Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gear?

[mitchell3417]

Great question.

I agree with some of the other posters, that more gear allows you to make great photographs in more situations. A point in shoot can make awesome images given the right lighting and situation. The more situations we encounter and want to photograph the more money we spend on gear. Each piece of gear improves the quality of our of photographs for a certain situation, but not for all of them. The more and more gear we have, the more and more specialized or sophisticated our gear has to be in order to improve upon what is already available to us. So we spend a bunch of money on a piece of gear that only helps us improve incrementally.

From a personal standpoint I must say that my move the Full Frame made the biggest, immediate difference in my images. It was like night and day. Even my wife, who doesn't understand why hdtv is better than sdtv, was blown away by the quality of the images and the difference that was immediately noticeable. It wasn't like my skills had improved that much when I went to full frame. It was just the gear. Nothing else I've bought has made such a huge difference IMO.

 

[dawgfanjeff]

I'd say no, but it's still worth it

From an economics standpoint, I think its literally impossible for the answer to be "Yes". Even a $50 functional camera is infinitely better than no camera. After that, the returns on extra money spent decline rather rapidly. You'd be hard pressed to distinguish between a wallet size pic that was taken with a 1dx vs. a 10 yr old P&S. What the 1dx gives you, of course, is the ability to print much larger quality pics, shoot in damp conditions, change lenses (which also cost more $), AF faster, etc..., but it is drastically more expensive. Of course, this is the concept of diminishing (marginal) returns. Same issue with cars. A 300K super car isn't 300x faster around a track than a $1k beater.

This is really the sister discussion to "is the <insert camera here> worth it?" discussions. For a pro, who is earning a living with gear, its a very real topic. Will new gear allow me to increase revenue to offset the cost? If yes, do it. If not, don't, at least not yet.
For a hobbyist, the calculation is very different. Will I enjoy my hobby more? Will I capture more memories and WOW shots with the new gear? These aren't quantifiable, but still very real. I have a 5DIII arriving tomorrow that I expect will improve the quality of my photography enough to offset it's added cost, even though I will earn $0 more with it.

 

[Ewinter]

I feel it's not about how good the gear is but how much room it gives you to grow yourself.going from the 450d to the 7d taught me about using af better because it has more af to learn; the 70-200 allows me to learn more about sports.
Now I've learnt all that, I can pick up a point and shoot and get better photos. It's not about how expensive gear is but how much it teaches you and how much you can then accomplish.
I still use the 450d, and I still use the elan 7 35mm when I need my ass schooled in exposure again

 

[bvukich]

Is the improvement proportional to the cost of my gear? No, it's far greater. I can put a price on the gear (and I have to, for insurance coverage). The memories captured are priceless.

x1000

 

[joshmurrah]

The cost/quality of my gear does help to some degree, but it's not been a proportional growth, no... I feel that I would have grown nearly as much if I had stuck with my Digital Rebel and Tamron super-zoom.

 

[pdirestajr]

My time is very valuable to me, so if a piece of new gear will allow me to spend less time in front of the computer, and more time with my family, it is definitely worth it.

 

[Dylan777]

My time is very valuable to me, so if a piece of new gear will allow me to spend less time in front of the computer, and more time with my family, it is definitely worth it.

+1....in some cases, I use JPEG "as is" no PP, results are aways better than P&S

 

[FirstL]

This is my first time posting here and I'm amateur for sure. I've been shooting for several years but still consider myself in the hobby phase. I have to say that the first shots when going from a T1i and kit lense to a 7D and first L lense was a stark difference. Now I see why all the rukus about L lenses.

 

[ishdakuteb]

much more improve when you are master at photoshop LOL

 

[Dylan777]

much more improve when you are master at photoshop LOL

Good RAW shot from camera will help alot.........don't you think?

 

[Aglet]

Re: Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gea

The cost/quality of my gear does help to some degree, but it's not been a proportional growth, no... I feel that I would have grown nearly as much if I had stuck with my Digital Rebel and Tamron super-zoom.

Yes, gear with fewer limitations provides more room to learn and push your own creative boundaries farther out.

much more improve when you are master at photoshop LOL

Good RAW shot from camera will help alot.........don't you think?

Raw files and the increased flexibility of post-processing with all kinds of software is the biggest area of my improvements. That was so much harder to do with film!

 

[Lnguyen1203]

I'm new to photography and I started out with a T3i and Canon 100-400mm back in November 2011. I shoot mainly wildlife: wolves, bears, birds, and whatever that moves. I could get sharp images up to 300mm, but couldn't seem to get equally sharp images at 400mm with the 100-400mm. I bought a 300mm f2.8 IS Mark I, a 1.4X II and a 2.0 II TCs, and a 5D3 in April 2012. I saw my photo quality improved dramatically with the new equipment. The T3i + 100-400mm cost me about $2,200, the 5D3 + 300mm f2.8 (used) + 1.4X Tc + 2X TC ~ $7500. I'd say I got my money worth > 3X improvements .

However, now that I know I can take sharp images, I suspect I can go back to the T3i and 100-400mm and get much better quality images than I used to, so may be not 3X improvements . But I enjoy photography a lot more and have no regret for spending that kind of money on new gear

 

[michi]

Tough question and lots of great answers here. Everyone is right, especially since it is a personal thing. I do believe that the photographer is the most important part, then the lenses, then the body. I have a friend who takes the most amazing shots with a point and shoot. He's not really into photography, but the angles and poses he comes up with, I cannot compete with. I truly am jealous.
Of course it helps when you can take a clear shot at ISO 3200 with the newest pro DSLR and the AF is always tack on. Also, when I get new gear, I push myself to learn and try out new possibilities opened with the new gear, thereby learning something. But in the end, if my point and shoot friend comes along, I can't say who would come home with the better pictures...

 

[dstppy]

This is my first time posting here and I'm amateur for sure. I've been shooting for several years but still consider myself in the hobby phase. I have to say that the first shots when going from a T1i and kit lense to a 7D and first L lense was a stark difference. Now I see why all the rukus about L lenses.

It's not just "L" but I do really agree with you. I think frustrating pieces of consumer glass really hinder an amateur from starting to get really great shots consistently.

I started on a 15-85, which I'm very happy I went with. I see the shots that even today I can produce on the 70-300mm non-L and think: Yuck.

Good glass doesn't really have to be expensive, the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 come to mind as lenses that's value truly exceeds their worth.

 

[Briand]

From my experience purchasing new camera bodies, lens and accessories over the last few years, it has provided me the ability shoot better photos than I was to do with my consumer grade equipment especially at weddings.

However buying the best equipment doesn't automatically make you a better photographer, you have to grow with your equipment and learn how to make of the most of what you have though.

The best photographers are using amazing gear and for good reason, they want the best results no matter how talented they are. L-grade lens and full frame camera bodies do produce unmatched results so long as you know how to utilize the advantages they offer.

Not to say all photos that come from non-L and crop cameras are bad, I have achieved amazing photos from my xsi and 17-55 & 55-250 lens many years ago. But since i have made serious upgrades in my equipment I have been more invested, inspired and confident in my photography work I do for fun and for clients. I definitely have more keepers on shoots I do.

 

[jthomson]

Definitely not.

I still use a point and shoot (S95) and can get some nice pictures from it.
The pictures from my T1i and 15-85mm lens are better, but they are not two to three times as good.

You pay a lot to get a small improvement and better control of the camera.

 

[2n10]

I would say definitely not on a straight monetary value since I am still in hobbyist/enthusiast mode. But I do know the quality of the picture that the camera and equipment allow me take has inspired me to learn how to use the equipment better and to take advantage of the additional opportunities presented.

I do know that with each upgrade of equipment my skills, knowledge and excitement improve. So with these criteria the answer is definitely more so.

In fact I have just place an order for a 7D and expect to learn more new ways and look for more improvement in my pictures.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

In my own case, it's not an improvement in quality so much as improvements in capability. A 5D Mk III that can produce high quality images at ISO 12800 paired with my 24mm f/1.4L II is capable of doing things that cheaper equipment cannot.

I remember being excited at the ISO 3200 image quality of the 20D. That seems so long ago now...

 

[Invertalon]

As bad as it sounds, yes... But there is a catch.

You still need the know-how to really make use of what you buy... Basically, not buying the most expensive stuff and being clueless to how to use it properly.

As my lenses and body got better via upgrades, my images did as well. Having better high ISO, sharper/faster lenses, more specialized lenses for dramatic effects, etc... But my knowledge grew just as quickly as my gear.

My Samyang 14mm is one example, although its quite cheap at around $300... Some of my best images came from that lens simply because it was a 14mm on FF. I could not pull off those images with any other lenses. Now without the Samyang I would be stuck buying the $2000+ 14L... So sometimes you get "stuck" buying expensive items because there simply is nothing cheaper.

Much like anything, the knowledge is backward compatible. You can give me a T1i and 18-55 and I am sure I would be able to do great things with it... But I would be very limited compared to what I own (5D3, 70-200 II, 35L, 24-105L, etc...). Much like throwing a professional race-car driver into a basic Toyota Yaris. The talents basically get wasted because the equipment does not match to potential. This really is a summary of my whole post! Wasting talents without proper tools.

So in a way, you NEED the knowledge to make the best use out of your expensive gear. Usually this happens naturally... I started with advanced point and shoots when I started to learn manual controls... Moved up to a XSI and then the T1i... Once I outgrew those I was with the 7D, then 5D and 5D2 and now the 5D3. I evolved with my gear. The more I learned, the more money I had invested in very expensive gear. So I know generally how to make the most out of what I own and how to achieve exactly what I want with what I have. You will see me changing lenses like crazy because its mandatory to get the image that I vision. It drives me nuts to keep one lens on for a long period of time because they all do something very different.

Hope this makes sense!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

There are things you can do with the truly expensive gear that simply can't be done at all with the other stuff. There's a reason a <i>Sports Illustrated</i> photographer will go with a 400 f/2.8 on a 1D X instead of a 75-300 on a Rebel when shooting a football game. The two setups have the same field of view, sure -- hell, the Rebel setup even has more reach. But that's where the similarities end.

Other examples abound. You can do stuff with a TS-E 24 II that you can't with a 28 f/2.8, even though the 28 has autofocus -- think of a small wildflower filling the frame with the rest of the meadow and the mountains in the background, everything in sharp focus, except for the dreamily-blurred grass right underneath the flower. And when it comes to things like the MP-E 65...well, sure, you can crop to get the same field of view but doing so is a joke.

So "improvement" isn't quite the proper word to use. Does buying a cement truck to park next to your carbon-frame bicycle improve your locomotion?

Cheers,

b&