Does camera or lens makes a better pictures

Bountyphotographer · November 28, 2011

As far as Canon is concern is it more important to have the flagship of the camera ( 1Ds mark IV) or the best L lens ?
I have an old camera 30 D with some decent lens Sigma 24-70 2.8 but notice that on some website people are taking killer pictures super sharp with great colors. It almost look like the subject is coming out of the monitor. My pictures are just fine not spectacular.
Is it likely that they have a Full Frame camera or a L lens or both, or maybe the latest photoshop????

Thanks for any feedback

Overfocused · November 28, 2011

%95 of the time the lens is the most important. In your next upgrade for equipment, I'd go with a new body since the 24-70 is an excellent lens. Sometimes a camera's IQ or AF performance really does suck, but not in your case for well lit photos. It all adds up though. A FF camera + L lens would instantly give you better results SOC.

Web previews are only a small fraction of the full sized files, remember. %10 or less of the full file size is usually as big as you'll see them. Still, with the Sigma you have, you should be getting great results with a little post processing. A little enhancement here and there to make up for the lack of what the camera can't do technically makes a big difference overall. You gotta make the picture feel as it was when you saw it, not just how the camera saw it, either with controlled lighting, post processing, or making the best of the available light if you can control the subject, since the camera can't see nearly what you can.

zoomer · November 28, 2011

Unless you are shooting wide open, most decent quality lenses are more or less equal at their sweet spots. Hard to see any difference and as minimal as they are can be corrected in processing.

Kind of the same with bodies. Unless you need the best quality at the highest ISO then a middle of the road $ camera should be all a person would need.

ThatCanonGuy · November 28, 2011

Definitely lens. The 30D is a great body. I get great results with my 20D + 70-200 f4L. An L lens would improve your photography much more than a new body (say a 60D, or even a 1DIV) would. Photoshop also helps a lot, but you don't have to have the latest version. I did fine with CS2 for years (I recently upgraded to CS4).

Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4

Overfocused, he has the Sigma 24-70. It's okay, but not L excellent

Bountyphotographer · November 28, 2011

Thanks you all for the info

Bounty

borrowlenses.com · November 28, 2011

There are a lot of factors that go into making great images. It's not as easy as owning the right gear or knowing what to do per se, but a complicated equation of lighting, subject, time of day, technique, post processing and LOTS more. It's what makes photography so challenging, and so rewarding when great images are created!

ziggy53 · November 28, 2011

My own list of the important factors in a great image:

Photographer (Skill, experience, style, etc.)
Subject (Including posing, scene, etc.)
Framing and composition
Lighting
Lens
Camera

... in pretty much that order.

Understand that a fair number of people buy expensive equipment, hoping that the equipment will somehow make them better photographers. While it's true that the best photographers tend to use very nice equipment, I doubt that the equipment alone makes them the top photographers that they are.

Matthew Saville · November 28, 2011

In many scenarios, the camera body is simply not important at all. Namely, anything still such as landscapes, architecture, nature, macro, etc. 99% of modern camera features are merely a convenience, all you really need to shoot a good landscape is a tripod, a cable release, a low ISO, and a great lens.

HOWEVER, in other scenarios the body begins to play a MUCH bigger role, and in fact I would almost prefer a better body and a minimal lens kit.

1.) Reliability. If you're a professional, you need a camera that won't let you down. Yes, the beginner DSLR cameras will get the job done 99% of the time, but they're still at a slightly greater risk of random failure, and their construction in general isn't as robust.

2.) Performance. In fast-paced and/or low-light situations, the camera body matters a lot because it contributes two major things- high ISO noise, and autofocus accuracy. For example I would rather have a full-frame camera and an f/4 zoom than a crop sensor camera and an f/2.8 zoom, hands-down. I would rather have a full-frame camera and a "cheap" f/1.8 or f/2 prime, than a crop sensor and an f/1.2 or f/1.4 prime.

In general, that's about it. If you don't need a crazy frame rate or AF performance, if you don't need ridiculous high ISO performance, then that's a green light to just get whatever camera body works, and focus on lenses until you have enough to be able to afford your preferred camera body.

Also, as a general rule you can ALWAYS do better with the gear you've got. Trust me, when you're completely maxing out the performance limits of your current gear, you'll KNOW. There is a specific point when you can totally tell that you're pushing the envelope with the gear you've got. But if your pictures are turning out "just fine not spectacular", chances are there's plenty of room for improvement with your current gear.

