I did some research and I'd say there are now 4 types of camera. At the high end, professional cameras with large sensors (APSC or larger), meant to be used with several lenses: fast normal, telephoto, wide-angle, and macro. At the low end, telephones are always in your pocket. Cameras that have small sensors but don't make phone calls no longer make sense, even if they are cheap. Note that the main spec that affects picture quality is sensor size, assuming that you have the camera with you - a large and heavy camera that stays at home doesn't take any pictures, good or bad.
In the middle there are 2 types: cameras that amateurs use when they want to look like pros, and cameras that pros use when they are not on assignment. The first are prosumer digital SLRs. If you carry only one zoom lens the advantage of a large sensor is unclear, but the weight is still there. The latter are the interesting ones: the ones we should reserve the word "camera" for. They all try to be more or less like Leica rangefinders. Choices include Fujifilm X100; Leica X1; Olympus and Panasonic micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras; and Sony NEX. The Nikon 1 cameras are in the low end of the range, because their sensor is barely large enough to get them out of the "telephone" category. In fact the Nikon 1 format is pretty much the only sensor with intermediate size. The Fujifilm X10 is nice but not quite there. I still like Pentax but I believe their Q format is a flop.
All have prices in the range of a prosumer digital single lens reflex. Among them I think it's a question of personal preference. I find the X100, with manual controls and a hybrid viewfinder, the most interesting one, although it has a fixed non-zoom non-image stabilized lens. Or because of that - zoom with your feet and stabilize with your hands. The Leica is a Leica. Micro 4/3 has more lenses available. I bet that Sony will be the most successful in the market. And Nikon knows what they are doing, even with a smaller sensor.
(Reposted from a comment on And now for something completely different… Cameras!)
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
4 comentários:
Professor, I just would like to add two things that amateurs like me must consider before throwing away our point-and-shoot cameras in favor of mobile phones:
- Motion detection: cellphones are still bad at it (even those with accelerometers, at least this was my experience);
- Flash: Not every phone has it, and even some high end models still struggle to have minimally decent Flash.
I am 110% amateur: my photos are mostly funny Twitter moments and family/friends meetings. I must agree that having the camera with me at all times is great, but I still take my point-and-shoot (a cheap Nikon) with me whenever I can.
Motion detector for sports photography? I don't do sports.
And I like flash photo less than Steve Jobs liked Adobe Flash. ;-)
Sorry if the quick answer was a little flip. A camera with a decent sensor rarely needs flash. That's fine with me, I never liked flash photography, and taking pictures at 3200 ASA is fun.
As for motion detection, yes, if you shoot sports or wildlife you need a pro camera.
Só para guardar em algum lugar:
@ispmarin Gostei da brincadeira, juntei mais 2, ordem de preferência puramente pessoal j.mp/rKfEUM
7 Dec Favorite Reply Delete
@ispmarin Minha opinião: SLR é para quem trabalha na National Geographic ou ESPN. For the rest of us, mirrorless. Tem também Olympus PEN.
6 Dec Favorite Reply Delete
@ispmarin Concordo, specs parecidas, seria questão de gosto j.mp/twxTwE Gosto da X100, tem a V1 se quiser ficar na Nikon.
6 Dec Favorite Reply Delete
@ispmarin Para mim foi a volta do prazer de fotografar. Se não "couber no bolso" considere a X10.
6 Dec Favorite Reply Delete
@ispmarin Fujifilm X100. O que pro usa em férias, não o que amador usa para se achar pro. iPhone tem aqui.
6 Dec Favorite Reply Delete
Postar um comentário