POLL: Would have your earlier shots improved by better gear?

[takesome1]

Since wildlife is my thing, of course my pics improved with the 500L since it is better than my 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is better than 75-300mm I started with. Then going from the 50D --5D II / 7D to a 1D IV my keeper rate went up.

A few years back I was skill and equipment limited. As far as gear goes now I am just skill limited.

 

[9VIII]

I tried to do many things well beyond the capabilities of a P&S camera for many years, getting an SLR would have made worlds of difference.

I actually only owned the T3 for less than a year before getting a 5D2, but even then, the low light ability Full Frame affords opens up many new possibilities.
Results are sharper as well.
Full Frame rocks, of course, I only paid a little over $1,000 for mine so it wasn't such a big deal.

If we're comparing the 5D2 with the 5D3, my product photography wouldn't have changed, but my BIF performance might have improved.
I still like how light the T3 is though.

 

[NancyP]

H*ll, I am STILL learning. Yes, for some things better gear is important. I am sure that I will get a bump in keeper rate for BIF with a better AF system (I have the 60D, basically shoot center point AI servo, no sensitivity adjustment possible, no AF point spread option). On the other hand, macro? Manual focus is my M.O. You don't need a really fancy camera or a highly fancy stabilized macro lens. For macro, "better gear" means "a tripod and head I like and carry around all the time". Ditto for low light landscape - yes, I like my full frame 6D photos better than the 60D photos, but the more important leap in quality for low light landscape was getting a tripod that I like to carry.

 

[Otara]

As an underwater photographer I did the reverse - I constantly upgraded cameras for a few years I got worse - I was so busy relearning new systems while trying to take pictures underwater I went backwards rather than forwards. Meanwhile my friend next to me went ahead as he didnt suffer upgraditis in the way I did and so was able to focus on getting the best out of what he had, which made far more practical difference than comparatively minor IQ or AF improvements. Having the 7d not have an upgrade for so long was very helpful for me, and luckily I had a child to stop full frame being too alluring as well.

 

[risc32]

mostly my images would have gotten technically better. My post work kung fu, which still sucks has getten much better and that's made more of in improvement, but that's knowledge/exp not really gear.

reminds me of Laguna Seca motogp 2006. I'm on the hill at the corkscrew with my minolta 5d and cheapy 75-300mm. it was packed and everyone taking pics was in the same general area. I thought i could find a better view threw the trees. found a nice area, rested my huge can of beer between my knees, auto focused on a target area, i knew i had no how of tracking them, and got them as they hit my spot. after a couple minutes i took the camera down and found that a crowd of photo guys was how around me and i was trapped. I certainly wasn't doing anything special, it's just that photogs can be funny sometimes, and just join in instead of working things out.

 

[candc]

My early photography was with film, I don't think that would have been any better. Modern gear would have definitely made my early digital photos better.

 

[Krob78]

Right from the start? I doubt gear would have made a lot of difference, there's a learning curve.. By the time I finally laid down my AE1 I think gear began to make a significant difference but not all the difference, back and forth between new pieces of gear F1, AE1, Old Olympus, 1st P&S, etc.. there continued to be a learning curve but you could get a feel that you could maximize your skills and the gear didn't get the best of you...

Today's gear is better than the skills of many of us, so we keep pursuing, keep learning, keep pushing ourselves and our gear seems to still be waiting for us to catch up! It's truly come a long way in the last 25-30 years!

 

[eml58]

Its an interesting question, I often enjoy looking back on my earlier Images, most often thought being "What was I thinking", probably not a lot actually.

The biggest boon to my current Photography has been more knowledge, a lot of reading on how best to look at a scene, how to frame, and most important of all, Focus, & the best balance of 'f' stop, shutter speed & ISO. All of this works as well with a Box Brownie as it does with a 1Dx.

Better gear has improved my ability to get a load of Images in Wildlife situations that I may well not have been able to get previous, the 12fps of the 1Dx in certain situations is magical, the 4fps of some of my previous Bodies, not so.