For example, plenty of my current professional portfolio as a wedding photographer was made on an "older" Nikon D300, D200, even a Nikon D70 from 2004/2005. Same thing with my landscape portfolio: Even though I have and love a full-frame Nikon D700 now, I still made 99% of my landscape portfolio with "lesser" cameras, and there are PLENTY of images I've made over the years that I will simply never be able to out-do with my new equipment, simply because of the lighting, subject, timing, etc.

So, the question is, ...what do you shoot?

=Matt=

Harryb · November 29, 2011

The most important factor is the skill of the photographers. I have spent thousands of dollars on gear however the most significant improvement in my pictures came from a workshop I attended that cost me less than $700.

Art Scott · November 29, 2011

A lot of those spectacular images on the web you see of even in galleries are not simply taken and processed in a few minutes in the image editor but rather the artist spends upto several hours, maybe days, perfecting the image to his / her vision ... it is all about learning to use the tools to the best of your ability ...

jww · November 29, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

My own list of the important factors in a great image:

Photographer (Skill, experience, style, etc.)
Subject (Including posing, scene, etc.)
Framing and composition
Lighting
Lens
Camera

... in pretty much that order.

Understand that a fair number of people buy expensive equipment, hoping that the equipment will somehow make them better photographers. While it's true that the best photographers tend to use very nice equipment, I doubt that the equipment alone makes them the top photographers that they are.

At least for me, equipment (lenses then bodies) simply helped me improve when I finally could challenge and found the limits of my older equipment.

divamum · November 29, 2011

Originally Posted by ziggy53
My own list of the important factors in a great image:

Photographer (Skill, experience, style, etc.)
Subject (Including posing, scene, etc.)
Framing and composition
Lighting
Lens
Camera

I'd agree.... except I'd move light up to #2. You can twiddle comp into something in post if necessary, but the light can make or break an image that's perfect in every other way.

Also, I'd agree with Matt that sometimes - and only sometimes - the body can be more limiting than the lens. If you're suffering from regular AF inaccuracy, your camera can't keep up with bursts of shots (eg when shooting sports), the ISO simply can't go high enough to shoot the environment you're in (eg theatre) or a few other things, then the body may in fact turn out to be the thing holding you back. Horses for courses and all that....

joyaphotodesign · November 29, 2011

I would have to agree with Harryb. You could own the best equipment in the world but if you have no idea on how to produce great quality work that you could later make even better by sending it to photoshop, than we need to attend more workshops. Everyones heard of the food pyrmid. Well if photography had a pyrmid I believe Photography skills in composition, and knowledge of your equipment goes at the top. Photoshop knowledge is second. Camera Equipment third.
Theese are just my thoughts and ofcourse every photographer has their own opinions. Hope you find the answers to your questions....

Overfocused · November 29, 2011

joyaphotodesign wrote: »

I would have to agree with Harryb. You could own the best equipment in the world but if you have no idea on how to produce great quality work that you could later make even better by sending it to photoshop, than we need to attend more workshops. Everyones heard of the food pyrmid. Well if photography had a pyrmid I believe Photography skills in composition, and knowledge of your equipment goes at the top. Photoshop knowledge is second. Camera Equipment third.
Theese are just my thoughts and ofcourse every photographer has their own opinions. Hope you find the answers to your questions....

You mean the bottom... the top of the pyramid is the least

Art Scott wrote: »

A lot of those spectacular images on the web you see of even in galleries are not simply taken and processed in a few minutes in the image editor but rather the artist spends upto several hours, maybe days, perfecting the image to his / her vision ... it is all about learning to use the tools to the best of your ability ...

Exactly.

jhefti · November 29, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

My own list of the important factors in a great image:

Photographer (Skill, experience, style, etc.)
Subject (Including posing, scene, etc.)
Framing and composition
Lighting
Lens
Camera

... in pretty much that order.

Understand that a fair number of people buy expensive equipment, hoping that the equipment will somehow make them better photographers. While it's true that the best photographers tend to use very nice equipment, I doubt that the equipment alone makes them the top photographers that they are.

I always like Ziggy's hierarchy, but would simplify it a bit but lumping number 3 (framing and composition) into number 1 (Photographer). In my experience and observation, great photographers really know how to compose and capture a subject. I've seen some spectacular photos that were technically flawed (e.g. due to equipment limitations, poor light, etc.) but memorable precisely because the photographer had the eye to see the subject in the first place, and compose the shot well.

