foothead
Omnicide now.
- Messages
- 10,027
- Location
- My own personal hell
Yeah, I definitely agree that it's the photographer more than the camera. It's just that you can get a real slr for the same cost, or a normal point and shoot for far cheaper, both of which would be better for general purpose photography.
By the way, how does that sony handle wildlife in bad light? Looking at a review, it seems to obliterate detail at higher sensitivities that are generally needed to get such photos without visible camera shake. I have a crappy 70-300 (140-600 equivalent) for my e-410 and i sometimes find it difficult to use for birding without a tripod, even at 1600-3200 ISO. Really, that's about the only thing I use that camera for now though since I've picked up medium and large format again.
I have to ride that 60 miles. Half the stuff in there is photo gear. I better get some good pictures out of this. Anyway, i'm off in an hour or so. Be back friday or saturday.
By the way, how does that sony handle wildlife in bad light? Looking at a review, it seems to obliterate detail at higher sensitivities that are generally needed to get such photos without visible camera shake. I have a crappy 70-300 (140-600 equivalent) for my e-410 and i sometimes find it difficult to use for birding without a tripod, even at 1600-3200 ISO. Really, that's about the only thing I use that camera for now though since I've picked up medium and large format again.
I have to ride that 60 miles. Half the stuff in there is photo gear. I better get some good pictures out of this. Anyway, i'm off in an hour or so. Be back friday or saturday.
Last edited: