Changing gear - did it REALLY make any difference?

Messages
972
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I have a D7200 and shoot a mixture of "things" though it tends to be mainly running events. Looking to "upgrade" to a D500 but can't find £1,500 plus reasons to see where it would make a difference to my images. Hobbyist, no sales involved. Has anyone changed cameras and been totally amazed at the improvement in their shots?
 
Messages
1,093
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
Moving from canon to Fuji slowed my photography down as the XPro1 just wasn’t anywhere near as fast as the 7D Mk2. In slowing down I improved so all I can take from it is that by getting (on paper at least) a worse camera, I improved my photography.

I then moved on to other X mounts and settled on the pro2. This is miles faster than the 7D2 and the image quality due to the Fuji glass is also much better.

I personally wouldn’t be convinced that a d500 would be much better than the d7200 on an image by image basis unless your losing shots to AF issues or need a little extra from the burst.
 
Messages
6,611
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#4
Moving from canon to Fuji slowed my photography down as the XPro1 just wasn’t anywhere near as fast as the 7D Mk2. In slowing down I improved so all I can take from it is that by getting (on paper at least) a worse camera, I improved my photography.

I then moved on to other X mounts and settled on the pro2. This is miles faster than the 7D2 and the image quality due to the Fuji glass is also much better.

I personally wouldn’t be convinced that a d500 would be much better than the d7200 on an image by image basis unless your losing shots to AF issues or need a little extra from the burst.
What glass did you have for the Canon?

I wouldn't say my 23/1.4 on the Fuji is better than my Canon 35L/1.4

The equivalent lens for the aperture for each mount they are all pretty even.
 
Messages
998
Edit My Images
No
#5
You need to list what is wrong with you're current images and what it is you think YOU are missing that would improve your images.

The D7200 was/is a good enthusiasts camera so is the D500 (its very good). You will certainly see an improvement is AF/speed etc but if they are not on your list of what needs improving then what is.

Sometimes buying a new bit of gear gives you enthusiasm and that enthusiasm is what improves your images. I always 'upgrade' and never regret it.
 
OP
OP
mossienet
Messages
972
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
I personally wouldn’t be convinced that a d500 would be much better than the d7200 on an image by image basis unless your losing shots to AF issues or need a little extra from the burst.
Exactly what I thought. Can't think of a lens either that will help in what I take. The 3 primes I have (35 50 85) cover just about every situation I encounter. Money saved.
 
Messages
6,611
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#8
You got to find what limits you are hitting with your current gear.

Are you after better detail and sharpness and resolution? Then going FF with a A7R2 or A7R3 or Canon 5DSR or Nikon D850.

If you are after high FPS then sure, go D500 or A9 or Canon 1Dxmk2 etc.

Are you after a smaller set up, how small do you want to go? M 4/3 or APSC Fuji? or Sony A6500?

I would suggest have a look what you shoot, what focal length that you shoot, pick the lens and find out what lens that body is on is best. If you love shooting planes at 600mm then don't get a Sony. If you just shoot photos of general stuff, static, family then honestly, they are all much of muchness.
 
Messages
1,093
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
What glass did you have for the Canon?

I wouldn't say my 23/1.4 on the Fuji is better than my Canon 35L/1.4

The equivalent lens for the aperture for each mount they are all pretty even.
I had the canon 35L/1.4 and it was sharp in the middle of the ap range but soft elsewhere. The Fuji 35f1.4 was just sharper all over all be it slow to focus.

My canon 10-24 (EFS) was also vasoline compared to the Fuji 10-24. The only lens range I would say was better on the canon was the 70-200L f4 IS vs the 55-200 although realistically the 70-200 is designed for full frame so the 50-140 would be the Fuji part. This however is in a whole different ball park to the 55-200 so it’s apples to oranges. Overall, the quality of the Fuji glass is better but you pay for it. Canon has some Uber glass though but to better the Fuji stuff your talking silly money.
 
