# Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gear?



## jdramirez (Aug 30, 2012)

I have a 60D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, 50mm f/1.4 USM, and a 70-200mm f/4L USM. I'm happy with the assortment of lenses, but it occurs to me that I'm not sure my photos are that much better than when I was shooting with a $150 - $200 Sony (7mp) point and shoot.

Just adding up the retail value of my gear ($4500), I'm not so sure that I'm 22X a better photographer than I was. That's not to say I don't do a good job with my gear... I compose a shot well, I bounce light like a champ, and I get a ton of complements... but I think people take me more seriously because of the size of my camera than the relative improvement of the shots. 

I might just be having a bit of an existential crisis and I'm merely romanticizing the "quality" of my photos with the P&S... but still. Do y'all think the gear has substantially advanced your product?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 30, 2012)

1. From P&S to crop = yes
2. From crop to FF = yes

x1000 better? maybe not. However DSLR is much faster in AF = more keeper. plus much more flexible with lens choices & features. NOT just IQ, but over all.


----------



## davidchang (Aug 30, 2012)

sometimes reading my $15 books makes me feel like im a better photographer than my gear does.
but i sure enjoy playing with it


----------



## Janco (Aug 30, 2012)

Pareto principle might apply. You could have achieved 80% of your shots in the same quality with 20% worth of your gear. Spend 900$ to get 80% of your shots, for the rest spend 3600$ more ;-)


----------



## birtembuk (Aug 30, 2012)

Excellent question !!! Same with golfers. You're always after the latest equipment thinking it will improve something. And you always meet the other guy, playing an old second hand set, who trashes you without mercy. Passion ! A very demanding mistress. Expensive stuff won't improve my skills and talent. But. The feeling of holding beautifully crafted pieces of engineering entices me to go out more, to take much more photos and, out of respect for the gear, pay more attention to what I am doing. Improving by numbers ! Yes, expensive gear makes me a better photographer. Somehow.


----------



## Forceflow (Aug 30, 2012)

Really hard to say. I've been a SLR shooter most of my life, but I have seen multiple upgrades to my equipment. I think the most difficult question to answer is how much better a picture really is. A professional that charges for his photographs might be better able to calculate this, but since I rarely do paid work it's hard to put a price on quality.

In terms of bodies I went from analog AE-1 to EOS 300D - EOS40D - EOS 7D.
Going from analog to digital my pictures didn't get better but I simply could experiment much more and thus could get learn much better. The switch from the 300D to the 40D made a big visual impact on the pure quality of my pics, but not necessarily on my photographs as a whole. (MEaning I still pretty much sucked at it) The switch from the 40D to my 7D barely made an impact on quality but simply made some shots possible that I could never do with my 40D. (Since the 7D is much faster both on fps and AF) How does this translate into money value? I have no idea.

For my lenses I made a lot of adjustments. Starting with the kit lens and later the 70-300mm canon crapzoom I moved into various variations of lenses. Again, some jumps were obvious in terms of quality. Going from the crapzoom to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 was a huge difference. Not only visually but also because the zoom was much, much faster and thus allowing me to get much better sports shots. My move from the 50mm macro to Sigmas 150mm macro did not do much in terms of image quality but again made some shots possible that I simply could not do before. The largest impact visually vise came from the Sigma 85mm 1.4 That lens again made shots possible that I couldn't do before due to the very large aperture but also produces images in a quality not possible before. (Wonderful bokeh and the such) But again, how does that translate into money?

I've seen absolutely stunning photographs done with cell phone cameras and plenty of really sucky ones taken with top of the line dSLRs. The photographer is still the most important part in taken a picture, but sometimes having the right gear will make the difference between failure and success.


----------



## Jotho (Aug 30, 2012)

Without a doubt, I have moved from P&S through 400D through 60D and now 5DMkiii and along the way upgraded my lenses now only using Ls. I am not a pro. One of the reasons will be the gear itself, I have found it easier to take good pictures as my skills have improved as well as I have gotten my hands on better equipment. Of course today I would be able to shoot a lot better pics with the 400D than I could at the time I bought it.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 30, 2012)

I like that question!

If I go back and see my first pictures, the ones now are seriously better, but I think that has something to do with general photographic knowledge, not the gear to an absoulte.

That being said I would without ANY doubt say , because it's a fact, that most of my pictures today couldn't have been done with anything else. How do I know that? I have bought new gear because the old didn't do it right. I've been through; 350d, 400d, 1d3+5d1, 1d4, 5d2, 5d3 and now the 1d X and I must say, the 1d X takes it all to a different level. In the short time I've had it I've gotten more funny and unseen moments, (in my pictures) than the others put together. That blows my mind.

But as we all know, that is only the body. I have no idea how many lenses I have owned, sold, traded over the years, but it is around 35-40, and my current setup is the only set of lenses that have kept up with the 1-series advantages imo. And although I can sure as hell take a good picture of my daughter (9 months) sitting on the floor with pretty much anything, but to do it at the superclean 1600 iso with the 1d X and have the 85 L II (that now has fast enough AF) makes that image something more than a snapshot, it's now a keeper, and a fun memory due to the burst of 6 images (at 12 fps) I had one with a funny expression. It's the little things. 

And then I can go out, shoot a surfing contest and come home with all tack sharp images and can pick the precise moments. 

For me there has been a significant step up for each lens and body, and a BIG step when combining them.

But what has made the most impact on my images is actually something else. It's a book called "Light, Science & Magic" and the "Lightning 101" over at www.strobist.com. It's when I went with wireless lights I really starting to have fun and get images like the one I saw on the "internets" and got a whole other undestanding for what it takes to make a great image.

And you'll also get a more and more trained eye and that combined with knowledge makes it very annoying (for me at least) to use gear you know could be better. If you get the images you want with what you have, that saves a lot of money. 

It's when you buy your first L-lens it all goes out the window ;D


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gea*

HA! Not even CLOSE to improving my images at the ratio of the cost difference!
BUT - I now have equipment that covers almost every kind of situation I like to shoot in. No more improvising and getting so-so results; It's nice to have few hardware limitations, I have the right tools for almost every job instead of constantly adapting a limited set of resources to fill a requirement. The latter, however, can lead to more creativity.

So, altho the technical IQ of my digital files has improved immensely over PnS digicams I used when I first went digital, the actual artistic merit part has improved only incrementally. Part of that could be the 25 years of experience shooting film, followed by 5+ years stretching the limits of PnS digicams before I bought a 40D and entered the DSLR world with that.

The 40D was the first DSLR where i thought I was finally getting adequate features and performance for the price.

Before that I had balked at paying the price when Canon introduced the PowerShot G3. In retrospect, if I WOULD have purchased the G3 when it was new, its outstanding IQ would have prevented me from buying a slew of cheaper compact digicams and could have delayed my DSLR purchase beyond the 40D. My equipment path could have been quite different from what it is now. A $1000 back then could have saved me many times more than that over the same time frame. But all the fun I'd have missed...
FYI - I currently own 4 G3s, and use 3 of them regularly for various purposes.
Hmmmm...


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 30, 2012)

With the $15,000 i've spent on gear (just added it up the other day for an insurance quote), i'd be saying:
- Yes, my images have improved
- No, my images haven't improved enough to make back $15,000 worth of print sales.

But there's a difference to "Quality of Images" and "Variety of Images".
When I first got my kit, it was a 7D, EFs 15-85, 70-300 non-L.
Good kit to start with, I got some great landscapes, I got some decent-ish wildlife.

Then add in a few CPLs. Not much, maybe $100. Quality of landscapes increased a lot.

But still, I couldn't take anything good indoors. So i got a nifty-fifty.
Shooting at iso3200, 1/30s, f/1.8, and pushing a bit in post, (it was really dark when I was using it), the images weren't great, but compared to using the EFs 15-85 at 50mm f/5 or so, I'd have been at maybe 1-second exposures. So in that way, after buying the niftyfifty, images got a lot better compared to what would have been possible previously.

