# POLL: Would have your earlier shots improved by better gear?



## Marsu42 (Sep 30, 2014)

Looking at some posts about dslr beginners reasoning what camera bodies and lenses to buy, I'm asking myself: Does it really matter if you start with a 7d1 vs. 7d2 or 5d2 vs. 5d3? Do you need a 16-35L/4 instead of a 17-40L/4? Or isn't it smarter to save the money, learn a lot and then buy the next better model in a couple of years?

I know for me, "just" buying a 60d was a smart choice - a 5d2 would have been wasted. With the €1500 saved back then, I now bought a 6d basically for "free" and can even profit from it as my skill is up to it by now.

What about you? If you would have had top gear right from day one, would have it been "worth it"?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 30, 2014)

I would have had much higher resolution, greater DR, and much better focus..... of my cruddy compositions at that time. 

If I had the camera I have now, back then; I probably would not have used it as it would have been too complicated.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 30, 2014)

Not sure I would have benefited from it, but I would have looked a lot cooler than with my rebel/18-55 IS. 

Isn't it all about looking like a pro ????


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2014)

I wish I could go back in time and reshoot some of my images from the 1D, whilst they still stand up well there is no doubt that they would be much strnger images now with more modern gear.

Having said that, there is nothing I can shoot now that I couldn't shoot then. I think more modest gear makes no difference to your enthusiasm, indeed it seems many are just gear hounds with self described "GAS", which I find kind of pathetic. Yes this is a gear forum, not an image based forum, but surely the true pride in ownership comes from making great images not possession. The other thing that happens when people stretch to buy more expensive gear, they are less inclined to take risks with it, I have never babied any of my gear, cheap or expensive, so can't understand getting an expensive camera and being afraid of getting it wet, but that is just me.........


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I think more modest gear makes no difference to your enthusiasm, indeed it seems many are just gear hounds with self described "GAS", which I find kind of pathetic.



It can get even worse - too complicated gear can backfire on you. I contribute an impression just from last weekend: I met a tourist around in the countryside when I was shooting horses, and we started discussing gear. Turns out he has a d610 (or d600, I don't quite remember) and a 24-70/2.8, i.e. better gear than me.

But: He didn't touch his camera for three weeks because he cannot get anything in focus. I had to explain to him that the dof of f2.8 on full frame is thin and (in so many words) that expensive gear doesn't replace skill. Actually he was thankful to get to know it isn't entirely his personal fault. I can vividly imagine what Internet forums and sites made him buy something "good" to get "good" shots right from the start...



privatebydesign said:


> The other thing that happens when people stretch to buy more expensive gear, they are less inclined to take risks with it, I have never babied any of my gear, cheap or expensive, so can't understand getting an expensive camera and being afraid of getting it wet, but that is just me.........



Same with me, the second reason I didn't end up with a 5d2+70-200L/2.8 but with a 60d and my old lenses from the '90s ... dropped them, banged against all possible trees and such, shot with them laying on the ground instead of a tripod. But all in good faith that it's not that expensive. I have very bad memories of people over-protecting gear (cameras, cars, whatever) that exceeded their budget.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 30, 2014)

When I got into Wildlife photography I had a 20D and a 100-400, now I use a 1DX with either an 800 F5.6 or a 300 F2.8. I think you can guess what my vote was!


----------



## Skatol (Sep 30, 2014)

Started with a 50D and 200 2.8 w/ 2xTC. Now have 1dIV, 5DIII, 300 2.8 and 600 F4. Many more keepers.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 30, 2014)

Nah. All it would've meant is my blur, poorly composed pics would've been taken with gear I was not ready for. 

2.5 years later, I'm still learning how to translate compositional rules into my landscapes and I still can't use a flash properly. 

Nope, better kit wouldn't of made any difference.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 30, 2014)

Experience, knowledge of shooting and how to properly operate original rig, and post processing would have been way more valuable.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 30, 2014)

I had a 30 year career with manual focus FD lenses. Clearly the AF system on a 1DX would have given me more keepers. But I agree with those saying that they would not be able to use all the features. When my wife picks up the 5DIII or 1DX (doesn´t happen very often), set to manual mode, auto ISO and focus set to AI servo and the initial focus point somewhere off center, she is not too happy with the result.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 30, 2014)

If I knew half what I knew now when I started I would have smacked myself upside the head. A few hours of study would have been far more useful.


----------



## zim (Sep 30, 2014)

Camera body pretty irrelevant, when you say 'gear' I'm thinking lenses. I stayed with just a kit lens for way way too long, and I really should have known better. So I voted for the last option.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 30, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> Not sure I would have benefited from it, but I would have looked a lot cooler than with my rebel/18-55 IS.
> 
> Isn't it all about looking like a pro ????


Actually, I was the opposite.

I started with T1i rebel and that was really a good thing. I compared myself to others, since I didn't know much about gear, I thought my result was not good because my technique was not good so I tried to learn the basics of photography.
Later on, I realized that with full frame I can get better so I bought one and it felt good, especially that I had already the basics of photography at the time.

