I went to my local park to shoot (photographically speaking) some herons. I took to following shots under very similar conditions - same weather, similar distance(about 100m) etc. One was taken with the Canon SX60HS bridge camera, and the other was taken with the Canon EOS 7DMkII + 100-400 MkII EF-L + 1.4 Mk III extender. Both shots were hand held.
In Canada, where I am, the SX60HS was selling for around $560 and the Canon EOS 7D set cost around $5,600, so roughly 10 times the price.
WITHOUT PIXEP PEEPING or looking up the properties, which do you think was taken by the more expensive camera?
Vote:
A The first imge
B The second image
C Too close to call
Both images have been cropped slightly in Lightroom so you have a closer comparison.
I shall post the answer on Friday. 
With more alternatives to producing output, photographers are taking photos for the Web (social media etc.), to show on screens and monitors and of course for the traditional print. These images would probably print on something up to 8x10 without any real difference. One would expect the better quality gear would handle big blow-ups better, but for the average shooter considering an investment it's an interesting comparison, especially when i see aspiring wildlife photographers scared off by the cost of equipment. I think for many newbies, the bridge camera is a great way to explore, experiment and decide if photography is something they would aspire to pursue without taking out a mortgage. They are small and lightweight (the best camera is the one you carry), the have all the main controls of their bigger DSLR cousins and they have an enormous zoom range, so a newbie can dabble in all sorts of photographic styles.
My other point is that given enough light, the smaller sensor can do a good job on these shots, obviously there are issues when the light becomes less than optimal.
This was all about value for money when making a choice...
To remind you of the details of the two cameras in question:
1. Canon 7D MkII APS-C DSLR+ 100-400 EF-L MkII + 1.4 Extender Mk III+battery grip
investment cost $5600(Can)+taxes is Canon's premier prosumer crop-sensor body, which along with the lens configuration is very specialized for capturing objects some distance away at high resolution.
It is big and bulky and weighs in at 3230g (with battery grip).
2. Canon PowerShot SX60HS Bridge Camera,
investment cost $560(Can)+taxes is a high end bridge camera, offering an enormous range of focal lenghts but with a small sensor and fixed lens.
It is a small package light weight (690g).
Let me explain my definition of VALUE first.
Value in this context is not simply monetary: it is relationship between cost and the benefits gained in the context of a series of elements:
Let me be clear about definitions here:
A FEATURE is a characteristic of the configuration of a device or service as offered by the supplier. In crude terms features define what someone is offered.
A BENEFIT is what someone is seeking from a device or service that improves their performance or removes a constraint to whatever they wish to accomplish. In crude terms a benefit is what they need or want.
When one looks at the marketing materials of suppliers of camera equipment they tout the latest features of their gear, and of course the better the gear the better and more prolific the features. HOWEVER, when considering a purchase the wise consumer FIRST looks at what their needs are in terms of what they are trying to achieve in terms of an outcome or end product, and ranks those as "must have", "want", "would be nice" etc. THEN they look a the list of features and map those against their benefits. If we give advice to a person asking about equipment I believe we should be asking these questions too, not touting our own preferences as they may be irrelevent to the inquirer.
The point is that a fantastic FEATURE, if it does not map to an identified BENEFIT, is not a good purchasing point. It is easy to get sucked into the cool tools and options, but that leads to the dreaded condition of GAS - Gear Aquisition Syndrome: where one keeps buying the equipment for its own sake rather than supporting specific needs.
Defining Benefits needs to be done considering several elements, some of which I list here:
Budget?
A fairly straightforward concept, some can afford to splurge more than others. Unless money is no object I would expect that to be an immediate limitation that must be established and respected.
What kind of photographer are they?
Casual, beginner, student, enthusiast, prosumer, professional? For those who are casual, and less likely to delve into the techicalities and techniques of cameras; an expensive, complicated system will go mostly unused and thus could be a waste and even a hinderence. Those just starting out to learn may well not want to commit to a particular type or brand of expensive gear at first as they search to find the kind of images they want to capture.
What kind of Input:
Or to put it another way, what will they shoot? General stuff, portraits, sports, landscapes, macro, real-estate, galaxies - they are all very different in the types of equipment (especially lenses) that will be required. The greater the specialization is, the more spcecific the gear.
