Equipment does matter a lot

N

naveen.nag

Suspended / Banned
Messages
214
Name
Naveen
Edit My Images
No
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??
 
Almost total rubbish.
I bought my first DSLR 500D, 2 weeks before going on holiday to the USA shot loads on the kit lens, bought a 580EX2 and a 50mm1.8 while on holiday. It gave me lots of opportunity to play and I got a few decent shots that I was happy with but I was still new to using a "proper camera" I was shooting anything and everything, pressing buttons turning dials no idea what I was doing but I played and learnt a lot. came home did a bit of reading due to being asked to shoot a wedding so bought some L lenses. They didn't make me a better photographer they allowed me to shoot in more challenging conditions but it was the looking for shots and practise and learning to understand how the camera worked that improved my photos.
I have since spent a bucket load on L lenses and 1D mk4's but I don't think they have made than much of a difference to images I produce. They make it easier due to the improved ISO performance I no longer worry about going to 3200 or 6400 and the hit rate on sports is a lot better but it is still all about the bit behind the camera and thats the bit that needs to be worked on than spending thousands hoping you will improve your images.
 
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
 
gnirtS said:
What exactly is limiting you on the 550D? Why are the images you looking and comparing to better?
Click to expand...

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
 
Switch to Nikon!!!

On a more serious note though, while FF is undeniably the doggy's danglies, crop sensors are still more than enough for most people. You'll probably find that those who shoot the great pictures you aspire to could (and have) shoot equally good ones on crops.

Since I first arrived in the DSLR camp, I missed the framing options that 35mm gave me so carried on using my film bodies until the D700 dropped to an affordable price (and my wife said "If you buy one, will you stop going on about the effing thing?". Next day, she found that I did, because I had) (don't tell her I'm thinking of a D600 to compliment it now...). The transition to FF was less expensive to me than to some - because I had kept and was still using my 35mm bodies, all my lenses (bar an 18-70 kit lens) were FF rather than Dx, so I didn't need to replace any.

Has FF made me a better photographer? Has it hell! It gave me some inspiration and has undeniably given me better high ISO performance but I rarely use that unless the situation absolutely demands it. It's also given me back the angle of view I'm used to from a given focal length - it took me years to develop that eye and crop had started messing with it! By all means go FF if you can afford to do so (with any lens upgrades it may necessitate) without mortgaging your soul but don't sell a car/child/kidney to do so, practise and experience will do way more to improve your photography than any kit change, although good lenses will improve the final results a bit, possibly.
 
naveen.nag said:
A few things like
Shooting at high ISO is not really a good thing with mine - Fair point, if you use high ISO's a lot, it was the primary reason for me going FF
Color saturation is not as good - If you're shooting jpeg, you can adjust this setting in camera, if shooting raw, you can adjust it in post processing
The image quality and sharpness in general Image quality is arguably better, but sharpness depends on all manner of things, not just the camera and lens
Click to expand...
 
I have shot both FF and DX sensors in my time and the size of the chip has nothing to do with the quality of the images. It's the quality f the glass in front f the chip and the creativity of the eye behind it that really counts.

To get eye popping photos look for a better quality lens and back it up with imprving your photographic technique.
 
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.
 
Id suggest when you look through those images you've forgotten that many of the photographers have been practising for years and have also upgraded many times.

Its not the cameras work your looking at, its the photographers experience.

I may get some tax back soon (shocker I know) ... I'm dreaming of buying a fast short lens to replace my older slower shot lens.. I have an old d70s camera, only 7 mega pix on a crop, but still I think a quality lens will give me more. ...I could be wrong not sure.
 
naveen.nag said:
What do you say??
Click to expand...


Rubbish!... that's what I say. Buying a 5D MkIII will not improve your photography one bit. The images will be sharper if you print big (even tough you can still do that too.. your camera is 18MP)... that's the only real difference. High ISO performance will be better too... but these are technical aspects of the camera and your photography in general will not improve one bit. What you are saying is like back in the day, someone upgrading from a Nikon FM2 to a Mamiya 645 will take better photographs. They won't. They will take technically slightly sharper images (assuming they are using it correctly) but will it improve their PHOTOGRAPHY? No... of course not.

If all you are bothered about is taking sharper photos, then yes, go ahead, but you are so missing the point.

