When do you know if it's you or the camera?

Try to figure out if you're limited by technology, or artistically. Upgrading camera will help the 1st, but worst case you still end up with images which are no better artistically.

At a technical level, it is hard for a compact to do certain things, such as give the "blurred out background" effect. Even entry level DSLRs can do that, helped by lens choice, which doesn't have to be expensive either. So in that case, it doesn't matter how good you are, a compact will be limiting if that is the desired output. But you might be able to find great shots of a different type on the compact regardless. I guess I'm saying, if you know you are technically limited in some way, you could consider a new camera, but you don't necessarily need to have mastered everything the compact can do first.

I went from compact camera to DSLR, and that made me think more consciously about photography. If I were to go back in time now, I could take better shots with those compact cameras than I did then, but it took something to give me the motivation to improve myself.

 

See if you can find a camera store that will let you bring in your own digital film and shoot a few frames. Some quick test shots might give you a fast answer....if you're not seeing a noticeable difference you might want to keep working on photag skills and then upgrade.

 

Hmm.. I've often thought about it this way. 'Photographic shortcomings' aren't by default because of the camera. Tbh I've seen some really simple run-o-the-mill point and shoots do amazing things. A canon powershot is a pretty decent piece of equipment to work with. I mean, a DSLR doesn't instantly make things amazing; it's just a tool. It's just as easy to take horrible shots with a DSLR as it is a point-and-shoot, etc... Photography does have some basic rules of thumb to follow, in terms of fundamentals. If however you feel that all other aspects of your photos like composition and all those other fundamentals of art and photography are spot on and going well, you could do like zag said and test out a new camera. ouo b A test doesn't hurt. But if you bought a new camera and found it equal to your old one, your wallet might be hurt ;]

 

Well, I know that things like extreme noise at higher ISOs and sever shakiness when zooming out (eventhough tri-pods can counter this) are things that can be fixed with a better camera. I know for me, my camera doesn't do horribly at ISO 800 and above, but it's very noticeable in my photos (especially in the showy areas). Also, I like to take sports photos, so with my telephoto lens, the images aren't as sharp as they could be. The main thing that can't be changed is megapixels. My camera is 10 (about right since I like to print a lot). If you like printing, maybe you should upgrade to a higher MP camera.

Things like dark pictures and blurry pictures are things that you can fix much cheaper than buying a whole new camera.

 

I have been wondering this myself. I have a very basic point and shoot auto focus camera it does not have a lot of options. I have broken out the manual and tried different things, although with not too much better results. And my photos bite although every once in a while I will get one semi-good photo. I never post blurry photos ever. It is my biggest pet peeve on DOA is all the totally blurry photos people post. I just do not see the point of posting something no one can tell what it is lol
A tripod has helped me a lot. I had no idea I was even shaking. I kept yelling at my camera that it was possessed but the tripod really helped. My biggest issue has been light, lack of light, too much light, horrible back grounds etc... I need to invest in some good items.
I guess the only way I will know if it is me is if/when I get a new "good" camera. I worry that it is me lol

 

I think it's when you can get the best shots you possibly can out of that camera, and you're still not satisfied. I've had some pretty cheap and nasty cameras in my time, but I could still get a decent shot out of them once I learned it's quirks and how you get around that. The most common things people tend to blame on a camera is blur and noise. Both of those things can be corrected with the right light and a tripod or something else to stabilise the camera. Once you've mastered these things and still feel like your photos are being held back because you need more control with your camera settings, that's when I would suggest upgrading.
I learned more about lighting when I had a point and shoot than I have with a dSLR, because I had no choice but to get the lighting perfect in order for the camera to not produce a grainy or blurry shot.

 

I think it's hard to tell if it's you or the camera until you try another camera. Set up a photo shoot and use your camera, and maybe borrow one from a friend. Look at the difference in the way the shots come out.

I know I had a camera that I bought on a recommendation, but I always had blurry photos with it. Part of the problem was the screen resolution was so poor that you couldn't tell it was blurry until you moved the photo over to your computer. I recently got a new cell phone and now I use my camera phone exclusively. My old camera's auto focus would never focus on the doll, it would always focus on the background or the doll's wig. My camera phone has a better zoom and will focus on the doll, and I can finally get the shots I want.

 

In one sense, the answer can be very simple:

• If you know that there is something you'd like to do that your camera simply lacks the capability of allowing you to do, then the camera is holding you back.
  For example, you'd like to shoot with shallow DOF, and the camera lacks manual aperture adjustment.

• If you don't know what it is you'd like to do in terms of photographic technique, then you don't know whether your camera would allow you to do it, either.
  In such a case, you'd probably be better off upgrading your photog skillz a bit before upgrading your camera.

