Probably a really dumb question but I have to ask...

pamela435

As made obvious by this question I have never studied photography or the mechanics of cameras. I love taking photos, mostly of my children and that's it. But something has me curious.

I have a Canon 350D and for what I do it's been great. A friend of mine who is at my photography level as well inherited a Canon 5D Mark II. So we were curious and using my Canon 75-300mm lense took identical pictures with my old 350D and the 5D. Here's where this becomes probably the dumbest question ever asked but hey, maybe this is the beginning of my learning process. Why do the pictures look the same when one camera is of such better quality with higher pixels (?). Really, one is not clearer or appearing to have better quality, color, anything?

Is it because it all has to do with the lense or actually using the settings like a studied person would. We just used auto settings because as I already admitted we are clueless in this regard.

Thank you in advance for satisfying my curiosity.

Brett1000

pamela435 wrote:

As made obvious by this question I have never studied photography or the mechanics of cameras. I love taking photos, mostly of my children and that's it. But something has me curious.

I have a Canon 350D and for what I do it's been great. A friend of mine who is at my photography level as well inherited a Canon 5D Mark II. So we were curious and using my Canon 75-300mm lense took identical pictures with my old 350D and the 5D. Here's where this becomes probably the dumbest question ever asked but hey, maybe this is the beginning of my learning process. Why do the pictures look the same when one camera is of such better quality with higher pixels (?). Really, one is not clearer or appearing to have better quality, color, anything?

Is it because it all has to do with the lense or actually using the settings like a studied person would. We just used auto settings because as I already admitted we are clueless in this regard.

Thank you in advance for satisfying my curiosity.

maybe it's a combination of poor lens (the 75-300 is one of the worst telephotos!) and using the auto "green box" settings in both cameras. Full frame models like the 5D deserve quality lens!

JC

I'm probably not the best one to answer this question, but you basically got it right. The 75-300 lens isn't well regarded as a quality lens, actually, reviews call it mediocre in terms of image quality, so right there the lens you used is the biggest determinant of image quality, using the auto-settings. You could say it's the limiting quantity with regards to image quality. And actually, the sensor crop on the 350D may help there, since the lens image quality is better in the center, so you are effectively cropping out the softest edges from the lens, that are recorded on the 5d.

The 5D II is more versatile, has more options and features, but if you are just shooting on auto you probably wouldn't take advantage of those. Did you shoot at equivalent focal lengths? I'd think that even with that lens, if you zoomed in close you'd see a difference in resolution, say zooming in as if you were printing at a size >8x10.

Richard

Great question--not dumb at all.

If you are shooting in automatic mode, you are probably not making the most out of either camera. Modern digital cameras do a very good job of picking settings that work adequately most of the time, and even cheap point and shoot cameras have more than enough pixels for Web display and small prints. However, better cameras will perform well in situations that lesser cameras cannot deal with at all. And all cameras will give better results if you get out of automatic mode and learn the basic rules of exposure, aperture and ISO. In the hands of an experienced photographer, you would see a difference between the two cameras. OTOH, if your only interest is in family snapshots, the 350D is more than adequate for your needs.

WillCAD

There are an awful lot of variables involved in photography, and trying to explain them all would turn this into a book, so let me give you a simple analogy that may make it clearer for you:

You own a Honda Civic. You use it to drive to work every day. Your friend loans you his Lamborgini for a week, and you see no difference. Why? Because you're using both vehicles to drive the same way on the same road at the same time of day. You won't notice the Lamborgini's greater accelleratio, higher top speed, or lower draw coeficient if all you're doing with it is driving to work the same way you do with your Civic. But put them both on an open 1/4 mile track, floor it, and you'll see the difference.

With cameras it's even more complex, because you also have to factor in the single biggest equipment-related variable - the quality of the lens. Since your test shots used the same lens, which is a great equalizer in photography, the 5d's greater dynamic range, higher megapixel count, cleaner high ISO performance, faster file save, and larger buffer were not evident to you.

To see the difference between two camera bodies, you need tests that showcase those areas in which one is betterthan the other. Shoot a wedding, pro sports event, or low-light no-flash situation with both, and some of the 5d's advantages will become evident. Blow up a tiny portion of a pic from each to 16x20, and the importance of megapixel count will become obvious.

If you never do any shooting where the 5d is more capable, then you won't see that it's more capable. And if you're not doing that type of shooting, then your Rebel is perfectly adequate for your needs.

Just like your Honda Civic.

pamela435

This is what I suspected but thank you for confirming and making it clear. Love the car analogy as it perfectly described the situation. I always thought to some degree just using a great camera would produce decent pictures but it is clear now. And I suppose if my friend doesn't take some classes and get a good lense or two the 5D isn't going to be that great of an asset to her.

So.... if I was to get a better lense any suggestions? And what is a good lense for the 5D for taking portrait type photos?

Thanks again- I appreciate it!!!

Art Scott

The only dumb or stupid question is the one not asked!!!

pamela435 wrote:

This is what I suspected but thank you for confirming and making it clear. Love the car analogy as it perfectly described the situation. I always thought to some degree just using a great camera would produce decent pictures but it is clear now. And I suppose if my friend doesn't take some classes and get a good lense or two the 5D isn't going to be that great of an asset to her.

So.... if I was to get a better lense any suggestions? And what is a good lense for the 5D for taking portrait type photos?

Thanks again- I appreciate it!!!

I did not read all the responses but I hope someone mentioned the post procesing that need to be done to bring out the very best of any inmage from any camera........

A good portrait lens for the 5D would be a Sigma (or most any top brand) 24-70f2.8 ....for your camera Sigma makes great lenses a lot less expensive than Canon lenses.....I would suggest a 17-70 f2.8-4 and a 70-200f2.8.......these wil give you quality and also be a rqnge you can grow with also........now these lenses will not give you the best looking photos until you learn to process your shots and shoot raw....

Have a great weekend.


The only dumb or stupid question is the one not asked!!!

ziggy53

pamela435 wrote:

... So.... if I was to get a better lense any suggestions? And what is a good lense for the 5D for taking portrait type photos? ...

We know that you have the 75-300mm zoom, but what other lenses do you own?

What do you want to do with the new lens?

Understanding that the Canon 5D MKII is a full-frame camera and your Canon 350D/XT is a crop 1.6x format camera, the portrait lens considerations will also be different.

For the 5D MKII I suggest that the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM is an almost ideal head shot and head-and-shoulders portrait lens, and the EF 85mm, f1.2L USM is a very good choice for 3/4 length and full-length portraiture. Both of these assume adequate shooting distances. For group portraits I would suggest a "standard" zoom, like the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM.

ziggy53

Art Scott wrote:

I did not read all the responses but I hope someone mentioned the post procesing that need to be done to bring out the very best of any inmage from any camera........

...

That's a very good point. While both cameras will benefit from careful shooting in RAW, the 5D MKII will only realize the full potential of its extra dynamic range if carefully post-processed with a RAW image converter and image processing software.

WillCAD

pamela435 wrote:

This is what I suspected but thank you for confirming and making it clear. Love the car analogy as it perfectly described the situation. I always thought to some degree just using a great camera would produce decent pictures but it is clear now. And I suppose if my friend doesn't take some classes and get a good lense or two the 5D isn't going to be that great of an asset to her.

So.... if I was to get a better lense any suggestions? And what is a good lense for the 5D for taking portrait type photos?

Thanks again- I appreciate it!!!

The camera doesn't take pictures. The photographer does. The camera is only a tool that the photographer uses.

While better tools can help anyone to get the most out of their skills in any endeavor, the tools are useless unless one has the skills to fully utilize the tools.

So yes, your friend could benefit from some photographic education. But so could anyone, even a pro, who wants to improve their skill set. Education comes in many forms, from a formal class to one-on-one instruction from a friend to reading a book to what you're doing right now - reading advice and experience on a message board. Books like Photography for Dummies and Understanding Exposure can be key if you can't invest the time and money in formal classes.

The equipment that you and your friend have now is enough to get you started. The next step is to learn the basics of photography - composition and exposure. A lot of people make the mistake of trying to learn the camera, when what they really should be doing is trying to learn photography.Leaning the camera without learning basic photography is like learning to operate the dash of a car, without knowing how to drive; it's fun to play with the gadgets, but ultimately it won't take you anywhere.

You've made an excellent start by coming here and asking questions. Dgrin is full of some very talented and knowledgeable photographers, both pro and enthusiast. I've learned a lot since I came here. It's also enjoyable to see the pics posted in the various forums, kinda like having a permanent art show right on my computer.