I had a 350D a few years back, and loved it for it's lightness and found it a superb little camera for travelling with.

All taken on a crappy EOS 350D (8MP)

5213622325_525c51dd8c_z.jpg


5214170276_59cd799283_z.jpg


5213566051_55c16020fe_z.jpg


5213561223_93aca70469_z.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
Adam, isn't the D70s 6.1MP like the straight D70 rather than the 7MP you quote? Still enough for A3 prints (viewed at a normal viewing distance) whether it's 6.1 or 7!
 
Easily, yes.

Here's one of those 350D shots above at full res.

Click it.



You could easily print that at A3 and it would look great! That's only 8MP.
 
To OP

I have to wholeheartedly :agree: with most of the above, FF may well give you lower noise at high ISO but your problem seems to be technique (both shooting and PP) and possibly lenses, you are extremely unlikely to see any improvement in switching to FF alone

One area of 'improved' sharpness I've seen posted before is actually down to the fact that wide open and closer to the subject the DoF of FF is less than the same aperture on cropped sensors, this means that the foreground/background falls OoF quicker on FF and hence may mean the actual subject stands out more and some see that as being sharper - its not

Forbiddenbiker is spot on saying the biggest difference he'll see will be in a better lens

Some of my Pro mates who've bought the D800 (FF and 36mp so hugely 'sharp' and capable) have actually sent them back, or now only use them in the studio. The problem seems to be that such high resolution is actually showing up the flaws of some lenses and the technique of the photographer!!! Hence shooting at f11 in a studio where the 'shutter' speed is well over 1/1000th even 1/20,000th negates both camera shake and hits the sweet-spot of most lenses

All modern DSLRs, cropped or not (even Canon!!!) are more than capable of creating fantastic, sharp and large prints - the problems are usually:

1 - photographer
2 - lens
3 - PP
4 - camera

And pretty much in that order

So by all means blow a few £thousand on a FF 'upgrade', and I sincerely hope you enjoy your new camera/lenses, but if you dare to come back on TP and whinge at all there's a LOT of people who'll scream... WE TOLD YOU SO :D

Dave
 
Nod said:
Adam, isn't the D70s 6.1MP like the straight D70 rather than the 7MP you quote? Still enough for A3 prints (viewed at a normal viewing distance) whether it's 6.1 or 7!
Click to expand...


Oh ok Is it, I could be wrong, don't matter hey, yes easily enough, nice example David, Its no problem hey, depending on how hard you want to peep ...to be honest Nod Ive gone six feet on may shots, including cityscapes, yes a little rough but its amazing what the printer people can accomplish, their machines kinda fill in the gaps and make it smoother than it is on screen, I dunno...the only thing I would really need with a better camera is clean high ISO, that's the main temptation.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Oh ok Is it, I could be wrong, don't matter hey, yes easily enough, nice example David, Its no problem hey, depending on how hard you want to peep ...to be honest Nod Ive gone six feet on may shots, including cityscapes, yes a little rough but its amazing what the printer people can accomplish, their machines kinda fill in the gaps and make it smoother than it is on screen, I dunno...the only thing I would really need with a better camera is clean high ISO, that's the main temptation.
Click to expand...

Hi Adam - I've just bought into the D7000, partly for 2 card slots removing the paranoia of card failure at a Wedding, but mostly as its much better at higher ISO then my D300 - its also 16mp too

In fact, aside from extreme ISO and unbreakable, weather-sealed body (I don't get my cameras wet or drop them), its more like a mini D4 with regards to the spec I need :)

Here's one from my last Wedding, wide open at f2.8 on my Nikon 17-55mm and shot at 2,000 ISO (I'd never shoot 2,000 ISO on my D300 unless I really had to)

AAA_1.jpg


Must get a London trip organised soon too, be good to hook up - I have a new 50mm f1.4 too which is sharper than a harlot's tongue :D So we could 'go nifty' for a day :thumbs:

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Hi Adam - I've just bought into the D7000, partly for 2 card slots removing the paranoia of card failure at a Wedding, but mostly as its much better at higher ISO then my D300 - its also 16mp too

In fact, aside from extreme ISO and unbreakable, weather-sealed body (I don't get my cameras wet or drop them), its more like a mini D4 with regards to the spec I need :)

Here's one from my last Wedding, wide open at f2.8 on my Nikon 17-55mm and shot at 2,000 ISO (I'd never shoot 2,000 ISO on my D300 unless I really had to)

Must get a London trip organised soon too, be good to hook up - I have a new 50mm f1.4 too which is sharper than a harlot's tongue :D So we could 'go nifty' for a day :thumbs:

Dave
Click to expand...

