Do you really NEED better gear?

[mtbdudex]

Have we discussed this chart here before??

 

[Stoutman11]

Im not a photographer in the least but i am leaning on going for the best point and shoot out there when i get a new camera although the Cannon SLR's look great!

 

[kallisti]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

While I framed my post in somewhat extreme terms, what I was hoping for (and got) was a little bit of everything. P&S vs DSLR is one interesting discussion. DSLR body 1 vs DSLR body 2 is another interesting discussion. Lens 1 vs lens 2 is yet another interesting discussion. I'm hoping people will post comparisons along the entire spectrum. P&S vs DSLR vs medium format vs large format. Cropped sensor DSLR vs full sensor DSLR. Kit lens vs pro lens. Prime vs zoom. Brand lens vs third party lens. Or even moderately priced zoom 1 vs slightly higher priced zoom 2.

Not controlled tests where the results are quantified and gear set 1 is better than gear set 2 in abstract (though quantifiable) terms. Not MTF curves. But real photos in real shooting scenarios. While it's nice (and potentially important) to know the theoretical limits of a given set of gear, if those advantages don't translate into differences that can be perceived by the user or intended audience, then they don't really matter.

In practical terms, what is camera 1 going to let me do that camera 2 doesn't? Or lens 1 vs lens 2? On a practical level am I going to notice the difference? Is this only going to be evident when pixel-peeping or am I going to see differences with my intended output? Can I get certain shots with different gear that aren't possible with my current gear? Does this expanded palette of shooting options really matter to me?

I am NOT arguing that gear doesn't matter. I just thought it would be fun to have a thread where people can see actual images (rather than test charts or MTF graphs) on how upgrading from a current set of gear to a different set of gear will affect the images they produce.

CrackedButter posted images that are good examples of why a fast lens coupled with a DSLR body that can handle high ISO is important for the photos he takes. For handheld street shots at night you don't have many other options. Phrasikleia posted some images where a better dynamic range or faster shutter speed/fast and accurate auto-focus/no shutter lag are important for either wildlife or scenic photography. For different wildlife shots, an extreme telephoto lens can also be needed. Doylem made a somewhat ironic comment that gear matters--yet shoots with a body that was released in 2005! [N.B. I want to be VERY clear that I think Doylem was actually spot-on in his comments. While a D200 isn't the "latest and greatest" it clearly does what he needs it to do. His images aren't compelling because of his gear choices, per se. Rather he is a very talented photographer and he has chosen his gear because it is capable of performing to his standards. It does what he needs it to do. Cameras are tools, not creative agents. His comments aren't really ironic at all. Use the tool that is best suited to your needs.] I think Jackerin also made an interesting observation: photography has been described as painting with light. Understanding and managing light is important (and something that I'm not even close to mastering). Gear (limited here to mean camera/lenses) can open up expanded shooting options, but it can't directly transform "bad" light (for a given subject) into "good" light.

 

[Phrasikleia]

if those advantages don't translate into differences that can be perceived by the user or intended audience, then they don't really matter

Right, but here we have to bracket out completely the whole realm of printed output, which is one of the major reasons for pursuing high image quality. On the internet, we're left with little JPEGs and 100% crops of them. There are cases where specialized gear enables you to achieve something that registers clearly at any size, but sometimes having better stuff is all about getting a photo with some serious sizzle on paper. And even then, it's a really subjective situation. Some people react to stunning colors, rich tonality, and prickly details, and others just notice the grand forms.

And a footnote to all of this: Another reason for pursuing high quality images, at least for some of us, is so we can pass muster with quality control departments at stock agencies or what have you. If someone else (who matters) is going to be be pixel-peeping your images, then you need to aim pretty high.

I hope I don't sound as though I'm defending rampant gear acquisition. I too have little patience for people who seem intent on bankrupting themselves just to possess the latest or greatest thing.

Oh: and welcome back, Ish.

Gear (limited here to mean camera/lenses) can open up expanded shooting options, but it can't directly transform "bad" light (for a given subject) into "good" light.

I'm not sure why you want to limit your definition of gear in this way. Photography is all about light, and lighting equipment can transform bad light into good. Some photographers spend far more on lighting gear than anything else because it gives them the power to transform bad light into good. Right now I cannot even pursue my most ambitious ideas because they require lighting gear that is beyond my means at this point.

