| ▲ | master_crab 7 days ago |
| There’s a saying in the photography world: ”The best camera is the one you have on you” |
|
| ▲ | throw0101d 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > ”The best camera is the one you have on you” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Jarvis |
|
| ▲ | dingaling 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Which only holds true if you don't care much about the result. I've seen people trying to take photos at an airshow using their phone camera. A small black dot in the centre of frame, rendered as an Impressionist oil smudge by post-processing. Was that worth even trying? The best camera+lens combo is the one suited to the scene. Anything else isn't. |
| |
| ▲ | amarshall 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The point is: who cares what the “best” camera is if one doesn’t have it with them to take a photo of the fleeting moment anyway? | | |
| ▲ | watwut 6 days ago | parent [-] | | But if you snap that pic, but never use it for anything because it looks slightly weird ... then you as well might not have the camera. | | |
| ▲ | bombcar 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I always take a few snaps at events like that - not to capture the picture, but to capture the moment in my “digital memory” - if I’m on the ball, I later get some of the “official photos” and add those; but the phone camera snaps remind me that I was there, which turns out to be surprisingly useful. | |
| ▲ | illiac786 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I feel it’s still better than nothing, hence the saying holds true for me. “Best” does not imply “good”. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rafram 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not really, because the scene you want to capture is there at that moment and probably wouldn’t be there anymore if you went back to the apartment/hotel/camera store and swapped out for a technically better kit. That’s what the “best camera” saying is about. |
|