Seriously? A mini d4!
Tell me your having a laugh?
Im no pixel peeper but first of all this thread regards full frame and the d7000 is a crop sensor.
If the d7000 is a mini d4 then why isn't everyone rushing to buy that instead?
If anything the d7000 falls between the d300s and the d90.

And back to the thread, yes full frame sensors offer things that crop sensors don't but essentially if you take a crap photo of a crap subject with either, your just left with crap, be it one with higher resolution crap perhaps.
 
I'm lucky enough to be able to shoot with both full frame and crop sensor, and at normal viewing distance with normal size prints I'd be hard put to tell the difference.
In most cases the camera (even a basic one) will out perform the photographer with care taken in shooting.
I've seen some stunning shots taken on the 550d with the kit lens, and some rubbish on the D4, it's all down to the taking.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'm lucky enough to be able to shoot with both full frame and crop sensor, and at normal viewing distance with normal size prints I'd be hard put to tell the difference.
In most cases the camera (even a basic one) will out perform the photographer with care taken in shooting.
I've seen some stunning shots taken on the 550d with the kit lens, and some rubbish on the D4, it's all down to the taking.
Click to expand...

+1
 
What you are probably seeing is that people with more expensive cameras (and full frames are in that camp) will be more experienced photographers who are able to produce better looking shots.
There are exceptions where a wealthy person wants to try using a DSLR and buys a D800 as their first camera and produces awful shots but that is going to be in the minority.
 
Simon photo said:
Seriously? A mini d4!
Tell me your having a laugh?
Im no pixel peeper but first of all this thread regards full frame and the d7000 is a crop sensor.
If the d7000 is a mini d4 then why isn't everyone rushing to buy that instead?
If anything the d7000 falls between the d300s and the d90.

And back to the thread, yes full frame sensors offer things that crop sensors don't but essentially if you take a crap photo of a crap subject with either, your just left with crap, be it one with higher resolution crap perhaps.
Click to expand...

I said, if you read it again, for what I want of it its like a mini D4

It has 16mp, like a D4

2 card slots, like a D4

And is much better at higher ISO than my D300, like a D4

I don't give a toss about anything else the D4 does better as its irrelevant to what I shoot, the fact that all my current lenses don't need changing and its 1/7th the price makes it a no-brainer for me

And as that makes it better for my use than my D300 I can't see how it fits in as a lesser camera

But hey - you love arguing with me so :lol:

Dave
 
from full frame perspective, grass is way greener on the other side: lighter, smaller, easier to carry and smaller lens. certainly less strain on the shoulders and more pleasurable to carry.


I went from D3100 to 5D2, the main thing that I found helped a whole lot was the much much bigger brighter viewfinder. it really helped when composing the image. other than that, I still take good and bad photos, not much has changed. I started with 35mm films, so full frame feels right compared to crop, but that's just me.


guess which camera was used to take these shots here: (not my photos)
http://forums.aria.co.uk/showthread...raphy-meetup?p=2148681&viewfull=1#post2148681
IMG_2346.jpg
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
But hey - you love arguing with me so :lol:

Dave
Click to expand...
Nope i just don't see your point sometimes.
Perhaps saying that the d7000 is the right camera for you and not even mentioning the d4 would seem more realistic but to me it looked like you were putting them in the same stable.

Back to the thread and agreed, your more likely to see full frame cameras in the hands of someone that's been shooting for a while and as mentioned have gained experience enough to produce great images with any equipment.
 
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!
 
Simon photo said:
Seriously? A mini d4!
Tell me your having a laugh?
Im no pixel peeper but first of all this thread regards full frame and the d7000 is a crop sensor.
If the d7000 is a mini d4 then why isn't everyone rushing to buy that instead?
If anything the d7000 falls between the d300s and the d90.

And back to the thread, yes full frame sensors offer things that crop sensors don't but essentially if you take a crap photo of a crap subject with either, your just left with crap, be it one with higher resolution crap perhaps.
Click to expand...

