Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,769
Registered: ‎02-26-2015

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?


Tronhard wrote:

You have obviously researched this extensively and I have not. The main thing is I am glad you have what works for you!

 

Smiley Very Happy


Thank you for setting up the comparison.

 

And I agree the SX40/50/60 HS are great cameras for birders on a budget. They excel for the types of photos posted (birds in trees).

 

Where they are inferior to a dSLR is birds in flight, birds behind branches, and marginal light conditions. 

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 112
Registered: ‎10-18-2016

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?


TTMartin wrote:

Tronhard wrote:

You have obviously researched this extensively and I have not. The main thing is I am glad you have what works for you!

 

Smiley Very Happy


Thank you for setting up the comparison.

 

And I agree the SX40/50/60 HS are great cameras for birders on a budget. They excel for the types of photos posted (birds in trees).

 

Where they are inferior to a dSLR is birds in flight, birds behind branches, and marginal light conditions. 


Thanks for your comment. 

 

I actually made the comparison after hearing another photographer responding to a question from someone showing interest in photography and asking what they would need to get started.  The photographer answered by listing what HE had (which was similar to my expensive kit) and proudly listed how much it cost.  I could see the inquirer's enthusiasm wilt visibly as the price rose well into the thousands.  This was totally wrong, because it was all about the experienced photographer and did not address the agenda of the person making the inquiry.

 

Time and time again I see someone ask what gear they should get, but giving minimal explanations as to their situation.  Then a bunch of experienced photographers push the gear that they like, and often starting technical arguments among themselves.  This is not helpful: the person asking wants an answer to what will work for THEM, not the people answering them.  There is a lot of gear snobbery in the photographic community and that can be very off-putting to people just starting and still tentative about what they are going to do, and how committed they are to the activity.

 

As I have posed elsewhere answering such a question actually begins with many more questions:

1.  What is the budget?  That answer alone limits a lot of options for many

2.  What is the user's level of experience and how far do they aspire to go?  If they are just starting and not sure about their future, pushing expensive gear will scare many of them off.  If they are more experienced the other questions are still valid.

3.  What do they see themselves photographing - general stuff, family, portraiture, scenic, wildlife or travel? Each has different demands in terms of gear.

4.  What are they prepared to carry? The best camera is the one we will have.  No point pushing a heavy camera at someone who will not carry it.

5.  VERY important, what kind of output do they want?  Thumbnails for social media, posting to web pages, displaying on screens, small prints, large format prints.   The more one demands in terms of output the better quality of the image required.  There is no  point pushing a hugely expensive camera at someone who just puts stuff on small format, low-resolution web pages for example.

 

When we get inquiries from newbies we are essentially embassadors for photography.  We are not there to push gear, we are there to welcome them into the great community of photographers and hopefully encourage them to explore within their limits and asperations.

 

 

 

"All the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy
Honored Contributor
Posts: 7,926
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?

You simply prove my point, that all modern digital cameras/lenses are really pretty good.  It's the pixel peepers that keep the debate going raging.  I admit when I retired I was greatly interested in the difference in photographic gear.  I accumulated a large inventory of it.  I now come to the conclusion that most of it is pretty good.  Probably good enough to satisfy most people.

 

When you get to pixel peeper stage, yeah, you can see some differences. And, when you get into the bigger enlargements, beyond 8x10, for instance.

 

Thnax for doing this and sharing.  I hope a lot of folks see it.

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,512
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?


ebiggs1 wrote:

You simply prove my point, that all modern digital cameras/lenses are really pretty good.  It's the pixel peepers that keep the debate going raging.  I admit when I retired I was greatly interested in the difference in photographic gear.  I accumulated a large inventory of it.  I now come to the conclusion that most of it is pretty good.  Probably good enough to satisfy most people.

 

When you get to pixel peeper stage, yeah, you can see some differences. And, when you get into the bigger enlargements, beyond 8x10, for instance.

 

Thnax for doing this and sharing.  I hope a lot of folks see it.