Of course, reality is seldom this clear cut, but I believe this can serve as a general guideline.

 

I found that I could do what I wanted in a shot or two with my new Dslr camera but it would take a lot more work with my old one. So I knew it was the camera, not that you can't take good pictures with a small camera, I strongly believe a good photographer can have good results with anything, but I had previous photographic experience and was itching for manual control! and different lenses. It's a lot easier to take a good photo, but you have to know what you are doing.

 

The Dragon is pretty spot on with this. Most of the photography folks I talk to and have taken pointers from say "it's not really the camera, it's the nut behind it." As long as you have some idea of what you're doing, you can make most equipment behave or turn out interesting pictures.

Granted, there is a lower bound on that. The $50 point and shoot special from Wal Mart will definitely not take as nice of pictures as a $150 Canon PowerShot (just from a technology standpoint, the sensor and optics won't be as nice). But at the same time, there are things you could do with the $50 camera that you wouldn't do with a $150 camera (i.e. camera tossing photography).

I started with a couple simpler Canon point and shoots (two Digital Elphs), went to a Canon SX10 prosumer model, and now have settled with a Nikon D50. I really liked the SX10 because it gave me near SLR levels of control in manual mode for a fraction of the cost and served as a great way to "learn what all the buttons do." When I went to the D50, most things were more second nature to me and I got a lot more out of the camera a lot quicker.

Just one thing remains unanswered... when am I going to buy that D90...?

 

It's almost always the photographer, not the camera.... You can get fantastic pictures of of point-and-shoots or cheaper DSLRs, and awful pictures out of fancy DSLRs...

It's your eye that you usually need to develop, not a camera you need to upgrade to.

I would say, though, that if you can afford a DSLR they can do much more artistically than a point-and-shoot.

Sorry if this comes across as rude! That's not how I intend it whatsoever. (:

 

Yes for me most of the time it is the NUTS that is behind the camera LOL LOL

 

It's you. 99% of the time, it's you. I get so, so tired of reading photo threads where people are like "my camera is stupid, so sorry for the grainyness" and stuff like that.
Make me want to say, "It ain't the camera, hun."
Usually it's the lack of light, and of human error/ignorance. It's perfectly possible to get good pictures from a basic camera.

That said, each camera does have its limitations. You can't expect a point-and-shoot to have a spectacular zoom range/etc..
Of course, that just means that you figure out the areas your camera isn't limited and exploit them.
C:

Though, as TheDragon stated, one has to know what they're trying to do in order to do it well.

Also.... this made me lol:

 

Most of the time I agree that it's the photographer. But there are certain limitations to some cameras. For example, I have an awesome point and shoot camera that I love to pieces and take some really awesome pictures with... in the sunlight or a well lit environment. However my camera has horrible digital noise if I put my ISO to anything over 100. That's my camera's fault and can only be fixed by getting one that handles higher ISOs better. However I could lessen the noise by using a tripod and other techniques... but it won't really fix it and that can't be done in some situations. Also not having a manual setting at all or a macro setting would be the camera's fault.

But most of the time switching a camera to manual changes everything. After you learn what to do with a camera, you learn what the camera wasn't doing for you on auto.

Also on the DOF note, if your camera DOES have an adjustable aperture it's still possible that the camera can still prevent the same results. My camera only goes down to a 3.6 and sometimes a 2.7 in great light with my aperture. But I really love super shallow DOF that really can only be achieved by a 1.4 aperture like 'fast glass' for an SLR. I just don't get the same results with my camera because it is limited like that.

So sometimes the camera does have limitations. However most of the time it's the person. If your camera makes all your pictures yellow or orange then you should probably handle the white balance yourself. That kind of thing.

 

Not to get bogged down in a discussion on DOF, but from my experience, you can get a very shallow apparent DOF @ f/2.7, with plenty nice bokeh - provided you have a reasonably long lens and/or can get close enough to your subject, that is. For example, my 60mm f/2.8 macro lens gives me a DOF of just a couple of millimetres, at a focus distance of 20 cm.

But I think we're all agreed on that if your camera doesn't even allow you to adjust the aperture to begin with, any experimentation with DOF will be severely curtailed long before you can start worrying about what the camera's maximum aperture actually can achieve in that regard.

DOF is just one single example, of course. There are plenty other strictly technical limitations to creativity that a camera may impose: it may not allow you to get as close close-ups as you'd want to, or photograph as well in low light as you'd like to, or give you as wide a wide angle as you'd want, or allow you to mount a hot shoe flash to give you the ability to mould light the way you want, or this, or that, or the other.
These have nothing to do with the nut behind the camera, just the camera itself. Sure, one can improve a camera's ability to handle low light situations by using a slower shutter and a tripod, but using a tripod will by necessity impose its own limitations.

