Thread: Why Buy a Camera?

I have an older point and shoot that did me fine for my level of photography, but I stopped using it when I got a decent work phone. Lately though, I've been thinking of taking it out with me again, as the phone is useless in low light conditions. My old point and shoot can take some very good shots at night with a bit of fidling around - not great if you're in a hurry for a shot, but fine for planned shots.

Does me fine and only cost me $180 about 5 years ago.

I have a couple of nice 35mm cameras I no longer use. They were great and I got some really nice shots I have had blown up and framed. I then moved to a medium format. Again, nice shots that have been framed. It's still the best camera I have.
The medium format was not good for happy snaps, so I bought a cheap point and shoot digital. At the time it was much better than a phone camera. That died, and also wasn't capable of taking shots of sufficient quality, so I bought a DSLR. It's great. The quality is not as good as the medium format but it is way more flexible than any of my other cameras and takes great shots.
If you're not interested in quality (as most seem to be nowdays), stick with the phone camera. If you may wish to have your photos enlarged, framed and mounted on the wall, get a DSLR.

Some of the newer phones take great pix and they are always with you but they don't allow you (I don't think) to change camera settings. For example, if you want to focus on a person and blur the background, you need to be able to control depth of field (by opening up the lens aperture).

What you use is dictated by what you want to do with the camera. For happy snaps to post on Facebook or on a forum, then the phone might be all you need.

personally, I don't like point and shoots unless they have a viewfinder. I find it difficult to see and use the screen on the back of a camera. Having said that, I do have a small interchangeable lens camera (Pentax Q) I can carry in my pocket but, with an adapter, I can attach any of my DSLR lenses if needs be. I don't like the lack of viewfinder on it.

A good alternative to the DSLR is the bridge camera - between a point and shoot and a DSLR. Best bridge camera: the top SLR-style, superzoom cameras reviewed | News | TechRadar

They have a rear screen and an electronic viewfinder. I have an older Fuji FinePix S5500 and it takes great pix. However, it is sometimes slow to react and one can miss a shot - unlike a DSLR.

Camera fanboys are always updating their gear so you can pick up very good secondhand DSLRs at good prices. I have four Pentax DSLRs, *istD, K100D, K-7, and K-5. The first three I bought secondhand, 18 months-2 years apart before buying a brand new Pentax K-5 on run-out when the K-5 II was released. It would have been cheaper to have bought a new one to start with. .

I've passed one camera on to my daughter, one (the oldest) stays in my car for whenever I need it. If it gets stolen, I won't be heartbroken. The other two have near identical bodies so I can have one set up with a wide angle lens, and the other with a long zoom and can quickly switch from one to another when out and about and not have to worry about mixing up the controls.

My lenses from my old Pentax film SLRs - even from my 1968 Pentax Spotmatic- work perfectly with my Pentax DSLRs.

I use some old Mamiya lenses on my main camera. On overseas holidays I use a 5 year old compact digital Canon. Ok it doesn't have the quality of 21mp digital or medium format film, or large format 5x4 for that matter, but the tradeoff is well worth not having to carry an array of equipment. A compact used with care and RAW setting will provide reasonably good results.

Originally Posted by stealth

I don't have a camera. I don't have a video recorder. I don't have a watch. I don't have a GPS. I don't have a notebook or pen. (Well maybe a pen) I don't have a compass. Lots of other things I don't need...

Cause I got an I phone

Sorry, not the same at all.

Recently we were in the Daintree when we came across a cassowary and chicks. I had a DSLR on the back seat, which I grabbed, turned on, zoomed, and shot. The wife had her smartphone, aimed and shot.

Which photos came out the best?

I had a 300D (cost $2,000 when it came out). Used it for years. Even though it was a 6MP camera, the images (because of the size and quality of the sensor, and the quality of the glass) meant it was still shooting images comparable to the so-called 14MP cameras. I replaced it a while ago with a 60D. Cost less than a grand. That's progress for you.

The 300D now sits behind the seat permanently. If I loose it, its obsolete. If a photo opportunity presents unexpectedly, I know I've got the equipment to capture a photo worth having.

And yes, I have a smart phone (and an ipad). They're not a camera, video, or GPS...

A couple of years ago, I bought a 12Mp point and shoot to have in my pocket when marshalling at TerryO's motorcycling events.

It might have had a lot of megapickles but the lens was rubbish. Pix were pretty bad. Fortunately, I was able to get a refund.

Originally Posted by 4xsama

Seriously.

Unless you want to capture a scene like a sunrise or a close up of a critter why would you invest in a $1k camera?

I don't want to believe in what I am posting but if the beloved & I go camping for a few days and want to record a bit of history why would we invest in some (digi) tech which will be obsolete in 1 year?

There's a difference between snapshots & great shots. Which do you want.

Regards
Max P

why buy a defender...........

I don't quite get your original question, we buy all sorts of things for our own reasons..........I research first than don't give a toss about what others think once I have it