flickr.com/photos/129341115@N05/

 

I enjoy photography for photography's sake and don't have a favorite genre. My goal is simply to make a beautiful image and in most circumstances will happily sacrifice realism to that end. One thing that you will immediately notice about my work, is a preference is for a little more colour, not a little less.

 

My favorite photography quote is as follows. The original is below, but I like this version:

 

Amateurs worry about gear.

Professional worry about money.

Artists worry about light.

 

The original:

 

“Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light, I just make pictures… ” by Vernon Trent

 

How to Become a Good Photographer:

I am assuming your budget is enough for a DSLR, lens, tripod and photo classes. You can still become a good photographer if you have a lower budget, but that is a different discussion.

Step #1:

Figure out what your subject is? Landscapes, macro, portraits, fashion, still life or all of the above and more (like me)?

Step #2:

Figure out the lens that you need to shoot your subject. This step is much more important than the camera. Spend as much as you can afford in this area.

Step #3:

Purchase a photon detector (aka: Camera) that bolts on to your lens, preferably without an adapter. Don't spend to much here or otherwise blow your brains out as it is only a photon detector. The lens determines the nature of the photons hitting your detector and is therefore much more important than the detector.

Step #4:

Take photography courses and otherwise immerse yourself in the field. I am enrolled in the Langara Photography Program and am a member of Photoclub Vancouver. Stay away from gearheads - people that think about gear and don't get out and shoot.

Step #5:

Consider buying a tripod, good ballhead and cable release. Whether you do or not depends on your subjects, but many will benefit from a tripod. Don't go cheap here. You may want to consider spending more than your camera for your tripod - maybe a lot more. This is not a waste, as a good tripod will outlast 10 cameras.

Step #6:

Repeat Step #4 and Step #2 as funds permit. You should also repeat Step #3, but not often.

  

Canon vs Nikon?

Anybody that seriously argues about this should get a life. Sony gives me pause however. Their lenses are inferior to Canon and Nikon or more money for the same quality. The cameras? Meh - just a photon detector. However, some of the most fabulous images that I have seen on Flickr were taken with Sony cameras and lenses (and some with Leica lenses using adapters) so it is only really a minor handicap provided Sony's photon detector can bolt onto a lens that fits your needs. Careful with adapters. Sometimes they work OK and sometimes they don't. You usually won't get auto-focus.

One alternative to Canon and Nikon that I do like is Fuji. I am watching that line closely. They are filling out their lens selection quite nicely.

 

Full Frame vs APS-C?

While I shoot full frame, almost any image in my photostream could have been shot with an APS-C. While there are practical arguments in favour of APS-C, such as price and weight, from a pure image quality perspective I prefer full frame. However, as I said above, APS-C can take some great images which in most cases are competitive with full frame. If you are taking crappy photos, it is because you are a crappy photographer, not because you are shooting APS-C.

 

That said, consider the most important part of the imaging system, which as I described above, is the lens. And most of the best lenses are full frame.

 

The next important point to consider is resolution. Resolution is limited by the format size of the lens. While a phone may have a high megapixel sensor, it is a small lens format and as such is limited in resolution - ultimately by diffraction which is a limitation of the laws of physics and will not be overcome by a clever engineer. Anything more than ten megapixels on a phone is probably needless. Roughly speaking, a lens design based on a full frame format is capable of roughly double the resolution of an APS-C lens - all things being roughly equal.

 

Which leads to the ultimate answer for the full frame vs APS-C question. Since APS-C only uses about half a full frame lens, it is only going to get about half the resolution. For this reason, I regard full frame as superior.

 

There are practically exceptions to my comments above. For example, it is certainly possible to produce an APS-C lens with better resolution then a full frame lens - but it is going to require exception engineering and design. Also, it matters less when the lens is stopped down and often sharper than the sharpest sensor. However, as sensors continue to increase in resolution, you will start to see bigger differences between full frame and APS-C even when stopped down. For example, with the 46mp Nikon D850 or Z7, the extra megapixels are only helpful if you are shooting at f/5.6 or wider. At f/8.0, diffraction is starting to rob the full potential of these cameras.

 

However, unless you have unlimited funds or your photography craft is pushing the limits of the current system, don't pay much attention to the above. Just follow my six steps above and you will be fine.

 

Any questions, or even if you want to violently disagree, feel free to send a Flickr mail.