What kind of Output:
To me this is one of the most important, yet poorly-considered elements. There is a BIG difference in the level of quality required when one moves from thumbnails for social media, through large display panels, small prints to very large format, high-quality prints. HERE is the thing: if one is not intending or need to produce high-quality images then the demands on the gear will be much reduced. I find that many experienced photographers judge all users as if they were experienced and producing high-end output, and often do so without asking the person these questions. It doesn't matter is we like to print in high resolution, the question is what do they want to produce?
Comfort and Handling
As it is often said, the best camera is the one you are carrying. This should be considered in the context of physical needs and constraints of the buyer. In the example at the start of this thread, Camera 1 (with battery grip) is very large, conspicuous and weighs in at 3,230g, while camera 2 weights 690g - even if you don't work in metric weights, the difference is obvious! The person considering the camera must be prepared to carry the thing. So one needs to ask if the camera will be used for studio work, taken to a specific site, carried on short walks or taken on multi-day hikes! The impact of bulk and weight is very significant, especially if one is holding it for long periods.
With age and injuries the idea of carrying around a large, heavy DSLR can become daunting, and I know many older photographers who are downsizing their gear in terms of weight.
Under handling will also consider the ergonomics and look and feel of the gear. Are the camera body and lens comfortable to hold (as opposed to carry), do the various controls seem comfortable to access? Does the menu interface seem logical? These last two have at times driven me away from otherwise great cameras, and the only way to know is to try the thing out.
It's a System
Very often I see responses to questions about what gear to get concentrated on the body. Frankly, while that has some significance, I consider the lenses much more significant. Why? Bodies change with monotonous regularity and lose value quickly, lenses less so on both counts. I would say that, within the same image format (e.g. 35mm vs Medium format), the image is a lot more dependent on the type and quality of the glass.
I have a lot of newer, high end gear, but I often revert back to my older, consumer camera bodies and shoot with them enjoy the experience and remind myself that better cameras do not, in themselves, make us better photographers. To make my point the following was made with a Canon 400D, known to North Americans as the Rebel Xti, and released in 2006, taken with the Canon 28-300 L lens, vintage 2004. If I was starting photography I bet no-one would suggest I used this camera, even if it was dirt cheap, but it can still render good results if used properly.
I am quite OK with the result for my purposes, for which I reduced it down to 1920x1080.
The image is of two things, the start of the 7,821 km (4,860 mi.) Trans Canada Highway that stretches from coast to coast, and the memorial to Terry Fox, a young chap who tried to run across Canada after losing a leg from cancer. He did so to raise funds for cancer research, but sadly died along the way. The positioning of the memorial, short of his destination was, to me, quite poignant...
I wish more people who answer the question "what should I get" would ask that question amongst the others I have mentioned. Repeatedly I see people fail to find out what the agenda, needs and constraints of the inquirer are, resulting in totally inappropriate solutions that just confuse things.
As I alluded to in my last post, the questions about what kind of photographer are you, what do you shoot and what do you want to produce address the question you expressed. so we are each, in our own way, singing from the same song book.
It is in every manufacturer's interest to beguile us with cool features, and many photographers fall into that trap by suddenly realizing that their current gear is somehow inadequate and they need to upgrade when, really in the end upgrading our skills usually renders the best bang for the buck.
For beginners in particular, but I would venture to say for most of us, a camera that handles the three basics: ISO, shutter and aperture well, combined with good glass is all we need to take good photos. I have NEVER felt constrained by my equipment, I have felt constrained by my skill in using it, and that (to me) is the real challenge: not expecting technology to make better images for us, but putting the onus on us to work effectively with what we have, and to maximize our technical and artistic skills.
@ebiggs1 wrote:The bottom line is and has always been what I have always said, all modern DSLR's produce pretty good pictures. The issue comes in the end use and how the equipment is to be used. Add the that photo opportunities at the ends of normal photography. That is where the better and advanced gear begins to shine.
Example, an SX60 would last me about a week in my former job. Capturing an RC airplane like cicopo does isn't going to happen. What is it worht to you, that is the question?
I still have my 4mp EOS 1D. Still takes nice shots. It had a retail price of $8000 back around year 2000. It's all good. Use what works!