 

[TheReef]

Imo the camera should be almost transparent between yourself and the scene.
A lot of entry level cameras aren't like this, they hold your hand through the process which is fine for the target audience, but when want to progress forward you'll most likely want to do away with this abstraction with a camera that doesn't get in the way between you and the image you want. Things like good ergonomics, non flimsy build, sealing, dual control wheels, dedicated AF buttons, ISO, higher fps etc... as examples.

Of course you often can theoretically end up with the same image with whatever you use, the difference is more in the everyday reality within the intermediate area (gear) which can play a small to significant part in your final result - dictated by the situation (assuming the conditions either side of this area - a knowledgable photographer and appropriate scene/subject, are satisfied). Sure you may get lucky with a P&S capturing a flying bird in the golden sunlight - theoretically it's possible and you've exploited that possibility but for most of the time you'll do better and be far more consistent with more transparent gear where 99% of your attention is on the bird, it's pose, setting, light etc... Hope that rambling makes some sense...

Another welcome back to Ish

 

[kallisti]

Right, but here we have to bracket out completely the whole realm of printed output, which is one of the major reasons for pursuing high image quality. On the internet, we're left with little JPEGs and 100% crops of them. There are cases where specialized gear enables you to achieve something that registers clearly at any size, but sometimes having better stuff is all about getting a photo with some serious sizzle on paper. And even then, it's a really subjective situation. Some people react to stunning colors, rich tonality, and prickly details, and others just notice the grand forms.

And a footnote to all of this: Another reason for pursuing high quality images, at least for some of us, is so we can pass muster with quality control departments at stock agencies or what have you. If someone else (who matters) is going to be be pixel-peeping your images, then you need to aim pretty high.

I hope I don't sound as though I'm defending rampant gear acquisition. I too have little patience for people who seem intent on bankrupting themselves just to possess the latest or greatest thing.

Oh: and welcome back, Ish.

No arguments. If your intended output requires "perfection" at the pixel level, then use the gear that will get you there. But if that is what you need, you probably aren't seeking the advice of random internet people to guide you in your purchases. You know what you need. You aren't posting in MacRumors for gear advice [Caveat: unless your post is intended for specific individuals who have experience with the gear you are thinking about and your output needs--but that should be via IM and not a general thread]

I'm not sure why you want to limit your definition of gear in this way. Photography is all about light, and lighting equipment can transform bad light into good. Some photographers spend far more on lighting gear than anything else because it gives them the power to transform bad light into good. Right now I cannot even pursue my most ambitious ideas because they require lighting gear that is beyond my means at this point.

I made the distinction because I thought the thread would get even more out of control if I expanded the scope to "all gear" vs "cameras/lenses." To be honest, you are right. I think it would be interesting to see examples comparing lighting gear. While I'm not sure we need examples of no flash vs on-camera flash vs simple off-camera flash vs complex studio lighting, maybe I'm wrong and we do. Or more subtle discussions (with examples) of why this particular lighting setup is better than cheaper/more expensive alternatives. Could also throw in discussions of tripod vs handheld or even "cheap" tripod vs good tripod/head combo.

Maybe it would be better to have separate threads with examples of each of these questions.

This forum is much, much better than most photography forums in offering "practical" advice as opposed to "gear-whore" advice. I made this thread thinking it would be cool to show by example why gear choice 1 is better than gear choice 2. No reason it needs to be limited to camera/lenses. Lighting setup 1 vs lighting setup 2 is also a reasonable topic for discussion.

 

[Phrasikleia]

But if that is what you need, you probably aren't seeking the advice of random internet people to guide you in your purchases. You know what you need. You aren't posting in MacRumors for gear advice

I actually do a lot of my gear research on web forums. There is an absolutely dizzying array of options for photographers these days, and even someone who is very aware of his essential requirements may still need some help choosing wisely. (At any rate, I don't know what any of that has to do with the inability of a thread like this to address the differences that may or may not be perceptible in printed output--which was my main point.)

A question for you, kallisti...you mentioned in your first post of this thread that you own three cameras: a Leica M9, a Nikon D700, and a Canon S90. But then you posted a couple of comparisons showing little difference between the high and low end of that spectrum of gear. OK, so you splashed out on some very specialized and expensive equipment. Surely you didn't do it so you could take photos like the ones you posted, for which the S90 is clearly more than adequate.

So: what sorts of photos are you taking that necessitated the purchase of those more specialized camera bodies? Wouldn't those types of photos also be helpful for your thread here? Will you post some of those too?

