Why do you buy a camera?

JimKramer wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
>>
>> I hear things like:
>>
>> * It is not sharp enough.
>> * I does not have a large enough sensor
>> * It has too much, too little contrast
>> * It does not have good colors
>> * The lens fells cheap
>> * The camera feels cheap
>> * The design is too old
>>
>> I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress people.
>> They seldom know how to use the camera. Other people seem to see the tool
>> as more important than the results.
>>
>> Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only
>> reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.
>>
>> For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?" I see
>> five who say, my camera is not sharp enough.
>>
>> On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a better
>> camera.
>>
>> Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better"
>> equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many well
>> acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results. I am
>> sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some
>> cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> Dia 's Muire duit
>
> The last time I decided I wanted a new camera I wanted:
> Faster frame rate
> Wider sensor
> Lower high ISO noise
> A "spare" body I could convert to Infrared
>
> Yes, I know some of that is mutually exclusive. Which is why the last
> time I got "a" camera I wound up with two... I went from a 20D to a 40D
> and a 5D. Most of my "upgrades" / acquisitions have been because I
> have exceeded the camera's abilities and wanted more. Usually that
> costs more money.
>
> And until I no longer hear, "Wow, you must have a really good
> camera!" I will want something better.
>
> For most people it is always easier to externalize fault for bad
> pictures on the camera than to except fault themselves. It's "too"
> hard to actually think about what will appear after I push the shutter
> release before it is pushed. Effort is lacking; they just want
> wonderful results without thinking.

And sometimes they get them! But for almost every semi serious poster
here, I get the impression that less than 1% is just not o.k.

A benefit of having top gear is that: There is nothing else to blame but
yourself. Well, excepting that your subject gets vaporized a millisecond
prior to shutter release. I hate when that happens!

--
John McWilliams

On Feb 28, 4:09 pm, John McWilliams <jp... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> JimKramer wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM... DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>     It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
>
> >>     I hear things like:
>
> >>     * It is not sharp enough.
> >>     * I does not have a large enough sensor
> >>     * It has too much, too little contrast
> >>     * It does not have good colors
> >>     * The lens fells cheap
> >>     * The camera feels cheap
> >>     * The design is too old
>
> >>     I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress people.
> >> They seldom know how to use the camera.  Other people seem to see the tool
> >> as more important than the results.
>
> >>     Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only
> >> reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.
>
> >>     For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?"  I see
> >> five who say, my camera is not sharp enough.
>
> >>     On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a better
> >> camera.
>
> >>     Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better"
> >> equipment.  Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many well
> >> acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results.  I am
> >> sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some
> >> cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.
>
> >> --
> >> Joseph Meehan
>
> >>  Dia 's Muire duit
>
> > The last time I decided I wanted a new camera I wanted:
> > Faster frame rate
> > Wider sensor
> > Lower high ISO noise
> > A "spare" body I could convert to Infrared
>
> > Yes, I know some of that is mutually exclusive.  Which is why the last
> > time I got "a" camera I wound up with two... I went from a 20D to a 40D
> > and a 5D.  Most of my "upgrades" / acquisitions have been because I
> > have exceeded the camera's abilities and wanted more. Usually that
> > costs more money.
>
> > And until I no longer hear, "Wow, you must have a really good
> > camera!"  I will want something better.
>
> > For most people it is always easier to externalize fault for bad
> > pictures on the camera than to except fault themselves.  It's "too"
> > hard to actually think about what will appear after I push the shutter
> > release before it is pushed.  Effort is lacking; they just want
> > wonderful results without thinking.
>
> And sometimes they get them! But for almost every semi serious poster
> here, I get the impression that less than 1% is just not o.k.
>
> A benefit of having top gear is that: There is nothing else to blame but
> yourself. Well, excepting that your subject gets vaporized a millisecond
> prior to shutter release. I hate when that happens!
>
> --
> John McWilliams- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you are using a laser pointer to illuminate your subject, the
military can't be blamed for vaporizing a clearly marked target.

Even if you don't use/have top gear the only person to blame is the
guy that trips the shutter. You should know what you are likely to
get before you push it.