"Camera doesn't matter" fact not true?

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by KhronoS, Oct 24, 2009.

  1. KhronoS

    KhronoS TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Romania, Galati
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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
     
  2. AverageJoe

    AverageJoe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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?
     
  3. KhronoS

    KhronoS TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Romania, Galati
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  4. UUilliam

    UUilliam TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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"
     
  5. Dao

    Dao No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    418
    Location:
    St. Louis
    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?
     
  6. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,087
    Likes Received:
    3,756
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  7. Josh66

    Josh66 Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    14,604
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Location:
    Cedar Hill, Texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  8. gsgary

    gsgary Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,062
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Location:
    Chesterfield UK
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Some 40D's have a problem with soft images
     
  9. icassell

    icassell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  10. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,087
    Likes Received:
    3,756
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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 ;)
     
  11. GeneralBenson

    GeneralBenson TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  12. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,087
    Likes Received:
    3,756
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

annie leibovitz vs ken rockwell

,

carl zeiss sonnar 135mm f3.5 ken rockwell