# "Camera doesn't matter" fact not true?



## KhronoS (Oct 24, 2009)

Ok, so for 2 years I shoot with may old faithfull Canon 40D. The photos were ok, sometimes were kind of soft but i blamed on the glass (i have a 28-135mm f/4-5.6). And i was convinced that my 40D was as good as a Pro camera but only lacking the pro features and color reproduction, and that the sharpness was only influenced by the glass.

3 months ago I was hired at a national newspaper as a photographer, and i received some pro gear to shoot with. A Canon 1D Mark III and 3 "L" lenses 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM.  I can only say WOW, everything it's amazing from the construction of the body and lenses to the features and quality of the image. Since the i use only this equipment.

But, yesterday i had the inspiration to test to see if it's there any difference between the bodies. So i made some tests keeping same values (aperture, shutter speed focal length, etc), and finally I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones.

Can anyone give me a reasonably explanation? 

I will also try to take some tests by manually focusing and set up an evenly lit scene (the day i took the tests was cloudy and tre light was fluctuating).

Thank you.
Constantin Chirila


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 24, 2009)

Just to clarify, you said:

"and finally I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones."

Can you expand on the obvious ones you mention?


----------



## KhronoS (Oct 24, 2009)

AverageJoe said:


> Just to clarify, you said:
> 
> "and finally I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones."
> 
> Can you expand on the obvious ones you mention?



I mean i saw some obvious differences in sharpness, not like those difference which only a pixel peeper can see 

I will post some photos as soon as i get home.


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 24, 2009)

when comparing cameras you DO NOT keep the Exposure values the same, you use the CORRECT exposure values

Every camera wil lgive a different result using the same exposure value (yes, even if it was 2 40D you would see a difference.)

A better experiment would be "which camera works best in AUTO exposure mode"


----------



## Dao (Oct 24, 2009)

Do you mean you see sharpness difference when you compare 40D / 28-135mm lens combo with 1D / L lens combo?

Or you use the same lens on both bodies?


----------



## Overread (Oct 24, 2009)

The camera doesn't matter
Its all in the hands of the photographer
Andsel Adams would have shot Pultzer (SP) winning shots with a disposable kodak
Nothing matters but film

Ok most of these comments all start with a good sound reason for existing, but they are all extremes and so often used out of context (and so often in threads like these they popup as you get very polarized arguments.

Does the camera matter? Well look at it logically if the camera didn't matter Pros would not spend £/$1000s on a pro end body would they? They would get the 350D beginner level body and shoot happily away with that.

but you know what the beginner level cameras are good:
Juza Nature Photography
even if you take it more extreme:
Pawe³ Bieniewski - Makrofotografia
Pawe³ Bieniewski - Makrofotografia

So what's the same you ask - well the lenses are pro line and the photographers are very good at what they do. So on those facts and that evidence it looks like the body isn't important = but then why does someone like Juza now shoot with a 1D and not still with the 350D? 
Simply put because the 1D is the better camera, it has the advantages of being that bit sharper, of having better dynamic range, far better noise control, faster and more accurate AF, more custom functions, better build quality, weather sealing, etc....

Those are the things the camera body is giving you - in the list of priorities the glass and skills of the photographer are clearly showing that they are responcible for a greater overall change in photographic quality - with glass also being a defining element in what you can capture ( you need a macro lens stup for macro - you need a wider angle lens for landscapes - you need a telephoto for much wildlifework). The body just records that light.

In the end I hold the view of glass first - body second. Better glass will expand what is possible, give you a more noticable improvment in image quality and generally last you a hack of a lot longer than a new camera body will - well kept glass can last decades and still be performing very well (since this area advances far slower than that of the digital world). 
But one has to remember that good photos also come from a good photographer as well - pro end gear will give quality results, but those higher quality photos are only going to come from someone who can frame, compose and be in the right place at the right time to get those shots.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2009)

KhronoS said:


> I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones.
> 
> Can anyone give me a reasonably explanation?



Pretty easy to explain really...

The 1DmkIII has a bigger sensor.

Were you only looking at 100% crops, or were you looking at the whole image?

If you're comparing the whole image, the 1D images are basically resized compared to the 40D image.  Making it smaller will always make it look sharper.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 24, 2009)

Some 40D's have a problem with soft images


----------



## icassell (Oct 24, 2009)

I wish people would stop posting links to Juza's site ... the images make me want to toss my camera in the trash and take up knitting instead.