Looking like a pro?
That didn't serve me well.
After my kit lens I bought the 70-200 MK II as soon as it appeared in the retailer. 
My trouble was that everybody expected miracles because I had the best lens in the world, while my technique was poor. I remember asking a model to pose for me during a Manga convention, she was so pleased, but I didn't know how to pose so I took only one and only one shot. I can't ever forget the disappointment on her face when I said that's it.
I ended up selling that lens and bought something less conspicuous.
When I bought my 1DX last year, I knew exactly why am I spending that much money. Now, I know that my results are not up to the standard, because my technique is not there yet and that pushes me more to learn.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 30, 2014)

For me it would be focus. In the days of manual focus the ones I didn't quite get right, with AF lack of AFMA resulting in off focus at fast apertures. 

For virtually everything else there has always been a work around.


----------



## slclick (Sep 30, 2014)

Low light and iso yes (7D vs 5D3)


----------



## benperrin (Oct 1, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> If I knew half what I knew now when I started I would have smacked myself upside the head. A few hours of study would have been far more useful.



This. I did vote for a slight improvement though because I started out with a 17-85 4-5.6 and before that I occasionally used my friends 350d with kit lens and I can tell you that my keeper rate went right up as soon as I got the 24-105 f4. There was certain low light scenarios that I just couldn't make work with the equipment that I had then.

To be brutally honest though most of my problems stemmed from a lack of understanding. I really didn't understand what was good light and what was poor. The lcd would tell me of course but it was all guess work. I had an understand of the basics but people don't grasp how much you have to understand to be able to get great shots in any situation. There really is a lot to learn.


----------



## LarryC (Oct 1, 2014)

I only moved up in cameras because I lost shots, or just couldn't capture what I wanted to, due to poor AF, low ISO, slow lenses, and low resolution. In fact, I have plans to return to several vacation places in part so I can re-shoot some of my favorite images with better gear. 

That said, I am very happy I started with lower level gear because it made me appreciate and understand the limitations of AF, ISO, DR, etc. And most importantly it made me convince myself I was sufficiently committed to photography before moving up to the more expensive gear over several years.


----------



## rpt (Oct 1, 2014)

A lens for birding that is better than the 100-400L and the 1.4x II. So the 200-400L but the cost is too much for me at the moment.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Oct 1, 2014)

having used film camera`s with fd prime lens and 1.8 1.4 f stop focus the kit lens did not last long. and 28-135 was the lens for me it was the range I shot in prime just a bit slower then I liked. having to say this it took a trip to japan to hit the wall sort to speak of the limits of my T1i.

now with my 70d and my 70-200 4.0 l is lens and the 18-135 stm efs lens as my 2 walk around lens. the 18-135 took place of my 28-135. 50 1.8 mk1 lens and the 60m efs macro and the 400l 5.6 10-22 efs the photos are about the same just slightly sharper and I can take birds in flight as a perk.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 1, 2014)

The poll options are limited. 99.99% of my images are not limited by my hardware, but by me. I doubt if many images would have been improved by new gear, since composition and subject matter are what makes a great image. I've used cameras since the 1950's, it was manual focus and rule of 8, or a light meter then, and that did not cause issues. I like AF and auto exposure, but they cause more spoiled shots than doing it manually.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 1, 2014)

Since wildlife is my thing, of course my pics improved with the 500L since it is better than my 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is better than 75-300mm I started with. Then going from the 50D --5D II / 7D to a 1D IV my keeper rate went up. 

A few years back I was skill and equipment limited. As far as gear goes now I am just skill limited.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 1, 2014)

I tried to do many things well beyond the capabilities of a P&S camera for many years, getting an SLR would have made worlds of difference.

I actually only owned the T3 for less than a year before getting a 5D2, but even then, the low light ability Full Frame affords opens up many new possibilities.
Results are sharper as well.
Full Frame rocks, of course, I only paid a little over $1,000 for mine so it wasn't such a big deal.

If we're comparing the 5D2 with the 5D3, my product photography wouldn't have changed, but my BIF performance might have improved.
I still like how light the T3 is though.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 1, 2014)

H*ll, I am STILL learning. Yes, for some things better gear is important. I am sure that I will get a bump in keeper rate for BIF with a better AF system (I have the 60D, basically shoot center point AI servo, no sensitivity adjustment possible, no AF point spread option). On the other hand, macro? Manual focus is my M.O. You don't need a really fancy camera or a highly fancy stabilized macro lens. For macro, "better gear" means "a tripod and head I like and carry around all the time". Ditto for low light landscape - yes, I like my full frame 6D photos better than the 60D photos, but the more important leap in quality for low light landscape was getting a tripod that I like to carry.


----------



## Otara (Oct 1, 2014)

As an underwater photographer I did the reverse - I constantly upgraded cameras for a few years I got worse - I was so busy relearning new systems while trying to take pictures underwater I went backwards rather than forwards. Meanwhile my friend next to me went ahead as he didnt suffer upgraditis in the way I did and so was able to focus on getting the best out of what he had, which made far more practical difference than comparatively minor IQ or AF improvements. Having the 7d not have an upgrade for so long was very helpful for me, and luckily I had a child to stop full frame being too alluring as well.


