I stopped in an Apple store today and notice iPhoto was opened up on one of the iMac. There were pre installed photos for show purposes and I'm sold right away. I was curious what kind of camera did Apple use for the vacation pics in iPhoto demo? Is it for commercial use only or affordable for consumer? Brand and model would be appreciated. Thanks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Name That Camera
- Thread starter tylerdn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know that there's any such thing as a "commercial only" camera. If you have the money, you can probably get it. The D3x is definitely a commercial-oriented camera, but if you have $7500 or so, it can be yours.
I'd bet on something like a Canon 5D/II, 1DsMark III, Nikon D3, etc. Or it could have been a nice compact camera. Who knows?
I'd bet on something like a Canon 5D/II, 1DsMark III, Nikon D3, etc. Or it could have been a nice compact camera. Who knows?
The camera did not make the photos. The photographer did. The lighting is more important than the camera. Much more so. Any DSLR could take photos more or less like those.
Yes, you can show the extended photo info in iPhoto. I did when shopping for a dSLR. Most of them are Canon 5D... 
(which is why most look so nice...)
(which is why most look so nice...)
When it comes down to it I would agree that hardware is only 30% of what is needed to take a good photograph. But that 30% can be very important when trying to achieve a specific look or effect - But it takes good knowledge of the other 70% to know what you need from your hardware.
It all comes down to what kind of photographs do you want to take?
This photograph was taken with a point and shoot camera and that was all that was required to capture the image - from a hardware perspective there are two main elements that helped to achieve the image 1. the quality of the lens and 2. the post processing.
For portraiture I would recommend a larger format camera like a SLR with a medium to longish lens (80mm - 180mm) because you will get more focus separation which tends to be accepted as more professional looking (see below):
Macro photography would require other types of lensing etc, etc, etc...
~ So it all really comes down to what kind of pictures do you want to take and how much time and effort do you want to put into taking the pictures and post processing?
It all comes down to what kind of photographs do you want to take?
This photograph was taken with a point and shoot camera and that was all that was required to capture the image - from a hardware perspective there are two main elements that helped to achieve the image 1. the quality of the lens and 2. the post processing.
For portraiture I would recommend a larger format camera like a SLR with a medium to longish lens (80mm - 180mm) because you will get more focus separation which tends to be accepted as more professional looking (see below):
Macro photography would require other types of lensing etc, etc, etc...
~ So it all really comes down to what kind of pictures do you want to take and how much time and effort do you want to put into taking the pictures and post processing?
well, i would say the lens, not necessarily the lighting. I had great lighting when shooting with the 18-55 kit lens of yesteryears, and they weren't very good
. I would say the lenses are more important than the body, unless you need full weatherproofing, faster buffer/frame rate/transfer/rate.. but a Rebel XS with a 70-200 IS 2.8L will yield better results than a 40D + 70-300 f/4-5.6 cheap $200 kit lens. But i agree that you put two exact camera setups in two different people to shoot the same subject, and you will get two different results.!
Point and shoots seem great for macro shots. My x key on my PB filled a whole shot almost. Just watch out for barrel distortion on them.
Yes, and even then you need weather-sealed lenses to go with the weather-sealed body, so in this regard body is never more important than the lens
I also feel that you could have all the megapixels and new-fangled features in the world and still come up short handed of a great image. It is the glass that allows for such clean, crisp, detailed images. Most 'point and shoot' cameras don't have the leeway to include high precision optics because of all the other features demanded in such a small sized package.
Almost any 'dslr' body from the oldest to the newest is capable in the right hands, with the right lens... although we can't completely outweigh the technology factor, sensors are playing more of a major role in image quality these days but will never be able to compensate for cheap glass.
Almost any 'dslr' body from the oldest to the newest is capable in the right hands, with the right lens... although we can't completely outweigh the technology factor, sensors are playing more of a major role in image quality these days but will never be able to compensate for cheap glass.
well, i would say the lens, not necessarily the lighting. I had great lighting when shooting with the 18-55 kit lens of yesteryears, and they weren't very good
But i agree that you put two exact camera setups in two different people to shoot the same subject, and you will get two different results.!
I'd take the 18-55 and good light over the 17-40 L (or whatever) and bad light. In my experience, and this is just my experience, a good lens might lift a bad or mediocre shot to being passable, but a great photo doesn't need the extra, most of the time.