Its not the size of the camera, its the eye behind it!!

tommyh1977

Hi, recently i did a FETAC evening course in Photography. About 6 weeks in i decided to upgrade my camera and after hours getting opinions and pondering through both online reviews and my bank balance i decided to get a Canon 7D with an EF-s 15-85mm lens. I absolutely love this camera and most of the opinions online called the 7D a cropped 5D mkii. Anyway to get to my point, there was another guy in class witha 5d Mkii with all the bells and whistles on, 3 L Lenses, 2 Speedlite 580's, Cokin filters, Manfrotto Tripod, Rosco Gels, Gripped you name it, it had it. When i appeared with my 7d this guy laughed and sniggreed at the waste of money it was and i should have gone and spent the extra on the 5D. Point is when the results came back from our examination, i scored a nice 88% distinction where he came out with 62%. He who laughs least laughs last eh!!!!! Its not the car, its how you drive it!!!!! Theres my waffle for today.

sineadw

I have a 5D that has been mostly gathering dust recently, in favour of a film body I got on ebay for 36 euro.

oshead

Don't wanna put you on the spot, but i'd love to see what an 88% distinction looks like. Why not post your work?

tommyh1977

oshead wrote: »

Don't wanna put you on the spot, but i'd love to see what an 88% distinction looks like. Why not post your work?

Id love to see what it looks like too he he he, it was a advanced amateur level course to be fair but im happy with my result.

CabanSail

Many moons ago, when I was just finishing an apprenticeship, I worked with a guy that on hindsight has to have been one of the worlds master BS Artist. He had not long returned from a trip to china buying his latest wife and new camera gear. I never saw the wife but the gear was impressive, more than I earned in a year.
We had a fairly important work function and he appointed himself as official photographer. On the night he made quite a show of himself with loads of different lens, flash and other gear set-ups. It seemed quite impressive.
A week later in the lunch room appearred a board with prints on it. They were all numbered along with order forms to buy copies. To say they were crap would have been a major insult to manure. Nothing was sharp, correctly exposed or composed. The only person that couldn't see that was him. He could not work out why he wasn't flooded with orders for prints. I think the boss bought a couple to be polite and that was it.

tommyh1977

Not saying mine are perfect, probably far from it but flashing gear does not achieve better shots

magicbastarder

tommyh1977 wrote: »

flashing gear does not achieve better shots

true. last time i flashed my gear i spent a night in the cells.

ThOnda

Not true.
The more expensive gear, the smarter the gear.
The smarter the gear, the better the pictures.
Therefore the more money you spend, the better pictures you'll get.
Simples
I cannot believe that there were no queues to use free digital Hasselblad and studio. Some people just don't know value of proper gear...

splendid101

The guy sounds like an idiot for two reasons:

(i) A more expensive camera doesn't mean better pictures.
(ii) By all accounts the 7D is an excellent camera.

I hope he learned a valuable lesson, became depressed at his pathetic attempt and dropped out of the course. Then became an alcoholic. Or maybe that's a bit too far.

pixbyjohn

tommyh1977 wrote: »

Not saying mine are perfect, probably far from it but flashing gear does not achieve better shots

Aww really you should have gone for the 5D II, you would have got a 100% grade :eek:

Hecklar

Meh, shoulda got the 5D and that 88 might have been a 98%....

Or better still, A nikon and you'd have gotten 100% i reckon. :P

I think that in this day and age of DSLRs, if you understand manual controls then the body is pretty much irrelevant.

I use a Canon 7D, but only recently. Before that I was shooting with the 7 year old Canon 20D. Fair enough, both are 'semi-pro' models and capable of hard work. Before that, an entry level Olympus E-420.

My photographs have improved since I had that E-420, but I put that mostly down to time practicing/reading.

That said, I do think that better bodies afford better luxuries. Give me a Canon 7D, and give a full time working pro an Olympus E-420, and send us both into the same church and I'll have better shots. The ISO is unusable and capped at 1,600 on the E-420. The 7D, however laughs off noise at 3,200. So I do think that better gear affords more luxuries.

The budget photographer can definitely get by, but good gear will always be beneficial.

challengemaster

I still can't figure out why anyone with a DSLR (and user manual) and the internet would take an evening course.

