Quality increases with better and better digital cameras beyond my M50?

[bigbrother]

(Note that this is copy/pasted from my post on dpreview, so a few points might not be entirely accurate here, basically the ones regarding earlier posts.)

Weeks ago, I had quite a number of threads on here trying to ascertain why I couldn’t match certain photos with my Canon M50 (being fully aware that it is a pretty entry-level camera and that perhaps there really are technical limitations.) Overwhelmingly, the responses were that the problem was with the shooter and not the gear. Light, EXIF data, shooting positions, and many other things were flung about in these conversations.

I never left convinced. Might sound strong headed of me as a relative beginner, but:

- A) I would look at pictures and pictures on here taken with pro gear, I don’t mean heavily edited and prepared photos, more like “hey I just snapped this to see how this lens is”-type shots and there was absolutely no comparison to anything I could get out of my M50. Zooming in showed a level of clarity and detail and sharpness I have never seen over thousands and thousands of my own pics taken in all manner of conditions.

- B) Along the lines of that last point: there is certainly variation in my shots as far as image quality, owing to the usual suspects of light availability, focus, and the like, but across literally thousands of photographs taken with the M50 not a single one looks like the pro gear shots. If it were up to me, once in a blue moon an “it” shot should’ve emerged, but the best it ever gets is never what I see at the top (and again, I’m talking unedited at the top). But to be sure and approach things thoroughly...

- C) I scoured the Internet for people’s pictures taken with M50s, you know, to really rule me out as any variable and get a broad view of what this gear is capable of. Once again, not a single shot approaches what I’m after. They all look like what I’m getting out of my own M50.

I was expecting, when I first first broached this subject many weeks ago, to get a standard breakdown of how megapixels are important or the better cameras’ image processing or sensors are higher end or something of the sort. Instead it was a lot of emphasis on my shooting, and after fully exploring this and others’ shots taken with my gear, I stand by my assertion that this gear is hard-limited. I mean, why else would one body cost $600 and another $4000? Sure diminishing returns might be at play but there has to be something to this. Especially as, again, just simple little backyard test shots from the pro gear is obliterating what I’m getting under ideal conditions and processing with mine.

So ignoring shooting conditions and EXIFs for a sec, what are actually the attributes that improve as you step up, no pun intended, in gear, and what are the major steps along that path (e.g. once you go from a sprocket to an HD sprocket, this will happen, and once you get a camera with this doodad, the following emerges, etc.)? Basically I just really want to know what the major price jumps get me. My partner/collaborator and I were expecting to basically relegate the M50 to the role of video camera once we could afford something better for stills, and so I really want to get a sense for what lies ahead. I’m really just champing at the bit to start getting top end photos (yes, yes, assuming all my fundamentals are in play ;).)

[ebiggs1]

"It is the knowledge and experience of the photographer that takes a great picture not the gear used."

This statement is only generally true and I do generally agree with it.  However, sometimes using inferior gear can be a real  handicap just like in any endeavor we try to undertake. I.E. in 2021 you wouldn't enter the Indy 500 in a Model T.

[wq9nsc]

With photography, I think it is better to start with gear that is sufficient BUT doesn't teach the user to rely upon the gear for everything although even the lowest end gear is very "automatic" these days.  With the lower end gear, get out of fully automatic mode and learn what your camera is capable of through understanding exposure, auto focus capabilities with different settings, etc.  I couldn't imagine trying to shoot sports now with my original manual focus Canon AE-1 but learning with that sort of technology taught me a lot about photography and made me really appreciate all of the improvements over the years. 

I know that I am still the limiting factor with many of the images I capture and my version of continuous quality improvement is to keep narrowing the gap between potential and actual.  I keep in mind one of the first lessons I would convey to a new group of kids when I was coaching youth soccer: "I don't want you to impress me on the field, I want you to impress yourselves" and that is what I try to do with image capture hoping that at times I will capture images that I personally feel very good about.

