Camera's effect on IQ ?

BigRuss

BigRuss

Messages
467
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
Curious to know ?

Forgetting FPS, Shutter speed, High ISO performance ect, Taking cameras with similar sensors, for instance the range of cameras 400D through to 7d, does the actual camera body make a noticeable difference to the image quality of a picture taken in good light ? and if so how ?

Thanks

Russ
 
Last edited:
If you mean image quality then the answer is yes.
 
I'd say yes, but probably not as much as you think, more recent models have improved noise considerably over earlier models, but taking that into account say at 400 ISO you would have to be a pixel peeper to differentiate a well exposed shot.
 
It depends on how you determine IQ and what you plan to do with the image. At low ISO noise is not an issue and so the only significant gains to be found in IQ come from having more pixels to capture more detail. However, having a lot of (good quality) pixels is only important if you will crop aggressively or make very large prints. If all you will do is post well exposed 100 or 200 ISO shots on the web at around 800x533 then any DSLR will do an admirable job. In fact a 12x8 print should be comfortably within the reach of all of them, as should a full screen display on pretty much any monitor you care to use.

However, while you have dismissed other elements of camera body performance, such as FPS, one thing not to ignore is AF performance. You can have all the sensor IQ you like, but if the shot is out of focus it won't mean diddly. This then leads onto other factors which influence IQ, including lens quality, camera settings, image processing skill and photographic technique.

EDIT : In my opinion the most obvious leaps in sensor IQ come from using bigger sensors and capturing more light altogether. Either that or having a major shift in sensor technology such as back lit sensors, which we are yet to see in a Canon DSLR. But those gains once again really only become obvious when working at higher ISOs and/or displaying the images at a large scale.

EDIT 2 : Oh, if you shoot to JPEG then it might be the case that in camera JPEG processing improves with newer generation bodies and higher spec DIGIC processors, but if you seek ultimate IQ and control over IQ you probably won't be shooting to JPEG in any case. You will instead be shooting raw and using the best raw software you can get your hands on to produce the final image.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on your definition of similiar :)

I think the 60d and 7D have exactly the same sensor, possibly the 550D too. You could argue the 15MP sensors are similar too.

I am not sure if there is any technological advance in the sensor per se other than a greater pixel density. Then there is the DIGIC processors and their influence on the processing.

I would think you would need to compare little 'subgroups' against one and other to see where the image quality improvement shows.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for taking the time with your brilliant responses, it really is appreciated.

From what has been said, I believe the answer is no ?

In ideal light with correct focus you should get (pretty much) the same RAW image from a 7D as you would a 400D if both set to similar resolution ?

I realise I'm discounting a lot of things here, I'm just trying to work forward from the basics to understand better what makes one camera superior than another.

Thanks again

Russ
 
BigRuss said:
Thank you all for taking the time with your brilliant responses, it really is appreciated.

From what has been said, I believe the answer is no ?

In ideal light with correct focus you should get (pretty much) the same RAW image from a 7D as you would a 400D if both set to similar resolution ?

I realise I'm discounting a lot of things here, I'm just trying to work forward from the basics to understand better what makes one camera superior than another.

Thanks again

Russ
Click to expand...
A lot of it is not about IQ. It's about features, performance (speed rather than IQ), build quality, ergonomics, AF, metering, viewfinder, durability, weatherproofing etc. etc.. Add them all together and you get a camera that is more enjoyable to use, faster to operate and will get you that photo when a lesser camera might not. Of course the IQ differences should not be ignored, but they come into play far more at higher ISOs. 100 or 200 ISO is not a stretch. For some cameras 6400 ISO most certainly is.
 
Last edited:
BigRuss said:
Thank you all for taking the time with your brilliant responses, it really is appreciated.

In ideal light with correct focus you should get (pretty much) the same RAW image from a 7D as you would a 400D if both set to similar resolution ?

Russ
Click to expand...

No because the pixel density is different - the 7D is 18 MP and the 400D is 10MP.

If you only wanted pics up to say 1200x800 pixels from the full sensor then there wouldn't be much observable difference between the two but if you started to crop the pics then the differences would soon become obvious.

.
 
tdodd said:
A lot of it is not about IQ. It's about features, performance (speed rather than IQ), build quality, ergonomics, AF, metering, viewfinder, durability, weatherproofing etc. etc.. Add them all together and you get a camera that is more enjoyable to use, faster to operate and will get you that photo when a lesser camera might not. Of course the IQ differences should not be ignored, but they come into play far more at higher ISOs. 100 or 200 ISO is not a stretch. For some cameras 6400 ISO most certainly is.
Click to expand...

Tim

Thanks again, the question was just to get a kind of starting point when comparing cameras, and your and others answers have made things crystal clear, I think this thread may well be of use to a few 'newbies' like myself just to get their head around things :clap::clap::clap:

petersmart said:
No because the pixel density is different - the 7D is 18 MP and the 400D is 10MP.

If you only wanted pics up to say 1200x800 pixels from the full sensor then there wouldn't be much observable difference between the two but if you started to crop the pics then the differences would soon become obvious.

.
Click to expand...

Cheers Peter, pixel density is indeed another good point to take in to consideration :thumbs:
 
petersmart said:
No because the pixel density is different - the 7D is 18 MP and the 400D is 10MP.

If you only wanted pics up to say 1200x800 pixels from the full sensor then there wouldn't be much observable difference between the two but if you started to crop the pics then the differences would soon become obvious.

.
Click to expand...

Just to be pedantic, the 7D has a lot greater pixel density (5.4 MP/cm²) than the 400D (3.1 MP/cm²) which is the same as the 1D Mark IV :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Don't forget, that lenses play a bigger part in image quality (perceived) than camera bodies, per se.
 
And operator skill often plays a bigger part than either camera body or lens.
 
tdodd said:
And operator skill often plays a bigger part than either camera body or lens.
Click to expand...

True, up to a point...... silk purse - sow's ear springs to mind.

It's like how the Leica boys describe their lens's performance, while technically, they may not appear to be as good as some other manufactures lens's, they add a certain quality/depth to the image.
I wouldn't know, as my pockets aren't that deep....:shake:
I have certainly been able to see the differences with the lenses I have owned - again, the lens's I WANT are out of reach, financialy.
 
Howi said:
True, up to a point...... silk purse - sow's ear springs to mind.
Click to expand...

I think you're inferring post processing skill there. I was actually thinking first and foremost of photographic skill - things like lighting a scene properly, or reading the light well enough to know which shots work and which don't, exposing correctly, keeping shutter speed high enough to avoid shake and blur, not stopping down so far that diffraction takes its toll, opening up wide enough that a distracting background melts away. Then there's subject, composition, perspective and timing too. How about creative use of filters - ND filters, grads and polarisers? There is so much about photography that is nothing to do with the camera body, or the lens.

Personally I think that camera IQ is not top the the priority list compared to those other things - the talent and skill of the photographer. It's like TV programs - would you rather watch a great program in standard def or a rubbish one in high def? I'd prefer the quality to be in the content itself rather than the delivery of that content. Ideally I'd like both, but if I had to choose......

This topic reminds me of a phrase I saw quoted once - “Amateurs talk about cameras, pros talk about lenses, masters talk about light.” - unknown. Here am I still talking about cameras. :cuckoo:
 
Yes! I agree, there are a lot of factors that go to make up a great image, I was merely trying to point out that, all other things being equal, the lens itself can have a significant effect on perceived image quality, I think, more so than the body, which was where the original post started.
My main point was, that, it is the lens that projects the image onto the sensor and therefor more likely to affect directly what the sensor sees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top