|Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12):|
Respectfully, it seems you do not appear to understand that a quality lens makes a huge difference- the point that Nikon was making.
Respectfully, you do not appear to understand my post.
I was trying to make the distinction between image quality, a measurable quantity decided by the quality of the camera, exactly what you described in your post, and the artistic value of the photograph itself. An 18 megapixel photograph shot with a 2000 dollar camera attached to a 1000 dollar lens will produce an extremely good image n matter what, but if it is pointed at a not so intriguing angle, the artistic value of the photo is not so high.
On the other hand, a photograph taken with an iPhone could be shot from an incredible angle, creating an awesome photo. Sure, the image quality is probably better in the first case, but all that is produced is a boring picture, however in the second case, image quality sucks, but as a photographic experience, it is much more enjoyable.
This is not to say anyone who has a 2000 dollar camera takes pictures of un-intriguing subjects, and iPhone users are imaginative artistic photographers, it is just to illustrate that there is a difference between a photos image quality, and its artistic value.
I am sorry if I come across poorly, I am not that great at translating thoughts into constructive arguments.
As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.