----------



## Overread (Oct 24, 2009)

icassell said:


> I wish people would stop posting links to Juza's site ... the images make me want to toss my camera in the trash and take up knitting instead.



I think its mostly me doing it ---- but yah I get the same feeling
Just don't head to the forum there - its really intimidating


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> KhronoS said:
> 
> 
> > I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones.
> ...



I thought the 1DMKIII and the 40d were both 10mp aps-c sensors.  Probably not the same one, but they should be the same output size.  The new MKIV is aps-h, but I thought the MKIII was still aps-c.  Could be wrong though.


----------



## Overread (Oct 24, 2009)

Pretty sure the MKIII was a 1.3crop whilst the other 1D make was a fullframe model. Far as I know there isn't a 1.6 crop 1D line camera unless its one of the older models.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > KhronoS said:
> ...





Overread said:


> Pretty sure the MKIII was a 1.3crop whilst the other 1D make was a fullframe model. Far as I know there isn't a 1.6 crop 1D line camera unless its one of the older models.



They are both 10.1 MP, but the sensor is physically bigger on the 1D.

40D sensor = 22.2 x 14.8 mm
1DmkIII sensor = 28.7 x 18.7 mm

Hmmm....
But - since the file output is the same size, I'm not sure if this is an issue (as it applies to this thread)...


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Oct 24, 2009)

Op didn't really clarify if they were using the same lens for each photo, and swapping it between bodies. 

I've seen sharper than a tack images out of something as "lowly" as a D40 so I'm wondering if it's user error here, bad/cheap lens vs. expensive lens, or they're blowing the images up huge to inspect them.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 24, 2009)

So, MKIII was also aps-h?  My bad.


----------



## KhronoS (Oct 24, 2009)

Ok let me clear this out... I used the same glass on the bodies. so no cheap lenses, i took care so that everything except the bodies are the same, values, lenses etc.

Second of all 40D has a 1.6x Crop factor and the 1D Mk3 has 1.3x crop factor (it's not the fullframe 1Ds Mk3).



Overread said:


> The camera doesn't matter
> Its all in the hands of the photographer
> Andsel Adams would have shot Pultzer (SP) winning shots with a disposable kodak
> Nothing matters but film
> ...



You gave me some sound explanation, and i too have the same view as you Glass first body second. Also i know that 70% of the photograph is the photographer skills, 25% it's the luck you have (i guess this applies the most to press/nature/photojurnalism photography) and 5% the gear you have.

After my experience one fact is clear i will buy the L glasses for sure, but the thing i want to get too is: "do i have to change the body too?"

I was very sure that with good glasses I could stick to 40D, but I guess i can't go back now... the 1D mk3 it's amazing, from a lot of aspects. 

Also I'm not a totally beginner at this, it's just that all my concepts and ideas about this fact were kind of "denied". This is why i asked this.

I guess i got my answers. In the end the body has its importance.

Thank you guys


----------



## chip (Oct 24, 2009)

People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 24, 2009)

chip said:


> People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.



Agreed.


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 24, 2009)

A top photographer with a $100 P&S will take a better picture than Great Aunt Nellie handed a Canon 50D

... with a better camera, the pro can take a great picture and have it come out that much better...

But any noob is capable of taking a bad picture with the best camera made.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 24, 2009)

Overread said:


> The camera doesn't matter
> Its all in the hands of the photographer
> Andsel Adams would have shot Pultzer (SP) winning shots with a disposable kodak
> Nothing matters but film
> ...



Good post Overread. Explained things nicely. Spot on, too IMNSHO.



> After my experience one fact is clear i will buy the L glasses for sure, but the thing i want to get too is: "do i have to change the body too?"
> 
> I was very sure that with good glasses I could stick to 40D, but I guess i can't go back now... the 1D mk3 it's amazing, from a lot of aspects.
> 
> ...


I'm with you. I know the importance of good glass. I've got a couple of old Canon lenses and the kit lens, and have every intention of getting better glass _when I get better with the body_.

On a side note, I got the back off, but there's no room for the film, and I don't know _where _that spring went...


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2009)

chip said:


> People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.



Really?

How does the camera matter?

