Pro Cameras

[arej]

Some of the sharpest, clearest photos that you see seem to come from "pro" cameras such as 1DmkIIs etc. Is it something about the cameras that makes this difference or is it the people taking them?

[Beyond Rational]

Both

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

For sharper, clearer photos...

[agent006]

Sharp and clear is as much, if not more, to do with the lens than the camera.

[CVP]

arej said:

Some of the sharpest, clearest photos that you see seem to come from "pro" cameras such as 1DmkIIs etc. Is it something about the cameras that makes this difference or is it the people taking them?

IMHO more the person than the camera I suspect

To give you a sporting analogy, my old dad can't play golf for toffee despite some very expensive kit. On the other hand, the old pro at the his club can hit the ball over 200 yards with a driver where the shaft is made from a piece of garden hose!

Seriously the answer to your question is that these images are taken by people who have;
1. A lot of experience
2. A lot of talent
3. Good processing skills or know someone to do that for them
4. A lot of hard work in the past to build on
5. More hard work

The cameras in these situations do help but that's only because the person driving it knows what they want to achieve.

Chris

[Shaolin]

Camera shake is the biggest source of unsharpness in amateur shots. High shutter speed and tripods help make pro shots all the sharper, things that the amateur often does without.

[_dobbo_]

I reckon it goes something like - 95% person 1% camera 4% lens

It just so happens that those who have serious talent for it tend to invest in nice equipment as a matter of course.

Edited by _dobbo_ on Wednesday 3rd September 23:08

[Famous Graham]

_dobbo_ said:

I reckon it goes something like - 95% person 1% camera 4% lens

It just so happens that those who have serious talent for it tend to invest in nice equipment as a matter of course.

Then you get people like me - all the gear, no idea

[RobDickinson]

Its situation dependent I think, but a lot is down to the photog.

Even with all the great gear you can still take bad pictures, admittedly if its in focus and your using a good lens & decent shutter speed it should turn out OK.

But its getting shots out of the perfect situations where you have to know the techniques and gear that makes it more the photog.

[EdT]

dont forget the post production phase too

[snapper seven]

_dobbo_ said:

I reckon it goes something like - 95% person 1% camera 4% lens

Relating directly back to the OP's question from a technical viewpoint given that non pro's can own a 'pro' camera (if there is such a thing but I know what he means), I'd have to disagree with the above quote. Assuming that us lot on these forums are reasonably competent with taking pics in terms of selecting appropriate shutter speeds etc I would say that camera and lens do play the biggest part.

Camera - I own a 1D MkIIn and a 20D. Both have the same sensor however my understanding is that the 1D has a much higher quality low pass filter, than that ftted to the 20D, which means it controls the light better as it hits the sensor stopping it from seeing colours in subjects that aren't there - so yes there is some argument for better spec cameras producing clearer photos. (some of this info is nicked from Canon technology web pages by the way - I haven't the foggiest when it comes to white coats technical details per se on these things). I'm sure there are other areas which the 1D helps my hit rate too but I just don't know what goes on inside.

Likewise the glass used in Canon's L range is of a higher quality than that say of a non L lens or cheaper independent and you would expect it to provide sharper results. It is very common to read a review where a better quality lens produces sharper results, particularly around the edges of the frame and at f stop extremes.
E.g. I find the sharpness of my photos, and the colour reproduction, far better with my Canon 24-70 f2.8L than my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX back up lens - (EX is Sigma's pro range by the way for those not familiar so I am comparing like for like).

Ultimately I would say lenses are more important than the camera. I look at it this way - think of the camera as your brain and the lens as your eye - you could be Einstein but if you have bad eyesight, your clever brain won't ever see the sharpness and quality.

As ever it does come down to 'you get what you pay for' however I must stress that all DSLR's are more than capable of good results if used correctly and I will say that people should never get hung up on the myth that a more expensive camera automatically means you will take 'better' photos. There is still no mechanical/electrical substitute for a photographers skill and ability to see a good shot.

Cheers

SS

Edited by snapper seven on Thursday 4th September 13:16

[snapper seven]

I'll just add too, following on from Shaolin's comment, when I was the Classic Le Mans my night time shots were better than a friend's equivalent because my lenses allowed me to stop down to 2.8 (as opposed to his 5.6) and make for a more controllable shutter speed, combined with better ISO range so again the equipment, when technically critiqued, helps give sharper and clearer results.

Cheers

SS

[GetCarter]

Just done a wedding with no tripod and no flash. 6400 ISO with very little noise made it possible. Avaiable on a pro camera.

