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
I have seen them. We may go.
4 hours 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