entry level, mid range and pro dslr is there a difference?

[StoutMeister]

While good glass will last, .

That's the one.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

great shots! what lens did you use for this shots though?

he used a 500d lol, his defination of a compact (i joke)

moving on....what did you go to? as you havent said yet? higher spec cameras will be quicker at taking photos etc which is a general positive....worth a couple of extra £100s? to me yes , but to others maybe not.
but id rather grow into a camera, then learn all its features quickly and long to move to something better.

good glass is also important, im not talking about L lenses but something substantial that wont hold you back and isnt one of those crummy 70-200mm zoom lenses that manufactures practically give away.

 

[Alpherah]

Pretty much, that's all your are doing as a photographer technically.

Capturing light.

For example, I took these with a compact last week.

I probably couldn't even capture this with my DSLR, so everyone saying its skill > gear are 100% correct.

 

[alchemistkevin]

To answer your question in one word: Yes there is a difference and don't regret it, you've done the right thing.

I had a similar camera, sold it and bought 7D, my photos are very different. Yes, I've upgraded the lens, bought a flash to put on it and I've learned more techniques and have better camera control but none of my new found skills undermine the fact that a better camera helps.

Get a new mid-level/semi-pro body with a few good lenses, teach yourself some skills or join your local college, you'll do much better than what you achieved with the 500D


People like saying the kit doesn't matter but it's easy when you carry a 1D for sports & a 5D for portrait work.

 

[a1ex2001]

These days most of canons range seem to have the same sensor (or a very very close derivative) so you shouldn't see any great change in image quality when moving bettween them using the same glass. You will get lots of other advantages in terms of handling and in particular focus and FPS (useful but only under certain circumstances). It really is mainly down to skill which while helped my a modicum of talent takes a lot of hardwork and patience I'm sure Raymonds first attempts were nothing compared to his current standard.

Down the years some of the best work we've seen on this site and on others I frequent hasn't come from the users with the best kit but the users who really apply themselves to learning the art of capturing great images for example some of Messiah Khans stuff back in the day with i think it was a nikon d40x was better than an awful lot of stuff I've seen taken with 1D's etc.

People often ask what one thing would you buy to most improve your photography and I always say time as thats the great thin I lack my technique and knowledge is very rarely limited by my kit but my ability to improve is often hampered by other priorities.

 

[bigredshark]

People like saying the kit doesn't matter but it's easy when you carry a 1D for sports & a 5D for portrait work.

While that's true to an extent my best work is still with film, perhaps nothing concentrates the mind on composition like £2 a frame for film and developing but it's still taken on cameras with basic or no metering and no autofocus or such fancy luxuries.

 

[alchemistkevin]

While that's true to an extent my best work is still with film, perhaps nothing concentrates the mind on composition like £2 a frame for film and developing but it's still taken on cameras with basic or no metering and no autofocus or such fancy luxuries.

I completely agree with you but it gets on my nerves when people with decent equipment start giving advice to other people saying the kit doesn't matter.

Skills are very important but IMO you need the kit too. There's only so much he could've done with a 550D, upgrading his camera would definitely help.

 

[mangobreeder]

Pretty much, that's all your are doing as a photographer technically.

Capturing light.

For example, I took these with a compact last week.





I am willing to bet that all that people in front of me, 99% of those won't get a shot like that. For one thing, they all were blasting away with their flash.

Come on Ray, share the wealth, how did you get the pic, was it a case of Flash off and point and shoot, or and i expect more to it?

 

[bigredshark]

I completely agree with you but it gets on my nerves when people with decent equipment start giving advice to other people saying the kit doesn't matter.

Skills are very important but IMO you need the kit too. There's only so much he could've done with a 550D, upgrading his camera would definitely help.

Well, the basic film cameras and the pro bodies have a few things in common, very simple direct access to controls. That's actually what I dislike about the consumer cameras (D3100 / 550D etc), they hide controls away.

You're right to say it's maybe easy to take a good shot on a 7D but I would say that given a while you could replicate the shot on a 550D without too much trouble. You might have to take it a few more times, spend more time on setup and the like but I think you could do it in almost all cases.

The fact is the 550D is in many respects better than pro bodies of a few years ago.

Now yes, it's easy to say that with a full frame body and pro glass in your bag but, personally, I buy those things because they have features or characteristics I want (better handling, depth of field, weather sealing, better viewfinder), I don't think they make better images by themselves.

Conversely, it somewhat bothers me when average photographers (I don't mean yourself at all, haven't seen your work, I'm talking generally) blame the gear and get into 'if I had a 5DII I'd be awesome' mode.

So all in all it's about 50-50 but I think you can take excellent photos on anything if you want it enough. Having good kit is nice and maybe you get a better % of excellent shots but it's not a prerequisite.

 

[bigredshark]

Skills are very important but IMO you need the kit too.

In fact - an appendix to my previous thoughts - not having the kit can make you better when you do have it. I think I'm a better photographer for the years of swearing at my D200s inability to produce usable material at above ISO800. The thought process of 'how else could I do this?' is valuable, flicking a D700 to ISO3200 doesn't teach you anything.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Come on Ray, share the wealth, how did you get the pic, was it a case of Flash off and point and shoot, or and i expect more to it?

Exif is intact but to clarify.

No flash, hand held, point and shoot.

 

[kidscruff]

from the EXIF: Olympus XZ-1, 6mm (28mm 35 equivalent) ISO100, f/1.8 and 1/15 sec. Spot metering.

The XZ-1 has a great advantage over most other compacts due to the f/1.8 lens (at wide end of zoom).

The low ISO keeps the image clean, so I presume Raymond used a tripod?

edit: Just missed your post. Pretty amazing for hand held at 1/15! Robocop legs?

 

[Raymond Lin]

No tripod.

 

[bigredshark]

The XZ-1 has a great advantage over most other compacts due to the f/1.8 lens (at wide end of zoom).

Not really compared to the competition these days, most have at least f/2...

edit: Just missed your post. Pretty amazing for hand held at 1/15! Robocop legs?

Not too hard on a compact, no moving parts so less vibrations to worry about. Steady hands would do it.

 

[kidscruff]

Not really compared to the competition these days, most have at least f/2...

Not sure I agree. Whilst the advanced compacts do (canon s90/95/100, Lumix LX3/5, XZ-1, Nikon P300, Ricoh GRD3/4 and Samsung TL500) the majority have smaller sensors and smaller apertures to boot.

 

[bigredshark]

Not sure I agree. Whilst the advanced compacts do (canon s90/95/100, Lumix LX3/5, XZ-1, Nikon P300, Ricoh GRD3/4 and Samsung TL500) the majority have smaller sensors and smaller apertures to boot.

So the competition - advanced compacts - do. Sure the £150 compacts don't but saying it has an advantage over them is obvious, it costs twice the price so you'd rather hope it has something.

 

[Mr Jones]

I started off with a Canon 20D, went into Olympus E-420, then E-620, almost went E-3 but decided to go back to Canon, with a 40D, 400D then finally a 5D2 with a 40D as second body.

It really all depends on what you want. I started off with a 20D because when I tried the xxD bodies, I felt the buttons were in the wrong places and the body is too small in my hands. Used it, learnt from it and pushed to the limit of using ISO1600 with kit lenses. Sold it on as I thought I'd prefer a smaller kit, especially for my 3 week travel in Malaysia, HK and China.

Went over to the Olympus system, despite the smaller body and handling, it felt right! That's one beauty the FourThird held, it was small enough for travel and felt right in the hand, unlike xxxD bodies and a cropped lens bulking it.

Soon after, I pushed pass the limit of what the body is capable and actually got myself into wedding photography.

That's when I needed the larger sensor (compared to the 4/3 sensor), went back to Canon on the 40D because I love the 20D body, and the faster FPS helps in situation like blinking eyes! Decided to get a 400D as a spare body and it helped in situations where lens changing will be a hassle e.g. 18-50mm f2.8 on the 400D whilst I have the 85mm f1.8 on the 40D, very useful during speeches in small to medium large reception.

The lure of the Full Frame format grew year on year and finally I caved in and got it. It's a Pro-body, it's FPS is slower than the 40D, the AF is slightly better, if not the same as the 40D and it weights heavier despite being very similar in size as the 40D. It's all about the FF when I upgraded. The wider control to DoF I have, the higher resolution for cropping images that normally don't print well after cropping more than 40% on the 40D. It's just to die for. The dynamic range on the 5D is also a hell of a lot better than the xxD bodies, along with that tighter noise-ratio.

I blabber, but this is my trip since I first started. It all starts from initially learning what's the difference between a compact and DSLR, the different modes to use e.t.c. before experimenting which area you decide to focus on - Portrait, weddings, sports, macro and all. This is when different format and DSLR will shine or provide enough and or beyond what you need.

Who needs a Canon 5D2 for their holiday snaps when they first start out in DSLR and 9 times out of 10, sticks on Auto? Who needs a Canon 1DIV for shooting their kids playing in the playground or a portrait shoot in a studio?

It's not just skills that one requires, it's also the experience and needs. The last thing I would recommend is my mum to use the 5D2 if she decides to go away on holiday and want nice pictures, when a 400D would do just that, just because the 5D2 jelps, it might actually hinders the inexperienced.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Talking about putting the 5D in auto.

When I bought my EOS30 (film), I frequent photo.net and the guys i spoke to on msn at the time called all the modes on the other side of P(program), the idiot modes.

That has since forever stuck. And of all the cameras I've owned since, I have never turned the dial on that side of P, hell, I don't even touch P. Av is practically auto anyway so all those idiot modes seems too complicated to me. I tempted to get a 1Ds so I don't have those modes on the camera. I have no idea why they are even on the 5D. It supposed to be a "pro" body after all.

 

[Mr Jones]

Because there are people with more money to spend (be it in a good or bad way) and they want the whole shebang, even if they don't fully appreciate the other modes, with an Auto Mode, they expect the £1500 camera to do the job it is paid to do.

I was at a wedding when I shot with just a 40D, a relative kept snapping away with her 5D2 on Green Box, using the 24-105L, she made a comment to me that with all these money spent, she still can't get the same 'look' as what she saw on my website and what I shot. Thus the need for experience and a little further understanding to why the camera does what it does, not just because it's a pro body, it will be snap perfect.

By the way, it's a godsent to have an fully auto mode on the 5D2 though, I can now pass to friends with absolutely no idea apart from pressing a button to shoot. I've done Av before, and made a rookie mistake to leaving it at f2.8 thinking if they aim centre, they will get it - I have blurred group photo and pin sharp background instead!

 

[alchemistkevin]

Conversely, it somewhat bothers me when average photographers (I don't mean yourself at all, haven't seen your work, I'm talking generally) blame the gear and get into 'if I had a 5DII I'd be awesome' mode.
.

Oh absolutely, I agree with you. However, to emphasize where I was coming from: I used to have a 450D with a 18-55 kit lens. No matter what I tried, I couldn't get the IQ up to my liking on the 18-55.

I sold it and got the 7D with a set of better lenses, tell you what: it was the camera A better body with better lenses means the same photographer is churning out much better pictures.