-
Yeah, you’re absolutely right but when it comes to the quality of the actual photos, it really comes down to the meat vehicle behind the camera. Vivian Mayer, Henry Cartier Bresson and Garry Winnogrand didn’t have WiFi, 28mp and 4K but then they probably would have been shit at sports photography.
Look at it this way; would you rather have a 40D with an L lens of your choosing or a 1D X mkii with a 50mm 1.8 for the type of photography that you do?
It’s impossible to not turn into Ken Rockwell with this stuff but you have to weigh up tech/cost/artistic requirements.
-
when it comes to the quality of the actual photos, it really comes down to the meat vehicle behind the camera.
Yeah, very much so. I can't recall seeing a photo that I thought was let down by the quality of the camera, it's normally the operator choosing a subject that doesn't interest me, composition is off and/or they can't edit/print very well.
Having said that, playing Devils Advocate, someone like Vivian Maier was using a top quality sensor (medium format film) and Rolleiflex optics.
-
would you rather have a 40D with an L lens of your choosing or a 1D X mkii with a 50mm 1.8 for the type of photography that you do?
It's weird to chose between these particular two options for me to be honest.
I said I'd love to have more pixels, the 40D is 10mp, the 1DmkII is still only 20mp. Not sure where you're getting at.It all has a lot to do with what kind of pictures you need or want to take actually,
I'm not sure what the "kind of photography I do" actually is that you have in mind -
I hardly do any digital stuff (apart from work, which I don't show on here) these days.you have to weigh up tech/cost/artistic requirements.
Yea, definitely.
I don't want to complicate things, but have to disagree here.
If you just look at the two digit Canons 40D and 60D there has been a lot of (useful) change - concearning the controls, also the flip & twist screens which I laughed off at first are really fucking useful / open up possibilities. Almost double the pixels and way better ISO performance, and HD video if that matters.
In general what makes me personally want to have a newer camera is:
a) more pixels. More is indeed always better - saying x pixels is "enough for the web" is some sort of Ken Rockwell logic that is not essentially "wrong" - but, to make it simple, an image would indeed look better if shot at 50mp and then reduced to 10mp as opposed to being shot at 10mp in the first place. Retouching is much nicer with a big file. You can also make bigger prints in great quality from it. The only downside of having more pixels is you need more storage and more memory / a better computer to process the files.
b) better high-iso performance.
c) better controls / articulating screen / backlit buttons / wifi etc.