Messages
6,611
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#10
I had the canon 35L/1.4 and it was sharp in the middle of the ap range but soft elsewhere. The Fuji 35f1.4 was just sharper all over all be it slow to focus.

My canon 10-24 (EFS) was also vasoline compared to the Fuji 10-24. The only lens range I would say was better on the canon was the 70-200L f4 IS vs the 55-200 although realistically the 70-200 is designed for full frame so the 50-140 would be the Fuji part. This however is in a whole different ball park to the 55-200 so it’s apples to oranges. Overall, the quality of the Fuji glass is better but you pay for it. Canon has some Uber glass though but to better the Fuji stuff your talking silly money.
You should have compared the Fuji 10-24 against the Canon 16-35L, that's the same focal length.
The Fuji 23 against the Canon 35.

I can post lots of photos between each on here and I challenge anyone to guess correctly which is which for every one. It is also natural that Canon high end glass cost more compare to Fuji, for one thing it is much more material being much larger, also it is also a faster glass. A Fuji 23/1.4 is not really technically speaking comparable to a Canon 35/1.4, that is more like Canon 35/2.0.

The bottomline is Fuji make some amazing glass, especially for the money. I am holding a 56/1.2 in my hand right now and it's a beautiful piece of glass, but at £850 you do pay for it, and to be fair, a Zeiss Batis 1.8 is the same price (less at the moment at £760) and arguably a better lens with IS built in. So pound for pound I would say Fuji glass are good, but not a bargain, it is in line for what you pay for.
 
Messages
1,656
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
I shoot both Canon and Fuji, and agree with Raymond in that Fuji isn't any better. For me, at best it might equal but in the main I always prefer my Canon full frame output. The Fuji I like to use, and it's a bit smaller with the mirrorless EVF features. Pretty much as soon as Canon release a decent FF mirrorless (and assuming it still supports EF lenses) I'll likely sell off my Fuji kit.

To answer the OP, if you are reaching the limits of your current gear (and you really have explored each area) then technically better kit will help as long as you utilise it fully.
 
Messages
5,399
Edit My Images
No
#12
I have a D7200 and shoot a mixture of "things" though it tends to be mainly running events. Looking to "upgrade" to a D500 but can't find £1,500 plus reasons to see where it would make a difference to my images. Hobbyist, no sales involved. Has anyone changed cameras and been totally amazed at the improvement in their shots?
Only time I really noticed is when I went from DX to FX to be honest.
 
Messages
5,331
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
Big difference for me is that I use it more. Going from a 7D2, grip, and a 150-600 sport, I changed to an X-T2, grip 100-400 & 1.4TC. It's lighter and just as good. What's more, I enjoy the external controls on the Fuji. I dumped the 6D and all my L glass, and brought a 2nd X-T2 and a few lenses,

I'm more than happy, I think the quality of my output has gone up, and I enjoy it more. But that's just me....
 
Messages
3,821
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
Changing to a lighter set up has made a world of difference for me, mainly because I take the camera out that much more
This is exactly what I was about to say. I take my xt2 out way more than my 5d mk2. I like to think that lenses are not that much different. I've not used the fuji 16-55 but liked my canon 24-70L. The three I use 16, 56 and 90 are amazing.
 
Messages
1,093
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
You should have compared the Fuji 10-24 against the Canon 16-35L, that's the same focal length.
The Fuji 23 against the Canon 35.

I can post lots of photos between each on here and I challenge anyone to guess correctly which is which for every one. It is also natural that Canon high end glass cost more compare to Fuji, for one thing it is much more material being much larger, also it is also a faster glass. A Fuji 23/1.4 is not really technically speaking comparable to a Canon 35/1.4, that is more like Canon 35/2.0.