Then I started reading about a thing called a Lensbaby, and bought a Double Glass Muse. Now, images certainly weren't any "better" than I could get with a niftyfifty, but they were "different", it's an effect not easily emulated (i hate PP-effects except rotation, sharpening, contrast, sat).

Then the 70-300L got announced, and I bought one a few months later, and sold the 70-300 non-L to my sister. Did the images come out better than the non-L? Damn straight they did. I haven't sold any, but I'm definitely of the opinion that something at 300mm would be acceptable to a buyer, but definitely wouldn't be with the non-L.

Further expanding possibilities, I got a few Pentacon Six lenses with a Tilt adapter. Did they produce better images than my 15-85 and 70-300L? Probably not, they were mostly uncoated, all max f/2.8 or 3.5, usable in the same aperture ranges as my zooms. But they added to the "different" abilities, namely tilting (i've also since got a shift-adapter, i'm too tight to just buy a tilt&shift adapter from zoerk or mirex).

Add in more fast primes as time goes on, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 55/1.2, 85/1.8, 100/2.0. They may not produce "better" images than the first zooms, but when used in certain situations (like bugger-all light), they're better than what I could have done with what I had before (with slow apertures).

And a Sigma 8-16mm. Sure, it's great. But it didn't replace anything, it's simply adding to the focal length available to me (I could probably get "better" images stitching from a longer lens, but that's annoying and time-consuming).

And lately, an EOS 3, a Pentacon Six body, a Kiev 60 body (all for film, if you've never heard of them). Do they produce better images? I doubt it. Maybe the P6 with some Efke 25 scanned to 46MP might look good. But I could probably get better images from the 7D still.

There's one concept I'm skirting around, and in economics we call it "utility". Think of it like putting a dollar value on 'fun'. I've certainly had my $15,000 worth of utility from my kit, even if I never reclaim anything from selling any lenses or prints.

Nowadays, there's not much I *can't* take a photo of, be it wide angle, long distance, low-light, long-exposures (ie with ND filters), tilt, shift, macro, action, you name it. So my lens-buying habit has sort of died-down lately, there's not much else to buy to expand possibilities. So for me, there's only one thing left to do, is ditch the crappier lenses and buy "better" ones. And that's something I haven't started yet, because for me, the fun is in just being *able* to take the photos, not how *good* they print (because, well, i rarely print)


----------



## charliewphotos (Aug 30, 2012)

Mine have certainly improved, I think getting the right gear for your needs yeilds more results than just buying more and more gear with no real purpose. For instance my live music shots have improved dramatically moving from the 17-85mm kit lens I had to the 17-55mm f/2.8 that I use now. I don't think there's any substitue for practise and knoweldge about what you and your gear can do but the right gear can make all the difference.


----------



## Joseph M (Aug 30, 2012)

I feel that I have certainly improved. When I got a 24-105L to replace the kit lens on my 550D I started seeing improvements in my photography with the extra reach and constant f-stop. Was it proportional to the cost? I'm not entirely sure but my shots before the L upgrade all looked like they were shot with a point-and-shoot. 
With that being said I did get start getting lessons on the basics at almost the same time (Photo student) but I do think that it's the confidence that came with getting new gear that pushed me to shoot more.
I'm sure a lot of people might berate me for that but I do believe that there is a bit of truth in it. Now that I have moved to a 5D, I can visibly see that my photos and style of shooting have improved. When I started with the 550D I shot with the greenbox :-[ for a month or two, with the 5D the first thing I did was to set all the buttons to my preferred functions knowing very well what I wanted. I still have a lot to learn though. ;D 
Oh and the 61 autofocus point is amazing 8)


----------



## stefsan (Aug 30, 2012)

I would say that my photos have improved considerably every time I could buy better lenses. As for bodies, the steps from my first DSLR to my actual camera (400D > 40D > 7D) have resulted in better pics too, although it is more difficult to put the finger on what exactly in the picture is better because of the better camera. But higher resolution, better AF, a little less noise and better over-all handling have had a positive impact on my shooting.


----------



## AmbientLight (Aug 30, 2012)

Both investment in bodies and investment in lenses has resulted in my photographic output to become significantly better.

For me the effect has usually been a multiple of equipment cost. This is because I am always looking for highly specialized equipment that allows me to achieve a certain look or making a shot possible, which I could not hope to achieve without the prerequisite gear.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2012)

There is little doubt that you have to spend a lot of money to get a little improvement. As you approach the highest quality available, the cost for miniscule inprovement goes up tremendously.
However, there are some areas of improvement such as low light or shallow depth of field that just cannot be done with point and shoot. Wide angles are a issue as well, with 28mm equiv being the widest that most p&S cameras will do without a klutzy screw-on adapter. Even interchangable lens mirrorless bodies seem to be limited to 24mm equiv.
If you are not pushing the extremes, or do not need the very best, a P&S is a very respectable solution. I find most digital P&S to be much better than the $300 P&S 35mm film cameras of the 1980's. It was difficult to make a high resolution FF lens for a small body, so there was a huge compromise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2012)

Over time, I've accumulated more and much better gear than I initially purchased. Over time, the quality of my photos has improved. Correlation does not equal causation. I'd certainly like to believe that the quality of my photos would have improved similarly even if I were still shooting with the T1i/500D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 85mm f/1.8, and 430EX II.

What has dramatically improved with more/better gear is the variety of images I'm able to capture while maintaining a consistently high quality. Creative control of DoF with fast primes and a TS-E lens, wider apertures so I don't need uber-high ISO settings in low light, longer lenses for birds and wildlife instead of severely cropping the images, macro lenses for close-ups, sealing so I can shoot in inclement weather (or when it's sunny and 80° and I'm on a water ride at an amusement park with my kids), etc.

Is the improvement proportional to the cost of my gear? No, it's far greater. I can put a price on the gear (and I have to, for insurance coverage). The memories captured are priceless.


----------



## Ming-Tzu (Aug 30, 2012)

I would answer yes. But I feel only a small portion of my improvement is because of the new glass and cameras. I think the real reason for improvement is because, as I acquire better gear and become more invested, I spend a lot more time learning how to PP. I think the sole reason for my improvement is continuously learning how to use LR, and next, PS.

That's where my improvement comes from.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 30, 2012)

Has it increased proportional to the cost of my gear, no, but, that's when you put a specific monetary value on it. I've definitely gotten better over time, but I could have also improved with the specific gear I had originally. Though, adding a wide angle lens definitely gets me shots I never could have.



neuroanatomist said:


> Is the improvement proportional to the cost of my gear? No, it's far greater. I can put a price on the gear (and I have to, for insurance coverage). The memories captured are priceless.


I love this take on it and I completely agree. While I don't have kids, its impossible to put value on how much fun I've had trying to capture a bunch of different shots and the places its taken me. And how much more fun it is than sitting in my living room in a weekend.

edit: Yeah, as i've spent more Ive definitely invested more time as well.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 30, 2012)

davidchang said:


> sometimes reading my $15 books makes me feel like im a better photographer than my gear does.
> but i sure enjoy playing with it



+1


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 30, 2012)

This is a great question to ask and also a very hard one to answer. The instinct is to say hell yes, but, the reality is probably no. I ask myself this whenever I start thinking of adding something new, what will the benefit be. Merely affording it via regular old economics (are your profits greater than your costs) does not answer this question. 

It's a hard question because your always learning. Example: I can say I am creating a much greater variety of images with lets say my 24-70 2.8. But, I have now owned that lens for just over 1.5 years. The addition of that lens alone did not improve my photos though, it was the time spent learning the lens, finding it's sweet spots, etc, etc. Which was a process I am kind of going through again due to moving from crop to full frame! The 24-70 works in a different way now, and I have to learn it! Same for my 70-200, for a while that lens sat in my bag gettinhg used rarely because its a bit too long on a crop sensor unless your pushing range. But its a totally new lens to me now on FF. So in that sense, the gear isn't really the thing that makes things get better --- it's the time spent with it, learning it, using it, experimenting, taking it on the job --- that's what really makes a photo improve. 

Bodies --- there are some things that I really just wouldn't be able to do without the ISO capabilities of the mk3. Is the quality of photo proportional though? No --- but, along these lines there is an intangible benefit --- that being confidence. Knowing that I can tackle any situation and get the shot, that's a hard one to quantify. Did I get that job because I am just so awesome how could they go with someone else? Or, does that little nugget in the back of the mind, that knowing I can handle anything - how does that factor into the in person meetings? I know if I was still only using my 7D, I probably would not have approached meetings with such confidence, I'd be worried because I know how shots look on the 7d above 2500 ISO. Yes, I have a set of alien bee's, but, knowing that I can push to 12,800 in the reception and get great natural lighting shots versus having to use lighting... how does that factor in? 

Good Q...and very informative replies thus far!


----------



## mitchell3417 (Aug 30, 2012)

Great question.

I agree with some of the other posters, that more gear allows you to make great photographs in more situations. A point in shoot can make awesome images given the right lighting and situation. The more situations we encounter and want to photograph the more money we spend on gear. Each piece of gear improves the quality of our of photographs for a certain situation, but not for all of them. The more and more gear we have, the more and more specialized or sophisticated our gear has to be in order to improve upon what is already available to us. So we spend a bunch of money on a piece of gear that only helps us improve incrementally.

From a personal standpoint I must say that my move the Full Frame made the biggest, immediate difference in my images. It was like night and day. Even my wife, who doesn't understand why hdtv is better than sdtv, was blown away by the quality of the images and the difference that was immediately noticeable. It wasn't like my skills had improved that much when I went to full frame. It was just the gear. Nothing else I've bought has made such a huge difference IMO.


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Aug 30, 2012)

I'd say no, but it's still worth it

From an economics standpoint, I think its literally impossible for the answer to be "Yes". Even a $50 functional camera is infinitely better than _no _camera. After that, the returns on extra money spent decline rather rapidly. You'd be hard pressed to distinguish between a wallet size pic that was taken with a 1dx vs. a 10 yr old P&S. What the 1dx gives you, of course, is the ability to print much larger quality pics, shoot in damp conditions, change lenses (which also cost more $), AF faster, etc..., but it is drastically more expensive. Of course, this is the concept of diminishing (marginal) returns. Same issue with cars. A 300K super car isn't 300x faster around a track than a $1k beater. 

This is really the sister discussion to "is the <insert camera here> worth it?" discussions. For a pro, who is earning a living with gear, its a very real topic. Will new gear allow me to increase revenue to offset the cost? If yes, do it. If not, don't, at least not yet. 
For a hobbyist, the calculation is very different. Will I enjoy my hobby more? Will I capture more memories and WOW shots with the new gear? These aren't quantifiable, but still very real. I have a 5DIII arriving tomorrow that I expect will improve the quality of my photography enough to offset it's added cost, even though I will earn $0 more with it.


----------



## Ewinter (Aug 30, 2012)

I feel it's not about how good the gear is but how much room it gives you to grow yourself.going from the 450d to the 7d taught me about using af better because it has more af to learn; the 70-200 allows me to learn more about sports.
Now I've learnt all that, I can pick up a point and shoot and get better photos. It's not about how expensive gear is but how much it teaches you and how much you can then accomplish.
I still use the 450d, and I still use the elan 7 35mm when I need my ass schooled in exposure again


----------



## bvukich (Aug 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is the improvement proportional to the cost of my gear? No, it's far greater. I can put a price on the gear (and I have to, for insurance coverage). The memories captured are priceless.



x1000


----------



## joshmurrah (Aug 30, 2012)

The cost/quality of my gear does help to some degree, but it's not been a proportional growth, no... I feel that I would have grown nearly as much if I had stuck with my Digital Rebel and Tamron super-zoom.


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 30, 2012)

My time is very valuable to me, so if a piece of new gear will allow me to spend less time in front of the computer, and more time with my family, it is definitely worth it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 30, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> My time is very valuable to me, so if a piece of new gear will allow me to spend less time in front of the computer, and more time with my family, it is definitely worth it.



+1....in some cases, I use JPEG "as is" no PP, results are aways better than P&S


----------



## FirstL (Aug 30, 2012)

This is my first time posting here and I'm amateur for sure. I've been shooting for several years but still consider myself in the hobby phase. I have to say that the first shots when going from a T1i and kit lense to a 7D and first L lense was a stark difference. Now I see why all the rukus about L lenses.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 30, 2012)

much more improve when you are master at photoshop LOL


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 30, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> much more improve when you are master at photoshop LOL



Good RAW shot from camera will help alot.........don't you think?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gea*



joshmurrah said:


> The cost/quality of my gear does help to some degree, but it's not been a proportional growth, no... I feel that I would have grown nearly as much if I had stuck with my Digital Rebel and Tamron super-zoom.



Yes, gear with fewer limitations provides more room to learn and push your own creative boundaries farther out.



Dylan777 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > much more improve when you are master at photoshop LOL
> ...



Raw files and the increased flexibility of post-processing with all kinds of software is the biggest area of my improvements. That was so much harder to do with film!


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Aug 30, 2012)

I'm new to photography and I started out with a T3i and Canon 100-400mm back in November 2011. I shoot mainly wildlife: wolves, bears, birds, and whatever that moves. I could get sharp images up to 300mm, but couldn't seem to get equally sharp images at 400mm with the 100-400mm. I bought a 300mm f2.8 IS Mark I, a 1.4X II and a 2.0 II TCs, and a 5D3 in April 2012. I saw my photo quality improved dramatically with the new equipment. The T3i + 100-400mm cost me about $2,200, the 5D3 + 300mm f2.8 (used) + 1.4X Tc + 2X TC ~ $7500. I'd say I got my money worth > 3X improvements . 

However, now that I know I can take sharp images, I suspect I can go back to the T3i and 100-400mm and get much better quality images than I used to, so may be not 3X improvements . But I enjoy photography a lot more and have no regret for spending that kind of money on new gear


----------



## michi (Aug 30, 2012)

Tough question and lots of great answers here. Everyone is right, especially since it is a personal thing. I do believe that the photographer is the most important part, then the lenses, then the body. I have a friend who takes the most amazing shots with a point and shoot. He's not really into photography, but the angles and poses he comes up with, I cannot compete with. I truly am jealous.
Of course it helps when you can take a clear shot at ISO 3200 with the newest pro DSLR and the AF is always tack on. Also, when I get new gear, I push myself to learn and try out new possibilities opened with the new gear, thereby learning something. But in the end, if my point and shoot friend comes along, I can't say who would come home with the better pictures...


----------



## dstppy (Aug 30, 2012)

FirstL said:


> This is my first time posting here and I'm amateur for sure. I've been shooting for several years but still consider myself in the hobby phase. I have to say that the first shots when going from a T1i and kit lense to a 7D and first L lense was a stark difference. Now I see why all the rukus about L lenses.



It's not just "L" but I do really agree with you. I think frustrating pieces of consumer glass really hinder an amateur from starting to get really great shots consistently.

I started on a 15-85, which I'm very happy I went with. I see the shots that even today I can produce on the 70-300mm non-L and think: Yuck.

Good glass doesn't really have to be expensive, the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 come to mind as lenses that's value truly exceeds their worth.


----------



## Briand (Aug 30, 2012)

From my experience purchasing new camera bodies, lens and accessories over the last few years, it has provided me the ability shoot better photos than I was to do with my consumer grade equipment especially at weddings.

However buying the best equipment doesn't automatically make you a better photographer, you have to grow with your equipment and learn how to make of the most of what you have though.

The best photographers are using amazing gear and for good reason, they want the best results no matter how talented they are. L-grade lens and full frame camera bodies do produce unmatched results so long as you know how to utilize the advantages they offer.

Not to say all photos that come from non-L and crop cameras are bad, I have achieved amazing photos from my xsi and 17-55 & 55-250 lens many years ago. But since i have made serious upgrades in my equipment I have been more invested, inspired and confident in my photography work I do for fun and for clients. I definitely have more keepers on shoots I do.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 30, 2012)

Definitely not.

I still use a point and shoot (S95) and can get some nice pictures from it. 
The pictures from my T1i and 15-85mm lens are better, but they are not two to three times as good.

You pay a lot to get a small improvement and better control of the camera.


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 30, 2012)

I would say definitely not on a straight monetary value since I am still in hobbyist/enthusiast mode. But I do know the quality of the picture that the camera and equipment allow me take has inspired me to learn how to use the equipment better and to take advantage of the additional opportunities presented.

I do know that with each upgrade of equipment my skills, knowledge and excitement improve. So with these criteria the answer is definitely more so.

In fact I have just place an order for a 7D and expect to learn more new ways and look for more improvement in my pictures.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 30, 2012)

In my own case, it's not an improvement in quality so much as improvements in capability. A 5D Mk III that can produce high quality images at ISO 12800 paired with my 24mm f/1.4L II is capable of doing things that cheaper equipment cannot.

I remember being excited at the ISO 3200 image quality of the 20D. That seems so long ago now...


----------



## Invertalon (Aug 30, 2012)

As bad as it sounds, yes... But there is a catch.

You still need the know-how to really make use of what you buy... Basically, not buying the most expensive stuff and being clueless to how to use it properly. 

As my lenses and body got better via upgrades, my images did as well. Having better high ISO, sharper/faster lenses, more specialized lenses for dramatic effects, etc... But my knowledge grew just as quickly as my gear.

My Samyang 14mm is one example, although its quite cheap at around $300... Some of my best images came from that lens simply because it was a 14mm on FF. I could not pull off those images with any other lenses. Now without the Samyang I would be stuck buying the $2000+ 14L... So sometimes you get "stuck" buying expensive items because there simply is nothing cheaper. 

Much like anything, the knowledge is backward compatible. You can give me a T1i and 18-55 and I am sure I would be able to do great things with it... But I would be very limited compared to what I own (5D3, 70-200 II, 35L, 24-105L, etc...). Much like throwing a professional race-car driver into a basic Toyota Yaris. The talents basically get wasted because the equipment does not match to potential. This really is a summary of my whole post! Wasting talents without proper tools.

So in a way, you NEED the knowledge to make the best use out of your expensive gear. Usually this happens naturally... I started with advanced point and shoots when I started to learn manual controls... Moved up to a XSI and then the T1i... Once I outgrew those I was with the 7D, then 5D and 5D2 and now the 5D3. I evolved with my gear. The more I learned, the more money I had invested in very expensive gear. So I know generally how to make the most out of what I own and how to achieve exactly what I want with what I have. You will see me changing lenses like crazy because its mandatory to get the image that I vision. It drives me nuts to keep one lens on for a long period of time because they all do something very different.

Hope this makes sense!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 30, 2012)

There are things you can do with the truly expensive gear that simply can't be done at all with the other stuff. There's a reason a <i>Sports Illustrated</i> photographer will go with a 400 f/2.8 on a 1D X instead of a 75-300 on a Rebel when shooting a football game. The two setups have the same field of view, sure -- hell, the Rebel setup even has more reach. But that's where the similarities end.

Other examples abound. You can do stuff with a TS-E 24 II that you can't with a 28 f/2.8, even though the 28 has autofocus -- think of a small wildflower filling the frame with the rest of the meadow and the mountains in the background, everything in sharp focus, except for the dreamily-blurred grass right underneath the flower. And when it comes to things like the MP-E 65...well, sure, you can crop to get the same field of view but doing so is a joke.

So "improvement" isn't quite the proper word to use. Does buying a cement truck to park next to your carbon-frame bicycle improve your locomotion?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Act444 (Aug 30, 2012)

Well, HAVE they? 

I dunno. I mean, I've been interested in photography for a very long time- once the transition to digital happened, I basically stuck with P&S compacts while mulling upgrading to a DSLR for the longest time...the breaking point however happened when I got to go to this really great (indoor) Q&A event...I took pics...got back and EVERY SINGLE FLASH PHOTO with a person in it had red-eye...and every non-flash shot was grainy and blurry. I just got sick and tired of not being able to get decent shots indoors (or in non-"sunny, blue sky" lighting)...so then the Rebel T2i came out and I got myself one right away. I had the impression that getting a DSLR would improve my photos overnight. Well, shocker- it didn't. I found out rather quickly that if I was going to get the pictures I wanted, I needed to learn to use this thing...and also get a better lens as the kit lens quality was DEFINITELY not $800 better than my Canon Elph. 

The main issue was that I had rather high expectations. I guess I was expecting closer to professional-quality photos since I now had what laypeople seem to refer to as a "professional" camera. *My point is, I suppose, it wasn't the camera itself so much as it was my working to fulfill this new, higher expectation I had from it that ended up having the biggest impact on my photos. * It involved several trips to the camera store, several hours/days/weeks reading about photography basics and talking to people, thousands of shutter clicks and, of course, thousands of dollars spent on the type of lenses required to meet my IQ expectations. And it's a learning process that I'm still going through right now.

I guess, now I can pick up my iPhone or Elph and under the right conditions, get somewhat better shots than I used to, but having the right camera REALLY helps. Makes things so much easier...BUT- there IS a learning curve that has to be overcome before you get the desired results.


----------



## Jeffrey (Aug 30, 2012)

I'm an amateur/hobby shooter who enjoys the challenges of shooting birds in flight, nature, and landscaping. In my case, absolutely my photos are hugely improved by the cost of my gear. My 1D-X with "L" series lenses produces amazing results that even my former 1D Mark IV could not do. I'm not so much into spending big bucks as I am enjoying using the features and technology (particularly the upgrades in continuous focusing) that continue to evolve.


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 30, 2012)

Yes, but in a really odd way. The next generation of the 60D or 7D has already made my photography better. Strange but here is how. To justify the upgrade from my 50D I want to make sure I reach the limits of that camera. I have been diligently saving, and by March or sooner I will have a new camera. IF Canon does not offer an upgrade a 5DIII will be within reach. So I have been taking my 50D out as often as possible. learning new things (Lynda and even some stuff on Youtube helped. Self assignments, lowlight, going places I would not normally go, a new strap (does a Black Rapid make me better, well no, but it makes going out more enjoyable and easier on the neck), getting better in Lightroom has made post process better, using RAW all the time and learning how to work with that. Practice and making sure I get out and take pictures 2 or 3 times a week (plus my s95 in my pocket all the time) is making me better. Can't wait for a new camera, I will be a better photographer when it gets here


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 30, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> I have a 60D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, 50mm f/1.4 USM, and a 70-200mm f/4L USM. I'm happy with the assortment of lenses, but it occurs to me that I'm not sure my photos are that much better than when I was shooting with a $150 - $200 Sony (7mp) point and shoot.
> 
> Just adding up the retail value of my gear ($4500), I'm not so sure that I'm 22X a better photographer than I was. That's not to say I don't do a good job with my gear... I compose a shot well, I bounce light like a champ, and I get a ton of complements... but I think people take me more seriously because of the size of my camera than the relative improvement of the shots.
> 
> I might just be having a bit of an existential crisis and I'm merely romanticizing the "quality" of my photos with the P&S... but still. Do y'all think the gear has substantially advanced your product?


That is like asking "did the ride on your 1 million dollar car improve proportionally over the cost of a $10000 car you had before" ... if we start making all our purchase decisions like that we will all be quite miserable. I am assuming that your decision to go with 60D with a 100mm L Macro lens had a lot to do with what you could not do with a $150 P&S camera ... you chose to spend a lot more money on your DSLR gear because of what it is capable of, NOT because it was going to make you 22 times better than your P&S. Having said that, I think your DSLR gear has made you 100 times more capable of making a better and easier photo than a $150 P&S ... because your P&S could NEVER take a macro shot like your 60D coupled with a 100L Macro lens. Also another thing one has to remember is that one of the joys of photography is in buying new gear ... every time I buy some new photographic gear (weather it is a $5 reflector or a $3500 5D MK III camera) it makes me happy that I am a proud owner of some new equipment that helps my photography to become a bit more easier so I can concentrate more on the creative part of photography. That reminds me, I just ordered a Rogue Flash Bender with diffuser panel yesterday and I am eagerly awaiting their arrival ... the joy of buying that little piece of gear and being able to use it is priceless ... that reminds of the Mastercard advert with the tag line "Priceless" ... you need to watch them, they might help you with your "crisis" ;D


----------



## Rocky (Aug 31, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> I have a 60D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, 50mm f/1.4 USM, and a 70-200mm f/4L USM. I'm happy with the assortment of lenses, but it occurs to me that I'm not sure my photos are that much better than when I was shooting with a $150 - $200 Sony (7mp) point and shoot.
> 
> Just adding up the retail value of my gear ($4500), I'm not so sure that I'm 22X a better photographer than I was. That's not to say I don't do a good job with my gear... I compose a shot well, I bounce light like a champ, and I get a ton of complements... but I think people take me more seriously because of the size of my camera than the relative improvement of the shots.
> 
> I might just be having a bit of an existential crisis and I'm merely romanticizing the "quality" of my photos with the P&S... but still. Do y'all think the gear has substantially advanced your product?


Looking at the picture is only part of the equation. Getting it is another part. With what you got (60D and lenses etc), you are having speed in shutter lag, AF, frame per second, shot to shot delay that the Sony P & S that cannot even come close. Therfore you will not miss as much shots as the P & S.  You can also catch the right expression of people at the right moment. Also the 200 mm lense is 320mm equilvalent telelens that the P & S does not have. These are the things that are beyond the final picture. Your "expensive gear" is giving you all the above.

As for picture quality, it all depends how you look at the picture. If you look at the picture from the computer sceen., all you need is about 2 Mp. A 7 Mp and a 18 Mp picture will have the same resolution. In fact BOTH will not look good unless you use PhhtoShop to down size them such that you can look at the WHOLE picture in pixel level on the screen. if you do not print pictures bigger than 11 x 14, Both the 7 Mp and the 18 Mp camera will have ths same virtual resolution. The DR on the crop body (60D) is not much better than a point and shoot. Therfore you will not see any improvemen tin this area. If you shoot a lot of low-light photo, than the 60D will definitely have the advantage .

Just as the other posts says: "cost and quality is not linear". It is an exponential curve. small improvement will cost you big buck.


----------



## canon816 (Aug 31, 2012)

Interesting question you pose.

I believe that as my photography has improved and I have utilized more and more camera features that I have outgrown cameras of my past and welcomed newer more technologically advanced (and expensive) models that in turn have allowed me to accel.

I continue to learn and grow as a photographer in both technique and technical application. I shoot stuff now that I could never have gotten with my old Rebel. Being able to shoot in lower light with faster burst shutters and higher resolution have certainly propelled me along in my growth as a photographer.

While I am by no means well off, I save my money and work hard so that I can afford high end camera equipment, and in the end don't consider it as a typical expense when I buy a new lens or upgrade a body. Perhaps it is an obsession or addiction, but when I create an image that makes me feel proud to be a photographer.... thats when without hesitation I will say that my photos have improved well beyond the proportional cost of my gear. I can't put a price on the feeling I get when my heart is pounding with excitement as I click away peering at the world through my view finder.. knowing that my gear is fully capable of doing the scene justice as long as I manipulate the controls adeptly. 

But I will always be humbled by the fact that the camera does not make a great image... it is the photographer who does. 

Happy shooting.


----------



## rpt (Aug 31, 2012)

At First, no. There were wild swings while I grappled with the complexity of the camera since I upgraded from a 300D.

Now I'd say *YES*! I am able to shoot under conditions that I could not earlier. So as an earlier poster said, it gets the creative juices going...

That is the short answer.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 31, 2012)

Hella yes!

However it does not mean that you give a monkey a 1Dx with a f1.2 85mm and expect him to perform miracles... Tricks yes.... miracles no


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 31, 2012)

Nope. 

I look back... a long time ago... one Nikkormat FT2 and a 50mm f/2.0 Nikkor. Thats it. 

I think my eye was much better back then. I went from having to use my brain for exposure and focus and composition... composition... to what we have.

Pssst... one reason I love my M Leicas is that they force me to think, slow down, be deliberate, and see.

Today, I often feel like my photography is more reportage than creativity. Maybe my muse is gone, I dunno. I can shoot a wedding, a convention, and not miss a shot. But there's no spark...

Sometimes I just grab a lens, turn everything to manual, and try to recapture it all, but todays cameras dont lend themselves to manual shooting as well as those from years past.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> 1. From P&S to crop = yes
> 2. From crop to FF = yes
> 
> x1000 better? maybe not. However DSLR is much faster in AF = more keeper. plus much more flexible with lens choices & features. NOT just IQ, but over all.



I have to say that what I have noticed is my ability to play with Depth of field... which my p&s didn't do. Though I will say that I have 1000X more crappy photos because I just take sooo many more photos at 6 shots per second. Where as with the point and shoot, I have a 5 second delay between shots which is an eternity.

Also, no flash. I just bought a speedlite and before that, maybe .5% of my shots were with flash and consequently washed out. I know there are differences... but every day my lenses collect dust because I didn't go and shoot something, seems like a bit of a waste of an investment.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2012)

Janco said:


> Pareto principle might apply. You could have achieved 80% of your shots in the same quality with 20% worth of your gear. Spend 900$ to get 80% of your shots, for the rest spend 3600$ more ;-)



I hated the kit lens, but I did make do for a LONG time with just an XS and a 50mm f/1.8.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> Excellent question !!! Same with golfers. You're always after the latest equipment thinking it will improve something. And you always meet the other guy, playing an old second hand set, who trashes you without mercy. Passion ! A very demanding mistress. Expensive stuff won't improve my skills and talent. But. The feeling of holding beautifully crafted pieces of engineering entices me to go out more, to take much more photos and, out of respect for the gear, pay more attention to what I am doing. Improving by numbers ! Yes, expensive gear makes me a better photographer. Somehow.



I golf... badly. Fortunately I'm a better photographer than I am a golfer.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I like that question!
> 
> If I go back and see my first pictures, the ones now are seriously better, but I think that has something to do with general photographic knowledge, not the gear to an absoulte.
> 
> ...



I need to pay more attention to lighting. Since I got my XS and 50mm f/1.8 I've almost fanatically been averse to using flash photography. But I know I should use soft bounced light onto my subject, but I REALLY don't like posed photos. So taking a candid shot really prevents me from setting up a flash because I don't know where the shot is going to be coming from. I've bounced light off the ceiling and it's good... but I wouldn't quite call it pro-level. 

I've owned (even if it was just for a few days) the 18-55, 75-300, 55-250, 70-300, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f1/4, 70-200mm f/4L USM, 100mm f/2, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, and I'm no where near done. I almost feel compelled to try and make some money using my equipment otherwise I just have a really expensive hobby.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Nowadays, there's not much I *can't* take a photo of, be it wide angle, long distance, low-light, long-exposures (ie with ND filters), tilt, shift, macro, action, you name it. So my lens-buying habit has sort of died-down lately, there's not much else to buy to expand possibilities. So for me, there's only one thing left to do, is ditch the crappier lenses and buy "better" ones. And that's something I haven't started yet, because for me, the fun is in just being *able* to take the photos, not how *good* they print (because, well, i rarely print)



I think I have a touch of obsessive compulsive in me. I like to find something new and just suck the life out of it until I have either mastered it or grown bored with it. I've done that with video games, golf (started by buying a crap driver and crap irons with surprisingly OK putter). Then I upgraded the irons... then I upgraded the driver, then I upgraded the putter, and somewhere in there I got a sand and lob wedge. So when I was finally done collecting pieces to complete the set, there wasn't anything else for me to do. 

So if we extrapolate that to my camera gear... I basically need a fisheye, a wide angle, a full frame, a long prime (400 maybe), and a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkii. So that's about 10 grand away... so I'll have plenty of time to save... but again... I'm not sure if I just bought a macro lens because I needed one... or simply because I didn't have one.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2012)

Joseph M said:


> I feel that I have certainly improved. When I got a 24-105L to replace the kit lens on my 550D I started seeing improvements in my photography with the extra reach and constant f-stop. Was it proportional to the cost? I'm not entirely sure but my shots before the L upgrade all looked like they were shot with a point-and-shoot.
> With that being said I did get start getting lessons on the basics at almost the same time (Photo student) but I do think that it's the confidence that came with getting new gear that pushed me to shoot more.
> I'm sure a lot of people might berate me for that but I do believe that there is a bit of truth in it. Now that I have moved to a 5D, I can visibly see that my photos and style of shooting have improved. When I started with the 550D I shot with the greenbox :-[ for a month or two, with the 5D the first thing I did was to set all the buttons to my preferred functions knowing very well what I wanted. I still have a lot to learn though. ;D
> Oh and the 61 autofocus point is amazing 8)



I never used the viewfinder in my p&s... it was always the LCD. But when I got the XS, shooting in live mode was just slow and weird... which forced me to use the view finder. And that certainly was a blessing in disguise. 

I had a crappy 1.3mp Olympus as my first digital camera... and I look at those photos now and they are so blurry. I guess I just couldn't tell the difference. But in 2003, I couldn't imagine spending a ton on a camera...


----------



## helpful (Aug 31, 2012)

Yep, I agree, this question has to be one of the greatest philosophical photography questions posed or posted by anyone here at Canon Rumors.

Just in case anyone changes the title of this thread, I'm going to repeat it here: "Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gear?"

I would have to say, "Yes." But not at first, the moment of ownership. It takes awhile.

For instance, using my 1D X for the first time at a sport that I have long experience with was almost like being a beginner again. I was very frustrated. I had forgotten how much of photography is a fine art like playing the violin or hitting a baseball. Timing and handling and not half-pressing the shutter at the wrong time.

But once I get acclimated to the new level of equipment, I have to say that it's worth it.

Perhaps even more so.

It's not the expense that matters, but the fact that some expensive features really do matter to enabling creative vision.

You can have a great idea for a volleyball setter superimposed on the school's logo... but if the camera won't focus fast enough, or its noise is too high, then it's just impossible to accomplish your vision.

And the same truth is valid for landscapes, portraits, and probably any time of photography, just with different parameters (i.e., focusing speed isn't necessarily the limiting factor in a landscape photo).

But the photographer has to learn his expensive instrument well enough to "play" it like a violin.

As far as vision goes, though, I would have to say, "No," except that the capabilities of an expensive camera can often stimulate our vision... like telephotos w/ shallow DOF, etc.... to go beyond its initial conception.


----------



## celliottuk (Aug 31, 2012)

I have to say "Yes" - with one massive point on the curve which doesn't fit the hypothesis.....

I actually gave up photography for over 10 years because I couldn't afford the type of kit that took the photos that inspired me. It was so frustrating.

Those were the days of film, and my first "Wake up call to come back to the fold" was when I got my first Digi Point and Shoot. _This reset the price / performance graph!!._ Suddenly, the quality had gone through the roof, but the price had gone down! That inspired me. Purely as a result of that inspiration I started taking a lot more shots. More shots=more practice and more experience=better shots.
When I got my first digi SLR, the curve came back to the hypothesis, much more money, much more performance. Everry upgrade in bodies and lenses sits nicely on the curve, HOWEVER, a sub-hypothesis looks like this..... If a new camera has features and functions that inspire me, I spend more time using the camera, and I really do believe that it's the time put in, the experience gained, the shutter count, the challenge of new circumstances that has the major impact.
_So, finally, Yes I agree, BUT, it's really about the shutter count!_


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 31, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> Just adding up the retail value of my gear ($4500), I'm not so sure that I'm 22X a better photographer than I was. [...]... but I think people take me more seriously because of the size of my camera than the relative improvement of the shots.
> Do y'all think the gear has substantially advanced your product?



I don't think that the money invested and the quality of the pictures have a linear relationship - its more like a step function. Can you take the picture (and get the required technical quality)? And can you do it reliable. The latter gets important once you work not alone&just for yourself. If yes, then every cent spent in addition is wasted, if not one has to find out what the weak link is - ideas, skill, gear, mise en scene? - depending on the answer money can fix it. Being taken more serious because of technically unnecessary/overblown gear might even be a valid way if it buys you access to resources you need but wouldn't have otherwise, your subjects predisposition for example.


----------



## Zusje (Aug 31, 2012)

YES!!! I didn't realise how much until I'm forced to go back to a compact! I started with film point and shoots, my 1st digital was a 50D and I have the 5Diii and 1D IV and recently purchased a 1GX because of its small size so I always have a camera handy, but everytime I take it out, I'm really wishing that I had one of my Dslrs, because the compact is so slow, no easy access to some manual functions and the shots disappoint alot if they're not missed altogether- very frustrating!


----------



## Mark1 (Aug 31, 2012)

For me, the biggest jump in quality came when I started using fast primes. I'm not sure you'd have to spend a lot of money to achieve that though. The difference between shooting at f5.6 and f1.8 is immense regardless of the sharpness of the lens and cost of the body.

I have a 5D2 and 2 L lenses. They are beautiful pieces of equipment which I sometimes just like to admire and polish them. They are marvellous pieces of engineering but if you want to improve your photography, get into fast primes is my advice.


----------



## drolo61 (Aug 31, 2012)

To the point!

Quality of pictures almost always finally lies with the viewer - what I consider cool might no impress others much.

Taking pictures since about 35 years, I started out with a SLR and free Kodachrome as much as I wanted (my dad used to work there). Looking through old boxes, some of my very early stuff impresses me still today. Went lat to digital, as IQ around the end 90' "wasnt there". Experimented with 6x6 and 6x9, enjoying the "slow down" which comes with 220 film. You rather carefully compose, measure your light and you come home with a roll or two (that is 10 to 20 pictures). Moved into digital T-Rebel, 10D, 5D and now 5DIII. Jump to FF made me feel like "coming home" with respect to IQ and less angles.

So cost of gear, if you buy used (that was my medium format time), is not really the problem. To me, new gear always inspiered my to experiment again and take some quality time to take pictures. I dont shoot for a living, but I am relatively certain that cost of gear and quality of pictures is related. You can't buy quality pictures, but quality gear helps a long way to get you where your imagination is going.

But, no imagination, no quality picture - it's in your head first!


----------



## M.ST (Aug 31, 2012)

Expensive gear can help you to get the best image quality for your customers.

But for the most people who don´t earn the money with photography there is no improvement if they buy much more expensive gear.

If I search for pictures taken with the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III in google I found, that there are only a few breathtaking pictures. It´s not an expensive camera who takes the pictures, it´s the photographer. A week ago I shoot many pictures with a cheap APS-C-body and get perfect results.


