| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2009 11:22:21 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I've said this before and it echoes what has already been said:
I believe the 80/20 rule applies. 80% is the photographer and 20% is the gear, but ONLY if the photographer has the knowledge and skill to take advantage of what superior gear offers. |
On this I will agree, and that is the reason that SI, ESPN, and many others can't just hand the same equipment their photogs use to any Joe who calls himself a photographer and end up with the same results.
But depending on what you shoot will depend on the percentage split. I tend to think what you shoot raises the bar on what your equipment needs to be. No other camera I have had would shoot this image and come close to the quality. Mainly because none would shoot 6400ISO.
Matt |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 11:49:17 AM · #27 |
I went from a D70s to a D200 and noticed a marked improvement almost immediately. Funny thing is......they're basically of the same family & vintage, just a difference between a professional grade unit and a more basic DSLR.
I really wanted a D300, and I was starting to push the D70s harder and aask more from it than it could give.....and I knew it, so I felt justified in moving up. I felt that I had outgrown it as my main body.
I'm just not all that technically knowledgeable, so I can't give you chapter and verse on why & how it does better, I *can* tell you I notice quite the difference in the quality, and ability to capture images much better than with my old camera.
Look at my work sionce June, and you'll see a difference.....I've replaced three of five images on my profile page, and that's none to shabby since the lowest one on the page before that D200 was a 6.6667.
I still use the D70s occasionally.....I'll never get rid of it as long as it works simply because it isn't worth squat, and it was my first DSLR. Oddly, I feel like I take better pictures with it now.....
I guess that I feel that this is somewhat of a reasonable answer to your question since I pretty much shot solely with my 18-200 on the D70s, and all I did was to change the body behind it. I have since acquired a 12-24, but I also feel that I might not have bought that lens for the D70s.
Hope this helps.....
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 11:57:20 AM · #28 |
The upgrade from my D50 to my D200 didn't improve my photography... but it certainly gave me the push to go out shooting more... I'd just spent a damn fortune on a new body!
And it also made me go out and replace all of my bad glass... but that's another story...
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 12:06:20 PM · #29 |
Back in the film days I used to advise people to invest more in the optics and less in the camera. You couldn't really tell the difference in most cases in pictures taken with a high quality lens on a Nikon FM vs. a Nikon F4. I thought it was silly to spend big bucks on a highend camera but then compromise with an after market lens, but you saw people doing it all the time. The main camera considerations were durability, flash sync speed, motor drive FPS, and metering capabilites. But none of that had anything do to with image qaulity.
In the digital age, the optics are still important, but now you have to consider sensor size, resolution, and a whole host of other things that do affect image quality.
So upgrading a digital camera can have a huge impact on the quality of your images. It may not be so obvious when looking at the images on DPC at 800 px, but when you consider printing, you will be able to print larger higher quality prints with a Canon 5D Mark II than say a Rebel or a Point & Shoot camera, even if the megapixel count is close to the same.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 12:09:48 PM · #30 |
| A better camera can give you additional capabilities but it will not make you a better photographer. For example... I moved to a 5D MKII because I was shooting a wedding with a demanding client in very low light. That body gave me several stops of additional ISO without running into noise issues. In the future the 5D MKII will also give me more pixels to work with for some very large prints that I would like to do. BUT, I was probably a better photographer back when I was shooting with my 10D. I was less worried about what a client wanted and could simply focus on growing as a photographer. Another example... I recently looked at a magazine article with many photos from iPhones. The images absolutely blew me away and I wanted so badly to be as good as those people shooting with their iPhones. Yes my dSLR has more capabilities and can make images in situations where the iPhone cannot even shoot, but that is a statement of technical capabilities rather than photographic skills. I honestly believe fewer capabilities, rather than more, can make you a better photographer. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 12:18:49 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
People always want to try and say that its not the gear its the photog, but while that is true in respects to having the "eye" for it, ultimately lackluster equipment will hold you back. |
I gotta agree with this... I get upset when I look at a lot of my pictures and see the lack of detail, wondering how much better they could have been with a better camera... detail really makes it. Especially in the shadows, for the D2h. Look at so many of the top shots here, they sharp, crisp, and huge range of tones. Well, this is def true for landscape shots, which are what i like to get into. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 12:47:31 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I've said this before and it echoes what has already been said:
I believe the 80/20 rule applies. 80% is the photographer and 20% is the gear, but ONLY if the photographer has the knowledge and skill to take advantage of what superior gear offers. |
On this I will agree, and that is the reason that SI, ESPN, and many others can't just hand the same equipment their photogs use to any Joe who calls himself a photographer and end up with the same results.
