Does the Body matter for editing?

Just wondering.. does the body you use affect the level of editing you can do?

for example if you had a 5d2 and a rebel xt and shot both in RAW.. i realize the 5d2 is newer, has more mp for cropping, and is FF but besides that lol.

sorry if its a stupid question i was just thinking about it.

No.

ok thanks

So why do you read people's comments that files are better to work on from say a 5d mk2...?

Yes, when i use Hasselblad, the editing is as fun, even with my 1Ds3, when i compare shots from 350D and 1Ds3 say for landscapes or high ISO applications, i tend to play with 350D files more and longer than 1Ds3, but the look can't be that much different if i know how to adjust the exposure and compositions and whatever is needed, but sure one body files can be easier to work with than others, not necessary by much or huge difference, but slightly there, i took shots of nightshots from my Hasselblad against someone else Nikon D90 or Canon 50D, all their shots never match my shots even at same settings and almost same FL lenses, even i was playing with my Hasselblad shots more than they played with their Canon/Nikon files and still they can't reach my files IQ, is that because i played more or they play less or bodies differences?

Surely it would depend upon the conditions the shot was taken in?

Say you shot in pretty low light (say a gig in a small club) with a rebel and a 5d2, then the advantages the 5d2 has in low light situations will allow greater flexibility when it comes to the processing stage by giving you a cleaner image to work with.
My 5dc gives me raw files which are much easier to work with at iso 800 and above compared to my 30d, the noise present isn't as 'course' as the 30d and i find them more aesthetically pleasing(as do many others) they seem to take more processing than the 30d files although my pp is not as agressive as a lot of other togs. Most of my editing is done in ACR with some curves adjustments in PS 90% of the time

Yes. 5D2 sensor captures a wider more accurate range of colour than a rebel, and more dynamic range too amongst other things (lighter AA filter etc).

Difference, absolutely. Degree of difference.....depends on the shooting conditions and/or any less than optimum capture.

jthomps123 wrote in post #13421262
No.

YES.

If you get it right in the camera when you first TAKE the picture, you can spend less time editing the photo in photoshop/lr.

Growingshort wrote in post #13421584
YES.

If you get it right in the camera when you first TAKE the picture, you can spend less time editing the photo in photoshop/lr.

Editiing a RAW file is necessarily fixing mistakes in exposure.

In difficult lighting, I always shoot ETTR and this by definition requires editing. But the exposure I took was exactly what I intended and by no means a 'mistake'.

As for the OP's question, yes, different cameras will give images that tolerate manipulation differently. The 1D Mark IV and 5D Mark II have very similar noise levels at high ISO. But if you are agressively adjusting the curves to bring up shadows, I think the 5D Mark II files fall apart faster and begin to show noise in the print.

I know I greatly prefer editing files from my 1D3 vs 40D but like others have said... a lot of it can also depend on shooting conditions. Low light high ISO is where I can really tell a difference in editing.

I assume you're shooting raw images and are extracting the maximum resolution that the camera can deliver. I'll also assume you're manually focusing using magnified live view.... if not other issues come into play.

I find that my 1D4 produces images with significantly less noise than my 5D2 (the 5D is blocky under low light conditions.) My 7D was noisier still and my 40D is even noisier than the 7D. This means I need to take somewhat greater care when post processing images from the 5D2, 7D or 40D. Denoising inevitably leads to some loss of image crispness, so there is clear correllation between camera vintage and the potential for image quality. This can be greatly mitigated by using ETTR (or HAMSTTR.)

That said, I run pretty much the same workflow for every print I make - this means that I don't spend more or less time on an image. It's telling that my favourite image is a 5-frame composite shot with my 40D and a 17-85.... I came back to it 3 years after I tripped the shutter and did some reprocessing.

roosterslayer wrote in post #13421261
Just wondering.. does the body you use affect the level of editing you can do?

for example if you had a 5d2 and a rebel xt and shot both in RAW.. i realize the 5d2 is newer, has more mp for cropping, and is FF but besides that lol.

sorry if its a stupid question i was just thinking about it.

Yes, the sensor may be the same size, but there are a lot of other things that can make a difference. Process files from a 5DmkII and a 1DsmkII and see the difference. None of the banding or other issues with the higher quality sensor of the 1D.

While people like to think each 18 or 21mp sensor body is the same, they simply aren't.

I will point out the use of quality light, and skill of the photographer is what makes the shot, but if we are looking at things strictly from a editing and image quality for processing point of view, then answer is that there certainly is a difference.

thanks for the responses guys. the reason im asking is because i have a 1d2 and a rebel xt right now. i shoot in the daytime almost 100% of the time at base ISO so i just wanted to see if the difference would be great enough to justify keeping the 1d2 (i decided to compare the xt to the newer, FF 5d2 for fun). i dont need any of the advantages of the 1d2 really so i've been considering selling it.


since most replies i see say that there is a difference only under certain circumstances like low light, i'll most likely just sell my 1d2.

roosterslayer wrote in post #13434202
thanks for the responses guys. the reason im asking is because i have a 1d2 and a rebel xt right now. i shoot in the daytime almost 100% of the time at base ISO so i just wanted to see if the difference would be great enough to justify keeping the 1d2 (i decided to compare the xt to the newer, FF 5d2 for fun). i dont need any of the advantages of the 1d2 really so i've been considering selling it.


since most replies i see say that there is a difference only under certain circumstances like low light, i'll most likely just sell my 1d2.

And why you want to sell 1D2 and keep XT? 1D2 AF is way better than XT, that can be handy in many times, even if i shoot at daytime almost 95% i always want to have a capable fast responsive camera, there will be days that you will regret that you doesn't have or sold fast AF camera, but it is up to you, you do whatever you want and wish you enjoy with whatever.