I?m not a professional ? I don?t need an expensive camera

We see this comment often.

I am not a professional photographer. But my travel photos are important to me. They?re my memories.

I?ll explain why you need a good (whatever that is) camera.

Since I use a film camera, most of my comments may be most relevant to film cameras, but to a certain extent I?m sure they hold true for digitals as well.

In order to record an image on the recording medium, light containing the desired image must go through a lens and on to the recording medium.

The light is controlled by the size of the lens and the amount of time the lens is open.

In order for the image to be properly exposed, you must have the correct (or a reasonable) combination of lens opening and shutter speed.

Inexpensive cameras are at a distinct disadvantage.

Firstly, they have a cheap plastic lens which limits the quality of the image that enters the camera.

Secondly, this plastic lens is almost always quite small.

Since a small lens limits the amount of light entering the camera, a slow shutter speed (1/20th or 1/30th of a second) is set to compensate for this. I almost always use 1/125th or 1/180th of a second for regular daytime photos.

Hence, with an inexpensive camera, you will almost always have photographs that are at best not quite sharp. This is especially noticeable on enlargements.

Preserve your travel memories.

Use a reasonable camera.

Obviously I didn't intend to have ? all over the place.

I'm curious, Myer, what do you consider a "reasonable" camera, pricewise?
I own two point-and-shoot cameras, neither of which are expensive. Yet, the quality of my photographs has been good enough to "qualify" me for two solo exhibits and first prize in a national photo contest.
Sorry if this sounds immodest, but in my view, it's the photographer, not the camera that's the key element!

HowardR,

I'm not judging you're ability. I'm looking at the average active traveller who might be interested in preserving their memories and possibly enlarging a few prints.

Actually it's both the photographer and the equipment.

The photographer has to select the subject and be able to envision what the end result will look like. Then there's composition, etc. I wish I was better at this.

A poor quality lens cannot be corrected by the photographer's skill.

Also, unless you are very, very steady 1/20th or 1/30th of a second will not result in super sharp photos.

What I would consider not inexpensive (double negative) or reasonable is a camera that has a real glass lense, something with a minimum f3.5 and a shutter speed of at least 1/125th of a second.

A wide angle or zoom is not a necessity although it does help out.

Howard, I couldn't agree with you more. Over the years, I've invested a small fortune in cameras. That said, I've never been satisfied with the pictures I take while traveling nor those I take of friends and family. I'm just not a very good photographer. Once in a while I snap one I like -- for the most part, I don't. I've finally accepted this, and I won't be upgrading cameras anymore. At least my snapshots remind me of great trips, even if they don't do my subjects justice.

A long, long time ago, I earned my living as a professional photographer. Those days are behind me, but I think Myer makes some valid points. Howard, of course, is right, too, in that the talent of the photographer is key. But having an underlying knowledge of the technical side of photography -- even the basics -- can make a good picture truly memorable.

Tom is right about "even the basics" with photography.

How many times have you seen people take a flash picture of something that's 100 feet away? Most flashes won't help past 10 or 12 feet. Once you realize this you're on the way to being a better photographer.

Not enough light in the cathedral? You need to turn the flash off, set the camera on a pew-back and let it take a much longer exposure. Same with outdoor shots. That little flash isn't going to illuminate Mt Blanc. Again you need to steady the camera with a tripod or set it on a wall and let it take a long exposure. You won't believe how much this one little piece of knowledge has improved my photo taking. Luckily a friend taught it to me 20 years ago. I currently do this all with a 100USD point & shoot Minolta.

No wonder people like digital. They can see their results immediately and try again.

I agree with everything above.

It has been my experience that the best souvenirs of a place are the picture postcards sold at souvenir stands.

My camera helps retain memories of the people I was with.

Howard, just thinking about what you wrote back to Myer. It sounds like you are a very good photographer and others notice that. But like anyone who is good at what they do, don't better tools likely to produce better results, even by the same craftsman or artist?

I have no authority to stand by that statement mind you, just my own amateurish experience. I switched to digital from film SLR but really missed the control the point and shoot had in things like DOF, lens view, ISO, etc. Then on recommedations, recently bought one of the new lower cost Digital SLRs (a Nikon D70) and a couple of lenses. I couldn't justify the cost of high end gear and it likely wouldn't help much in my photos, due to my skill level. It's probably all psychological anyway, but I'm enjoying the variety of different ways I can try the same shot and that I don't have to let the camera decide how it's going to come out, other than the composition. Yes, I think my photos are coming out better with the new camera than on the Minolta diMage point and shoot, even on the same composition and even though I was mostly happy with the output of the Minolta all along. It was always at the moment of capture that my point and shoot bugged me a little.

Clifton, of course, better tools have the capacity for better results.
However, I strongly disagree that you must have an expensive camera, with expensive equpment to take good photographs, which is how I interpret Myer's initial posting. You can purchase a very decent camera for $200-$300 with which you can take high quality photographs.
Meanwhile, Myer, you didn't answer my question about price. Answering with technical information about lenses is a copout to the question!
I do agree with Myer on one point. My travel photos are also very important to me. They indeed are my memories and help to keep that memories quite vivid long after the trip.
My response to Ira about postcards: Sure, postcards may be better pictures, but they weren't my moments!

