"Camera doesn't matter" fact not true?

[KhronoS]

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

 

[AverageJoe]

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?

 

[KhronoS]

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?

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.

 

[UUilliam]

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"

 

[Dao]

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?

 

[Overread]

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.

 

[Josh66]

I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones.

Can anyone give me a reasonably explanation?

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.

 

[gsgary]

Some 40D's have a problem with soft images

 

[icassell]

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.

 

[Overread]

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.

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

 

[GeneralBenson]

I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones.

Can anyone give me a reasonably explanation?

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.

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.

 

[Overread]

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.

 

[Josh66]

I saw some differences in sharpness, and some obvious ones.

Can anyone give me a reasonably explanation?

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.

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.

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.

They are both 10.1 MP, but the sensor is physically bigger on the 1D.

40D sensor = 22.2 x 14.8 mm
1DmkIII sensor = 28.7 x 18.7 mm

Hmmm....
But - since the file output is the same size, I'm not sure if this is an issue (as it applies to this thread)...

 

[fiveoboy01]

Op didn't really clarify if they were using the same lens for each photo, and swapping it between bodies.

I've seen sharper than a tack images out of something as "lowly" as a D40 so I'm wondering if it's user error here, bad/cheap lens vs. expensive lens, or they're blowing the images up huge to inspect them.

 

[GeneralBenson]

So, MKIII was also aps-h? My bad.