Does higher price mean better quality photo?

Here are links to two pictures, both taken at about the same time from about the same place by two different photographers using two different pieces of equipment.

Image 2

Image 2

There could of course also be skill differences between the two photographers, but that I don't know anything about.

Anders I am sure that there must be a difference in the skill level of the two photographers. Just looking at the settings used would suggest that. Had the photographer using the cheaper camera chosen to up his ISO and to shoot at 1/2000s and around f/8 they would have probably got much better results. The lack of focal length though could not really be made up for wholly by skill. Although I would think that maybe the use of the Tamron 150-600 could have mitigated things to a degree. The Tamron dose at least now allow those that cannot afford a big white to have an option that may match the budget better. I guess it comes down to where we draw the line on cheap.

Personally I would not suggest that a new photographer started with a 7D?, 5DIII or 1Dx all of which I would suggest fall into cameras with a fairly specific target market, unless they were really sure about what it was they wanted to be photographing. However I see no reason not to start with a 70D over a Rebel if the cost is not an issue. The 70D is afterall seemingly Canon's current top of the do almost everything well, at reasonable cost tree.

Alan

Lens before body. And the key question is not "is the photo quality higher" it is instead "Is the difference observable?"

BigAl007 wrote in post #17178938
Anders I am sure that there must be a difference in the skill level of the two photographers.

Hehe, I hope so, since I took the better one!

apersson850 wrote in post #17178631
Here are links to two pictures, both taken at about the same time from about the same place by two different photographers using two different pieces of equipment.

Image 2

Image 2

There could of course also be skill differences between the two photographers, but that I don't know anything about.

some hipsters would say : "I like the second one, it has very artistic movement blur in it, which makes me feel very depressed and happy at same time.... nicely exposed and perfectly out of focus, well done!"

i guess good photographer needs constant and PROPER feedback/critique from fellow photographers to be able to improve, i found this more important than anything else.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #17178627
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.

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.

No, I am saying that my current gear does in fact produce better photos than what I had previously. My 5d2 allowed me to get photos my 20d just could not and my A7R allows me to get photos my 5d2 just could not...so these newer cameras ( not necessary higher priced ) actually do allow me to get better quality images.

Better photos are a result of understanding light better. Crap light = crap photos no matter what gear you use.

I have been shooting on cameras with full manual settings since 2011. I started with a GE X5, then bought a Fuji HS20Exr and bought a cheap T3i/600D. I've used the latter for the last 2 yrs. My friend let me have a play with his new 70D. I loved the bigger viewfinder, the reassuringly hefty shutter noise, the locking mode dial and the burst rate. So much so that I want one. Going straight in from the Fuji would have probably been okay, but the improvement in my pics from using the 600D has been invaluable. But no one seems to have asked the Op what his camera experience has been? Has he posted a signature? (I've not looked). It's interesting seeing the responses. Lots of valid replies to a good question.

flowrider wrote in post #17179506
Better photos are a result of understanding light better. Crap light = crap photos no matter what gear you use.

I don't buy this. There have been tremendous photos shot in horrendouse lighting that had an emotional impact. The photo could be overexposed or in harsh light, but that emotional impact is still there. I'd say this emotional impact is the most important component in an image. Light alone does not make the image

Hogloff wrote in post #17179753
I don't buy this. There have been tremendous photos shot in horrendouse lighting that had an emotional impact. The photo could be overexposed or in harsh light, but that emotional impact is still there. I'd say this emotional impact is the most important component in an image. Light alone does not make the image

If you look at the photos posted in this forum, from the Nikon thread to the 5D classic and everything else in between, you will notice some amazing photos, and also lots of crappy ones, regardless of cameras used. You will see some photos taken with the most expensive cameras and lenses that are very nice, while others taken with the same equipment are quite crappy. You will also notice the same on photos taken with relatively cheap cameras. The main difference I have noticed is that good photographers more often than not take great photos, regardless, while crappy photographers (like me ) often take crappy photos. I have also noticed that young photographers with lots of imagination often take some very interesting photos.

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?

not really, the huge difference is the 6 inches behind the camera

For me its all about how good the lens is. no body no matter how expensive is going to get good shots with poor quality glass

flowrider wrote in post #17179506
Better photos are a result of understanding light better. Crap light = crap photos no matter what gear you use.

No sorry, but you are totally wrong. Many great documentary shots have been taken in not the best of light, yet they have the emotional impact. Yes light is great, but great photos can and have been **** in bad harsh light.

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?

your skill > available light > lenses > body

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17176619
The same question can be applied to golf clubs. The same answer applies as well. For those needing more features or that extra edge a higher end set gives them, they will shell out the extra money. Now whether they can utilize what that more expensive set of clubs give them, who knows? Experience with the game, knowledge of the course, technique in your swing, your stance, etc will play a larger part in your final score, in most situations.

I always try to buy something that I consider won't limit me for a few years. I want just enough equipment to do well know easily, but have something I can grow into later. It seems to be the best overall approach for my own needs.

That is why I own a cheap Dunlop set of clubs, because anything more just won't help my game.

As a Golfer, I completely agree with the analogy. Tiger Woods is going to kick my a$$ with a cheap set of clubs no matter the set I have. Put the best set of clubs in Tigers hands and it's going to enhance his game because he knows how to utilize them. Put the best set in a amateur's hands and there's little change in what he can produce.

The same will hold true in just about any other industry.