I appreciate everyone's input and taking time to address my questions. I guess in the end I have to say, I'm not trying to do anything professional or become a photographer, I have way too many hobbies already to get into that. I just thought it'd be cool to have something nicer than my iPhone for a reasonable price. I just wanna get the best bang for my buck, yanno? I honestly think if I have to spend too much for it, its really not worth getting because I'll barely be using it and wasting its potential. It'd be like me getting a super crazy gaming machine when all I wanna do is play Morrowind. :-P So I think I'll just go with my gut and pick something, test it out, and if I don't like it I'll return it.
Edit: Forgot to add, silly me being a newb didn't think about the other stuff I'd have to buy, like a case, battery charger, SD card, etc. That's moar moneys to factor in :-P.
The advice to figure out what you want to do is the best advice here. My Panasonic Lumix point-and-shoot has macro mode (most cameras do these days), lets me set the white balance, adjust the level of exposure, and turn off the flash. That is all I really NEED it to do because 99% of my photography is pictures for my Etsy shops. Yes, my camera does lots of other things as well, but I don't use those other functions nearly as much.
My camera also does just fine at portraits and people and landscapes. If you get an expensive camera, you have more versatility because your camera can make up for bad lighting and stuff like that. If you get a cheaper camera, you may have to spend a little more time setting up shots and/or doing post-processing, but you can still take great photos.
I find it interesting how much people nerd out about photos, and that I don't understand it at all. At least not regarding photos related to my own life.
I accidentally took a sip from a sick guy's water bottle. What's the likelihood I just ruined my whole weekend?
Depends on a number of factors, including what he was sick with, how recently he has drank from that bottle, and others. I'm gonna assume it's gonna be fine though. It's being near him, touching him, and him coughing near/on you that's gonna get you.
It was such a stupid mistake, too. I absent-mindedly picked up his waterbottle thinking it was mine and took a sip. I didn't even realize he was sick until he told me, since he's a pretty high-energy guy. Anyway, here's to hoping!
Okay, I think I'm getting the Canon PowerShot S100. Its more than I wanted to spend, but thats how these things usually go for me. :-P I just need to commit to pressing the order button, blargh.
Edit: I just noticed the silver one is $10 less... is silver tacky or something? o.o
The art is only as good as the artist, getting better equipment is not going to make you better.
No ammount of practice is going to make the quality of my photos any better. For my photos to get better I need a better lens. 3000 dollars? I don't think I'm going to do it.
The art is only as good as the artist, getting better equipment is not going to make you better.
No ammount of practice is going to make the quality of my photos any better. For my photos to get better I need a better lens. 3000 dollars? I don't think I'm going to do it.
But you already are highly skilled at photography. If I go golfing, it won't matter whether I use crappy rented clubs or the same clubs as Tiger Woods. If Tiger Woods used cheap clubs, it would probably affect his score, but not mine.
The art is only as good as the artist, getting better equipment is not going to make you better.
No ammount of practice is going to make the quality of my photos any better. For my photos to get better I need a better lens. 3000 dollars? I don't think I'm going to do it.
But you already are highly skilled at photography. If I go golfing, it won't matter whether I use crappy rented clubs or the same clubs as Tiger Woods. If Tiger Woods used cheap clubs, it would probably affect his score, but not mine.
Bad analogy; by virtue of construction, good golf clubs can help even the worst player do a bit better. More so on the tee shot when you usually just need to hit the ball very far.
Bad analogy; by virtue of construction, good golf clubs can help even the worst player do a bit better. More so on the tee shot when you usually just need to hit the ball very far.
Still bad - I hit further with my own old, stiff-shaft steel clubs than I hit with my father's 2000 dollar, fancy as fuck, graphite shaft brand new clubs. Why? The shafts on his clubs are not stiff enough, way too whippy, and the force of my swing torques the head around, causing a massive loss of power and an extraordinarily bad slice - Like, 90 degrees to the intended direction of travel for the majority of flight.
You've got to use the clubs(and tools) that suit you, and allow you to do the best you can at the task you set out to achieve.
He said good, not expensive. Evidently (for you at least) the old stiff-shaft clubs are better than the $2000 clubs.
That's the thing - my clubs are not good. They're pretty awful, as clubs go, they're older than I am, about 15-20 technological revisions behind, it's like comparing an Apple II against a modern Mac Pro. The important part is the stiff shaft, which I can get in expensive, graphite-shaft clubs - but the old man's expensive clubs don't have stiff shafts, and my steel shafted clubs do. That's why I'll drive it 250 yards with a shitty old club, but slice it 90 degrees with the fancy modern clubs - not the relative price or quality, and thus the point, use what's good for you, price is irrelevant, quality is irrelevant.
Bad analogy; by virtue of construction, good golf clubs can help even the worst player do a bit better. More so on the tee shot when you usually just need to hit the ball very far.
Still bad - I hit further with my own old, stiff-shaft steel clubs than I hit with my father's 2000 dollar, fancy as fuck, graphite shaft brand new clubs. Why? The shafts on his clubs are not stiff enough, way too whippy, and the force of my swing torques the head around, causing a massive loss of power and an extraordinarily bad slice - Like, 90 degrees to the intended direction of travel for the majority of flight.
You've got to use the clubs(and tools) that suit you, and allow you to do the best you can at the task you set out to achieve.
I wish my slice was that good. Last time I teed off, I managed to bean someone behind me. Still no fucking clue how that happened.
To clarify, I was talking about quality if image. If everyone used the exact same camera, for example the iPhone 4s camera, some people would take way better photos than others. Good photographers would be limited by the camera and novices would be limited by their skill.
No matter what the tool of artistic expression, the more skilled artist will always create the more interesting art.
