Equipment does matter a lot

SimonH said:
50mm is, near as dammit, the same field of view as your eye sees. If you put a 50mm lens on your camera and view the scene with both eyes open, one through the viewfinder (assuming there's no viewfinder magnification effect) you should be able to match the field of view up pretty well between the viewfinder and your eye.
Click to expand...

this is what I meant. looking through a 35mm 1.8G DX lens with both eyes didn't agree with my stomach.

50mm on a full frame was fine though.


FoV/DoF relationship is totally Not a key to distinguishing a good from a bad photo capability.
photography is about understanding light/lines and make use of those. cameras are just a tool, creativity have no bounds.
 
SimonH said:
50mm is, near as dammit, the same field of view as your eye sees. If you put a 50mm lens on your camera and view the scene with both eyes open, one through the viewfinder (assuming there's no viewfinder magnification effect) you should be able to match the field of view up pretty well between the viewfinder and your eye.
Click to expand...

On a full frame yes. If your camera is a crop sensor the view finder view will appear slghtly more zoomed in wont it?
 
camera and processing skill is different - you'll see a difference in IQ but not in skill switching cameras

naveen.nag said:
I always try and convince myself that my 550d can do anything and everything and stay away from the temptation of buying a full frame.

But when i browse thru images taken with 5Dm2 by others, i am pretty convinced that you definitely need a full frame. I mean, in other words, the gear you use plays more significant role than it is projected. Of course, i agree that one needs to have an eye for spotting a good frame, good composition skills, etc etc... But having a full Frame and a couple of L lenses does make a big difference.

What do you say??
Click to expand...
 
DorsetDude said:
On a full frame yes. If your camera is a crop sensor the view finder view will appear slghtly more zoomed in wont it?
Click to expand...
no. field of view changes, level of zoom doesn't.

a 50mm is still a 50mm on crop. only thing changed is that you are seeing less around the edge. it's like looking down 2 paper tubes, one is smaller than the other, so that one will appear to give you higher magnification, but in actual fact neither have any magnification power.



for this reason, i really hate it when people say their crop sensor camera can give them higher magnification and therefore good for bird/far away photography. it's not true. a 200mm lens doesn't become 300mm. a 300mm lens have higher optical magnification power than a 200mm, putting a 7D on a 200mm won't give you 300mm.

what I'm getting at is that 7D isn't really a better camera than 5D3 even for bird photography. with larger FoV on the 5D, it is actually much easier to track birds, then crop the photo in post production. end result will be exactly same as 7D.



having said that, I'll repeat what my original point. creativity has no bounds, don't feel limited by your camera kit, just get out there and shoot!
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Hi Dave, yes that's impressive @ 2,000 iso must say. ..how many stops is that over 200 .
Click to expand...

200 - 400 - 800 - 1,600 - 2,000

So 3 & a bit stops :D

I've used it at the previously (for me) unheard of 3,200 and been happy enough too (so 4 stops above 200 ISO), but the D7000 has an obviously greater dynamic range over the D300 too, so much more than the D70 will have = less blown, less blocked up areas :)

Put another way - I'd be happy shooting most things at 1,600 ISO and 1/125th sec when at 200 ISO the shutter speed would be too slow at just 1/15th sec :(

Dave
 
I find this a tough question. The other day I was looking at Wedding shots taken with a 10d and 135mm f2, and they still hold up pretty well.

Reason in my opinion is the glass and technique.

Better cameras just give you more flexibility inmterms of lighting, iso, creativity.

I am shooting with an ancient mkIIn with l glass and am still really happy with the quality. I know it will limits on dark cloudy day, but it doesnt affect me so much.

However, if anyone wants to give me a 1dx, I would gratefully accept!
 
naveen.nag said:
A few things like
Shooting at high ISO is not really a good thing with mine
Color saturation is not as good
The image quality and sharpness in general
Click to expand...

