Does the camera make a difference??

I have had a Eos5 and a Eos3, a minolta 370 and 700. I also shoot

with a Canon 10D. I know how important film is but does the camera

really make that much of a difference in the picture quality. This

is not a quality or speed question but a picture result question. I

realize that a Nikon F5 is much quicker and better built then my

X700 but will one take a better picture than the other?

The camera matters in ways that have an effect on image quality for:

 

-flash sync speed

 

-mirror lock-up

 

-the ability to drive IS/OS/VR lenses

 

Anything else is essentially convenience (AF speed/sensitivity, meter, motor drive speed, etc...). The film and the lens matter much more than the camera.

Basically you've got the lens, aperature, shutter speed and film. The body's only job is to get the shutter speed right. This is probably over simplified, but in essence the body is irrelevant when it comes to the picture quality. All a body is going to do for you is AF, and hopefully meter very well to get the proper exposure.

As long as both cameras are fully functional and their metering is accurate enough or even match one another, images should be just as good. the only thing that would make some difference is that both cameras use different lenses. Here, nicon would most likely beat minolta, and even that is not a given.

I'll toss in a couple more 'nits':

 

A heavy camera shoots sharper for me near the limits of handholdability (Shutter speed ~ 1/focal length).

 

Response time / shutter lag is a big deal for me, whether MF or AF. It's the difference between capturing the fleeting expression and not getting it.

 

A comfortable viewfinder that doesn't promote/exacerbate eyestrain is a big deal if you're shooting for extended periods.

 

But yeah, the camera is a box. For your 10D, you have the added 'nuance' of your sensor / software. Different digital cameras can be like different films.

In 1972,I worked for a weekly newspaper in upstate N.Y.The owner insisted I shoot everything with his Nikon gear.Which consisted of 2 Nikon FTN's and a half a dozen lenses.This outfit weighed as much as a cinder block!To make a long story short:I would leave the bulky,heavy Nikon gear at home and shoot everything with my trusty(and lightweight) Petri FT (35mm SLR)and its 55mm f1.8 lens.The boss would oooh & ahhh about the slides & negs having that "sharp/bright" Nikkor look!

You are asking about picture quality so the camera is just a light-tight box that has to fire the shutter accurately (assuming you have measured the light).<br><br>

 

What <i>will</i> make a difference is the lens. I have a Nikon system and last year I bought into Leica. Wide open and one or two stops down there is no comparison between a Leitz lens and a Nikkor, after that they get a bit more even. Also prime lenses will give you better quality pictures than zooms...

The Photographer <i>and</i> the camera.<br>But once you've shot with a "Pro" level camera with a 100% viewfinder with a shutter lag in the miliseconds, it becomes Photographer's camera. <p>If you are "young", (under 25), begin saving now for a "Pro" body. You will never regret your purchase.

The body also affects the amount of film on which you control the image. Most cheap

cameras have viewfinder coverage of around 80% of the film area (conveniently

reported as 90% viewfinder coverage horizontally and vertically).

 

Different bodies have different mirror slap characteristics that can affect image

quality. In some situations this can be eliminated by using mirror lock up but that is

not useful for handheld shots.

 

The cliche about the camera being simply a light-tight box is mostly true.

Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote: "...Anything else is essentially convenience (AF speed/sensitivity, meter, motor drive speed, etc...)..."

 

Brian Richards wrote: "...All a body is going to do for you is AF, and hopefully meter very well to get the proper exposure..."

 

Huh? Aren't the focusing and metering capabities most critical? Your artistic abilities may not be fulfilled without proper exposure and, hopefully, sharp focus in your pictures.

 

It's like saying "no, the weapon is irrelevant, it's the shooter that makes a difference..." Nonsense, both are important.

The body DOES make a difference.

The camera body only makes a difference if YOU think (or find) it does!

 

You as a photographer have far more control over the image quality than the camera body (assuming it is working as designed). If you dislike a body or find it hard to use for some application, then it definitely detracts from your ability to accomplish what you want.

Peter: it is possible to get a picture very properly focused and very properly exposed with a camera that has no autofocus and no exposure meter (I do that very often, as a matter of fact, with formats ranging from 35mm to 4x5). A camera that does it automatically brings in speed, convenience, but not quality. Nothing prevents you from taking 1005 spot-meter measurements with RGB filters, average them properly and determine a pretty accurate exposure. The F5 does it instantly for you, but once it figures out that the correct exposure is 1/180s the exposure isn't any better than if you had dialed in 1/180s in manual mode. Similarly, once and EOS3 focuses, the picture won't be any better than if you had focused manually to the same distance.

 

However, if the only way to balance ambient and fill flash with your speedlite (which I almost consider part of the camera) is to use a 1/200s shutter speed and your body doesn't have it, no matter how good a photographer you are and no matter whether you know how to manually dial flash power, you won't do it, period.

 

The weapon only makes a difference if the shooter is good.

 

Go play golf with Tiger Woods, use his clubs and let him use yours. He'll still win.

Steve you got a Petri FT to actually take photo's! WOW I'm impressed mine spent almost all of it's time either in the repair shop or waiting to be picked up at the camera shop or waiting to go back to the camera shop.