Basically - the camera is just a box to hold the lens.  In that sense, it doesn't matter how much your box costs compared to mine.  The lens you stick on the front is what matters.

But, they do more than just hold a lens, don't they?
Some cameras have higher ISO than others, bigger sensors, better viewfinders, higher frame rate, etc...

How much does all that stuff _really_ matter though?  For some people, it matters a lot.
For the vast majority of people, it doesn't make one bit of difference.

Sure, it makes life easier, but for the most part, it doesn't unlock any new possibilities that were not possible on a lesser body.

Show me a shot from a high end body, 1D or something, that is just _not possible_ on a Rebel.  Resolution & ISO aside, the only difference I can think of is the max shutter speed (1/4000th vs. 1/8000) and the frame rate.

There aren't many situations where those two specs would _really_ matter that much...  High ISO really only applies to low light shooting, which for most people, while nice to have, doesn't occupy the bulk of their photography.


I don't think the camera matters (much), and I don't even have a fancy one.
Sure a good camera is better than a crap camera, but the lenses are much more important.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> For the _vast majority of people_, it doesn't make one bit of difference.



I LOLed. :lmao:


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > For the _vast majority of people_, it doesn't make one bit of difference.
> ...



Why?

How many times was 1/4000th not fast enough for you?
How many times was 3 FPS not fast enough?


----------



## Overread (Oct 24, 2009)

pssst OIIIIO you totally forgot about AF speed and accuracy 
Whilst is also something defined by the lens itself, a top range camera body has far improved accuracy and speed of AF (at least in locking onto a subject) than a low end one - couple that with a faster FPS and it makes a heck of a difference if the shooter is doing any sort of action/motion based work


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 24, 2009)

Wouldn't it be fair to say all of these arguments go out the window when you need to shoot in low light with moving subjects?


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2009)

AverageJoe said:


> Wouldn't it be fair to say all of these arguments go out the window when you need to shoot in low light with moving subjects?



Of course.  I thought that was implied in my post...

How often is that the case though?
Rarely for me, I'm not everybody though...


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> AverageJoe said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it be fair to say all of these arguments go out the window when you need to shoot in low light with moving subjects?
> ...



Right well, I think that's what we are boiling this down to, photography is subjective and the "hardware" needed to create that subjective art is dependent on the individual and their intended outcome.  Which is also to say I'm not going to shoot models walking down a runway with a point and shoot throw away and get what I want.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 24, 2009)

Erm has this thread completely missed the point in the entire camera doesn't matter arguement? Give your 1D and your 40D to a 15 year old who's never used a camera. They will likely give them back with equally **** photos.

Your 1D didn't make you the photographer you are today. You did. The camera has always mattered as far as ultimate picture quality and noise response, but a good picture can still be a good picture when it's slightly soft with low tonal range and lots of noise.

Anyone who doesn't believe this should get the TimeLife greatest pictures of the 20th century.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...


Nothing, really. Just thinking to myself that you're probably not in any real position to say _what _"the vast majority of people" think or feel when it comes to whether it "doesn't make one bit of difference" whether they have a better sensor or faster burst or more resolution or or or. Nothing personal and not meant to be a dig at you, just an explanation of why I LOLed.



O|||||||O said:


> How many times was 1/4000th not fast enough for you?
> How many times was 3 FPS not fast enough?



Since 2006 I've been shooting motorsports _professionally_* with a Sony Cybershot DSC H5. On a good day I can fire about a shot a second. Usually not. My shots are usually planned ahead of time because it's so easy to miss it when you get one or two chances.

In the last month since I've been using a 50D and a 7D, I've found multiple times where I have had one obviously better shot in a series done at 6ish FPS. With that in mind, if you cut the number of FPS in half, the odds of having that one shot are, well, cut in half. 

* Before any of you real photogs rail on me for claiming to be a "professional", please realize that it is a term relating only to the fact that I get paid for it. 

I'm a pretty obvious n00b when it comes to manual (DSLR) shooting. It's been a couple decades and I've never done motorsports with a manual camera, so I'm at the beginning of a long road of learning.



> Your 1D didn't make you the photographer you are today.


True, but my 7D will likely make me the photographer I will be one year from today. 

:edit: And to clear the air, if I had Nikon left-over's from the film days, I would be claiming this with a D300s or some such thing... I chose Canon because I have lenses that work until I can afford better ones.