Gear matters, you just need to know how to use it to it's capabilities. A 5D with full frame is entirely useless to someone who shoots sports and needs high FPS and extra crop. Picking up a 7D myself, because it's the next logical progression as I'll be shooting motorsport more regularly (hopefully). The higher FPS, if I didn't know what I was doing in the first place is useless, but combined with the superior auto focus, for me it means more chances of getting things spot on while panning.

OldGoat

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Aww really you should have gone for the 5D II, you would have got a 100% grade :eek:

No no no, the results clearly show that the lower the quality of the body the better the result. To achieve a 100% grade the OP would need to swop his 7D for my 350D.
What about it Tommy? Swopsies??

magnumlady

ThOnda wrote: »

Not true.
The more expensive gear, the smarter the gear.
The smarter the gear, the better the pictures.
Therefore the more money you spend, the better pictures you'll get.
Simples
I cannot believe that there were no queues to use free digital Hasselblad and studio. Some people just don't know value of proper gear...

Not if you have someone behind the camera who doesn't have a clue about taking photo's.

Placebo

ThOnda wrote: »

Not true.
The more expensive gear, the smarter the gear.
The smarter the gear, the better the pictures.
Therefore the more money you spend, the better pictures you'll get.
Simples
I cannot believe that there were no queues to use free digital Hasselblad and studio. Some people just don't know value of proper gear...

I dont think so. Its how smart and experienced the photographer is.
I can take better pictures with my iphone than some people.

sineadw

I think thonda's post was in jest

magicbastarder

challengemaster wrote: »

Gear matters

that's quite a specific use case you mention though.
i'd be curious what the state of motorsport photography was back in the 60s as compared to now; how much difference has all the technological advances in camera gear made?

tommyh1977

I definitely agree the better the gear the better the luxuries, but if you dont understand it then it's less useful than an Argos compact. I should gave got the 5D now that you point out where I lost that extra 12%!!!

Buckz

Gear matters? well glass certainly does, my canon 50mm is a better lens giving sharper photos (particularly at the edge ) than my old prakticar 50mm. And there are certain scenarios where certain features of expensive gear will help you get a better picture. (such as low noise at High ISO), but to use an earlier example- look at photos of Lauda, Prost, Stewart (man, not car) Piquet, most of that was taken on Manual Focus SLRs such as F3s, stunning pictures, and equal to anything taken today, but just more difficult to do... But first and foremost the picture itself must be good to start with, and finding or spotting the picture is not a feature on any camera.Good Gear can make getting great pictures easier, but by and large it doesn't make the pictures better, just increases the odds of capturing them.mb

smelltheglove

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that in this day and age of DSLRs, if you understand manual controls then the body is pretty much irrelevant.

It can be hugely relevant depending on the situation, i.e. a sports photog will need continuous shooting to get the goal and reactions perfectly so they need a camera to manage that as one example.

Deleted User wrote: »

...
That said, I do think that better bodies afford better luxuries. Give me a Canon 7D, and give a full time working pro an Olympus E-420, and send us both into the same church and I'll have better shots. The ISO is unusable and capped at 1,600 on the E-420. The 7D, however laughs off noise at 3,200. So I do think that better gear affords more luxuries.

The budget photographer can definitely get by, but good gear will always be beneficial.

Not guaranteed you will have better shots... You may have the equipment to get the better shots but the pro may easily handle a camera with an iso of only 400 @1.8 at a shutter speed as low as 30 but your hand might not be able to handle it lower than 80.... Your last sentence sums it up, if you know how you can get by on lesser gear, the better gear would of course be beneficial though.

challengemaster wrote: »

Gear matters, you just need to know how to use it to it's capabilities. A 5D with full frame is entirely useless to someone who shoots sports and needs high FPS and extra crop. Picking up a 7D myself, because it's the next logical progression as I'll be shooting motorsport more regularly (hopefully). The higher FPS, if I didn't know what I was doing in the first place is useless, but combined with the superior auto focus, for me it means more chances of getting things spot on while panning.