 

[kallisti]

I actually do a lot of my gear research on web forums. There is an absolutely dizzying array of options for photographers these days, and even someone who is very aware of his essential requirements may still need some help choosing wisely. (At any rate, I don't know what any of that has to do with the inability of a thread like this to address the differences that may or may not be perceptible in printed output--which was my main point.)

A question for you, kallisti...you mentioned in your first post of this thread that you own three cameras: a Leica M9, a Nikon D700, and a Canon S90. But then you posted a couple of comparisons showing little difference between the high and low end of that spectrum of gear. OK, so you splashed out on some very specialized and expensive equipment. Surely you didn't do it so you could take photos like the ones you posted, for which the S90 is clearly more than adequate.

So: what sorts of photos are you taking that necessitated the purchase of those more specialized camera bodies? Wouldn't those types of photos also be helpful for your thread here? Will you post some of those too?

I didn't intend any of my posts to get personal. I didn't mean to attack anyone. As stated in all of my replies, what I really wanted was for people to show via examples why they benefitted from or needed certain gear to create their images. Many threads in this forum involve beginners asking for advice on what to buy to make their images "better." My feeling is that oftentimes this is the wrong question. The problem isn't with gear, it is with poor technique/lack of experience.

I'm not a great photographer. I never claimed to be. Nothing in this thread or anything else I have posted on this site is dependent on my photographic skills. I am a physician and an educator. That is my job. I save lives and I train future physicians. Photography is just something to occupy me in my down-time. I tried to craft this thread into something that would be helpful for those just learning photography--a "No" to the easy trap of "my images suck, I must need better gear."

I rarely include gear information in the images I post. Quite honestly, who cares? Either the image works for you or it doesn't. I don't get a thrill out of bragging rights. Bragging rights? Meaningless. The proof is in the pudding--either your images inspire people or they don't. Who gives a crap how much you did or didn't spend on an image? Are we in junior high?

For this specific thread I did mention gear--and price. Only to show that it doesn't always matter. Did your irony sensors not go off when I showed how a similar image could be obtained by spending $380 and $8.5k? Depending on what you shoot, you don't always get what you pay for. I posted a self-depreciating photo in the December thread--a fool and his money. While I'd like to say the truth hurts, it really doesn't. I have enough disposable income that dropping $10k+ on an M9 setup is nothing to me--and I will have no regrets if after shooting with it for a bit I decide it isn't for me and put it on the shelf to collect dust. Oopsie, lesson learned. Sorry if this offends you.

While I have spent a considerable amount of money on photography equipment, it wasn't with the goal of lording it over others. I don't brag about my purchases. I don't brag about having x body or y lens. I don't think I have ever included gear information in my posts unless it seemed important to whatever point I was making at the time. My forum signature isn't a lame litany of all my photo and computer gear declaring to the world how I see myself as better than everyone else.

Quite honestly, I just want to create better images. I've turned to gear to help me. I followed the advice of "get better glass." I followed the advice of "get a better body." You know what, my images aren't any better as a result (well, some of them are but I'm on a roll here...). Gear isn't a panacea. Good images come from skill/technique/experience. Period. They can't be bought.

I will continue to try to improve my images, with or without the help of those on this forum.

Forgive me if I crossed a line. It wasn't my intention.

Ignore this post. I misunderstood the nature of Phrasikleia's comment and lashed out, which I now deeply regret.

 

[Phrasikleia]

While I'd like to say the truth hurts, it really doesn't. I have enough disposable income that dropping $10k+ on an M9 setup is nothing to me--and I will have no regrets if after shooting with it for a bit I decide it isn't for me and put it on the shelf to collect dust. Oopsie, lesson learned. Sorry if this offends you.

Kallisti, you started a thread telling us all that you had invested some $13K or more in camera equipment and challenged us to tell you why anyone would need such equipment. So the obvious question is...well...why did you need such equipment. I just happened to be the first person to ask that.

 

[kallisti]

Kallisti, you started a thread telling us all that you had invested some $13K or more in camera equipment and challenged us to tell you why anyone would need such equipment. So the obvious question is...well...why did you need such equipment. I just happened to be the first person to ask that.

Fair question. I drank the cool-aid. I wasn't happy with my images and instead of realizing that it was because I needed to learn photography, I took the easy route of blaming everything on gear. Gear-lust can be a nasty thing.

So I thought it might be helpful to show examples of where gear matters--and where it doesn't.