There's a lot to be said for the more "basic" cameras, I flirted for a while with a Leica M9, loved a lot of that Camera, but as most of my Imaging is Wildlife or Underwater found I was using it less & less.

My current Photography has been given a boost I feel with my choice of using Zeiss Lenses for anything less than 200mm, it's "better" gear, but Manual Focus so a bit of a step back in time, it has seemed to have the effect of making me think more about the Image I want.

But I am a lapsed Technoholic, I generally lapse every time a new shiny bit of Camera gear appears, I covert my neighbours newer better more technically superior bit of gear, knowing full well it won't make me a better Photographer, but maybe.......

 

[dak723]

I know camera enthusiasts get excited about new camera releases and updates, but - in my opinion - there has been little change in cameras from the first digital Canons. Two years ago I took some photos in the Adirondacks with my original Digital rebel (300D) and my old 28-70mm Canon non-L lens. Last weekend I went up to the Adirondacks with my new 6D and my 24-105mm L lens - presumably considerably better gear. I just printed some photos from both trips at approx. 7" x 10" - and at that size there is no discernible difference in quality. I know that the 6D will allow me larger prints at better quality, but the original 6 MP rebel with a good quality non-L lens still does an excellent job. And, yes, these are landscapes, and no, you don't need 36 MP to shoot landscapes.

Of course, there is a big difference between photos I took in the film era and today's digital. Today I have far more keepers. But that is mainly due to the ability to manipulate the images on the computer - not necessarily the camera gear.

 

[sanj]

Such excellent comments. Each one of them. I did not vote as am confused. I like some of my older (film) photos although they are technically not so good.

 

[dash2k8]

Better low-light performance would have certainly enhanced a lot of stuff taken after the sun has set.

 

[sanj]

Yes low light would have been much better. Also IS would have worked wonders. So voting for a 'yes'.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Looking at some posts about dslr beginners reasoning what camera bodies and lenses to buy, I'm asking myself: Does it really matter if you start with a 7d1 vs. 7d2 or 5d2 vs. 5d3? Do you need a 16-35L/4 instead of a 17-40L/4? Or isn't it smarter to save the money, learn a lot and then buy the next better model in a couple of years?

I know for me, "just" buying a 60d was a smart choice - a 5d2 would have been wasted. With the €1500 saved back then, I now bought a 6d basically for "free" and can even profit from it as my skill is up to it by now.

What about you? If you would have had top gear right from day one, would have it been "worth it"?

Better gear does not either solve poor composition and/or technique or makes you a better photographer, however, it offers better performance in low light situations (ISO) and resolution (IQ and sharpness)

 

[yorgasor]

I picked up a 5D classic last summer, and I got some fantastic shots of my vacation around the US. Where it killed me was when I tried taking photos at a table tennis tournament. Mostly what I had to work with was a 50 1.4 if I wanted lower ISO shots that looked further away, or the 70-200 f/4 lens if I wanted to look close up, but horribly high ISO. As it was, I maxed out at 1600 ISO and had slow shutter speeds and ended up with crap photos. My technique at the time wasn't great either, but I was so disappointed with the results, I plunked down serious cash for a 5DIII and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens.

I went from shots like this a year ago:

To shots like this of the Chinese National Table Tennis team, almost exactly a year later:
5D3_1799 by yorgasor, on Flickr

And sure, my technique has improved, but I guarantee I wouldn't have gotten a shot like that with my old 5D + 70-200 f/4.

 

[Dylan777]

I voted on last one + fundamental in photography. If I get to do it over, I would buy a 1DX over 5D III first.

It's pathetic to hear modest gear makes no difference in enthusiasm. Adv-tech making our life easier, faster and better.

I shoot a lot kids indoor sports. I need a camera that can give me the best tracking and best high ISO. I understand 5D II and 6D can do this task at lower keeper rate. With 1DX, my keeper is higher. I can be more selective on the keepers. When we look at Canon latest lenses, they made huge improvement - from IQ, AF speed, accuracy, amazing IS, and of course weight reduction on big whites. I got more BIF photos with my 1DX than 5D III. With my latest 400mm f2.8 IS II and latest 2x TC III, I can shoot at 800mm without worry much about AF accuracy. Would that be enough for hobbyists(with decent budget ) to enjoy new gear? I can't speak for everyone, but for me, YES. I understand photography is a hard earning business today and many pros couldn't justify the high cost of these new gear.

It's hard to teach an old dog new trick.

 

[c.d.embrey]

The answer I wanted to check is not there. My answer is no effing way. My early work would have been better if I had more knowledge/experience.

The camera doesn't do the composition, you do!

The camera doesn't do the lighting, you do!

A better camera WILL NOT make you a better photographer

 

[AvTvM]

Yes. If i occasionally look at some of my older images taken since 2000 it almost makes me cry. Family memories in noisy, discomoured, DR-less 2MP images ... Shot on a Sony camcorder or on various 1/1.7 or 1/2.3 dwarf sensored powershots ... Later on with 350d, 450d, 40d. Technically really crappy and lozs and lots of mussed moments due to massive shutter lag and lots of unsharp omages due to poor AF-capabilities.
Almost as bad as in my analog/film days.

Good gear is as essential to good images as is creativity, skill and light(ing).

 

[Marsu42]

It's pathetic to hear modest gear makes no difference in enthusiasm. Adv-tech making our life easier, faster and better.

That's a refreshingly global assessment, including all people :-o

It is interesting to read the comments, as the "tracking people" (sports, birds, kids) vote that they'd have profited from better tech. There seems to be a less steep learning curve there when photography mostly consists of pressing some buttons on high-end gear and carrying the gear around, I wonder?

However, I really don't see how a *lower* (i.e. not "zero") keeper rate has to dampen enthusiasm, for some it might even be a challenge to do better. Last not least, I have to say that I don't share your "endless tech improvement" theory, for me there's a "good enough" which the current dslr systems have passed for most shooting types. For the difficult ones there's a logarithmic curve how much better your shots get with better tech.

 

[jrista]

I do believe better gear could have made my earlier shots better. I started with a 450D and kit lens, then got the 100mm macro, then the 16-35 and 100-400. The 16-35 enabled better landscapes. The 100-400 enabled bird photography. I spent a lot of time trying, learning, and experiencing the limitations of my gear (like 3.2fps and basic AF.)

I always feel as though I'm experiencing one limitation of my gear or another. When I got the 7D, it was the most liberating camera purchase I'd ever made at the time. It made the 100-400 lens work. If I'd started with the 7D, I do believe I'd be farther along in my photography than I am today, as I'd have been able to spend more time learning about the nuances of bird photography, rather than the nuances about how to get around the limitations of my 450D.

You probably always learn, and can probably always progress, regardless of the equipment in hand. However, I strongly believe that when your not learning how to get around hardware limitations, your learning how to actually do the kinds of photography your interested in. Moving from the 100-400mm lens to the 600mm f/4 lens was another liberating experience. I haven't felt the limitations of my gear nearly as much since the 7D and 600mm. Even adding the 5D III to my kit has not nearly had as much of an impact on my work as those other two additions. It's opened options for astrophotography, and allowed me to use already-existing skills to get close to birds and get better IQ in the process, and allowed me to fully utilize the capabilities of the 600mm lens. But it just hasn't had as much of an impact overall...as it really didn't eliminate any key limitations that I have.

Most of my limitations now, are just myself and my skill level (with the exception of astrophotography...still have LOOOTS of hardware limitations there.) Every time I go out to photograph birds and wildlife now, it's me learning how to photograph birds and wildlife...and much less about learning how to use my camera, or work around my camera.

 

[connellimages]

Interesting poll! For me, I started small and built up as I earned the money to get better equipment. I agree there is a learning curve going from film to digital. I believe the features on the high end cameras help you with that learning curve. In either case, experiment, read and experiment some more until you develop the skill and style you are looking for. Hope that helps.