Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic…or?

Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic…or?

Does the Gear You have Really Matter? Or How I learned to just take a “Pitcher…”

Well, I will commence with a simple answer "NO"...Whether it is a Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung or any Medium format camera and digital back out there, it really is of no great consequence which brand you own! You want to know why? Based on a recent survey, 90 percent of all DSLR camera's rarely print their images larger than A4 (8x10") format. In other words and in most cases, a good 5 mega pixel camera with good noise specifications would be more than sufficient to do the job and do it very well.

Now, if what you spend most of your time doing is pixel peeping your images at 100 percent on your screen to see if you can notice any anomaly of any sort, than yes, do go out and purchase a $40,000.00, 50 mega pixel back for your Hasselblad. However, if you do so, you will find that you might notice some interesting phenomena, like high chroma noise issues at anything above 400 iso.

Another interesting problem is that when you go to press, the tram noise or pattern will destroy most of those fine pixels that you observed on the screen, a kind of natural grain producer of sorts.

Of course the quality of the sensor is very important, but I believe that any of the 10 mega pixel plus camera's out there could do an admirable job.

I have watched with bemusement the wars that are ongoing on the forums between this and that brand and usually come away thinking that unless you know why you have purchased a brand and to what purpose, than you might as well close your eyes and do a "eenee, meenee, mynee, mo" exercise to determine your choice.

So, if you have no plans to produce an image larger than 12 x19" and have a limited budget, feel confident that no matter what you buy, it will be overkill for that format.

Just be happy that the technology provided for the photographer today has easily out specified the top end camera that existed just 3 years ago.

Enjoy your toy and go out and play...

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=921

Ah... some common sense. Thank you.

I agree with you.

I'm with you on this one. Don't get me started, The kit don't matter. It's what you do with the kit that matters. I bought the K10D because I felt that 10mp would be more than enough to meet my needs as I migrated from film. In fact 6mp on an SLR would probably do for me most of the time. It's handy to be able to crop more, having the extra pixels helps but doesn't that sometimes encourage poor composition to start with? I have taken some cracking shots on a 5mp & one of my best ever shots was on a box brownie. In many ways the simpler the set up the more creative you have to be & that for me is a good thing. By the time some people have selected the lens, changed the lens etc. they have missed the very shot they really wanted. I always carry a small pocket camera in my handbag, it isn't always a Pentax. My pictures have improved over the years but it isn't due to the kit it's due to me. Of course fully automatic does mean that more people can now suffer fewer dud shots but creativity & an eye for the right shot is down to the photographer, otherwise they are just snaps (which are fine too, but only for the family album )
Caz

It will never be any different. Back in the 70's people argued over Pentax Canon and Nikon. Minolta did not seem to come into the issues?

Aperture priority (Pentax ME) or Shutter priority (Canon AE 1). History repeats itself......

Regards

When I first started looking for an SLR in the early 80's I wanted a Canon A-1 because it seemed everybody had one.

I thank my lucky stars that I did a little more research and found the Pentax Super-A. A brilliant camera and certainly a match for the A-1.

I've recently bought a few books of photographers' work (Helen Levitt, Annie Leibovitz, collections from Magnum, LIFE and Reuters). It is obvious that it is artistic skill, and not equipment, that makes a great photograph. More than that, there are photographs which don't necessarily show great technique, in which you could pick holes, but which are amazing because of what they communicate.

I think with the proliferation in advertising and the media, in magazines and on the web, of technically perfect images, with perfect lighting and perfect post-production, it's too easy to think that we must mimic that in order to produce a successful photograph. It's good to go back and look at images from past decades, when neither equipment nor technique was quite such an obsession.

I'm sure there are minimum if not exacting quality demands from clients who wish to use photohraphs for reproduction in media campaigns, but for those of us who have the freedom of photography as a hobby, we should think about 'what' we are taking pictures of, not 'with what' we are taking pictures.

Derek.

One person who I respected and held belief in was the late, great Mr. Herbert Keppler. I bought my *istD purely on his “practical” review and have never regretted it. My wife bought my Minolta 500mm AF Reflex purely based on his article in Pop Photo!

Quoting Keppler:“It seems impossible to turn out a camera free of all idiosyncrasies. Cameras are obviously like people — which is, I suppose, one reason why they make such a good combination.”

I suppose my philosophy is not of practical use to most… Buy, Try and Cry (if it’s rubbish bit of kit)!

What I really wish for, a digital MZS (MZS-D) with built in grip. Same physical size as the SLR model of course.

Could really loose it and have a digital ME Super…

Anyone got the phone number of Pentax Japan R&D?????

Regards from never never land….

Don't laugh but I'd buy a car on it's colour not it's engine size. So I bought my DSLR because it felt nice in my hands & I knew that if it felt right I'd use it more. Same as the car colour, if I like it I'll drive it more. I didn't buy the K10 on specs. I tried many DSLR's & this was the one with the right button in the right place & that made it easy for me to move to digital.

Too many people just collect kit & were the corporate badge but oh no, don't take it out in the rain it might get wet. What's a camera for if not for using? These days there a lot less poor cameras so better just get one you like & get using it.

Better that you don't have to think about the kit too much then you can concentrate on the image.

Caz

I bought Pentax for exactly the same reason - felt nice in my hands, all the buttons in the right place. If only more people would do so, instead of worrying about whether they have the camera which the magazines say is the best - as benjikan points out, they're all good. Much like modern cars - they're all good, so get one you like the look of (and which is economical of course, firstly for the environment and secondly, so you can go more places to take photos!)

Derek.

Like your thinking Derek.

Perfect summary

Seen this starter thread before some where else, was it on another well known forum

Personally, it's the ergonomics that make me love my Pentax. I came from using a fully manual mechanical Zenit, followed by a MZ-7. For me, the Pentax controls and placement are just much more intuitive then any of the other brands.

Which is way I always tell people to try things out before buying something. What feels right to one person, may not to another, and that will effect how I take photos. If you're comfortable with the camera, if it's intuitive to you, you will find it easier to take pictures.

For me, the relative differences in performance between cameras are not going to limit me more then my own ability, so it was how it felt to use that was important. And I like Pentax