How much of the image quality is in the body?

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I've always been a firm believer in the fact that the quality of your glass gives you a quality picture. Let's say you have a canon kit lens, 18-55 and you have an L lens 18-55 (don't know if one actually exists, just an example) and I used both on a rebel xt, I would imagine the l lens would produce a better image. If I used the kit lens in say a 60d, would I expect the same image quality as was on the xt but just have jess grain?

 

[ruifo]

I've always been a firm believer in the fact that the quality of the photographer gives you a quality picture.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

 

[PersistentNomad]

As per usual, it's generally a mixture of things to create a quality image. It's not entirely equipment, but it's not solely the photographer either. The photographer has to know their gear and how to maximize its potential. With that said, though, there are some challenging situations that some gear just can't handle (I'm looking at you, low light) and depending on how severe the challenge is no amount of photographic skill can get the gear to overcome it.

 

[KmH]

. . . would I expect the same image quality as was on the xt [sic] but just have jess [sic] grain?

No. Because digital cameras can't have 'grain'.
Only film cameras can have grain.

Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

. . . would I expect the same image quality as was on the xt [sic] but just have jess [sic] grain?

No. Because digital cameras can't have 'grain'.
Only film cameras can have grain.

Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types

In a simplistic form, I know grain doesn't pertain to digital. But with an open mind, you know what I was getting at (noise).

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I've always been a firm believer in the fact that the quality of the photographer gives you a quality picture.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

Great example, I've watched a few of those but forgot about them. The reason I ask is I just purchased an 80D from a rebel XTI and I have yet to use it. I'm trying to figure out if I should upgrade the lenses I have or fill in the ones I want/need. I have the kit lens from the xti, the 18-55 cheapie along with a 75-300 II, and a 50mm 1.8. All non USM, all non IS. Before I sell off my xti, I plan to do photo comparisons for myself, but in a round about way I was trying to get an answer without asking directly lol. So now that the cat is out of the bag, thoughts?

 

[zombiesniper]

A quality lens will show IQ improvement but to what degree depends on the lens/camera combination.

I would suggest that since you've just upgraded your body, shoot with it for a while and see where you think your gear is failing you. Then make your decision based on this information, not based on what someone on the internet told you.....no offence to all of us on the internet was intended.

 

[john.margetts]

Whether or not you get an improved IQ or not depends on how you view the pictures. On a standard computer monitor without pixel peeping, you will not see much improvement nor will you on a 6x4 print. On an A3 print, an L series lens should give you a marked improvement.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so trying not to make this too long winded, but...

Lenses vary. Just because a lens has features such as stabilization doesn't mean that it is any sharper than a non stabilized lens. In fact it can often be the opposite. So when it comes to lenses I always recommend a lot of research first.

Camera bodies can give you better iq but its more situation oriented. My Nikon d5100 would take almost as good if images in certain situations as my d600. But the d600 allows me to capture better images consistently in a wider variety of situations than I could with the d5100.

In the end the biggest part of the equation will always be the linkage between the camera and the pavement.

So like ZS I always recommend you shoot with what you have till you figure out what limits the equipment is posing in the situations you shoot in, then determine what better equipment will provide and decide if it's worth the price difference based on how much use you'll likely get out of it.

However as ZS points out, I am just some guy in the internet, so as always YMMV. Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Peeb]

I think it depends.

I think that a fantastic piece of glass on a nikon D40 in low light might be disappointing.

I think that a terrible lens on a canon 1DX might be pretty disappointing.

I think that a fantastic lens and amazing modern body in the hands of an untrained or in-artful photographer might be pretty disappointing.

You see, there are MANY ways to make a terrible photo. Trust me- I know 'em all!

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

See my issue is my budget. I know what I need but it's different than what I can afford. Now having a body with video I have to be mindful of focusing noise if I so choose to make a video which factors into the usm lenses. I think an 18-135 and drop the 18-55 of the same or better maximum aperture would do me better. Just as a 70-300 with IS would do me good. I line the 50 but again, a 1.4 usm would do me good. But these are all upgrades to existing glass. I don't know whether to trade in my old body and 3 lenses and put the money towards one good 18-135 and start from scratch or... see we've my mind is at?

 

[Overread]

A few thoughts:

1) Camera bodies tend to have their greatest impact on image quality in two key areas:
a) Noise - ergo ISO performance. Better quality bodies (generally newer) will typically have improved ISO performance. This means less noise and often higher maximum ISO options. This means that you might well get improved imag quality when shooting in similar situations and the option of shooting in new situations when the new higher maximum ISO lets you work in darker lighting (that doens't just mean in evenings; but indoors etc..)

b) Resolution/cropping - this gets a bit complicated but at a very VERY general level newer bodies with newer generation sensors again show improved resolution and cropping capacity.

Note that many camera bodies use similar sensors so sometimes even going from an entry level to a midrange body (of the same sensor size) might well show little gain because they are working with the same generation of sensors. This info is often easily brought out in reviews and review websites.

2) Lenses typically control image quality to a greater extent as they capture and modify the light coming into the camera and thus to the sensor. Again you can see improved low light performance through a larger maximum aperture.
In general higher grade lenses will show improved performance - which will in turn affect things such as sharpness, clarity, reduced abberations, increased resolution etc...

3) For video the only silent motors are the STM ones; but they are limited in the range of lenses they are installed into at present. What you might find a superior investment angle is to look at video support kits which attach to your DSLR; giving you features such as manual focus control and improved handholding for video. There's a lot out there but I don't know that area of the market at all so I can't suggest any good nor budget friendly options; but its a consideration if you're serious about video.

 

[fmw]

Photographer aside, I think the tripod has more to do with image quality than either the lens or the camera. If I have to choose between the lens or the camera, I'll put the lens at the top of the list. It is possible to demonstrate lens sharpness, color, distortion etc with very modest levels of pixel density. We passed the need for more pixels some time ago.

 

[Solarflare]

I've always been a firm believer in the fact that the quality of the photographer gives you a quality picture.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

Yeah people keep saying that, but your link actually shows its wrong. You can get SOME nice pictures from even the crappiest of gear, and some of these tricks professionals come up to work around the limits of the gear are amazing. Still even they hit hard limits of the equipment, and the image quality of these series is of course still usually pretty atrocious.

As per usual, it's generally a mixture of things to create a quality image. It's not entirely equipment, but it's not solely the photographer either.

I agree. It depends upon the intended picture. Some pictures actually gain from lower quality. Obvious example: the popular conversion to back and white (more precisely grayscale).

 

[goodguy]

First factor of a good image is user but lets talk technical and leave human factor alone.
So many people say lens more important or body.
I came to the amazing conclusion that (again from a pure technical point) if you want best results then get a good camera and good lenses.