Regarding equipment, we've all been asked by those who admire our work what camera we shoot with--as if all that is good in our product is due to the camera! We've also known well-to-do hobby shooters who show up with their top-of-the line equipment set to full auto mode, and wonder why the shots come out so poorly. One guy I know has several cameras that he insists are good for different situations--sports, portraits, theatre--but never uses anything but full auto exposure modes on any of them. And by contrast, I have a friend that does a lot of expedition photography, where weight and size are real limitations. He shoots with P&S (Nikon V1) and small lenses, sometimes cheap equipment, yet his photography routinely appears in major magazines. (And man! Does he know how to compose a shot!)

My philosophy about equipment is to buy the tools one needs to do the job. If you're shooting pro sports under stadium lights, this is an expensive kit. If you are shooting landscapes with good light, any decent lens and camera--along with knowing how to use it and do the PP--will give you what you need. Thus, as others here said, what you should spend your money on depends on what you want to shoot.

david-low · December 8, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

My own list of the important factors in a great image:

Photographer (Skill, experience, style, etc.)
Subject (Including posing, scene, etc.)
Framing and composition
Lighting
Lens
Camera
.

My thoughts are exactly the same as yours. Some move up the importance of lighting, but to a good certain extend, lighting can be tweaked thru' pp. At least I used to do that.

Netgarden · December 10, 2011

Ziggy left out processing.

I agree totally about the order of importance listed. But the popping pictures out there are popped in processing. Get Lightroom. Worth a good L lens. Take a processing class. I've seen it transform people!

Nothing wrong with a 20D! I use mine for Infrared still.

doob · December 10, 2011

i think its a combination of both + the photographer.

jhefti · December 10, 2011

Netgarden wrote: »

Ziggy left out processing. I agree totally about the order of importance listed. But the popping pictures out there are popped in processing. Get Lightroom. Worth a good L lens. Take a processing class. I've seen it transform people!

Very good point!! PP is an art in itself, and can transform a so-so image into something spectacular. I am going through this thinking with a high school shooter I mentor whose personal philosophy is to be a 'purest' and use only SOOC images. I keep telling him that the camera does not see what our eye sees, and there is nothing 'pure' in this process. I personally do not alter content (though certainly do not think any less of shooters who do) of my shots, but do alter just about everything else to get the qualities I want into the shot. To each his own...

Matthew Saville · December 10, 2011

Netgarden wrote: »

Ziggy left out processing. I agree totally about the order of importance listed. But the popping pictures out there are popped in processing. Get Lightroom. Worth a good L lens. Take a processing class. I've seen it transform people!

Nothing wrong with a 20D! I use mine for Infrared still.

Oh, but nailing it SOOC is so fun!!!

...Of course I am NOT saying that images should NEVER need processing, I'm just saying that it is possible every now and then, when things come together just right, for an image to *pop* just a little with absolutely zero editing. :-)

It's mostly just a personal hobby of mine, not something I concern myself with when I'm on the job shooting professionally. (Although those images were in fact shot on jobs) I dunno, I just enjoy the pursuit of nailing the in-camera contrast, the white balalnce, the exposure, etc. It's just so much fun! I've even got a custom picture style that I created on my computer and downloaded to my camera, for that faded sepia look. Not sure if I have any images online but yeah, it's sweet!

Good luck out there,
=Matt=

jhefti · December 13, 2011

Good shots SOOC are sweet, though doesn't often happen for me. Then again, I have never downloaded any special settings to my camera. I keep everything neutral and balanced. Sometimes it works; most of the time it doesn't.

Those are certainly spectacular shots, even more so for being SOOC!! Sounds like you're having a good time doing this!

CatOne · December 14, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Oh, but nailing it SOOC is so fun!!!

Not really possible, if you shoot RAW.

Unless, of course, you set up an import preset in Lightroom or Aperture that adds an S-curve for contrast and sharpens by default.

But back to the original subject, I'd say, as a landscape guy myself, the most important things, in order, are:

* Light
* Composition
* Processing
* Lens
* Camera

Matthew Saville · December 14, 2011

CatOne wrote: »

Not really possible, if you shoot RAW.

