well, $700 worth of camera...is a drool worthy camera, but your camera is only for the use of photography. My camera which I have, is Sony Cybershot with 7.2 megapixel, and it took me forever to get the good pictures whenever I get too close to animals and bugs.
I have huge collection of my photography of bugs and animals, in my computer..but I gotta say, it was hard work because I had to zoom more than once to get the perfect aim.
Every shot is hard work. If the shots come easy...they aren't right
.
No really...I try very hard to make the appropriate adjustments "on scene" to get proper exposures. ESPECIALLY for B&W shots. Alot of peolpe shoot in clor and use photoshop or whatever to convert to B&W. I shoot in monotone, and I shoot in zones(A system of exposure developed in the 30's and 40's through the F/64 school of thought, which included Ansel Adams), and I use a variety of lens filters for contrast, light control, saturation, and exposure control.
I try to do as little post processing as possible, but...even the best cameras are limited in the amount of processing they can handle. There is just only so much contrast, sharpness, and saturation that a camera can record. The rest can be boosted in post using any photo editing program.
The reality is...a decent photographer with a solid understanding of exposure, dynamics, tonality, composition, subjectivity, and range can take a good photograph with anything. A person that doesn't understand those concepts on at least a basic level...gets a snapshot from a Hasselblad(a Hasselblad is a full-frame, medium format DSLR...50+mp and costs upwards of $5,000 without the lenses...which are about $6,000 or more each).
The truth of the matter is...if you compose your shots well, and understand exposure and why different exposure values can be equal, but provide completely different results(but the exact same exposure), all you need is something to record your vision. The big, fancy, expensive cameras just give you more of the control you need to make it right...
