helicopter34234
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Posts
- 153
- Likes
- 11
I recently started in the hobby of digital photography and digital editing. I have a Canon Rebel Xti and an ok 17-85 mm Canon lens (not the kit lens) as well as a decent 50 mm prime. I do most of my editing in Photoshop and can do some of the more complicated actions like removing a background and altering it seperately from the foreground. I even started exploring HDR techniques with photomatix. I have read several books on photography technique and I think I really understand the fundamentals of taking a photograph (setting iso, aperture, shutter speed, achieving bokeh with low f#, how perspectives can change with a telephoto versus a wide angle, stuff like that). I think I am starting to know almost all there is to know about, lets call it, the science of taking a photograph (next I think I need to explore the art of taking a photograph). Now I am not saying that I don't already take some pretty decent pictures (which I do), I am just wondering if there is something I am missing in my technique and understanding which could allow me to achieve even better results. I know a large part of achieving a great photograph is the actual setup (deciding what to take a picture, from what angle/perspective, and being there to capture some interesting action), but this I am not worried about because I know I can pick this up with practice. I'm more concerned with fundamental limitation in my understanding and in my equiptment. So my question is what errors in technique can a semi experienced photographer do to prevent a photo from being excellent.
A secondary question would be, what features of your camera do you find useful or even essential to taking a great picture. I'm trying to understand how much cheaper equiptment can really limit the quality of your pictures. My rebel body sells for around $400 these days, what am I really paying for in a $1000 or even more expensive camera body. Yes, you usually get a few more megapixels, maybe a little higher bit depth in your pixels, possibly a slight decrease in pixel noise so you can use a higher iso, and some added features like more autofocus points etc. I'm not saying that these things don't help (they obviously do) but in perspective how much do they really help for the added price (its obviously similar to audio eqiptment with a large diminishing in your returns with price). Oh also you get a more sturdy build quality which helps for people take their camera everywhere but it isn't going affect your image quality (unless you break your camera and miss that once and a lifetime shot). My parents also had a Rebel Xti as well as top of the line Canon L series lenses and decided to upgrade to a Nikon 300D because the guy at the camera store said it had such a better autofocus and thats what everyone was using to photograph birds (which is what my parents mostly do). I thought they were crazy.
Also, I know that lens often limit image before the body can. Correct me if I'm wrong but aside from distortions in perspective (barrel distortion or when your buildings look like they are tapered or leaning) you can't really notice the aberrations of most medium priced lens unless you really zoom in (and often only if you compare images side by side with a better lens). I do notice a little chromatic aberration on my 17-85 mm when im closer to the 17 mm side of zoom and when there is high contrast in the image (purple fringing) but once agian only when you really zoom in. Oh, also with more expensive lens you usually have acess to lower f#'s which can be useful at times but not really essential in most cases for a great photo.
Basically what I am trying to say is that I know better equiptment exists and that there is a measurable difference in quality, what I am trying to grasp is the margin of difference in quality versus price.
A secondary question would be, what features of your camera do you find useful or even essential to taking a great picture. I'm trying to understand how much cheaper equiptment can really limit the quality of your pictures. My rebel body sells for around $400 these days, what am I really paying for in a $1000 or even more expensive camera body. Yes, you usually get a few more megapixels, maybe a little higher bit depth in your pixels, possibly a slight decrease in pixel noise so you can use a higher iso, and some added features like more autofocus points etc. I'm not saying that these things don't help (they obviously do) but in perspective how much do they really help for the added price (its obviously similar to audio eqiptment with a large diminishing in your returns with price). Oh also you get a more sturdy build quality which helps for people take their camera everywhere but it isn't going affect your image quality (unless you break your camera and miss that once and a lifetime shot). My parents also had a Rebel Xti as well as top of the line Canon L series lenses and decided to upgrade to a Nikon 300D because the guy at the camera store said it had such a better autofocus and thats what everyone was using to photograph birds (which is what my parents mostly do). I thought they were crazy.
Also, I know that lens often limit image before the body can. Correct me if I'm wrong but aside from distortions in perspective (barrel distortion or when your buildings look like they are tapered or leaning) you can't really notice the aberrations of most medium priced lens unless you really zoom in (and often only if you compare images side by side with a better lens). I do notice a little chromatic aberration on my 17-85 mm when im closer to the 17 mm side of zoom and when there is high contrast in the image (purple fringing) but once agian only when you really zoom in. Oh, also with more expensive lens you usually have acess to lower f#'s which can be useful at times but not really essential in most cases for a great photo.
Basically what I am trying to say is that I know better equiptment exists and that there is a measurable difference in quality, what I am trying to grasp is the margin of difference in quality versus price.
