How much better are the latest cameras and lenses.

I happened to be surfing the posts on birds in flight on these forms.
Most of the images are amazing and I happened to notice that the images dated back to 2009 and earlier.
Some of them are taken on a canon 1dk2 and of course other cameras and lenses of that era.
I just wonder if the latest cameras have advanced that much.

Jingler

I use a 6D & an 80D. They are relatively new cameras, and have lots of new features that were unavailable years ago. So yes, cameras and lenses continue to improve.

Better gear only makes it POSSIBLE to get better photos. Actually doing so is up to the photographer, just like its always been. Buying a better camera won't make you a better photographer any more than buying Yamaha Grand Piano will make you play like Beethoven.

jingler wrote in post #18418917
I happened to be surfing the posts on birds in flight on these forms.
Most of the images are amazing and I happened to notice that the images dated back to 2009 and earlier.
Some of them are taken on a canon 1dk2 and of course other cameras and lenses of that era.
I just wonder if the latest cameras have advanced that much.

Jingler

Yes and no.

You're comparing images at a scale in which the answer would be closer to no, than yes in that regard, because at the scale you see on the web, they all look pretty good. At a large scale, you'd see differences immediately.

Processing also has a LOT to do with it. A newer sensor allows for a little more there too. But in reality, you're not going to see a massive difference from the RAW files unless you're at the top end of the ISO of the sensor, you'll see quick differences there. I've heard for years shooting wildlife, "I just want a clean ISO 1600!"

A lot of the lenses you're looking at in that thread are 20 years old. Big whites are big whites, even at 20 years old, they still are stellar.

The big differences, to me, having experience shooting with the old 1D mark II myself and modern AF systems, is the different settings and accuracy of tracking while keeping focus. Newer AF systems really are better. Significantly better. The 1D2 did great when I shot it. But even a humble little 7D with its much improved AF system was a lot better. Being able to configure how the tracking works, expanded zones, etc, really makes a difference on capturing a burst on a hot second with a bird as it goes by at close range. And the newer systems like the 1DIV, 1DX, 1DXII, etc, all of course have even better stuff going on. This is only really going to really matter on complex fast moving close range stuff though. If you're shooting a bird at very long range where its a comfort to slowly pan along with them, a basic manual lens can do that easily, let alone any autofocus system to maintain it. But if you're doing close range fast stuff, having a newer AF system does matter for things like birds in flight.

From there, the newer sensors do matter a little, but not that much, the sensor quality of the old 1D2 is still fine in my book for this. But having more resolution is definitely helpful. I liked those old 8MP files. They were fine. But I definitely like having larger ones, not 50MP, but 16~18MP is great to me, more room to crop for composition, etc. But some newer sensors actually look worse than the older sensor in my opinion (with regards to noise and color). It's all personal preference. For example, I went from a 1D Mark II to a 7D. While the 7D was better in AF and resolution, I hated the 7D's files (RAW even). They were noiser no matter how it was exposed or worked than my 1DII and even my 650D and way noiser than my 5D. Loved the controls, AF and speed of the 7D, but I just couldn't work on those RAW files anymore, so I shelved it and then sold it. I'm now back to using a 1Ds Mark II as I went back to the older sensor as I prefer it's look, but with more resolution (16MP) than my old 1D2 had, and I'm in a happy place with it. For the birding I do, I don't need a newer camera. I mostly use a 300 F4L IS (in flight) and/or a 150-600 for the perched stuff. I'd love a 500 F4L or 300 F2.8L, but I also don't like the weight of those, nor the cost, and I live in Florida, I can bird with a 200mm lens no problem honestly, so I just don't need that kind of glass (my personal situation, having gone through reach-lust and aperture-lust and then going backwards to a bigger sensor and shorter glass after getting experience with it and figuring out my own comfort zones).

Again though, comparing web images won't really show a difference.

You'll get less objective evidence just looking at images. You may see a great image and find out it was done with an old rebel and a kit lens at very close proximity because the shooter was in a blind or used hunter techniques to get close to their subject. You may also see great in flight shots done with very modest equipment. Experience and technique counts for a lot for getting the shot. But comparing just looking at images, a great image from 10 years ago is no less great today, and someone re-doing the same shot with new equipment may not be better. There's a lot more to a good image than simply what the output of the camera produces; a lot of it is the expression, angle, moment of movement, composision, etc, and the camera doesn't control that, the photogrpher does. If you want anecdotal evidence, just look at all the random images of seaguls flying against a white or blue sky done with expensive gear. If it looks good it looks good. Doesn't matter how old or how new the equipment was.

You'll get more subjective evidence just hearing people's experience with "getting the shot" and "processing" leeway. Someone will more experience will be able to get shots with lesser equipment most likely and will have a very different opinion on older equipment, than someone with the newest stuff with less experience. Both can produce good shots, but what I'm getting at is the idea that experience counts and that also means in processing too, not just getting the shot in the first place, but presenting it in a pleasing manner too. Also, birding is generalized, it's very, very different if you're talking song birds at a feeder, or stationary/perched birds, or even lumbering big birds like pelicans and herons or egrets (where literally you could use manual focus and be fine, you just want; versus talking about terns, swallows, falcons, hawks, etc, in flight, actively hunting or actively darting around, that puts demand on the AF system and will give you very different results in comments on the importance of gear, and rightly so.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18418942
Yes and no.

You're comparing images at a scale in which the answer would be closer to no, than yes in that regard, because at the scale you see on the web, they all look pretty good. At a large scale, you'd see differences immediately.

Processing also has a LOT to do with it. A newer sensor allows for a little more there too. But in reality, you're not going to see a massive difference from the RAW files unless you're at the top end of the ISO of the sensor, you'll see quick differences there. I've heard for years shooting wildlife, "I just want a clean ISO 1600!"

A lot of the lenses you're looking at in that thread are 20 years old. Big whites are big whites, even at 20 years old, they still are stellar.

The big differences, to me, having experience shooting with the old 1D mark II myself and modern AF systems, is the different settings and accuracy of tracking while keeping focus. Newer AF systems really are better. Significantly better. The 1D2 did great when I shot it. But even a humble little 7D with its much improved AF system was a lot better. Being able to configure how the tracking works, expanded zones, etc, really makes a difference on capturing a burst on a hot second with a bird as it goes by at close range. And the newer systems like the 1DIV, 1DX, 1DXII, etc, all of course have even better stuff going on. This is only really going to really matter on complex fast moving close range stuff though. If you're shooting a bird at very long range where its a comfort to slowly pan along with them, a basic manual lens can do that easily, let alone any autofocus system to maintain it. But if you're doing close range fast stuff, having a newer AF system does matter for things like birds in flight.

From there, the newer sensors do matter a little, but not that much, the sensor quality of the old 1D2 is still fine in my book for this. But having more resolution is definitely helpful. I liked those old 8MP files. They were fine. But I definitely like having larger ones, not 50MP, but 16~18MP is great to me, more room to crop for composition, etc. But some newer sensors actually look worse than the older sensor in my opinion (with regards to noise and color). It's all personal preference. For example, I went from a 1D Mark II to a 7D. While the 7D was better in AF and resolution, I hated the 7D's files. They were noiser no matter how it was exposed or worked. I'm now using a 1Ds Mark II as I went back to the older sensor as I prefer it's look, but with more resolution (16MP) than my old 1D2 had, and I'm in a happy place with it. For the birding I do, I don't need a newer camera. I mostly use a 300 F4L IS (in flight) and/or a 150-600 for the perched stuff.

Again though, comparing web images won't really show a difference.

You'll get less objective evidence just looking at images.
You'll get more subjective evidence just hearing people's experience with "getting the shot" and "processing" leeway.

Very best,

I agree with everything you said, except that the 7D auto focus is better than the 1DII, having used both for shooting sports. I prefer the 1DII. It is just my experience.

What today gives you over equipment 8+ years ago:

- APS-H is gone
- APS-C recent bodies are good enough to replace the APS-H
- AF is much better, both in AI Servo and in low, low light situations
- More resolution (which can be used to reduce noise, increase details, allow more cropping, print larger)
- Lenses are improved on (both 3rd party and MKII from Canon) to resolve detail better
- More dynamic range, and better high ISO management
- Software is better across the board, DPP and 3rd party

So in a nutshell, both bodies and lenses are better now than before, however a skilled photographer is more the equalizer here. What the cameras provide now is MUCH more flexibility and versatility in what can be shot, it is still up to the photographer to use all these new capabilities to produce a good result.

The best analogy is that you might have had a wood workshop in the past with great tools, power tools, etc, but now you have been thrust into a state of the art facility. You still are the determining factor in how well that cabinet or dining room table comes out, you just have more flexibility to produce a great result, and perhaps with less work/time.

APS-H is the crop factor Canon uses with the 4K framing on the 1DX2 and 1DC. So another feature about DSLRs post 2009 is they added video features. Even TV and certain cinema productions have used HDSLRs for the smaller size or effect of sensor size.

Better bodies and lenses just make things easier to accomplish what you are after...it was still possible to get great shots before, but if you take that same person with newer tools, it'll be easier for them to get those equal shots

Sibil wrote in post #18418952
I agree with everything you said, except that the 7D auto focus is better than the 1DII, having used both for shooting sports. I prefer the 1DII. It is just my experience.

As mentioned we all will have difference experiences with the same equipment. The 1D2 did great in AF for me. No problems with it at all. I just wanted more resolution. I was fine with it's ISO even. It still was pretty clean at 800, didn't bother me at all at that ISO without any special processing. The 1D2 was great with AF, even with a 2x TC, it was locking and tracking pretty well with some close range targets which is really tough on the systems compared to distant targets. The 7D was able to do even better with that in my hands with the same glass. I ran them side by side for a while and eventually sold my 1D2 and 1Dc together because it was just time. But after using the 7D a while, the AF and speed being great, I just couldn't stand the RAW files, they were so noisy. My older cameras were not even that noisy. Even with different exposure techniques, they remained noisy. Sure, they clean up, but I was mostly tired of having to process the noise all the time, and shelved the camera, then sold it later from not using it; great camera, just not my taste on the output files to process. Back to a 1Ds II I went, finally having the happy spot of a clean RAW file and more resolution, without having to buy a very expensive camera (I got the 1Ds II for $400). I also missed the bulk of the 1D series, I had gotten used to it. I'd love a 1DIV I think, but I still don't want to put the money into a camera for that, as I'd rather have better glass than a body at this point, but again, that's based on what I actually shoot versus what I think I'd like to shoot.

Very best,

Today a next generation body is only a small improvement in image quality plus minor improvements in functionality.

Two or three generations may be worth it to you. One problem with older gear is getting it serviced.