However, the tool matters a lot concerning the quality of the final image. No matter how good a phone camera, a point and shoot, a mirrorless, or a DSLR, none of them will take an image of high enough quality to use in fashion photography for high end publications. It just won't make sense to even try.
And no matter what the lens and sensor, what makes high quality photography stand out is the lighting. That's why the photoshoot of the girl in the helmet looks so good, and that even with the right camera in your hand, you're not going to get the same results.
Yep. Ultimately, everything comes down to the quality of the optics (as in the physics definition of optics--both lenses and lighting) involved, even beyond your artistic ability. To wit: If you're taking portraits, buy a flash diffuser, a strobe flash, and an aspherical lens with a huge fucking aperture. An artist may be the master of his art, but quoth Kevin Barnes, "Physics makes us all its bitches."
Also, re: portraits: In my experience, blown-out highlights with soft focus is a pretty look, but it can easily be tacky and reminiscent of porn snaps. Adjust your ISO and exposure accordingly, and always use the biggest aperture you can!
The art is only as good as the artist, getting better equipment is not going to make you better.
No ammount of practice is going to make the quality of my photos any better. For my photos to get better I need a better lens. 3000 dollars? I don't think I'm going to do it.
Buying an array pencils when you can't draw with a #2 pencil is not going to make you better is all I'm saying. The effects of the different densities is going to be apparent to a novice but they won't understand how they should be using the pencils in conjunction with each other or the proper ways to utilize the pencils to get the desired effects.
I agree with Luke on this point. I used to have a not so good flute. I used it from middle school through half of college. During those years I got better and better and did great things. At some point though it was obvious to me and my teacher that I was being held back by my crappy flute. When I upgraded, I was suddenly able to project low notes easily, where as before I got barely get them out. I was able to control my high notes, had a better time projecting overall, basically lots of good things. I finally got up to first chair in college, and it was awesome. I eventually upgraded my headjoint and my whole sound changed. I went from college kid to semi-professional level, and now I play in an adult community band.
Someone who is a great player can sound amazing on a crappy instrument, but having the nice fancy expensive stuff takes it to another level. I'm assuming this applies to photography, and many other similar things.
There are some things where good equipment helps and others not. Learning to juggle with cheap and shit equipment is possible, but can be unpleasant. In the seventies and eighties, Sergei Ignatov was the best juggler around, and he'd been training in Russia with the shonkiest clubs and rings ever.
These days club and ring technology has improved so much. The balls and clubs and rings don't make you a better juggler, but by being far, far, far more pleasant to juggle, it's easier to practice more without hurting your hands. Something being more fun means more people will practice it and for longer.
That said, to learn to juggle well, say up to the five ball level, even the shitest beanbags will be just as nice and easy to practice with as the most delux custom made beanbags.
However, when it comes to Diabolo, the opposite is true. To get anywhere at all, you need a good diabolo, decent hand sticks and appropriate string. Buying a cheap diabolo is do not worth it, you might as well not bother. They are so bad that is actually impossible to do even the most basic modern tricks.
This is one reason that, with the development of modern equipment, the level of skill with diabolo has gone through the roof.
Unfortunately for me, as a juggler, every improvement must come through practice, not through spending money on new equipment.
Hey food science people. This guy in my office keeps warning us about how you shouldn't drink energy drinks because taurine and citric acid mixed creates some sort of toxins in your digestive tract. Despite the fact that I realize energy drinks aren't healthy for you I can't find any evidence on this claim. Anyone else heard this? Apparently it was on 60 Minutes.
Preface: I didn't search beyond the first page with the phrase "taurine and citric acid"
Comments
My camera also does just fine at portraits and people and landscapes. If you get an expensive camera, you have more versatility because your camera can make up for bad lighting and stuff like that. If you get a cheaper camera, you may have to spend a little more time setting up shots and/or doing post-processing, but you can still take great photos.
Edit: I just noticed the silver one is $10 less... is silver tacky or something? o.o
You've got to use the clubs(and tools) that suit you, and allow you to do the best you can at the task you set out to achieve.
No matter what the tool of artistic expression, the more skilled artist will always create the more interesting art.
However, the tool matters a lot concerning the quality of the final image. No matter how good a phone camera, a point and shoot, a mirrorless, or a DSLR, none of them will take an image of high enough quality to use in fashion photography for high end publications. It just won't make sense to even try.
And no matter what the lens and sensor, what makes high quality photography stand out is the lighting. That's why the photoshoot of the girl in the helmet looks so good, and that even with the right camera in your hand, you're not going to get the same results.
Also, re: portraits: In my experience, blown-out highlights with soft focus is a pretty look, but it can easily be tacky and reminiscent of porn snaps. Adjust your ISO and exposure accordingly, and always use the biggest aperture you can!
*puts on sunglasses*
Aperture Science.
Someone who is a great player can sound amazing on a crappy instrument, but having the nice fancy expensive stuff takes it to another level. I'm assuming this applies to photography, and many other similar things.
These days club and ring technology has improved so much. The balls and clubs and rings don't make you a better juggler, but by being far, far, far more pleasant to juggle, it's easier to practice more without hurting your hands. Something being more fun means more people will practice it and for longer.
That said, to learn to juggle well, say up to the five ball level, even the shitest beanbags will be just as nice and easy to practice with as the most delux custom made beanbags.
However, when it comes to Diabolo, the opposite is true. To get anywhere at all, you need a good diabolo, decent hand sticks and appropriate string. Buying a cheap diabolo is do not worth it, you might as well not bother. They are so bad that is actually impossible to do even the most basic modern tricks.
This is one reason that, with the development of modern equipment, the level of skill with diabolo has gone through the roof.
Unfortunately for me, as a juggler, every improvement must come through practice, not through spending money on new equipment.
Preface: I didn't search beyond the first page with the phrase "taurine and citric acid"