But depending on what you shoot will depend on the percentage split. I tend to think what you shoot raises the bar on what your equipment needs to be. No other camera I have had would shoot this image and come close to the quality. Mainly because none would shoot 6400ISO.
Matt |
yes, i agree with this point that the use of the camera is a main deciding factor on which direction to go as far as type of gear. Whether I am shooting fast moving sports, still life, weddings, studio, portrait... what I'm using is useless for most of this. Actually I can do ok with slow or still objects althoug portraits are even difficult. Maybe just upgrading to a really good lens would make an incredible difference.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 01:12:35 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I went from a D70s to a D200 and noticed a marked improvement almost immediately. Funny thing is......they're basically of the same family & vintage, just a difference between a professional grade unit and a more basic DSLR.
I really wanted a D300, and I was starting to push the D70s harder and aask more from it than it could give.....and I knew it, so I felt justified in moving up. I felt that I had outgrown it as my main body.
I'm just not all that technically knowledgeable, so I can't give you chapter and verse on why & how it does better, I *can* tell you I notice quite the difference in the quality, and ability to capture images much better than with my old camera.
Look at my work sionce June, and you'll see a difference.....I've replaced three of five images on my profile page, and that's none to shabby since the lowest one on the page before that D200 was a 6.6667.
I still use the D70s occasionally.....I'll never get rid of it as long as it works simply because it isn't worth squat, and it was my first DSLR. Oddly, I feel like I take better pictures with it now.....
I guess that I feel that this is somewhat of a reasonable answer to your question since I pretty much shot solely with my 18-200 on the D70s, and all I did was to change the body behind it. I have since acquired a 12-24, but I also feel that I might not have bought that lens for the D70s.
Hope this helps..... |
I understand your thinking behind upgrading the lens. It seems like a pro-grade lens on a entry-level camera doesn't make sense to the average consumer, but I think it might be a good way to make a good leap in quality.
I can't however judge image quality by how well it does here on dpc. Content is too important in these challenges and too greatly affects placement. Two of my highest placed images were taken with a 3 mp point-and-shoot and the image quality really isn't there.
I guess when it comes down to it we are really talking about two major factors when describing a "good" photo. One is really content related, how the subject affects the viewer and the other is the technical (camera and lens related) quality which doesn't necessarily have to be all that good especially in certain types of photography, like photojournalism and certain artsy photos.
So in light of this I was referring to the technical side when I posed the original question.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 02:05:58 PM · #34 |
You probably need to define the meaning of Better for yourself--there are lots of possible definitions, meanings that could be applied individually, or in groups
It isn't really about the gear giving you better shots, but whether the gear will be more helpful in getting better shots. Unless you are doing some very unique and specific types of photography, specialized gear is not necessary. I know a pro who brings his cheapest body to teach workshops because he wants to emphasize that the good shots he demonstrates for us are not because he has the most expensive gear.
HOWEVER the gear can make a big difference, good or bad. If you find that you are reaching the limitations of your camera, that you miss shots or have to work extra hard to achieve the results you want, you may well want to upgrade. Another thing that can help you is features that make your job as photographer easier--the camera won't take better pictures, but it may be less "in your way". If you need to be able to shoot available light, low noise, high iso handheld shots at night, well then an expensive upgrade will clearly improve your images. But simpler, more subtle changes can enhance your user experience, so your attention is on the image capture, rather than operating the camera or compensating for some missing feature.
I upgraded from the D80 to the D90. Did my image quality immediately improve? No. I could have taken the same shot, same lens, with either body and had images with barely detectable differences. But, and this is a big But, there are features on the D90 that provide much more assistance to me as I shoot, so I can achieve better images with less "mechanical" effort.
If you want to buy something that makes an immediate, obvious difference in image quality, great lenses will do that.
Think about the shots you got but were not satisfied with the result--what feature(s) on a new camera would have made them better, if any. Think about the times you just didn't attempt a shot because you knew you couldn't get it with your gear--what gear/features would have allowed you to get those shots.
When you find that the camera you have is Getting In Your Way, it is time to change.
It is also worth re-iterating what others have said: getting a new camera with new features can excite and re-energize you, and new capabilities can encourage you to attempt new things as you learn the camera. So there are lots of other reasons that a new camera can be good for your photography :-)
Message edited by author 2009-12-03 14:11:30. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 02:06:16 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
...I believe a good photographer can make super shots with any camera but would he make considerably better images with a better camera?
Has anyone made a major upgrade and noticed a marked improvement undeniably linked to the change of gear? |
...which begs the question, what would be a better camera?