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 24, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Erm has this thread completely missed the point in the entire camera doesn't matter arguement? Give your 1D and your 40D to a 15 year old who's never used a camera. They will likely give them back with equally **** photos.



I agree with you

I do want to ask something else though, say you were to give a 15 year old who had never used a camera a P&S and a 1DS3 + L lenses you then gave them a year, would you see more difference in his growth as a photographer with the nicer camera and lenses or with the shi**y one?

My suggestion is that at that point in time yeah the camera wouldn't make much difference, but give the kid a year and if the kid has any interest he would grow far more much faster with the better camera and lenses.


----------



## Parkerman (Oct 24, 2009)

Just wondering.. were these images shot in RAW? So that the camera didn't process them?


----------



## chip (Oct 24, 2009)

Camera (and any required accessories) matters

Photographic skill matters

You can't have great photos with just one. The two are required. 

Let us compare apples with apples now. Two guys, equally skilled. One given a disposal camera. The other given the best pro equipment of his choice. Who is going to produce better photos?

People who say their photographic skill is so great that camera does not matter are just arrogant and foolish. I will be the first to admit my photographic skill is not great and I can use all the help I can get. If a great camera makes it easier for me to produce the result I am after then I am going to take advantage of it.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 25, 2009)

How is a disposable camera vs. a pro camera comparing apples to apples?

I'm saying something more like a 400D vs. a 50D...


----------



## chip (Oct 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> How is a disposable camera vs. a pro camera comparing apples to apples?
> 
> I'm saying something more like a 400D vs. a 50D...



I was saying* if* CAMERA DOES NOT MATTER...that is a   hypothetical scenario - then don't compare a child who has never taken a picture before with a professional photographer. Compare two equally skilled professional photographers, one given a disposal cameera. The other given the best professional camera equipment of his choice. Give them the same assignment such as shooting a wedding. See who produces better results. It will be plain to see at the end that camera indeed does matter.

Basically you are agreeing with me to a point. You are saying the result produced by a good camera vs. the result produced by a better camera may not be noticeable. But what about the results produced by a $5 disposal camera vs. the result produced by a $10,000 camera with a pro lens? Say you were to work the same assignment with the two cameras. Which camera do you think you would pick to use, the $5 camera or the $10,000 camera?


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 25, 2009)

That's still not apples to apples...

By your logic, a pad & pencil would be just as good as a camera.


----------



## chip (Oct 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> That's still not apples to apples...
> 
> By your logic, a pad & pencil would be just as good as a camera.



I am sorry Josh. I will agree to disagree with you. I maintain stronger than ever than camera does matter. Chip


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Oct 25, 2009)

The lens is more important than the body.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 25, 2009)

I get what you're saying, but I think you're taking it too far.

Of course a throw away camera can't match a top of the line pro camera.  No one is saying that it can.

If you compare relatively similar cameras, there is little difference in the technical ability of the camera.  SLR vs. SLR.

If you're going to compare an SLR to something you throw away when you're done with it, why stop there?  How does an SLR stack up to a sheet of paper and a pen?  Oil & canvas?  Or a stick and a patch of dirt?

You can create an image with any of those, but I don't think anyone will try to say that they are the same thing.


----------



## Mr. Murmeli (Oct 25, 2009)

I think this fairly interesting thread requires some pictures we could compare .


----------



## usayit (Oct 25, 2009)

chip said:


> People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.



I am sure there are those that do not practice what they preach.... it seems to me that most are on the internet talking about equipment and not out being a photographer.  Its not about "Camera does not matter.. go shoot with a disposable camera!" or "Camera does matter buy the most to be a real photographer" its about getting the proper tools.  In the real world, you'd be surprised how little interest many photographers have in equipment.... whatever fits their needs to get the job done.

Give a disposable to a newpaper journalist and I am sure they can get much better pictures than I.  Give the disposable to the macro-photographer and I guarantee I can get better results.

This is where I leave you with a single photographer's name (there are more like him):  Alex Majoli


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 25, 2009)

End of the day

Ofcourse camera body matters, Why would they make more than 1 (with the exception to make more money) camera body...

skill is also involved. If you have better skills of handling and using the camera, your images will be better but they well be much better (or slightly?) with a higher end camera body.

