Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
the point we might be missing here is that you *already* have a decent camera in your phones
|
I didn't miss that point!
"honestly, I think that unless you need the optical zoom nowadays some mid-high level smartphones could easily "work" almost as good as cheap cameras, so if the budget is really tight it's not that easy to find a worthy model..."
Most people are not even aware of the capabilities of the camera on their phones and they just point and shoot, but camera apps can offer good control over the shooting parameters, and fiddling/getting to know better those parameters can make a big difference in quality of the final image even of small-ish sensors of smartphones' cameras.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EVOLghost
Now I know I'll need to spend a nice amount to get a pretty solid camera.
|
Well, you don't necessarily
need to buy a camera unless you feel you can't squeeze out of your phone's sensor images you like (after you "study" the controls/parameters mentioned earlier).
Also you'd need to find out if you're really willing to bring a "proper" camera with you, if you end up buying something and you like the images it produces but you find yourself leaving it at home because it adds "bulk" to your lean figure
it could be a pretty pointless purchase, even if the upgrade in terms of image quality is there.
never forget: "
The best camera is the one that's with
you." – Chase Jarvis
oh, lemme be a bit rude here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EVOLghost
It has a high MP count so I feel like the picture quality will be there.
|
that's total bullshit.
What you have to consider to get a decent idea of the actual picture quality is the MP count relative to the sensor size AND the quality of the glass in front of the sensor.
A small sensor crammed with pixels won't produce crispier/better images, because the light the camera "absorbs" (which is the magic stuff that makes cameras work, ahahah) gets "divided" into smaller (too small, even) fractions, and that would actually reduce the quality of the printed/screen-viewed output, especially when the lighting of the scene is a bit challenging and in low light.. (just as an example, Sony has in its lineup the a7s, a Full Frame camera with 12.2 MP that's just a BEAST in low light situations, because it has "bigger pixels" on its sensor, able to gather more light=more information in each of them).
Big numbers in MP count on compact cameras with "slow" lenses is just a marketing ploy to lure customers.
IMHO, unless you need to print HUGE POSTERS and look at them from a close distance, or absolutely need to go Full Frame for some reason, I think the actual sweet spot for enthusiasts/consumers would be around 16MP tops on an APS-C sensor.
Adding MPs, even when they're well implemented (like symbolguy said sony makes great sensors which are able to make good use of higher pixels' count) could be not worth it unless you shoot wildlife/sports and often crop your files. Higher pixel count results in bigger files->need for bigger storage/more powerful pc/mac->longer postproduction time->not necessarily better prints/files unless you're interested in the not-so-noble art of pixel peeping.
WAIT A SEC--- didn't we have some sort of photography thread to talk about gear and stuff? Or was it the one where lately "we" just post pictures and there's almost no talk?
I could go on for ages talking about cameras.
Sorry.
ahah.
I'd have some recommendations for specific models, but perhaps it's not a good idea sto start making lists now.