----------



## robbinzo (Aug 31, 2012)

I have a canon compact that I mainly use for the slow motion video function to video my golf swing up the range. It takes dreadful photographs and has minimal manual settings.
When I compare my 550D with 10-22mmEFS, 50mm f/1.4 or 100mm L macro lens, there is no comparison. I simply can not acheive what I want from a point and shoot camera.
Of course good quality gear won't necessarily make your photos better (although bokeh can be significantly better with a good quality lens) but you have a better chance of nailing the shot you want.
I live by the maxim "Buy cheap, buy twice."
The reason I buy good quality lenses is not so that I will be a better photographer but so that the equipment will last. My dad still owns Pentax lenses that he bought 40 years ago. They still work and produce nice images.
I will upgrade my camera one day when I feel I am worthy but only because of a few features that my current camera is missing. These features may increase my chance of getting the shot that I desire.
So for me, the answer to the question is yes. I have some amazing photos of my young son to prove it.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 31, 2012)

M.ST said:


> But for the most people who don´t earn the money with photography there is no improvement if they buy much more expensive gear.



Thanks for your sweeping condemnation ..... tells me how little you know people beyond yourself.

I have seen amazing pictures taken by many people who do not make money off their gear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2012)

K-amps said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > But for the most people who don´t earn the money with photography there is no improvement if they buy much more expensive gear.
> ...



+1


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

M.ST said:


> Expensive gear can help you to get the best image quality for your customers.
> 
> But for the most people who don´t earn the money with photography there is no improvement if they buy much more expensive gear.
> 
> If I search for pictures taken with the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III in google I found, that there are only a few breathtaking pictures. It´s not an expensive camera who takes the pictures, it´s the photographer. A week ago I shoot many pictures with a cheap APS-C-body and get perfect results.


I am an ordinary photographer ... with my 7D my photos are good. But with the 5D MK III my photos are much better ... same photographer (me) different equipment and my photos look better.
Great photographers make great images with any camera but they excel even more when they have the best camera in their hand. 
Maybe you are a perfect photographer that's why you get "perfect results" with an APS-C body ... but me, a mere ordinary photographer, needs 5D MK III to make my photos look better. 
Conclusion: Size DOES matter! ... better cameras do take better pictures (at least for me).


----------



## dmills (Aug 31, 2012)

I find that almost exclusively the people that claim that "gear doesn't matter" are people that have expensive gear, and for whatever reason, claim that, though gear doesn't matter, for their specific purpose, they need it. I think people mostly do this to justify themselves spending money on expensive gear by 'setting themselves apart from hobbyists who just spend money on expensive gear'. 

For my part, I'm an amateur. My father has been a magazine photographer for more than 30 years, and I understand now why he always used to say: "If gear didn't matter, I wouldn't cart 30-40 pounds of equipment around for two weeks in Africa."


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 31, 2012)

Just to chime in with my 2 cents... short answer, yes... long answer, maybe... well depends... My personal opinion is I dont personally upgrade until my business needs demands it and or when I've outgrown my current gear... So new gear, for me, offers a new ceiling of quality to master, a new challenge, a new expansion upon my current limitations that I can learn to achieve... For instance I shot a wedding ceremony with my 5d3 and got away with ISO's nearing at times 20,000... no flash for ceremony. I didn't think twice about it because I knew once processed, they would look stunning at 8x10's and with a little bit more care, would make great wall portraits... You just couldn't do that with the 7d, 5d2 5d classic, hell even the 1ds3. And the images, focus, quality looked great... That, to me opens up a world of opportunity to expand my skills and services... Is that worth the $2000 premium over the 7d and 5d2 right now? In my current example, yes.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

dmills said:


> I find that almost exclusively the people that claim that "gear doesn't matter" are people that have expensive gear, and for whatever reason, claim that, though gear doesn't matter, for their specific purpose, they need it. I think people mostly do this to justify themselves spending money on expensive gear by 'setting themselves apart from hobbyists who just spend money on expensive gear'.
> 
> For my part, I'm an amateur. My father has been a magazine photographer for more than 30 years, and I understand now why he always used to say: "If gear didn't matter, I wouldn't cart 30-40 pounds of equipment around for two weeks in Africa."


+1


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 31, 2012)

dmills said:


> I find that almost exclusively the people that claim that "gear doesn't matter" are people that have expensive gear, and for whatever reason, claim that, though gear doesn't matter, for their specific purpose, they need it. I think people mostly do this to justify themselves spending money on expensive gear by 'setting themselves apart from hobbyists who just spend money on expensive gear'.
> 
> For my part, I'm an amateur. My father has been a magazine photographer for more than 30 years, and I understand now why he always used to say: "If gear didn't matter, I wouldn't cart 30-40 pounds of equipment around for two weeks in Africa."



As a professional, i'm torn on the whole gear vs skill debate... the old school side of me goes back to the grass roots where pro's used to get stunning shots with a pin hole camera and sports photographers made due with field cameras and or medium format to get the shots before 35mm really became main stream... And for me, starting out pro, I started with the most humbling of equipment with a 10d, the infamous (and not in a good way) 28-135, 70-300 first generation softie, and a tokina 19-35 that smelled like cigarettes because I bought it off ebay... And i worked up the wrung, upgrading gear as I needed and refining what i wanted to be branded as and such and now I've got, in my humble opinion a good quality chunk of glass and cameras... I was able to shoot sports with my 10d with it's 3 FPS and the 75-300 or better lenses if I could borrow them, and so on and so forth... Of course I can get a blazing 8 FPS with the 7d, 6 FPS with the 5d3, and if i wanted to rent the 1d series.... but I still can be done... I think good gear makes getting key shots easier and better in some instances, but without skill, without growing your skill set, without developing yourself as a photographer, you can get a 1dx but not get any better photos to show for it. Camera manufacturers have pushed the envelope, whether we choose to see it or not, they have raised the bar, raised the ceiling, and if we can grow and make use of it, you can indeed see better results... otherwise, you wont see any improvement over a pro with a 10D.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 31, 2012)

drolo61 said:


> To the point!
> 
> So cost of gear, if you buy used (that was my medium format time), is not really the problem. To me, new gear always inspiered my to experiment again and take some quality time to take pictures. I dont shoot for a living, but I am relatively certain that cost of gear and quality of pictures is related. You can't buy quality pictures, but quality gear helps a long way to get you where your imagination is going.
> 
> But, no imagination, no quality picture - it's in your head first!



I think that's all true. I'm just an amateur, and have been into "serious" cameras for only a couple of years, but I've been learning more in the process of, and as a result of, acquiring better (often more expensive) equipment, and I'm pretty sure the photos I take are better as a result. Unless you're one of those who are the visual equivalent of tone deaf - and more than a few photographers seem to be - really good equipment (which needn't be expensive, of course) can indeed be inspiring. There's *something* to the quip that it's the photographer's brain that matters, not his equipment, but it's overstated (sometimes rather amusingly so - e.g. Rockwell's site, which repeats the quip ad nauseam but devotes most of its space to showing why equipment matters). 

(Of course, if all you do with your new expensive toys is take exactly the same shots you would have taken before, the improvements, if any, will be merely technical - but how often does that happen?)


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

sdsr said:


> drolo61 said:
> 
> 
> > To the point!
> ...


Ken Rockwell and all you great folks might be able to take great photos with any camera.
But I, a mere mortal, make better photos with my 5D MK III than my 7D ... I needn't be ashamed of it ... I can afford to buy slightly better gear, so I do ... and the joy I get from buying new gear is priceless.


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 31, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > drolo61 said:
> ...



+1!!!


----------



## charlesa (Aug 31, 2012)

The short answer would be yes. If you tailor your gear towards what you want to achieve, the results are infinitely worth it. Did a 10 stop ND improve my black & white photography? You bet it did. Did the TS-E help the architectural and landscape photography. Yes it did.


----------



## Plato the Wise (Aug 31, 2012)

My first camera was a Pentax film camera. Auto exposure, but manual focus, etc. I learned a great deal with that camera, but I learned a whole lot more when I decided to get serious and buy a Hasselblad. The polaroid back on the Hasselblad and manual exposure, which forced me to understand a great deal more about exposure, taught me more about photography in a short time than I had learned in a decade before on the Pentax.

Every piece of gear I have purchased has allowed me to explore photography in a different way, adding to my abilities and inspiring me to create different images.

