Don't overlook cheap equipment

[JoYork]

I've just spent the last half hour drooling over the 5dmkii photos. I thought about selling the car and a kidney to get one. But as much as it's nice to get high end gear I was amazed at how good cheap equipment can be.

These 2 portraits were taken yesterday with a 350d (Rebel XT) on ISO 200 with the dreaded 18-55 non-IS kit lens:

(full 8mp files ahead)

Portrait 1 (http://fc25.deviantart.com/fs40/f/2009/045/3/7/Oriental_mystique_stock_27_by_Tigg_stock.jpg)

Portrait 2 (http://fc25.deviantart.com/fs40/f/2009/045/3/7/Oriental_mystique_stock_27_by_Tigg_stock.jpg)

and I think they're pretty good, considering they're at the lower end of the DSLR range.

For comparison, here's one taken a few moments apart using the 70-200 f/4 IS lens on the same body:

Portrait 3 (http://fc54.deviantart.com/fs40/f/2009/045/7/4/Oriental_mystique_stock_54_by_Tigg_stock.jpg)

I know the 70-200 has many advantages, but I think it's a good example of how we're sometimes obsessed with the gear instead of the results. I know I'm guilty of it sometimes and I ought to stop, if only for the sake of my bank balance :)

[5Dmaniac]

You are so right! We forget sometimes that photography is about the picture, not the equipment. While I use mostly very good glass, I also shoot with dirt cheap Nikon lenses with a converter with my 5D. I am always amazed at the quality of the pics I get with that combo. To be fair, there are also cheap lenses that are total crap - no matter what!

[PhotosGuy]

I have a 20D now & like it a lot & would resist going back to the 300D. Thing is, the 20D was paid for by the 300D which also paid for the 28-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8, etc.
So, get good glass for now & find the right light. "Upgrade" when you find that you have to, not just because you want to. ;)

Post your best shots from Rebel/ XT / XTI (300D/350D/400D) (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=496404)

Post your best shots from the "kit lens"-EF-S 18-55 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522)

[musicmaster]

There are times, that yes, you can get away with cheap equipment. But having a slow lens and not being able to use flash.... makes it impossible sometimes to even capture the picture.

[JoYork]

Totally... but providing conditions are not too challenging I'm finding you can get excellent results from inexpensive equipment. We tend to pay the premium to get results when conditions are challenging. I just thought I'd post some examples so that anyone just starting out doesnt think they have to own high end equipment to get good results.

[condyk]

Totally agree ... my £5 Helios lens is one of the sharpest I've owned. But as Frank says it's also about the light and any half decent lens will do a great job when the light is right.

[Karl Johnston]

I thought the 5D mark II was cheap... :lol:...I call 1Ds high end =( I can't even justify one of them.. but it's about what you shoot. In good studio light, or even good natural light, a P&S will be all you need. But what about if you're shooting landscapes or wildlife where you need the quality, the rendition of color and detail?

It's like with buying a car. I hope I'm not the only one out there who buys what he needs and not want he can get. I could buy a Nissan 350z .. but why when my area is built for trucks, jeeps and economical cars for cruising with? So I spend 3000 $ on a nice, economical pontiac sunfire 2002 rather than 40 000$ on a 350z and get the same driving experience built for my needs. I have no where to race around, I value mileage and I have a family to cart around.. the 350z isn't built for me, just like the 5D mark II may not be built for you, or the 1Ds mark III isn't built for me. The 5D mark II, though, for some who need that extra power - is a need.

There is no "better" camera, but "better suited" camera for your situation. If that's a 350D, then no shame on you - that's all you need. But will it be enough for me? Nope, I need the 5D mark II for what I do.

I agree not to overlook inexpensive equipment, but it's important to realize not to underlook "expensive" equipment, either.

the 11-16 tokina beats the arse off the 16-35 2.8, yet the 16-35 2.8 is 2.5x as expensive and unnecessary for my needs. So why blow 2000 for what I can get for 600?

[_aravena]

Let's see the same thing in low light. I never got caught up int he gear thing, that's one reason I own Sigma. Kajuah said it right. I love my 20D and would not have minded another but the mileage on those things is definitely up there so I opted for something with less mileage. Sure I could have gotten the 30D but I do like having the ISO in my viewfinder. Man I have used that so much already. My IR camera though will probably be an XT or XTi. Whatever is still around at the time. My XT was awesome!

[mrfixitx]

JoYork,
I totally agree I was using a Rebel XT up until about a month ago when I upgraded to the 40D. Sometimes people get to gear focused(Its happened to me) and forget that in photography, the stuff that really matters is stuff like composition, subject, background, lighting etc...

The lens and the camera certainly affect these to a bit but not to extent some gearheads believe.

If the shot is well composed, well lit etc... its not going to make much of a difference if you take it with a Rebel XT and the kit lens, or a 1D series camera and an expensive L lens. Its still going to be a good shot, the difference will be stuff like sharpness, contrast and bokeh. A bad picture shot with either camera is still a bad picture.

[augenblick]

very nice!

[neilwood32]

Its not the camera, its the bag of flesh behind it that makes the photo.

Yeah a better camera is good (im drooling over the 5dII myself) but at the moment cant justify the cash either to myself or SWMBO.

[lukeap69]

If I can afford 5D mk II now I will get one immediately. But truth be told, I am not prepared yet to splash that amount for a new body. My 40D & 20D are still producing excellent pictures for me (my use).

Maybe when I have the cash to burn, 40D & 20D will start to take bad photos (just to give me motivation to get the 5D2).:lol:

[Bobster]

i made do with the kit lens for years, but i upgraded to the 17-50 2.8 Tarmon in the summer and the difference is night and day!

http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/108127458.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/108127460.jpg

[artyman]

The non IS kit lens is much maligned in my opinion it is capable of some excellent shots. As regards the comparison of the Canon and Tamron, the Tamron is stopped down a touch, comparing both at say f5.6 would give a better comparison.

[blue9]

I would like to add that in my experience portraits are the most forgiving type of photographs for a budget lens. In fact having a very sharp lens for portrait work can produce to sharp images and to much contrast. However in landscape photography the situation is reversed.

[PhotosGuy]

In fact having a very sharp lens for portrait work can produce to sharp images and to much contrast. For years they sold "Portrait lenses" that were purposely softened. You can get much the same thing by putting a hole in a piece of cheap plastic & shooting through it like it's a filter.

[LowriderS10]

Your definition of cheap will vary. To some, my equipment (10D/20D/30D, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 70-200 f4L, Tamron 17-50, Sigma 10-20) is cheap, low-end stuff, to others it's a drool-worthy collection.

I bought all my gear after extensive researching and really don't care what name's on the lens (hence the Tamron and the Sigma, my Sigma flash and my Tamron TC).

I shot a LOT with cheap stuff (low-end Sigma/kit) and hated the way they felt and performed...as far as sharpness and low-light performance go, my old Sigma 75-300 couldn't come close to my 70-200. Same goes for the kit (which was a hunk of garbage I hated every second I had to put up with the fact that I was afraid the inside barrel would fall off the camera) vs. the Tamron.

I agree that $$$ won't always buy you quality and certainly won't buy you better pictures (hell, I only have one L lens...the cheapest one ;) )...but I do believe that a lot of the cheap lenses are garbage and are no fun to use.

[Tee Why]

I don't think you need to spend high dollars like a 5DMII and an L lens to take high quality fotos. I think an entry level body and a nice kit or a third party lens for a few hundred is enough personally. What matters much more is the light and the shooters skills.

[CronoDL]

I'll admit that quite a gearhead sometimes, and it's not a good thing! Gotta stop visiting dpreview.com

[tkbslc]

I think it is funny how distorted our perceptions get. Honeslty a $500 camera with a $150 lens is not LOW END. Low end is a $100 camera with a built in lens. We are talking about the low end of high end stuff. Its all a matter of good and better, not bad and good.

Anyway, go shoot a $80 kodak compact for a week and tell me what low end is.

[440roadrunner]

I think it is funny how distorted our perceptions get. Honeslty a $500 camera with a $150 lens is not LOW END. Low end is a $100 camera with a built in lens. We are talking about the low end of high end stuff. Its all a matter of good and better, not bad and good.

Anyway, go shoot a $80 kodak compact for a week and tell me what low end is.


I agree. I've seen some pictures shot with an Xt and kit lens that without the EXIF I'd dare anyone to be able to tell it wasn't shot with the best you can buy. I'm not saying I can do that......

[HappySnapper90]

the 11-16 tokina beats the arse off the 16-35 2.8, yet the 16-35 2.8 is 2.5x as expensive and unnecessary for my needs. So why blow 2000 for what I can get for 600?

Because your tokina won't work on a FF camera, that's why! :oops:
And your mention was the first I've heard of this lens, so it obviously isn't a popular thing.

[kitacanon]

Low budget bods work for printing fullframe 8x12 prints or smaller...or for just displaying on the net, but low budget bods may lack the latest features (limited focusing, darker VF, smaller LCDs) ...low budget lenses work great in good light (when you can stop down a couple of clicks) and at those small enlargements...they also teach you what you really want...i.e. starting with a 28-105 will soon tell you if you need to wider or longer...at more $$$ of course but that's the starting point.

[yogestee]

Low budget bods work for printing fullframe 8x12 prints or smaller...or for just displaying on the net, but low budget bods may lack the latest features (limited focusing, darker VF, smaller LCDs) ....

Kit,,I have to disagree with this statement.. All things being equal a topshelf body and budget model of the same resolution will produce simliar or identical image quality.. What you are paying for are the added extras..

When I worked for a newspaper I was issued with a 1D MkII and a 20D as a back up.. I bought a lowly (by today's standards) 350D to take overseas with me.. I did some tests comparing the 1D MkII, 20D and 350D and found little if any difference in image quality..

Where the difference lies are in things like AF speeds, more accurate focusing, higher ISO capabilities, higher burst rate, camera handling etc..

BTW Jo,, nice test.. It's not in the equipment you use but in the photo-op and skill of the photographer..

[kitacanon]

Kit,,I have to disagree with this statement.. All things being equal a topshelf body and budget model of the same resolution will produce simliar or identical image quality.. What you are paying for are the added extras..

When I worked for a newspaper I was issued with a 1D MkII and a 20D as a back up.. I bought a lowly (by today's standards) 350D to take overseas with me.. I did some tests comparing the 1D MkII, 20D and 350D and found little if any difference in image quality..

Where the difference lies are in things like AF speeds, more accurate focusing, higher ISO capabilities, higher burst rate, camera handling etc..

BTW Jo,, nice test.. It's not in the equipment you use but in the photo-op and skill of the photographer..

That's EXACTLY what I thought I said...at least that's what I meant....

[dissembled]

I must say I think that I've taken better photos with my lowly PS than with ANY DSLR's I've owned so far. (5d/E330). It may be due to the PS's compactness and articulating LCD screen which resulted to more possible perspectives.

[kitacanon]

Talking about PnS cams...here out of my A95, sometimes noise that looks like snow really is snow...
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9554/pragpm1smmpd5.jpg