It all depends on what your doing
If you need Pin sharp lines, go Pro-end with the Nikon D3x or Canon 1Ds III

For snapshots good creative snapshots, Get a nikon D40 or Canon 300D - 450D

you get my point.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> I do want to ask something else though, say you were to give a 15 year old who had never used a camera a P&S and a 1DS3 + L lenses you then gave them a year, would you see more difference in his growth as a photographer with the nicer camera and lenses or with the shi**y one?



I get what you're saying, but it's an apples to oranges comparison. They are both fruits but both wildly different.

Now say you give a kid a 450D and a 1DsMkIII the difference in growth is minimal because they are functionally identical. They can both offer full manual control over every element of photography. The expensive version just offers them convenience and ultimate quality, neither of which are necessary to expand your knowledge of the camera. 

Ok I may sound hypocritical since the D200 isn't exactly low end, but it was bought because it's metal while all the others weren't. Every upgrade of mine since has been a functional upgrade such as a macro lens, f/2.8 lens, some prime lenses, a tripod, a remote etc. None of this is image quality intensive, but each allows me to do more with the body I have.

So what I am really trying to say here, is that ultimately when people expand in the hobby they will get sick of the new rich kids on the block having shinier pictures and upgrade their camera, but to anyone who is actually learning would you recommend a pro body with 1 lens, or an entry level body with 3 lenses remote and a tripod for the same money? I would argue one would learn much more with the latter.


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 25, 2009)

I think the point is, the best camera in the world won't know how to compose a shot, take into account the way the light and shadows are hitting the subjects, the angles, how close to the ground, etc. 

The only way to really go apples to apples is to have both cameras take the same shot with a) the correct exposure for the shot and b) with identical settings. Those 4 shots will tell you which is better. And in those cases, I think you'll find the more expensive camera will always edge out the cheaper one. Then the only decision is whether the difference justifies the cost between the 2 for _YOUR_ situation.


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 25, 2009)

I think one of the things that is taken for granted about high quality equipment is that it makes it easier to accomplish things than it is to accomplish with lesser equipment. 

Thus, the excellent AF of a 1D3 makes it a lot easier to get excellent shots of kids going around on a ride at the fair (I'm thinking of a shot I saw by InTempus when he first got his 1D3). Whereas if you have the XT or something of the like while it's still possible to get the shot it's much more difficult. 

Same goes for lighting equipment. The best stuff is often the easiest to control and the most consistent. You can correct other equipment etc. but it's more difficult and time consuming. 

With that in mind I do thing that better equipment can make it easier to learn, though it's not necessary. I definitely agree that *a great lens is going to help more than a great body*. That being said, a great body is helpful as well.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 25, 2009)

Nate, this is the shot you're talking about.







Yes, the AF system of the 1D3 is impressive as it is capable of locking onto a subject and following it regardless of what passes between you and the subject while you have the shutter button depressed.  

I would say for a novice that can't fully capitalize on the capabilities of a XTi a 1D3 isn't going to improve their ability to get the shots that make others go "wow".  It won't change anything most likely.  Heck, it might make things worse as the 1D3 with all of it's settings would really confuse a novice.

On the other hand... give Ken Rockwell a D40 and he'll make Annie Leibovitz look like a novice even if she had a Hasselblad.


----------



## ANDS! (Oct 25, 2009)

> Since 2006 I've been shooting motorsports professionally* with a Sony Cybershot DSC H5. On a good day I can fire about a shot a second. Usually not. My shots are usually planned ahead of time because it's so easy to miss it when you get one or two chances.



We would call you the exception, not the rule.



> I maintain stronger than ever than camera does matter.



To a point.  But the situations you describe are not similar.  An analogous situation might be a laborer complaining that he needs a vehicle, and the good samaritan comes up and gives him a KIA.  Can he get his tools and gear and what not into the KIA and to his work-site?  Sure.  Is that the right class of car for the job?  Not even close.  Now if you took him to a dealership that ONLY sold heavy load trucks, the differences are going to be in comfort and ease of use, not usability.  The same applies to cameras.  No sane person is going to bring a disposable camera to Fashion Week or to a once in a lifetime trip to Thailand.  There are (pretty clear to most people) levels of "cameras", and once you get into a specific level any camera will suffice (this includes - for whatever reason - using a D40 to take in-studio portraits).  It is the ease of use and comfort of the individual cameras that will seperate them from the pack, but they will not leave the level of usability they are assigned to.