Simon you should note the words - "with regards to the spec I need"
 
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
 
wuyanxu said:
from full frame perspective, grass is way greener on the other side: lighter, smaller, easier to carry and smaller lens. certainly less strain on the shoulders and more pleasurable to carry.


I went from D3100 to 5D2, the main thing that I found helped a whole lot was the much much bigger brighter viewfinder. it really helped when composing the image. other than that, I still take good and bad photos, not much has changed. I started with 35mm films, so full frame feels right compared to crop, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

That's the only thing technical limitation of the D3100 I've come against, going between 35mm cameras, mf cameras and crop messes with my head some days. Though that might be to do with very different ergonomics and levels of automation....
 
I think a lot of folk may be confusing the relationship between FX and DX with the distinction between pro and consumer bodies (metal vs plastic, VF brightness etc).

As a pro DX body user (one of the last), the distinction between FX and DX is all about the crop factor and the effective impact that the crop has on the relationship between field of view and depth of field.

An FX body gives you the option to shoot a greater FoV with a shallower DoF than DX - essentially the Brenizer effect in a single frame. The Canon's 1.6x crop makes the difference between crop and FF a little greater than the Nikon's, at 1.5x. Beyond that, any distinctions (pixel density, ISO performance, yada yada) are significantly overlapped with pro/consumer & new/old cameras, and the FoV/DoF effect begins to evaporate anyway, as soon as you begin to stop down the lens aperture.
 
well to achieve same DoF effect of 50mm f1.8 on crop sensor you'd need 33mm f1.2.
(both divide by 1.5x)

then that changes perspective and light gathering metering. although 33mm frames like 50mm, it's actually got wide angle properties.
 
wuyanxu said:
well to achieve same DoF effect of 50mm f1.8 on crop sensor you'd need 33mm f1.2.
(both divide by 1.5x)

then that changes perspective and light gathering metering. although 33mm frames like 50mm, it's actually got wide angle properties.
Click to expand...

I'd concur with that.

Whether or not this FoV/DoF relationship is key to distinguishing a good from a bad photo capability, though, is entirely subjective. I often use a 35mm F/1.8 and generally have to stop down from the maximum aperture to get the depth of my subject sufficiently in focus (eg. a short-lit 3/4 headshot, getting both eyes in focus). I imagine that, even if I had the ability to shoot 33mm:F/1.2, I wouldn't get many usable shots from it at max aperture.
 
Rapscallion said:
Not sure what you mean by this?

:thinking:
Click to expand...

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.

33mm is a wide(r) angle lens in terms of field of view. Whether on a DX or FX camera, its properties are what they are. Wider angle lenses inherently have greater depth of field properties than standard and telephoto lenses.
 
Hi Simon,

i get the difference in DoF between different focal lengths, just was wondering if there was anything else Wuyan meant.

Cheers
 
naveen.nag said:
A few things like
Shooting at high ISO is not really a good thing with mine
Click to expand...

550D more than good enough for selling images at ISO800, possibly higher with decent PP. What are you shooting that mandates the higher ISOs required?

Color saturation is not as good
Click to expand...

That's the lens primarily and the jpg style settings (if shooting jpg) not the camera

The image quality and sharpness in general
Click to expand...

Again pretty much all of that is due to the lens and technique.

Upgrade glass not the body for a noticeable improvement. Changing the body wont make much if any difference.
 
Little John said:
They didn't make me a better photographer they allowed me to shoot in more challenging conditions
Click to expand...

This probably sums up the whole gear vs photographer debate.

To me, good gear does not make you a better photographer, but lower quality gear can limit what you can achieve - though a good photographer might be able to work around any limitations (using HDR to increase the dynamic range, composing the shot to minimise possible CA, etc).
 
DG Phototraining said:
Forbiddenbiker is spot on saying the biggest difference he'll see will be in a better lens
Click to expand...

DG Phototraining said:
Here's one from my last Wedding, wide open at f2.8 on my Nikon 17-55mm and shot at 2,000 ISO (I'd never shoot 2,000 ISO on my D300 unless I really had to)
Click to expand...


Hi Dave, yes that's impressive @ 2,000 iso must say. ..how many stops is that over 200 ...more than a fastest lens, hmm, its about the same isn't it.....still I get a whole lot more with a class lens upgrade, clarity of image and other lovely stuff.... its becoming a close decision though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top