Raz Theo Loc: Music City

I was recently told by a pro photog I respect, that regarding landscapes (and maybe other scenarios), there was little difference in DSLRs, regardless of $$$ when certain criteria were observed:
1) Use of a tripod; 2) F-stop "sweet-spot" (f-8); 3) Manual focus and 4) use of shutter release cable.
Is his message is too simple?

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Yes.

There is a WORD of difference between cameras, even using such strict criteria.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Depends. Some people will read what your friend implied and say "Huh?". Some other people will listen to your friend"s message and realize the volumes of information concerning the subject are endless. What difference does it make? If your friend is among her/his peers this discussion would be different than if he/she were among a group of first week photography school students. The more one knows about photography the deeper the understanding of what your friend said. The answer to your question is yes and/or no, depending upon.....

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

Think about it: The most significant photographs made since 1839 have been made by photographers with, at times, very limited equipment. Eventually most had cameras that could focus, and adjust for aperture and shutter speed. You don't need 8 pages of menu options and a dozen or more buttons and dials to make a great picture.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

His criteria might have been valid back when all we had were 35mm film cameras and when we were the controlling factor. We had to make all the decisions based on lighting conditions, etc. But there was a difference, and that was in the lenses. Cameras were essentially the same, if you disregard quality, and Nikon was king before the advent of Canon as a top dog. Nowadays, with digital cameras, the electronics make a world of difference. One cannot say, "a sensor is a sensor is a sensor." And the firmware is different, even among cameras from the same manufacturer. Nope, today your pro photographer friend's statement holds true, only in those are things to be taken into consideration when doing landscape photography, but there is a world of difference between cameras, and the camera does make a difference in that genre.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

At first I was going to say I agree, it makes sense, but the more I think about it, it is quite a leap for some generalizations.

1) Tripod, yes. But not 100% for I'll bet his reason. In full day light you can likely have a high enough shutter speed that no tripod is needed. But I would still suggest using one to slow you down and think more about your exposure and composition -- to really look at what you are aiming your lens at. The mental parts of photography are often overlooked.

2) Every lens has a different sweet spot and it may not be the right one for any given exposure.

3) I tend to use Manual Focus for most anything but Action. I especially use manual focus for close-up and macro. But auto focus can work fine. I've actually been rarely disappointed. Like anything else with photography it helps to know your equipment.

4) Yes, cable release, at least when on a tripod. But then again this is shutter speed specific.

Camera sensor format can have a few different effects on your results, Full Frame, Crop Fact. Pixel count, pixel density, CMOS, CCD, as well as the microprocessor in your camera.

Identical images from any camera of any price, no. No way are you getting the same image from a $300 DSLR as a $3,000 one. An exceptable to good image, yes. You always pay for what you get. And we have not even discussed lenses. Your pal was making an over simplified generalization. Possibly for a different reason; to say something else. Perhaps to help you avoid an unnecessary G.A.S. attack. One's skill level also affects what you should spend and what you should expect.

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Interesting premise.
As asked (for landscapes), I think the answer is yes, as long as the camera meets certain performance base levels, which DSLRs do, as a rule.

But that's just the mechanical end of it. The person behind the camera is more important, IMHO. The end result is composed more of the photographer's vision than the camera's.
And even saying that, it's important to know when to not do it the 'expected' or 'right' way.

So, do it your way. If your way isn't getting the results you want, it's time to experiment (after, of course, learning the basics to have some idea of what the experimentation will yield)(that's there for beginners; a fully automatic camera will just follow built-in rules, which often won't get the pic you want).

That's how I see it.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Agreed

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The obvious difference is that FF dslrs will show a wider field of view with the same lens than will a crop sensor dslr. For landscapes that gives the FF camera an edge. My 19mm prime lens gives a much wider and taller view with a FF than with a crop sensor. If you are looking to capture the widest angle possible with your widest lens, then the FF is the way to go.

larryjphoto Loc: Phoenix

What your friend is saying (I believe...) is that if you don't posses a certain level of photographic skill (understanding light, shadow, exposure, depth of field, etc.) the the best camera in the world will not help. That being said... the better the set of tools a "good" artist has at his disposal... gives that artist more potential to turn out a work that is of the highest quality. The more expensive DSLR cameras have more tools for the photographer to use to get "the shot" more consitently.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

And if you look at great photos by great photographers, they are generally using expensive lenses and cameras. A $4,000 lens won't make you a better photographer, but a great photographer will get a much more stunning picture with a $4,000 lens than with a $300 lens. That's why they spend the money for the best equipment.
Bob

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I agree that there is not really all that much difference between DSLRs.... when it comes to the end result.