----------



## porkphoto (Oct 25, 2009)

I propose the following: lets place camera X  on a table and camera Y beside it. Now lets all stand back and watch and wait to see which camera will take the better picture. I can guarantee the result.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 25, 2009)

God, I can't believe I read this whole thread.  I want my money back.  The answer is that there is no one answer!  There never will be.  The answer to this question lies completely with in the circumstances of the person who is asking it.  EVERYTHING is a tool that one uses to make photographs.  Reading a book is a tool, a D3x is a tool, going to the art museum to get inspired is a tool, and 70-200 is a tool, spending time with other photographer and artists is a tool, a tripod is a tool, your eyes are a tool, you mind is a tool, the total sum of your life experiences is a tool.  Everything you have comes together to create an image.  Only when honestly looking a your specific situation, can you answer the question, 'What is currently holding me back from making better images?'.  The answer is different for every situation, but I do believe that the majority of the time, it's not the equipment holding one back.  That doesn't mean that better gear won't ultimately yeild better pictures than lesser gear, but only that more than likely, the biggest law in an image isn't likely to be it's resolution or noise.  A person who has a creative eye, a good understanding of exposure and composition, years of experience shooting in different environments and a rebel xti and kit lens, would likely be best served by upgraded his equipment.   A person with a poor understanding of the fundamentals of photography, a lack of creative inspiration, and a 50d, would not be best served by upgrading to a 5dMKII.  It would be best for that person to work on their skills and make the most of what hey have; when and only when, they are in fact being held back by the limitations of their gear in an area where the need beter performance, upgrade.  

I have great gear, but not the best.  There is a list of things I want a mile long.  Most of these thing would in fact help me make slightly better pictures.  But.  That list of gear does not represent the area of my photography that needs the most improvement.  I will now an almost always be best served by working on my eye, my ability to see and capture energy, and my excitement for photography.  In the last 6 months, my equipmet has tripled in quality, but I've sen the greatest gains in my images by working on things like my relationships with people, the way I interact with the world around me and devoloping a greater appreciation for life.  To really throw a wrench into this thread, I would argue that these intrinsic things are ultimately more important than equipment or skill.  I've seen way too many technically perfect, sharp as a razor, flawless images that bore the crap out of me.  And I've seen even more noisy, soft, weak colored pictures that evoke emotion and make a lasting impression.  Gear will take the picture, and knowledge will let you take it correctly, but only the way you live life and how you see the world will affect what it is that you take.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 26, 2009)

Yes, I killed it!


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 26, 2009)

are you trying to bring it back to life or something?


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 26, 2009)

Haha, nope.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 27, 2009)

porkphoto said:


> I propose the following: lets place camera X on a table and camera Y beside it. Now lets all stand back and watch and wait to see which camera will take the better picture. I can guarantee the result.


 
So you can guarantee that if camera X was an entry level Olympus DSLR and camera Y was a Nikon D3x and the user (who knows how to handle a camera) was shooting in a dimly lit situation with no strobes, then the results would point to that the camera does matter?


----------



## bp4life71 (Oct 27, 2009)

PHOTOSHOP.  

Will make your XS seem like a high end camera.

Too get the most out of your starter camera, get better at photoshop.  Is it cheating?  No, not at all.  It takes skill to work photoshop.

Here's something to consider:

Canon XS+Lense+Photoshop= $750-$950 /  Great Photo produced

Pro Camera+Pro Lense= $3000-$5000 / Great Photo produced

I'm just saying, you can have great looking pictures that are equal to the pro equipment if you know how to use Photoshop.  Alot of people on here who spent all the money oh pro equipment might say otherwise, but honestly, I get some killer shots with my Canon XS that I honestly believe can not be any better with pro equipment.

Body not as important as the lense.....but the body can make the job easier with less post editing required.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 27, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> PHOTOSHOP.
> 
> Will make your XS seem like a high end camera.
> 
> ...


 
You can't recreate amazing lighting in photoshop.


----------



## Hardrock (Oct 27, 2009)

Can someone who has a 40/50d and a 1 d series camera take a picture of something (a still subject like a house) with the same lens on a tripod.  Then we can look at the pictures and decide!


