Posing an Interesting Question

[shovenose]

So, here's the thing - will a more expensive camera (for example a D7100) consistently take better pictures than a more mid-range/budget DSLR like my(well, any) D3200, for example? Of course, hypothetically, the same person in the same situtation.
Will a more expensive camera let a beginner take better photos, or would a beginner be better off with something cheaper?

I'm not talking about myself, because I'm completely satisfied with my D3200, but I just am curious to see your thoughts.

All the best,
Michael

 

[peter27]

If the camera is too complicated, then a beginner will find it difficult to hold their head above water. My advice would be to start with a relatively simple camera and get a firm grasp of the basics before kicking on to more sophisticated equipment. I think more expensive cameras can enable you to take a different type of photo, but only once you're ready to do so.

 

[EIngerson]

If the same photographer shot with each camera through the same conditions. yes.

 

[Golfcart]

I completely understand your question however, if you flip it around. I would feel 100% comfortable shooting a Wedding with a 3200 in Manual mode. I AM NOT SAYING I OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULD shoot a Wedding with a 3200, but if you understand the settings and how to control them you can tell the camera what to do rather than the camera tell you what to do. All camera's have shutter speeds, apertures, and ISO, with that being said...those are the 3 things that control your exposure. Of course, the 3200 will be noisy when shooting at higher ISO's, but you pretty much get the same 3 basic controls on every camera. When you spend more money for a camera you do get a couple more bells and whistles along with the capability of shooting higher iso's with less noise. A better camera will never make a better photographer.

Hope this helps.

 

[bratkinson]

Having been behind the lens for over 50 years, when I made the transition from film to digital in 2003 or so, I started simple with a Canon G-3 point and shoot. While I quickly realized that there's a "million" settings in the menu to fool with, I quickly realized that the exposure triangle was unchanged, except ASA is now ISO. White balance and a myriad of other settings took too long to fully comprehend.

Moving forward through a G-5, 30D and 60D, the menus grew evermore complex and difficult to understand. I've had my 5D mark iii for over a year now and there's STILL a number of menu items I still don't comprehend. And, for what it's worth, I'm a retired mainframe computer consultant that still builds his own (and others) computers.

So...put a high-end camera with perhaps 20 or so menu 'index' screens, each with 5-6 menu items on it, and each item has mulitple options and settings as well...so now, you have about 200 different things to learn. IN ADDITION TO THE EXPOSURE TRIANGLE that a photography newbie should learn first?

Oh...did I mention post processing software learning curve as well?

Bottom line, putting a newbie in a high-end camera would be akin to a 16 year old with a single engine pilots license in the captains seat of a 747.

As for will a better camera take better pictures? If one considers composition, lighting, and intentional DOF considerations, then one camera will work almost as well as any other camera in the hands of the same shooter. I say 'almost' because the low light shooting at high ISO speeds gives far less noise on the 5Diii than the 60D or 30D. As for a newbie on Auto mode, there won't be any noticable difference.

 

[hamlet]

I am of the opinion that whatever level you are at, you should invest in very good glass even if you don't understand anything yet. But the dslr body is something you should keep simple until you get a hold of all the basics. Even something like cleaning your own camera is best learned on a cheaper body, because if you mess up then its only your starting body that paid the ultimate price but you are wiser for it in the future.

 

[robbins.photo]

So, here's the thing - will a more expensive camera (for example a D7100) consistently take better pictures than a more mid-range/budget DSLR like my(well, any) D3200, for example? Of course, hypothetically, the same person in the same situtation.
Will a more expensive camera let a beginner take better photos, or would a beginner be better off with something cheaper?

I'm not talking about myself, because I'm completely satisfied with my D3200, but I just am curious to see your thoughts.

All the best,
Michael

Well in most shooting situations where there is plenty of light assuming the same technique is used then for the most part you won't see a huge difference in IQ between an entry level DSLR and some of it's more advanced cousins. Really I think the more advanced cameras add in features and benefits that will allow an experienced photographer to get more shots that are worth keeping and make it easier to get shots in more challenging situations. There is also a difference in build quality to a certain extent.

The more expensive the body, generally the better the lowlight performance, for example. The more frames per second they can manage. Some of them have features like dual memory card slots, or full frame sensors. So while you might see some subtle differences in IQ between say a D7100 and your D3200 really the biggest benefits to the D7100 are going to be more from the ability to alter things like your ISO setting quickly with the press of a button rather than having to go through the menu to accomplish that goal.

Then of course you also have features like weather sealing, and even if you don't plan on going out and shooting in a thunderstorm it still makes the camera a lot less susceptible to moisture, dust, and other things that might be harmful to your cameras innards.

 

[runnah]

If the same photographer shot with each camera through the same conditions. yes.

Bingo.

Camera doesn't make the photo.

 

[JoeW]

So, here's the thing - will a more expensive camera (for example a D7100) consistently take better pictures than a more mid-range/budget DSLR like my(well, any) D3200, for example? Of course, hypothetically, the same person in the same situtation.
Will a more expensive camera let a beginner take better photos, or would a beginner be better off with something cheaper?

