The flipside: or "Why I don’t need an expensive camera" by Photocritic

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.

Posted via web from Charlotte's posterous

An appreciation of the 50mm lens

So what is the alternative? Well, you could do what most of today's pros and some ambitious amateur photographers do and buy a "professional" 28-70mm zoom lens with a fixed f/2.8 aperture. These lenses are reasonably fast, quite sharp and well made. But they are heavy, bulky and very very expensive. For most people I believe there is a better alternative: the classic 50mm "normal" lens.

via vothphoto.com

A great piece by the photographer Gary Voth on the wonders of shooting with a 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 – I only just started shooting with a prime about six months ago (there was one with my Olympus E-P1 that my Dad gave/loaned to me) and the difference is remarkable. 50mms are the epitome of "keep it simple". If you haven't got one, get one, and your photography will improve almost overnight.

Posted via web from Charlotte's posterous