Does higher price mean better quality photo?

Hogloff wrote in post #17178415
So I ask you all giving out this great advice, you that own a camera more capable than an entry rebel...you are all masters of photography. Your work is really accomplished and can hang in the best of galleries. You are masters of the light, capable of capturing emotion in every one of your shots. You've all been published in prestigious magazines like National Geographic?

If NOT...why are you not still using an entry level rebel with kit lens?

I'm under no delusion that a better camera can capture better photos, or at least make some photos possible.

But really, I use what I use for the AF and dual card slots. Plus it's big and parts crowds.

cdifoto wrote in post #17178438
Plus it's big and parts crowds.

Well sure, but one day, you are going to really hurt somebody spinning it like Thor's hammer!

Some genres of photography require better equipment to get the best chance of taking engaging photographs. For those genres, the simple answer is "yes".

One such example? Wildlife photography. There is a thread here that shows people's "then and now" photographs. I can't seem to find it at the moment, though I did several searches. One of the main things I noticed is the equipment being used when someone started out capturing bird photographs and what equipment they were using for their "now" photographs.

I'm sure these same people were working on their skills in parallel with their gear upgrades. I don't thing it's an "either/or" question. Better equipment "may" lead to better photographs. As I mentioned above, in some genres of photography, less expensive equipment will be definitely limit the possibilities.

I think what happens is that people use amateur equipment, and get mediocre results. The first inclination a person gets is that "the equipment is to blame, and I better get more advanced equipment". They do that, and yet their photos have only improved marginally. They then recognize perhaps it isn't the equipment's fault, and they take the time at that point, after the big investment, to learn how to use the equipment better.

So the usual steps are:
1) buy some equipment
2) don't like the results
3) ask for help on a forum
4) buy a newer, more expensive, or even a FF camera
5) sell some old lenses
6) buy some new more expensive lenses
7) results are still somewhat subpar
8) self-realization that perhaps personal skill and technique are to blame, work on that

#6 and 8 can be swapped in some cases.

In order of importance.(to me)
1.Subject.
2.Light.
3.Glass
4.Technique.
5.Composition.
6.Body.

1-5 have very little between them. A body for me just makes then marriage of 1-5 easy or hard or somewhere in between.
I can shoot great portraits with a 5dc but can't stand using it for say an event when I'm moving through different light strengths and sources (no auto iso)

And my old Pentax K5 had the best glass in the world but would it focus consistently ?
Well I switched to Canon so no.

If you are lucky like me and being paid to produce images you need a body that will deliver those images hassle free.
This typically comes from features and bits and bobs you find on a manufacturers top 2-3 bodies.
They don't necessarily produce better images, but they will get you better images quicker and easier if you understand the top 5.

You missed post production, the darkroom activities still are just as important today as it was in the past, but now is digital. Much of the deficiencies in your list can also be reduced or eliminated with this too, in several cases.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17178445
Well sure, but one day, you are going to really hurt somebody spinning it like Thor's hammer!

That's the plan!

LondonRob wrote in post #17178454
In order of importance.
1.Subject.
2.Light.
3.Glass
4.Technique.
5.Composition.
6.Body.

1-5 have very little between them. A body for me just makes then marriage of 1-5 easy or hard or somewhere in between.
I can shoot great portraits with a 5dc but can't stand using it for say an event when I'm moving through different light strengths and sources (no auto iso)

And my old Pentax K5 had the best glass in the world but would it focus consistently ?
Well I switched to Canon so no.

If you are being paid to produce images you need a body that will deliver those images hassle free.
This typically comes from features and bits and bobs you find on a manufacturers top 2-3 bodies.
They don't necessarily produce better images, but they will get you better images quicker and easier if you understand the top 5.

Nah there is no true order of importance. It depends what you shoot. I can't do what I do now with a Rebel. Maybe that's what you're actually saying?

That's like saying a race car driver doesn't need the best tires if he has a heavy enough foot. If you want to do anything well, your equipment has to live up to your skill. All of it.

AndrewChristopher wrote in post #17176441
Hello all,

I was wondering if a higher priced camera takes a sharper, clearer, and smoother photo than a less expensive one? For example, does shooting with a Canon EOS Rebel T3i compared to a Canon EOS 5D Mark III have a dramatic difference in quality or is it the lens that determines this?

The question is, how important is that improvement in sharpness, smoothness, and clarity; to you, as a viewer, how important. Moreover, how much would you actually notice those improvements?

If someone displayed 100 photographs taken by the same photographer, with 50 taken by a Rebel and the other 50 by a 1DX, would you be able to delineate the photos by the camera used?

More importantly, would it even matter if could notice the improved image quality, in that perhaps there were other qualities of the photo that captivated you much more, such as lighting, composition, subject matter, movement, lines, or any combination of such.

What is difficult for some people to grasp is that even factors, such as sharpness, that can be objectively measured are nevertheless received on a subjective level.

As to what is important to you is something that you’ll have to discover on your own. Maybe exacting sharpness will be important to your aesthetic predilections, maybe not.

For me, most any lens made in the past 80 years is sharp enough (at least when stopped down to f/4 or so). I know, my most recent batch of photos was taken with a lens made in 1934.

Where expensive gear often plays a role is in its ability, as folks have said, to say, capture a bird in flight because of the improved AF system, or to endure harsh conditions and heavy usage. These are functions that help expand the field the photography but don’t necessarily improve upon it, at least in terms of creativity and aesthetics.

Again, much of this will fall on your needs, and your needs may change as you pursue the hobby.

All I know is that there are pinhole photos that I enjoy as much (if not more) than any photograph taken with the most expensive DSLR. It’s subjective, but that’s photography—-it’s not like a race that can be measured with a time watch.

As for the importance of the photographer, I say much more on that on the link in my signature.

cdifoto wrote in post #17178461
Nah there is no true order of importance. It depends what you shoot. I can't do what I do now with a Rebel. Maybe that's what you're actually saying?

That's like saying a race car driver doesn't need the best tires if he has a heavy enough foot. If you want to do anything well, your equipment has to live up to your skill. All of it.

]But a boring picture of a dull thing badly lit is of little interest to most people (with apologies to Bernd and Hilla Becher). A camera body will not make the outcome better.

My point (and I accept I missed PP, lets lump that in with technique) is that it is the features and performance on higher end bodies that assist you is assembling the important bits quicker and with more success.

If you (anyone, no one specific) point a Hasselblad H5d at a model badly dressed as Alice in Wonderland, light her with on board flash and have the wall of your flat reflect a ton of that light back as you shoot 1 metre from her face making her uneasy you will have probaly produced a terrible picture.

So 1- 5 are critical, the best body in the world will not save you.
However, if you are on top of 1 to 5 a great body is not hugely important.
Unless like me the reason to create an image is commercial, you then have to have the right body for the sweep of briefs you get. For these I could not live without a Mkiii.

If I switched to sports shooting I would no doubt have to look to a 1DX.

So, for me, 1-5 make great pictures. 6 makes them easy or hard to capture.

LondonRob wrote in post #17178493
]But a boring picture of a dull thing badly lit is of little interest to most people (with apologies to Bernd and Hilla Becher). A camera body will not make the outcome better.

My point (and I accept I missed PP, lets lump that in with technique) is that it is the features and performance on higher end bodies that assist you is assembling the important bits quicker and with more success.

If you (anyone, no one specific) point a Hasselblad H5d at a model badly dressed as Alice in Wonderland, light her with on board flash and have the wall of your flat reflect a ton of that light back as you shoot 1 metre from her face making her uneasy you will have probaly produced a terrible picture.

So 1- 5 are critical, the best body in the world will not save you.
However, if you are on top of 1 to 5 a great body is not hugely important.
Unless like me the reason to create an image is commercial, you then have to have the right body for the sweep of briefs you get. For these I could not live without a Mkiii.

If I switched to sports shooting I would no doubt have to look to a 1DX.

So, for me, 1-5 make great pictures. 6 makes them easy or hard to capture.

We're saying the same thing then.

Cool ! Weirdly though many clients show love for my Pentax stuff.
They just don't how how hard it was to get it right and how many other shots got binned !

LondonRob wrote in post #17178528
Cool ! Weirdly though many clients show love for my Pentax stuff.
They just don't how how hard it was to get it right and how many other shots got binned !

I only ever collected 2 or 3 manual focus lenses. The Takumar 50 was fun to use, but I SUCK at manually focusing so I got rid of all that gear a bit ago. My favorite was probably the Meyer Optik 135mm f/2.8 with its 15 aperture blades. I just didn't use it enough to keep it around.

Hogloff wrote in post #17178415
So I ask you all giving out this great advice, you that own a camera more capable than an entry rebel...you are all masters of photography. Your work is really accomplished and can hang in the best of galleries. You are masters of the light, capable of capturing emotion in every one of your shots. You've all been published in prestigious magazines like National Geographic?

If NOT...why are you not still using an entry level rebel with kit lens?

Absolutely not, in any way, shape or form.

My want for better controls outgrew my former entry level Rebel. I wanted (and indeed love) the features of my present camera. That doesn't mean it's any better at capturing the photos I'm capable of than any of the Rebels. I am still using a kit lens though.

The answer I gave stands even though my camera outshoots my skill level. Higher price does not in itself mean higher quality photos.

hokiealumnus wrote in post #17176769
Higher price typically means it's easier to get a better quality photo, by putting more controls at your fingertips. Until you know how to use those controls, your photos will improve very little from buying a top of the line camera.

Sparky98 wrote in post #17177889
If you go to the dpreview site and view their test results of various cameras they will tell you that the Nikon D810 resolved more lines per picture height than any other 35mm camera they have tested. From that test you can assume that the D810 is sharper than the 1Dx and it costs about half as much as the 1Dx. So cost does not necessarily correlate to the sharpness of the camera.

That's like saying my $75,000 Skyline GT R can beat a $200,000 Ferrari. Both are expensive and both are top end cameras.

Hogloff wrote in post #17178415
So I ask you all giving out this great advice, you that own a camera more capable than an entry rebel...you are all masters of photography. Your work is really accomplished and can hang in the best of galleries. You are masters of the light, capable of capturing emotion in every one of your shots. You've all been published in prestigious magazines like National Geographic?

If NOT...why are you not still using an entry level rebel with kit lens?

And you shoot with...?

So you are saying all the advice are from wine & cheese art school people that wear a black turtleneck and talk like a snob about composition and lighting, but ignore the fact that they too have a high end camera.