On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:12:53 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it  
> takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's  
> because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.

Mostly, it is because the sensor in your camera is much larger than the  
one in hers. Sensor size matters a lot; pixel density not so much. The  
focal length of the lens is not in any way a reliable indicator of  
quality; the lens in her camera is smaller because the tiny sensor does  
not require a larger lens.



> Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,

Again, sensor size is what matters most. For a given sensor format, the  
difference in sensor "quality" between the low and high ends of the price  
range is quite small.

Sensor size is very much a determining factor for the price of a camera  
though.



> more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth.

Better controls/ergonomics, more accurate & sophisticated auto-focus,  
better build quality, weather-proofing, and so on and so forth.




> possible camera to go with it?


buy "pro" type cameras.




> zoom lense.

"zoom" means "variable focal length". I think the term you are looking for  
is "tele-photo".


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

Note that this is the price for a *used* lens.



> Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia.

I do not think that is even theoretically possible. Maybe if you climb  
Mount Kilimanjaro; I am too lazy to do the math...



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message