almost 6k worth of camera and lens vs 1800.00 (DSLR, Nikon, d70)

[mathjak107]

took these at the old restoration village in bethpage long island.

one group is the nikon d800 and 70-200 f2.8 , cost almost 6k .

the other set up the d7100 and 18-200mm. cost about 1800.00.

for those who think a better camera and lens will always yield better results that might not be true.

while the d800 set up excells in low light and achieving fast speeds under more normal conditions either set up can produce similiar results.

the pay back in benefits after a certain point become less and less. you can get 90% of the performance for under 2k. but that last 10% can cost thousands more.
most of the time even 100% crops do not reveal which set up is which and we have to look at the metadata to tell.


i just love going to the old village to shoot. each time the lighting is different and the looks and textures of the photographs are different each time.

nikon d800 with nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr lens


1

2

3

4

5

[mathjak107]

these were done with a nikon d7000 and nikon 18-200mm lens


1

2

3

4

[WFW&P]

Kind of hard to make any comparison when none of the shots are the same.

[nybbler]

You're shooting still/almost still shots in broad daylight? Uh, yeah. The difference will show under more difficult conditions.

[aslowdodge]

You are correct
about diminishing returns for more expensive cameras, but really it's how you use them. Casual snapshots like these you probably wouldn't notice the difference. But pushing it maybe you will. Low light, shooting action, huge enlargements can start to show a difference.

[SVTRay]

Are you using a D7000 or D7100?

[mathjak107]

d7000 .

the point is under normal lighting conditions the differences between gear and price is quite small.

most photographers know it is not the gear but beginners and amateurs do not realize this.

if i had a dime for everytime someone said they want to get a better dslr so they can take better pictures i would be very wealthy.

the real differences only come out when pushed to the limits of conditions or extreme needs .

[Fuzz]

I think most people missed the "under normal conditions" part.

However, I don't think gear needs to be pushed to extremes to show differences. A big part of average-person photography is shooting events, e.g. school performance, wedding, indoor games/competitions, outdoor sports, etc. One can easily hit the limits of many gear in those situations (especially without a lot of skill, learning, and practice about how to work within the limitations).

One note though: I don't know if $1,800 qualifies as a "cheap" setup! I'd say < $1,000 is more in the realm of cheap/amateur/average person who wants to get into photography.

In the end, as you noted, there's no substitute for skill (combined with the right equipment).

[mathjak107]

yep , skill is number one... matching the gear to the job is 2nd. the equipment can help once you have the skills to go beyond the normal shots most folks take.

while not cheap the 1800 range represents the serious photographer range. it is pretty typical of what someone would spend if they had the dough on a serious set up as opposed to entry level.

the 6k range is the upper end where only those who live and breath photography will venture.

we all can't help but wonder how much better the 6k gear would make our typical photo better. the answer is for most of us it would do nothing .

don't get me wrong i love the features i have on my d800 vs the d7000 but overall they both can take the same shots unless low light or cropped heavy.

[Ms_Christina]

I agree. In optimal conditions and proper exposure the differences will be very slight. The professional, however rarely takes photos in these conditions. They can do their job with the lower cost set up, the better equipment just makes it easier.

The only difference I see in the two sets is color depth. The first set seems to be better saturated (not counting the post processing you did in #4 of the last set)