Is how expensive your camera is important or isn't it?

[photogir2002]

I've been photographing for newspapers, myself and a business for 14 years now. I don't have the best camera, I don't have the worst. I have an SLR, but it is a Canon Rebel xt EOS and xti. I want to upgrade, believe me I do, and I'm saving my money but for now I am using what I have.

I've heard it said it isn't the camera it is the person behind the camera...

What do you think?:meh:

 

[EPPhoto]

The newest camera with all the bells and whistles can make things easier at times. But you are most certainly correct that it's the person behind the camera that matters the most.

Don't get caught up in the "latest and greatest" or you'll never be satisfied, because as soon as you buy a camera, another cones out.

I think that if you're happy with your results your getting now, then keep it. But if you feel you've reached the limits of your current body, then by all means....UPGRADE!! lol

 

[analog.universe]

If you know what you're doing you can get great shots with whatever gear you've got, but that doesn't mean you can get every shot. Sometimes you need f/1.4 and low noise at ISO3200, or you're just not even going to take the lens cap off. Other times you're going to be at 5.6 and base ISO no matter what gear you've got, and it all comes down to technique and style. So if you're running into technological limits somewhere, maybe an upgrade will get you shots you can't get now. But if you're within the limits of your gear you may not see a difference in quality.

That being said the Rebels are limited a little bit ergonomically, as only some of the important variables have dedicated controls.

 

[skieur]

Well, it is the person behind the camera, but if you start noticing purple fringing, light fall off toward the edges or corners of the image, vignetting, drop off in sharpness toward the edges etc. then perhaps upgrading lens and/or camera might be helpful.

skieur

 

[D-B-J]

If you know what you're doing you can get great shots with whatever gear you've got, but that doesn't mean you can get every shot. Sometimes you need f/1.4 and low noise at ISO3200, or you're just not even going to take the lens cap off. Other times you're going to be at 5.6 and base ISO no matter what gear you've got, and it all comes down to technique and style. So if you're running into technological limits somewhere, maybe an upgrade will get you shots you can't get now. But if you're within the limits of your gear you may not see a difference in quality.

That being said the Rebels are limited a little bit ergonomically, as only some of the important variables have dedicated controls.

I agree. Don't upgrade until you feel limited by your camera.

 

[Derrel]

I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!

 

[skieur]

I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!

In 1977 my 71 VW almost dropped me onto the road beside the spare tire from the trunk due to total RUST. It was running on 2 cylinders with a rusted out muffler as well. If a police officer put his foot on the running board, the whole side of the car would have come off, also due to rust. What a terrible car!:thumbdown:

skieur

 

[Trever1t]

Oh stop

Some people can take a better photograph with their Iphone than I can with a super nice camera/lens and others with more expensive gear take lousy shots. Take an artist and give him crayons and he can draw a picture. Give him oils and he'll give you a masterpiece. Give a monkey either and you get monkey doo!

 

[Kerbouchard]

Of course gear matters. You need the right tool for whatever job you are doing. In the OP's case, the entry level Canons have quite a few limitations. Some of those limitations prevent you from taking shots in certain conditions and some of those limitations are just inconveniences like having to dive into menus to make basic adjustments. Whether those limitations are limiting you, as the photographer, is obviously not a decision that anybody on an online forum can make for you.

Everything from external controls, weather sealing, low light performance, focus accuracy, focus speed, ergonomics, etc, etc make the entry level Canon(and Nikon) offerings a poor choice for me. I prefer to be the limiting factor. I don't want to have to fight my gear to get a shot.

YMMV, but anybody that says gear doesn't matter is either not at a level where it does matter or they are fooling themselves. You can't hand a carpenter a saw and expect him to build a house. He has to have the right tools for the job. Photography is no different, and it can be very expensive to do right. Heck, most of us have lenses or flashes that cost more than our camera body, and it's not just because we like expensive toys(well, not completely anyway).

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions. Here is a good example... Professional Fashion Photo Results with an iPhone 3gs Professional fashion shoot using an Iphone...and tens of thousands of dollars in lighting, tripods, and a team of guys, hair/mua, professional retouching, etc. The ironic part, is the point of his video was that equipment doesn't matter...sure, whatever.

