Most people see someone carrying expensive SLR cameras at weddings and are immediately struck by a sense of awe and respect, getting out of their way to let them take pictures of anything they like. SLR cameras have a distinctive look; the large barrel, the popup flash. They look like they mean business, unlike the slim point and shoot cameras that are designed to fit as much ability as possible into your pocket.
I own both an SLR and a point and shoot. Personally, I find that with a good enough point and shoot camera, the knowledge of how to use the manual settings is all I really need to produce a picture as good as one taken with the SLR. In some cases the picture may even turn out better, because my point and shoot has auto-focus and anti-shake technology built in. The limited ability to change exposure and aperture manually even helps, because it refuses to allow me to use a setting that will create an overly dim or overly bright picture.
Together, this means I can focus on creating the best frame and composition for each picture without worrying about whether it will turn out blurred, too dark, or too bright. With my SLR, I find myself taking the same picture over and over, adjusting settings minutely each time. Of course, given enough time and a tripod, say with a landscape scene, I can adjust everything until it produces an absolutely gorgeous picture. But in a wedding, where every moment is special and only occurs for an instant, I simply cannot afford the time to adjust my settings between each shot. It's a balance between leaving the camera on one setting and hoping it works for every shot I take, and risking missing out on something important as I adjust exposure and aperture. With a point and shoot camera, I let the camera worry about the basic settings, trusting it to adjust for light for me, and focus on capturing the events of the day in the best composition I can.
Besides, I would believe most brides would care more about the photographer catching the absolute joy on their face as they say "I do", than about how exact the light balance is in the background, as long as it is not completely wrong. The point and shoot camera can guarantee that my backgrounds will always look alright.
So why do so many camera companies sell the idea that an SLR is better than a point and shoot? For that matter, why do I own both? Well, as I said, when taking photographs of things that are not going to change significantly in the next 5 minutes, such as flowers or even models in a photoshoot, I can spend time fiddling with settings and produce National Geographic-worthy pictures. It's also far better when I want to take artistic shots or play with focal lengths and perspectives, because I can force the camera into settings a point and shoot will never allow, creating all kinds of interesting and unusual pictures. Every once in a while one of these pictures will be stunningly beautiful and artistic. But at an event where every moment is different yet important, I prefer to use my point and shoot for the reasons I detailed above.
Camera companies are not completely wrong to say an SLR is better than a point and shoot. The SLR has the potential to produce pictures of amazing quality, perspective and artistry that the point and shoot will only be able to imitate. But that's all it is, a potential. What it comes down to is the ability of the photographer to maximise the ability of his camera. In the hands of someone who knows exactly what setting to use for every shot, every possible scenario, every possible balance of light and shade, a point and shoot can produce better pictures than I can, stumbling around with my SLR.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น