But I find your pro's "criteria" to be a bit absurd. In fact, one of those (the f-stop sweet spot) actually has little to do with the camera. That's a factor with respect to the lens you use on it... not the camera itself. The others are technique, not camera specific. But, maybe that's the pro's point.

Look at it this way, you can buy a car that has an automatic transmission or one that you shift manually. Among automatic transmissions there are several types. And there are different kinds of manual transmissions, too. Some auto manufacturers offer only certain types, while others have broader selection. A sports-oriented car or heavy hauler will emphasize certain performance factors over comfort or fuel economy. Some transmissions are built for durability and long life, while others are built for lighter weight and lower cost.

But, although there are some minor differences in technique when using them, in the end those transmissions and the vehicles they're in will all "get you there".

With cameras, there are some nuances and features that may make one or another a preferable model for certain uses.... But most can be expected to produce good, usable results in a wide variety of situations.

Perhaps more important is the selection of lenses and other accessories available for a particular camera. Some systems are more extensive than other. Not that sheer numbers of choices are the only thing that's important. A smaller selection that serves someone's needs very well might be all that's needed. And someone who has special needs may only find what they're looking for in one or two systems.

To use the car analogy again, driver's have different criteria that they use to select what they purchase... Someone who has a long, daily commute might purchase a fuel efficient vehicle, while someone who needs to haul or tow heavy items will emphasize power and torque over efficiency.

It's the same with photographers and DSLRs.

And, once you narrow down your choices of vehicle, you next get to decide the options you want on it and after-market items you'll need to make it fit your purposes even better.

It's the same with DSLRs.

Sure, there will be some color and styling choices, too, with either a car purchase or a camera purchase. But those often have little to do with usability or functionality. You spend a lot extra for a luxury vehicle out of ego and bragging rights, not because it does a better job transporting you.

A lot of camera and lens purchases are more about those factors, too. For example, many hobbyists actually don't need or even fully use the capabilities of a full frame camera... a crop sensor model would serve their purposes just as well... Yet they feel compelled to spend more to get a full frame model, partly in hopes it will improve their results (likely it won't), but largely because of what they read, hear and the ego factors that go along with it.

The "criteria" the pro cited may apply to certain, very specific types of photography (landscape, architecture, night skies and, perhaps, some product and macro)... but are largely or completely ridiculous for many other specializations (portrait, fashion, sports/action, photojournalism, travel, assignment, events, weddings and more).

The pro was discussing landscape photography, specifically... For that my criteria for camera and lens for LANDSCAPE would generally be:

- A large sensor with high resolution... for larger "printability". Landscape shots simply often call for big prints. This might mean not buying a DSLR are all, but getting a medium format digital instead. Sony and Nikon's 36MP and Canon's new 50MP full frame DSLRs are game changers, though.

- Portability of the gear is important, since a lot of landscapes are going to require some trekking to get to the location. This might incline me more towards DSLRs and away from medium format digital (not to mention that those DSLRs are $3000 cameras, compared to $30,000 for a MF digital).

- Wide angle to short telephoto lenses that are sharp edge-to-edge and evenly illuminate. Doesn't need f2.8... In fact, f4 lenses might be even better, as well as more affordable and smaller/lighter.

Tripod, mirror-lockup, manual focus, "sweet spot" f-stop, and remote release are all "technique"-related and not camera or lens specific. Sure, you want a model of camera and lens that offer these features or lend themselves to this type of use.... but the vast majority do, so these really aren't much of a concern.

High ISO isn't necessary if and when it's possible to use a tripod, mirror lockup and a remote release. But, for some types of scenic shots (night time) it may be needed.

And, sometimes it's the guy who goes against the grain and doesn't follow the herd who gets the results!

For example, Galen Rowell had dozens of his scenic shots published and was really at the top of his game at his untimely death. He was a proponent of one small, very portable camera and lens, shooting handheld and quickly. He was a runner and often would race up hiking trails to get to locations he wanted to shoot. No tripod, no remote release, no mirror lockup.

Or, look at George Lepp using a 70-200mm lens for landscape shots, instead of the more typical normal to ultrawide... Some of his Gigipan images are made up of dozens or even hundreds of shots made with the telephoto, combined into a single image. That's certainly done with a tripod... and a robotic camera control module.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

All cameras are not equal. That's why I shoot micro four thirds.

tramsey Loc: Texas

By that premise my Canon EOS 1000D should produce the same results as my Canon EOS 5DSR; all other things being equal. If so then why are we continually buying "better" cameras?

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

And the WORD is Thunderbird!

Ducks... runs.... :lol:

My vote is, "Too simple."