How Good can You Be With a Point-and-Shoot?

wxwax

Actually, very good indeed. Here's a site called Trekearth.com. It has a mammoth photo gallery.

As I browse through it, I'm struck by how many fine photos are taken with plain ol' consumer cameras, not Single Lens Reflex cameras. It's a reminder for all of us of the potential that's just waiting to come out of our cameras.

There are some really terrific shots in the galleries, well worth a look. This one was taken with a Nikon CoolPix 5700.

wxwax

Ah, I see the pic cannot be observed by others. When I get home I'll fix that.

komet

The one thing nice about the digi-cams...is that you are not using film....therefore the sky (rather your disc) is the limit...shoot enough pics and you will get some good ones. I shoot the same object several times sometimes...zeroing the little focus "x" on different things to change the lighting....sometimes I get a really good one!

patch29

I feel it is much more the photographer than the camera. They are the director, the best cameras will do nothing without their input and even the simplest camera can capture wonderful moments. The technically best photograph is not always the best. It doesn't hurt to have great tools to work with though.

flowerlady

Examples of Pictures taken with Point and Shoot Camera

patch29 wrote:

I feel it is much more the photographer than the camera. They are the director, the best cameras will do nothing without their input and even the simplest camera can capture wonderful moments. The technically best photograph is not always the best. It doesn't hurt to have great tools to work with though.

I agree one can take real nice pictures with point and shoot digital cameras
You can see some at
http://www.digitalphotoartistry.com/rosephotos/rosephotos001.html

wxwax

Great link flowerlady. And welcome aboard! You have some fantastic shots... we could learn from you.

komet

patch29 wrote:

I feel it is much more the photographer than the camera. They are the director, the best cameras will do nothing without their input and even the simplest camera can capture wonderful moments. The technically best photograph is not always the best. It doesn't hurt to have great tools to work with though.

Good point re: great tools.

berhimwich

Point and shoots can be great
Some point and shoots rival high-end cameras. I remember when I used to help sell Leica cameras, I saw a Rollei point-and-shoot that was professional in features but small in size. Of course, it cost $1,000. But now, you can buy a camera like that for $500 from Sony (the V1). I also use a large Sony camera but I also enjoy my V1.

dkapp

The featured portfolio at photo.net this week is amazing. In the picture details, they list a Canon G3 as the camera.

Take a look:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=774124

Dave

gubbs

I didn't see this before, but Sid you did great stuff with your G3, made me stop using the Casio as my excuse for bad pictures....

wxwax

Thanks, Gubbs. The shots, and the post-processing, in the link from Photo.net are amazing. It proves the point that making the photo can be just the beginning - if you have a vision, you can transform the thing. The genius lies in having the vision, it seems to me.

spink

gubbs wrote:

I didn't see this before, but Sid you did great stuff with your G3, made me stop using the Casio as my excuse for bad pictures....

Agreed! I'm finding that although my point and shoot sony makes it hard to get the effects that I'm after, if I finesse it right, I can produce decent shots. Such as this one.

wxwax

spink wrote:

Agreed! I'm finding that although my point and shoot sony makes it hard to get the effects that I'm after, if I finesse it right, I can produce decent shots. Such as this one.

Nice shot, spink! Great moment, nice expression.

pathfinder

patch29 wrote:

I feel it is much more the photographer than the camera. They are the director, the best cameras will do nothing without their input and even the simplest camera can capture wonderful moments. The technically best photograph is not always the best. It doesn't hurt to have great tools to work with though.

I think you are dead on, Patch. Photos are captured by the photographer, not the camera - a better net never hurts of course, but great pictures can and have been created with very simple cameras. View cameras, for example, are really very simple in one sense - a lens, something to hold the film, and a shutter. ( I know that I omitted tilts and shifts for simplicity in this example.)

One problem with a fancy camera is that you no longer have an excuse for poor pictures!! Developing a great eye or vision can be more challenging than aquiring a fancy camera. There is so much talk about the machinery of photography, rather than about developing the inner eye. And I love neat fancy cameras too!

wxwax

To continue the discussion... obviously, what Pathfinder and Patch say is correct. I'd add a rider: the point-and-shoot is not capable of making the same shots as more sophisticated systems. One should not expect it to do things which it cannot do. It does have limitations.

However, it is capable of making outstanding photographs. The skiils lies in figuring out what the camera is capable of doing, and then bringing your creativity to bear. A creative vision that matches the camera's capabilities = a memorable photograph.

Not all cameras are interchangeable, but all cameras are capable of making great shots. You just have to figure out what the camera you're using is capable of.

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

To continue the discussion... obviously, what Pathfinder and Patch say is correct. I'd add a rider: the point-and-shoot is not capable of making the same shots as more sophisticated systems. One should not expect it to do things which it cannot do. It does have limitations.

However, it is capable of making outstanding photographs. The skiils lies in figuring out what the camera is capable of doing, and then bringing your creativity to bear. A creative vision that matches the camera's capabilities = a memorable photograph.

Not all cameras are interchangeable, but all cameras are capable of making great shots. You just have to figure out what the camera you're using is capable of.

You are absolutely correct Waxy, - The tool WILL determine what is possible, but the photographer will determine if it is aesthetically acceptable.
More sophisticated cameras can take pictures in dimmer light without a tripod for example. P&S cameras will have LOTS more depth of field with their smaller sensors - this can be an advantage, or a disadvantage depending on the artists needs. Big SLRs are not at their best for candids - smaller P&S cameras with moveable LCDs that let you shoot from waist level are MUCH better for candids in my hands.

Use the best tool for the task at hand - we could be talking about carpentry here couldn't we!

wxwax

pathfinder wrote:

Big SLRs are not at their best for candids - smaller P&S cameras with moveable LCDs that let you shoot from waist level are MUCH better for candids in my hands.

You are so correct. I complain often that the dSLR doesn't have a flip screen. Patch patiently explains to me why it's called an SLR and why it's not possible. But the flip screen makes it soooo much easier to get creative with the angles and the composition.

dkapp

wxwax wrote:

You are so correct. I complain often that the dSLR doesn't have a flip screen. Patch patiently explains to me why it's called an SLR and why it's not possible. But the flip screen makes it soooo much easier to get creative with the angles and the composition.

That is the one reason I miss my Sony F707. The pivot screen/lens made for some great "stealth" shots.

Dave