| Author | Message | ||
     anthony Howard Rating: N/A |
I was really interested in this debate - it particularly reminded me of my time as a photography lecturer teaching adults - most of whom were fixated on equipment issues rather than 'quality of image ' issues. The bottom line for me has always been that most cameras ( of any vintage) are rarely exploited to their full potential, and in any case, more expensive equipment(particularly modern) is often designed to relieve 'photographers' from the burden of thinking too hard (or at all). I own a Fuji S7000, a camera that received mixed ( but generally favourable) reviews when it was launched. Once the price had dropped I bought one, and spent some time experimenting / visiting user forums etc, until I knew the capabilities of this camera well. It is a camera capable of producing excellent results when properly used - not as good as a Canon 20D (which I have also used) but fairly close - at a quarter of the price! The Canon however is so much easier to use. Before anyone wonders what I am doing on this site I have just finished scanning and printing some negs from my QL17 and GSN. The quality is comparable to anything my EOS system gives me at a fraction of the price - providing - I use these cameras for their strengths, and I fully exploit their excellent characteristics. My Pentacon 6 has equalled my Hassleblad in the past in quality of negs, so I make this argument based on wide experience. Bottom line - decent photographs depend on who is using the equipment - not the equipment! |