I think skill and equipment both are necessary. you don't have to spend a fortune, but you want a camera which isn't beneath you. and if you take good pics with an average camera, think how much you can expand that with an even better one. for instance, if you have a really fast lens, those aforementioned inner cathedral shots will be SO much better b/c it will help reduce camera shake, etc.

for those with average cameras, check out the photos you are consistently happiest with - do you see any theme, whether it be 'all outside and full sun' or etc.

I don't think Myer was saying sell the farm to take good photos, I just think he was trying to say don't short sell yourself on camera equipment. a 100 dollar point and shoot film camera is going to be a lot more limited than even a cheap SLR.

You're going to laugh at me but I think disposable cameras are the way to go for travel (unless you are a professional photographer). I am of the school that the talent is in the eye of the beholder (picture taker), not the equipment.

Alternatively, my point & shoot Yashica w/ Carl Zeiss lens takes nice crisps snaps and it was ~$100 (a cheap camera with great lens).

I was also wondering what price range Myer means when he says amateurs "need" a more expensive camera. I have a point and shoot Olympus which is very convenient, has built-in telescopic lense (limited range), and has settings that can, of course, override the flash, etc. Most of my photos are fine, a do get a few that aren't sharp because I shake, probably -- my biggest problem is getting grayish skies even when the sky is blue. I think this is because I'm in the wrong direction from the sun (not sure, any comments on that?) as other photos on the same day with the same film will have a blue sky.

I don't take very many photos -- family on holidays and travel photos once or twice a year. This camera is very convenient because it fits in my pocket or purse and has the retractable clamshell lens cover. I think it cost perhaps $150. I'm sure this is probably what Myer is calling inexpensive, but I have no interest in spending a lot more on a camera given my limited usage. I don't carry it with me everyday on vacations, either, and sometimes not at all if I've been a place before because I don't like constantly thinking about taking photos rather than just being some place. If this is the kind of camera Myer is saying isn't good enough, I would say that it is only a small percentage of my photos that I would say are noticeably not sharp (and those in low light conditions), not almost all of them.

If Myer would consider these Olympus Stylus a reasonable camera for amateurs, I'd agree. I wouldn't buy a $10-20 camera (except disposables for landscape shots), if that's the comparison.

Two ideas: Use a tripod. Take a photography course!

Gsteed is on to something! short course, can tell you what to look for/avoid (so many times we don't see that our friend has been impaled by that post behind him, because we are too busy just looking at him) and tripods or anything to steady your camera/reduce shake can improve 50% of your photos, right off!

one cheap item which packs easily is a trip-wire thingy (I forget the name) which screws into your shutter control, you prop your camera somewhere (some folks use beany babies b/c they can nestle them) and screw the wire into the shutter and you are then not touching your camera, you are merely holding the shutter open with that wire thingy in your hand.

you could even check your watch with your other hand and give yourself a good scratch and it wouldn't shake the camera (assuming you used the other hand that is).

I have a different take.

Postcards are great travel mementos. But I've come around to the opinion that a small digital video camera is best for travel photography. You not only preserve the people, but you preserve the sounds too, which are incredibly evocative when you watch it at home years later.

Besides, modern digicams can produce surprisingly good still photos too....

For those who wanted my opinion as to how much a reasonable camera would cost, I just went over to a few web sites (Ritz Camera, Best Buy, etc).

Canon Rebel SLR with Canon 28-80 zoom or Nikon N75 with similar lens are under $300.

I happen to have a Canon Elan 7e with a Canon 28-105 lens. It cost more but the price has since come down somewhat.

Myer, thanks for responding with the price info. Good. We're on the same wave length after all!
While I think I'm a good photographer, I admit that I'm not strong on the technical aspect. I was told, however, when I last bought a camera that if you get a zoom, make sure it's at least a 120 (whatever that means!). Incidentally, I think the zoom is one of the great developments in the world of picture-taking!
As for advice on improving your picture taking, I've two suggestions:
1. Buy a how-to book or two. Read other sources. (Fodor's, for example, offers some excellent tips on taking pictures. Check it out on this website.)
2. Clip out photographs that impress for any reason and keep them in a notebook. I've found this extremely helpful and an excellent reference point.
Whenever anyone asks for tips on improving their picture taking, I pass along at these two simple observations:
1. Remember that the camera only sees a portion of what your eyes are taking in.
2. Take an extra 20 seconds to frame the scene in your viewfinder.

Hi

I think wide angle zooms are also important.

another good place to get tips is www.photosig.com

A good quality camera only helps if you know what you're doing with it. If you're just setting your camera on "automatic" mode, you'll likely get sharp, well-exposed pictures...but you'll want much more than that.

Recognizing and composing a pleasing scene to photograph...in favorable light...is the surest way to improve your photography, whether you use thousands of dollars worth of equipment or a disposable model.

Learn to take the clutter out of your shots and isolate you're subject. Before you snap the shutter, ask yourself what you're taking a picture of...then decide if that's what you see in your viewfinder.

<i>The light is controlled by the size of the lens and the amount of time the lens is open...Myer.</i>

I think what Myer means to say is that the light is controlled by the &quot;speed&quot; of the lens and the amount of time the &quot;shutter&quot; is open. Physical lens size has nothing to do with it. Leica makes some of the smallest 35mm lenses available...they also happen to be some of the finest lenses in the world.

&quot;More expensive&quot; cameras have faster lenses, with a few exceptions. A faster lens lets you choose a faster shutter speed, should you desire that. A faster lens used at its widest apertures will also let you isolate your subject...again, should you desire to so.

In short, a better camera helps, but only if you understand and apply the techniques to take advantage of it.