I'm going to stop and have a tantrum for a second
I swear to god, the next time someone says, "You must have a nice camera" or some variant thereof, I am going to hit them with my shoe.
When you go over to your mother's house and she cooks you the most amazing meal, do you say "You're a great cook" or do you say, "Wow, you must have great cookware"?
Try it the next time you go visit her and she's poured over her craft for hours only to hear that someone gives the pan credit. Let's see if she invites you inspect her cast iron skillet with the broad side of your head.
(PS. If I had a better word processor I'd write the next best seller.)
EDIT:
Examples to prove my point.
I have a Nikon D300. You can buy it, without any lenses, for $1'800. You could also buy the lenses I have for another $2500+.
Flickr has a neat feature that allows you to tag photos, and search by make. Looking under 'most recent' vs. 'most interesting' generally gives you an idea of the chasm between 'nice camera' and 'good photographer'.
D300 most recent. (a second example, as the first is now private)
D300 most interesting.
Same camera: different photographer.
(To be fair, it's harder to find appropriate 'most recent' examples on a higher end camera. Generally the "average" user doesn't spend that kind of time or money).
Want more?
A million years ago (okay, so not that long ago...) I took mostly crappy pictures with a Kodak Easyshare DX6490. I did not know 5% of the things I know today, which is why only a tiny amount were any good.
You can buy it for $120 or less (usually less). It's much, MUCH less fancy than the point and shoots on the market today since it was brand new back when Tempest was about six months old.
DX6490 most recent.
DX6490 Most interesting
Once again... same camera, different photographer.
The extra three thousand dollars gives you this in visual difference: some clarity, better performance in lower ISO, the ability to print wall-sized pictures that you will never ever use, and colour depth (and clarity is arguable given it is factored so heavily on processing technique, ISO, shake, etc). Megapixels don't even make as big a difference, in fact for a while the cameras with the most megapixels were sacrificing quality to sound fancier. In reality, a 3mp camera and a 6mp camera look exactly the same blown up to 12x18. Referenced from what should be required reading: The Megapixel Myth. Film still rules all as far as resolution goes.
Have fun with your cameras!
(ETA: Ask me why the 'most recent' example for the D300 is private, it's a fun story that involves a PhD!) (or a "PHd" for the typo friendly).
When you go over to your mother's house and she cooks you the most amazing meal, do you say "You're a great cook" or do you say, "Wow, you must have great cookware"?
Try it the next time you go visit her and she's poured over her craft for hours only to hear that someone gives the pan credit. Let's see if she invites you inspect her cast iron skillet with the broad side of your head.
(PS. If I had a better word processor I'd write the next best seller.)
EDIT:
Examples to prove my point.
I have a Nikon D300. You can buy it, without any lenses, for $1'800. You could also buy the lenses I have for another $2500+.
Flickr has a neat feature that allows you to tag photos, and search by make. Looking under 'most recent' vs. 'most interesting' generally gives you an idea of the chasm between 'nice camera' and 'good photographer'.
D300 most recent. (a second example, as the first is now private)
D300 most interesting.
Same camera: different photographer.
(To be fair, it's harder to find appropriate 'most recent' examples on a higher end camera. Generally the "average" user doesn't spend that kind of time or money).
Want more?
A million years ago (okay, so not that long ago...) I took mostly crappy pictures with a Kodak Easyshare DX6490. I did not know 5% of the things I know today, which is why only a tiny amount were any good.
You can buy it for $120 or less (usually less). It's much, MUCH less fancy than the point and shoots on the market today since it was brand new back when Tempest was about six months old.
DX6490 most recent.
DX6490 Most interesting
Once again... same camera, different photographer.
The extra three thousand dollars gives you this in visual difference: some clarity, better performance in lower ISO, the ability to print wall-sized pictures that you will never ever use, and colour depth (and clarity is arguable given it is factored so heavily on processing technique, ISO, shake, etc). Megapixels don't even make as big a difference, in fact for a while the cameras with the most megapixels were sacrificing quality to sound fancier. In reality, a 3mp camera and a 6mp camera look exactly the same blown up to 12x18. Referenced from what should be required reading: The Megapixel Myth. Film still rules all as far as resolution goes.
Have fun with your cameras!
(ETA: Ask me why the 'most recent' example for the D300 is private, it's a fun story that involves a PhD!) (or a "PHd" for the typo friendly).