In the current discussion on the photography forums there is a tendency to concentrate on the image quality, especially noise, and emphasize differences between cameras. But are there really so big differences for it to actually matter? I think it is more a question how well the camera handles in a given task. That is, is it suited for portrait, landscape, or any other kind of photography?
I think the current advanced compacts are all quite competent tools, and there is not much to complain about. There is a great deal you can do with a G10, LX3 or P6000, it is very much a question of how creative you are. All these cameras have different strengths, and finding the right camera is more about the suitabiity of a particular combination of features than about a measure such as image quality.
In any case, I have grown to appreciate the LX3 more and more. It is a little camera with a big heart. A fun companion on photography excursions.
Posts
St. Johns River at Mandarin
7 hours ago
3 comments:
Juha,
Here is an interesting problem. You have several cameras. Try shooting the same subject with the same light with each camera.
Next go to the computer and try to modify each image so that it most closely resembles that produced by another camera.
I suspect that you will gain some interesting insights.
I have been thinking about this, but never got around to it in practise. Somehow when I have taken a photo, that is it - I'm no longer interested in taking it again with another camera. From another viewpoint perhaps, just to see what there is to discover...
You are right. It would be boring work, might be worth the insight.
Post a Comment