Perfect example of my views, you just say it better than me

Good gear is great when you can afford it, but if you cant afford it and you are good at what you do, you will always make do with less.... I have been to weddings where guests have had better equipment than me, I like to use as little equipment as possible and what I have does me perfectly so I need no more right now but I have yet to see a guest photo that a bride or groom prefer, mostly the guest pics I see are blurry or exposed incorrectly.

TelePaul

I'm not sure that this story highlights the benefits of proper technique over quality gear as it does the fact that some people are immense tools!

Good glass is important.

eoinmcc

Hey, I've been thinking about investing in a new camera myself recently, I have a Canon 450d so yeah, I'm sure if that bloke laughed at your 7d Tommy, well yea, I dno what he would have made of me..?! Anyway, i've also been thinking of a 7D, again, money is always the problem but yea, I'm as amateur as they come, purely something I just enjoy doing. I'd love some feedback on some shots i've taken if anyone would care to spare me a glance, www.flickr.com/eoinmccullagh

Borderfox

Bodies come and go, glass lasts and is a constant in good pictures. If you feel you need a better body to take better pictures then you should go back to basics eg composition/technique/study the subject

PopeBuckfastXVI

ISO is the reason I'm intending upgrading from my d80 at some point, performance is terrible above ISO400.

Apart from that some extra fps juice mightn't go astray, maybe something like mirror lockup or lens profiles or like on the d300/d400 range might be good features to have.

ISO is an absolute killer though - you either can get a noise free shot at ISO800 from a given body or you can't, your skill as a photographer has very little to do with it at that point.

Borderfox

I disagree popebuckfast, minimising noise is part of a photographers skill also and not just body dependant

TelePaul

Borderfox wrote: »

I disagree popebuckfast, minimising noise is part of a photographers skill also and not just body dependant

It's quite interesting that noise levels became abhorrent on my 350D at around ISO 800 but noise-handling on my 60D is infinitely better at levels far beyond this. I'm not sure it's fair to attribute so much responsibility to the photographer when noise thresholds are such a dynamic variable on digital systems.

Borderfox

Noise is dependant on a lot of factors not just the camera body, metering plays a large part and to a certain extent a slight over exposure and corresponding increase in iso can reduce it.

TelePaul

Borderfox wrote: »

Noise is dependant on a lot of factors not just the camera body, metering plays a large part and to a certain extent a slight over exposure and corresponding increase in iso can reduce it.

Be that as it may, I think there are a lot of situations where increasing ISO is the only way in which a correct exposure can be obtained and in those cases, better noise-handling is preferable. Gig shots, for example.

PopeBuckfastXVI

You can squeeze the best performance possible out of a body, but ultimately technology improves and gives more than your skills at the same ISO. I do well on my d80, i'd do better on a d700, quantifiably and objectively.

magicbastarder

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I do well on my d80, i'd do better on a d700, quantifiably and objectively.

for most shots, the extra 1% you get in sharpness or fidelity or whatever make shag all difference to the end product. the photo will stand or fall on composition and the photographer, not the camera.
otherwise what you're saying is that photography has come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years as the technology matured.

TelePaul

magicbastarder wrote: »

otherwise what you're saying is that photography has come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years as the technology matured.

Well that's true, no?

magicbastarder

no, because the limiting factor is talent, not technology.

roguey

What a lot of people are saying is " I can take better pictures than the guy with the better camera, because I've got more talent. The camera means nothing, it's all to do with the person"

While I do agree that talent is more important, let me ask, do you not think that if you have talent, you could take better pictures with a better camera? If the talent is the same?

The best photographer in the world could take brilliant photos with a ****ty camera I'm sure, but with the proper gear, they would be even better?

