Quality

i was just wondering, what constitutes a good camera? like why is a canon 30d better than my pentax, why do certain cameras take better pictures, basically im asking what features enable a camera to take better pictures and then being able to justify the price

 

cameras don't take better pictures, you do
at most, lenses might help taking better pictures, since they're the eye of the camera. the other one eye is yours.

that being said, some cameras have certain features that you can benefit from. some of these can give you more freedom to get the picture you intend to, and i guess that these are the ones that make one camera better than another one. for example, if you want to freeze the movement of someone driving very fast, then a camera with fast shutter speeds as up to 1/8000 will be definitely better camera than one that only reaches 1/500. But as you can see it is you, your needs, and not the camera alone.

then we could also mention some other aspects that can be considered more objective and not so dependant of one's needs, as for example plastic vs metal: a metal body camera is better than a plastic one. and yet even something like this can be questioned: what if i don't want the camera to weigh? then plastic is better!

so... to sum up: it is how much its characteristics adapts to your needs what makes a camera good

 

What makes a Ferrari better than a Kia?? Build quality, durability (kind of the same), engine, options, a lot of factors go into it

 

oh, the price! you basically pay for the different features that the camera offers. so the one thing that justifies the price is whether you need/want those features you are paying for and so wouldn't be satisfied with a cheaper camera, that doesn't offer those features

my case: i intend to go digital some day (but continuing with film, of course ), but not until i can afford the camera. i probably could afford a, say, nikon d50 right now, or some pentax, etc., but for me these are bad cameras, because i want to use my older nikkor lenses. for this reason, the d200 is the good camera for me (for being the one that takes those lenses). but it is mainly this reason what makes it the good camera; otherwise, i might consider the cheaper d70 or d80 as the better camera

 

right. but don't forget that those pay a price, which might end up as cons that perhaps weigh more than the pros...

for example: i would never want a nikon f5. i definitely consider the f4 a better camera. and yet the f5 is the upgrade. so what happens? well, than if i were willing to carry that "thing" in my hands (which includes eight AA batteries!!) i just would go medium format!

so the little extra options or upgrades of this camera in particular over its predecessor don't justify, to me, such a bulky body.

so options are to be carefully taken into consideration...

 

lots of things contribute to quality in DSLRs. First off, the sensor and what it is capable of doing, how much noise it creates as a side effect of an analog device, the processor on the camera and how it creates the image that we see from that recorded light, the algorithims that help determine color reporduction, noise reduction applied in camera... and thats just the main stuff.

AF time/ability in low light and the ability to track a moving object, the metering system (which is what accurate exposure relies on).

There are just a lot of things, and when you buy an expensive camera you are paying for those features as well as better construction (materials, durability, weather proofing, ergonomics)

 

Don't confuse features with quality. They can affect flexibility but what makes a better camera better is the build quality. The ruggedness and reliability. The ability to run and hold together under trying situations. The features have nothing to do with photography. They have to do with camera operation. Photography has always been in the eye of the photographer and always will be.

I'm willing to bet that the same composition made with the two cameras would look very much alike given similar optical quality in the lenses and the same focal length and exposure. The method for getting there might be different. The systems attached to each camera might be different, but the photography would be the same.

 

Fred is absolutely right, quality is not the same as features. Whether a Canon 30D is "better" than your Pentax depends entirely on what you want from a camera. In terms of the images produced, one produces 6mp images and the other 8mp; but if someone took the same shot with equivalent lenses and made normal sized prints I very much doubt you'd be able to tell the difference. Now the Canon 30D has more features than the Pentax DL; in particular faster fps and longer continuous bursts. It is probably of stronger build but then your current camera has an internal metal frame beneath the plastic coating and the build is not that bad. Normally you would buy a camera with more features and stronger build because you need those features and need a tougher camera... if you don't then you wouldn't buy one Your camera doesn't have as many features as a 30D, D80, K10D, it doesn't have the build quality of a D200... but do they take "better pictures"? That's up to the person behind the viewfinder

 

try both at ISO 1600 or 3200 and you will probably see a difference in the quality of the image produced. Canon cameras are known for their very low noise at high ISO and this can be a big difference. I don't see it as a "feature" more a necessity if you want the best in quality.

I kind of agree to an extent with both FMW and xfloggingkylex. there are features that are useful but don't have a direct input to the quality of the image but there are also a few considerations that do affect the IQ like sensors and the availability of quality glass.

 

Interesting point but if Canon's sensor performance at high ISOs were a necessity then surely no-one would buy a Nikon, Pentax or anything else that doesn't use a Canon sensor?

 

There's other things that people care about too. Price, features and value for money.

However look at a sports match anywhere in the world. What's the percentage white to black lenses The Pros generally choose Canon and it must be for a reason.

I'm not saying they are right but at the low end that most of us are in there's other features that may be of more importance. Some people had Nikon or Pentax lenses previously and were happyu and just want to continue with these.... who knows?!

Choice is good and we all have differing priorities.

 

Ah but notice you said at a sports match... "the Pros" here means sports photographers Which doesn't include a fair number of other professional photographers. A lot of professionals shoot Nikon too... no argument though that the number who use Pentax or Minolta/Sony is much, much, much lower. That can be put down to Canon and Nikon being the only ones to offer 'professional' level bodies, however Minolta and Pentax previously offered excellent pro-level bodies but professionals still didn't use them and I don't think it was because they were of lower 'quality'... Canon and Nikon equipment is much more readily available; you can buy, hire or service their gear pretty much anywhere at any time compared to the other companies which makes it much more convenient and sensible to go for them. So yes there is a reason most professionals use Canon (and I would say "or Nikon") but it's not about the quality of the equipment. But of course like you say we all have priorities... I just wish more people realised that since so many people looking for a new camera seem think whatever the 'pros' use will get them 'more professional' shots