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

[Don Haines]

Yes, my earlier shots would have been improved with better gear, but short of getting a Delorean, a flux capacitor, and 1.21 GigaWatts of power, you can't go back and change things.... so it really does not matter.

 

[wsmith96]

On a serious note (from my previous post on this topic), yes I believe that some of my shots would have ended up better. I'm not a full framer, but the best purchase I made was to replace my kit lens on my rebel with the 17-55 2.8. This allowed me to further my technique and only when the camera (T1i) became a limitation, did I move on to the 60D - which was recently and a bargain at the price. I'm not sure that purchasing a 5D or 1D would have helped me as much as obtaining better lenses.

Now, I'm eyeing the 7DII. I'm one of those helicopter parents who wished their 60D had a higher frame rate

*Edit - of course, looking back at Dylan's comments, I think that the answers that people give are respective to what they are trying to achieve with their photography.

 

[V8Beast]

Yes and no. For most static images, my current 5D3 would have offered only marginal improvement over my old 20D in overall IQ. That said, for fast action shots, the 5D3's faster frame rate, awesome AF system, and my current IS lenses definitely improve the hit rate over my old gear.

By far, diversifying my lighting equipment has had the greatest impact in the quality of my images. However, if I had the same lighting gear 10 years ago that I have today, it wouldn't have done me a damn bit of good since I would have had no clue how to use it. In that regard, the gear wouldn't have made a difference at all

 

[dgatwood]

For still photography, I can't ever remember a time when I didn't feel limited by my gear, though I feel a lot less limited by my 6D. Prior to that, still photos were a constant battle in terms of low-light handling (both noise and ability to focus), resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, etc. And there's no question about whether the difference between my 70–300L and its predecessor (first-generation 75-300) is like night and day.

Thinking back to my first camera, with its original EF-S 18-55 lens... well, the lens stopped working suddenly, and I borrowed a coworker's 20mm prime. Suddenly, it was like a fog had been lifted. Photos were sharp and clear, with better contrast. Photos that were muddy with that original lens would have been quite a bit better with a better lens.

But the biggest reason my earlier shots were limited was the cost and availability of fast, high-capacity flash cards. To save money, I usually shot in the smallest JPEG size, because RAW was unbearable. This means that essentially none of my old shots are at a resolution that I would consider adequate today. There are a few shots that I'd kill to be able to go back in time and reshoot as RAW images, because I ended up using them in ways that I hadn't even considered when I took the shots. If I could have gotten 128 GB flash cards that capable of 30+ MB/second write speeds for 80 bucks back then, I'd have shot RAW exclusively from day one, and I'd have been a lot happier with them.

On the video side, the advent of optical image stabilization was a real eye-opener. Before that, I was pretty much lashed to a tripod at all times, unable to move much at all. But the real point where I stopped feeling badly limited by my gear didn't come until I got my first three-chip with XLR inputs and full manual everything. That was the first time I could reliably do audio recording in the field without all sorts of hacks, like wrapping connectors with aluminum foil and grounding it to the hand strap mount with alligator clips. It was the first time I stopped having problems with difficult lighting situations. And so on.

So yeah, my shots would have improved fairly dramatically if the state of the art hadn't been so primitive when I first started shooting digitally.

 

[Dick]

Better gear would have been a great investment much earlier for me. It's sad that many of the photos I took of my first kid are technically crap due to bad low light performance and terrible AF. They are keepers, because there are no other photos to do that job, but... Not nice to look at at all. It should be against the law to sell crap cameras.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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"?

It would have been worth, since I was doing things that pushed things pretty far almost right from the DSLR beginning for me (of course I had already shot SLRs for years it is true, mostly just travel/landscapes though).

More fps and much more so better AF certainly would've nailed me more keepers for sports right from the bat. Even from day 1 that would've helped. Although it's true that a combo of natural talent and experience matters most of all for sports shooting, but the equipment definitely makes a difference at all talent and experience levels. In fact we tried tests and swapped low-end and high-end gear between people with varying talent/experience combos and everyone instantly did better with the top gear and everyone instantly did worse overall with the lowest end gear. That said the very best and most experienced with the low end gear did better overall than the very worst and least experience with the best gear.

Even with low end gear you can get amazing sports shots (so long as you not talking lower than low-end DSLR gear and getting into point and shoot with slow lenses and mega lag and so on), but you will also rue a lot of shots that would've been amazing but that got ruined so it will most likely be a bit frustrating too. So it's both totally false that you can't come back with an extensive shot of really nice shots even using fairly modest equipment for sports contrary to what some used to claim, but it's equally totally false that better equipment won't raise your take and it's also totally false that a beginner has no need for the good stuff and that the good stuff it beyond them or too good for them or any of that nonsense, if anything it makes it easier for them since it's clearer what is their fault and what is the camera's fault. Again we directly tested it out and even rank beginners definitely made out better with the top equipment even without any learning time.

I could've gotten cleaner shots too with better high iso and less high iso banding.

