Ok so most members here have great cameras but what about us small fry?
I mean there's minor and major league baseball, there's even a Special Olympics. Why not an occasional challenge just for those of us with cameras of 2 mega pixels or less? I've only submitted into two challenges and for both I was hesitant to do so because I knew I was in over my head trying to compete with Sony-DSC F717's and such. I'm not even suggesting ribbons for the winners; it would just be fun to compete with other less capable cameras. Also, this might be an idea to keep in mind for the future. When this place gets so crowded who is going to want to vote on a challenge with 500 pix?
i think it's a good idea, but where do you draw the line of what is a good camera and what isn't? I mean, the camera I have now is 3 megapixels, but I desperately want to upgrade to the sony dsc717!
there is a gap once you move to the digitals which have manual functions.. That makes all the difference in the world. Camera without basic camera controls are certainly limited, but that doesn't mean its not possible to win. I agree though, a new category might be in order eventually (when it gets crowded).
nice idea I'd like to see what's possible to do with a lower resolution camera (and break out my HP c200 though I'd likely be last place as I've gotten used to my camera fixing everything for me)
Well Jason I suggested 2 mega pixels or less... ultimately it would be up to the mods and admins to decided where the line was drawn. That makes two of us that desperately want to upgrade, isn't that Sony a badass camera!
Also, the difference in megapixels doesn't factor in too much when viewing sizes like 640x480. It does make a difference when printing. There are 2MP dslr's that were once top-o-the-line which will take better photos than a 4MP p&s.
For the purposes of this site, I think the greater advantage lies with cameras that are fully manual and have better color output.
And of course, the biggest factor of all is the person behind the camera.
GROUP 1 - people who blame their cameras for poor photos
GROUP 2 - people who praise their cameras for great photos
GROUP 3 - people who are interested in becoming better photographers
GROUP 1 - people who blame their cameras for poor photos
GROUP 2 - people who praise their cameras for great photos
GROUP 3 - people who are interested in becoming better photographers
Great idea, I mean, I've found that with 3.2 its hard because I can get close enough to stuff and have it look good(I only have 2x optical zoom). Thats a good idea!
How about a challenge based on the photo editting software you use, or no editting software at all. Or have a challenge of PSP users and non-psp-users.
My highest scoring photos were taken with a 2mp camera before I had ANY editing software at all.
Have you checked out the tutorial called "Cheap enhancements for low end digital cameras"? The things in that tutorial helped me out A LOT with my puny camera. Maybe they'll help you out some too.
~Heather~
Maybe we could make it 3 mp as the top amount of megapixels... that way I could still compete with my 2.7 mp D1H... hehehe... I'm jusk kidding here guys... the point is, it's not the camera, its the photographer... seriously... in the world of film, some very interesting and worthwhile, and gorgeous photos were taken with pinhole cameras... really how much more lowtech and crappy can you get? hehehe... really I think that lowerend cameras just make the photographer work a little harder to get that awesome photo... I don't think if we seperate in to groups doing it by camera is the right way IMHO.
This has been mentioned before, but it might be interesting to have one challenge where you either shoot with a small mp camera, OR, you shoot in 640 X 480, and not cropping allowed, or something like that. Having used a "little Sony" for a while before I got my 707, it is definitely different. I agree that most of the responsibility of a good shot depends on what is behind the camera, but having good equipment makes it easier. Lance Armstrong would beat me in any bike race, even if he were to ride a hand-me-down-thrift-store special, and me on the newest, baddest, most technically sound bike developed. No question. It would just be easier for him on a good bike.
Does that make any sense, or do I just need to go to bed?
No, that makes perfect sense, but on the flip side if Jeff Gordon was racing a dodge neon and I was in a porsche who do you think would win the majority of the time?
I think 1 or 2 challenges a year like this would be more than enuf.... maybe i wasn't clear on that.
Aloha!
No, that makes perfect sense, but on the flip side if Jeff Gordon was racing a dodge neon and I was in a porsche who do you think would win the majority of the time?
I think 1 or 2 challenges a year like this would be more than enuf.... maybe i wasn't clear on that.
Aloha!
Jeff Gordon in a neon. That fits. hahahahahahahahahah
My husband and I were talking about this thread today when I went to eat lunch with him. I don't know if my previous post was clear about my opinion on it, but I do feel that better equipment helps. Back to bike riding. When I first started, anything with wheels was fine. As I got better, I realized what more "stuff" could help me do. I'm at a level now where my bike is okay by "industry" standards, but for me it is fine. For beginners, kids, whatever, point and shoots work. As you learn more, you want to use more so the better equipment becomes more desireable (though unfortunately, not always obtainable).
Then, my husband made this statement. If we took a picture with our 1.2 mp Sony, and the same picture with the 707, made no adjustments other than resizing them, put them side by side, most people would be able to tell which was which. I am not sure. So . . ..
This weekend, when I shoot, I am going to do it with both cameras. I want to keep everything as equal as possible, so I won't "add" anything (lenses, filters, etc) unless I have it for both cameras. When I "upload" them to our gallery, the only thing that will be done to them is resizing. No post-processing (for this experiment). That way, I will know how they compared when used by an average photographer. (I'm doing a time trial on Lance's bike, and one on mine to keep that analogy.)
If anyone wants to see, I'll post a link, and let you decide. Sort of like a quiz. :-)
i could make a list of at least 50 people on this site with higher priced cameras that have never even come CLOSE to getting a ribbon.
It's not the camera ... The best camera in the world isn't going to tell you how to set up your lighting, what angle looks cool, wake you up at sunrise to get that red glow, give you the patience to wait for and stalk wildlife, set up a scene so that the colors not only complement each other but make it 'sing', make you notice the incredible shadows coming through the blinds, take perfectly sharp pics without good technique, locate a pleasing composition, etc etc etc
as long as a camera is of a minimum acceptable level of quality, it can produce winning pics. i would trot out my old tired examples of ribbon winners shot with 1.3 mpx cams but i dont feel like looking up the links yet again. But look for the users 'albright1' and 'sher9204' for examples.
a more expensive camera DOES give you more potential - in that (assuming YOU know how to use it) it lets you get something useable in more extreme situations - i.e. lower light, faster moving, more macro ... And there may be some, in my experience, at 640 x 480 SLIGHT differences in picture quality.
But any camera as described above, if used within its comfort threshold is capable of producing winning pics.
I do... I'm not bitching about my camera here, it's given me many great years with acceptable pix. I use my "ability to push it's limitations", or so I've been told. I would just like a chance to compete with other's of my caliber.
