Opinion Poll

Started May 14, 2013 | Discussions
Mike_PEAT
Forum ProPosts: 10,309Gear list
Like?
It's skill that's lacking, not equipment!
In reply to Great Bustard, May 14, 2013

If you give someone who's just a point & shooter a top of the line Hasselblad, and a pro a dispossible point and shoot, who will take the better picture?

If you don't know much about photography, equipment doesn't matter.

Just look how many mediocre/poor shots are taken by top of the line equipment, versus amazing shots taken with consumer equipment?

If you're trying to justify to your spouse about buying better equipment, you won't get that from me!

 Mike_PEAT's gear list:Mike_PEAT's gear list
Lytro Light Field 16GB
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
panos_m
Senior MemberPosts: 1,212
Like?
0% because...
In reply to Great Bustard, May 14, 2013

...If a picture is successful is successful. If it had been taken with better equipment and this is obvious then it is not the same picture anymore. "It's another fact".

Great Bustard wrote:

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

By the way, it's clear that many would benefit from the operation of better equipment, for example, faster / more accurate AF, in that it would get them the shot that lesser equipment might miss.  However, this poll is about photos that were successfully captured.  How many people do you feel would produce photos that were more successful if they had been captured with better equipment?

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

-- hide signature --

Panagiotis

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lee Jay
Forum ProPosts: 44,418Gear list
Like?
Re: No I'm not. . .
In reply to Glen Barrington, May 14, 2013

Glen Barrington wrote:

I'm saying that even the cheapest are so good that they don't in any way interfere with the message that the photographer intended.

In good light, over a limited range of focal lengths.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon ELPH 500 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John1940
Contributing MemberPosts: 930Gear list
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Great Bustard, May 15, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

By the way, it's clear that many would benefit from the operation of better equipment, for example, faster / more accurate AF, in that it would get them the shot that lesser equipment might miss.  However, this poll is about photos that were successfully captured.  How many people do you feel would produce photos that were more successful if they had been captured with better equipment?

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

In 2013 I would pay more for (or only buy) the D800/pro lens version. I do buy one or more photos during most long trips. The photogs are pros and only seem to use Nikon or Canon FF cameras and good lenses. Not a one has used anything else since 2000 to my recollection. (They went to digital about 9 or 10 years ago and back to FF bodies in many cases later.)

I use a 600D but I find that the lens, more often than not, makes a bigger difference than a "mere" 18 MP. My 60 mm f/2.8 EF-s Canon macro (while still non-pro) is sharper than any other lens near that focal length that I own. I mostly use non-pro APS-size zooms but I know that they are not as sharp. Unfortunately, after paying for 4-week cruises and such, I am perpetually camera/lens poor. And, my wife does not want to be a FF lens bearer and security guard.

John1940

 John1940's gear list:John1940's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,701
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Great Bustard, May 15, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

By the way, it's clear that many would benefit from the operation of better equipment, for example, faster / more accurate AF, in that it would get them the shot that lesser equipment might miss.  However, this poll is about photos that were successfully captured.  How many people do you feel would produce photos that were more successful if they had been captured with better equipment?

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

The problem I'd say is that 99% of the time were only looking at web resolution shots, the advantages of something like the D800 will become much more obvious in larger prints.

At Web resolution I'd say that the gear most likely to have an impact on someones pictures is the range and aperture of the lens in question, a tripod and filters.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Abrak
Senior MemberPosts: 1,387
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll - I think it is actually pretty high - say greater than 50%
In reply to Great Bustard, May 15, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Obviously the majority of photos are taken with a 'phone camera'. Now the marginal 'cost' of having a 'camera' when you have a 'phone' already is very low - say US$20. So if you paid only US$20 for your camera then if you post say 100 photos you dont expect a very high return in terms of appreciation.

Now if you have a US$2,000 full frame, in order to justify the cost you actually need a lot more in terms of admittedly a very 'intangible' appreciation from your 100 photos. Doubly so, because if you post garbage with your US$2k camera people will think you are a complete fool and your return might actually be negative.

Essentially if you paid 'nothing' for your camera your barrier to post photos is incredibly low. Aperson with an expensive full frame which cost him a lot must post photos to justify his purchase.

Essentially my argument is pretty simple - it is along the lines that I suspect that owners of say a Nikon 800e take a lot of lousy photos (including foodies and selfies) but they simply dont post them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
For web postings...
In reply to Great Bustard, May 16, 2013

For 1200 pixel wide web postings, most modern digital cameras are more than adequate.

Subject, composition and lighting are always THE most important aspects of the success or lack of success of a given photo.  And it doesn't make all that much difference if that photo was taken with a Phase One, D800, Entry-level DSLR or P&S. Compelling images can be made any camera.

That said, high end FF DSLRs allow you to get better IQ in less light, just as the pocketable size of a P&Ss allow you to get images in places where DSLRs aren't allowed or are simply too large to be practical.

Cheers, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leon Wittwer
Forum ProPosts: 12,809
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Great Bustard, May 16, 2013

Few.  I do see many where the photographer could have been more skillful.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamesMortimer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,492
Like?
Re: Zero Pecent
In reply to Glen Barrington, May 16, 2013

Glen Barrington wrote:

I believe we are at the point, technology wise, that the effectiveness of a photo simply CAN'T be degraded by technology issues.

Not quite.. refer to by comment about "texture mearing", below. Some cameras have innate limitations..

Now we could ruin a photo by using the wrong equipment.  But quality equipment is available in all price ranges and even from the humblest equipment manufacturer.  The tech really IS that good.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that if your photos suck, it isn't the equipment at fault, it's you.

Sort of - but you can take a lovely photo with a bridge camera (pinhead sensor) that is less than it should be due to the texture smearing - this would be improved with a more capable camera.

I agree that virtually any camera will take a decent picture if you know how to use it - but certain camera have limitations that do affect the picture output.

It could still be argued that it's the photographer - using a tool that's not suitable for the job.
Like using a pinbhole camera for a fashion shoot.. pinhole cameras are fun and have a place, but I'd not use one for an important shot of a local Manor House..

. oops

-- hide signature --

I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

I'd guesstimate at maybe 1 - 3% of photos.

If you like the photo and it works for you then it's fine as it is..

Sometimes I take a photo of castles or ruins with my wife's Panasonic FZ 150 - it's OK but it often smears the textures.

This is not often a problem to be as i use the pix as record shots of an area to return to - but sometimes I just go back and take the photo with my 5D2 - it produces vastly better images of the same scene.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jrtrent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,338
Like?
zero percent
In reply to Great Bustard, May 16, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

At least based on the pictures I've found appealing enough to buy or hang in my home, the equipment used seems completely irrelevant.  One of my favorites is a wonderfully atmospheric photo of an unattended anvil and forge.  It was by a local artist and taken at a local pioneer-themed park/museum.  Turns out the camera used was an older, 5 megapixel Panasonic compact.  When I've attended photography art exhibits and spoken with the artists present, it turns out that there is a wide range of equipment used and a wide range of photographic knowledge held, from those knowing practically nothing about their camera other than making sure the mode dial is on auto, to those with great expertise on seemingly everything photography-related.  But there was no correlation between the equipment/knowledge of the artist and the appeal of the images each chose to hang (or that was juried into the exhibit).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Simon97
Senior MemberPosts: 2,347Gear list
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Great Bustard, May 16, 2013

Perhaps not as much here on this photo site, but I do see a lot of phone camera and cheap point and shoot cameras with grainy and NR smeared looking images that could look better even with a slightly larger/better sensor and brighter lens such as on a camera like an LX7. It doesn't necessarily make the composition better. A bad shot is a bad shot.

 Simon97's gear list:Simon97's gear list
Canon PowerShot A800 Nikon 1 J1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,574Gear list
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Great Bustard, May 16, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

Subject line responses are difficult to read and can be confusing. I'll provide my answer in the body.

5-10%, maximum.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. Have a good one and God bless!

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,633
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Biggs23, May 16, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In your opinion, based on the photos you see posted here on DPR and elsewhere on the net, what percent of the photos would have had greater impact if they had been captured with better equipment?

Please post the percent in the subject line, and any comments in the body.

Subject line responses are difficult to read and can be confusing.

I find just the opposite.  That is, keeping the same subject line makes it more difficult to navigate a thread.  I assume you're a fan of flat view.

I'll provide my answer in the body.

Certainly.

5-10%, maximum.

Thanks for your participation!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,633
Like?
What about...
In reply to Simon97, May 16, 2013

Simon97 wrote:

Perhaps not as much here on this photo site, but I do see a lot of phone camera and cheap point and shoot cameras with grainy and NR smeared looking images that could look better even with a slightly larger/better sensor and brighter lens such as on a camera like an LX7. It doesn't necessarily make the composition better. A bad shot is a bad shot.

...amongst DSLRs and mirrorless, then?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pavi1
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,980Gear list
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Great Bustard, May 16, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

The difference between entry level DSLR and D800 is not image quality, it is image size.

There is a huge difference in image quality of a cell phone and entry level DSLR

-- hide signature --

Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
happysnapper64
Senior MemberPosts: 4,216Gear list
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to Great Bustard, May 16, 2013

Assuming a reasonable level of competency on the part of the photographer, I think that any improvement, if there is any, could be achieved with better lenses. But it's the old story of better equipment will not make a poor photographer a better photographer.

-- hide signature --

lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

 happysnapper64's gear list:happysnapper64's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richarddd
Senior MemberPosts: 2,795Gear list
Like?
Very few if any
In reply to Great Bustard, May 17, 2013

Although the way the question is phrased might have more of an influence on the answer than you intended. If it's successfully captured, isn't it a success?

Which of these would count as more successful under your question

- a photo with blown highlights that might have been saved with better equipment

- a photo that might have had better subject isolation or more pleasing boken

- a photo that would have looked better with a wider angle lens or a longer lens

- a photo that would have looked better if shot on a tripod or with better image stabilization

- a photo that would have been sharper if shot at a higher shutter speed

In other words, what type of IQ improvement are you thinking of?

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,633
Like?
Re: Very few if any
In reply to richarddd, May 17, 2013

richarddd wrote:

Although the way the question is phrased might have more of an influence on the answer than you intended. If it's successfully captured, isn't it a success?

Which of these would count as more successful under your question

- a photo with blown highlights that might have been saved with better equipment

- a photo that might have had better subject isolation or more pleasing boken

- a photo that would have looked better with a wider angle lens or a longer lens

- a photo that would have looked better if shot on a tripod or with better image stabilization

- a photo that would have been sharper if shot at a higher shutter speed

In other words, what type of IQ improvement are you thinking of?

By "more successful" I mean would have sold whereas the lower IQ photo did not, would have sold for more money than the lower IQ photo, would have been published but the lower IQ photo wouldn't, would have placed higher in a photo contest than the lower IQ photo, etc.

Of course, it goes without saying that I am talking about the exact same photo, just one captured with a camera that delivered "higher IQ" than another.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,633
Like?
Re: Opinion Poll
In reply to pavi1, May 17, 2013

pavi1 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:What I'm asking is, for example, if a photo had been taken with an entry level Canon DSLR and the kit lens, would it have made a difference in the success of the photo if it had been taken instead with the Nikon D800 and a top tier lens, where by "success of the photo" I mean you would have paid for one, but not the other, or paid more for one than the other.

The difference between entry level DSLR and D800 is not image quality, it is image size.

It is image quality, but the differences may not matter, or even be apparent, until the photo is displayed past a certain size (although many aspects of IQ may well show up in smaller prints as well).

There is a huge difference in image quality of a cell phone and entry level DSLR

Sure.  But how about the difference from an entry level DSLR or mirrorless and a D800?  How often would the differences matter?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads