Will a better camera increase the quality my lenses produces?

jake337 · Mar 26, 2011

If your aiming on doing sport pictures then I would say both camera and lens need updating. Especially if your want to do pro sports. Maybe a bargain tamron 300 f2.8 of keh would help for the shots you are doing. I'd go with a the nikon version if you plan on being serious about shooting sports and add the 400 f2.8 to that list. If the OP is going to be shooting alot of sports would we want to recommend the D3S over the D3X??

imagemaker46 · Mar 26, 2011

I won't make any real comments about you being a pro for 2 years, but looking at the images that you posted and the range of questions that you have been asking says different. A weekend pro?

I have been shooting hockey at iso's in the 1000-1600 range and have produced much better quality. I shoot with a 300 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 and a very tired Canon 1D mkll, the megapixels are less than the 12 you have been using. It sounds like your camera is tired, and that the lenses you are using aren't that great either. If you are planning on staying in the "pro" world you will have to upgrade all your gear.

imagemaker46 · Mar 26, 2011

Just on another note, I just switched to Nikon this week. I have a D3s and a D700, as well as a variety of lenses from 28-70 2.8 to a 400 2.8. I can see the quality difference at the higher iso. I shoot all my sports images as jpegs and never as raw, just the way I prefer to do it.

o hey tyler · Mar 26, 2011

The shot you posted from your 'affiliates' camera was from a full frame Canon. The 5D1 has 12 megapixels, not 18, I know because I have one. So it's inherently going to have better ISO handling.

Having more megapixels doesn't translate into better noise handling. In most cases, it's the opposite. I don't know if you have the technical know-how to consider yourself a professional. I don't even consider myself to be a "professional" in the true sense of the word.

I'll hold off on commenting on your other photos below the hockey ones.

JimCoventry · Mar 26, 2011

imagemaker46 said:
I won't make any real comments about you being a pro for 2 years, but looking at the images that you posted and the range of questions that you have been asking says different. A weekend pro?

I have been shooting hockey at iso's in the 1000-1600 range and have produced much better quality. I shoot with a 300 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 and a very tired Canon 1D mkll, the megapixels are less than the 12 you have been using. It sounds like your camera is tired, and that the lenses you are using aren't that great either. If you are planning on staying in the "pro" world you will have to upgrade all your gear.

At least learn how to focus on faces and eyes - - or the puck or whatever is important, not the rink behind the subject. Also your issue is with noise. Pixelization comes from massive blowups of images showing pixcels. I have many 40x60's in my gallery shot back in 2006 with a D60 (8mp). Correct lighting/lens working together - minor pixels showing.

KmH · Mar 26, 2011

What an interesting thread. :lol:

itf · Mar 26, 2011

How long have you had a dslr? Jw.

It's not your camera or lens, its your focus, but if you think its the camera a d3s or d700 will probably be what you're looking for.

photocist · Mar 26, 2011

Something smells like its been under the bridge, if ya know what im sayin'

Offhand · Mar 26, 2011

I think if you're shooting low light, indoor shots without flash and with 3.5-5.6 lenses, you're a dead duck. Even 2.8 isn't enough in many cases. I shoot indoor events all the time without flash (though not as fast moving) and find I really have to crank up ISO and use the fastest lenses I can afford, including a 100mm 2.0 on my crop cameras (for a little extra reach) and everything else being at least 2.8 for my 5D including a 28-70mm and 16-35mm. I'll probably pick up a 135mm 2.0. By the way, my 12mp 5D matches and beats my newer 18mp 60D on equivalent high iso noise and IQ, though it doesn't hike up nearly as high.

eric-holmes · Mar 26, 2011

Some higher quality glass may help.... An 18-55 is pretty low end.

Overread · Mar 26, 2011

If the other photographer is insisting on JPEG output (I assume so that you can print on site fast rather than having to process yourselves after and miss potential sales?) it would do you well to play around with the in-camera editing settings for the JPEG - use them to give your typical JPEG output a bit of a boost/advance over what the general base standard outputs - this might well give you a bit more of an edge at least as far as base JPEGs are concerned - though don't overdo it - remember each setting is globablly applied to every JPEG shot with the camera (and also to the JPEG used with RAW shots to present your histogram and LCD preview shot).

Another point is the EXIF says that the other photographer used a 300mm f2.8 lens to take the shot with - if that is a nice big white L lens or even something like a sigma 120-300mm chances are its beating your 50-150mm in its basic image quality and resolution (though I've never really done much research into the 50-150mm I'm quite certain it would not stand up to the 300mm L).

In short its a combination of technical weakness on the camera and possibly also on the lens side - as well as experience, some editing adjustments (possibly) to the JPEGs for the quick out of camera result and also experience on the part of yourself the photographer in control of the gear.

A better camera body with a higher ISO would, based on your needs, be high on the list of needs - but also you need to give a mind to better glass (that is where you will see much bigger jumps in image quality). Flash and lighting is also another big area you need to invest time and research as well as learning into - indeed good lighting control can deliver fantastic photos with even low end camera bodies and lenses.

KmH · Mar 27, 2011

I doubt the OP will be returning.

djacobox372 · Mar 27, 2011

Firstly, there's only about an 18% difference in resolution between 12 and 18mp. Not much.

2ndly, the differences in the hockey photos to me are due to missed focus, motion blur, and slightly more underexposure with the D300 (both are underexposed).

Looking at your other images, I think motion blur is your biggest culprit.

A body that is better at higher-iso's will allow you to use higher shutter speeds and might improve things (D3, D700 or D7000).

Bram · Mar 28, 2011

Wow for a pro photographer those pictures are below satisfactory if I hired you. Either you're lying or you picked up a camera 2 years ago and called yourself a pro.