Unless, of course, you set up an import preset in Lightroom or Aperture that adds an S-curve for contrast and sharpens by default.

But back to the original subject, I'd say, as a landscape guy myself, the most important things, in order, are:

* Light
* Composition
* Processing
* Lens
* Camera

Wow, you put processing before lens? I'd agree that having a mk1 versus a mk2 type of lens isn't a deal-breaker compared to good processing skills, but in general at least focal length, and perspective, is right up there with light. I guess that falls under composition as a category?

But yeah, Light is foremost, then angle / perspective / composition, then camera sensor / processing etc.

Bottom line- lens comes before camera, almost every time. (Except the situations I mentioned already, a while ago)

BTW, I shoot RAW 99.9% of the time, but I still pursue my hobby of SOOC perfection. I use Nikon View NX to browse my RAW files. Canon shooters can do the same with Photomechanic or Canon's DPP program, although none compares to View NX for simplicity and functionality.

Take care,
=Matt=

jhefti · December 15, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

BTW, I shoot RAW 99.9% of the time, but I still pursue my hobby of SOOC perfection. I use Nikon View NX to browse my RAW files. Canon shooters can do the same with Photomechanic or Canon's DPP program, although none compares to View NX for simplicity and functionality.

I have never worked on SOOC shots, but my understanding is that RAW photos can be (and often are) tentatively rendered according to the camera's settings, which means that if you just convert the RAW file to a jpeg without editing it is the same thing as shooting JPEG. A least, when I open my RAW shots in LR3 or ACR, they snap to a rendering that is based on the camera settings. If I convert these to JPEG w/o editing, is is the same as shooting JPEG with the same camera settings.

...but maybe I am way off base on this...as I said, I don't experiment much with SOOC shots.

Overfocused · December 16, 2011

jhefti wrote: »

I have never worked on SOOC shots, but my understanding is that RAW photos can be (and often are) tentatively rendered according to the camera's settings, which means that if you just convert the RAW file to a jpeg without editing it is the same thing as shooting JPEG. A least, when I open my RAW shots in LR3 or ACR, they snap to a rendering that is based on the camera settings. If I convert these to JPEG w/o editing, is is the same as shooting JPEG with the same camera settings.

...but maybe I am way off base on this...as I said, I don't experiment much with SOOC shots.

RAW definitely does not render the same as JPEG unless you have a program picking up the settings data and applying it somehow. In my ACR it doesn't do that, but there may be a setting I don't know about. Profiles are matched but it is definitely not similar with the JPEG at all.

jhefti · December 16, 2011

Overfocused wrote: »

RAW definitely does not render the same as JPEG unless you have a program picking up the settings data and applying it somehow. In my ACR it doesn't do that, but there may be a setting I don't know about. Profiles are matched but it is definitely not similar with the JPEG at all.

You're probably right. Maybe it's just the thumbnails that more or less look like the JPEG rendering. I know that when I pull up RAW files into LR3 or ACR, they first come up looking like RAW files, then one by one they pop into something that looks much more edited. I figured this was coming from the sidecar file data that had the camera settings for WB, saturation, sharpening, etc...IOW, sort of like the JPEG would have looked if the camera was set to shoot JPEGs.

Matthew Saville · December 16, 2011

jhefti wrote: »

You're probably right. Maybe it's just the thumbnails that more or less look like the JPEG rendering. I know that when I pull up RAW files into LR3 or ACR, they first come up looking like RAW files, then one by one they pop into something that looks much more edited. I figured this was coming from the sidecar file data that had the camera settings for WB, saturation, sharpening, etc...IOW, sort of like the JPEG would have looked if the camera was set to shoot JPEGs.

Actually, this is a bit backwards...

When you first import a RAW photo into a third-party program, (other than Photomechanic) ...what you see at first is the in-camera colors, essentially the JPG preview of the RAW file. THEN, after a few seconds, the RAW converter program will render it's own version of that RAW file. Sometimes, yes it WILL look more edited, if there is already a .XMP file or Lightroom catalog adjustment applied. But if not, it will just give you the processing defaults. You can crank those defaults way up of course, but that's a whole different can of worms.

But yes, the only way to access the in-camera processing on a RAW file is either via the Camera maker's own proprietary software, (Nikon View NX, Canon DPP) ...or using Photomechanic.