Buckz

I was walking along the Dodder this morning and there was a guy sitting there with a Canon DSLR, telephoto lens, bean bag and remote release. I chatted briefly (I've been taking pictures along there on and off for 5 years) He knew where the Fox cubs were, he knew where the kingfishers perched, he was conscius of the times of day the light is acceptable (both direction and quality)
He had knowledge, technique and dedication. Not even a 5D mark II has that. My bet is his pictures will far exceed most shots taken by the gear obsessed guy that the OP mentioned, and I doubt more expensive camera bodies would add much more than pixels, though increasing resolution is always good. (ah remember the days when you could put Kodachrome 25 into a praktica, 18mp in a E150 camera)
I won't respect people for their gear, but after 22 years of SLR photography I still listen to and learn from people with skill.

magicbastarder

roguey wrote: »

While I do agree that talent is more important, let me ask, do you not think that if you have talent, you could take better pictures with a better camera? If the talent is the same?

well, what advantage has that better camera gained?
is gig photography better now than it was in the 70s, with all the improvement in sensors in low light?
admittedly, it's not challenging lighting, but it's worth a look, from 8m08s (which i've linked to) - those cameras would be hopelessly outclassed by today's cameras - you can clearly see one photographer metering off the back of his hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiI3IJFU8tA#t=8m08s

roguey

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, what advantage has that better camera gained?
is gig photography better now than it was in the 70s, with all the improvement in sensors in low light?
admittedly, it's not challenging lighting, but it's worth a look, from 8m08s (which i've linked to) - those cameras would be hopelessly outclassed by today's cameras - you can clearly see one photographer metering off the back of his hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiI3IJFU8tA#t=8m08s

Your point is valid, they have the talent to use those cameras to the best of their abilities to achieve excellent photos. But if they can get as good pictures back then, with those cameras, as people can today with new cameras, then by that logic, why would they ever change camera? Should the photographers in that video should be using the same cameras to this day?

EDIT: 250th post!

pikaia

For me I think composition is the most important part of photography whether you've got a €50 camera or €5000 camera. Its hard to learn good composition.

mehfesto

You need a good camera to take decent gig shots in Dublin - the lighting is ****e.

Higher ISOs allow faster shutter speeds, so you can capture the action without blur. My old d80 couldn't handle such low conditions - my new camera is the bees knees. There's no two ways around it - without it, I'd be sunk. Yeah, gig photographers in the 70s got away with it, but look beyond the stadium shots, to the ones that were in dingy clubs (check out old NMEs) and you'll see horrid shots, or great ones that are as grainy as hell.

We can wax lyrical about how the photographer is the only important factor, but that'd be wrong - in some scenarios at least.

challengemaster

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, because the limiting factor is talent, not technology.

Going with the example of gig shots provided above

If you can't increase the ISO to get a decent shutter speed, unless you're talented enough to stop time, you're screwed. Having ISO 12,800 or whatever it may be available and USABLE (unlike some Eos X00/X000 models) is the difference between getting the shot or not.

Talent is _A_ limiting factor, not _THE_ limiting factor. If technology plays no part in it at all, someone should inform all the camera companies. I'm sure they'd be delighted to know they can fire all their engineers and stop wasting time and money trying to make technological advances with their cameras.


/edit

Adding to the examples list - Waterproof housings. I'd love to see what kind of talent you have that you don't need to use one for taking underwater photos.

jpb1974

Adding to the examples list - Waterproof housings. I'd love to see what kind of talent you have that you don't need to use one for taking underwater photos.

Sorry... but a waterproof housing is not a fundamental element of photography in it's true form. All it does is allow the camera to function underwater... that's not enhancing talent or enhancing a photo... it's simply facilitating the operation of the camera.

IMO there's too much emphasis here on things like low light and fast shutter speeds. I wouldn't argue that technology doesn't facility these sort of situations but there's far more to photography than just tricky lighting and max fps.

Modern technology, for the most part, is a crutch and if you opt to lean on that crutch then there's no problem. I'm not even sure how much value I place on cameras and lenses... great concepts, vision and ideas are far more exciting and valuable... in my humble opinion of course.

TelePaul

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, because the limiting factor is talent, not technology.

Have to disagree with that completely.

This seems to be a recurring theme across many industries that have experienced rapid technological advancement. Digital recording medium versus analogue tape for example. I think there is something of a purist notion that constantly screams "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD". Grand, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do it either! I like to think of all technologies as enabling - they facilitate the realisation of some end state. Obviously this end state can't be achieved without that initial spark, but that spark can't be sustained without some facilitating technology. It's the same in any industry.

If talent was the limiting factor, we'd all use pin-hole cameras and be thrilled with our results.

TelePaul

jpb1974 wrote: »

All it does is allow the camera to function underwater... that's not enhancing talent or enhancing a photo

Well it probably yields better results than a shot taken underwater without a water-proof housing!

jpb1974

Well it probably yields better results than a shot taken underwater without a water-proof housing!

Just like a spacesuit allows you to walk on the moon.

TelePaul

jpb1974 wrote: »

Just like a spacesuit allows you to walk on the moon.

QED I think!

magicbastarder

TelePaul wrote: »

This seems to be a recurring theme across many industries that have experienced rapid technological advancement. Digital recording medium versus analogue tape for example.

taking music as an example - i know a couple of people working in the music business, and one lament i have heard is that technology has overtaken talent, with the result that recordings sound *worse* now. sound engineers have lost the ability to be able to 'read' a room and place mics correctly.
compare how 'kind of blue' by miles davis - recorded 42 years ago on a tube reel to reel tape machine - sounds compared to some modern recordings, made with the benefit of essentially unlimited channels in studios costing millions.
the sound quality on KOB is superb and has character, which is missing an awful lot on modern recordings.

jpb1974

QED I think!

Not necessarily... if you wanted to take photos on the moon then a spacesuit is essential. But just because it makes being there possible doesn't mean that photography has hit a new high. A camera is still a camera... your spacesuit might be far superior to mine but that doesn't mean your photos will be.

You waterproof housing maybe state of the art, and I might have a disposable 35mm in a bog standard w/p housing that cost €14.99 (film dev pre-paid)... but that doesn't mean your photos will be better than mine.

TelePaul

jpb1974 wrote: »

Not necessarily... if you wanted to take photos on the moon then a spacesuit is essential. But just because it makes being there possible doesn't mean that photography has hit a new high. A camera is still a camera... your spacesuit might be far superior to mine but that doesn't mean your photos will be.

I think this is in danger of becoming a moot point, but suppose your space0-suit has a hole in it. Not sure how many shots will get off before being sucked into the cold vacuum of space! Hyperbole aside, the point remains.

jpb1974 wrote: »

You waterproof housing maybe state of the art, and I might have a disposable 35mm in a bog standard w/p housing that cost €14.99 (film dev pre-paid)... but that doesn't mean your photos will be better than mine.

Whoah whoah, if waterproof housing isn't a 'fundamental element of photography', then why should you need one at all, be it state of the art or bog-standard? That's my point all along, if talent is the only limiting factor, than everything else is superfluous - flash guns, high ISO range, underwater housings, space suits...

TelePaul

magicbastarder wrote: »

taking music as an example - i know a couple of people working in the music business, and one lament i have heard is that technology has overtaken talent, with the result that recordings sound *worse* now. sound engineers have lost the ability to be able to 'read' a room and place mics correctly.
compare how 'kind of blue' by miles davis - recorded 42 years ago on a tube reel to reel tape machine - sounds compared to some modern recordings, made with the benefit of essentially unlimited channels in studios costing millions.
the sound quality on KOB is superb and has character, which is missing an awful lot on modern recordings.

Supposing Miles, Teo Macero et. al were to record Kind of Blue in a modern recording studio, at 192,000 Hz, 24 bit, mixing down to Bluray disc. There can be no doubt that it'd be sonically superior to the original.

magicbastarder

TelePaul wrote: »

Have to disagree with that completely.

the amount of technology in a camera now compared to the mid seventies is absolutely colossal. i suspect your average camera now has as much processing power as a mainframe computer from back then.

but if you're saying that the quality of photographs being produced is commensurately better, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

the only issue i see people regularly going to is high ISO performance - and that's one i'm willing to concede a point on.

jpb1974

My point is that if technology makes something accessible for photography purposes then that's good... but accessiblity is what technology has made better... the photography element still relies on many more factors.

A w/p housing is a 'fundamental element of underwater photography'... but the point is that there's much more to photography than underwater photos. We're discussing photography as a whole here.

BTW: I never said that talent is the only limiting factor, that was someone else's point. However I would say that talent is the most important factor.

Anyway.. to wrap this up... if you believe that your camera makes your photographs better then that's fine with me. But that's doesn't mean technology makes photography better <full stop>. For me I'd prefer to say that 'technology supports photography'.