Beginner Will a new camera give better results

Alistair Wells

Alistair Wells

Messages
73
Name
AliWELLS1
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I currently own a fujifilm 16 megapixel camera. With my birthday quickly approaching. I have been looking at cameras in the "prosumer" category such as the nikon d200 And canon 40d. If I were to get one of these would you say it would really improve my pictures. Regards, Alistair
 
With practice yes. I mean, you could buy an entry level DSLR and see no improvements in your photography. Or you could use it as a tool to learn about photography - and as you learn, so your images may become more ascetic.
 
Hi

You don't mention how you process the images now, I owned the Canon 40D I thought it was very competent and ISO at 1600 for me was fine.

It's less pixels but I have printed super A3 no problem battery life was good and had good frame rate if you like sports.

Cheers
 
This is probably a daft answer but 'it depends'. I don't know what type of photography you are interested in (if any particular type at all) and so I think that whether a new camera would help depends on what you mean by 'improve' your pictures. If your camera does not do what you need it to do (eg focus quickly and accurately for moving subjects and you like photographing moving subjects or use high iso if you photograph in dark places) the answer is likely to be 'yes' if the newer camera is better than your old camera for that particular aspect. In general terms however a new camera will not make your photography better but it will sometimes make it easier to take photographs that are at least in focus or print larger. I had a d200 which was a great camera, used a d300 and now am using a full frame camera and am still rubbish. The camera upgrades have not made my photos any better, but have made it easier for me to take rubbish photos.
 
Last edited:
The short answer is that, all other things being equal, no, it will not appreciably improve your photographs.
What it will do, is allow you more options and more creative latitude (and possibly more convenience). Ask yourself in what ways are you limited by your current camera? What walls are you hitting in your vision of what your photography should be? If you can't answer those questions with specific examples, then it is unlikely that the camera itself with improve your photography.
If you can answer those questions then you already know the answer to your question, and you know what features to look for in an upgrade.
"Better" cameras don't take better pictures (as long as we're talking about decent cameras made by reputable companies, which it appears we are), they just provide better options.

Don't upgrade just for the naked sake of having a "better" camera. You'll just become disillusioned when you find it takes exactly the same pictures you were taking on your fujifilm.

What do you want from a new camera?
 
Last edited:
This is from a Canon 40D, 5D and G11 (P&S) shooter.
It depends on what you are shooting, and your skill level.
Keep in mind a DSLR may be a lot more responsive and have better focussing (possibly lens dependant) than the camera you are using now.
They can be configured, at a $$$, to be to almost perfect camera no matter what the shooting situation.
What were you mostly wanting to shoot?
 
Thanks for all your responses. Really helpful. To be honest, mostly I will be shooting motorsports and aircraft. Cheers, Alistair
 
I shoot a bit of motor sport.
Providing your technique is OK -
For static subjects, in reasonable lighting, you won't notice a lot of difference.
For static subjects in low light, you will notice a huge diifference in IQ, when you cannot shoot long exposures.

For action (racing) you will notice a lot of difference - The responsiveness makes it a lot easier to capture moments and the improved focussing speed and accuracy (lens dependant) will mean a lot more keepers.
 
Last edited:
Alistair Wells said:
Thanks for all your responses. Really helpful. To be honest, mostly I will be shooting motorsports and aircraft. Cheers, Alistair
Click to expand...
Hi Alistair, then the answer is undoubtedly yes.
But: lenses get expensive quickly, and a decent lens for rallying (70-200 2.8) isn't really long enough for aircraft (100-400 / 500) and each of those lenses will cost more than a decent starter camera.

I still have a 40d and it's a great camera for motorsports on a budget (the high ISO performance is showing it's age), you could get hold of a 70-200 f4 (which will be great until you get to an early morning stage in November) and a 1.4 extender as a really good quality starter kit, but this stuff is expensive and you'll soon be wanting better and longer lenses for the aircraft.
 
Which Fujifilm camera is it? The X-T1 is a 16.3MP camera and IME beats the Nikon D200 hands down with both hands tied behind its back! Not just in terms of IQ but AF speed and accuracy, handling and several other aspects (not least of which is weight and size!)

If it's a bridge or compact you have, then pretty much any DSLR will give better results. As Phil has hinted, good lenses will not be cheap and for your wants/needs, you'll be better off with good lenses rather than "consumer" grade, although the Sigma 150-500 will do the airshows reasonably well with practise.
 
Alistair Wells said:
Hi, I currently own a fujifilm 16 megapixel camera. With my birthday quickly approaching. I have been looking at cameras in the "prosumer" category such as the nikon d200 And canon 40d. If I were to get one of these would you say it would really improve my pictures. Regards, Alistair
Click to expand...

Would a new smartphone right now improve what you say to someone better than the old brick phone?
Would a new car right now improve your driving better than your grandfather's car?
Would a new cooker improve your cooking better than one of those old fashion stoves?
Would a computer (with the autocorrect, grammar and spelling check, etc., turned off) improve your attempts to write a novel better then a pen?

No. Technology only makes things easer and faster, but it is still you who improves how you do things.

The way you talk to your girlfriend (or whoever) is no different if you have a old phone or new phone. Just because you asked a girl, using a new phone, out on a date and she says yes, don't mean it was the phone that helped make it work. If you used an old phone, and asked her out, and she says yes, it is how you asked her out, not the phone, that helped.
Some people could cook a more better meal over an old fashion stove that others who thinks a microwave, being the future of cooking, is supposed to magically make a better dinner.