There are threads here daily with inexperienced photographers asking for advice on purchasing decisions. Sometimes they are very specific: I want to shoot in low-light, I want to shoot wildlife, I want to shoot landscapes. Sometimes they aren't specific: my images suck, therefore I need better equipment. Help me.

In the majority of cases the posters don't seem to be planning on selling their images or creating gallery-quality prints. The assumption (which could be wrong) is that they will be using a consumer ink-jet or having them printed at Costco/Walmart/local pharmacy at relatively small sizes.

For both of these cases I thought it would be cool to have a collection of images that highlight why gear can matter and when it won't.

Here is an example where I think it does matter:

A P&S wouldn't have been able to capture the shallow depth-of-field that I think makes this image. Even with open apertures, the focal length of the lens is so short that it's hard to isolate a subject with a P&S. This was shot at f/4 with a 24-70. Would have been possible to take with a consumer zoom. Since I didn't take a comparison shot, I can't show by example why the pro-zoom mattered.

Here is another example of where gear can matter:

This was taken with a 14-24 zoom. I think it was shot at 14mm, but I can't find the original in my library to confirm. A P&S wouldn't have been able to go this wide. This of course begs the question: did the image itself really need to be shot that wide?

Macro:

A P&S could have captured this, though I don't have a comparision example to show how this one taken with a 105mm prime is better than either a P&S or consumer lens.

Filters:

24-70 @ f/22. This required a graduated neutral density filter. Not possible with a P&S or a rangefinder. The shot would have been possible with a consumer lens, though without a comparison I can't say how the image quality would have differed.

 

[Doylem]

There will always be folk who buy bagfulls of gear, and cheapskates (like me) who make do with the simplest of set-ups. There are good arguments for both approaches, and those with demanding photographic specialities (sports, nature, astrology, fashion, macro, etc) will make convincing claims that they need the expensive gear, and that it's money well-spent.

I can't afford to buy much gear, so, over the past few years, I've tried to make a virtue of of my frugality. From my own point of view it's been genuinely life-changing, leading me to run photographic workshops and, now, to write books about what I've learned (and am still learning). Being patient, mindful, observant... without thinking, analysing or making demands... is as liberating an experience as I've ever known. And the genesis was simply 'making do' with a simple photo set-up, trying to get to know the equipment so well that while I'm taking pictures it almost disappears.

As I suggested in my last post, lusting after gear is generally a waste of time. Manufacturers will no doubt be gratified that we're in a state of spendthrift paranoia, but it's sad to hear people suggesting that they can't take the pix they want because they haven't got this lens or the latest camera body.

 

[Cliff3]

IMO most people who post up forum threads asking what they should buy really just want to chat about gear. Anyone who is serious about the hobby or dependent on it for their livelihood is smart enough to identify and prioritize any specific weaknesses with their current equipment and investigate the options available to them to solve those weaknesses. I tune out most threads that don't begin with the OP demonstrating a clear grasp on those fundamentals. I am not into gear porn chats.

As far as my personal stuff goes, I use what I have and sell what I don't use. I have made a little money at it, have been paid for publication, been featured on a few magazine covers (very limited distribution magazine) and sold a number of photos and prints to individuals. It doesn't pay the bills or come close to covering my equipment costs.

As to sample photos, that's what the POTD thread is for. EXIF information is embedded in my photos and available for inspection by anyone curious about equipment or shot settings.

 

[fcortese]

Fair question. I drank the cool-aid. I wasn't happy with my images and instead of realizing that it was because I needed to learn photography, I took the easy route of blaming everything on gear. Gear-lust can be a nasty thing.

I can't afford to buy much gear, so, over the past few years, I've tried to make a virtue of of my frugality. From my own point of view it's been genuinely life-changing, leading me to run photographic workshops and, now, to write books about what I've learned (and am still learning). Being patient, mindful, observant... without thinking, analysing or making demands... is as liberating an experience as I've ever known. And the genesis was simply 'making do' with a simple photo set-up, trying to get to know the equipment so well that while I'm taking pictures it almost disappears.

You both make excellent points. Many relatively new to photography, I'll include myself, can get caught up in the lust to buy expensive equipment while we have not yet practiced the art of picture taking. The key is to realize that picture taking is more than just a great camera and lens. Doylem, out of necessity, you managed to develop your art by using existing equipment. This places you light-years ahead of most who just grab and lens and then realize their pictures are still lacking. Kallisti, on the other hand, realized the cool-aid wasn't the answer and began to develop (no pun intended..well, maybe) his art as well. I think the take home message of Kallisti's thread is that 1) you do not necessarily need the most expensive equipment when starting out in photography, 2) great equipment does not necessarily equate with great photos, 3) sometimes in some circumstances you DO need better, more expensive equipment, and 4) most importantly of all, the new photographer, and most of us for that matter, need to keep practicing and developing the ART of taking great photos. Forums, like this is a great place to learn.

