Cheap camera the same as expensive camera?

ImageX Photography

I been reading quite a bit lately and have come across many articles where some pro photographers claim that a cheap camera is just as good as an expensive camera. They say that the expensive camera just makes it easier to get a better pic. I don't agree with this theory at all!!! What about high quality sensors? High quality glass? People do NOT buy that stuff just so it's "easier" to get good pics. They buy it because they flat out simply have better imaging!!! I don't care how hard someone tries... they are not going to take an equal quality pic with their cell phone when compared with a Nikon D300S or a Cannon 5D MKII. I have seen studio shots(on this whole subject) with an iphone that were trying to prove it's possible. Sure, in SOME cases, you can get awesome results with a cheaper camera that almost equal a quality DSLR. The key is.... in "some" cases. What do you guy's think of this whole cheap VS expensive debate? IMO...a cell phone is no match for quality glass and quality sensors!!!!!! Period! If they were..... why waste your money on good lenses and sensors? To make it "easier" to get quality pics? That's what some pros are saying!!! I say no way. A cell phone or cheap camera cannot even come close to producing a good DSLR's best imaging and I find it extremely hard to understand how someone could even say such a thing.

happysmileylady

I think it depends on how cheap and how expensive you are talking, as well as what it is that makes it cheap or expensive-a mid level P&S costs the same as an iPhone, but the iPhone is a phone that happens to have a camera....a p&s camera is a camera that's a camera. I do think that makes a difference.

I have seen some pretty cool work with mid level p&s cameras, I have seen plenty of AWFUL work with very expensive equipment. Expensive equipment is substitute for knowledge of composition, light, and and artistic eye. And someone who has all of that and knows the equipment they own very well, can likely do some great stuff with pretty simple equipment.

I think the quality of an image is as much if not more about the content of the images as about the technical aspects of things like clarity, noise and so on that better equipment can grant.

WillCAD

I've seen the iPhone shoot you refer to, and though it's an impressive piece of work, it's only one isolated incident that proves only that an iPhone has a fair camera in it, IF you have a whole room full of studio lights, diffusers, backdrops, gels, tripods, stands, and booms to light up your static, unmoving subject. Sorta takes a bit of the wind out of the argument, IMHO; had the model moved, or had the photogs not had all of those lights and accessories available, those shots could still have been obtained using a DSLR with a speedlight flash and a diffuser, but the iPhone would have choked.

But I haven't seen many people making the foolish argument that cheaper cameras are "the same" or "just as good" as the more expensive models in ALL situations. The argument is that under the right conditions, pics taken with the cheap cameras are indistinguishable from those taken with expensive cameras. But that only happens when you play to the cheap camera's strengths - generally outdoor, brightly-lit scenes, or controlled, brightly-lit indoor scenes, with static subjects.

Generally, the expensive cameras have certain advantages over the cheaper cameras:

* Higher ISO settings
* Lower noise at the same settings
* Faster burst modes
* Larger internal buffers for burst modes
* Wider dynamic range
* Improved control interfaces
* More software customization options - custom functions, settings, and modes, AF microadjust, tweaks to color and compression settings, etc.
* More metal, less plastic (in Canons, at any rate - dunno about the other major brands)
* Better weather sealing (again, in Canons)
* Larger physical size, more comfort for those with big hands
* More megapixels (yes, I know that's not the most important thing, but it's not totally meaningless, either)

There may be others, but these are the ones I noticed myself when I upgraded from a first-generation Canon Digital Rebel 300D to a Canon 50D earlier this year.

Now, if you're taking pics in situations where those advantages are not important, then you see where someone might think that the cheap camera is as good as the expensive camera. But start taking pics in places where those advantages are vital, and you see the difference.

I guess the overall philosophy is, the more you can control the subject and environment, the less camera you need to get the shot. The less control you have over the subject and environment (which is most real-world shooting), the more camera you need, and the more skill you need to fully utilize the camera.

cbbr

Sometimes its about perspective. If an IPhone is the only camera that you have with you, its the best camera on earth.

I have been known to carry a ton of gear to get "the" shot, but I normally carry a body and a couple of lenses rather than the whole kit. I run across situations when I have a much better lens at home, but I shoot with what I have with me. The same can be said for inexpensive cameras if that is what you can afford.

I have taken some killer shots with a Nikon 50mm 1.8. I paid $100 for it brand new. When 50mm will do, it is hard to tell that lens from the $1,500 - $2,000 lenses that I normally use.

As with everything, more expensive is better to a point, and then you reach a point of diminishing return.