joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I watched a Matt Grainger video where he took two identical images of the same model; one with a $10,000 camera and one with a $100 camera. Printed both and asked random non-photographers to choose which they liked better. The $100 camera image was chosen most often. The winner was a beat up D200 w/50mm lens. The looser was a Nikon D5 with an Otis lens.

Something to ponder...

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Great post but you will be nailed by defenders of the faith proclaiming why they need all those specialized lenses and expensive cameras... as many respected folks on this site have said many times before " Use what you have and get out there and shoot ".

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Yes... ponder why anyone would shoot portraits with a camera optimised for high ISO low light sports action and expect a different result! A display of low integrity reporting?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Not unusual at all. The D200 is a good camera, and the 50mm is a good lens. In the hands of a skilled photographer, how could the D5 do better? Do you have a link for that.

EDIT: https://www.mattgranger.com/tutorials/item/1035-budgetography-is-back-new-budget-camera

mrpentaxk5ii

Depends on the subject that you are photographing.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The D200 was the last Nikon to use a CCD sensor, they were revered for their color accuracy and saturation. And reviled for their terrible high ISO performance. The result is really not surprising at all.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUNz7wPUXxc

Nothing to ponder. It shows two different, not identical portraits, one with a different color treatment - one cooler and less saturated and the other warmer and more saturated. One was from a 10 mp camera with a decent lens, the other from a 20 mp camera with an incredible lens.

Portrait retouching is an incredible art form in of itself. An unretouched image from a high res lens (and higher mp camera), is always going to lack the softness and appeal that a softer image provides, whether it is from a fashion retouch treatment or just shooting with a lower resolution camera and lens.

In many cases he was simply holding up the picture to show the people he was asking - there is some translucence and how the images appear will change compared to evaluating the image under a more controlled setting.

Lastly, he did not ask which is the better image, he merely asked which one they "liked" more. That speaks to many criteria - pose, facial expression, background, proportion of subject area to background, etc, and in this case, the perspective difference of using a 55mm lens on a full frame and filling the frame, vs using a 50mm on a crop sensor and stepping back a bit to fill the frame. This demonstration does not speak to the quality of the gear taking the picture at all, considering all of the variables involved. It is purely a matter of taste and 100% subjective. It could easily have gone the other way had he chose a different cheap camera image, where the subject was larger in the print and use a different image for the expensive camera image where more background was showing. Who knows. Looks like a meaningless exercise to me that proves nothing.

If he wanted to really compare, which he obviously doesn't, he would have taken identical images with two cameras pointed at the same subject and fired simultaneously using an electronic shutter trigger. Even then, there would be the matter of a different focal length lens on the crop vs the full frame.

As far as the other comment about the D5 for portraiture - there is no question that you can use a D5 and an Otus lens and get exceptional results - nothing at all wrong with that combination that would indicate that you couldn't/wouldn't.

I loved my D200, btw.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The video I saw has nothing to do with a D5. It compares a D200 to a D3000.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I had a $10 dollar hammer and a $200 dollar drill. I tried putting nails through a board with both. I now have a $10 hammer and I need a new drill.

Jim Bob

Great informational post.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

At least you cited the right video.

The point was that as long as the ISO is 400 or less and the exposure is correct the 20 MP FX D5 has no advantage over the 10 MP DX D100. It should not be expected to either. But for both it requires correct lighting ratios because tone mapping in post with either will lower the IQ (which would not be the case with a D750 or D910).

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I remember not long ago a group of professional photographers shot pictures with disposable cameras and the photos came out very good.
Just yesterday (or maybe the day before) I read an article about a photographer who shot his entire portfolio using just an 85mm prime lens.

It's the photographer, not the equipment. The equipment is just a tool and can make thing easier. But if you're a good photographer, you'll get good photographs with any equipment. And if you're not a very good photographer, you may have the best equipment there is and it won't improve your photography.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

D200, not D100.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Wow.....No-one said
"That's Nikon for you !" :-)