 

One day I went to the repair shop to pick it up and the repair guy who I still use (this was back in about 1975) handed me a small box and told me not to bring it back. Inside the box was the FT taken completely apart well past what would have been required to fix it. I asked what's the deal. To which he replied " NOW you don't have to worry about it it will never attempt to work again as long as you leave it in that box just like that". He then handed me a beat to crap Pentax Spotmatic and told me to leave before he charged me for it. I used that body for another year or two until I bought my Canon AE-1 in college and now 28 years later I have 14) Canon FD bodies and 45+ lenses.

 

Two years ago when my Dad passed away and stuff was being cleaned out of his garage I found that small box with that Petri in it. I some how enjoyed walking over to the waste can and dropping it in.

Jean-Baptiste Queru: "...The weapon only makes a difference if the shooter is good..."

 

Not entirely true - watch a news bulletin tonight.

 

Your "light-box" argument is only applicable to shooting landscapes, and only if the lighting is static. Your argument doesn't apply to fast photography - people, action, the stuff I'm interested in. Most people I know that use manual-everything cameras don't take pictures of people. But then there's Cartier Bresson with his Leica - note how many of his images are actually out of focus which wouldn't have happened had he used an F5 :)

 

More capable equipment DOES broaden your abilities - ceteris paribus (all other things being equal, i.e given enough brains and talent).

 

Cheers

I think Craig has the best response. The camera's job is to make it easy for you to take a great photo; not to impede you. The user interface is highly important. It may take you plenty of fondling in the camera store, and probably some mistakes, to arrive at the gear the best fits your needs and style. And then the ideal camera is a moving target, as your photography evolves.

Some really good answers. Cannot say that I really disagree with any.

 

I think that there is another element that bears more mention though - The camera that you are using needs to become an extension of your hands, fingers, eyes and brain. You must not have to even think or feel for controls - when you get to know your camera so well that you dont even have to think about what particular control to manipulate, you instinctivly interact with the thing then you can take great photos. As someone else said - it no longer gets in the way!

 

Now if you regularly use 4 different bodies - T90, FTb, Super Program and digital P&S (like I do) you will probably never reach the "instictive" stage with any single machine?

 

My argument obviously assumes the same technical standard lens, timings etc!

Mark:I own 2 Petri FT's that both still work fine!

Some interesting answers, lots of good views and responses. To me the camera's only important to do what you want in terms of features and capability, is intuitive to use, and has the system to do the photography you want. The film and lenses are more important.

 

I use the full range of Minolta manual focus bodies, including SRT's, XK, XE's, XD's, and X-700's, but mostly use the latter two series. The key to me is the results, which means the camera system is merely the tools to get there, and shouldn't necessarily be apparent in the results, unless it's intentional for some reasons.

 

"Will the F5 take a better picture than the X-700?" Yes and no, because it depends on the situation, and how you use the camera. The F5 won't guarantee good results, you can mis-use and abuse it as well as any camera, and the X-700 will take outstanding photographs. It's the photographer that makes the difference.

<i>Craig Bridge , apr 22, 2004; 08:35 p.m.

The camera body only makes a difference if YOU think (or find) it does</i>!<p>But you'll make far better images with a Canon F1 (old) than with a brand new Holga. Which may not matter at al to persons if they consider themselves "artists".<p>

<i>"You as a photographer have far more control over the image quality than the camera body (assuming it is working as designed)</i>".<p>We tend to parse things to death trying to put a finer point on the subject. By "camera" I always mean the whole: body-lens-film, assuming of course the whole is of some known (good) quality. Accepting that is what everyone means when they say "Camera", the only thing left to discuss is the photographer and their skills.<p><i>" If you dislike a body or find it hard to use for some application, then it definitely detracts from your ability to accomplish what you want</i>"<p>Agreed; but then, you quickly disabuse yourself of such an inpediment.

The camera is a tool, but a complicated one...some tools work better in certain situations than other ones. By having a varying number or types of camera, you get a better "feel" of what each one CANNOT do well. For certain exposures, I still like my Minolta X-700, for others I use my Nikon N-80, and my N6006 will hopefully be repaired soon. Each of the cameras has its own image "signature" and its own flaws. Certainly the Minolta has mirror slap and bright Arizona Light can cause it to meter poorly under certain conditions. The N6006 makes noises like a small industrial plant at work and frightens wildlife, but focuses and exposes well. the N80 is very quiet and meters well in low light conditions, but not always so great in hazy or bright weather..

Just another 2 cents:

 

If one were to remove ALL other variables (human element, lighting, etc.) and use the exact same film and exact same lens; and shoot a few pictures, exactly the same way, switching only the camera body, there would be NO difference in image quality.

 

As stated before a camera [body] is a light tight box, period. One could expose pictures using an oatmeal can-- a hole in it at one end, light-sensitive material at the other, using a piece of opaque tape as a �shutter� and get an image; proven by many school kids every year. When the question of image QUALITY comes into play other factors have the impact on it. The most important thing that a camera body does for image quality is keep stray light out. Lets not get into a dicey conversation about specific features added to our light tight box. Those are a matter of appropriateness, convenience, and preference.

 

My advice is to use a camera body that �feels good� and has as many desirable features as possible.