HNTFSH wrote: Rick Hall wrote:
Rick - your last picture sold was what? A 35 mm film camera?
4x6 web pics have little to do with image quality and expandability. Show me a 20X30 print crystal clear and THAT is a quality photo.
Good ol' Kodachrome 64. But I missed the part about the OP wanting to sell to nationals. If he wants to begin at the top, he should definitely start with top equipment. If nothing else it will teach him right quick that there is a hell of a lot more to a quality photo than being crystal clear at 20x30.
I asked you not him about selling a shot (i.e. the quality of a photo that folks dream to produce).
Either way there's form and content. If you really want nice photos and output you can do something with other than post on forums - it takes both.
Not a crime to aspire to for a new or old photog.
Sure read like you were asking about my photo sales as though they were relevant to the thread about someone wanting to try waterfowl photography, so that is how I answered it. My advice to someone wanting to sell to the big kids in that market, much less today's, differs from that to someone thinking they might like to give wildlife photography a go.
I believe most folks who decide they'd like to try serious photography never get to or beyond the trying stage, in large part because of the expense of DSLR equipment and bother of lugging it around, problems the bridge camera I suggested greatly reduces.
And if one wants "output you can do something with other than post on forum," there's no reason he can't have it with a good "point and shoot". Precious few but you are going to view your 20x30 at computer monitor distance and marvel over how wonderfully sharp it is. Large prints are made to be looked at from a distance that negates "pixel peeping," and just like on a forum sharing level, whether the photo's subject and composition catch the viewer's interest is what really matters. (I've a wealthy amateur photog who comes every year just to shoot pictures with equipment that he often reminds me "will catch a flea jumping on that running dog," yet, none of 11x14? enlargements of my dogs he's been nice enough to send me has ever inspired so much as a genuine "Nice shot.", let alone "Neat.")
But having zero use for or interest in, much less experience with, such things, I Googled "fz200 20x30" prints, and this was the first listing: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51610324
Again, though, I'd as soon wanapasaki ignores my suggestion, so it won't be on me if he decides he's wasted his time and money. As mentioned in my initial post, I find even the relatively light and compact FZ150, that's roughly the same camera as what I've suggested only without the 200's 2.8 low light capabilities, more hassle to have on hand when subjects of interest to me present themselves than the little "travel zooms" I use much, much more, because the handiness of a camera that's almost always there far outweighs the clunkier camera's greater capabilities - for me.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.