So is equipment really a big factor?

We've all seen some amazing shots from 10D's and 300D's, but I'm convinced that there is something about the XD models that adds something to the pictures


Would the camera body be a big factor in adding that extra depth and color?

This picture is what I am taking about:
http://ferradas.smugmu​g.com/photos/305454231​_WPmHr-O.jpg

Seen in THIS THREAD.

I know a lot of it is lighting and some post work, but I've never been able to pull off that clarity and contrast with my camera....

I'm guessing it's me, but I seem to see pictures like this coming from 1D's and 5D's a lot more often than any other bodies .

It's maybe 1% the camera body and 99% the photographer, lighting and post-processing.

Jbs wrote in post #5646851
I'm guessing it's me, but I seem to see pictures like this coming from 1D's and 5D's a lot more often than any other bodies .

its NOT you.....
those shots were most certainly done with "Pro level" equipment.(and "Pro level" skill)
the IQ between my 5D and Xti (both sporting 24-70 2.8L) is night and day.

while we all know, gear does not make a photographer. its nice to eliminate excuses and know that the shot that didnt quite come out was completely my fault.

all that being said though, there is no substitute for skill.

Joe Satriani or Micheal Romeo could pick up any guitar and shred on it. just like Tony Hawk could ride the wheels off your kids "toys r us" skateboard.

I thinks its safe to say that Annie Liebovitz or Pieter Hugo could pick up an Xti and do things with it that I couldnt.

basically, your not gonna get tack sharp images with great dynamic range from cheap equipment just like your not gonna instantly turn into Ansel Adams because ya dropped 10 G's on a 1Ds mkIII and some "L" glass

those shots you linked to are GREAT btw.

Some post work?? I'd say a lot more than some.

If you are anywhere between advanced amateur to a professional, you will see the difference in your equipment. Of course, it also partly depends on what you are shooting. Equipment does make a difference. Good equipment is a lot like a very nice pair of skis.

Come on now you gotta give something for the lens, add 1% for that also. Maybe 1.25%

Jbs wrote in post #5646851
I'm guessing it's me, but I seem to see pictures like this coming from 1D's and 5D's a lot more often than any other bodies .

And there is a reason for this...pros which will produce better pictures than most amateur will use professional equipment...not something you can buy at walmart.

Not to say that you cant take great pics like this with lower line equipment, but it just depends on how good you are!

Jbs wrote in post #5646851
This picture is what I am taking about:
http://ferradas.smugmu​g.com/photos/305454231​_WPmHr-O.jpg

If that's what you aspire to then well... I don't know what to say to you. That's got to be one of the most hideous Photoshop jobs I've seen passed off as a finished professional work. I've seen more realistic CGI than the skin on that woman.

F1_Fan wrote in post #5647486
If that's what you aspire to then well... I don't know what to say to you. That's got to be one of the most hideous Photoshop jobs I've seen passed off as a finished professional work. I've seen more realistic CGI than the skin on that woman.

wow.


those pics are amazing, IMO. Sure they are heavily stylized, but they are some of the best pics i have seen in a while. It's just his style

Back on topic, I don't know if it's me, but I have searched for hours looking for a pic from a 40D that looks like that, but cannot find one. Can anyone post a pic like that taken from an XXD? I have only seen them from XD bodies.

Thanks.

One example where equipment does and doesn't make a difference: when taking static portraits and full-body shots, there's not much difference in the results from a Fuji Finepix 7000s and a Digital Rebel 300d. The only difference in 8x11 inkjet prints is in the aspect ratio - 4x3 from the Fuji and 3x2 from the Rebel.

However, when you try to get images of something that's moving or of a changing situation, there's a big difference. The Fuji has the equivalent of a long viewfinder blackout and doesn't handle rapid sequences of shots, where the Rebel DSLR handles that far better. Both cameras will be equally as good at getting static pictures of a race car, but put that car in motion and the SLR has the advantage.

In all fairness, the Fuji's automatic white balance is far better than the Canon's white balance.

F1_Fan wrote in post #5647486
If that's what you aspire to then well... I don't know what to say to you. That's got to be one of the most hideous Photoshop jobs I've seen passed off as a finished professional work. I've seen more realistic CGI than the skin on that woman.

I'd kill to take pictures like that. Alright, maybe not kill, but severely injure.

A lot (and I mean a lot) of it is skill and experience, both with the camera and the computer. But the equipment contributes a good chunk to the final product as well if you ask me.

F1_Fan wrote in post #5647486
If that's what you aspire to then well... I don't know what to say to you. That's got to be one of the most hideous Photoshop jobs I've seen passed off as a finished professional work. I've seen more realistic CGI than the skin on that woman.

hideous or not....i can't do it .

BTW, all other things being equal and the equipment is the difference.

ed rader

This was probably discussed to a certain [large] degree in the previous mega thread about the magic factor in a 'magic' lens.

Yes, equipment does make a difference, but it's not the be-all and end-all. It is not a 'big' factor. Those photos have probably had a good deal of thought gone into the lighting, pose and processing. Not to mention that with subjects like that, any photo would positively 'glow' with appeal, if you get what I mean.

But back to the point. For example, in comparing results from a P&S and a DSLR, all other factors remaining the same, the DSLR (especially if shooting RAW and processing into JPEG), would give a little more depth and smoothness in tones, colors and additional detail compared to a P&S. Clarity is usually better.

In a recent trip to NZ my brother used an S3IS and I used a 1D Classic. He claims that he cannot pull off a photo as nice as mine. Truth be told (and I told him too), the gear makes a difference. In terms of photographic skill we are pretty much on par. He is more creative than I am, but the sheer clarity of a 1D Classic RAW converted to JPEG usually surpasses a JPEG out of an S3IS.

That being said in some shots he beat me to shreds by being able to zoom from 36 to 300mm in an instant and I was still busy changing lenses.

There's a strength in every piece of gear, but you need to know how and when to use it. If you hunt for something that is perfect for every purpose, it may be a long and expensive chase. There's nothing that 'does it all' at this time, although that day will invariably come. Whatever equipment you have, shoot lots with it, learn it inside out, and you'll be able to produce the best possible results from any equipment.

Start off with shooting everything in RAW and then process in Canon's Digital Photo Professional using Picture Styles. I'd be surprised if you say it made NO difference to your photos.

Couple of those pics are fantastic...wow, gorgeous subjects too...I agree with some of the other posts here. Gear can make a difference in the right hands.

this is the closest i've gotten but it still doesn't have the feel of a 5D.

time to upgrade?