Ok opinions does buying the latest camera or lens guarantee better images or is there more to it than that

[spudhead]

As title no judgement here does buying the latest camera or lens - kit, guarantee better images, or is there more to it than that. open chat what do you think?

 

[CallMeSteven]

The gear in my opinion helps but the person looking through it and their technique in getting the shot, is far more important.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

The gear in my opinion helps but the person looking through it and their technique in getting the shot, is far more important.

technique and composition are no doubt very important shooter experience/skill factors but lens quality and camera
capabiity also play an important part in the whole equation.

latest cameras, as long as camera choice is matched to shooter needs, will generally have more recent technologies(budget allowing) and in
general this should bring improved image quality in the right hands.

lenses in general all have pluses and minuses as regards whether prime,telephoto,macro etc etc but even within these physical attributes characteristics such as aperture range, distortion, sharpness, flaring (across the lens at all aperture ponts) will vary from lens to lens and hence buying an expensive lens does not guaarantee all these lens characteristics will be optimal and should be considered in lens purchase to ensure, when present, do not deviate from a shooters specific needs to be able to produce the best possible image quality from that lens and camera combination.

 

[andrewluke]

no it doesn't,i bought the A1 so i could no longer blame the tools

 

[Brownie]

No, but that's never stopped us before! GAS is GAS, I reckon. I had bad gas for the A9III until they revealed it. Talk about a good dose of antacid. It didn't stop me from getting GAS, it just made me decide to eat different foods.

Buying a new camera isn't going to change much in the way of output. New/more/better features give us more options and advantages under the certain conditions.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

To quote Brownie, GAS is GAS. Probably don't need the latest and greatest to take quality photos.
In my case however, a newer body meant new-to-me IBIS technology and improved AF. I have rationalized my purchase by saying these two features will help me with the fast moving target that is my toddler

 

[Brownie]

To quote Brownie, GAS is GAS. Probably don't need the latest and greatest to take quality photos.
In my case however, a newer body meant new-to-me IBIS technology and improved AF. I have rationalized my purchase by saying these two features will help me with the fast moving target that is my toddler

It's the features thing.

Of course there are exceptions. I have a Sony A350 that's noisy as hell in all but really good light. But if we want to limit this to modern cameras, then we're back to features like stacked sensors, IBIS, newer/better AF, Pixels, etc. None of them will change the game, just make it easier to play.

 

[alexpler]

The gear in my opinion helps but the person looking through it and their technique in getting the shot, is far more important.

I agree. A photographer with a good eye will get a good shot even with a cheap camera or even a phone.

But of course good gear will always prove useful, given you have the notions and the eye to make use of its capabilities.

 

[iain clyne]

The cameras at the cheaper end of the market are very capable of taking good images in the right hands. I think the most important thing is the glass more so than the camera. Good quality glass will make a difference even on a lower end camera.
example, I had a guy with a D7000 complaining about the images it was producing, I put my 300 2.8 on his camera and he took some shots, his face was a picture.

 

[Roland]

I was lucky years ago to borrow the A9ii and 200-600 lens and comparing to my A99 and 70-400 lens. the subject was a nesting robin less than four meters away from my look out. No moving subject, difficult lighting with the sun hitting the nest only partially. The pictures between the cameras where day and night. I put an order in that night. Yes, I took great pictures with my A99 but they could have been better.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I was lucky years ago to borrow the A9ii and 200-600 lens and comparing to my A99 and 70-400 lens. the subject was a nesting robin less than four meters away from my look out. No moving subject, difficult lighting with the sun hitting the nest only partially. The pictures between the cameras where day and night. I put an order in that night. Yes, I took great pictures with my A99 but they could have been better.

 

[Doug Herr]

As title no judgement here does buying the latest camera or lens - kit, guarantee better images, or is there more to it than that. open chat what do you think?

No. If the new equipment meets a specific need that was lacking in the previous equipment it can help.

 

[DaveC Oz]

To this day, some of my nicest, and most personally satisfying shots are ones that I captured on very basic film cameras. At the same time I have seen many people with the "latest and greatest" get truly horrible results. So, in many ways no, the latest doesn't guarantee better results. As others have said though it can make it easier. It can also make the difference between trying to get a specific shot or not. There are many photo's I've taken since going digital, that I wouldn't have even thought to take the camera out for if I was using film. When it comes to the newer upgrades, the answer is no they don't guarantee better results, but they sometimes open up possibilities to get shots that would have been otherwise difficult, or even impossible. At the end of the day though, we all enjoy playing with bright new toys when we can.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Trending higher resolution cameras, expanding dynamic response, low light shooting, bracketing/in camera
focus stacking etc etc ............. anyone who does not recognise these and like camera developments as positive in terms
of achieving better "quality" images, when in the right hands, is missing something in my opinion.

