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

luckyguy20

luckyguy20

luckyguy20

Associate
Joined
14 Jun 2011
Posts
182
ppl always say that its in the photographer not the camera which takes good photos. so my question is does it really matter whether i get an entry level mid and top of the range camera? ive had a canon 500d before and sold it on to upgrade into a mid range camera but now i regret selling it on.. can someone enlighten me? :)
 
A good photographer can take a decent shot with a low end camera but a beginner wont necessarily be able to take a good shot with a pro camera.
 
You'll find that the camera body affects the image very little given the 2 camera bodies are within the same generations, the lens plays a much bigger part. You ll find a lot of the sensors going from an entry level dslr to a mid level one are actually the same and the only different between them are usually ergonomics, environmental sealings and added functionality.

It's much cheaper for companies to produce a set of sensors and distribute it throughout it's line up with different levels of functionality than creating a bespoke sensor for each model. Think car manufacturers that uses the same engine in a variety of different models and trim levels, this is the same principle.

One of my all time favourite photographer uses a Canon Rebel XTI (400D) with kit lens and a 50mm 1.8, he does however have to compliment it with, a great lighting system that he uses to great effect. It just goes to prove that a lot of the time the photographer is the weakest link in the system.
 
mcc49 said:
You'll find that the camera body affects the image very little given the 2 camera bodies are within the same generations, the lens plays a much bigger part. You ll find a lot of the sensors going from an entry level dslr to a mid level one are actually the same and the only different between them are usually ergonomics, environmental sealings and added functionality.

It's much cheaper for companies to produce a set of sensors and distribute it throughout it's line up with different levels of functionality than creating a bespoke sensor for each model. Think car manufacturers that uses the same engine in a variety of different models and trim levels, this is the same principle.

One of my all time favourite photographer uses a Canon Rebel XTI (400D) with kit lens and a 50mm 1.8, he does however have to compliment it with, a great lighting system that he uses to great effect. It just goes to prove that a lot of the time the photographer is the weakest link in the system.
Click to expand...

the main reason why i regret selling my 500d. but the main thing i had difficulties with is when there isnt any sufficient light available thats is why i thought of selling my 500d and upgrade. but is it really the case that my old camera is just having difficulties with not enough lighting? i had a 50mm 1.8 lens and i really enjoyed having it but i was limited with range and the sad thing was it fell on the carpeted floor and cracked the body.. :(
 
The difference is a better photographer will know the limits of a camera and push it to the boundary where someone who isn't as good wouldn't be near.

Imaging if you can actually put a number and scale on the quality of photo and how much you can push a camera. Just got argument sake.

0 being the centre point and the scale goes from -10 to + 10.

A entry level may have a boundary in terms of ISO, DoF etc at -5 to +5,
mid range be -7 to +7
Pro body -10 + 10

Give a better photographer the Entry level and he will push it to its boundary, often want to exceed it, into the numbers that he is used to (-10 to 10)

Give someone who is less experienced he will stay within the comfort zone, lets say -3 to +3.

Prob sounds like BS but it all make sense in my head :p
 
Makes sense to me, that is why I chose to invest in the best gear I can afford so when the shoot does go wrong then I only have myself, the photographer, to blame and I know its not my equipment holding me back.
 
luckyguy20 said:
is it a matter of knowing how to take advantage of lighting in this case?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You haven't said what you like to take photos of? If it's action then the AF capabilities of the body make a massive difference.
 
For me the higher end of the mid range and pro bodies are worth the money for reasons which aren't image quality or technology at all really. They handle better with more direct controls (I don't know how people can live with the lack of the wheel on the back of the Canon xxxD series for instance). I feel uncomfortable working with mid range Nikon's (I'm thinking D90/D7000) due to the controls. The top end bodies just feel instinctive in my hands, the 5D and D700 are the sweet spot for me.

The other side is things like weather sealing, I have a photo of my D200 caked in snow from a trip last christmas, I'm not worried about that with pro bodies and that's important to me. I don't want to be worried about looking after my camera all the time, I'm not reckless and I'm not going to go smearing it in snow deliberately but not worrying if somebody throws a snowball at me is priceless.

Same applies to build to a decent extent.

Image quality, fps, high ISO performance is all nice and in the 'technology' aspects the D7000 is better than a D2xs in every respect pretty much. 5 years ago that was a £3k+ camera that was a workhorse for pros all over the world and guess what, they made stunning images with them.

Basically, they all have their place. The fact that entry and mid level cameras are superior to pro bodies from 5 years ago is fantastic and I've no doubt that I could probably make 99% of the shots on my fancy 'pro' cameras with a 600D instead. BUT for the same end image the pro bodies still make sense for me and lots of others.

EDIT: let me say that in a shorter way - I've no doubt of the image quality you can achieve with a £500 body but I would never buy one, £1500 cameras are £1500 for a reason. It's not all about image quality any more.
 
Dont ya just hate Raymond sometimes:D

Seriously good at what he does.

Over on TP there are a couple of threads from wedding toggs that come nowhere near as good as him.


I take my hat off.
 
StoutMeister said:
Spend your money on the glass.
Click to expand...

Not as true as it was to be honest, there's heaps of old glass for next to no money which out resolves any modern camera, particularly in terms of primes. While good glass will last, you can purchase a set of primes to cover everything the average person would need for the cost of an entry level body.

Get a camera body that does what you need, all the L glass in the world on a 350D is a silly move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom