My Megapixels Are Bigger Than Your Megapixels...

Hi Michael, I am on the search for a new camera so I will sign up for your blog to learn more.

Megapixels are NOT important unless you want to blow your photos up to poster size. The size of the sensor is the most important factor to consider.

I'd love to have a camera that can take exellent close-up shots.  It seems a really good camera costs an arm and a leg.  I find that the older I get the more I enjoy taking pictures...Seems I'm more aware of what's around me now...

Good info that I can use when I make my next camera purchase...

BTW, I love your Inspector Gadget photo, LOL!

CHANDA PANDA

Good post. I like to learn about thing I have no knowledge of. Learning is power. Thanks for the primer.

About the time I learned to take good pictures with the old film camera, we got digital. Now I have to keep going back again and again to the manual to figure out how to change a setting... and I just have a cheap point and shoot!

I'm going to keep watching for more good advice from you...

In the film era I spent a mint on Canon Cameras.  I bought some early digitals. I paid over a grand for a Kodak that had a chip that could hold a dozen pictures.  A new high end DSLR is on my list.

One example of how far cameras have come ... my 10 year old Olympus has 2.1 megapixels, and my new Droid Incredible phone has eight! One day I'd like to go semi-pro, but right now I'm really fascinated by the spontaneity of clicking and posting from my phone. I think I'll be able to do quite a bit with it once I learn all of the features.

Great post.  I love the comment about the barn.  My Mom always tells me what a great camera I have.  It's cause I aim it right! That's it.  and my hands are steady.  contrary to her, who will hold her camera up in the air, point and click,then wonder why she has a photo of sky, instead of the action she shot.

You are an outstanding photographer, very creative.  You would be, even with a Brownie Instamatic.  You are better with the equipment you have, but that isn't what makes you great.

You got good stuff coming out of your barn, pal.

I like to keep it simple with cameras but still want good results. Your equipment in the picture looks great. With that font I could not read much of the post though. Sorry.

Thanks for the great tips.  I like things kept simple....

Very helpful post for the average user. I happen to be a camera connesoieur, and have 10 digital cameras, plus several lenses. 6 of them are the DSLRs, the other 4 are the high end point & shoot. I'm a Canon fan. I like taking pictures, or at least having enough cameras to keep one in my car, my office, my living room, and can grab one when the need arises.

Your information is very correct, and post editing is almost as important as taking the pictures to start with. You can always downsize the pictures via editing softward, for uploading, emailing, etc, but you cannot upsize a low resolution photo shot that way.

Hello Michael and a great group of cameras and Lenses, by looking at the top of that Nikon camera it looks like you purchased yourself a new body. And I recall seeing this bag around before, Vegas maybe?

VB ;-)

I largely agree with your posting, but I do have a few quibbles.

First, the agreement: The camera largely doesn't matter. I notice there's a question about wide-angle lenses--so camera capability (in some areas) is important. But it's possible to take great pictures with a cheap digital. I remember photo contests that restricted entrants to disposable cameras, and the winning photos were great.

Also, some folks figure that if they have the same camera with the same specs as someone else who takes great pictures, they'll take great pictures, too. I remember photography magazines (maybe they still do this; it's been awhile since I've read them) that would go into excruciating detail on the camera and lens specs for photos in the magazine--a Nikon whatever with a 55 mm lens, f 1.8, 1/8 second exposure, and on and on, shooting on Kodachrome pushed to some higher speed. Sure, that was fine for that photo. But I'm sure it led to hundreds of wannabe photographers buying that equipment to match what that one photographer had done, then being severely disappointed at the results.

My aunt was a professional photographer. See http://www.estherbubley.com I remember the contempt she expressed when people would ask her about the precise details and settings of a specific photo. In part, she didn't remember. But in part, it's because what makes a photo great (and this applies to real estate as well as other photography) aren't the specs but the framing, catching the person or action at the right moment, having the photo tell a story, and so on.

Where I disagree with the post is with: "Always shoot in the highest MP setting." No. Why? You have to know how you'll be using the photos. If you're just posting them on a web site, a 12 megapixel shot is about 11 megapixels too much. The computer screen can only display a limited amount of information. Any more is wasted. Even if the shot's going to be used in print, likely all you need is 300 dpi. That's 90,000 dots (the printer equivalent of a pixel) per square inch of finished printed photo. So, for instance, a 4x6 printed piece only needs 24x90,000, or 2,160,000 dots--or 2.1 megapixels. A lot of people go overboard on pixels and then, essentially, end up throwing most of them away. Now if you know (or believe) that you're going to be printing it at 8x10 or 11x14 or 16x20, then increase the file size accordingly. But, really, how often do you do that?

And--considering all the debate and nasty comments about virtual staging--I'm curious to see what you'll address with post-production editing. I hope we're not removing, say, extension cords. Or stains on carpets. Or turning a gray sky blue. That'll be interesting.

I definitely think that having a good quality camera is a good thing, but as others have said, it doesn't really matter in some people's hands.  I think that some agents are just plain old too lazy to care about how their pictures look. 

For those tha do care about their pictures, I think that two of the most important factors are the lens and the flash.  If you have a dSLR, I highly recommend an ultra-wide angle lens (I have a Sigma 10-20mm) which will allow for full width pictures of interior rooms.  I also highly recommend a separate flash (I have a Canon Speedlite 580 EXII).  This really gives you a lot more flash range, as well as options for angling the flash, flash diffusing, etc. 

My 2 cents, I definitely have a lot more to learn about my camera!

Thanks Michael for the tips.  While you may not think you are the brightest flash bulb in the pack, many of us think you are, so you sure have done a good job of foolin us! :)

I have the Samsung HX500 and it has 12 megapixels but will take 3-4 pics at that rate and takes up a whole SD card, lol.  I am moving in the direction on a nicer camera, but will wait until my next sale.  Great advice!

Well, I still have my old Minolta 35 mm with a whole bag of accessories including a full black and white darkroom set up, but haven't even had it out of the closet since I went digital.  Since then I've gone through quite a few but now my most recent is a Samsung HZ10W with a 24MM wide angle lens which works great for RE photography. The 10 power zoom is also a bonus.

Last weekend I got my first digital camera! It's a Sony Carl Zeiss 14.1 megapixel. (It's a plus that it's Kentucky Wildcat blue! LOL) We've been playing with it. It does a lot of its own focusing. I'm so impressed with it. One of these days I'll be able to afford a Nikon, but in the meantime this one will do nicely!

For some reason it won't let me load pictures this morning. I'll try from another computer later.

For the person who was talking about the Minolta camera, I used to have a Minolta and I loved it! I was in my 20s and a little careless - it fell out of my car and I ran over it in the Kroger parking lot. Sometimes we have to learn things the hard way.

Micheal,

Good post. But what do you use in crawlspaces? As with anything tools are tools and its how you use them that makes the difference.

 

Thanks

Don

Inspector Gadget, thanks for the timely advice.  I was actually going to 'hold & feel' a new Nikon I have my eye on just for the reason you say.  The one I have now works great but it getting heavy!  If I would have handled it more before I bought it maybe things would have been different gazillions of years ago!  Still works like that 47 Studebaker you have, it's just getting heavier.  (It's all the chrome I'm told).