The bottomline is Fuji make some amazing glass, especially for the money. I am holding a 56/1.2 in my hand right now and it's a beautiful piece of glass, but at £850 you do pay for it, and to be fair, a Zeiss Batis 1.8 is the same price (less at the moment at £760) and arguably a better lens with IS built in. So pound for pound I would say Fuji glass are good, but not a bargain, it is in line for what you pay for.
Your right that for the most part I was comparing what most say is apples to oranges but given 7D is a crop the same as the Fuji, the lenses quoted are the ones essentially as a like for like or as close as you are going to get.

The 85 canon is similar to the 56 Fuji in that respect just as the 23 is similar to the 35 but that’s full frame vs crop which I would hazard a guess would yeild far different results to the cropped canon offerings.
 
Messages
6,611
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#16
Your right that for the most part I was comparing what most say is apples to oranges but given 7D is a crop the same as the Fuji, the lenses quoted are the ones essentially as a like for like or as close as you are going to get.

The 85 canon is similar to the 56 Fuji in that respect just as the 23 is similar to the 35 but that’s full frame vs crop which I would hazard a guess would yeild far different results to the cropped canon offerings.
The problem with Canon APS-C lenses, or EF-S lenses is that they are "consumer" grade and frankly not their best, they save their best for the EF line or the L Glass. Whereas Fuji don't seem to make a lower consumer line, it's just 1 level of lenses which all sit above the standard of Canon EF-S lenses.
 
Messages
1,536
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
I changed from a bag full of lenses to a bag full of cameras, each with a different purpose. I use a Panasonic FZ1000 (blazing fast operation and 25-400) for almost everything everyday, a Nikon P900 small-sensor bridge for its insane reach (and purely at the long end), and my only remaining SLR is my beaten up D3100 with even more beaten up 30mm f/1.4 Sigma.

The little Siggy lens is a gem, properly imperfect and just right for wider-than-normal people shots with lovely bokeh fade. The 3100 and 30/1.4 is actually my lightest camera now!
 
Messages
13,361
Edit My Images
No
#19
I have a D7200 and shoot a mixture of "things" though it tends to be mainly running events. Looking to "upgrade" to a D500 but can't find £1,500 plus reasons to see where it would make a difference to my images. Hobbyist, no sales involved. Has anyone changed cameras and been totally amazed at the improvement in their shots?
I think with current cameras we have to move away from the thought that they're drastically going to improve our images but instead see them as tools that my give us a better chance of getting a shot, better hit rate, or even just more of a pleasure to use.

I've had the pleasure of using both the D7200 and D500 and there's little difference in the final image, except slightly improved noise performance at high ISO, but again nothing major. Where I did find the D500 a big improvement was in build, ergonomics, AF performance, viewfinder, frame rate, button placement and function. Whether these are worth the upgrade is down to the individual.

It's like me, I've just shelled out at £1.5k difference to swap to the D850 from the D750, am I going to see £1.5k difference in my images? Nope. Do I prefer the AF, viewfinder, buffer size, build, extra MP etc etc? Sure do :) It's 'worth' it to me for the enjoyment it brings. I work hard for a living (like I"m sure most do) and it's nice that that provides 'toys' to bring us enjoyment (y)
 
Messages
1,656
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
Big difference for me is that I use it more. Going from a 7D2, grip, and a 150-600 sport, I changed to an X-T2, grip 100-400 & 1.4TC. It's lighter and just as good. What's more, I enjoy the external controls on the Fuji. I dumped the 6D and all my L glass, and brought a 2nd X-T2 and a few lenses,

I'm more than happy, I think the quality of my output has gone up, and I enjoy it more. But that's just me....
Is the 7D2 Sigma combo not that great then? I tend to only use the 1.4x TC on the Fuji when shooting static stuff, it impacts the AF too much for me. Still use it at airshows though, as always need the reach!
 
Messages
1,093
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
The problem with Canon APS-C lenses, or EF-S lenses is that they are "consumer" grade and frankly not their best, they save their best for the EF line or the L Glass. Whereas Fuji don't seem to make a lower consumer line, it's just 1 level of lenses which all sit above the standard of Canon EF-S lenses.
That’s not what I am referring to. I’m referring to the canon L glass on a crop sensor gives the same specific focal range and ap as the Fuji so comparing the 35 canon to the 23 Fuji is pointless. The 35 Fuji and 35 canon should be the ones in the crosshairs of comparison.

