does the body of a cam really affect the pic IQ much?

[tongki]

As other CSer have stated, a fair comparison need to be done, i.e. same lens, same setting, same subjects, etc. I never compare both, but from spec wise, IMHO, 7D and 450D doesn't different much. Maybe at pixel level yes.

Canon make classification and class of their body definitely with a reason,
not just because it has 3 digits and 1 digit only :bsmilie:

I've using 400D - 450D - 500D, 40D, 7D and between 3 digits, 40D and 7D it's different,
picture you take from 3 digits looks like a painting, it's just not real, 40D and 7D does better

Canon XXXD series is by no mean crap. My brother's 450D can take pictures with colour, contrast and sharpness comparable with my 1DM3. Of course these photos are taken with low ISO (< ISO 800).

I would think that camera body will affect the IQ when it comes to low light situation, high ISO capability. If you are shooting without flash almost all the time, like I do, then camera with larger sensor (or larger pixel size) will really benefit.

This is a joke, right ?
It is your brother has a better skill and you're no match for him (kidding) :bsmilie:

Well, if it is like u said 450D comparable with 1D Mark III,
let's say it's in bright light condition and low iso settings,
why do the pro using 1D body while they're doing their job if there is sufficient lights ?
It's cheaper for them to get 450D body rather than 1D Mark III body,
even if they break 8 units 450D on the job, the costs similar with 1 unit 1D series :bsmilie:

I dont think XXXXD or XXXD series are crap like you said, they still can produce stunning photos if you know how to work the settings to your advantage.

more impt is the one behind the cam, imagine you pass a 1DmkIV to a totally newbie? He will just put it to auto mode and snap it like a PnS...

Actually there is no AUTO mode in a 1D series body, right ?
Is it a new feature from 1D because a lot of people like to jump ahead to 1D ? :bsmilie:

 

[tongki]

Select exposure mode:
&#8226; P (Program AE - shiftable)
&#8226; Av (Aperture Priority)
&#8226; M (Manual)
&#8226; Tv (Shutter Priority)
&#8226; Bulb

I didn't see any GREEN BOX / AUTO mode in 1D, where is that MAGIC BUTTON ? :think:

 

[rysouke]

my picture look pretty sharp when i use 500d with 17-55mm...but i am looking forward to 5d mark ii..

 

[leody1]

i think i better invest in lenses before i change my body ahaha

 

[night86mare]

jpg with jpg, maybe its the settings. as he is using my lens to take...but im not satisfied the 450D LCD...any advice how to overcome this without changing cam ahahah

wow, i thought pictures were for showcasing online, not on lcd. where's the fun of forcing people to look at a 3 inch lcd screen?

 

[night86mare]

Well, if it is like u said 450D comparable with 1D Mark III,
let's say it's in bright light condition and low iso settings,
why do the pro using 1D body while they're doing their job if there is sufficient lights ?
It's cheaper for them to get 450D body rather than 1D Mark III body,
even if they break 8 units 450D on the job, the costs similar with 1 unit 1D series :bsmilie:

there are professional photographers who use P&S even. it depends on what they need. you don't see all professionals using 1D MARK III, that is just a rumour spread by gearwhores to lead you into thinking that they are pro.

it is not just about IQ, 1D series build is also better, more advanced features, faster AF, more FPS , etc. the list goes on. to just say OH PROS USE IT BECAUSE OF BETTER IQ is really, taking it too far.


i wager, put a 1D MARK III image down smack next to a 450D image, print it 8R, if you can see much difference all other things equal with the condition that iso is iso 100 - 400, i will chop my head off.

 

[night86mare]

I dont think XXXXD or XXXD series are crap like you said, they still can produce stunning photos if you know how to work the settings to your advantage.

more impt is the one behind the cam, imagine you pass a 1DmkIV to a totally newbie? He will just put it to auto mode and snap it like a PnS...

no no no, there will be people who say

I SEE LESS GRAIN IN THE 1D MARK III one, the bad composition photo is better. :heart::bsmilie:

 

[daredevil123]

Ya ya, body do matter.

Look at this picture, http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4321364755_2b201d7ef1_o.jpg

Compare it to the 400D, this picture's IQ is totally trash.