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 27, 2009)

^^^LOL

Yeah, that wouldn't exactly be helpful, for a number of reasons... one is it's been done numerous times. 2. websized images are rarely big enough to show a difference, 3 generally it's not the camera inherent ability to capture the image as it is to make it easier to capture the image (things like great autofocus etc.) that makes better cameras better. and 4 where the cameras stand out is not in taking a picture of a still subject on a tripod, it's in extremely low lighting and fast action. 

Thus a test that you were suggesting will show the two cameras to be virtually identical by limiting the two cameras to something they both do well, rather than challenging them in areas they struggle.


----------



## itznfb (Oct 27, 2009)

Camera matters, lens matters, environment matters, skill matters, experience matters; it all matters. It's everything together that makes the shot.

To answer more along the lines of the original post though.. going from a Nikon D50 to D90 I instantly saw a difference in the quality of RAW images. It had nothing to do with lens or skill or shooting conditions. Simply put the sensor and processor in the D90 just do a better job of reproducing the image passed through the lens into 1's and 0's. Did I see a difference in RAW image quality going from the D90 to the D300s. Of course not. Obviously with film though you didn't see image quality differences between models since (if using the same film) they all had the same "sensor".

As others have said though; without the basic understanding of how to compose or expose properly a higher end camera may take a slightly higher quality image but that doesn't mean it took a better picture.


----------



## bp4life71 (Oct 27, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> bp4life71 said:
> 
> 
> > PHOTOSHOP.
> ...


 
Oh but you can!

Thats where the "skill" part in photoshop comes into play.


----------



## Shutter_to_think (Oct 27, 2009)

Hi folks, New to the forum. I thought I'd add my 2 cents. 

Many thoughts come to mind, like sensors replacing film and the arguments over Fuji and Kodak, and whether Sensia was better than Ektachrome. But that's not where I'm going with this.  Many years ago after going digital, I tried desperately to take photos of my kids in sports. My first digital camera was a point and shoot. Trying to take pictures inside under low light during basketball season just isn't going to happen. I don't care how good you are. You just will not get the shots. To claim that this camera is capable, is utter foolishness IMHO. 
Point: the camera is not capable.  

Usher in a bridge camera. Again, no matter how good you are, you will not get the shot.  I asked the local pro guy, who also shoots his daughter playing, to give my camera a try.  Now I'll grant you his came out better than mine, but still not acceptable. In his words. -- This camera just won't do it --. The F stop is just not wide enough and the ISO is not high enough .I don't care how good you are. You just will not get the shots.  
Point: the camera is not capable.   

Usher in, the Canon XTi. Okay, now we're getting in the ballpark, But to be honest, even with fast glass, this camera is just not capable. The high ISO stinks and to me there were other things that made this camera inadequate. In the hands of a pro? You're just not going to push this camera past it's own capabilities.  

Usher in the Nikon D700. HOLY CRAP! Anyone who says camera doesn't matter has got to be lost in thought and not planning to return. This camera is the best thing since toilet paper.   Now, I can sympathize with some of you. Because a good camera in the hands of a novice is no better than surgical tools in the hands of a janitor.  And I suppose you CAN dig a hole with a bowling ball, but it's going to take a lot of time and frustration and you will probably give up. JMHO. Thanks for listening,  Tom  Oh BTW, the comment that you should get better at photoshop, only solidifies the point that many cameras just don't cut it.


----------



## Montana (Oct 27, 2009)

inTempus said:


> On the other hand... give Ken Rockwell a D40 and he'll make Annie Leibovitz look like a novice even if she had a Hasselblad.


 

I think I just peed a little.  LMFAO!:lmao::mrgreen::er:


----------



## Gaerek (Oct 27, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > bp4life71 said:
> ...



A bad shot is a bad shot. Running a bad shot through Photoshop turns it into a bad shot that was retouched. Photoshop can enhance a photo, but it cannot turn a bad shot into a good shot, ever.

Every factor a photographer brings to the table will help make his shots better. The question isn't whether a better camera can make a better shot. It's what factor can improve a shot. Photoshop (or whatever your photo editing program of choice is) is simply one factor. I shoot an XTi with basically entry level lenses. I've made some pretty nice shots, but I will never say that they couldn't have been better with higher end glass or a better camera body.