----------



## risc32 (Oct 1, 2014)

mostly my images would have gotten technically better. My post work kung fu, which still sucks has getten much better and that's made more of in improvement, but that's knowledge/exp not really gear. 

reminds me of Laguna Seca motogp 2006. I'm on the hill at the corkscrew with my minolta 5d and cheapy 75-300mm. it was packed and everyone taking pics was in the same general area. I thought i could find a better view threw the trees. found a nice area, rested my huge can of beer between my knees, auto focused on a target area, i knew i had no how of tracking them, and got them as they hit my spot. after a couple minutes i took the camera down and found that a crowd of photo guys was how around me and i was trapped. I certainly wasn't doing anything special, it's just that photogs can be funny sometimes, and just join in instead of working things out.


----------



## candc (Oct 1, 2014)

My early photography was with film, I don't think that would have been any better. Modern gear would have definitely made my early digital photos better.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 1, 2014)

Right from the start? I doubt gear would have made a lot of difference, there's a learning curve.. By the time I finally laid down my AE1 I think gear began to make a significant difference but not all the difference, back and forth between new pieces of gear F1, AE1, Old Olympus, 1st P&S, etc.. there continued to be a learning curve but you could get a feel that you could maximize your skills and the gear didn't get the best of you...

Today's gear is better than the skills of many of us, so we keep pursuing, keep learning, keep pushing ourselves and our gear seems to still be waiting for us to catch up! It's truly come a long way in the last 25-30 years!


----------



## eml58 (Oct 1, 2014)

Its an interesting question, I often enjoy looking back on my earlier Images, most often thought being "What was I thinking", probably not a lot actually.

The biggest boon to my current Photography has been more knowledge, a lot of reading on how best to look at a scene, how to frame, and most important of all, Focus, & the best balance of 'f' stop, shutter speed & ISO. All of this works as well with a Box Brownie as it does with a 1Dx.

Better gear has improved my ability to get a load of Images in Wildlife situations that I may well not have been able to get previous, the 12fps of the 1Dx in certain situations is magical, the 4fps of some of my previous Bodies, not so.

There's a lot to be said for the more "basic" cameras, I flirted for a while with a Leica M9, loved a lot of that Camera, but as most of my Imaging is Wildlife or Underwater found I was using it less & less.

My current Photography has been given a boost I feel with my choice of using Zeiss Lenses for anything less than 200mm, it's "better" gear, but Manual Focus so a bit of a step back in time, it has seemed to have the effect of making me think more about the Image I want.

But I am a lapsed Technoholic, I generally lapse every time a new shiny bit of Camera gear appears, I covert my neighbours newer better more technically superior bit of gear, knowing full well it won't make me a better Photographer, but maybe.......


----------



## dak723 (Oct 1, 2014)

I know camera enthusiasts get excited about new camera releases and updates, but - in my opinion - there has been little change in cameras from the first digital Canons. Two years ago I took some photos in the Adirondacks with my original Digital rebel (300D) and my old 28-70mm Canon non-L lens. Last weekend I went up to the Adirondacks with my new 6D and my 24-105mm L lens - presumably considerably better gear. I just printed some photos from both trips at approx. 7" x 10" - and at that size there is no discernible difference in quality. I know that the 6D will allow me larger prints at better quality, but the original 6 MP rebel with a good quality non-L lens still does an excellent job. And, yes, these are landscapes, and no, you don't need 36 MP to shoot landscapes.

Of course, there is a big difference between photos I took in the film era and today's digital. Today I have far more keepers. But that is mainly due to the ability to manipulate the images on the computer - not necessarily the camera gear.


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2014)

Such excellent comments. Each one of them. I did not vote as am confused. I like some of my older (film) photos although they are technically not so good.


----------



## dash2k8 (Oct 1, 2014)

Better low-light performance would have certainly enhanced a lot of stuff taken after the sun has set.


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2014)

Yes low light would have been much better. Also IS would have worked wonders. So voting for a 'yes'.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 1, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Looking at some posts about dslr beginners reasoning what camera bodies and lenses to buy, I'm asking myself: Does it really matter if you start with a 7d1 vs. 7d2 or 5d2 vs. 5d3? Do you need a 16-35L/4 instead of a 17-40L/4? Or isn't it smarter to save the money, learn a lot and then buy the next better model in a couple of years?
> 
> I know for me, "just" buying a 60d was a smart choice - a 5d2 would have been wasted. With the €1500 saved back then, I now bought a 6d basically for "free" and can even profit from it as my skill is up to it by now.
> 
> What about you? If you would have had top gear right from day one, would have it been "worth it"?


Better gear does not either solve poor composition and/or technique or makes you a better photographer, however, it offers better performance in low light situations (ISO) and resolution (IQ and sharpness)


----------



## yorgasor (Oct 1, 2014)

I picked up a 5D classic last summer, and I got some fantastic shots of my vacation around the US. Where it killed me was when I tried taking photos at a table tennis tournament. Mostly what I had to work with was a 50 1.4 if I wanted lower ISO shots that looked further away, or the 70-200 f/4 lens if I wanted to look close up, but horribly high ISO. As it was, I maxed out at 1600 ISO and had slow shutter speeds and ended up with crap photos. My technique at the time wasn't great either, but I was so disappointed with the results, I plunked down serious cash for a 5DIII and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens. 

