Many times I have folks come up to me, look at my expensive Nikon DSLR camera with an expensive lens attached, and then apologize for having "just a point & shoot". Well, let's take a look at what a $200 camera can do compared to a one costing ten times that amount.
Here is a basic sunset picture, one taken with an Olympus point & shoot, the other with a Nikon D300. Can you tell which is which? Do you like one over the other?
Over the next week, I'll make some more shots with both cameras, and then discuss the similarities and differences between the two.
I like the first photo --- the "rock" is defined. I like my digital Olympus. My first one was a BIG Christmas present when the 2 mega pixels cost nearly 1000. I replaced it with a 9 mega pixel a few years later for much less, which takes most of my shots. Thanks for the on-line instruction.
ReplyDeleteI like the first one, "A", also. That's the one taken with the point & shoot. Why does it look better to most people? It was shot as a JPEG and the camera's little computer brain "develops" the image, enhancing color, contrast, sharpness, etc. The second image, "B", was shot in RAW with an expensive DSLR. Camera RAW gathers more information than a JPEG does, but the image needs to be "developed" using software later in your laptop or desk computer. Unless you enjoy spending time in front of a computer, shooting JPEG, whether with an inexpensive or pro camera, will often give you a better image than RAW.
ReplyDelete