Having the right tools will help you develop as a photographer. Does one need the latest/greatest? Probably not. But if you are serious about your art/craft, you should invest what you can to get the best equipment affordable. After all, if you are not serious enough about your art to make the investment, why would anyone else take you seriously?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 31, 2012)

Yes, Because I buy better equipment when i've reached the limits of my previous gear.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Yes, Because I buy better equipment when i've reached the limits of my previous gear.


+1


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 31, 2012)

I kind of feel like we're seeing a consensus here on a few issues - that being learning and gaining experience trumps gear when judging image quality. Gear gives you more options, but those options are really only available to you if you spend that time learning the gear. 

Most of us upgrade our gear for a few reasons - to fill a gap in what we can do that only really presents itself after that learning! Example, most when getting their start don't have top of the line fast glass. For me, it was a canon xsi with 17-55 kit lens. As opposed to investing in glass, when I felt that I grew out of that body (I found myself shooting in low light and the ISO performance on the xsi was not so good past 400) i invested in a 7d, again with kit lens (this time 18-135). Being able to crank the ISO higher than 400 did lead to a drastic improvement in IQ. upgrading my flash also helped a lot! At that point though I was really dreading my awareness of variable aperture. And after 6 months of working with the 18-135 I upgraded to the 24-70, which opened things up even more (2.8 at the long end as opposed to 5.6 at the long end). Then came the 70-200, adding range. Then came a 10-22, which most definitely produced images I would not have been able to do with the 24-70! Then came extra speedlights. Awesome, learning more, which lead to radio triggers to take the flash off camera! More learning, now i needed light modifiers, which lead to buying some alien bee 800's. Then I started booking more weddings, and the low light capabilities of the 7d started to frustrate me. So i upgraded to the mk3. Have had that for 2 months and yes, there is still more to learn with that body (FF handles DOF much differently than crop, and focal lengths for all my lenses were now different, so they had to be relearned too. And now i am considering lens options for my 7d so it can be a capable second body.

Point to the story is that all the upgrades came from learning and progressing and hitting a limit of what I could do with what I had. does the cost of all of it proportionally lead to improvement, the answer is most likely no. But, the whole of the process has led to me being a better photographer. And like I said in a previous post, there is the intangible of confidence! In the spring, I was farily confident, but there was always that nagging ut ohh, how do i handle this, or how do I handle that. Those things are still there, but, at least I know my gear is up to the task. Now my worries are more situational, like, how do I choreograph a group shot with a 30 person bridal party. Knowing I have the right tools takes that worry out of the equation, so now I can focus on the other things!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 31, 2012)

Yes, not to say that you can't get nice images from lower priced or older gear, for example my most favourite candid portrait was taken with an XTi and 50mm f1.8... right place, right subject, right time, right expression, right settings..

My current main camera may have allowed me to print a larger size, or perhaps would have given me more takes in a burst of the same shot, but hey, I got the shot and thats it. The moment will never happen again.

I don't think better images necessarily corelates to money spent. I have sold nice cameras to chumps, and I've seen the talented make a silk purse from a pigs ear of a camera.

My own journey (gosh, journey, sounds a bit [email protected]) is that as I have became more serious about my photography, and more confident in my ability, and more adventurous in the subjects I try I have bought kit that limits me less.

I know the 7D has it's detractors, but for me its a camera perfectly matched to where I'm at. 

I started buying the nice stuff when video came round.. mainly because I do video for my job and so was able to justify it, but also, for video fast lenses are a neccessity. At the time of purchase the 7D was the only DSLR with video that shot in PAL, so it was a no brainer.

I frequently carry my T3i above the 7D, but then for things like sports I'll carry the 7D. I wouldn't say one camera delivers a better photo quality than the other, just the 7D has more ways of getting there, and for some photo subjects the 7D is a must.

My next leap is going to be for an EOS cinema camera, will need to compare the C100 with the C300 in more detail.

Will it make my video any better? Perhaps in an engineering context it will, less moire, less wobble... but my main ENG is dying and the next service is likely to be it's last... Even the c500 is about half what I would comparably spend on a video camera body (XDCAMHD or Panny P2 ENG was next logical step)

All I need are some servo zooms! And I don't think the EF 35-80 PZ will cut it.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 31, 2012)

> I kind of feel like we're seeing a consensus here on a few issues - that being learning and gaining experience trumps gear when judging image quality. Gear gives you more options, but those options are really only available to you if you spend that time learning the gear.



you nailed it, that's exactly the way I feel.

Also, it helps to get the right "gear" for the type of photography you do, rather than just fancy gear that makes you look cool. I mean, I think the 5D Mark III is a great camera...killer AF & high ISO...but despite being able to afford one, I will pass. Why? Prefer the reach of a 1.6x camera, and the 1.6x suits the type of photography I like to do. Would I like better high ISO performance or more AF points than what my 60D offers? Would love it, actually, but not willing to give up reach (or spend crazy $) for them. Fairly happy with the 60D...just wish it were able to adjust for slight focus errors in lenses so I don't need to send them back if AF is off a little.


----------



## Aronek (Sep 3, 2012)

Depends on other factors like lightning and manual settings too, but generally speaking, you get what you pay is true for cameras imho, same for audio.


----------



## thelebaron (Sep 13, 2012)

it definitely hasnt improved proportionally, but I doubt Id have the same interest/would try as much if I just had a p&s


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 13, 2012)

Looking back a long ways, the first camera I recall using was a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, then I was able to use a Yashica TLR for just one day, much better. The first Camera I owned (bought) was a Argus C3 which I used for about 4 years, again better.
Then I bought a SLR like no name camera with a fixed lens and leaf shutter. No better than the C3, but it did have auto exposure.
After that, I bought a Canon FTQL, being employed as a engineer and able to compare notes with other fellow employees. I also bought extension rings, and had a darkroom that I built in one corner of my garage. This was a excellent camera. About the same time, I bought a Polaroid because my parents had one and liked it. Big mistake - the hundreds of images taken with it are now faded away and pretty well ruined. Eventually, I upgraded (I thought) the FTQL to a T50. I had bought a couple of optional lenses with it, it was really no improvement, however. Eventually, I sold it and used the Polaroid or a Olympus 35mm Superzoom which was easy to use, and did ok if you were not critical.
In the early 1990's, I bought my first Digital, a Fujifilm MX700. Well built and a step up already from the Olympus. It suffered in low light. When Nikon came out with the Coolpix CP990, I snapped one up, along with a external flash. This was well worth the money, and I still have one today.
After reading on DP Review about the Canon DSLR's, I wanted one, and the Digital Rebel came out at a price I was willing to pay, so I bought one, along with the first 18-55mm EF-s and a 75-300mm lens. Even though they were not great cameras or lenses, my images immediately improved, and I bought more and better lenses, progressing thru virtually all of the Canon crop and FF bodies. Looking back, I'll have to say that I can now capture images that I would not even dream of getting back in the 1990's or before.
So, Yes, my photography has greatly improved, but i'm looking for the next step up, and tried a D800, but that wasn't it. I returned my 5D MK III for the same reason, but might repurchase one if the price drops. Meanwhile, I buy and sell used lenses (new, only when I'm sure its a keeper), looking for better than what I now have, which is a really good selection. I do lots of very low light photography and catching fast action in extreme low light is what I enjoy doing. 
So, over the last 60 years, I've spent a lot of time and money on equipment and have vastly improved from that old Hawkeye.


----------



## Jotho (Sep 14, 2012)

Spokane, thanks for sharing your journey!


----------



## robbymack (Sep 14, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I know the 7D has it's detractors, but for me its a camera perfectly matched to where I'm at.



Sage words Paul. A camera is nothing more than a tool, there are good photos and bad photos. There are good photographers and mediocre photographers (I say mediocre because photography is highly subjective). I think too many people get caught up in gear collecting thinking a bad photo from a $25000 Leica is somehow intrinsically more valuable. I'm glad you have found the passion is in the photo not in the gear it's taken with.


----------