And some low ISO scenes with lots of DR would've worked out better and I would've attempted a lot more of them.

a 300 2.8 certainly makes images dramatically pop on the field a lot more than 300 5.6 where the fans in the stands start mixing into the player since the relative sharpness is not as extreme, in a way you could say that might instantly make you a better photographer although it's maybe better to put it as it lets you get a better quality shot more than it makes you a directly more skilled photographer or anything.

OTOH when I first moved to digital the freedom to shoot like crazy without going bankrupt and to immediate see the results of various settings and so on was more than worth going to what was basically a lower end body and I think digital helps speed along learning vastly more quickly than film other than in certain particular cases where maybe it's abstract type of shooting and also of a type where DOF and this or that doesn't matter so much and only the composition and lighting and nothing else matter.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

Well if you don't have the money to shoot a film SLR camera often enough or don't remember what you did by the time the film is developed then a DSLR might help make you a better photographer.

And if you shoot things where AF matters a lot, a better camera can instantly make you better. I mean we did the tests, every person of any skill level, instantly with no training, had a higher take when suddenly given top end equipment and they had a better overall result set. (that said the best of the experience sports shooters shooting with low end stuff did still shoot circles around the rank beginners given the top stuff, although a few relative beginners did pretty well so it's wasn't quite circles in those rare cases)

There is a reason the guys who shoot NFL/Olympics/etc. use top gear. They would have a worse takes if they all shot it with the original Rebel and a 75-300 IS.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

I fall into a group not listed in the Poll. I was not learning and "better" digitalequipment was not needed from Day One.

I'm the kind of artist who works from ideas, not found situations. For me, "better" only applies to sources of inspiration.

Coming from film, 35mm when I was really young, then 4x5 as I grew into my 20's and 30's, and later to work in 8x10, 7x17, 11x14, and 12x20inch formats, there's absolutely nothing digital gives me that I didn't already have in film, _except_ flexibility in processing.

Further, processing in digital is centuries behind certain analog processes. I'm thinking of how archival platinum/palladium (500 years, minimum) is and how hard it is to keep a color digital print looking good for 100 or 200 years.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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...

Basically he learned about DOF in three weeks instead of maybe a decade had he used an ultra small sensor P&S or maybe even some years if he shot film and could only afford 3x5" prints. I don't see how that can be interpreted as having backfired.

 

[Marsu42]

I don't see how that can be interpreted as having backfired.

It has if he doesn't perceive it as learning, but as frustration and stops further learning by giving up on it altogether. No all people are dslr enthusiasts, if you're busy with another job and just do the photog thing in between your tolerance for a steep learning curve is only so large. Esp. if there's nobody around what you're doing wrong in the first place.

Interesting thread though (after all, I started it ) - there seems to be a large distinction between sports/... photogs who rely on top gear and the rest, and many of those of who say it would have mattered started off in the dark ages of digitial photography. Nowadays, imho "just" getting a crop 70d, d7100, whatever doesn't mean certain doom for all shots taken with it when viewed back from 2020.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

You are conflating enthusiasm and tech.

You have spent over $20,000 in the last 12 months on your camera gear, do you honestly believe your images are that much better than somebody using a 6D and a secondhand 70-200 but who invested much more time and enthusiasm than you into shooting their kids? How about your BIF, I'll wager I can find much better images than yours from vastly more modest and enthusastic shooters using a 7D and a 400 f5.6.

You enjoy the owning of the tech, and there is nothing wrong with that, but go to a small local camera club where the "best" camera is a 60D and you would be shocked at the image quality they are pushing out and it is all carried along and grows from their enthusiasm.

Enthusiasm and tech are not synonymous, my experience over the last 30+ years of serious photography has been that enthusiasm trumps pretty much everything, sure there will always be images that are just not possible without the latest or greatest, but from what I have seen, none of us, including myself, are shooting them.

 

[Too_Many_Hobbies]

If by improved you mean the pictures of my feet would have been sharper and the blackness of my lens cap would have had less noise, then absolutely!

 

[Too_Many_Hobbies]

Really, though, I think the following most improved my photography:

Experience:
-Just taking the time to get more familiar with my gear and picture taking
-Reading up and taking online training as well as going to photography seminars and taking a trip with a pro

Switch to digital:
-Get instant feedback on my pictures – see what settings work better, check exposure and sharpness, etc.
-Process my own images. This both helps to figure out what I should do/look for in the field as well as create a more pleasing image than what comes right out of the camera.

Gear:
-I would say last up is gear. I love my 6D for not so fast stuff and liked my 7D quite a bit for fast stuff. I have some BIF pictures that I really like from my 5D Mark II, though. Unless it is something like erratically flying small birds, though, I’m probably the limiting factor more so than my gear. Speaking of erratically flying small birds – I would love to try out the 7D Mark II and am excited to see what I may get my hands on in the next year or so…

 

[distant.star]

.
Any camera I have today would have improved this from my Kodak Pocket Instamatic 110 back in the seventies.