Thanks Kallisti for starting such a great thread!

 

[Ish]

Oh: and welcome back, Ish.

Another welcome back to Ish

That's really kind of you. Thank you! There are a lot of lovely people on this forum.

I hate to drag out one of my duds and show it off to everyone. I had a Fujifilm Finepix F810, and for what it was, the quality wasn't bad, but as you can see, bright areas would show off the purple fringing. As long as the brightness is fairly even, it's okay, and non-photographers don't notice it anyway! Even an entry-level DSLR is far better.

As was said earlier, a balance has to be struck between the quality we demand of ourselves or is demanded of us and what we can afford or want to pay. If all I want are some snaps of my holiday and I'm broke, or only want a camera I can point and shoot with, I can go round to Argos or Best Buy and get something cheap and that's just as valid as if I'm a pro and need the best I can reasonably afford. There's no wonder that so many questions get asked for advice.

Good thread!

EDIT: Huh! No pic. Will try again

 

[Ish]

Missing pic from last post.

 

[chrfr]

Here is an example where I think it does matter:

A P&S wouldn't have been able to capture the shallow depth-of-field that I think makes this image. Even with open apertures, the focal length of the lens is so short that it's hard to isolate a subject with a P&S. This was shot at f/4 with a 24-70. Would have been possible to take with a consumer zoom. Since I didn't take a comparison shot, I can't show by example why the pro-zoom mattered.

The problem is that regardless of depth of field, it's still a plain old photo of a cat from the typical human viewpoint, looking down at it. No camera or lens can fix that.

 

[kallisti]

Here is another example of when gear matters:

Shot with an s90. I posted it in the POTD thread and one person commented that it would have been great--except the woman wasn't in focus.

Here is a crop of the woman in the photo:

She is in focus--kind of. One of the potential advantages of a P&S over a DSLR is the incredibly deep depth-of-field that lenses with very short focal lengths can provide. Even shot "wide-open" a P&S is going to have a depth-of-field that would require very small apertures on a DSLR and might require a tripod to avoid blur from the longer shutter speeds. So it's a bit odd that anything in this image isn't in focus. I'd like to think the image would have been sharper if shot with either a DSLR or rangefinder. I don't have a comparison image to prove that though, so I could be mistaken. Yes, I've tried to tweak it in post, but even with extreme sharpening settings the woman always looks a little blurry. How much of this is pixel-peeping vs something that would be noticed in a print is another question.

A tripod might have also "fixed" the issue. While it was shot at 1/125 sec, the real problem could be camera shake and not the limitations of the P&S.

 

[kallisti]

The problem is that regardless of depth of field, it's still a plain old photo of a cat from the typical human viewpoint, looking down at it. No camera or lens can fix that.

You are kind of right. I don't want to get off-topic, but...

This is one of my favorite photos that I have ever taken. Not because of its technical merits (and flaws). But for purely emotional reasons.

This photo is Zoe. I have shot her from ground level. I have shot her in various activities, from sleeping to playing alone to playing with my other cats to "hunting" a toy to doing whatever (I don't have shots of her in the cat box, though from a creative standpoint that might be interesting...)

This shot wasn't really taken to inspire people that don't know her. This shot was for me. She loves to play. All the time. She never tires of it. I think she would run herself into the ground and die from exhaustion as long as someone was paying attention to her and playing with her.

This image, gazing up with the expectation of play-time, is very common in our household. She usually carries her favorite toy around, drops it at my feet, and then gives me this look. Play with me. I don't care what you are doing, drop everything and play with me. Why aren't you playing with me? I'm here, the toy is here. Play with me.

So while I agree with you that animal shots (and baby shots) are usually better when taken at their level, in this particular case I had a very compelling reason to shoot from a "bad" point of view. It may not work for you, but the image (as shot) is priceless to me.

 

[wonderspark]

I don't believe people need a valid reason to take a photo, and it doesn't always matter where it will end up. Some are paid to shoot, others are doing it to fill a void they perceive in themselves, and still others shoot just for fun.