Unusual requirements can surface when you least expect them. When I was working for a city government, someone proposed that my pictures of City scenes and buildings be used to decorate the Water Department's trucks. Since those pictures had been taken with a 50D (a 15MP crop camera, for those who don't remember it), I was sure that wouldn't work, and said so. But the Water Department sent some of them to their advertising company anyway, who confirmed that they had insufficient resolution. If they had wanted to go through with the idea, I would have probably rented a MF camera, but I suspect that even that might not have been enough. Sometimes you just have to wait for technology to catch up.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 112
Registered: ‎10-18-2016

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?

[ Edited ]

Well... As promised for those who did not find out the answers before I changed the file names Smiley Embarassed

 

The expensive camera was Photograph A 

Canon 7D MkII + 100-400 EF-L MkII + 1.4 Extender Mk III investment cost $5600(Can)+taxes

 

The inexpensive camera was Photograph B

Canon PowerShot SX60HS, investment cost $560(Can)+taxes

 

For a beginner, seeking to learn technique and not planning to do any major printing, it seems to me that the value lies with the cheaper camera.  The SX has all the basic controls of a DSLR, is easy to carry and has an amazing range of focal lengths.  It all depends on what you want the thing to do, and in particular what will be the final output.

 

If they decided they wanted to pursue photography, and found they wanted better results than this rendered, they could then fork out more moneyand move to a DSLR or MILC .  I have a huge investment in gear, but there are times when I take the Powershot out with me when that's all I want to carry.  As contributors have noted, under the right conditions it takes great pictures.

 

Anyway for those who looked, thanks for doing so and I hope you found this little experiment interesting.

"All the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy
Honored Contributor
Posts: 7,926
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?

I carry my G1x a lot.  Some folks never know!  I also have a G15 which I still use.  I don't know what that says or means but..............

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,512
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?


Tronhard wrote:

Well... As promised for those who did not find out the answers before I changed the file names Smiley Embarassed

 

The expensive camera was Photograph A 

Canon 7D MkII + 100-400 EF-L MkII + 1.4 Extender Mk III investment cost $5600(Can)+taxes

 

The inexpensive camera was Photograph B

Canon PowerShot SX60HS, investment cost $560(Can)+taxes

 

For a beginner, seeking to learn technique and not planning to do any major printing, it seems to me that the value lies with the cheaper camera.  The SX has all the basic controls of a DSLR, is easy to carry and has an amazing range of focal lengths.  It all depends on what you want the thing to do, and in particular what will be the final output.

 

If they decided they wanted to pursue photography, and found they wanted better results than this rendered, they could then fork out more moneyand move to a DSLR or MILC .  I have a huge investment in gear, but there are times when I take the Powershot out with me when that's all I want to carry.  As contributors have noted, under the right conditions it takes great pictures.

 

Anyway for those who looked, thanks for doing so and I hope you found this little experiment interesting.


I kept silent, because Tom's note had tipped me off to which was which before you changed the file names.

 

I think the greatest difference between the two shots is that the colors (especially the sky and the branch) look much more natural in the picture taken with the 7D2. Obviously colors are among the easiest parameters to tune in post; but in terms of unassisted representation of reality, I think the 7D2 wins. Both cameras produced a very sharp image, though, which does make the Powershot seem a very good value.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 107
Registered: ‎02-11-2016

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?

Full frame camera is better than small size sensor judging from large printout not in digital posting/cropping or enhancing.

My point is expensive camera  is better because the manufacturer spent too much to research the best  camera it could give. My choice is the photo taken by full frame camera.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,512
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?


newsense52 wrote:

Full frame camera is better than small size sensor judging from large printout not in digital posting/cropping or enhancing.

My point is expensive camera  is better because the manufacturer spent too much to research the best  camera it could give. My choice is the photo taken by full frame camera.


You do realize, I presume, that neither of the pictures under discussion was taken with a full-frame camera.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Honored Contributor
Posts: 7,926
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Which camera was the most expensive?

"My choice is the photo taken by full frame camera."

 

Another person blinded by the FF hype mongers.

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement