Price VS Photo Quality

[Hards80]

If you don't need quite the build construction of the D3x, 1dsmkiiis.

the Canon 5dmkii, Nikon D700, and Sony A850 offer a heck of alot of full-frame camera for a comparatively lower price. Each has its advantages and disadvantages of course. the 5dmkii offers a ton of resolution and great resolving power and hd movies. but the d700 offers better shooting performance and better high iso performance at the cost of absolute resolution. the 850 offers good resolution and in-body stabilization, but it can't quite match the high-iso performance of either of its competitors. (not that its not still good)

[Hards80]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Yep - try to get this shallow depth-of-field (about 3/4 inch) from 4 feet away with a digicam:


Or, how 'bout shallow DOF as well as high ISO for available light - ISO 1600:

even going to the m4/3 system like pana g1, and trying to do this would be impossible. as you would need to get back alot further and use an even faster piece of glass.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by Bynx

I realize you pay for features and construction, but when it comes down to the print you are holding in your hand, given optimum conditions, for my Fuji for example, would the difference between the $8,000 Nikon and the $150 Fuji be that noticeable? I have priorities for an $8,000 purchase and a Nikon isnt on the top of the list. Close, but not #1. As I move down the price list, Im giving up features, but is the quality dropping at the same rate? The quality of shots I get with my Fuji far exceeds any shots I could take with my Pentax 35mm. But under low light conditions the Fuji sucks. I dont specialize in any aspect of photography. Im always trying to shoot something different so Id like a camera which can keep up and give me the best shot possible under any condition. Does it have to be the $8,000 Nikon or would an $800 Lumix G1 do just as well? And does a movie function play a big part in your purchase? That boosts the G1 price up to $1300 and gets called a GH1.

I don't think it's possible to make an argument that the Nikon is worth 53 times the Fuji. But it is possible to make the argument that if your making money with the machine, (or you're one of those who regard Every picture as serious value) then you cannot afford to miss a shot simply because the fuji is no where near as flexible. Now I shoot my 5K camera in full manual mode, but with a flick of a switch I can change every parameter of the cameras settings, and I can do this with many different stored parameters.

In fact, there's no setting I can't access more or less on the fly.

If I miss a shot, I can't blame the limitations of the camera.

Personally I don't think my camera, even when it was new, took better images than a 1K camera; on the other hand, I prefer to blame myself then the camera. And, as a professional mechanic, I have the same attitude with the tools of my trade. And I spend extra, so that I never am in the position of blaming the tool for my own errors.

Dave

[VTphotog]

If we are talking about a specialized field (indoor sports sans flash for example), then a specialized tool is going to give much better results, with less effort. It is a poor workman who blames his tools, though. ( as somebody else once said)
I'm not a big sports fan, but don't really think that sports pictures have gotten any better with the advent of megabuck digital cameras. Seems to me I have seen shots such as Muhammed Ali's face in contact with a glove, basketball players dunking ball, you name it, all shot with film, and many were manually focused.
IMO, it ain't about the gear. It is about how focused the photographer is on his craft.(pun definitely intended)

brian

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by VTphotog

I have seen shots such as Muhammed Ali's face in contact with a glove, basketball players dunking ball, you name it, all shot with film, and many were manually focused.

But take a look at those photos - not your memory of them and compare them to the photos by the SI professionals today. No comparison whatsoever in the technical quality of the image. It's like looking at a VHS tape and comparing it to a blu-ray movie of today. See if you can find a sports photog that will trade today's performance for tri-x 1600 film.

Tools DO matter - they really do. A craftsman still needs to know how to use them. But it's naive to suggest tool is irrelevant. Otherwise those photogs would still use B&w film and manual focus SLRs. But they don't do they? Because they realize the right tool helps them produce better images than the wrong tool.

[Bynx]

What Im liking in what is see is NOISE FREE. If it were a better world all digital cameras would have the best sensor made to even the playing field. Then people would pay for construction differences like plastic or titanium, quality glass, etc. If there were one sensor for all cameras then that sensor would be cheaper to produce. Oh well, thanks for your input. Its been helpful.