Truth be told, there isn’t that much difference between a 7-year-old Canon digital SLR camera like the 300D and a brand spanking new 550D. Sure, the latter has higher resolution and better toys, but most people simply don’t need the extra resolution. What you need is a shutter that works, a mirror that will move out of the way in time, and a sensor without too many dead pixels. From there on out, it’s all about the quality of your glass (i.e. your lenses), the quality of your light (i.e. sunlight / flash / natural light / diffusers / softboxes / light filters / etc) and… You.
via photocritic.org
Great piece that's making me think about backing down from my plan to purchase a pretty high-end camera. Maybe I should get a entry level one and some seriously nice glass instead. Hum, more to think about.
I have a beat up, well used 400d but I've spent my money well on lenses!
ReplyDeleteI think I made the right decision - http://www.flickr.com/photos/oh_gosh/
Hmm, I agree with most of what this guy says, but I don't think he's the right ambassador for photography on the cheap. If he'd followed Strobist, he wouldn't need the expensive studio lights he's bought; if he'd picked up an EOS to M42 mount adapter, he'd be using great glass for pennies; if he'd taken his cue from Magnum photograper Alex Majoli, who photographed the Iraq war with a bag of fixed-lens digicams, he might not have bothered getting a dSLR (or buying any additional lenses) at all...
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, someone should break it to him that his Canon 50mm and Sigma zoom are really rather cheap compared to many of the alternative lenses he might have ponied up for..