Cameras:cheap vs expensive

I have been into photography professionally for two years now. Being on disability has shown me how to conserve what little financial resources I have. Other photographers do not seem to take me seriously though. Why? Because of the equiptment that I use. Basically I started out using a HP 5 meg digital pocket camera. I found that it took incredible shots. Other photographers who viewed my photos taken with this camera were slightly amazed that they were not taken with a cannon, nikon or minolta.

Currently I use a Kodak Easyshare 7.1. I have found that for the price I paid for it, $225.00, it is probably, one of the best of the inexpensive cameras around. Of course I see other photographers who carry around their cannons, nikons, minoltas, with their 5o pounds of lenses, thinking they are the cats meow. When they see me and my WalMart special they laugh and say how can I be a serious photographer with such a piece of crap that I use.

Well I have come to find that expensive is not always better. sure there are some shots that I have a hard time getting, like a good full moon shot, but with the photographs that come from this camera I will take it and put it in my pack over any other. Maybe one day I will break down and join the elite group of photographers. For now though, give me my Kodak Easyshare 7.1 anyday.

Check out any of my photographs posted here on this site. Would you suggest I change outfits?

Post edited by: bngphotography, at: 2008/02/28 16:36

I've always said that it is the photographer, not the camera that makes the picture. I don't see anything at all wrong with what you are using equipment wise right now. The question is, are you happy with what you have? It really sounds like you are.

What you need to discuss with yourself is what shorcomings does your current equipment have? Once you see what "you" want different, then you can determine if you need to upgrade, or if you can change your technique to make things better.

I have been laughed at for years over my choice of cameras (Sony F828) but have silenced them repeatedly with the quality of photograph I was turning out. I made the change to Canon DSLR's for two reasons that couldn't be addressed any other way. I wanted better noise control, and the ability to go to a wider focal length.

Hey Bngphotography,
A camera is just a box. A Photograph comes from the eyes, mind and the heart of a person which we call a photographer.

I would say the same as NCPhotoTrekker said:

What you need to discuss with yourself is what shortcomings does your current equipment have? Once you see what "you" want different, then you can determine if you need to upgrade, or if you can change your technique to make things better.

Just make sure your customers take you seriously. As an example I wouldn't show up to do a wedding with a disposable camera.

Being on disability has shown me how to conserve what little financial resources I have.

A slight variation of that is a huge reason why early Russian cinema was so innovative in its techniques. While American and Western European moviemakers had relatively plenty of film stock and could just go out and film a movie, Sergei Eisenstein and his compatriots had to make the very most of the limited filmstocks in the struggling USSR. So Eisenstein worked out his cinematic techniques on paper long before he set out to shoot. He pretty much wrote the book on cinematic montage. We might not have the shower scene in Hitchcock's Psycho if not for Eisenstein and the horrible Soviet economy some forty years earlier.

Enforced economy can be a great impetus to creativity and sharpened technique.

If anybody turns up their nose at you and your camera, send 'em OUR way.

Post edited by: OrcaBob, at: 2008/02/29 11:39

Don't change your gear if you're satisfied with the pictures you get from said gear. The snickers of pretentious a-holes is no reason to get rid of a camera you love. It's just an added reason to run circles around those a-holes, photographically.

Think tortoise and the hare.

You have already learned the 'secret' of being a photographer. You like your camera and the images it produces. You aren't worried about buying all the latest gear and gadgets. And, you are seeing the limitations of what your camera can and cannot do for the kind of photography you want to produce.
You are using common sense to start your photographic journey, and to h#@l with those who criticize you.
When you feel the need to upgrade, we're all here to help you out - empty wallets and all!

Bnphotography welcome to the forum It has all been said above and I agree with all so rest me no more than to say that I hope you will like it here

A camera doesn't make a photographer, I've seen many magnificent photos from inexpensive cameras. High quality cameras and lenses have a purpose more for the pro than the amateur and that reason being reproduction. I went to a full frame digital because my clients required not only high quality 8 x 10's but poster size with images up to 24 x 36. Magazines using 8x10 or larger images require them to be at least 300 dpi, this would be for full page ads or full bleeds. Sports photgraphy requires long lenses and rapid speed and focusing these are just a couple of areas where most money is spent on hi-quality cameras.

Thanks to all of you for the input. Yes I am happy with my equiptment. It's light, takes incredible shots and at 7.1 megs produces the sizes I currently need for my business. The only thing I would change in this camera is the size of the megs.

I do alot of backpacking to get my shots. This camera is perfect for it. Yes I would love a high end camera, but I wouldn't trade my Kodak 7.1 Easyshare for anything.

Then you have answered your own questions...stick with the Kodak until you find a "real" need to move up. Just keep in mind that the mega pixel count is not all there is to a camera.