The challenge would have been holding and framing a 5D3 at 50 mph on the motorcycle.

 

[sdsr]

Enthusiasm and tech are not synonymous, my experience over the last 30+ years of serious photography has been that enthusiasm trumps pretty much everything, sure there will always be images that are just not possible without the latest or greatest, but from what I have seen, none of us, including myself, are shooting them.

That's probably right. But in my experience it's not really either/or: better equipment, up to a point (doesn't have to be "latest or greatest" - the original question simply referred to equipment that was better than you started with), boosts enthusiasm by making the learning process easier and more enjoyable. Those who have said that experience/learning/technique/an artistic eye matter most have a point, obviously, but it's easier to achieve those things when you're not hampered by, say, inferior focusing mechanisms (too few focus points, inconsistent/inaccurate AF lenses, design that effectively makes MF near-impossible, etc.), bad ergonomics (esp. burying important controls in intimidatingly complex menus) and so on, and when the resulting images look inherently better (less noise etc.).

("Better" is relative anyway and needn't be expensive. There was no such option when I bought my first dslr, but for my purposes, miles "better" than the Nikon dslr I started out with would have been a good mirrorless body with a few old MF lenses and perhaps a couple of good modern AF lenses - it's easier to learn what the controls do if they're easily accessible and you can see their effect as you look through the viewfinder, and incomparably easier to MF when magnification and focus peaking show up there as well - for me, at any rate.)

 

[e17paul]

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.

+1
I would say that the good shots taken on film with fixed low ISO are a greater achievement. I was always pushing the balance between shutter speed and depth of field, but composition seemed to come more naturally. I think it is the necessary slowness of a manual camera. I can do the same with the 6D, but it requires self discipline.

 

[pwp]

As a photographer who was never as good as I wanted to be tracking action with pre-AF cameras & lenses (mostly Nikon) I was hungry for more keepers shooting dynamic situations, not just sports. Static just isn't in my working vocabulary. The then awesome Canon EOS1n film camera with good AF lenses was a game changer for me. The AF worked! Subsequent improvements in AF have meant pushing the possibilities of creative "risk" delivering shots that would previously been impossible for me to capture.

In my earlier career it was not just better AF that would have delivered the goods, we used to think 800iso was fast and used the miraculous Fuji 800 neg film to achieve shots that were unthinkable previously.

With new gear vs old, I'm valuing AF performance and high iso capacity above other factors. The one other thing would be cheap, high capacity CF cards. As a heavy shooter who loves to explore, build and develop a shot, the freedom to shoot as much as I like, free from the very real consideration that it cost a dollar every time you pressed the shutter (with film...).

I have no doubt the work I did in the 1990's would have looked very different if I had the gear I use now. But it was the same for everyone. Look at sports shots from 25 years ago that got a big splash in news pages or on magazine covers. They mostly look pretty weak now. But that's progress. Fast forward to 2035 and we won't know ourselves. I'm loving it.

-pw

 

[Lurker]

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

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I've always thought if equipment didn't matter every professional photographer would be shooting with the cheapest equipment they could get their hands on. Cheaper equipment means higher profit margins. The equipment doesn't matter, right, you make the photo not the camera. Anyone interested in my old 110 film pocket camera for $5?

Fact is better equipment makes better images possible, period.

If your AF is slow or picking the wrong focus point a better AF system will help.
If lots of your photos are bullseyes due to getting the best focus with the center point a better AF will help.
If you suffer motion blur a lot an f/2.8 lens will help get faster shutter speeds.
If you have problems getting exposure right a better metering system can help.
If you have issues with noise a better sensor will help.
If you shoot black and white subjects and can't get detail on both ends a sensor with higher DR will help.
Better flashes produce more light and can put it out there further.

Equipment doesn't make great photographs, photographers do (have to wonder what Ansel would do with modern equipment), but equipment does help make photos better. Equipment can only help if you know how to use it effectively. If the equipment is too complex it can overwhelm the photographer but if it is too simple it can also limit the photographer.

What is important is matching your equipment to your knowledge and the desired job.

So, yes. If I could have afforded better equipment it would have allowed me to get the photos I was trying to get.

 

[skoobey]

Calling everything that uses a camera "photography" is just bonkers. There are so many genres that require different skills and equipment. Some would benefit more from a camera, some not so much.

There are three main groups:

Journalist/action/sport/event You need a fast body and a fast lens in order not to miss the moment.

Portrait/product/fashion/commercial You need a good camera, but it's really mostly about everything else, the subject, the lighting, the location, the look... so camera is not so important.

Portable/tourist/everyday You do need a camera that's light enough to carry, and gives good shots in low light(both with and without using it's internal flash), as well.

 

[dgatwood]

There is a reason the guys who shoot NFL/Olympics/etc. use top gear. They would have a worse takes if they all shot it with the original Rebel and a 75-300 IS.

They should be so lucky. Imagine shooting with an original Digital Rebel and a 75-300 non-IS.