Latest gear vs software updates

[LongLensPhotography]

The new gear gets all the excitement and brings some notable improvements. However, I somewhat feel that the little incremental updates the wonderful people at Adobe (and presumably elsewhere!) bring out carry far more weight at least in my line of work.

1. Noise. My camera is the same, but there is less and less of it visible after updates, even if I go back to the same RAW files!

2. Dynamic range, colours. Same here. It may be is not as straightforward, but say if you are willing to fire a couple frames you have almost limitless potential. Plastic fantastic grad filters can be replaced and sent into the trash can for good. The photoshop Auto-align feature is an absolute killer. I can stack, merge and combine with easy now. Only a small shift would be a major headache a few years back.

3. Resolution. That's the difficult one to decide. Panorama is easier than ever to do. Upscale and AI algorithms seem to get far more out of an image, but is it the same as getting your latest Sony or MF? If you can already do a decent 36x24" print do you need much more???

4. The rest. I know it won't enable Video features like autofocus on mine, but it sort of can give you RAW using Magic Lantern hack. It won't even enable auto-ISO exposure compensation or exposure + flash bracketing at the same time (that's covered by (2) though)

I know just the latest Adobe won't make my 5D mk3 into Sony A7RIII, since the latter is getting the same boost. But it sure makes it into 5D mk3++ for sure.

Please discuss.

 

[Retune]

I just need to upgrade the software in my brain to take better photos.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I just need to upgrade the software in my brain to take better photos.

That too. The photographer is certainly the limiting factor in many aspects.

 

[Cagey75]

This is why I say it doesn't matter what gear I use in general, I'm going to PP the images the same way. LR is just as important as any other gear. Of course you have to make the picture happen first, that should go without saying, but your eyes alone aint getting it into Lightroom are they?

 

[Phil V]

This just supports the simple view that the camera is about the least important ingredient in most great images, always was.

Makes all those camera bashing threads look as ridiculous as they actually are! And the fanboys who tantrum because everyone doesn’t bow down to agree about their chosen ‘superior’ brand.

 

[decigallen]

It's a balance of both camera and PP software for me. A lot of my shooting wouldn't have been possible on my D700 with Lightroom 1 back in 2008. I fully utilise the dynamic range on modern sensors but also use the latest iteration of LR for many of it's PP perks that have now become invaluable. I'm always thinking of the strengths and weaknesses of both the camera and the software when I shoot.

 

[sirch]

I tend to agree with @decigallen, the camera plus software is a system and whilst you can upgrade parts of the system individually there is a point at which one part is so far behind the current state-of-the-art that it needs to be brought up to the same level as the rest to get the most from the system.

 

[nandbytes]

I know just the latest Adobe won't make my 5D mk3 into Sony A7RIII, since the latter is getting the same boost. But it sure makes it into 5D mk3++ for sure.

Please discuss.

But that applies to A7RIII too, with latest Adobe you'd have A7RIII++

Also no software can make up for things like a good AF tracking system. Whatever you do in software 5D4 is still a better camera in terms of AF, buffer etc. Can't make up for that in software.

I get the feeling this thread will go down the path of arguing for computational photography. No amount of computation can get you the optical reach. That's one place where phones today can't compete.

 

[Canon Bob]

....... No amount of computation can get you the optical reach.......

I'm far less synical about this having tried AIGigapixel from Topaz Labs. Certainly it's not the answer to every situation that needs a longer lens but there are occasions when it'll outperform a teleconverter (especially the one that you left at home).
It's not there yet and sometimes screws up but it's shown that such things aren't pie in the sky.

 

[Andrew Moore]

This just supports the simple view that the camera is about the least important ingredient in most great images, always was.

Makes all those camera bashing threads look as ridiculous as they actually are! And the fanboys who tantrum because everyone doesn’t bow down to agree about their chosen ‘superior’ brand.

I've liked this post not because I agree but because deep down I know we all should.

Are my photos any better on my xpro2 with 56mm f1.2 APD than on a shocking beat up old canon 5D with 85f1.8? Not really no..

 

[Raymond Lin]

This just supports the simple view that the camera is about the least important ingredient in most great images, always was.

100%

Makes all those camera bashing threads look as ridiculous as they actually are! And the fanboys who tantrum because everyone doesn’t bow down to agree about their chosen ‘superior’ brand.

However, this would only be true of the camera in question exists in a vacuum. In a vacuum, any camera will be the best camera. But when there are more than 1 camera exists then comparisons will be made, hence one can be superior to another.

 

[nandbytes]

I'm far less synical about this having tried AIGigapixel from Topaz Labs. Certainly it's not the answer to every situation that needs a longer lens but there are occasions when it'll outperform a teleconverter (especially the one that you left at home).
It's not there yet and sometimes screws up but it's shown that such things aren't pie in the sky.

I have tried it too and its great to be honest (possibly best I have come across). Also Sony's basic digital zoom does a pretty decent job sometimes of upscaling and has been doing so for many years. So perhaps not pie in the sky but still a fair many years off being to replace a good FF+teleprime combo.

 

[Phil V]

100%



However, this would only be true of the camera in question exists in a vacuum. In a vacuum, any camera will be the best camera. But when there are more than 1 camera exists then comparisons will be made, hence one can be superior to another.

Of course one camera can be superior to another, but no superior camera ever took an amazing photograph.

 

[decigallen]

I've liked this post not because I agree but because deep down I know we all should.

Are my photos any better on my xpro2 with 56mm f1.2 APD than on a shocking beat up old canon 5D with 85f1.8? Not really no..

A well-exposed/composed photo on a new camera won't be much better than one on an old camera, that much is true. But a newer camera will make it easier to take a good photo in many respects - especially when it comes to focus. And if you like to fully utilise the extremes of dynamic range (as I do) the modern camera will wipe the floor with the older one. Could I take good photos with a D700? Yes, but I couldn't shoot in the style I currently do, and no software will fix that for me.