Firstly, instead of lusting after L lenses why not lust after the best lens at the focal length you want and the price you're willing to pay. If that turns out to be an L lens then all well and good but if the lens doesn't carry the L logo or is made by another company why settle for the less good for you L? Anyway, rant over :D

The higher ISO performance of the latest FF and APS-C and even CSC bodies may well be better than your camera but things like saturation and sharpness could very probably be improved with your current kit by improving shooting and processing technique.

I currently have a 5D and a MFT G1 and I can honestly say that it's only at the extremes that the 5D is a clear winner, and even then it's really only clear when pixel peeping. Once I accepted that my images are never going to be printed 20 feet wide and mounted on a gallery wall I realised that at normal printed image and screen sizes my G1 can produce images that can slip into a group of 5D images and not be detected by anyone :D

My advice is to stop lusting after FF unless you can identify a clear and real advantage for you.
 
FourRingCircus said:
I have a 5Diii, a 7D and a 550D with a nice selection of L-lenses. I also had a 5Dii at the time in question below.

The shot I consider to be my very best was taken with...............
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
550D. Go figure. ;)

Here it is if you are interested:


IMG_3767 by LYT4X, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Thats really a nice image!!
 
Nod said:
Of course, GAS is a harsh mistress/master, so just for the OP, here's what a GAS sufferer wants to hear...

FF will make you a far better photographer as long as you can afford the cost from savings, including any extra costs involved in upgrading lenses. Of course, any such lenses MUST either be tropical white or have a red ring around them - that always makes you look a far better photographer too! However, if the upgrade involves credit (apart from short term credit card expenditure, paid off in full when the next bill arrives), selling organs, children or se#ual favours or other extreme measures, you can't really afford it, so give up any expensive habits (smoking, drinking, dining out etc) and stash the cash in a fun fund somewhere!
Click to expand...

LOL.. :)
 
Tengu01 said:
Here's a question: would buying a FF camera mean you go out and shoot more with the new toy, improving your pictures because you're actually shooting more? Forcing you to go out and shoot because you want to justify the cash outlay?

Are there advantages to a FF camera? Sure. Better high ISO performance. Are there advantages to a crop-sensor camera? Sure. Lighter. Better reach.

"A few things like shooting at high ISO is not really a good thing with mine, color saturation is not as good, The image quality and sharpness in general"

High ISO noise can be cleaned up in post processing. Colour saturation can be adjusted in camera or in post. Image quality and sharpness? Shooting technique has a lot to answer for. Canon 550D? It's a 2 year old camera. It out-resolves the D700 I'm currently using. Image quality on DxO mark is not at the bottom of the scale and it certainly kicks the butt of my old Nikon D40x.

If you think of what you would spend on getting a FF camera and the lenses you think you need at the moment, you could travel to somewhere awesome and get some incredible pictures by being somewhere where crazy things are happening.

I hope you don't feel I'm telling you off. I'm just speaking from personal experience. I bought a D40X a few years back and went off on a long journey. While I was in India, a friend of mine took some pictures with my camera and they were so massively better than the ones I'd taken I had to stop and ask - what was he doing differently?

He pointed me at a book on composition when I got to the next big book store. I took a lot of pictures and began to learn by doing. I am still learning.

Question: What am I shooting with now? Nikon D700. Why did I upgrade? My D40X was stolen and so I had a clean slate to start from. It's cost me a lot to get FF lenses and insure the lot. Has it made my photographs any better? No.

Going out and shooting loads of pictures, looking at them critically, seeing what worked and what didn't work. Having people look at the pictures. Thinking of little projects like photographing friend's bands, going to festivals or taking part in challenges. Having to critically select pictures for a website gallery. Having to make a tight selection for clients who don't want to see hundreds of images. Those are the kinds of things that'll boost the quality of your images. Trust me. It is this that develops your eye and experience, not the camera you're using. Canon is one of the best camera/lens manufacturers in the world. It's good enough.

Hardware is useful. But it's just the tool. People were making prize-winning images before the 550D was made. People were making prize-winning images before the D40X and the D700. People are making great images on phone cameras. Get out and shoot plenty. Pick up a few books on composition. Go check out a few galleries like 1x or 500px and see what it is about the images you like. Trust me, that's the route to better images.

