Is it really the camera which defines the quality of a photo? No. Well, in some cases it has an effect, but on the other hand a good photographer knows the limitations of the tool, and works around them. Thus, my interest towards a fancy new camera is a bit misplaced. In skillful hands, the Ixus 400 could produce excellent photos.
But, on the other hand, manual controls are good to have in a camera. In that sense Ixus 400 is not really a photographer's tool, it is too much automated, and some things (such as setting the aperture) are impossible with the camera. Also, it has a narrow dynamic range, and there is noise even at ISO 200.
Thus, I think there are real reasons why getting a new camera is a good step forward. Although, to be fair, I have a long way to go in photography until I could say that I master even the Ixus 400 completely.
This photo is from today, showing some effects from the rainy summer. Those potholes were not there at the beginning of the summer.
Posts
Will you wait for us a little, outside the door?
7 minutes ago
2 comments:
It's an interesting question. Camera Equipment can lift a picture (in terms of richness of colour and some compositional elements) However, like most other situations your camera is simply a tool that must be linked to the photographer's skill. We get to see both elements in action on a regular basis!
So it is: a good camera in good hands - excellent results. But as I am a novice, there are tens of thousands of photos that need to be taken to learn how to use a camera properly. Ixus 400 is good enough for me at the moment.
Post a Comment