Are there any diferences between different SLR cameras?

[andremartins]

Hello,

I've got a question: are there any differences between different SLR cameras? I'm not refering to the camera bodies, but rather asking about the "product", the photographs, that come from different SLRs...

And, if there are, indeed, some differences, can they be clearly noticed?

Thanks .

[TPF Sponsor]

[Arpeggio9]

It's all in the lenses. Different ones make different results. Some lenses are sharper than the others. Some have slightly different saturation characteristics, faster, slower, Etc.

[MLeeK]

Yes, there is a difference, however in most instances you would need to be viewing under a microscope for the overall appearance. There is a difference in image size/ratio between crop sensor and full frame. And there is a difference in image size/ratio on a crop sensor canon to Nikon to...
You will see a difference in IQ between the lowest entry level DSLR's and the mid range and especially to the full frame. Most notably I can think of the Nikon D3100 or that series off hand. Does that make it BAD image quality? Heck no.

[Natalie]

The "product" is the result of various factors, including the camera body. A photograph taken with a full frame camera equipped with a given lens will look different from a photograph taken with a crop sensor camera with the same lens.

EDIT: MLeek beat me to it.

[O|||||||O]

A photograph taken with a full frame camera equipped with a given lens will look different from a photograph taken with a crop sensor camera with the same lens.

EDIT: MLeek beat me to it.

I think you guys need to double check what forum you are posting in.

[compur]

Yes, this is a FILM forum. You can find the digital forum down the hall. Thanks.

[O|||||||O]

And, Arpeggio9 said pretty much what I was going to say. The thing on the body that has the largest direct impact on the photos it produces is the mount, which determines your available lens selection.

[Natalie]

Damn, you're right. I don't browse by forum, just by "Active Topics" at the top of the page, so this thread is mixed in with hundreds of threads about digital photography. Disregard my post then.

[O|||||||O]

Damn, you're right. I don't browse by forum, just by "Active Topics" at the top of the page, so this thread is mixed in with hundreds of threads about digital photography. Disregard my post then.

Same way I browse. It still says "Film Discussion and Q&A" right next to the thread title though.

[Destin]

Newer, and higher end cameras will have better high iso performance, so they will provide VASTLY better photos in low light situations. Higher end cameras will also have better autofocus systems, so they will be much better at getting shots in focus, especially of objects that are moving fast (sports) and in low light. On top of that, higher end bodies will have better metering abilities, so when shooting in a semi-auto mode they will likely put out more consistently accurate exposures.

The other thing with pro bodies, is that they are faster, have more external controls, and are built better/weather sealed. Now I know those aren't image quality characteristics, but they will give a photographer the ability to miss less shots due to fiddling with the camera, and they will allow you to go out and shoot in weather conditions that you can't with a lower end camera, which could be the difference between whether you get an image or not, period.

Now, if we're shooting at base iso, with the same lens, and all the same settings, taking a photo of a stationary subject in good light you would be very hard pressed to find a difference in the image quality of a D3100 and a D4 (assuming the image from the D3s was cropped 1.5x so that it matched that of the D3100). Pro bodies don't really produce better image quality in situations where the lighting conditions are perfect and the subjects aren't moving. What makes them better is that they can maintain great image quality in adverse conditions (low light, fast moving subjects, bad weather, etc) that would cripple the ability of an entry level body.

EDIT -- Just realized that we're talking about film bodies here, didn't catch that in the beginning. Disregard the high iso comments, but the rest still applies.

[compur]

I wonder why digital photogs have so much trouble reading?

Maybe a picture will help ...




This is a FILM forum!

[andremartins]

Thank you for the answers so far (even the non-film photography related ones ^^), but, going back to my question... for instaces, don't the photographs that were taken with cameras whose body lacks quality differ from those taken with a high quality camera in a good condition ?

For example, Nikon cameras versus Kiev cameras...

[O|||||||O]

If the body has light leaks, that will affect the photo. Other than that, it's just a box to hold the film. Some boxes are fancier than others, lol.

edit
The "look" is from the lenses and the film used.

[andremartins]

So, could we say that all the fuzz that photographers make around Leica cameras is kind of exaggerated?

*lighting a match in here?*

[Arpeggio9]

Aside from body durability/quality, "FILM" SLR's are all very similar in basic concepts except that some might have different features like the selection of shutter speed. Some go to maximum 1000th a second and some do 2000th. Some have different light meter characteristics and such. There might be some difference in a type of shutter and how it lets the light in. There are vertical and horizontal travel focal plane shutter types. I don't know if that matters any, but it might. I hope someone else can clarify that for me.

I do think that leaf shutters in rangefinder cameras have different characteristics than slr shutters as far as how it lets the light in and the photo it produces under certain circumstances. My Yashica electro 35 gsn rangefinder/leaf shutter does its own vignetting at f1.7 with a low light situation. My yashica SLR never did vignetting at fastest apertures + low light... I think that has something to do with a type of shutter or even lens. Not sure on that one.