So when comparing my 7D2 and the 35 to the Xpro2 and the 35 as a combo of products, the over all iQ is much better on the Fuji. Perhaps the software and colour is just better on the Fuji that gives it the edge in that department but as for sharpness, the Fuji is sharper through most of the ap range although that could be due to a poor copy of a canon 35.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,656
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
#23
That’s not what I am referring to. I’m referring to the canon L glass on a crop sensor gives the same specific focal range and ap as the Fuji so comparing the 35 canon to the 23 Fuji is pointless. The 35 Fuji and 35 canon should be the ones in the crosshairs of comparison.

So when comparing my 7D2 and the 35 to the Xpro2 and the 35 as a combo of products, the over all iQ is much better on the Fuji. Perhaps the software and colour is just better on the Fuji that gives it the edge in that department but as for sharpness, the Fuji is sharper through most of the ap range although that could be due to a poor copy of a canon 35.
Like I said, I shoot both Canon and Fuji together and don't see any particular difference except that I prefer FF over ASP-C but that is also the case just with Canon output.

My Canon crop doesn't really get used a lot any more, and as it is a 7D the X-T2 does have better ISO performance but it doesn't lack in sharpness at all. Mind you the Sigma 35mm is so much bigger than the Fuji 35mm! The Fuji 35mm is probably my favourite Fuji lens all said.

Edit: meant to also say that I mainly shoot people, sports, etc. I don't have any interest in landscapes but recognise that corner to corner sharpness is more critical there. I'll be shooting wide open most of the time and only stopped down for panning.
 
Last edited:
Messages
255
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
#25
My favourite camera was an Olympus OM2 with the 35/2.8 and 50/1.8 lenses. I got digital SLRs and the weight got ridiculous. I then bought a Leica M9 soon after it came out and have stuck to small and simple to operate cameras ever since, usually manual focus, but nothing is more important than good optics. Most of the time I use a Leica M10 with Leica 35/2 or Leica 50/1.4 ASPH, so back where I was 30 years ago with film. Otherwise I use a Leica Q. My kids and I have also use various Fuji, Voightlander and I bought a used A7R, with Fuji, Leica, Voightlander and Zeiss lenses. A fabulous combination that my son uses a lot is the A7R with a Zeiss 50/f2 ZM.

I could never imagine using a DSLR again. If I wanted a multi-lens auto-focus system I'd instantly go for the new Leica CL.
 

User.82148

Suspended / Banned
Messages
858
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
Moving from canon to Fuji slowed my photography down as the XPro1 just wasn’t anywhere near as fast as the 7D Mk2. In slowing down I improved so all I can take from it is that by getting (on paper at least) a worse camera, I improved my photography.

I then moved on to other X mounts and settled on the pro2. This is miles faster than the 7D2 and the image quality due to the Fuji glass is also much better.

I personally wouldn’t be convinced that a d500 would be much better than the d7200 on an image by image basis unless your losing shots to AF issues or need a little extra from the burst.
Interesting, what do you mean by miles faster?
 
Messages
13,862
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#27
50mm/1.4



They all do the same thing, and depends what you do, each does the same thing.
I would much prefer to handhold the one on the left. The right one probably isn't too bad but the middle one just looks painful for the grip.
 