Mine is just one opinion among millions. If you do go ahead and upgrade your camera, keep a shooting journal and a periodically, look back on how you've progressed and see what you can attribute the improvements to.

Now go and find out and make up your own mind :)

Good luck
Click to expand...

Thanks Tengu. Maybe i should pick up some good book on composition. Was the one your friend suggested good? Which one was it?

I like the idea about mini projects. I do this thing every now and then. Like london museum projects and so on... Maybe i should post a thread on mini project ideas.
 
The best camera is the one you have on you at the time that once in a lifetime opportunity presents itself.

Practice a lot with what you've got. When you can technically justify an upgrade, go for it.

If low light is your thing, get a lower mega pixel camera.

PS, where did this a 50mm is really an 80mm idea come from?
 
Phil V said:
The gear is only important when its the differentiator.

You have a point about low light performance, but general IQ should be good enough with a 550d. If you're unable to get a high quality image from a 550d, then it's down to technique rather than gear.

It's been said a thousand ways but the most important bit of gear is the ten inches behind the viewfinder.

Buy better gear, if you want, but if you justify it by believing it'll improve your photography, you'll end up regretting it.
Click to expand...

Point taken, Phil.
 
Yeah I think most of what you are seeing is that there are more good photographers with 5d mk ii than 550d, obviously. Yes the 5d is better but you know if you are in reasonable conditions with the same lenses you will be hard pushed to see much difference. it's not the gear, it's you. This is the best lesson in photography you can ever learn. If you don't like your pics it's because you aren't good enough.....yet ;)
 
Little John said:
They didn't make me a better photographer they allowed me to shoot in more challenging conditions
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this statement. I've gone FF and the only reason I did was because I needed to shoot at higher ISO. Otherwise I was more than happy with my APS-C camera. Still use it in fact as my personal camera and backup. The FF just comes out to play when I'm shooting for money.
 
I agree with a lot of points most of you mentioned. Its great to get point of views and opinions from everyone. Well, to tell u why exactly i felt this recently, after browsing thru a lot of amazing photos shot in low light, i tried doing a shoot with mine. The result was lot of noise!!

I guess there is nothing u can do about it, may be handle it in PP. What are good tools for noise reduction?

Well, i dint and dont claim one can become a better photographer automatically by buying expensive gear, what i meant is, it is sometimes frustrating to realise the gear is not upto the mark. Another way to look at it is, trying to work with limitations improves the skills.

Of course, i have come across stunning images taken with crop sensor cameras including the ones posted in this thread. I think we just have to work harder with our modest gear.

The idea of going for lens is better option than going big bang with an FF. I guess i will wait for my dream glass 70-200 2.8 L.

I guess another way forward is improve PP skill which in my case is non existent. Trying to learn some basics now.
 
naveen.nag said:
I always try and convince myself that my 550d can do anything and everything and stay away from the temptation of buying a full frame.

But when i browse thru images taken with 5Dm2 by others, i am pretty convinced that you definitely need a full frame. I mean, in other words, the gear you use plays more significant role than it is projected. Of course, i agree that one needs to have an eye for spotting a good frame, good composition skills, etc etc... But having a full Frame and a couple of L lenses does make a big difference.

What do you say??
Click to expand...

I would say it depends on what you are trying to do, wildlife and landscape, yes / maybe but street / portraits / journalism and so on, I doubt it.

Have you seen the rather amusing digital rev videos where they take a famous pro and give them a budget camera? the one that sticks in my mind was the poor bloke who was given a lego toy camera. The bloke was good enough to realise he needed a ND filter to tame over exposure, then clever enough to realise there was probably one on the video camera digital rev were using to film the episode. He was also ballsy enough to pinch that filter off the video camera and hand hold it over the lego thing in order to get the shots he wanted.
 
I thought that replacing a 450d with a 1dmk2 would help improve my sports photography. Due to the higher fps i ended up with twice as much crap lol.
 
