What difference will the body actually make?

[Bifurcator]

I think that's totally untrue. You even disprove yourself in the very next paragraph.

Image quality includes many things that are directly related to the body. Noise amount and type are the biggest among them. This is 100% body related. Bokeh is another huge one and has a huge relationship with sensor size which again is body specific. Then there's the noise removal system - all body. Exposure computations based on algorithm, number, and type of light sensor - ALL body specific attributes. Then there are the properties of the individual image sensors out there each of which delivers quite different results in the image - so much so that I know people who can tell just by looking at the RAW what camera took the image with a fair degree of accuracy.

People here are right in that given the same sensor different bodies will probably not make a significant difference in IQ and that lenses will. But when talking of different bodies in general they do indeed make a huge HUGE difference in the quality of the resulting image. Arguably as much or more-so than lenses.

If you read someone saying anything different they're wrong - plain and simple.

 

[Village Idiot]

I think that's totally untrue. You even disprove yourself in the very next paragraph.

Image quality includes many things that are directly related to the body. Noise amount and type are the biggest among them. This is 100% body related. Bokeh is another huge one and has a huge relationship with sensor size which again is body specific. Then there's the noise removal system - all body. Exposure computations based on algorithm, number, and type of light sensor - ALL body specific attributes. Then there are the properties of the individual image sensors out there each of which delivers quite different results in the image - so much so that I know people who can tell just by looking at the RAW what camera took the image with a fair degree of accuracy.

People here are right in that given the same sensor different bodies will probably not make a significant difference in IQ and that lenses will. But when talking of different bodies in general they do indeed make a huge HUGE difference in the quality of the resulting image. Arguably as much or more-so than lenses.

If you read someone saying anything different they're wrong - plain and simple.

It totally depends on the body. The XT, 20D, and 30D all have 8mp 1.6x crop sensors with the DIGIC II processor. There's going to be very little difference between those. But jump to a 5D, 1DS MKII, etc... and there will be a big difference.

 

[Bifurcator]

Yes, very true, and part of the overall point. Thanks for pointing that out, you're right.

 

[djengizz]

I don't think a different body makes a lot of difference for making good pictures.
Of course technique can make our lives easier but it's never the main thing. Talent, originality and inspirations is what makes a good picture.
I'm always surprised how many people ask me what gear I use after seeing my pictures. It's a bit like asking a painter what brushes he uses.

Give a good photographer a toy cam and he / she will produce nice images.

 

[Village Idiot]

I don't think a different body makes a lot of difference for making good pictures.
Of course technique can make our lives easier but it's never the main thing. Talent, originality and inspirations is what makes a good picture.
I'm always surprised how many people ask me what gear I use after seeing my pictures. It's a bit like asking a painter what brushes he uses.

Give a good photographer a toy cam and he / she will produce nice images.

"Nice" and images and good image quality are two different things.

A toy camera might give you an "artsy" photo but the image quality will probably suck. Softness, grain, light leaks, and exposure problems might all be present. Something that you wouldn't get with an slr.

Like giving a sports photographer a 300D and telling him to take pictures at a high school football game vs. a 1D MKIII. 3.5fps vs. 10fps. Relatively crappy high ISO performance in comparison. A buffer that only allows like 15 jpgs instead of 150 jps (or whatever the real number is).

Comparing paintbrushes to digital cameras is not a valid arguement.

 

[RacePhoto]

I am just curious, I shoot a 350D right now, I was wondering if say a 20 or 30d would have better image quality? You can see my pics at www.jbatdesigns.com/photography

Thanks

40D might?

10.1-megapixel CMOS sensor

40D
3.0 " TFT LCD
Digic III processor
14-bit A/D converter
Double the shutter life of XTi
Partial weather sealing
1.6 lbs

XTi
2.5" LCD monitor
Digic II
12 bit
No spot metering
1.2 lbs

Nice page of comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-eos-40d-digital-slr-camera-review.aspx

But if I make the question something that has to do with some limits, like most of us deal with, and I had either $1100 for a new lens OR $1100 for a newer, old technology camera, I'd buy some nice L glass and get the new camera later.

I wouldn't replace a 350D with a 30D.

ps Canon 70-200mm USM f/2.8L lens (non-IS version) is around $1100 if you don't need the IS. 24-70mm f/2.8L also not IS. Since you do such a variety of work, it's hard to guess which would fit your needs better.

Just because I think the 70-200 is the magic bullet, deosn't mean you and other people will agree. It's sharp, it's bright... it's big, white and heavy. I like the range, although I end up with the 100-400 or a 400mm prime, (sports) on the camera more often, the 70-200 makes the best overall photos.

My next lens will probably be the 24-105 f/4L because I don't have enough short lenses and the 28-135 that I have is exactaly what people say it is. Soft compared to the L lenses.

Lenses before cameras is a very accurate generalization, which is almost always correct.

 

[Fiendish Astronaut]

I upgraded from the 350D to the 40D and I it does make a difference to me. I do a lot of concert photography and in those testing light conditions the 350D has difficutly focussing. The autofocus on the 40D is simply much better. And the spot metering makes a huge difference, as do the extra controls in the 40D. I can't speak for the 20D and the 30D but I'm very pleased I upgraded my body.

I agree however that the lens is the most important element. I'd still much rather have a decent lens on the 350D than the kit lens on the 40D without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Village Idiot]

That's because of DIGIC II vs. DIGIC III. III has better noise handling.