What I do all the time is, before I create a Lightroom catalog or browse my photos in any third-party program, I manually download the folder of images directly to my computer, and browse that folder with View NX. It shows me the in-camera processing, as if I had shot JPG, but if I choose to export the file to a JPG, it renders it from the RAW file and gives me a high-quality image. (but still using the in-camera processing.)

It's quite fun, actually, when the light and subject and composition all come together. Just set one of your custom picture styles / picture controls to have some bumps to the contrast and saturation, or even b&W, and you just might get an image that needs zero editing. :-)

But again like I said, this is only an off-the-job pursuit. Sometimes I do nail a shot on the job, but I do NOT recommend wasting time fiddling with your picture controls while you have a bunch of clients waiting patiently, or about to kiss at the altar, etc. ;-)

=Matt=

jhefti · December 16, 2011

Thanks Matt--very interesting! I never knew that about Photomechanic, despite using it all the time. Actually, about all I do in PM is caption (using code replacement templates), import the IPTC data, and FTP. Never thought to look deeper into what it can do.

I haven't actually noticed any changes in ACR or LR3 after I do the import, aside from seeing them change from the flat, soft, and off-color RAW files to something that looks more edited. IOW, I don't see that second change that you mention. I just assumed it was doing a simulated JPEG rendering as a suggestion, based on the camera values as recorded in the sidecar. So what exactly is it doing? When I open a file in, say, ACR it doesn't look anything like the RAW files I open in some of the software I have written that renders the RAW file *exactly* as originally written to the card but de-mosaic-ed. (I prefer to denoise the native file, rather than an edited version, as it is mathematically much easier and the results are better. Hence the software to look at native files)

I guess I need to look into this more; you've piqued my interest!

John

zoomer · December 16, 2011

All things being equal and in a situation where some specific quality of the lens is not required I go with camera.
Since most lenses are pretty equal from 5.6 to 11.

Matthew Saville · December 16, 2011

jhefti wrote: »

Thanks Matt--very interesting! I never knew that about Photomechanic, despite using it all the time. Actually, about all I do in PM is caption (using code replacement templates), import the IPTC data, and FTP. Never thought to look deeper into what it can do.

I haven't actually noticed any changes in ACR or LR3 after I do the import, aside from seeing them change from the flat, soft, and off-color RAW files to something that looks more edited. IOW, I don't see that second change that you mention. I just assumed it was doing a simulated JPEG rendering as a suggestion, based on the camera values as recorded in the sidecar. So what exactly is it doing? When I open a file in, say, ACR it doesn't look anything like the RAW files I open in some of the software I have written that renders the RAW file *exactly* as originally written to the card but de-mosaic-ed. (I prefer to denoise the native file, rather than an edited version, as it is mathematically much easier and the results are better. Hence the software to look at native files)

I guess I need to look into this more; you've piqued my interest!

John

There is only ONE "render" step that Lightroom and Bridge do; if your images are going from drab to poppy then that simply means your in-camera settings are muted and your LR / ACR defaults are bumped up a little bit. Or, like I said, there is .XMP data for the program to read.

Cameras do NOT write XMP sidecar files, however. The only way to view in-camera processing is with a program that is specifically designed to read RAW files with their in-camera processing. Currently, Lightroom slimply does not have this capability, except for whenever you first view an image that has not been rendered yet.

Do a test- Shoot some images in RAW, but with the in-camera B&W turned on. Then load them up in ACR and I bet the first preview you see will be B&W, then the image will turn to color. That's the in-camera preview JPG going away and being replaced by Lightroom / ACR's preview...

=Matt=

jhefti · December 16, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Do a test- Shoot some images in RAW, but with the in-camera B&W turned on. Then load them up in ACR and I bet the first preview you see will be B&W, then the image will turn to color. That's the in-camera preview JPG going away and being replaced by Lightroom / ACR's preview...

=Matt=

I will try this! I guess I have neglected to look into any of this because I always shoot RAW and don't much worry about any of the camera settings. I do, however, wonder about the LR/ACR default settings now. When I open the RAW file, all the sliders, curves, etc., are in the neutral position, but so are all of my camera settings. I guess if LR/ACR were somehow reading the camera settings, than changing one of the camera settings should show up on the LR menu as altered too. Like your experiment with B&W, I am guessing it won't.

...but now that I think of it, I do frequently set the WB on the camera to a specific K value, and this does show up in LR and ACR...

Does camera or lens makes a better pictures

Comments