I went from shots like this a year ago:






To shots like this of the Chinese National Table Tennis team, almost exactly a year later:


5D3_1799 by yorgasor, on Flickr

And sure, my technique has improved, but I guarantee I wouldn't have gotten a shot like that with my old 5D + 70-200 f/4.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 1, 2014)

I voted on last one + fundamental in photography. If I get to do it over, I would buy a 1DX over 5D III first. 

It's pathetic to hear modest gear makes no difference in enthusiasm. Adv-tech making our life easier, faster and better. 

I shoot a lot kids indoor sports. I need a camera that can give me the best tracking and best high ISO. I understand 5D II and 6D can do this task at lower keeper rate. With 1DX, my keeper is higher. I can be more selective on the keepers. When we look at Canon latest lenses, they made huge improvement - from IQ, AF speed, accuracy, amazing IS, and of course weight reduction on big whites. I got more BIF photos with my 1DX than 5D III. With my latest 400mm f2.8 IS II and latest 2x TC III, I can shoot at 800mm without worry much about AF accuracy. Would that be enough for hobbyists(with decent budget ) to enjoy new gear? I can't speak for everyone, but for me, YES. I understand photography is a hard earning business today and many pros couldn't justify the high cost of these new gear. 

It's hard to teach an old dog new trick.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Oct 1, 2014)

The answer I wanted to check is not there. My answer is no effing way. My early work would have been better if I had more knowledge/experience.

The camera doesn't do the composition, *you do!* 

The camera doesn't do the lighting,* you do!* 

A better camera WILL NOT make you a better photographer


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 1, 2014)

Yes. If i occasionally look at some of my older images taken since 2000 it almost makes me cry. Family memories in noisy, discomoured, DR-less 2MP images ... Shot on a Sony camcorder or on various 1/1.7 or 1/2.3 dwarf sensored powershots ... Later on with 350d, 450d, 40d. Technically really crappy and lozs and lots of mussed moments due to massive shutter lag and lots of unsharp omages due to poor AF-capabilities. 
Almost as bad as in my analog/film days. 

Good gear is as essential to good images as is creativity, skill and light(ing).


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 1, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> It's pathetic to hear modest gear makes no difference in enthusiasm. Adv-tech making our life easier, faster and better.



That's a refreshingly global assessment, including all people :-o

It is interesting to read the comments, as the "tracking people" (sports, birds, kids) vote that they'd have profited from better tech. There seems to be a less steep learning curve there when photography mostly consists of pressing some buttons on high-end gear and carrying the gear around, I wonder?

However, I really don't see how a *lower* (i.e. not "zero") keeper rate has to dampen enthusiasm, for some it might even be a challenge to do better. Last not least, I have to say that I don't share your "endless tech improvement" theory, for me there's a "good enough" which the current dslr systems have passed for most shooting types. For the difficult ones there's a logarithmic curve how much better your shots get with better tech.


----------



## jrista (Oct 1, 2014)

I do believe better gear could have made my earlier shots better. I started with a 450D and kit lens, then got the 100mm macro, then the 16-35 and 100-400. The 16-35 enabled better landscapes. The 100-400 enabled bird photography. I spent a lot of time trying, learning, and experiencing the limitations of my gear (like 3.2fps and basic AF.) 

I always feel as though I'm experiencing one limitation of my gear or another. When I got the 7D, it was the most liberating camera purchase I'd ever made at the time. It made the 100-400 lens work.  If I'd started with the 7D, I do believe I'd be farther along in my photography than I am today, as I'd have been able to spend more time learning about the nuances of bird photography, rather than the nuances about how to get around the limitations of my 450D. 

You probably always learn, and can probably always progress, regardless of the equipment in hand. However, I strongly believe that when your not learning how to get around hardware limitations, your learning how to actually do the kinds of photography your interested in. Moving from the 100-400mm lens to the 600mm f/4 lens was another liberating experience. I haven't felt the limitations of my gear nearly as much since the 7D and 600mm. Even adding the 5D III to my kit has not nearly had as much of an impact on my work as those other two additions. It's opened options for astrophotography, and allowed me to use already-existing skills to get close to birds and get better IQ in the process, and allowed me to fully utilize the capabilities of the 600mm lens. But it just hasn't had as much of an impact overall...as it really didn't eliminate any key limitations that I have. 

Most of my limitations now, are just myself and my skill level (with the exception of astrophotography...still have LOOOTS of hardware limitations there.) Every time I go out to photograph birds and wildlife now, it's me learning how to photograph birds and wildlife...and much less about learning how to use my camera, or work around my camera.


----------



## connellimages (Oct 8, 2014)

Interesting poll! For me, I started small and built up as I earned the money to get better equipment. I agree there is a learning curve going from film to digital. I believe the features on the high end cameras help you with that learning curve. In either case, experiment, read and experiment some more until you develop the skill and style you are looking for. Hope that helps.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 8, 2014)

Yes, my earlier shots would have been improved with better gear, but short of getting a Delorean, a flux capacitor, and 1.21 GigaWatts of power, you can't go back and change things.... so it really does not matter.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 8, 2014)

On a serious note (from my previous post on this topic), yes I believe that some of my shots would have ended up better. I'm not a full framer, but the best purchase I made was to replace my kit lens on my rebel with the 17-55 2.8. This allowed me to further my technique and only when the camera (T1i) became a limitation, did I move on to the 60D - which was recently and a bargain at the price. I'm not sure that purchasing a 5D or 1D would have helped me as much as obtaining better lenses. 