Whatever new camera you buy would only give you a little more advantage over the old one, like extra shooting speed, faster auto-focus, better ISO range, more settings than your old camera had, but it is still you, and you alone, who can only improve your own pictures, because although the camera could freeze an action photography faster than your old one thanks to the extra shutter speed, it is still you who knows when it the right moment to press the shutter button.

A new camera will just give you more options, and with those extra options, you can be more creative, but your photography skills will improve over time by yourself.

To prove a point: I had a Minolta X-700 manual focus film camera, and sometimes some of my photos are out of focus, now I have a Nikon auto-focus digital camera, yet a few of my photos are still out of focus. So that means the new AF camera did not improve my photography, it is still me who have to improve my skills.

And happy birthday, whatever camera you buy, enjoy it, just remember not to blame the camera if it don't help you get better photos, it is just a tool, but it could offer you more options.

I also agree with ghoti's posting up there.
 
Now I'm getting the picture. However, when you talk about quality of lenses. Because of my small price range. I'm looking at things like tamron lenses. Will this keep image quality up?
 
Depends which Tamron, also keep in mind it is more than just IQ.
It is your skills as well as how quick and acurately the lens focuses.

I had a Tamron 18-200 and wasn't too impressed with it, although when I owned it my skills were pretty rusty.
I also own a Tamron 18-250 and I think it is OK. However it I havn't used it for motor sport or quick moving subjects (birds in flight) . It meets my needs for web publishing and smaller prints - Say up to A4 (~10x8)
 
Major Eazy said:
Would a new smartphone right now improve what you say to someone better than the old brick phone?
Click to expand...

Yep, better signal, noise cancelling technology, etc

Major Eazy said:
Would a new car right now improve your driving better than your grandfather's car?
Click to expand...

Yep, easier to control, power steering, etc

Major Eazy said:
Would a new cooker improve your cooking better than one of those old fashion stoves?
Click to expand...

Yep, better temperature control

Major Eazy said:
Would a computer (with the autocorrect, grammar and spelling check, etc., turned off) improve your attempts to write a novel better then a pen?
Click to expand...

Yep, far easier to edit not to mention the RSI from handwriting a novel :p

Any more silly analogies? ;-)
 
It's very difficult to say what will or won't be better (not necessarily take better photos mind) without knowing what you have now and what you intend to spend!!
 
Broric said:
Yep, easier to control, power steering, etc
Click to expand...

Which only made you become more of a lazy driver, expecting modern cars to improve your driving skills because they steer better, brake better, etc. It does not, it is you and you alone who improves your skills. The more you drive in either an old car or a modern car, the more your skills improve. The more you take photos with an older camera or a new camera, the more you improve your photography.
 
Alistair Wells said:
Now I'm getting the picture. However, when you talk about quality of lenses. Because of my small price range. I'm looking at things like tamron lenses. Will this keep image quality up?
Click to expand...

A Tamron lens will be fine, as do any other well known brands like Sigma, etc., as well as the camera manufacturer's own, any will offer good quality.

However, if you see a lens but have never heard of the brand name, or if it is far too cheap, and if you're not sure, then don't buy it.
 
How about considering second hand stuff if you are on a tight budget too?
 
I keep telling myself that I need to upgrade my 400D to a 6D for FF, better ISO and HD video. I've almost come around to the idea now and it's only been a week or so. :)

Will I end up with better photos too? I hope so.
 
If you do go for it and make the leap to a Canon DSLR, try to avoid the EF-S lenses just in case some point further down the line you decide to spend more and get a FF, full frame, body. As far as I'm aware the EF-S lenses do not fit the FF bodies.
 
Major Eazy... I get what you're saying (and why) - and I don't disagree with it in so many cases. BUT... there simply isn't a single uniform "YES" or "NO" answer to the question - because it depends.

If Alastair is reaching the absolute limits of his current equipment then his ability to improve further is constrained. But we don't really know if that's the case.

What we can say is that no matter what the kit, the most reliable way of improving is to get out and take more photos. And, to be honest, this can be where kit sometimes does comes into it... if you don't actually want to go and take the photos, you're less likely to and your improvement will slow down. If you have enthusiasm, excitement and a continuing desire to get out and snap then that's great. If a "new toy" delivers that, then perhaps that is a valid answer for that scenario?

Everything else being, better kit will only give you more options and flexibility (except in the weight stakes). Of course, this can actually be disadvantageous for the very inexperienced because they don't know what variables they should be changing.

But then we know the "everything else being equal" bit is unrealistic, because it never is...
 
Nod said:
Which Fujifilm camera is it? The X-T1 is a 16.3MP camera and IME beats the Nikon D200 hands down with both hands tied behind its back! Not just in terms of IQ but AF speed and accuracy, handling and several other aspects (not least of which is weight and size!)
Click to expand...
Having both the X-T1 and D200, I can tell you this simply isn't true. The D200 keeps up with the later Fuji very well in most areas, it only when you look at higher iso and the use of cheaper lenses with the D200 that you notice the Fuji is better. I have some landscape shots of the same subjects taken with my D200 and Tamron 17-50 and my X-T1 and 18-55 lens ( at about 90mm). The Nikon shots look nicer even though the Fuji has much better resolution at a pixel level.
But, as you say, the Fuji is so much lighter to carry around and less intrusive. Problem is, Fuji don't yet do a 400 or 500mm lens, which would be useful for photographing aircraft, the Fuji will be perfect for motorsports though as many people will testify.
Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top