StephenG wrote
singemonkey wrote
Pass on the advice, but do not have her worry about the camera or the lens. This is a technique issue, not a gear issue. That camera and lens are capable of taking absolutely magnificent, and technically amazing shots (if anyone cares to argue that, I'll find an example in no time flat). She has a good eye (much harder to develop than technique). Just needs to deal with a few technique issues.
I'LL TAKE THAT CHALLENGE.
find us all a nice low light sharp image taken with the 450d and kit lens around F1.8 - f2.8 that would be required?
the "technique" she required to apply is just not possible with a 450d and kit lens.
no matter a persons eye - its hardly likely to make a R600 kit lens pin sharp or capable of low light photography.
thats like saying the 2MP camera on my cell is also capable.
you can have all the technique and 'eye' in the world, but if you dont have the gear to back it up you wasting everyones time..
exact same applies to photography as to guitaring.
i really would expect better advise from you than this. ???
HERE YOU GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :? I'm afraid this took me nearly half a minute to find (sharing is disabled, look at it on flickr.) 450D and kit lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandonkemp/3515595496/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Your cell camera is crap. But that has nothing to do with it being 2MP. Biggest myth in the world. It has to do with your cell camera having a sensor about the size of nail-head, while Tamla's buddy's camera has one the size of a stamp. Hence your cell camera has no dynamic range and more noise than a Sepultura crowd watching the Parlotones take stage.
Your "you can have all the technique and 'eye' in the world, but if you dont have the gear to back it up you wasting everyones time.." couldn't be more untrue, or more misleading. People can, and frequently do,take pure rubbish with a $7,000 camera, and with good technique you can take something jaw-dropping even with, yes, even with your cruddy cellphone camera.
Any DSLR going back to 2001 is capable of jaw dropping images. And a kit zoom lens is sharp enough that, locked on a tripod, you wouldn't see the difference in a poster sized image between it and a state of the art prime. An image has to be truly huge and the camera technique flawless to see the difference - as in test shots shown at 100% size on lens review sites.
If you have any further objections, I'll go find some tests of the kit lens and show the level of sharpness we're talking about - i.e., indistinguishable from the best lenses on earth when viewed as an 800pixel jpeg on a computer screen.
Careful. I might just actually know what I'm talking about. ?