A long time ago, I upgraded from a Sony 717 to a Canon DSLR. I was, apparently, not longer able to reproduce a) a certain kind of photograph I had considered my signature shot and b) engage in a particular way of shooting I had enjoyed and become accustomed to. On the other hand, I could now produce photographs with a higher resolution and, consequently, print them larger. I also learnt, over time, to use the DSLR more effectively and began to come up with very deliberate shots I could not, technically, have achieved under relatively adverse conditions. I now own two DSLRs, have learnt a little more, but can still not honestly say that my photography has improved due to the use of what most people would consider a better camera. My main gripe with digital DSLRs, made in Japan, is that they are cumbersome and, despite their better focus/write speed, slow to use and somewhat ostentatious and intimidating for a human subject to behold. They are also more of an obstacle to than a medium for seeing and composing ad hoc and/or through the viewfinder.
When I added a Leica D-Lux 4, a point and shoot (with an oversized sensor and full manual and RAW capabilities) for all intent and purposes, this year, I soon rediscovered the joy and immediacy of the process of photography. Yes, a DSLR is more than technically capable of capturing the same shots taken through the smaller p & s. Yes, a DSLR produces less noise under poor conditions and in low light. Yes, the frame rate is higher and, yes, I can get larger prints out of it, but I am even reluctant to say that its IQ would be better than that of the Leica. It is, no doubt, technically better, but aesthetically? Well, that, I find, very much depends on the shot and your sense of it.
After having extensively used about a dozen digital cameras over the years, this is what I come away with: my photographic future will not be occupied with DSLRs, despite the fact that they are great for certain predictable set-ups and situations that can be anticipated and while they are also quite affordable these days, I want as little technology to stand between me and my subjects. I want, instead, to engage with locale and people as directly and simply as possible, so I may be able to remain aware of where I am and what I shoot. If, as old man HBC believed, photography is all about the decisive moment, about syncing all the variables, then the better camera should be one that doesn't get in the way.
Message edited by author 2009-12-03 19:03:54. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 03:04:40 PM · #36 |
a 'better camera' to me comes with improvements with regards to dynamic range, color reproduction, WB accuracy, noise handling, how big i can reproduce an image (resolution) and for some things, responsiveness and speed of shooting/operation.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 04:04:40 PM · #37 |
| I shoot with the same camera as you, and I really like it. I didn't have the money to purchase a more expensive camera and lenses. So...I purchased the Panasonic LX3 which is a specialized point & shoot which I carry in situations when I don't want to mess with the bigger Olympus camera. The LX3 handles low light situations very well...has a very wide fast lens....and makes a wonderful candid street photography camera. It also shoots in raw, and is considered one of the most manual point and shoots out there. I also like the ability to shoot HD video too. Between the two cameras I feel like I have everything I want covered and then some. When I first got the LX3 I got so excited over it that I used it in almost every situation, but now I find myself picking up my Olympus more and more too. Both cameras present challenges to me in different ways, and that keeps my photography fresh and new to me. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 04:21:25 PM · #38 |
| I am enjoying my fairly new Panasonic Lumix LX3,too. Almost identical to the Leica D-Lux 4. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 04:59:53 PM · #39 |
| better tools are better because they give better results when in the hands of a person who knows how to use them! |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 05:04:36 PM · #40 |
My most impressive images to date were made with an empty cereal box.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 05:42:26 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by bvy:
My most impressive images to date were made with an empty cereal box. |
you forgot that pinhole lense.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 05:58:50 PM · #42 |
| When I upgraded from the D-50 to the D-200 for a few weeks my pictures looked horrible, But over time I got used to all the extra features and figured out how to work the damn thing. And my photo quality did improve. Since then I have moved up to the D-300, But that was not to try and improve, It was because the D-200 was starting to get old and I found a great price on the D-300 and thought it would be best to update while I could do it for a reasonable cost. Again image quality improved a slight. But I still take the crappy shots even with the better camera. But more often than not, I get better shots, Not any fault of the camera howeve. I have been putting more thought into my photos, take a bit of time before hand to plan a shot compose it, take a few test shots and then I spend a bit of time playing around cleaning up the image in photoshop. I would answer your question with a Maybe, It really does depend on how willing you are to learn how to use a newer/better camera how much effort you are going to put towards taking the photos and how you choose your subjects. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 06:02:54 PM · #43 |
 zeuszen's response reminds me that photography can be more of a sport than a production; I know that when I run out onto the field I want my stick or my boots or my horse to be a friendly part of me as opposed to an awesomely superior tool or weapon that I have to fit myself around.
 bvy's empty cereal box may represent the ultimate in friendly equipment.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 07:55:00 PM · #44 |
I don't think a camera upgrade in itself makes you better, if getting a new camera makes you get out there and shoot more, learn better techniques, try more different things then yes but it's more a secondary effect.