I know people who want to take an amazing photo simply so they can post it on Facebook and brag about it. I know a lady that desperately wants to sell her photos as art for a lot of money and recognition.

My reasons for photography vary. Sometimes, it's to preserve a memory, and it's only for myself and those I choose to share it with. Sometimes, it's to make money. Rarest of all, it's to make art. When I'm getting paid for something, I tend to use the better/more expensive gear, and it's usually because I only have one chance to get the shot(s), and screwing up means no money.

Like the cat photo above, there are some cheap p&s photos I love as much as anything I've shot on a Hasselblad, Mamiya or Nikon. Need is relative.

 

[flosseR]

Here is an example where I think it does matter:

Agreed with above: boring picture, no matter the camera or lens.Try laying on the floor and have the cat some to you.. or better yet.. leave the cat out... overdone.

Here is another example of where gear can matter:

Well, this is an example where it doesnt matter if its wide or not.. ther eis nothing to see. It's a bridge and not a very interesting one. That's 2-0 against expensive gear.

Macro:

Look at the last weekly contest (Amazing World). There is a shot taken with a Canon powershot in macro mode. Sorry but unless you bring in some serious super sharp macro shots, that P& S beats most of what I have seen.

Filters:

24-70 @ f/22. <- This also has a boatload of diffraction I bet. Sorry my *****ty 24-85 Af-S prosumer lens does this shot too, EASILY and it costs a couple of hundred dollars (reason why Nikon discontinued it probably..too good and too cheap).

Now, I own just as much photography crap as the next guy and my wife still asks me WTF for. Well mostly I have no answer for it and If I need to find a reason why that and not the "consumer" my only answer would be: Because I want to and I THINK my photos are better. In retrospect, I took some seriously nice shots with my D90 and a Sigma lens kit.

I think those who CAN afford the best... why not? Thos who cannot will produce, most likely, photos they like just as much and unless you want/need really specialized gear I don't see why one NEEDS the new stuff. I don't know, to each his/her own but what I don't like is people that buy kit like hell and then have nothing to show for it, at least there should be some nice improvement visible..

I can be wrong though
my 2 c.

 

[chrfr]

So while I agree with you that animal shots (and baby shots) are usually better when taken at their level, in this particular case I had a very compelling reason to shoot from a "bad" point of view. It may not work for you, but the image (as shot) is priceless to me.

My point was really that the equipment has nothing to do with it, and has no effect on what you describe as being important to you about the image. It's not a good example of an image that has anything to do with the equipment used, nor is it something that would look dramatically different regardless of what was used to make the image. If there's no vision behind the image, no amount of equipment will salvage it.

 

[flosseR]

My point was really that the equipment has nothing to do with it, and has no effect on what you describe as being important to you about the image. It's not a good example of an image that has anything to do with the equipment used, nor is it something that would look dramatically different regardless of what was used to make the image. If there's no vision behind the image, no amount of equipment will salvage it.

definitely +1 ...

if the shot cannot actually display the difference, then my advice to any new photographer: dont purchase more equipment..

 

[Doylem]

Shooting in good light (ie light that is appropriate for the subject) is like upgrading your equipment... except it costs nothing (maybe just a bit of patience). A beautifully-lit subject will look sharp, no matter what lens is used. Compose the picture well, and any slight deficiences associated with a budget lens simply won't be noticed. Something lit against something dark will similarly give the impression of sharpness and of three dimensions. There are many ways to get the best out of budget gear, so what people see and appreciate is the 'whole package' that is your picture.

Perceived sharpness: something lit against darker ground...

 

[TheReef]

Here are some pics recently shot with an old vintage manual-focus-short-telephoto-prime I picked up for really cheap (very luckily), as Doylem says, it's all in the light:

 

[Designer Dale]

Here are two landscapes for comparison. The first was shot using the eight year old Fuji Finepix S602Z I had with me when my film camera bit the dust. It's an "Advanced P&S" with a 3.3 MPX sensor and manual control options. It captured the memory of my trip, but that's about all the images are good for. The second was taken with a consumer level DSLR kit, my current Canon XSi with a Tamron 28-300 walk around lens. Both are effective photos from the framing point of things, but the 12MPX sensor on the Canon captured a lot more detail and a wider tonal range. The first would print 5x7 at 300 dpi while the second is good for 9x14 at 300 dpi. It's probably heavy enough at 35 MB to sell on one of the stock sites like Almay.

Both cameras cost around $500. The Fuji was new and the Canon used.