It is taken by a 2MP Kodak by the way. :bsmilie:

 

[teodesson]

It is taken by a 2MP Kodak by the way. :bsmilie:

I got tempted to digital world because of 2 Mp Kodak, my 1st ever digicam

cannot help, Canon XXXXD and XXXD series are crap :bsmilie:
Change to XD series, or at least XXD series

yeah they are crap, just get 1D/s (after you win 4D)

 

[blurry80]

Actually if you shoot in studio conditions same light same compo same subject. I dont think there will be any major difference comparing 400D to 5D correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Anson]

cannot help, Canon XXXXD and XXXD series are crap :bsmilie:
Change to XD series, or at least XXD series

Wow such a bold statement, why not you post some shots taken with your XXD or XD series of dslr? Would like to see your "great" works compared to those taken by a Canon XXXD camera. :think:

I've using 400D - 450D - 500D, 40D, 7D and between 3 digits, 40D and 7D it's different, picture you take from 3 digits looks like a painting, it's just not real, 40D and 7D does better

It would very much depend on the setting & condition that you are shooting. A lot of pple use heavy handed NR on their images, hence the painting-like outcome.

 

[daredevil123]

I got tempted to digital world because of 2 Mp Kodak, my 1st ever digicam

My 1st was a 1.3MP Olympus. Which I still have till this day, and it is still working. Thing just refuses to die, even when I dropped it so many times.

 

[leody1]

wow, i thought pictures were for showcasing online, not on lcd. where's the fun of forcing people to look at a 3 inch lcd screen?

its not forcing ppl to look at the LCD screen, but its for my own usage. coz sometimes when i took the pics.on LCD its dark, but actually its not so bad when u put it in comp. n when in LCD, it looks quite ok...but actually its over exposed...somethin like that

 

[sabee]

its not forcing ppl to look at the LCD screen, but its for my own usage. coz sometimes when i took the pics.on LCD its dark, but actually its not so bad when u put it in comp. n when in LCD, it looks quite ok...but actually its over exposed...somethin like that

I think if you want to use the LCD to judge exposure, the histogram is much more useful for that. As long as you're not losing much details, you can get the exact exposure to your liking during RAW conversion anyway.

 

[Teegongkia]

I saw someone who produces stunning image with 400D body + 18-55 kit lens in deviantart. Yes, he is using HDR but tts his skill....

 

[joetan84]

below is a link on flickr for pictures taken from a 450d. IMHO it is still the composition of the pic and the man behind the camera. not forgetting your PP skills too..

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-eos-450d/

 

[leody1]

thx for all the replies...now i know what to do ahaha....

 

[night86mare]

its not forcing ppl to look at the LCD screen, but its for my own usage. coz sometimes when i took the pics.on LCD its dark, but actually its not so bad when u put it in comp. n when in LCD, it looks quite ok...but actually its over exposed...somethin like that

yes, so who cares about lcd.

the only thing i care about lcd is to

a) check sharpness, size doesn't matter in that respect, neither does resolution
b) check histogram

and that's what most people should care about.

maybe with live view you will care a bit more, but changing camera because "oh, my friend's lcd looks better" seems just gearwhorish to me. photos are good because of great composition and exposure, nothing to do with how it looks like on a bloody lcd.

 

[auden09]

My 1st was a 1.3MP Olympus. Which I still have till this day, and it is still working. Thing just refuses to die, even when I dropped it so many times.

omg. that's so cool. i wish my 50D can do that too. i'd really be pleasantly surprised.

 

[TheStig]

yes, so who cares about lcd.

the only thing i care about lcd is to

a) check sharpness, size doesn't matter in that respect, neither does resolution
b) check histogram

and that's what most people should care about.

maybe with live view you will care a bit more, but changing camera because "oh, my friend's lcd looks better" seems just gearwhorish to me. photos are good because of great composition and exposure, nothing to do with how it looks like on a bloody lcd.

Haha exactly my sentiments. My friend, who owns a 5dm2, keeps trashing my 40D because it has a lousy LCD. But guess what, at the end of the day, the pictures will be uploaded to the PC. I'm quite content with my 40D's LCD, but I gotta accept that his camera is better than mine in any other way possible haha. Well, maybe someone with a 550D will trash his 5dm2's LCD :bsmilie::bsmilie: