How much of a difference does the camera body really make?

Zascar

This may be a strange question but I'd like to hear your opinions. We all know that usually you are better of spending money on better glass than buying a better camera bosy but I'm wondering when I should realistically think about a body upgrade...

I have a canon 600d - I'm happy with it but really I'm not sure what difference upgrading it would make to my photos. My lens collection consists of the Canon 24-105mm F4, 70-200mm F4, 50mm 1.8 and a Sigma 10-20mm. I'm guessing my next lens will be a 100mm f2.8 L Macro. Is this glass wasted on a entry level body? I hear great things about the 7D but I'm not sure it's worth me upgrading to another crop sensor. Ideally I'd love a 6D but it's a lot of money and I'm not sure I'm good enough to warrant it really.

Comments/thoughts appreciated.
Thanks

spiderjazz

7d has the exact same sensor as the 600d, so you're not going to improve image quality with that upgrade.

Where do you feel that you're equipment is leaving you down at the moment?

I'd say stick with upgrading the glass, possibly look to buying glass that's compatible with Full Frame if you feel like you're going to make the jump in the future.

DaireQuinlan

Zascar wrote: »

I have a canon 600d - I'm happy with it but really I'm not sure what difference upgrading it would make to my photos.

Upgrading your camera body won't make a jot of difference to the quality of your photography. It might improve the technical quality of your photographs to some undetermined extent.

sheesh

I upgraded from a canon 400d to a 50d recently and immediately noticed the difference in its handling of high iso images which was a big improvement and also spot metering which is great too.

600d probably has both of those so maybe you might hold on for another bit.

I know it shouldn't matter but the 50D is a bit bigger as well!

shleedance

None. Anyone who believes it improves your photography is talking out of their arse.

sheesh

shleedance wrote: »

None. Anyone who believes it improves your photography is talking out of their arse.

but, but its bigger

Corkbah

spiderjazz wrote: »

7d has the exact same sensor as the 600d, so you're not going to improve image quality with that upgrade.

Where do you feel that you're equipment is leaving you down at the moment?

I'd say stick with upgrading the glass, possibly look to buying glass that's compatible with Full Frame if you feel like you're going to make the jump in the future.

Sensor...maybe ...but what about the various processors etc which treat the image before its displayed on the screen at the back of the camera or taken off the camera.

7D is older now...so...maybe a 60D might be a better choice..... I may be incorrect but for me the image is take/recorded by the camera body so it makes a difference in my opinion, of course the image is recorded given the information sent by the glass/lens through the contacts ...so ..... one influences the other.

a camera body will record the information given to it by the lens, but the information is recorded using different sensors/processors/settings which mean that every camera body will treat the information received differently.

shleedance

Which will do nothing for your photography. A great photo is a great photo, even if its taken on an old DSLR.

spiderjazz

Sorry, I made the assumption that the original poster was shooting RAW. If he's not, then I'd start with that before looking at a new body.

If he is shooting RAW, then the in built processing is something which he's not going to use too much. 7d has a higher shutter rate, better construction, weather sealing etc. but your image quality is going to be pretty much the same as a 600d (and a 550d, 650d, 700d, 60d etc.)

70d is coming out later this year which has a new sensor which has a higher megapixel count, but I can't see it making a huge difference for still photography.

magicbastarder

the bigger the body, the more it will weigh on your arms, thus resulting in a greater proportion of photos taken of the ground.

samhail

I had this same exact same question a few months ago, and I upgraded 600d to 60d.
I don't notice all that much difference, main difference is the size if the body, have battery grips on both... and the size difference is much nicer!
I was a little pushed by the weather sealing for the body too, to go with 70-200, and now my 24-105, but haven't used that yet.
Think this is my last stepping stone til full frame... but will last me a good while.

fleet

I sold all my DSLR gear for mirrorless M43, precisely because it was too big and heavy. I found I was leaving the camera at home too often.

Body made no gross difference to image quality. Modern sensors are approaching "good enough"

Sensor size, however, can change how a shot looks when taken from the same point with the same glass.
In my case this means having to use faster lenses (which add a little to the weight, but nothing compared to DSLR) and stepping back a little.

Splinters

It just depends, theres no easy answer of it makes no difference, huge difference etc.

Firstly it depends what you're upgrading from and to. If its a significant enough jump it can offer a significant improvement in the technical image quality of your images. I don't think anybody expects a better camera body to make you a better photographer, but if your shooting style means you end up shooting in the higher ISO range then a better camera body might mean much less noise and higher image quality.

Typically unless its a huge leap in models upgrading from one APS-C frame to another won't give you a massive jump in IQ. Specifically the 600D to 7D will give you none at all. Not to be overlooked though it may give you the chance to get shots you wouldnt have otherwise with some of its features like the faster burst shooting. It totally depends on what you shoot though.

