An interesting acticle on DSLR's. Entry level gear v High end gear, with interesting results.

[Cage]

Came across this article in my travels.

I guess it reinforces what we all know, that you can take more than comparable 'happy snaps' with your entry level gear, but it you want to get the maximum detail, narrow DOF, or shoot in less than ideal conditions, Pro/Semi-Pro gear is the way to go.

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/23/cheap-shot-challenge-photos-taken-expensive-gear-recreated-cheap/

[ameerat42]

Kev. That article tells me the bloke had little else to do except try to stretch some point he half imagined.
It seems to have started with this:


Want to make some great photos but don’t have or don’t want to spend a lot of money? A few days ago I posted photo of a Hummingbird on my Facebook page I took with a new Nikon D810 and a 85mm 1.8. I received a comment asking me “how much money do you spend on your equipment to get a shot like this?” Others comment from time to time that they’d love to get into photography but don’t have the money.

NOW some of the older gear is inexpensive, but once it was considered serious stuff. All that's changed is a bit of time.

Old/new/cheap/expensive, you still need a bit of skill.

The main good thing about the article is that he's pulled up just short of saying "anyone can do it". - Just!

Still, I wonder how many people are taking the line and combing for inexpensive gear in the hope that...

...you might take some "great" photos, but seriously, you need really good stuff.

A double message?

[arthurking83]

That was the article I was referring too in My Thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?134238-don-t-believe-everything-you-read!) a couple of weeks ago.

At the end of the article he says stuff like ... You don't need expensive gear to achieve great photos .. but at anything above ISO400 the images from the cheap camera aren't quite so good
(or words to a similar effect).

My initial reaction after having read the article was ... :confused013

Then once it all set in, it was more along .. what a waste of time(my time in reading it .. and his time taken to write it)

His examples are basically meaningless in terms of a comparative indication, and his choice of gear and settings kind'a didn't make any sense in most examples.

As an example of the silly nature of the article:
(for the so called low light comparison)


I added just a bit of noise reduction on the D40 photo in Photoshop. Otherwise the photos are pretty much straight out of the camera.

As far as I'm concerned there is a massive difference between "photos are pretty much straight out of camera" and "set a bit of noise reduction in Photoshop".

Using noise reduction in photoshop is about as far from straight out of camera as it can get... if noise is in the image and it looks ugly to the point that it'd affect image quality .. (and the more expensive camera doesn't need this step) .. then this can be a reason to pay more for your gear.
ie. the end justifies the means.

I think the final analysis on this article is that it didn't explain anything, didn't arrive to any real conclusion, didn't display any consistency, and it tried to confirm a well known myth as a matter of fact.

[merlin1]

Spot on Arthur,

Ross.

[wmvaux]

I'm not sold on the story and the pics. I have a D810 and know what the quality is like, the quality of those pictures were average. I'm confused on the lightning shot too with 2 cameras getting the same shot, yet it must of been in a split second as the cars in the photo are not moving???

I have only been in the game for just over a year and have gone from a D3200 to D7100 and now a D810 and can tell the difference between the quality of shots from the cameras. The D3200 is a very good entry level camera and can product quality photos, but there is a step up with the D7100 and even more with the D810. The D810 I notice now I hardly have to make adjustments in post processing, the difference in quality is amazing.

There is no question you can get some great results using a D3200, but in the end I was restricted to what I could do with it. No bracketing and some other features I wanted to progress to the next level. The D7100 is a great camera and again takes great photos and can do a lot more than the D3200 and I'd still be happily using it if it wasn't for the fact I was in a position to get a D810 and jumped at the chance and can see for myself the quality is a major step up on the D7100.

I always think it's funny when someone posts a great shot you have some people say "Great shot, what kind of camera do you have?" as if to say it's the camera that got the great shot and not the photographer. There is no doubt the photographer is the one who set up the shot, composed it, chose the settings and executed in a way to get the great shot and then on top used post processing to get the final result. From what I have seen for myself, it really depends on the shot and conditions that makes the top end cameras better than entry level cameras. For example I have taken photos in the city at night and get bleeding from some lights where instead of being a sharp light, it spreads out as a soft glow and that's with the D3200 and D7100, but with the D810 it's clear and sharp and no bleeding or soft glow. The shot with each camera can be a great shot, but the quality of the D810 against the others in this situation can't be beaten.

I also believe post processing can also play a huge part in the quality of the result. I'm still learning and working out what the best way is for me. Seeing various people do things differently and applying things differently has made me change the way I post process. If you do it right, the photo can pop right out there and stand out. You could make a quality D810 shot and turn it in to an average shot, just as you could bring a D3200 shot out like it's a professional shot.

[MissionMan]

I think the article is bad because it picks examples where the limitations of the gear aren't exposed like high ISO or focus speed. For example, I have the Tamron 90mm Macro and it's a great lens but the focus speed is slower than politician.

The challenge with this article is people will get out there with something like a cheap 70-300 and wonder why their photos are soft at 300 because gear "doesn't really make a difference" and most people don't actually understand the limitations of the gear and/or how to work within the limitations.

I also don't think it helps much because it doesn't explain to people how to pick the gear that suits the photography style they want at a lower price.

[Kym]

The latest entry level gear (any brand) is very good.
You can take competition winning pictures with any of it.

It is only in very extreme conditions that the high end gear starts to have value.
I.e. low light, fast glass, frame rates for sports and wild life.

5 or more years ago this was a debate but today it is a bit pointless.

[Steve Axford]

I more or less agree with Kim on this one. I think if someone is keen enough, then they can get most of the photos they want without the need for expensive gear. Even with the most expensive gear possible, you still wont get all the pics you want, not by a long way. Ask anyone with a 600mm f4 lens - you still have to find the subject to make a good photo.
Anyway, why get upset about someone that says cheap gear is almost as good as expensive gear? Just use the advantages you've got to take the best photos you can, or, more to the point, to take the photos that best tell the story that you want to tell. If there's no story there, nobody will be very interested for very long - including, and perhaps most importantly, yourself.

[Mark L]

Well there's been a small bird turn up in Mudgee that's only been spotted in Australia four times. I went and eventually got some photos of it.:)
I know the photos could be better but I'm happy to get my photos with the gear I have. I've seen better from some with better gear.
The main reason for the difference in quality? Not the camera. I need a better lens. They are so important.

[bitsnpieces]

Here's basically a more 'fun' version of the article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4

:P

[Tannin]

The latest entry level gear (any brand) is very good. You can take competition winning pictures with any of it.

^ Yes. Absolutely.


It is only in very extreme conditions that the high end gear starts to have value.

^ Just not so. The best gear provides significant value in everyday use. Yes, you can often (not always) get the same shot with cheaper gear, or a very-nearly-as-good one, but you won't get it as easily, or with such confidence. You have to work harder at driving the gear. With the best equipment, you don't think much at all about the gear and making it do what you want it to do, you just just get on with your task: you think about making the photograph rather than thinking about getting the gear to make the photograph. It's a subtle difference, and difficult to explain, but it's a very real and significant difference just the same. It's rather like having a really fine musical instrument as opposed to having a decent but uninspired one. A good musician can play well with either instrument, but he enjoys it more and plays that vital little bit better with the quality instrument. Once you have owned a pro-quality camera body, it's very hard to go back.

And of course there are plenty of examples of photography genres where high-quality gear is simply a necessity. Wildlife and many kinds of sport are obvious examples, but consider serious macro work or any of a host of other branches of the art.

[Cage]

I think the point the writer of the article was trying to make was that the family snapper can get more than acceptable results from entry level bodies and kit lens.

As I said in my original post "but it you want to get the maximum detail, narrow DOF, or shoot in less than ideal conditions, Pro/Semi-Pro gear is the way to go".

[Granville]

I don't have an issue with the article. I agree with Kym, and Cage that the high end gear adds it's value as conditions become more demanding. I might get disagreemnent on this, but I can take Milky Way shots with my D3100 which straight out of the camera are quite acceptable, but with the same lens on a higher end camera body, I think the results would be better, SOOC.