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

[Marsu42]

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"?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I would have had much higher resolution, greater DR, and much better focus..... of my cruddy compositions at that time.

If I had the camera I have now, back then; I probably would not have used it as it would have been too complicated.

 

[wsmith96]

Not sure I would have benefited from it, but I would have looked a lot cooler than with my rebel/18-55 IS.

Isn't it all about looking like a pro ????

 

[privatebydesign]

I wish I could go back in time and reshoot some of my images from the 1D, whilst they still stand up well there is no doubt that they would be much strnger images now with more modern gear.

Having said that, there is nothing I can shoot now that I couldn't shoot then. I think more modest gear makes no difference to your enthusiasm, indeed it seems many are just gear hounds with self described "GAS", which I find kind of pathetic. Yes this is a gear forum, not an image based forum, but surely the true pride in ownership comes from making great images not possession. The other thing that happens when people stretch to buy more expensive gear, they are less inclined to take risks with it, I have never babied any of my gear, cheap or expensive, so can't understand getting an expensive camera and being afraid of getting it wet, but that is just me.........

 

[Marsu42]

I think more modest gear makes no difference to your enthusiasm, indeed it seems many are just gear hounds with self described "GAS", which I find kind of pathetic.

It can get even worse - too complicated gear can backfire on you. I contribute an impression just from last weekend: I met a tourist around in the countryside when I was shooting horses, and we started discussing gear. Turns out he has a d610 (or d600, I don't quite remember) and a 24-70/2.8, i.e. better gear than me.

But: He didn't touch his camera for three weeks because he cannot get anything in focus. I had to explain to him that the dof of f2.8 on full frame is thin and (in so many words) that expensive gear doesn't replace skill. Actually he was thankful to get to know it isn't entirely his personal fault. I can vividly imagine what Internet forums and sites made him buy something "good" to get "good" shots right from the start...

The other thing that happens when people stretch to buy more expensive gear, they are less inclined to take risks with it, I have never babied any of my gear, cheap or expensive, so can't understand getting an expensive camera and being afraid of getting it wet, but that is just me.........

Same with me, the second reason I didn't end up with a 5d2+70-200L/2.8 but with a 60d and my old lenses from the '90s ... dropped them, banged against all possible trees and such, shot with them laying on the ground instead of a tripod. But all in good faith that it's not that expensive. I have very bad memories of people over-protecting gear (cameras, cars, whatever) that exceeded their budget.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

When I got into Wildlife photography I had a 20D and a 100-400, now I use a 1DX with either an 800 F5.6 or a 300 F2.8. I think you can guess what my vote was!

 

[Skatol]

Started with a 50D and 200 2.8 w/ 2xTC. Now have 1dIV, 5DIII, 300 2.8 and 600 F4. Many more keepers.

 

[Sabaki]

Nah. All it would've meant is my blur, poorly composed pics would've been taken with gear I was not ready for.

2.5 years later, I'm still learning how to translate compositional rules into my landscapes and I still can't use a flash properly.

Nope, better kit wouldn't of made any difference.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Experience, knowledge of shooting and how to properly operate original rig, and post processing would have been way more valuable.

 

[Eldar]

I had a 30 year career with manual focus FD lenses. Clearly the AF system on a 1DX would have given me more keepers. But I agree with those saying that they would not be able to use all the features. When my wife picks up the 5DIII or 1DX (doesn´t happen very often), set to manual mode, auto ISO and focus set to AI servo and the initial focus point somewhere off center, she is not too happy with the result.

 

[RLPhoto]

If I knew half what I knew now when I started I would have smacked myself upside the head. A few hours of study would have been far more useful.

 

[zim]

Camera body pretty irrelevant, when you say 'gear' I'm thinking lenses. I stayed with just a kit lens for way way too long, and I really should have known better. So I voted for the last option.

 

[Besisika]

Not sure I would have benefited from it, but I would have looked a lot cooler than with my rebel/18-55 IS.

Isn't it all about looking like a pro ????

Actually, I was the opposite.

I started with T1i rebel and that was really a good thing. I compared myself to others, since I didn't know much about gear, I thought my result was not good because my technique was not good so I tried to learn the basics of photography.
Later on, I realized that with full frame I can get better so I bought one and it felt good, especially that I had already the basics of photography at the time.

Looking like a pro?
That didn't serve me well.
After my kit lens I bought the 70-200 MK II as soon as it appeared in the retailer.
My trouble was that everybody expected miracles because I had the best lens in the world, while my technique was poor. I remember asking a model to pose for me during a Manga convention, she was so pleased, but I didn't know how to pose so I took only one and only one shot. I can't ever forget the disappointment on her face when I said that's it.
I ended up selling that lens and bought something less conspicuous.
When I bought my 1DX last year, I knew exactly why am I spending that much money. Now, I know that my results are not up to the standard, because my technique is not there yet and that pushes me more to learn.

 

[Sporgon]

For me it would be focus. In the days of manual focus the ones I didn't quite get right, with AF lack of AFMA resulting in off focus at fast apertures.

For virtually everything else there has always been a work around.

 

[slclick]

Low light and iso yes (7D vs 5D3)

 

[benperrin]

If I knew half what I knew now when I started I would have smacked myself upside the head. A few hours of study would have been far more useful.

This. I did vote for a slight improvement though because I started out with a 17-85 4-5.6 and before that I occasionally used my friends 350d with kit lens and I can tell you that my keeper rate went right up as soon as I got the 24-105 f4. There was certain low light scenarios that I just couldn't make work with the equipment that I had then.

To be brutally honest though most of my problems stemmed from a lack of understanding. I really didn't understand what was good light and what was poor. The lcd would tell me of course but it was all guess work. I had an understand of the basics but people don't grasp how much you have to understand to be able to get great shots in any situation. There really is a lot to learn.

 

[LarryC]

I only moved up in cameras because I lost shots, or just couldn't capture what I wanted to, due to poor AF, low ISO, slow lenses, and low resolution. In fact, I have plans to return to several vacation places in part so I can re-shoot some of my favorite images with better gear.

That said, I am very happy I started with lower level gear because it made me appreciate and understand the limitations of AF, ISO, DR, etc. And most importantly it made me convince myself I was sufficiently committed to photography before moving up to the more expensive gear over several years.

 

[rpt]

A lens for birding that is better than the 100-400L and the 1.4x II. So the 200-400L but the cost is too much for me at the moment.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

having used film camera`s with fd prime lens and 1.8 1.4 f stop focus the kit lens did not last long. and 28-135 was the lens for me it was the range I shot in prime just a bit slower then I liked. having to say this it took a trip to japan to hit the wall sort to speak of the limits of my T1i.

now with my 70d and my 70-200 4.0 l is lens and the 18-135 stm efs lens as my 2 walk around lens. the 18-135 took place of my 28-135. 50 1.8 mk1 lens and the 60m efs macro and the 400l 5.6 10-22 efs the photos are about the same just slightly sharper and I can take birds in flight as a perk.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The poll options are limited. 99.99% of my images are not limited by my hardware, but by me. I doubt if many images would have been improved by new gear, since composition and subject matter are what makes a great image. I've used cameras since the 1950's, it was manual focus and rule of 8, or a light meter then, and that did not cause issues. I like AF and auto exposure, but they cause more spoiled shots than doing it manually.