Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdsnapper
Over four years since the original post. I've had two new cameras in that time, and I'm still a crap photographer. At least I've now realised that the camera doesn't matter - should save me money in the future.
|
I find the camera can matter:
If I take my full DSLR bag I'm limited to about a mile from the car, or I'll be too knackered to get home.
With the micro 4/3 I'm limited in long telephoto (more spending required - just awaiting a lottery win)
With the older kit I'm limited to at most a few dozen shots (then need to develop or pay for processing....) This gets worse with the medium format & large format cameras.
I'm not likely to go out with my digital microscope (it needs mains power and can't manage any subjects bigger than about 1mm high), but it's useful when the standard macro options don't go far enough.
Only one of my digital cameras is likely to survive going under water.
Few of my cameras are practical for infra red work, and even the 'full spectrum' one seems incapable of recording much UV.
If I'm going to have any success with balloon aerial photography I'm going to need a VERY lightweight camera (it had better be cheap too).
I've got about a couple of dozen cameras with roughly half being digital. Most of those that get used have distinct advantages for their particular sort of photography over the others. Unfortunately I often don't have the right camera with me - recently at a club studio session I found my G5 had no PC socket so I couldn't use the studio flash, should have brought the K7...
Cameras do matter but the bit behind the viewfinder matters more. I'm struggling to upgrade where it matters most