I have many more personal and fellow photographers experiences of the benefits realised by newer technology cameras
than those who report "horrible" experiences..............yes, higher technology does not guarantee better images "if in the
wrong hands", but that is the same with the metaphorically speaking older steam driven cameras of the film and pre-digitial
era's...

 

[AlphaWorld]

As title no judgement here does buying the latest camera or lens - kit, guarantee better images, or is there more to it than that. open chat what do you think?

My opinion, without reading any of the other responses, is coloured by my tendency to buy new cameras (and some new lenses). My first Sony was the A7RII, and since then I've bought the A7RII, A7RIV, A9II, A1, A7RV, and I'm even pondering the A9III.

Does it guarantee better images? Absolutely NOT. Each new camera requires learning. Your first shots might be as good as you get with earlier models (I suspect the more professional photographers on these forums are likely to learn faster than I do :-D ), but there's absolutely no guarantee that they will produce better images. In fact, I usually expect my first images to show me what I need to work on to improve my image quality! No reflection on the new camera - just a reflection on my understanding of it.

Sometimes I discover that it's easier to get the same quality as before - the new autofocus on the A7RV made it easier for me to get good focus on my subject - for me, the A7RV is better than even the A1 at getting focus where I want it on animals. So the improvement isn't as much in image quality as it is in a reduction in the effort required to get to that image quality. That's not a surprise - camera tech has been on a long journey towards make it easier to get a good image - that was a major reason behind the introduction of auto-exposure, auto-focus, etc.

I must admit that I enjoy learning a new camera - discovering its quirks, learning what the new-fangled features really do, and finding out how I can improve. It also encourages me to get out and take more photographs, and to shoot a wider variety of subjects - it's good for me!

So I'd say that buying a new camera guarantees, if anything, a dip in image quality first, then requires some learning before you get any improvement in image quality. In the long run, though, I suspect image quality improvements may not be solely attributable to the new camera, but to the new camera and the new (and hopefully improved!) photographer.

And honestly, if you can get yourself out of a rut, out of shooting the way you always do, you may be able to improve the image quality you get from your existing camera! (Note: I suspect some of our well-respected members are close to pushing the limits of their current equipment, but I know that I am not!) It is easier to put in the effort to improve your skills if you have a new camera to learn...

 

[pointreyes]

I don't really understand how the latest piece of camera gear will "guarantee" better images. The newer gear gives me more comfort in advancing my skillset in photography. For example, a macro shot I took with a camera that had a fixed screen required me to do some weird contortion to my body compared to now I can just flip out the screen and adjust it for assisting me. Funny thing is that I miss that camera, it was the last of its kind. I loved using that camera so much that I trained myself to become a right eye user for the lovely OVF/EVF it had. It was due to that camera that I enjoy using the A7C and A7CR so much because I use my right eye for the EVF, enjoy the flexibility of the LCD, and the improvements to the AF.

 

[iamdlewis]

There are two things that go into every image, the technical and the subjective. Gear can only impact the technical side. So generally speaking in a technically sense I would say that the newer generation of gear should produce a better image. If the image is subjectively crap the improved gear might make the image a sharper more color accurate crap image.

One area where I will say that newer gear has helped create better images is in places where speed is of great importance. Some of the generational improvements in AF speed and capabilities have made some type of photography possible for the masses. Other scoff at the high frame rates but more frames you capture of an event the greater the chance you have to capture the perfect moment. When I moved from the A6000 with the 55-210 to the A9 with the 100-400GM (Sony's cheapest body+long lens combo to most expensive at the time) I got more in focus BiF shots in my first outing than I did in 1 year with the old.

 

[Clix Pix]

Others have already answered this question and in probably greater depth than I could, so I'm just going to turn the tables a bit here and inquire: OP, why do you ask so many questions?

 

[Brownie]

 

[spudhead]

Others have already answered this question and in probably greater depth than I could, so I'm just going to turn the tables a bit here and inquire: OP, why do you ask so many questions?

Try to get people chatting but I guess you are beyond that, have I offended you in some way ??????????, if you dont have anything to offer it will not be much of a forum is it? just ignore me

 

[Clix Pix]

It just seems.....unusual, and over time has caught my attention so I decided to ask if there were a reason why. No offense intended.

 

[Brownie]

It just seems.....unusual, and over time has caught my attention so I decided to ask if there were a reason why. No offense intended.

Spud has stated more than once that he's trying to foster interaction on the forum by posing these types of questions in the hope they develop into real threads. As stated before, there are many who come in and drop photos then leave. While any amount of participation is better than none, we lose a lot of newer people because this place is fairly slow when compared to other forums. You're more likely to get participation by asking a question than you are by making a statement. The other choice is akin to tumbleweeds blowing across a dusty plane...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

The cameras at the cheaper end of the market are very capable of taking good images in the right hands. I think the most important thing is the glass more so than the camera. Good quality glass will make a difference even on a lower end camera.
example, I had a guy with a D7000 complaining about the images it was producing, I put my 300 2.8 on his camera and he took some shots, his face was a picture.