Messages
758
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
No
#28
Upgrading to D500 for your purposes may not see any huge difference. I'd say the files output from D500 may be better than D7200, AF system and overall performance of the camera. Assuming you are not doing wildlife with D500, perhaps you would be better with D800 or D810 given the FF sensor and the used price saturating the market now.
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015
Messages
7,655
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
Has anyone changed cameras and been totally amazed at the improvement in their shots?
Not so much changed as added to and not totally amazed but an incremental improvment. I bought a S/H 7Dii body for it's AF ability because I wanted to snap my son playing rugbyand already had reasonable Canon lenses. It made a it a lot easier to track the action and so upped the number of keepers but then I end up binning a lot of them anyway just because I don't need 20 shots of the same piay :)
 
Messages
3,465
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
Moved system from Olympus m4/3 to Fuji. The vastly improved (to me) ergonomics of the Fuji allowed me to concentrate on the subject rather than trying to remember what function I'd assigned to which button. After that I found it easier to process the raw files, in Lightroom, to my liking.
 

GTG

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,795
Edit My Images
Yes
#31
No, makes no difference much going from high quality body to high quality body.

Different to use and different capabilities but the final pics will look about the same
 
Messages
3,408
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#33
Indirectly - Yes.

Switching from Canon to Fuji was a breath of fresh air. I felt like I was holding a camera and not a soul-less lump of plastic. I can could all the important stuff without glasses-on-glasses-off to read menus. It's just so easy to use. Having a camera that I enjoyed using meant I got out more and took more photos. And that invariably improved my photography.
 
Messages
19,290
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#34
Has anyone changed cameras and been totally amazed at the improvement in their shots?
Not initially but after time looking at the pictures probably yes and especially at the higher ISO's.

The main thing I did was move from DSLR's to mirrorless and now I'd never go back and despite comments above I'd carry my A7 and a prime all day and all night before I'd carry a DSLR for 5 minutes :D
 
Messages
1,275
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#35
Im amazed how much thinking people put into the capabilities of their gear and how little they consider abilities and significance of the 10" behind the viewfinder
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,104
Edit My Images
No
#36
I couldn't shoot action with an Leica M10 well enough (mostly meaning, without stress) for professional needs, I bought an A9 and my output has improved significantly that I have more shots to use.

Maybe I just needed more practice, but I don't have time to get that good with manual focus.
 
Last edited:
Messages
20,048
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
Has anyone changed cameras and been totally amazed at the improvement in their shots?
yes every time I upgrade to the latest camera I see an improvement to my work.. fact! But then again i shoot in extremely bad conditions so every new camera usually means better capabilities :)

Equipment does count.. don't believe the myth :)
 
Messages
5,066
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
#38
Nope. I love new gear, but I still need more practice to see the shot before activating the shutter.

Sport and wildlife might provide the exception.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
31,543
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#39
Did it make a difference when I exchanged a D800 for a Fuji X-Pro1? You bet it did! I used the Fuji more in the first month of ownership than I had used the D800 over the whole time I owned it! For massive prints, I'm sure the D800 would be better but for my wants/needs, the Fujis suit me far better. I have expanded the Fuji kit and while the newer bodies haven't improved my photography (or made much difference to it), they have made getting good results easier. Their better high ISO/low light capabilities mean I can shoot at a higher shutter speed if necessary while remaining relatively "quiet".
 
Messages
255
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
#40
Im amazed how much thinking people put into the capabilities of their gear and how little they consider abilities and significance of the 10" behind the viewfinder
Most modern digital cameras are designed to be able to do pretty much anything. I went to a talk a few years ago by a Canon in house professional, mostly about commercial product photography and a bit of fashion. It was so technical, multiple remote flash and that sort of thing, that I hardly understood a word.

I have no idea with all the bells and whistles on cameras these days. I found the A7R too complicated. The Leica M cameras are uniquely "less is more" and, for me, they do everything and meet my requirements of practicality and simplicity. I only wish I could have afforded the lenses 30 years ago.

The real gamechanger if using Leica M is that the technology does not take over, there is little to think about (compared to film, only ISO), and you do mostly use the 10" behind the viewfinder. But that it how photography was 30 years ago.

I tend to use the Leica Q on fully automatic, but it defaults to f/1.7. This is not a problem in terns of image quality, but I like to control DoF.
 
Top