Now, I'm eyeing the 7DII. I'm one of those helicopter parents who wished their 60D had a higher frame rate 

*Edit - of course, looking back at Dylan's comments, I think that the answers that people give are respective to what they are trying to achieve with their photography.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 8, 2014)

Yes and no. For most static images, my current 5D3 would have offered only marginal improvement over my old 20D in overall IQ. That said, for fast action shots, the 5D3's faster frame rate, awesome AF system, and my current IS lenses definitely improve the hit rate over my old gear.

By far, diversifying my lighting equipment has had the greatest impact in the quality of my images. However, if I had the same lighting gear 10 years ago that I have today, it wouldn't have done me a damn bit of good since I would have had no clue how to use it. In that regard, the gear wouldn't have made a difference at all


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 10, 2014)

For still photography, I can't ever remember a time when I didn't feel limited by my gear, though I feel a lot less limited by my 6D. Prior to that, still photos were a constant battle in terms of low-light handling (both noise and ability to focus), resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, etc. And there's no question about whether the difference between my 70–300L and its predecessor (first-generation 75-300) is like night and day.

Thinking back to my first camera, with its original EF-S 18-55 lens... well, the lens stopped working suddenly, and I borrowed a coworker's 20mm prime. Suddenly, it was like a fog had been lifted. Photos were sharp and clear, with better contrast. Photos that were muddy with that original lens would have been quite a bit better with a better lens.

But the biggest reason my earlier shots were limited was the cost and availability of fast, high-capacity flash cards. To save money, I usually shot in the smallest JPEG size, because RAW was unbearable. This means that essentially none of my old shots are at a resolution that I would consider adequate today. There are a few shots that I'd kill to be able to go back in time and reshoot as RAW images, because I ended up using them in ways that I hadn't even considered when I took the shots. If I could have gotten 128 GB flash cards that capable of 30+ MB/second write speeds for 80 bucks back then, I'd have shot RAW exclusively from day one, and I'd have been a lot happier with them.

On the video side, the advent of optical image stabilization was a real eye-opener. Before that, I was pretty much lashed to a tripod at all times, unable to move much at all. But the real point where I stopped feeling badly limited by my gear didn't come until I got my first three-chip with XLR inputs and full manual everything. That was the first time I could reliably do audio recording in the field without all sorts of hacks, like wrapping connectors with aluminum foil and grounding it to the hand strap mount with alligator clips. It was the first time I stopped having problems with difficult lighting situations. And so on.

So yeah, my shots would have improved fairly dramatically if the state of the art hadn't been so primitive when I first started shooting digitally.


----------



## Dick (Oct 10, 2014)

Better gear would have been a great investment much earlier for me. It's sad that many of the photos I took of my first kid are technically crap due to bad low light performance and terrible AF. They are keepers, because there are no other photos to do that job, but... Not nice to look at at all.  It should be against the law to sell crap cameras.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Looking at some posts about dslr beginners reasoning what camera bodies and lenses to buy, I'm asking myself: Does it really matter if you start with a 7d1 vs. 7d2 or 5d2 vs. 5d3? Do you need a 16-35L/4 instead of a 17-40L/4? Or isn't it smarter to save the money, learn a lot and then buy the next better model in a couple of years?
> 
> I know for me, "just" buying a 60d was a smart choice - a 5d2 would have been wasted. With the €1500 saved back then, I now bought a 6d basically for "free" and can even profit from it as my skill is up to it by now.
> 
> What about you? If you would have had top gear right from day one, would have it been "worth it"?



It would have been worth, since I was doing things that pushed things pretty far almost right from the DSLR beginning for me (of course I had already shot SLRs for years it is true, mostly just travel/landscapes though).

More fps and much more so better AF certainly would've nailed me more keepers for sports right from the bat. Even from day 1 that would've helped. Although it's true that a combo of natural talent and experience matters most of all for sports shooting, but the equipment definitely makes a difference at all talent and experience levels. In fact we tried tests and swapped low-end and high-end gear between people with varying talent/experience combos and everyone instantly did better with the top gear and everyone instantly did worse overall with the lowest end gear. That said the very best and most experienced with the low end gear did better overall than the very worst and least experience with the best gear. 

Even with low end gear you can get amazing sports shots (so long as you not talking lower than low-end DSLR gear and getting into point and shoot with slow lenses and mega lag and so on), but you will also rue a lot of shots that would've been amazing but that got ruined so it will most likely be a bit frustrating too. So it's both totally false that you can't come back with an extensive shot of really nice shots even using fairly modest equipment for sports contrary to what some used to claim, but it's equally totally false that better equipment won't raise your take and it's also totally false that a beginner has no need for the good stuff and that the good stuff it beyond them or too good for them or any of that nonsense, if anything it makes it easier for them since it's clearer what is their fault and what is the camera's fault. Again we directly tested it out and even rank beginners definitely made out better with the top equipment even without any learning time.

I could've gotten cleaner shots too with better high iso and less high iso banding.

And some low ISO scenes with lots of DR would've worked out better and I would've attempted a lot more of them.

a 300 2.8 certainly makes images dramatically pop on the field a lot more than 300 5.6 where the fans in the stands start mixing into the player since the relative sharpness is not as extreme, in a way you could say that might instantly make you a better photographer although it's maybe better to put it as it lets you get a better quality shot more than it makes you a directly more skilled photographer or anything.

OTOH when I first moved to digital the freedom to shoot like crazy without going bankrupt and to immediate see the results of various settings and so on was more than worth going to what was basically a lower end body and I think digital helps speed along learning vastly more quickly than film other than in certain particular cases where maybe it's abstract type of shooting and also of a type where DOF and this or that doesn't matter so much and only the composition and lighting and nothing else matter.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 10, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> The answer I wanted to check is not there. My answer is no effing way. My early work would have been better if I had more knowledge/experience.
> 
> The camera doesn't do the composition, *you do!*
> 
> ...



Well if you don't have the money to shoot a film SLR camera often enough or don't remember what you did by the time the film is developed then a DSLR might help make you a better photographer.

And if you shoot things where AF matters a lot, a better camera can instantly make you better. I mean we did the tests, every person of any skill level, instantly with no training, had a higher take when suddenly given top end equipment and they had a better overall result set. (that said the best of the experience sports shooters shooting with low end stuff did still shoot circles around the rank beginners given the top stuff, although a few relative beginners did pretty well so it's wasn't quite circles in those rare cases)

There is a reason the guys who shoot NFL/Olympics/etc. use top gear. They would have a worse takes if they all shot it with the original Rebel and a 75-300 IS.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Oct 10, 2014)

I fall into a group not listed in the Poll. I was not learning and "better" digitalequipment was not needed from Day One.

I'm the kind of artist who works from ideas, not found situations. For me, "better" only applies to sources of inspiration.

Coming from film, 35mm when I was really young, then 4x5 as I grew into my 20's and 30's, and later to work in 8x10, 7x17, 11x14, and 12x20inch formats, there's absolutely nothing digital gives me that I didn't already have in film, _except_ flexibility in processing.

Further, processing in digital is centuries behind certain analog processes. I'm thinking of how archival platinum/palladium (500 years, minimum) is and how hard it is to keep a color digital print looking good for 100 or 200 years.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> It can get even worse - too complicated gear can backfire on you. I contribute an impression just from last weekend: I met a tourist around in the countryside when I was shooting horses, and we started discussing gear. Turns out he has a d610 (or d600, I don't quite remember) and a 24-70/2.8, i.e. better gear than me.
> 
> But: He didn't touch his camera for three weeks because he cannot get anything in focus. I had to explain to him that the dof of f2.8 on full frame is thin and (in so many words) that expensive gear doesn't replace skill. Actually he was thankful to get to know it isn't entirely his personal fault. I can vividly imagine what Internet forums and sites made him buy something "good" to get "good" shots right from the start...



Basically he learned about DOF in three weeks instead of maybe a decade had he used an ultra small sensor P&S or maybe even some years if he shot film and could only afford 3x5" prints. I don't see how that can be interpreted as having backfired.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 10, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I don't see how that can be interpreted as having backfired.



It has if he doesn't perceive it as learning, but as frustration and stops further learning by giving up on it altogether. No all people are dslr enthusiasts, if you're busy with another job and just do the photog thing in between your tolerance for a steep learning curve is only so large. Esp. if there's nobody around what you're doing wrong in the first place.

Interesting thread though (after all, I started it ) - there seems to be a large distinction between sports/... photogs who rely on top gear and the rest, and many of those of who say it would have mattered started off in the dark ages of digitial photography. Nowadays, imho "just" getting a crop 70d, d7100, whatever doesn't mean certain doom for all shots taken with it when viewed back from 2020.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I voted on last one + fundamental in photography. If I get to do it over, I would buy a 1DX over 5D III first.
> 
> It's pathetic to hear modest gear makes no difference in enthusiasm. Adv-tech making our life easier, faster and better.
> 
> ...



You are conflating enthusiasm and tech.

You have spent over $20,000 in the last 12 months on your camera gear, do you honestly believe your images are that much better than somebody using a 6D and a secondhand 70-200 but who invested much more time and enthusiasm than you into shooting their kids? How about your BIF, I'll wager I can find much better images than yours from vastly more modest and enthusastic shooters using a 7D and a 400 f5.6.

You enjoy the owning of the tech, and there is nothing wrong with that, but go to a small local camera club where the "best" camera is a 60D and you would be shocked at the image quality they are pushing out and it is all carried along and grows from their enthusiasm.

Enthusiasm and tech are not synonymous, my experience over the last 30+ years of serious photography has been that enthusiasm trumps pretty much everything, sure there will always be images that are just not possible without the latest or greatest, but from what I have seen, none of us, including myself, are shooting them.


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Oct 10, 2014)

If by improved you mean the pictures of my feet would have been sharper and the blackness of my lens cap would have had less noise, then absolutely!


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Oct 10, 2014)

Really, though, I think the following most improved my photography:

Experience:
-Just taking the time to get more familiar with my gear and picture taking
-Reading up and taking online training as well as going to photography seminars and taking a trip with a pro

Switch to digital:
-Get instant feedback on my pictures – see what settings work better, check exposure and sharpness, etc.
-Process my own images. This both helps to figure out what I should do/look for in the field as well as create a more pleasing image than what comes right out of the camera.