I'd be more than happy with a 550D! I'm stuck with the 20D ahahh, I have a tripod and a couple if lenses to buy before I need an upgrade though :D
 
Here's a shot taken with my D7000:

270778_233838799973495_502377_n.jpg


And one taken with a 2006 olympus SP-350 (8mp 1/1.8'' sensor).

389577_440692609288112_1701479225_n.jpg


Again from the D7000:

548967_10152269491875305_1554672223_n.jpg


And from my panasonic lumix DMC-LX7 (10mp 1/1.7" sensor)

548772_10152220418565305_421515724_n.jpg


If I didn't state what the equipment used I'm sure they could all pass off as all D7000.

As stated above, the difference would be viewing large prints. Equipment is just a tool to allow skill to to be illustrated.

Finally - H2 setting (25600) from my D7000 and a bit of editing:

545330_10152269565085305_1900405311_n.jpg


311327_10152269565230305_1064030639_n.jpg


A D4 would be nice...but it would only be a novelty for me.
 
Last edited:
naveen.nag said:
Equipment does matter a lot
Click to expand...

I 100% agree.. The above is a factual comment.


naveen.nag said:
the gear you use plays more significant role than it is projected.
Click to expand...

Again 100% Agree.. But not in 100% conditions.

If your shooting a plant pot in the garden on a summers day.. I wouldn't know if the picture was taken with a camera phone or a 5 thousand pound camera... But if your shooting a sporting event in a dimply lit sports hall and you want to capture all the action.. then equipment counts..

Thus we can't say equipment doesn't matter...

naveen.nag said:
Of course, i agree that one needs to have an eye for spotting a good frame, good composition skills, etc etc...
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly a great many people contributing to this thread either completely missed the above or just decided to ignore it... why else would they all be posting about a better camera doesnt make you a better photogrpaher.. you obviously know that by the comment you made...


naveen.nag said:
But having a full Frame and a couple of L lenses does make a big difference.
Click to expand...

It does.. but not for everyone IMHO :)
 
naveen.nag said:
But having a full Frame and a couple of L lenses does make a big difference.

What do you say??
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are shooting, in some instances yes, in others no.
 
Ebilpirate said:
I would say it depends on what you are trying to do, wildlife and landscape, yes / maybe but street / portraits / journalism and so on, I doubt it.

Have you seen the rather amusing digital rev videos where they take a famous pro and give them a budget camera? the one that sticks in my mind was the poor bloke who was given a lego toy camera. The bloke was good enough to realise he needed a ND filter to tame over exposure, then clever enough to realise there was probably one on the video camera digital rev were using to film the episode. He was also ballsy enough to pinch that filter off the video camera and hand hold it over the lego thing in order to get the shots he wanted.
Click to expand...

Hehe... Interesting. Can you share the link to that video, Matt.
 
naveen.nag said:
Well, to tell u why exactly i felt this recently, after browsing thru a lot of amazing photos shot in low light, i tried doing a shoot with mine. The result was lot of noise!!
Click to expand...

use flash, get off camera flashes. learn to light a scene. it's a very important skill of photography.

natural light photographer is just a way of saying they don't understand how to setup lighting.
 
Pookeyhead said:
All taken on a crappy EOS 350D (8MP)

Those are completely un-edited by the way.. hence the sensor dirt on some of them. It's a great little camera unless you want to print really big. So if these images came straight off a 350D just as you see them here, tell me... how would they look demonstrably different coming off a 5D MkIII? Higher res, yes... sharper, yes... but they'll LOOK the same. You have a 550D too, which is higher resolution, has better ISO performance, and better AF than my old 350D. My old 350D was only 8MP!!.. yours is 18MP. That's higher res than a Nikon D7000.... and a D7000 is an awesome camera, even if you DO want to print big.

People take photos... not cameras.
Click to expand...

You've made me fall in love with my 350d again. Now why have I got a 60d? :-) (350 d sits in my bag as a backup)
 
wuyanxu said:
natural light photographer is just a way of saying they don't understand how to setup lighting.
Click to expand...

