The discussion of expensive versus lower-budget gear is age-old and well-covered. However, it's always worth reminding yourself of just how much you can achieve with your images without buying the latest and greatest cameras. And what better way than to look at images from the same shoot with a cheap and an expensive cared, side-by-side.
I have seen more comparisons of cheap and expensive cameras than I could possibly remember. The message is generally the same: expensive is better in most regards, but the difference (for most applications) is negligible. In this video, Nigel Danson puts the images to his followers to see which they prefer, and as you might expect at this point, it is far from cut and dry.
The most important point in this video, and one that is seldom made in this sort of discussion, comes at the end. One of the chief differences between a cheap and expensive camera is the user experience. The most modern and expensive cameras come with all the mod cons and design improvements the last decade or so have provided and many of them are superb quality of life improvements.
I still have older DSLRs that I am still yet to sell and use on occasion. The difference between the images of an older DSLR and my modern mirrorless bodies isn't night and day — I could certainly conduct a shoot with either and get good results — but the user experience is far worse.
What do you think is the main difference between expensive and cheaper cameras?
This looks very interesting but I won’t get to know.
I don’t really like watching videos of things that would be better delivered as a written article with illustrations.
Has everyone forgotten how to write these days?
Videos are tedious and boring, most people can read much faster than someone can talk.
And I am not always in the mood to watch a video or sometimes, I just want to read something quickly, e.g. during a lunchbreak or waiting for a conference to start. A video forces me (more or less) to follow the speed of the presenter.
It’s a YouTube channel, the whole point of having a YouTube channel is to create video content…. Why do people like you have so much trouble understanding this simple concept?
It's an article by Robert Baggs about a video but Nigel Damson. Also, it's clickbaity- the article itself just directs you to something else. This is not a YouTube site and the video is not even associated with the site.
Just don’t click on the article if you don’t like it… Jesus you people make out like fstoppers are holding a gun to your head to click on the article. It’s clear that they are linking a video without clicking on the article itself. It’s like some kind of internet self harming that you people are doing.
But you don't know that it's just a video until you go into it!
You aren’t very perceptive then are you, there is a clear ‘play’ button logo on the top left of the thumbnail that indicates the article is presenting a video for us to watch.
I hope your skills of perception are slightly better when you’re using a camera, if you even own one.
I think I figured out why folks are constantly complaining about videos in articles. In places outside of this site (eg, social media, etc), the thumbnails do not have the play button/icon on them. Twitter for example: https://twitter.com/fstoppers Notice the play button is absent in all the thumbnails, so for people that are alergic to videos, they get a little irate.
Allergic to videos, like that one, lol.
100% agree with Graham.
Didn’t watch either. Expensive camera better weather sealing, more mega pixels, full frame so better in low light. These are not absolutely true, but they tend to be true.
To be more true to a real life situation, let's compare the cameras with the types of people who would own them. Let's have a show down between a university student with the cheap camera and a seasoned professional with the expensive one. Then, show us the results.
What, pray tell, do you think that will tell you? That sounds like the kind of idea that comes from someone who enjoys humiliating youth. I could see having a pro versus a student with an a1, or even better have them both use something cheap and basic, and see how they do, but taking away both the quality of equipment and experience doesn't leave much of a comparison.
Because I said "true to life."
I just saw an article that pitted a pro with a cheap camera vs. a beginner with an expensive one. Ok, I saw the title. I didn't read it to find out the outcome.
It would be easy and meaningful comparison, if I get my hands on the full res files (at least JPEG), and then see on my 34 inch monitor.
Now go out for sunrise in April with loads of colors around and shoot with sun in the frame and then we can talk.. Landscape with few colours on overcast day... You can compare smartphone to your camera in those conditions... Not much of a color depth, dynamic range, higher ISO..
So what are you really comparing?
No surprise - the D3300 still makes very nice images. Some of the comments about handling are very specific to that particular camera, however. My ancient Pentax K-5 DSLR has a Live View mode that is nearly identical to my mirrorless m43 Olympus screens, histogram and all. Both feature IBIS, both are 16mp. Neither of them are in the same league as a Z7. Neither is something like an older Fujifilm xt-2 or x-pro1. I think the differences between mirrorless and DSLR are oversold, especially for something like landscape work. Try shooting 4x5 for a few frames!
Actually, when it comes to "user experience" i prefer dslr. Its funny how this video (i assume based on the opening frame - i don't watch vids) compares top of the line mirrorless camera to an absolute junk of dslr - for a credibility sake, could you compare apples to apples?
--- "for a credibility sake, could you compare apples to apples?"
That's not what this exercise was about. Oh, wait, you didn't watch the video so you wouldn't have known. On top of that, the first paragraph of the article explains the gist of it also. smh
What was that exercise about? If you want to compare a dslr to mirrorless than you should compare equivalent equipment from both, smh. Lol. Its if someone would try to compare d6 to early sony alpha cameras to advocate superiority of dslr's, so you can 'smh' all you want 🤣
I too am sick and tired of clicking on an ARTICLE, only to be told I have to go watch a video. I like Fstoppers but their habit of redirecting folks to a video, sucks.
Putting user experience aside, better cameras only make a difference around the margins of photography that require the best performance. Low light, good autofocus, frame rate, minimal depth-of-field, maximum resolution, etc.
If a subject is relatively static, in good light, differences in are quite minimal.