Gear:
-I would say last up is gear. I love my 6D for not so fast stuff and liked my 7D quite a bit for fast stuff. I have some BIF pictures that I really like from my 5D Mark II, though. Unless it is something like erratically flying small birds, though, I’m probably the limiting factor more so than my gear. Speaking of erratically flying small birds – I would love to try out the 7D Mark II and am excited to see what I may get my hands on in the next year or so…


----------



## distant.star (Oct 10, 2014)

.
Any camera I have today would have improved this from my Kodak Pocket Instamatic 110 back in the seventies.

The challenge would have been holding and framing a 5D3 at 50 mph on the motorcycle.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Enthusiasm and tech are not synonymous, my experience over the last 30+ years of serious photography has been that enthusiasm trumps pretty much everything, sure there will always be images that are just not possible without the latest or greatest, but from what I have seen, none of us, including myself, are shooting them.



That's probably right. But in my experience it's not really either/or: better equipment, up to a point (doesn't have to be "latest or greatest" - the original question simply referred to equipment that was better than you started with), boosts enthusiasm by making the learning process easier and more enjoyable. Those who have said that experience/learning/technique/an artistic eye matter most have a point, obviously, but it's easier to achieve those things when you're not hampered by, say, inferior focusing mechanisms (too few focus points, inconsistent/inaccurate AF lenses, design that effectively makes MF near-impossible, etc.), bad ergonomics (esp. burying important controls in intimidatingly complex menus) and so on, and when the resulting images look inherently better (less noise etc.). 

("Better" is relative anyway and needn't be expensive. There was no such option when I bought my first dslr, but for my purposes, miles "better" than the Nikon dslr I started out with would have been a good mirrorless body with a few old MF lenses and perhaps a couple of good modern AF lenses - it's easier to learn what the controls do if they're easily accessible and you can see their effect as you look through the viewfinder, and incomparably easier to MF when magnification and focus peaking show up there as well - for me, at any rate.)


----------



## e17paul (Oct 10, 2014)

sanj said:


> Such excellent comments. Each one of them. I did not vote as am confused. I like some of my older (film) photos although they are technically not so good.



+1
I would say that the good shots taken on film with fixed low ISO are a greater achievement. I was always pushing the balance between shutter speed and depth of field, but composition seemed to come more naturally. I think it is the necessary slowness of a manual camera. I can do the same with the 6D, but it requires self discipline.


----------



## pwp (Oct 11, 2014)

As a photographer who was never as good as I wanted to be tracking action with pre-AF cameras & lenses (mostly Nikon) I was hungry for more keepers shooting dynamic situations, not just sports. Static just isn't in my working vocabulary. The then awesome Canon EOS1n film camera with good AF lenses was a game changer for me. The AF worked! Subsequent improvements in AF have meant pushing the possibilities of creative "risk" delivering shots that would previously been impossible for me to capture. 

In my earlier career it was not just better AF that would have delivered the goods, we used to think 800iso was fast and used the miraculous Fuji 800 neg film to achieve shots that were unthinkable previously. 

With new gear vs old, I'm valuing AF performance and high iso capacity above other factors. The one other thing would be cheap, high capacity CF cards. As a heavy shooter who loves to explore, build and develop a shot, the freedom to shoot as much as I like, free from the very real consideration that it cost a dollar every time you pressed the shutter (with film...).

I have no doubt the work I did in the 1990's would have looked very different if I had the gear I use now. But it was the same for everyone. Look at sports shots from 25 years ago that got a big splash in news pages or on magazine covers. They mostly look pretty weak now. But that's progress. Fast forward to 2035 and we won't know ourselves. I'm loving it.

-pw


----------



## Lurker (Oct 11, 2014)

> The answer I wanted to check is not there. My answer is no effing way. My early work would have been better if I had more knowledge/experience.
> 
> The camera doesn't do the composition, you do!
> 
> ...



Sorry, I have to disagree.

I've always thought if equipment didn't matter every professional photographer would be shooting with the cheapest equipment they could get their hands on. Cheaper equipment means higher profit margins. The equipment doesn't matter, right, you make the photo not the camera. Anyone interested in my old 110 film pocket camera for $5?

Fact is better equipment makes better images possible, period.

If your AF is slow or picking the wrong focus point a better AF system will help.
If lots of your photos are bullseyes due to getting the best focus with the center point a better AF will help. 
If you suffer motion blur a lot an f/2.8 lens will help get faster shutter speeds.
If you have problems getting exposure right a better metering system can help.
If you have issues with noise a better sensor will help.
If you shoot black and white subjects and can't get detail on both ends a sensor with higher DR will help.
Better flashes produce more light and can put it out there further.

Equipment doesn't make great photographs, photographers do (have to wonder what Ansel would do with modern equipment), but equipment does help make photos better. Equipment can only help if you know how to use it effectively. If the equipment is too complex it can overwhelm the photographer but if it is too simple it can also limit the photographer.

What is important is matching your equipment to your knowledge and the desired job.