Sure. :suspect:

I've read similar comments in the past that natural light photographers are 'lazy' because they don't bother to learn how to set up lighting. By this logic, Ansel Adams didn't understand how to set up lighting so that is why he didn't use it in his landscapes and probably, because he habitually uses flash, Bruce Gilden must be a better street photographer than Henri Cartier-Bresson...

Here's an alternative view - people who artificially light their scenes don't understand how to observe natural light in a scene and make the most of it.

As with many broad generalisations, a statement such as that (or perhaps 'full frame will improve your photographs') is complete poppycock unless you actually put it into the context of the type of photography you're practising.

A thorough knowledge of how to illuminate a studio portrait will be of no use if you're trying to take a photograph of a mountain. The biggest bank of lights you can reasonably carry in a small van will be of no use when you're trying to photograph a mountain. It requires planning, patience, good observational skills, an understanding about the position of the sun, weather conditions and many other variables.

For myself, I certainly don't have the luxury of fleets of helicopters to carry enormous scrims and banks of floodlights at hand when I'm trying to take pictures of 300m tall buildings in central London. I just have to position myself right and wait for the sun and clouds to do their thing.

Now, as it happens, I am aware that 'natural light photography' is a thing going on in the wedding/event market at the moment, along with 'reportage' style rather than the more formal, traditional approach. I suspect this is where you're coming from and perhaps it's a valid criticism (I don't do much of that kind of photography) but removed from that context, your comment is frankly rather ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
of course context matters a lot, I was referring to this situation where camera's low-light performance is mentioned as a disadvantage. this can be turned around and seen as an advantage, learning about subject lighting.
 
Tony's post at #61 says it bang on for me. I started with a 550D and got some great shots out of it but as I've progressed to better featured cameras I've got more and more great shots in a lot more challenging circumstances than I did, or could with the 550D.

I have 9,282 shots still on my computer taken with my 550D out of a total of around 15,000 taken altogether, whereas I have 8,864 shots on the computer taken with my 5D3 out of a total of just under 11,000 taken. I know that's not all down to the camera alone, the lenses I've used have had a lot to do with it to, but the AF system of the 5D3 is so good it's hard to take a bad shot focus wise.
 
Last edited:
Zack Arias has it for me: http://zarias.tumblr.com/post/35270826024/how-is-it-that-many-professional-photographers-rarely

Anonymous asked:
How is it that many professional photographers rarely follow their own advice? I see SO many pros giving advice to people aspiring to make photography a career by saying "it's not about the equipment, you don't need expensive equipment". Yet you're out there with expensive lighting, $10,000+ medium format rigs, full frame DSLR's. Eric Kim says "buy books, not gear", yet he walks around with $10,000+ worth of Leica gear. If he followed his own advice, he'd be shooting with a P&S. What gives?
Click to expand...
Because we got to medium format gear and Leica’s with crap gear. We started somewhere. Most of us got caught up in chasing the gear instead of the light, the moment, the photo. I had more gear at one point in my life than I knew what to do with.

Give me a Canon Rebel and a kit lens and send me on a job and I can get the job done. Is it the camera I most want to use? No. Is there a place and time to upgrade? Yes. You build up to that. The reason I preach that it isn’t about the gear is because I finally learned… that it isn’t about gear. Great photography isn’t about the gear. It just isn’t.

David duChemin has a great quote… “Gear is great. Vision is better.”

So I have a PhaseOne hanging around my neck and I’m telling you it’s not about the gear. I got that PhaseOne by having to work my ass to the bone with minimal gear that was held together with gaff tape and the Holy Spirit. The PhaseOne didn’t get me here. The crap gear got me here. I’m also not shooting the same stuff I was with the D100 and Vivitar 285 that I used to shoot. The level of work I’m doing is rising and the quality of what I want to produce is rising. Gear helps. It does. It doesn’t make you a photographer though. That’s the stuff between your ears that makes you a photographer. That’s why Kim says to buy books and not gear.

If you can do a lot with a little then you will grow. You’ll prosper. You’ll get to finally own some decent kit but I swear you’ll look back and realize that it wasn’t gear that got you to where you are.

Cheers,
Zack
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top