Equipment DOES matter...

NorthernFocus

When I was looking at upgrading my equipment a while back I was given advice that higher end lenses really make a difference in marginal lighting conditions. I've since proven that to myself multiple times. This weekend while processing some images from a recent outing I ran across an example that I thought I'd share for anyone out there facing the lens dilemma. The following images were taken of the same critter, doing the same behaviour, and under nearly identical lighting conditions i.e. late evening, overcast sky, dark trees in the background reflecting on the water. Used NeatImage NR software on both during PP.

IMO the second image is marginally better... :rolleyes

Taken in July, 2006
Nikon D70, Sigma 100-300 EX, handheld
1/500s f/4.5 at 280.0mm, auto ISO


Taken in July, 2010
Nikon D300, Nikon 200-400VR, Bushhawk
1/250s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso640

Wil Davis

I agree with you, and that's one of the reasons I've always prefered brand gear over third-party, although in the past 20 years that gap has certainly narrowed.

The point I have issue with is your last sentence: "Used NeatImage NR software on both during PP." I think that any PP dilutes or certainly confuses any comparison.

Just my NSHO…

Nice pics though!



- Wil

Ric Grupe

I, too, agree with the title statement but feel these examples are really not a good comparison to support your point. Similar is not the same.

I've heard the "it's the photog not the equipment" that makes great images parroted so many times...:puke

It is BOTH...so gear does matter.

NorthernFocus

Well, so far two "yeah BUT..." comments

As Ric said, we've all heard the "cameras don't take pictures, people do.." type of wisdom. And it's true. And we can all go to various websites and review the lab results of this lens shot against that lens, etc. And that's true to. I'm a technical person and data is data, period. And for the VAST majority of photographers taking pictures in good lighting conditions and more interested in the subject matter than in the technical aspects of IQ, it's definately not worth spending five times as much on different equipment. But most wildlife photographers spend a lot of time, and produce some of the most interesting images, in marginal lighting conditions. The intent of the post is simply to provide a data point for anyone trying to decide whether better equipment will help.

This example was the same guy using basically the same technique shooting the same type critter doing the same thing in the same place the same time of day at the same time of year in the same weather conditions and doing the same processing on the images on the same computer at (essentially) the same time. The only substantive difference is the equipment.

Maybe the two images are nearly the same and I'm just trying to convince myself that the gear was worth it. Ok, I'm not impartial. So you decide ....

jwear

nobody shoots the same 1 subject 5 cameras 5 pictures= never the same close but never the same.Even IF the equip was the same. BUT a 300 f4 or a 300 f2 which would you want on the end of yor camera AH yes equipment does matter but there is NO replacement for a true artist. While you shoot eagles with you 800mm and the artist shoots a bug and a sunset with a point and shoot at the end of the day you want to kill them or at least steal their battery:D