"Camera doesn't matter" fact not true?

Ok let me clear this out... I used the same glass on the bodies. so no cheap lenses, i took care so that everything except the bodies are the same, values, lenses etc.

Second of all 40D has a 1.6x Crop factor and the 1D Mk3 has 1.3x crop factor (it's not the fullframe 1Ds Mk3).

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.

You gave me some sound explanation, and i too have the same view as you Glass first body second. Also i know that 70% of the photograph is the photographer skills, 25% it's the luck you have (i guess this applies the most to press/nature/photojurnalism photography) and 5% the gear you have.

After my experience one fact is clear i will buy the L glasses for sure, but the thing i want to get too is: "do i have to change the body too?"

I was very sure that with good glasses I could stick to 40D, but I guess i can't go back now... the 1D mk3 it's amazing, from a lot of aspects.

Also I'm not a totally beginner at this, it's just that all my concepts and ideas about this fact were kind of "denied". This is why i asked this.

I guess i got my answers. In the end the body has its importance.

Thank you guys :)
 
People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.
 
People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.

Agreed.

:headbang:
 
A top photographer with a $100 P&S will take a better picture than Great Aunt Nellie handed a Canon 50D

... with a better camera, the pro can take a great picture and have it come out that much better...

But any noob is capable of taking a bad picture with the best camera made.
 
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.

Good post Overread. Explained things nicely. Spot on, too IMNSHO.

After my experience one fact is clear i will buy the L glasses for sure, but the thing i want to get too is: "do i have to change the body too?"

I was very sure that with good glasses I could stick to 40D, but I guess i can't go back now... the 1D mk3 it's amazing, from a lot of aspects.

Also I'm not a totally beginner at this, it's just that all my concepts and ideas about this fact were kind of "denied". This is why i asked this.

I guess i got my answers. In the end the body has its importance.

Thank you guys :)
I'm with you. I know the importance of good glass. I've got a couple of old Canon lenses and the kit lens, and have every intention of getting better glass when I get better with the body.

On a side note, I got the back off, but there's no room for the film, and I don't know where that spring went... :confused:
 
People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.

Really?

How does the camera matter?

Basically - the camera is just a box to hold the lens. In that sense, it doesn't matter how much your box costs compared to mine. The lens you stick on the front is what matters.

But, they do more than just hold a lens, don't they?
Some cameras have higher ISO than others, bigger sensors, better viewfinders, higher frame rate, etc...

How much does all that stuff really matter though? For some people, it matters a lot.
For the vast majority of people, it doesn't make one bit of difference.

Sure, it makes life easier, but for the most part, it doesn't unlock any new possibilities that were not possible on a lesser body.

Show me a shot from a high end body, 1D or something, that is just not possible on a Rebel. Resolution & ISO aside, the only difference I can think of is the max shutter speed (1/4000th vs. 1/8000) and the frame rate.

There aren't many situations where those two specs would really matter that much... High ISO really only applies to low light shooting, which for most people, while nice to have, doesn't occupy the bulk of their photography.


I don't think the camera matters (much), and I don't even have a fancy one.
Sure a good camera is better than a crap camera, but the lenses are much more important.
 
pssst OIIIIO you totally forgot about AF speed and accuracy ;)
Whilst is also something defined by the lens itself, a top range camera body has far improved accuracy and speed of AF (at least in locking onto a subject) than a low end one - couple that with a faster FPS and it makes a heck of a difference if the shooter is doing any sort of action/motion based work
 
Wouldn't it be fair to say all of these arguments go out the window when you need to shoot in low light with moving subjects?
 
Wouldn't it be fair to say all of these arguments go out the window when you need to shoot in low light with moving subjects?

Of course. I thought that was implied in my post...

How often is that the case though?
Rarely for me, I'm not everybody though...
 
Wouldn't it be fair to say all of these arguments go out the window when you need to shoot in low light with moving subjects?

Of course. I thought that was implied in my post...

How often is that the case though?
Rarely for me, I'm not everybody though...

Right well, I think that's what we are boiling this down to, photography is subjective and the "hardware" needed to create that subjective art is dependent on the individual and their intended outcome. Which is also to say I'm not going to shoot models walking down a runway with a point and shoot throw away and get what I want.
 
Erm has this thread completely missed the point in the entire camera doesn't matter arguement? Give your 1D and your 40D to a 15 year old who's never used a camera. They will likely give them back with equally **** photos.

Your 1D didn't make you the photographer you are today. You did. The camera has always mattered as far as ultimate picture quality and noise response, but a good picture can still be a good picture when it's slightly soft with low tonal range and lots of noise.

Anyone who doesn't believe this should get the TimeLife greatest pictures of the 20th century.
 
For the vast majority of people, it doesn't make one bit of difference.

I LOLed. :lmao:

Why?
Nothing, really. Just thinking to myself that you're probably not in any real position to say what "the vast majority of people" think or feel when it comes to whether it "doesn't make one bit of difference" whether they have a better sensor or faster burst or more resolution or or or. Nothing personal and not meant to be a dig at you, just an explanation of why I LOLed.

How many times was 1/4000th not fast enough for you?
How many times was 3 FPS not fast enough?

Since 2006 I've been shooting motorsports professionally* with a Sony Cybershot DSC H5. On a good day I can fire about a shot a second. Usually not. My shots are usually planned ahead of time because it's so easy to miss it when you get one or two chances.

In the last month since I've been using a 50D and a 7D, I've found multiple times where I have had one obviously better shot in a series done at 6ish FPS. With that in mind, if you cut the number of FPS in half, the odds of having that one shot are, well, cut in half.

* Before any of you real photogs rail on me for claiming to be a "professional", please realize that it is a term relating only to the fact that I get paid for it.

I'm a pretty obvious n00b when it comes to manual (DSLR) shooting. It's been a couple decades and I've never done motorsports with a manual camera, so I'm at the beginning of a long road of learning.

Your 1D didn't make you the photographer you are today.
True, but my 7D will likely make me the photographer I will be one year from today. :p

:edit: And to clear the air, if I had Nikon left-over's from the film days, I would be claiming this with a D300s or some such thing... I chose Canon because I have lenses that work until I can afford better ones. :p
 
Last edited:
Erm has this thread completely missed the point in the entire camera doesn't matter arguement? Give your 1D and your 40D to a 15 year old who's never used a camera. They will likely give them back with equally **** photos.

I agree with you

I do want to ask something else though, say you were to give a 15 year old who had never used a camera a P&S and a 1DS3 + L lenses you then gave them a year, would you see more difference in his growth as a photographer with the nicer camera and lenses or with the shi**y one?

My suggestion is that at that point in time yeah the camera wouldn't make much difference, but give the kid a year and if the kid has any interest he would grow far more much faster with the better camera and lenses.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top