...but on a piss cheap one soon, no doubt.

My 'pro' digital camera from 2001 wouldn't stand a chance against a £250 point and shoot from 2008

[snapper seven]

Do you really think so given the way that P&S manufacturers are constantly cramming pointless millions of pixels onto small sensors? Thereby resulting in the need for lots of aggressive processing to reduce noise, plus given the inferior smaller inbuilt lenses - even if they are by Carl Zeiss or whoever.

Actually thinking about it, I can't think what cameras and techology was around in 01! Was it the likes of the Canon D30 back then??? If that is the case then yes you are probably right.

SS

[cliff123]

From the few point and shoots which friends have bought, I'm still amazed at the poor quality of them. The shutter lag between button and photo is sooo long, the speed of the camera to actually work out whats it's doing is slow, and the picture quality, unless it's perfect conditions are pretty disappointing. I wish I knew of one which was actually really good which I could recommend to them. Just my pennies worth.

[GetCarter]

I was one of the first in the UK with the Nikon D1 (I'm an idiot - it was £4000+ IIRC)

Battery life was about 200 shots in warm weather - half that in the cold. Above 400 ISO it was stupidly noisy... but for the first time I could use my Nikon Lenses (though not many worked that well with it).

Nikon D1 or £250 for a 2008 P&S... it's gotta' be the latter.

If someone offered me a D1 for £1, I'd go off and spend the quid on a bar of chocolate or a half of lager.

The D3 is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times better.

[GetCarter]

cliff123 said:

From the few point and shoots which friends have bought, I'm still amazed at the poor quality of them. The shutter lag between button and photo is sooo long, the speed of the camera to actually work out whats it's doing is slow, and the picture quality, unless it's perfect conditions are pretty disappointing. I wish I knew of one which was actually really good which I could recommend to them. Just my pennies worth.

Two of these were taken with the Canon S80 P&S... bet you can't tell which!

http://www.stevecarter.com/latest/latesttorridon.h...

[_dobbo_]

snapper seven said:

_dobbo_ said:

I reckon it goes something like - 95% person 1% camera 4% lens

Relating directly back to the OP's question from a technical viewpoint given that non pro's can own a 'pro' camera (if there is such a thing but I know what he means), I'd have to disagree with the above quote. Assuming that us lot on these forums are reasonably competent with taking pics in terms of selecting appropriate shutter speeds etc I would say that camera and lens do play the biggest part.

We can't all agree or the world would be very boring.

I hate to use percentages again, but for me, 99% of what makes an image interesting is composition - which is nothing to do with the camera you are using.

The lens plays a bigger part in that you can control DoF more - but even my wife's crappy £50 digital lets you control aperture.

Given some of the total ste I see posted on forums everywhere with top spec pro kit, this would tend to counter your argument.

Likewise some superb images posted with cheap equipment would back up mine!



edit - let me put it another way. Give me a Hassleblad H1 with a phase one back, and give Tim Kent a £50 point and shoot. He will still take a better car photo than I could.

Edited by _dobbo_ on Thursday 4th September 16:55

[jackal]

arej said:

Some of the sharpest, clearest photos that you see seem to come from "pro" cameras such as 1DmkIIs etc. Is it something about the cameras that makes this difference or is it the people taking them?

given that the photographer is proficient enough to handhold properly, choose the correct shutter or flick his auto iso switch on and not take a really blurred picture because of camera shake or moving subjects, then sharpness is 'mainly' to do with the lens quality (that being the microcontrast of the lens and the resolution of the lens)

having said that and off the top of my head, a low and a good quality iso performance also affects the percieved 'sharpness' or clarity, AA filters (or lack of) contribute, the way the camera internally processes the image (before its even a RAW) makes a difference, and also lighting in general affects perceived sharpness enourmously

[Coq au Vin]

GetCarter said:

Two of these were taken with the Canon S80 P&S... bet you can't tell which!

http://www.stevecarter.com/latest/latesttorridon.h...

So are you going to tell us? If I had to pick one I would probably say the seal, but I fully expect to be wrong. I've always been very much on the "it's the person" side of the argument, and I think that little exercise illustrates the point quite nicely.

From my point of view as a mediocre photographer, I've found that most of the photos I've been happiest with were taken on my old Olympus OM2 with 50mm and 28mm lenses. I haven't been as happy with the results from my D40, but I'm certain that has nothing to do with the ability of the camera itself: I think it's almost entirely to do with the fact that I had to take so much more care with the OM2 (manually focusing, getting exposure just right etc). The D40 has made me lazy and I really need to start getting back into that old mindset.