Is it the Camera or the Photographer? Part Two

In my previous post, I introduced the concept of not needing to go out and buy an SLR and ten lenses (an exaggeration, perhaps), without taking the time to determine if you actually need one. After all, SLRs and their kits are heavy, unwieldy, and depending on where you travel, not even allowed. So, here are a few more examples for you to consider:



This is one of my favorite shots of all time. The level of detail would have been very difficult to capture in an ordinary camera. I had to play with multiple settings simultaneously, in order for this one to work. In general, interior shots such as these benefit from a wide-angle lens, and a camera with a manual setting.



I took this picture at sunrise with a regular camera. I don't know what it would have looked like with all my gear, but I was traveling from city and city and wasn't able to take more than a compact. I think this looks fine. Had it been one hour later, I would have needed a polarizing filter, and Photoshop for post-processing - not to mention a way to shoot in RAW. (More later)
Finally, an example of my favorite type of photography:



Getting this level of detail in low light and with this precision requires a fast macro lens and a good camera body. I can't do any macro shots with my compact. If there were ever a case for good camera equipment, this would be it.

So, to summarize, if you're shooting objects in the near distance in good (not too sunny) weather without any marked precision requirements, a compact camera (in the $250 range) will do.

Otherwise, go out and look at some SLRs so you can control your environment. If nothing else, you'll be able to shoot in RAW, my favorite format (with a few exceptions). What does that mean? I"ll cover that tomorrow. :)