Take your XS into a dark room. Turn it to Av, turn the ISO up to 1600 and open your aperture as wide as it will go. Start shooting. Do the same thing with a 5d MkII, or a 1DS MkIII and tell me if you see a difference. There will be a difference, and photoshop will never be able to completely fix it.  It might get close, but you will lose sharpness. This is only one aspect of why photoshop isn't the only factor.

Let me ask you this, if you can take professional quality photos with your XS (and I know it's possible) why don't more pro's shoot Rebels? If you're correct in your assessment, then there should be no market at all for $5000+ camera bodies, because that $500 camera body is just as good and can do the same.


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 27, 2009)

I think this whole argument carried over from the film days when a camera was a light-tight box with a shutter. Yeah, some features mattered, but the lens was the important part. 

But, there are now a heckuva lot more variables with digital cameras. Full frame vs. Crop, ISO handling, color rendition, Bayer filter strength, etc. As technology speeds along, most of the new bodies have better features and it becomes less of a concern. But, an image from a 10d and a 5D mk2 are going to look significantly different. And not only because ones crop and ones not.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 27, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> But, an image from a 10d and a 5D mk2 are going to look significantly different.



Show me.


----------



## yogibear (Oct 27, 2009)

lol cant believe people are still talking about this.


----------



## Mendoza (Oct 27, 2009)

There seem to be two ways in which the camera matters:
1) Actual differences in image quality.  I'd love to see a comprehensive series of identical photographs with the same lenses and settings using low, mid, and high-end cameras.  The results would pretty much speak for themselves.
2) The extent to which the camera _facilitates _photography.  I've taken a number of really satisfying shots with my trusty _Canon Rebel XT_, but I also know that when the brightness of the scene drops below a certain level, the photos I would like to achieve are going to be difficult (cue tripod) or impossible.
(A third way in which the camera matters is of course the build quality.)


----------



## Shutter_to_think (Oct 27, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Show me.



That statement always cracks me up. It's kind of like Pee Wee Herman when he says 
"I know you are but what am I"?  LOL

Let's face it, *Antithesis* doesn't have to go out and buy both of those cameras to prove himself right. Logic dictates the fact.

Let's make a hypothetical situation:
Take both of them to an indoor, low light basketball game and see which one performs.
Now take them both out and do landscape, football, city night shots, moon shots, etc.
Put them both through the ringer. I guarantee the 5D mk2 will perform under ALL those conditions. I cannot say the same for the 10D. Admit it. It just will not outperform the mk2 plain and simple. To say they are just as capable is illogical.

_


----------



## Rekd (Oct 27, 2009)

Shutter_to_think said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Show me.
> ...



:lmao:


----------



## inTempus (Oct 27, 2009)

I bought a Hasselblad.  After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying they wanted to chat with me about doing some work for them.

It's all in the equipment people... it's all in the equipment.


----------



## usayit (Oct 27, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Haha, nope.



See what you did!! lol


----------



## itznfb (Oct 27, 2009)

inTempus said:


> I bought a Hasselblad.  After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying they wanted to chat with me about doing some work for them.
> 
> It's all in the equipment people... it's all in the equipment.



That thing is going to be a pain carrying through the jungle.


----------



## usayit (Oct 27, 2009)

inTempus said:


> I bought a Hasselblad.  After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying .....



they want their camera back...


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 27, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Antithesis said:
> 
> 
> > But, an image from a 10d and a 5D mk2 are going to look significantly different.
> ...



Buy them both for me and I will run stringent tests to see which one performs better :greenpbl:

For the reasons I stated before, they will produce different quality images. They're not both shooting on the same "film", so the "camera body doesn't matter" thing simply doesn't apply anymore. I think there are certain bodies that will perform better then others, simply from playing with different bodies and different brands. I think most dSLR's are capable of making perfectly acceptable images. I also think that "better" is a subjective term just asking for opinionated answers. Notice I said different and not better.

But, this is just another one of those topics that we all have different opinions about.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 28, 2009)

usayit said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > I *stole* a Hasselblad. After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying .....
> ...


 
I'd be calling too if that were the case.


----------



## JamesMason (Oct 28, 2009)

> I stole a Hasselblad. After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying .....



Keep it, we just hired ken rockwell


----------



## 5DManiac (Oct 29, 2009)

Aside from the lenses, full frame (or larger frame, even) produces sharper images than a smaller frame.  Whether its film or digital.


----------

