Is a £/$ 50,000 camera that much better than a Camera that cost £/$ 500

Yes, it is, technically, I guess. I don't know for sure because I can't afford one but what I can tell you for sure, the best camera in the world is the one that you have in your hand.
We all window shop, dreaming of more dynamic range and more megapixels. But the truth is we should be concentrating more on the image.

If you have more megapixels, you can crop in post, and retain image quality. Alternatively, we can move closer or invest in longer lenses. You don't need 50mp because you may want to produce a billboard, you need twelve and could get away with 4 (an actual fact).

Am I being all bitter and twisted because I can't afford one? No! True, I can't afford one, but if I did have that sort of money, I would invest in glass and travel. Glass because I feel it's a sound investment that lasts (if taken care of) for years and travel so that I can get the images that I see in my head. Iceland, a dessert, the grand canyon. My travel bucket list is endless because I cant see myself on my deathbed thinking that I wish I'd traveled less. Nor can I see me on my deathbed thinking that I wish I'd had a better camera.

Do we then save for the best camera that we can afford? I would say yes, but. A fact of life is that for quality, we have to part with hard earned cash. But I limit myself. I don't want to buy something that means that it compromises me financially. All of those great photographers that you see out there have all built up their kit over many years. If you are a beginner, I would suggest that you buy something that is comfortably within your budget and learn how to use it properly. A modestly priced camera in the right hands will produce a better image than an expensive camera in the wrong hands. A crap image from a 1Dx is still a crap image.

What you need to remember and learn is seeing an image... but more about that in another blog.

google-site-verification: google9e2a35566743b17f.html