ABCL

Nicely put. Cameras are merely tools to allow us to capture images, a 5D in the hands of someone who knows that camera, together with a quality lens and shooting in manual could capture amazing pictures. But could also capture amazing images with a 350D, it's down to experience, quality lenses, and understanding exposure, aperture, ISO and composition.

Having a DSLR of that caliber however, can help give photographers that little extra knowledge on how to frame and expose a shot. When I got my Mark II N, I learnt more in a week than I learnt in 6 months with my previous DSLR.

pamela435

WillCAD wrote:

The camera doesn't take pictures. The photographer does. The camera is only a tool that the photographer uses.

While better tools can help anyone to get the most out of their skills in any endeavor, the tools are useless unless one has the skills to fully utilize the tools.

So yes, your friend could benefit from some photographic education. But so could anyone, even a pro, who wants to improve their skill set. Education comes in many forms, from a formal class to one-on-one instruction from a friend to reading a book to what you're doing right now - reading advice and experience on a message board. Books like Photography for Dummies and Understanding Exposure can be key if you can't invest the time and money in formal classes.

The equipment that you and your friend have now is enough to get you started. The next step is to learn the basics of photography - composition and exposure. A lot of people make the mistake of trying to learn the camera, when what they really should be doing is trying to learn photography.Leaning the camera without learning basic photography is like learning to operate the dash of a car, without knowing how to drive; it's fun to play with the gadgets, but ultimately it won't take you anywhere.

You've made an excellent start by coming here and asking questions. Dgrin is full of some very talented and knowledgeable photographers, both pro and enthusiast. I've learned a lot since I came here. It's also enjoyable to see the pics posted in the various forums, kinda like having a permanent art show right on my computer.

Thanks to all of you! I understand now and agree that equipment is useless if you don't have an understanding of photography. I'm going to start reading more and maybe when the kids start school take some classes. Although I would never have more than hobbyist aspirations I should really get off auto-setting -- ha! Thanks for your kindness!

colourbox

pamela435 wrote:

Why do the pictures look the same when one camera is of such better quality with higher pixels (?). Really, one is not clearer or appearing to have better quality, color, anything?

I used a Rebel XT for years before upgrading to a 7D this year. As others said, the differences may not show up in situations that both cameras can handle. The difference will show up in the situations where one camera hits the limits of its abilities and therefore starts to get in your way. I know there are many situations where it doesn't matter which of my two cameras I use; I can get an equally good picture with either (I use the same lenses on both). I also know that when I need better autofocus or am in very low light, the 7D will completely outclass the XT.

I went on a trip recently and took my old, cheap XT, partly because it was much easier to fit into my carry-on luggage and more expendable in case of loss of theft, but also because I anticipated that the sunny outdoor situations I would be taking most pictures in would not push an XT to its limits; bringing the 7D would not add much value.

Lenses are a major factor. Some people were amazed at how some of my XT shots had better sharpness and color than shots taken with more expensive cameras. The reason is that I was using the 24-105L pro lens on the XT while others were using kit or cheap lenses with more expensive bodies. (The 24-105L is the kit lens with the 5D.)

I would say that if your photography consists of scenes with lots of light (natural or strobe) and subjects that are easy to focus on, it may be a long time before you actually need a 5D, especially if you use high-quality lenses. But if you want to improve your photography in challenging situations and you want that more appealing film-like full-frame look of the 5D, then you might want to upgrade.

f-rider

I just HAVE to disagree with the Honda Civic, Lamborghini comparison. As an owner of a Honda Civic, I just KNOW that I get better gas mileage than the Lamborghini. :ivar

Bilsen

Pam,

I'm also a hobbyist with no pro aspirations so maybe I can suggest an intermediate step for you.

You do need to get out of the green box to advance at all. The easiset way is to start using "P" mode. It's close to automatic but will allow you to play with some of the settings (like ISO) and thus learn by shooting. Once you're comfortable there, the next step would be Av mode where you set the Aperture and ISO and let the camera do the rest.

In effect, what I'm suggesting is to learn one thing at a time for a while and then move on. You don't need classes to do that and you have built in subjects you'll enjoy -- the kids.

Mostly,just enjoy it. I have a 450D and it doesn't limit me in any way. When my skills are such that it does, I'll move up but for now, I've spent more on my last two lenses (24-105L and 70-200 f4L IS) than I did on the camera body. I shot with a Canon S5IS for a couple of years learning the various settings (I still carry it in my bag) and only moved to DSLR when I ran out of camera for what I was doing.

Good luck.