A lot of what I shoot utilizes the capabilities of the better camera bodies.  Shooting fast action in low light where excellent AF performance and reasonable noise are requirements won't be met by entry level camera bodies.  There are situations where I initially misread a play and the very fast AF response of the 1DX series generally does a good job of covering for my miscues in these cases.  But a situation with good lighting and stationary subjects will allow very nice images with any current decent camera and lens IF the owner takes the time to understand the basics of good photography and pushing things just a little extends that to action shots under more trying conditions.

When my 1DX III arrived just before the pandemic started, my first 5 exposures were with jpg output because with all of the other setup changes I made when initializing the body I forgot that even the 1 series are set factory default to produce jpg instead of RAW output.  It made me wonder later how many 1DX series bodies were bought as expensive toys taken off the shelf from time to time to shoot a few photos in fully automatic mode with jpg output.  An even moderately skilled and conscientious photographer with the lowest cost Rebel or Powershot can and will produce better photos than a dolt with a medium format Hasselblad and all of the trimmings.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

"An even moderately skilled and conscientious photographer with the lowest cost Rebel or Powershot can and will produce better photos than a dolt with a medium format Hasselblad ...."

Discounting any other spec and just concentrating ourselves on IQ, the obvious pick should be the 5D Mk IV over your 1Dx Mk II or III. Now of course in the actual everyday use of a camera you can't single in on simply IQ. Is the 1Dx Mk III the  better camera overall?  For some the answer is, yes, but not for all. As to just sharpness most of the time it depends on whether you are a pixel peeper or are you interested in producing nice quality prints, etc.

This shot was taken by a dear friend of mine.  He is 84 years old and uses a Powershot G15. BTW, he is not a photographer just a guy with a camera but he takes some fantastic photos. Some I wish I had taken!

[wq9nsc]

Ernie,

I definitely agree on matching the equipment to the need.  If I weren't doing a lot of fast action photography in low light I definitely wouldn't be buying and carrying around expensive and heavy 1DX series bodies and fast primes. But in that environment, their strengths are clear. 

Is there an R1 in my future, maybe but probably not for several years.  I have zero interest in its additional video capabilities because I won't use them.  Any upgrade from my current DSLR bodies will have to provide a clear advantage for what I do  without significant disadvantages and so far nothing comes close to that benefit set.

For the majority of what I shoot, the 1DX II and III are the best tools for the job.  With the pandemic, restrictions are still severe in my state but I will probably be shooting senior night girls' basketball later this week.  For the game I will be using a 1DX III and 1DX II.  I will also be doing a lot of photos of the seniors with their parents and I will also get a lot of posed team shots since they won't have much from this short delayed season.  Normally those non-action shots would be a very small part of shooting the game for me but Covid changes everything and for the posed shots I will probably throw the 5DS and 5DS R with shorter lenses and speedlites in the Pelican case because they are better tools for that job.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

"I definitely agree on matching the equipment to the need."

That was my intent.

But even in your unique situation other gear could and can do what you want.  The beauty of the 1 Series cameras is their build. Canon dominates this area of the market but it is mostly because of the extreme build of their gear. And, on your flagship gear, 1 series, you are going to add the latest tech you have available for sure.

[Johnw1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"It is the knowledge and experience of the photographer that takes a great picture not the gear used."

This statement is only generally true and I do generally agree with it.  However, sometimes using inferior gear can be a real  handicap just like in any endeavor we try to undertake. I.E. in 2021 you wouldn't enter the Indy 500 in a Model T.

---

The M50 is no model T.

[shawnphoto]

---

@Johnw1 wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"It is the knowledge and experience of the photographer that takes a great picture not the gear used."

This statement is only generally true and I do generally agree with it.  However, sometimes using inferior gear can be a real  handicap just like in any endeavor we try to undertake. I.E. in 2021 you wouldn't enter the Indy 500 in a Model T.

---

The M50 is no model T.

---

M50 - Ford Mustang. R5 - Ford GT. R1/1R - Ford GT Liquid Carbon.

[ebiggs1]

"The M50 is no model T."

The comparison should not to be taken as a actual substitute for either. It was designed to say the gear you choose needs to reflect your goals and needs.  Obviously you would not try to win the Indy 500 with a Model T but neither would you try to make a pro level existence out of a M50. If a M50 does it for you I am all in. It is dead tech, however. But like a Model T it still works!