If I handed you a Kodak digital camera, could you take a good picture?

Question

People always seem to talk down about these cameras... but the camera doesn't really matter, right?

Not that I have one... just curious.

Answer 1

Yeah because I have a Kodak camera and I really like it!!

Answer 2

Since there are a lot of different Kodak models, it would help to be more specific, but "the camera doesn't matter" is another factor - I have been given several of the small cheap digital cameras, just got a cell phone with a camera, own a Nikon 995, and used good quality 35mm film camera for years.  I find cheap cameras frustrating because they are almost always set up with relatively wide angle lenses so you have to get very close to fill the frame and many of them are very slow, so unless you are in bright sunshine, the pictures are often blurred and the shape doesn't encourage holding steady while pushing the button - so you get "snapshots" of an entire scene with the people or item of interest rather small in the middle.  I find it easier to take a crisp, well framed picture with a good camera.

Answer 3

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs29/i/2008/1...

http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs26/i/2008/1...

i took both of those on a crappy, year-and-a-half old, 6.1 mp Kodak digital camera.

and i don't mean to brag, but they're pretty good! i probably could've done much better with my DSLR, but for a point and shoot, i really don't think they're bad at all.

again, i dont mean to talk myself up or anything, but i think it's mostly the photographer, and how well they know the camera. it's probably been said on here already, but a crappy photographer will take crappy pictures with a $8,000 camera, but a good photographer can take amazing pictures with a $150 one.

Answer 4

Yes.

Answer 5

A good photographer will take a poor camera and knowingly work within the limitations of that camera to create a good image. An inexperienced photographer will take that same camera and expect it to do anything any other camera could do, not dealing within the frame work of that camera's abilities, creating  a poor image.

Answer 6

on a city street, yes.  at home, yes.  at a party, yes.  at a wedding in a church, maybe, maybe not.  at a football match, no.  the camera does matter to some people.  if you are a hobbyist, the camera probably doesn't matter.

Answer 7

A good photographer understands his / her camera, knows how to use it to it's best capacity, and knows enough basics of photography so that yes, they can do much better with any given camera than someone who has no clue how to use it other than to turn it on and put it in AUTO.

Reminds me of my wife's sister trying to take a photo of a very large statue indoors in a museum. Of course she had it in full auto with the goofy little flash popping it's guts out. All she was getting was a faint outline of the statue in the distance. I took the camera from her, studied it briefly and was able to get a very good pic for her. I put the white balance in tungsten, set the self timer to 2 seconds, turned the flash OFF, held the camera tight against my face, used the viewfinder, and got a great shot of the statue in ambient light.

So yes, the photographer makes the photo, the camera is the tool used. A good photographer knows how to use the tools properly.

steve

Answer 8

Why your camera does not matter

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamer...

However... pro photographers use a certain level of digital camera because their images must be consistently good. they must be printable and usable and marketable on many levels and in many formats. But hand a pro photographer a crappy camera and he can still take good photos because he understands how to take a good photo and use a camera to the maximum of its potential.

Answer 9

depend where i was

probably, yes

Answer 10

The camera really doesn't matter, the photographer matters.  If you can't take good pictures with a $150.00 Kodak you are less likely to take good pictures with a $4000 Canon or  Nikon.  You can't buy an eye!!

PS

BTW Kodak makes the main parts of more expensive cameras anyway, people put way to much store in equipment.

Answer 11

Sure.  I have taken good pictures with a Kodak digital camera.  In fact, I was really happy with some of the pictures I've taken with a 3.2 megapixel digital camera I had for a while.  They're good for taking quick snapshots, especially landscape pictures if the lighting is just right.  I could put it on my 70mm refractor telescope and get you some pictures of the Moon that would totally blow you away.

BUT...

I could take MUCH better pictures and I would have a lot more creativity and control if I had a camera with manual aperture and shutter speed control.  That would let me take photos with selective focus, or long exposures or I could decide whether to freeze motion, or show motion in my pictures...I could take much more creative pictures.  So if someone gave me a choice right now between a Kodak digital camera, and a 50 year-old manual rangefinder film camera...guess what, I would choose the film camera.  In a heartbeat, no question about it  :)

To get a good Kodak point and shoot digital camera, I would probably have to spend about $150 at least.  But right now, I can get a manual film camera that will take better pictures for less than $30.  So I don't know...you decide what that means.

But yes, you can get good snapshots with a Kodak digital camera.  It just depends on what you're doing.  If you really want more control and creativity, you really need a camera that has manual shutter speed, focus, and aperture control.  I could get a digital SLR camera that would let me do that, for at least about $500...but like I said, why bother when I can get a manual film camera for less than $30?

EDIT:  a cheap point and shoot digital camera gives you NO control whatsoever.  Everything is automatic, and you can't change anything (except MAYBE the ISO if you're lucky).  A photographer would prefer a camera with manual controls because he or she would be able to use more real photograhic techniques and would be able to take more creative photographs.  I know that to the average person taking mediocre snapshots, "selective focus" and "long exposures" and "depth of field" doesn't mean anything to them.  But for people who are really into photography, they would want control over those aspects.  It doesn't matter how "fancy" or "expensive" the camera is...what matters is how much control do you have over your camera, and do you have the skill and creativity to use it?