 

[Overread]

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions

You also have to define what a "great shot" is; because most of the time when people say that very low end gear can take great shots because its the photographer, they are talking purely from an artistic point of view with regard to content and composition - quality of the photo and the possible end-uses of it are often not considered factors.
You can take good photos with any gear provided you work within its limitations - however almost anyone who takes photography more seriously than snapshots aims to ensure that they have the best possible tools to produce the best results possible and to have the fewest limitations upon them when shooting - allowing them to better realise and create the art and compositions they want with the tools they have.

 

[Trever1t]

Oh, I'm in full agreement. My previous statement translates to: Expensive gear does not a photographer make

 

[Kerbouchard]

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions

You also have to define what a "great shot" is; because most of the time when people say that very low end gear can take great shots because its the photographer, they are talking purely from an artistic point of view with regard to content and composition - quality of the photo and the possible end-uses of it are often not considered factors.
You can take good photos with any gear provided you work within its limitations - however almost anyone who takes photography more seriously than snapshots aims to ensure that they have the best possible tools to produce the best results possible and to have the fewest limitations upon them when shooting - allowing them to better realise and create the art and compositions they want with the tools they have.

Good point. Great is definitely a relative term.

 

[Neil S.]

I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!

Although I don't see the reason to bash Canon (yet again), Derrel is right here.

It doesn't matter how good the photographer is, the quality of your photos is directly related to the quality of your gear. This will never change, and bad gear is bad.

You could never take the kind of photo that a DSLR + a high end telephoto (400mm 2.8L for example) could capture, on a cell phone camera. It is just not physically possible for so many reasons.

Also, high quality glass will provide far superior sharpness, color, contrast, and lower CA compared to crappy kit lenses.

High quality glass and DSLR lenses in general compared to P&S+cell phone ones provide for much larger apertures, superior speed of focus, etc, etc

Just last night walking around with my camera I was able to achieve focus lock in pretty much pitch black darkness with my 70-200 2.8. Do you really think a cell phone camera could do that?

And go try to shoot at 8 fps burst (like my 7D can) on a cell phone camera, then come back and tell me how it went. Hell even most film SLR are far superior to them in this area.

These are the cold hard facts people.

Good game, thanks for playing those of you who think that gear doesnt matter.

Even if it is true that an amazing photographer could take a better photo with an iphone than some noob could with a DSLR, what happens when you give the amazing guy the DSLR?

See my point?

Neil

 

[Neil S.]

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions. Here is a good example... Professional Fashion Photo Results with an iPhone 3gs Professional fashion shoot using an Iphone...and tens of thousands of dollars in lighting, tripods, and a team of guys, hair/mua, professional retouching, etc. The ironic part, is the point of his video was that equipment doesn't matter...sure, whatever.

Very well said.

Why on earth would you spend so much time setting everything up (pro lights, etc.) and then shoot with a call phone camera lol.

And imagine what a really good camera could do in the same exact setup.

Here are two images from the Leica S2 that I originally posted in this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ou-could-have-any-camera-body-what-would.html

1)

This is an actual pixels crop from the the 37.5 MP file that this monster of a camera sipts out.

2)

And heres one at full res

Go and do that with a cell phone, ill be here waiting for the results.

 

[Kerbouchard]

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions. Here is a good example... Professional Fashion Photo Results with an iPhone 3gs Professional fashion shoot using an Iphone...and tens of thousands of dollars in lighting, tripods, and a team of guys, hair/mua, professional retouching, etc. The ironic part, is the point of his video was that equipment doesn't matter...sure, whatever.

Very well said.

Why on earth would you spend so much time setting everything up (pro lights, etc.) and then shoot with a call phone camera lol.

And imagine what a really good camera could do in the same exact setup.

Here are two images from the Leica S2 that I originally posted in this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ou-could-have-any-camera-body-what-would.html

1)

This is an actual pixels crop from the the 37.5 MP file that this monster of a camera sipts out.

2)

And heres one at full res

Go and do that with a cell phone, ill be here waiting for the results.

Please don't quote me and use selective color in the same post. It makes me sad.