Honestly you're better off holding off until you can go for a full frame camera if you want to see any real jump in image quality.

magicbastarder

the difference a more expensive camera might offer is in ergonomics and ease of use; which you *could* argue can affect your photography.

so a more expensive camera could allow you to get a shot you wouldn't have on a cheaper camera; in a situation where the battery life allows you to take more photos, for example. but that's not a photography issue.

Corkbah

magicbastarder wrote: »

the difference a more expensive camera might offer is in ergonomics and ease of use; which you *could* argue can affect your photography.

so a more expensive camera could allow you to get a shot you wouldn't have on a cheaper camera; in a situation where the battery life allows you to take more photos, for example. but that's not a photography issue.

I have to disagree.... if you take a Canon 1D mk1 , mkII, mkIII and mkIV, using the same lens and in a controlled environment (same settings) take an image .... this image will not be the same image captured using a full-frame camera using the same settings (it will be similar but not the same)...the in-processing of the camera contributes a lot to the image available - like I mentioned earlier the information sent from lens to camera and in-processing makes a difference (in some cases even with the same model camera)

Will do test shots later to prove my point...using a 5D mkI and 5D mkIII and 7D (may not post until tomorrow- or may not shoot till tomorrow)

shleedance

Technical quality != quality of shot. The ability of the photographer is needed.

You can argue about image quality until the sun sets, but it is useless if the end result is poorly composed etc. and in general an awful photo. I would rather take good photos on an old DSLR than seeing crap photos on the latest and greatest flagship.

5uspect

There are some tangible benefits to a bigger more expensive SLR. Obviously there is frame rate, better autofocus, noise handling etc. however I would say the biggest change from me, going from a 350D to a 7D was the viewfinder. The VF in the 350D was a tiny dark penta-mirror while the 7D sported a large bright pentaprism. My eyesight isn't fantastic so this made a huge difference for me.

Zascar

That's a good point. I was using a mate Nikon full frame the other day and the viewfinder was massive! Seemed like twice the size of mine!

Thanks for the advice - I think I'm happy to stick with what I have for now and I'll move to a 6D in a year or two when I have the cash and can warrant it. 7D is nice but I don't really need the extra features like fps etc and really I do not want a bigger heavier camera. I'm better spending money now on more quality glass and maybe some more training! Really I need to get out and take more pictures!

stcstc

acutally i would say upgrades between certain bodies will help you too

my reasoning for saying this is as you move up some of the ranges the features

some of these features will help with getting more keepers for example if you shooting say action of some kind

not suggesting that you couldnt take the same shots with the lower range camera just some of the higher end ones make it easier

superflyninja

Ive been using an oly e410. But recently bought a mirrorless EPM1 M43 and the difference in image quality is substantial. Im beginning to think there might be a problem with my DSLR the difference in image quality is so great. I took some shots on both the DSLR and the M43 and im going to compare( i know different lenses etc etc). If the EPM1 had an optical viewfinder id use it full time. The problem i now face is that I want to start doing some strobist style shots etc but if i use the mirrorless im worried it wont be taken seriously. TBH I was worried how the models/ other togs would react to the e410 nevermind the M43 lol

Last time I was out and met a tog he presumed my e410 was my "scouting camera" and my proper camera was at home lol

magicbastarder

Corkbah wrote: »

I have to disagree.... if you take a Canon 1D mk1 , mkII, mkIII and mkIV, using the same lens and in a controlled environment (same settings) take an image .... this image will not be the same image captured using a full-frame camera using the same settings

you're talking about image quality. having higher image quality does not make you a better photographer.

if the camera really made a difference, we'd see something similar to moore's law in the general improvement of photography over the last few decades.

Corkbah

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're talking about image quality. having higher image quality does not make you a better photographer.

if the camera really made a difference, we'd see something similar to moore's law in the general improvement of photography over the last few decades.

the title of the thread is "how much of a difference does the camera body really make?" ...in my opinion it makes a difference.

different body, same sensor (but other parts of the camera "treat" the image differently so the different bodies will produce a different image - with the same sensor) ..in the OPs case 600D and 7D - will produce different images so yes the different body will result in a different image ...as regards to how much of a difference - depends on multiple factors. (i.e.. lenses used, condition of lens, sensors, contacts, glass, internal functions etc etc)

shleedance

Any difference is minimal at best. Especially if you use RAW with the same processing settings.

As for photography, it makes no difference. People will not admire a photograph for the quality of it's pixels.

shleedance

Here's a few (rather subjective) examples on how new your camera is and technical quality really does not affect your photographic ability. Close up you will notice there are indeed differences in image quality, but does it influence the photo as a whole?

7D

100mm f2.8L IS Macro Lens: First shot by Shleed, on Flickr

40D

Granny by Shleed, on Flickr

400D

Blackrock by Shleed, on Flickr

kelly1

A better camera will only help technically, better focus, dynamic range, lower noise etc. Only consider a new camera when you know you've reached the limitations of the old one.