Could not agree more. I remember getting an A6400 early on with the kit lens then comparing the images with my RX100III to much disappointment. I thought the A6400 was faulty until I got the Sigma 16mm the following day, all of a sudden that A6400 was delivering much richer photos than the RX100...

 

[MyDogsOwner]

My friend, who plays lead guitar, can pick up mine and I will hear sounds that I never thought were possible with my cheapo guitar. She knows how to bring out the best in it.

She owns several guitars herself because they have certain characteristics for different styles. She also has her favorite one, that she has had for years. It's her favorite because it just resonates with her artistically and inspires her to play her best with it.

Would she ever replace it? Yes, if it were improved upon in certain ways. It's not a perfect guitar, but she and it can make beautiful music together!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

There are no guarantees. One is still the same photographer, with the same eye, compositional skills, technical knowhow as the you with a different camera yesterday. My photographic skills have progressed far, far slower than my camera upgrades.

On the other hand, in conversation with someone who was praising me and my camera, I said that, these days, the camera does most of the technical work, but it still takes a person to point it in the right direction at the right time.

There is a quote, a response to the non-photographer, "You must have a really good camera!" It was to the effect: "I have. And I taught it everything it knows." I actually feel the opposite: in the recent years since my return to "serious" photography, it has been the cameras that have been teaching me!

But basics: if one doesn't have the steadiest hands, IBIS is going to help. We (I) have become so reliant on autofocus, these days, that if it gets better, yeas, our images might be better. Etc.

 

[Doug Herr]

This question ought to be a mandatory FAQ for participating in the list.

 

[Richard A]

The "quality" of the photograph is always with the photographer but it doesn't hurt to have nice tools for the job...

 

[Richard A]

My friend, who plays lead guitar, can pick up mine and I will hear sounds that I never thought were possible with my cheapo guitar. She knows how to bring out the best in it.

She owns several guitars herself because they have certain characteristics for different styles. She also has her favorite one, that she has had for years. It's her favorite because it just resonates with her artistically and inspires her to play her best with it.

Would she ever replace it? Yes, if it were improved upon in certain ways. It's not a perfect guitar, but she and it can make beautiful music together!

Don't you just hate that!?! I would love to be able to play guitar. Or piano. One of my brothers is a not too bad guitarist. I have tried learning a few instruments going right back to high school but unfortunately I have absolutely no musical talent.

On the other hand, I know people who have camera gear worth multiple times what mine is (& I have just spent a lot of money changing systems, not to mention buying a very expensive film scanner to scan all my old film) and their photos are no better than I was taking with a Kodak Instamatic when I was 12...

 

[AlphaWorld]

I've owned an A9III for about a month now. It has a quite a learning curve (and I'm only partway up the curve!), but I am relishing the experience.

I didn't like the A9II, but I don't think it was the fault of the camera. I felt / told myself that 24 megapixels was too few, that I could not get the camera on target and stay on target. I felt incompetent. I felt the A1 would fix my problems, and to some extent it did (I could shoot "looser" and crop).

I was really concerned that I'd have similar problems with the A9III. I considered cancelling my order several times. I am very glad I didn't.

I cannot say exactly what the difference is (I doubt I am a massively improved photographer), but I am far happier with the images I getting from this camera. The EVF is much faster - I do not have to anticipate where my subject will be (and with pre-capture, I can even press the shutter button late!)

There are other things about the A9III that I enjoy - the AF is extraordinary, and the global shutter seems (I am still unsure if I'm imagining this!) to take extremely sharp images due to taking every pixel as once... (BTW: I'm starting to question if there is an AA filter - the images look too sharp!).

It encourages me to experiment with other things - I spent an evening last week experimenting with a Godox V1 (in manual mode), and proved it WILL work at 1/80000 with this camera - you just have to get the flash timing setting right (and it varies with intensity). I have yet to figure out when I want to use that information.

Work in progress - ask me again next year!

But is my shiny new technological marvel producing better pictures? Well, I have to say, yes, but it's making me work for them! It's encouraging me to try new things

Bear in mind that this is my hobby - I not obligated to "get the shot" for a customer.

 

[Williams359]

As others have stated, no equipment will guarantee better photos but it will help if you have the skills to use it. I could give my A1 to my wife but the photos would still be poor. There are times when it will 99% help. Think of low light photo in a church hand held of a wedding. Take the photo with a f5.6 lens then a f1.4 lens and you will see a difference. Try to get the perfect shot of a bird flying from it's perch with a A7iii the an A9III with pre capture