It is certainly true that most of the time, it is not the camera, but the nut behind it. Once more, differences among us as individuals will lead to different ambitions and desires, leading to different choices, resulting in different requirements. Some among us are perfectly happy to develop their artistic expression in a direction where the requirements on the image capture process itself are amply well contained within the capabilities of a technically more limited camera, while others merely use the actual image capture as raw material, and then use Photoshop as their main creative tool.
But depending on what you want to do, in which direction you want to develop as a photographer, there may well come a time when you realise that, using the equipment you've got, there is simply no way to accomplish what you want - or that while you theoretically could accomplish it, it is impractical, complicated, or imposes other undesired limitations. That is the time to upgrade; the nut has outgrown the camera.

But until you know that, until you know what it is you want to accomplish, and hence know whether or not the camera you have has the features necessary to allow the user to do that, I'd say the time to upgrade is probably still some way off - you still have things to learn; there is still room for the nut to grow.

 

This is just my two cents on the subject.

When I orginally bought my camera, a Sony Cybershot 7.2 mega pixels, it was brilliant. I really only needed something with a point and shoot and the camera had enough features for me to explore photography at the same time. I've had the camera for about three years now and I have noticed I seem to be getting a little fustrated by some of the things I can't seem to do. Part of this, I think, was that the camera was damaged slightly while on a trip to England and I have no idea how to fix it...it's probably cheaper to get a new camera anyways. But, even before that, when I was in England, I just noticed that some shots where not coming out the way I had wanted.

I did try a friends SLR in England and fell in love, so I think for my next camera that I'm gonna be looking at a lower end SLR.

Anyways, the point it, for me, that technology is an issue as well as just my own skill. Where I've had the camera for three years (and I've been using it quite a bit) and think my skills are exeeding it just based on what I've observed of my shots when using a better camera. I'm still up in the air about it though. I'm thinking I'm gonna end up going up to Staples and mucking around when a few of their models, comparing some of the cameras that are already better then the one I currently have, with a low end SLR and see which works best for me. I'm also thinking of taking a few courses in photography since taking pictures of my BJDs has really made me enjoy just taking pictures...so I guess I'll see.

 

Being a photographer trained with an SLR, I know the most basic fundimental rules of cameras. So when I finally got my digital camera after taking that photography class, I promptly went into "WTF is up with this camera?!?" mode. I could get some great shots out of that point and shoot, but I could also fight with it for a hour if I so wanted to. It had a horrible shutter delay where instead of saying 3-2-1 I had to start from 7 and tell whoever was in the photo to ignore the first 2 flashes (another wtf moment). It was hyper sensative to motion and even my HEARTBEAT would screw up my photos, to the point where it was almost ALWAYS on a tripod with a timer so I could push the button and run away before my breathing upset it. -_-

It's white balance sucked ass, and it's videos were crappy too. But again, regardless of how bad this camera was, I was still able to get some amazing shots out of it. If I hadn't had that previous work in photography I wouldn't even have been able to begin to know what was wrong with my camera. XD For graduation I wanted a DSLR, and my mom had no idea what that was, but she did get me a $400 one with digital control of the f stop, iso, and shutter speed, so it's close enough.

Only to find out my photography class here at the college required me to buy my own SLR. XD So now I have both a digital with manual control and a regular old SLR film camera. ^_^ Both are excelent for taking shots of my dolls, and my teacher is really amused at my black and white prints of Nika and Tarrant.

 

Try to identify specific problems such as bluriness, unable to get close ups, yellow photos and look in your manual on how to fix them one by one. However Canon does have a few accessories to help get better photos:

Macro lens attachment for close up photography:
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Professional-PowerShot-Digital-Camera/dp/B000VZJED8

A portable tripod to reduce blurriness:
http://www.amazon.com/Joby-GP1-D1EN-Gorillapod-Flexible-Tripod/dp/B000EVSLRO/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1287637699&sr=1-1

You could theoretically upgrade to an advanced compact camera such as the Panasonic Lumix LX5, which I have been eying lately for when I don't want to lug a bulky DSLR around.

Personally I was getting frustrated with my photos when I upgraded to a DSLR. I jumped in without looking to solve my problems with my point and shoot. But fortunately for me, I took to DSLR photography well and immediately enjoyed it immensely. This purchase led me to take up photography as another hobby.

Although a DSLR can be great, they can be bulky. So even if you invest in a few accessories there will be times when you may prefer to use your compact over your DSLR.