I'm not talking about myself, because I'm completely satisfied with my D3200, but I just am curious to see your thoughts.

All the best,
Michael

Absolutely not. A more sophisticated camera provides more tools, more options. If you don't know how to use those tools or options, than it's like they aren't part of the camera. For instance, a better camera should allow you (generally speaking) to shoot more FPS. But if you don't know how to use that capability, it's wasted. A better camera can allow you to shoot up to 64000 ISO. But if you don't know how to use ISO or even adjust it, it's wasted. A better camera can give you better sync options with your speed lights. But if you don't know how to use a speed light, let alone set sync speeds, it's as if your camera didn't have that options.

And...in some cases all of those menus and buttons and options just overwhelm a beginner. And....there's the issue of ergonomics. your D3200 doesn't have a drive motor in the body so it's smaller and easier to hold. If we put a Nikon D4s in your hands....well, the D4s is not just a better camera than a D3200, it's in a different world, it's the standard for photojournalists and sports photographers. But someone who loves working with a D3200 might very well find the D4s to be unusable--impossible to hold and manipulate...much like the difference between holding a Glock-17 9mm (32 ounces loaded) vs. a Barrett .50 cal. rifle (32 pounds unloaded). Different tools that operate totally differently. The Barrett is a far more capable tool/weapon capable of outperforming the Glock in most regards but if you aren't trained for it, the Barrett is like carrying around an anvil.

I'm currently shooting with a D7000. I can safely say that I don't use 90-95% of the technical capability of the camera. I tend to shoot manual and aperture priority. I benefit from the ISO flexibility and the sensor quality. But most of the capabilities of the camera have yet to be exploited by me--and I've been shooting seriously for 35+ years. Technology fetishes are very common in the photography world and they mostly don't matter. The best camera is the one you have with you (and the one you can use). If you can't use the feature it has, it's as if they didn't exist on that camera.

 

[hamlet]

If the same photographer shot with each camera through the same conditions. yes.

Bingo.

Camera doesn't make the photo.

Hope does.

 

[EIngerson]

If the same photographer shot with each camera through the same conditions. yes.

Bingo.

Camera doesn't make the photo.

Hope does.

My mom used to tell me "Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first"

She hasn't been wrong yet.

 

[hamlet]

Bingo.

Camera doesn't make the photo.

Hope does.

My mom used to tell me "Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first"

She hasn't been wrong yet.

Was her name Edgar Allan Poe by any chance?

 

[EIngerson]

Hope does.

My mom used to tell me "Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first"

She hasn't been wrong yet.

Was her name Edgar Allan Poe by any chance?

uuuummmmmm, no. lol

 

[Overread]

My views:

1) The camera is a tool; a machine. If you improve the quality of the machine then the base quality that it outputs will also increase. So assuming the photographer can use aperture, ISO and shutter speed and at least one basic mode they should generally see the quality of what they produce increase at a technical level.

2) A higher end camera raises the upper potential limits of what can be possible; as a result having something "Better than you are" is not a bad thing because you can grow into it. Lower spec cameras can hit a barrier where certain features or limits prevent a photographer advancing in certain directions (or limit their working conditions).
A simple thing like a higher usable ISO range already extends a basic photographers working conditions to include darker lit areas.

3) Higher end cameras can be more complex to operate; however aperture, shutter speed and ISO Are always the same and are the core of any camera. So long as the user understands basic operation then a more advanced camera shouldn't phase them for too long; often the most confusing thing is JPEG editing and JPEG focused features in the camera menu along with some customising of specific features (eg AF or micro lens adjustments).


My view with equipment upgrade is:

1) Lens
2) Lighting
3) Camera

A lens is typically one of the greatest enablers and also one of the biggest influences on the image quality. Thus sinking money into good quality lenses is highly more likely to show improved performance of the camera setup for the photographer; as well as allowing them to do more things (you can't do macro without an optical setup to do macro so no matter how good the body is you still need the optics).

Lighting runs pretty much side by side for lenses and whichever is the more important depends on the situation. For a sports, street or wildlife photographer the lens is likely going to be the first most important thing; for a studio or product photographer the lighting is going to be critical. Lighting includes flashes, studio flashes, softboxes, stands etc.. everything that effects the lighting even simple things like reflectors all have their place.

The body - as said the body is important; but its just the recording device and in most cases its the last thing to upgrade. The only exception is when you want to change your working format size (film/sensor size). Then the body must come first as you can't shoot with and build a setup around a format size without having that format size to work with. So if you want to go fulframe or medium or even large format you need the camera first.

 

[amolitor]

This is a basically impossible question to answer. You need to define what "better photo" means, and you have to nail down specific cameras.

If, let's take an example, you compare a Nikon D3200 with a Nikon D7000, and define "better photo" to mean "sharper pictures" then the entry level camera will generally beat the more advanced one.

I subscribe to the theory that almost nothing matters except to point the camera in the right direction, and to press the shutter button at the right time. Virtually any modern camera is capable of taking superb pictures. Some may be a little easier to handle in some circumstances than others, some will produce more 'image quality' than others in this set of circumstances or that. None of them are going to (yet) tell you where to stand and when to press the button.