A new camera with more abilities may give you more tools to work with and allow you to shoot in more situations but depending on what you like or don't like to shoot a new camera might not make any difference. As has been said many times new glass can make images sharper allows your current camera to have more range. If you go far down the lens path it's tough to switch brands as you'll have a lot invested by that time. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 07:57:02 PM · #45 |
| I don't know about better, but it 100% makes you poorer. (unless someone else buys it for you of course. ;o) |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 10:19:38 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by tnun:
zeuszen's response reminds me that photography can be more of a sport than a production; I know that when I run out onto the field I want my stick or my boots or my horse to be a friendly part of me as opposed to an awesomely superior tool or weapon that I have to fit myself around. |
I have found that since I was willing to make the concession to the bulk for the quality, and I believe that any tool can be made less cumbersome with intense immersion and experience, that my large DSLR is worth the little extra hassle. I take it everywhere, shoot every day, and since the thing is such an integral part of my life I don't consider it a burden at all.
Someone made an allusion to teh aspect of the large and intimidating camera, yet most people who are around me don't even see the thing any more, and since I am so used to carrying it, through all of life, you'd be surprised how innocuous it is. I generally have it tucked under my arm, or slung around my back, dangling off my hand......it's just not sitting on a strap in the center of my chest like a cyclops eye.
It's just so much a part of my life....
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 10:23:42 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
After having extensively used about a dozen digital cameras over the years, this is what I come away with: my photographic future will not be occupied with DSLRs, despite the fact that they are great for certain predictable set-ups and situations that can be anticipated and while they are also quite affordable these days, I want as little technology to stand between me and my subjects. I want, instead, to engage with locale and people as directly and simply as possible, so I may be able to remain aware of where I am and what I shoot. If, as old man HBC believed, photography is all about the decisive moment, about syncing all the variables, then the better camera should be one that doesn't get in the way. |
This is quite an interesting line of thought and I'll have to agree pretty much. I'm not exactly sure i understand what is getting in the way. I can see how a large bulky camera can be an intimidating obstruction in portrait photography and a weighty burden when traveling and hiking, is that what you mean? Or are you referring to the endless buttons and complicated menus you must contend with? I have been shooting with my E-500 for about 3 years now and still have trouble making quick changes on the fly. I don't like using auto settings much because there always seems to be a compromise with that. I know there are ways around some of the auto-ness, like focus lock and exposure lock but for me it just gets too confusing. In time i suppose, with enough practice you become less and less distracted by the camera itself and focused more on the subject.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 10:29:33 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by bvy:
My most impressive images to date were made with an empty cereal box. |
you forgot that pinhole lense. |
Oh, yes. The pinhole lens is made from a pie tin.
Check out tph1's profile. He buys old cameras from flea markets and develops his film in coffee. The results are often jawdropping. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 11:01:16 PM · #49 |
| For myself, I've found the switch to a more pro lens/camera has made a world of difference. Not so much in what I'm shooting, but in how much more control I have over what I'm taking a shot of. I upgraded from an S3 IS to a 5D Mark II/24-105mm. I agonized over the decision of what DSLR and whether I actually needed to get one, given that I could take good shots on my S3. However, now that I've gone to the higher camera and lens, I find that quality of my shots are better, and that I can take them a lot faster. Going back to the S3, I find it poky and easier to leave in P mode. On the 5D MKII, I can't imagine shooting in anything but M! |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 11:06:59 PM · #50 |
I as well have agonized over this delimna.......and if you look at my results in challenges lol well never mind.....I finally came to the conclusion that lenses are more important than the body. I do want to upgrade my also Olympus e 500 and was looking at the Canon whatever but than decided that the Olympus e 30 is what I'm going to go with.....I am familiary with olympus I love my e 500 as we have grown a lot together having an upgrade of the same brand being able to interchange lenses and then hoping to spend my future investment in better lenses is what my final thoughts came to. but I don't know half the stuff the rest of the group knows so you might listen to them Originally posted by briantammy:
i've been wanting to upgrade my camera for some time now but i'm not sure is such an investment is worth it. I want my photography to improve but I don't know if I just lack the needed practice and technique or if the camera is holding me back. I believe a good photographer can make super shots with any camera but would he make considerably better images with a better camera?
Has anyone made a major upgrade and noticed a marked improvement undeniably linked to the change of gear? |
|
|
