"Camera doesn't matter" fact not true?

[Gaerek]

PHOTOSHOP.

Will make your XS seem like a high end camera.

Too get the most out of your starter camera, get better at photoshop. Is it cheating? No, not at all. It takes skill to work photoshop.

Here's something to consider:

Canon XS+Lense+Photoshop= $750-$950 / Great Photo produced

Pro Camera+Pro Lense= $3000-$5000 / Great Photo produced

I'm just saying, you can have great looking pictures that are equal to the pro equipment if you know how to use Photoshop. Alot of people on here who spent all the money oh pro equipment might say otherwise, but honestly, I get some killer shots with my Canon XS that I honestly believe can not be any better with pro equipment.

Body not as important as the lense.....but the body can make the job easier with less post editing required.

You can't recreate amazing lighting in photoshop.

Oh but you can!

Thats where the "skill" part in photoshop comes into play.

A bad shot is a bad shot. Running a bad shot through Photoshop turns it into a bad shot that was retouched. Photoshop can enhance a photo, but it cannot turn a bad shot into a good shot, ever.

Every factor a photographer brings to the table will help make his shots better. The question isn't whether a better camera can make a better shot. It's what factor can improve a shot. Photoshop (or whatever your photo editing program of choice is) is simply one factor. I shoot an XTi with basically entry level lenses. I've made some pretty nice shots, but I will never say that they couldn't have been better with higher end glass or a better camera body.

Take your XS into a dark room. Turn it to Av, turn the ISO up to 1600 and open your aperture as wide as it will go. Start shooting. Do the same thing with a 5d MkII, or a 1DS MkIII and tell me if you see a difference. There will be a difference, and photoshop will never be able to completely fix it. It might get close, but you will lose sharpness. This is only one aspect of why photoshop isn't the only factor.

Let me ask you this, if you can take professional quality photos with your XS (and I know it's possible) why don't more pro's shoot Rebels? If you're correct in your assessment, then there should be no market at all for $5000+ camera bodies, because that $500 camera body is just as good and can do the same.

 

[Antithesis]

I think this whole argument carried over from the film days when a camera was a light-tight box with a shutter. Yeah, some features mattered, but the lens was the important part.

But, there are now a heckuva lot more variables with digital cameras. Full frame vs. Crop, ISO handling, color rendition, Bayer filter strength, etc. As technology speeds along, most of the new bodies have better features and it becomes less of a concern. But, an image from a 10d and a 5D mk2 are going to look significantly different. And not only because ones crop and ones not.

 

[Josh66]

But, an image from a 10d and a 5D mk2 are going to look significantly different.

Show me.

 

[yogibear]

lol cant believe people are still talking about this.

 

[Mendoza]

There seem to be two ways in which the camera matters:
1) Actual differences in image quality. I'd love to see a comprehensive series of identical photographs with the same lenses and settings using low, mid, and high-end cameras. The results would pretty much speak for themselves.
2) The extent to which the camera facilitates photography. I've taken a number of really satisfying shots with my trusty Canon Rebel XT, but I also know that when the brightness of the scene drops below a certain level, the photos I would like to achieve are going to be difficult (cue tripod) or impossible.
(A third way in which the camera matters is of course the build quality.)

 

[Shutter_to_think]

Show me.

That statement always cracks me up. It's kind of like Pee Wee Herman when he says
"I know you are but what am I"? LOL

Let's face it, Antithesis doesn't have to go out and buy both of those cameras to prove himself right. Logic dictates the fact.

Let's make a hypothetical situation:
Take both of them to an indoor, low light basketball game and see which one performs.
Now take them both out and do landscape, football, city night shots, moon shots, etc.
Put them both through the ringer. I guarantee the 5D mk2 will perform under ALL those conditions. I cannot say the same for the 10D. Admit it. It just will not outperform the mk2 plain and simple. To say they are just as capable is illogical.

_

 

[Rekd]

Show me.

That statement always cracks me up. It's kind of like Pee Wee Herman when he says
"I know you are but what am I"? LOL

:lmao:

 

[inTempus]

I bought a Hasselblad. After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying they wanted to chat with me about doing some work for them.

It's all in the equipment people... it's all in the equipment.

 

[usayit]

Haha, nope.

See what you did!! lol

 

[itznfb]

I bought a Hasselblad. After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying they wanted to chat with me about doing some work for them.

It's all in the equipment people... it's all in the equipment.

That thing is going to be a pain carrying through the jungle.

 

[usayit]

I bought a Hasselblad. After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying .....

they want their camera back...

 

[Antithesis]

But, an image from a 10d and a 5D mk2 are going to look significantly different.

Show me.

Buy them both for me and I will run stringent tests to see which one performs better :greenpbl:

For the reasons I stated before, they will produce different quality images. They're not both shooting on the same "film", so the "camera body doesn't matter" thing simply doesn't apply anymore. I think there are certain bodies that will perform better then others, simply from playing with different bodies and different brands. I think most dSLR's are capable of making perfectly acceptable images. I also think that "better" is a subjective term just asking for opinionated answers. Notice I said different and not better.

But, this is just another one of those topics that we all have different opinions about.

 

[Village Idiot]

I stole a Hasselblad. After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying .....

they want their camera back...

I'd be calling too if that were the case.

 

[JamesMason]

I stole a Hasselblad. After getting home I got a call from National Geographic saying .....

Keep it, we just hired ken rockwell

 

[5DManiac]

Aside from the lenses, full frame (or larger frame, even) produces sharper images than a smaller frame. Whether its film or digital.