So, yes. If I could have afforded better equipment it would have allowed me to get the photos I was trying to get.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2014)

Calling everything that uses a camera "photography" is just bonkers. There are so many genres that require different skills and equipment. Some would benefit more from a camera, some not so much.

There are three main groups:

Journalist/action/sport/event You need a fast body and a fast lens in order not to miss the moment.

Portrait/product/fashion/commercial You need a good camera, but it's really mostly about everything else, the subject, the lighting, the location, the look... so camera is not so important.

Portable/tourist/everyday You do need a camera that's light enough to carry, and gives good shots in low light(both with and without using it's internal flash), as well.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> There is a reason the guys who shoot NFL/Olympics/etc. use top gear. They would have a worse takes if they all shot it with the original Rebel and a 75-300 IS.



They should be so lucky. Imagine shooting with an original Digital Rebel and a 75-300 *non-IS*.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I voted on last one + fundamental in photography. If I get to do it over, I would buy a 1DX over 5D III first.
> ...



No comment on 6D since I don't own one. Marsu42 is a 6D owner, he always speaks the true about 6D AF and Ai servo - tracking.

When comparing my current gear Vs my prev gear - 40D, 60D, 5D II, 50mm f1.4, 17-55, 24-70 & 70-200 ver1 - it doesn't require a person with high IQ to see the dif. between these bodies and lenses.

I never claimed my BIF photos are better than others. I'm proud to be the owner because I'm the one photographed those birds. If you feel you have a better collection. Feel free to share them in BIF thread with CR.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> What about you? If you would have had top gear right from day one, would have it been "worth it"?



my _shots_ would not necessarily have improved much because of equipment, but the quality of my files could have been a bit better with different gear.

I recently revisited some older files I have in my "finished" collection I use for printing.
Looking at them 1:1 now - yeesh! Some of them are very noisy and grainy. I may actually reprocess a few using newer & better NR software i now have available. They look very good printed at 18x12 inches but I'm planning to get a 44" machine and I'll want to up my file quality to print as many as possible to stand up to printing as large as possible.

The past 2 years of using ABC cameras have really spoiled me for pixel-peeping file quality vs what I was shooting prior to that.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Oct 11, 2014)

I starten out with the AE1. Film, that is. No autofokus. No "professional mode"  . Crappy exposure measurement. Just single shot. 

with AF I would have had more shots in focus. With beter exposure metering I would have had more correctly exposed shots. But I was learning and now My understanding of the gear is deeper than it would have been otherwise. And now I feel spoiled by my cameras, both the 5d mk II and the mk III. They are so great and make my photography so much Better.


----------



## DigiAngel (Oct 11, 2014)

i would have had more keepers und less shots where the focus was off due to poor auto-focus performance of my older cameras...yes.

apart from that, my shots would have less noise, better dynamic range and so on, but that would not really make them better. its just a technical sidenote. so i votet no.


----------



## DiSnapper (Oct 11, 2014)

Poor noise performance and inaccurate AF system of my 7D has troubled me a lot for last 4 years. my 400D gave me more keepers compared to 7D. Anyways at the end of the it was my decision to continue with 7D. So as a decision maker I am at fault for continuing with faulty equipment.


----------



## candyman (Oct 11, 2014)

I voted: ... "*not* have really mattered as I was learning"
And I am still learning!! I do feel very comfortable with my current equipment to master and improve my photography. My photos are by far not in a level where I am able to compete here. Personally I find a lot of inspiration here for that matter. Competition is a good thing when trying to learn and improve. I see so many fantastic photos here and elsewhere on the internet. I enjoy looking at it.


----------



## DRR (Oct 11, 2014)

For the most part, no, gear would not have made much of a difference. 

If I had to do it over again, I would have moved to a set of midrange primes earlier instead of L-zooms. And I would have gone FF sooner.

Give me a digital revel and a kit zoom and I'll still take better pictures today, than I would have when I started out if I had 10k of gear.


----------



## jepabst (Oct 16, 2014)

I think everyone would benefit greatly from starting with the cheapest DSLR and a nifty fifty. That lens works great in low light, and you have to move your feet instead of considering zoom. The 18-55mm is a paper-weight. The 50mm teaches you more about photography. Also, on a beginner DSLR, because of the crop sensor, it's a pretty great portrait lens.


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 17, 2014)

When I was learning I did a lot of mistakes. So I don't think I would have done better pictures with even a 1Dx...


----------



## Lurker (Oct 17, 2014)

> I think everyone would benefit greatly from starting with the cheapest DSLR and a nifty fifty.



Maybe for your type of photography but not EVERYONE does your type of photography.
A 50 won't accomplish a lot with birds and wildlife. Cheapest DSLR? Try catching the iridescent greens in the blackish head of common merganser (mostly white bird) while it passes you at 80mph in early morning light with the cheapest DSLR you can find.

You need to match the equipment to your skill and your needs. It needs to be usable now and give you room for growth. How much growth? That depends on the individual and how much they want to grow.

I pitty the newbee that tries to figure out how to get started in photography. They'll have the cheapest DSLR kit they can find and a $2000 tripod/head to put it on.


----------



## tog13 (Oct 17, 2014)

I said "many more keepers" because of the large percentage of my shots that are taken in iffy performance lighting. The jump in the percentage of keepers from 10D to 5D1 to 5D3 is obvious.


----------

