Friday October 16
 
10:25
 
An expensive camera takes better photos?

As I lust after a D3S, a quick look back at my flickr this morning showed me that even the cheapest of cameras can take good photos.

Last year, taken with a Canon 25IS P&S (similar to this):

Cropped:

Quickly adjusted in FastStone Image Viewer (Hue +27, Gamma to 0.80):

The same images from my old D40x, most likely shot in “vibrant” mode (I can’t remember):

The sky in the D40x is more vibrant; the rock from the 25IS shot is more vibrant. Both are excellent in different ways. Even the unadjusted 25IS shot is good on its own – I only adjusted it to get it close to the D40x.

My D40x was eventually replaced by a D60, which I still have now. In some ways I actually prefer it to my newer D90 – I use the D90 only because of the extra ISO stop, larger screen, and faster processing, but the D60 still works better with my SB600.

Would I take better pictures if I had a D3S? Possibly. Extra depth of field and better ISO would certainly aid things – but you don’t need an expensive camera to take good photos. Even the right P&S can yield good results.

But that doesn’t stop me lusting after a D3S. Please buy me one.