens so at 300mm, i'm essentially seeing the same magnification that a 450mm lens on a FX sensor camera would see, albeit in a cropped down field of view.

Eyes glazing over...trying to deal with all this useless technical trivia.

I usually just frame the shot and push the button. 

Not only do I agree with you, Frank, it was your post that prompted me to write mine!

You better let Elizabeth know...

I have done photography for many years with everything from box cameras to 35mm SLR to medium format cameras and all are just a tool to produce the most pleasing picture that conveys the photographer's view to others. I do indeed have a higher end digital SLR that I bought after having my home robbed and ransacked while tented for termites this year. The burglars took most of my camera collection so I replaced some of the film cameras and then got a Nikon SLR because it fit my needs and is comfortable to me to use. I still have missed shots and there is trial and error in composing the right picture. While we were running our All Aboard Fastracker squares at Cal Stewart this year I worked on some head on shots in low light trying to get a good picture of a little 248 I found, cleaned up, put on a couple of parts, and ran the rest of the weekend. It was great! I hope you like these shots...

Come on Rich...everyone knows what a "Crop Sensor" is...
...it's one of those new fancy devices farmers install on their tractor/combine to keep their unit in the field.
Sorta like "Cruise Control" for Ag equipment as is senses the crops and steers the unit toward the crops.

Can a crop sensor be used when two or more tractors are 'lashed-up'?

Interesting photo Frank.  I've had the same camera (in black - like a locomotive) for years and use it most of the time. Our published photos here and in the other rag are all taken with the Sony!

6 megapixels is PLENTY for publishing photos in a magazine like ours. You couldn't blow up a 6 megapixel image to 30" x 40" but 6 megapixels will make a very nice 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 print. That camera is an oldie but goodie in my eyes. The images that Frank53 has shared with us here on the forum are testament to both the quality of that camera and Frank's abilities as a good photographer.

We have standardized on Canon cameras here at OGR. I shoot with a T2i, while Ed, Jim and George have other models in the Canon Digital SLR line. We have been very happy with them. I have even used mine to shoot HD video every once in a while. It was Camera 2 in the 3-camera interview with Hot Water in GLA 8.

There are newer Canon models out there now, but the ones we have still work perfectly and fill the need for what we need them to do. Many of the photos in the magazine have been shot with these various models of Canon cameras.

But as I said above, the key to good pictures is NOT the camera. It is the person BEHIND the camera.

Yes, the megapixel wars are over. It is like adding more gigabytes of disk space to your laptop.   Who cares?

But that doesn't mean the end of progress in camera development. There are many extremely useful new features showing up in digital cameras--mostly having to do with image processing of various kinds.  It is true that a lot of these features really belong in your post-processing software instead of the camera, but this isn't always the case.  

Here are two examples:

1) HDR (high dynamic range).  This is similar to the various "stacking" techniques used to combine images for increased dynamic range or depth of field, but it is done automatically in the camera. Aside from the convenience, this is a huge advantage, since the algorithms can take advantage of special characteristics of particular image sensors and other camera features. In certain circumstances, I find my iPhone camera with HDR turned on to be superior to an otherwise much better camera.

2) Image stitching. Intended for "panorama" photography, these technologies have many interesting uses, and are getting better all the time. We are approaching the day in which one can just "paint" a scene with a camera in pano mode and capture a hugely-detained multi-perspective model of what the camera sees, from which a whole family of particular POV images can be extracted.

I'm sorry if these conversations bore some of you.  But, current cameras are not the End of History (a fact that some pixel-counters may be missing), and I for one find some of the upcoming capabilities pretty exciting for our hobby.