Does camera body affect image quality?

Paul Jenkin · Dec 2, 2008

All a camera body is, IMO, is a light-tight box with a metering device, a mount for the lens and a film advance mechanism. The metering device probably has most effect on your photos. The metering in the Olympus OM2n I owned years ago is probably the best I've ever experienced. That said, I used it A LOT and became very used to how it would react in given lighting conditions.

I feel lucky to be able to afford a few cameras. However, if I were on a really tight budget, I'd buy the cheapest body that would do what I wanted it to do (in terms of shutter speed range / metering) and then spend the most I could on lenses. In my experience, lenses make more of a difference to the photo than the body - and you'll probably keep them for longer than a body.

Q.G. · Dec 2, 2008

Paul Jenkin said:
All a camera body is, IMO, is a light-tight box with a metering device, a mount for the lens and a film advance mechanism. The metering device probably has most effect on your photos.

Let's see.

There's measurements to start with:
The film gate needs to sit at the correct distance from the lens, within a few hundredths of a mm.
The lens mount and the film plane need to be absolutely parallel.
The lens to film distance needs to be exactly the same as the lens to focussing screen distance.
The film gate and focussing screen need to be aligned laterally.

Then there are the moving bits:
The mirror needs to return into the exact position (within those hundredths of a mm again) every single time it moves up and down again.
The shutter must work, be precise, and not bounce.
Diaphragm, mirror, and shutter need to be synchronized properly.
Film transport must be regular (frame spacing) and smooth (mechanical damage to the film).
The film (also a moving bit) must be put and kept in the same position exactly, again and again.
And the electronic or mechanical thingy (depending on the particular camera) that will be timing the exposure must work, and keep working.

You will want to see a large, bright and easy to focus viewfinder image too. So the optics of the viewing system must be up to scratch too.
Particularly important if the metering electronics also use the viewfinder optics.

I will have forgotten one or two things. And more can be said about the things i have mentioned.

But apart from that, no, a camera has very little effect on the quality of the images it produces...
Believe that, and you'll believe anything.

Excalibur2 · Dec 3, 2008

Q.G. said:
Let's see.

There's measurements to start with:
The film gate needs to sit at the correct distance from the lens, within a few hundredths of a mm.
The lens mount and the film plane need to be absolutely parallel.
The lens to film distance needs to be exactly the same as the lens to focussing screen distance.
The film gate and focussing screen need to be aligned laterally.

Then there are the moving bits:
The mirror needs to return into the exact position (within those hundredths of a mm again) every single time it moves up and down again.
The shutter must work, be precise, and not bounce.
Diaphragm, mirror, and shutter need to be synchronized properly.
Film transport must be regular (frame spacing) and smooth (mechanical damage to the film).
The film (also a moving bit) must be put and kept in the same position exactly, again and again.
And the electronic or mechanical thingy (depending on the particular camera) that will be timing the exposure must work, and keep working.

You will want to see a large, bright and easy to focus viewfinder image too. So the optics of the viewing system must be up to scratch too.
Particularly important if the metering electronics also use the viewfinder optics.

I will have forgotten one or two things. And more can be said about the things i have mentioned.

But apart from that, no, a camera has very little effect on the quality of the images it produces...
Believe that, and you'll believe anything.

Well I've been buying lenses off the bay and getting some cameras thrown in, so far in 6 months have MTL3, two canon av1s, two canon T70s, OM10 and OM20, T90, FTb..........three P&S Nikon, Canon, and Minolta for £1 each from boot sales........and they all take excellent pics so it can't be that difficult to get it right.....whether you can see the difference in say a 5X7" print from a spot on manufactured body to a one that is very close (because it's worn or cheaply made) is debatable, as in theory there must be a difference.

Pete H · Dec 3, 2008

Everyone seems to be discussing technicalities here. What about ergonomics, feel, what you are comfortable with? I have had a couple of Canons (7E, 1V) and just never felt comfortable with them. On the other hand, all the Contaxes I have ever used (RTS III, Aria, G2, 645) sit very naturally in my hands and all the controls are exactly where I want them. Of course this is subjective, but I notice that I get significantly more keepers from cameras that feel right.

dvanlondon · Dec 3, 2008

I think people have it right - image quality is less of an issue within the realm of relatively modern, relatively well-kept bodies. I guess it comes down to 'extras' (metering, flash sync, blah-blah), personal taste, and, at least as important in my view, ergonomics. It doesn't strictly effect image quality, but in an indirect way, if a camera is good in the hand and intuitive to change settings, you're more likely to get the shot you want...

removed account4 · Dec 3, 2008

i have a 27 year old pentax k1000,
my first 35mm camera ... new it was 120$ with
a 50mm f2 lens. it not a high end body.
it works as any other 35mm camera i have ( i think i have 2 others )

worry about seeing, and your glass
i wouldn't worry too much about the body ...
unless, of course, you have a camera body fetish.
in that case, enjoy!

keithwms · Dec 3, 2008

Well then I guess I have a camera body fetish

I simply find certain things much easier to accomplish with different gear. When I am in the "camera is just a box" mode then I use LF. Refreshing, but not something I want to do all the time.

I'll just conclude by saying that I don't think that appreciation of gear and photographic vision are mutually exclusive! I am a certifiable gearnut. Avid reader of MTF charts. Measurbator. Whatever you wanna call it. So what, I have no vision? I think I have some modicum of vision. It's not like I keep my gear in velvet boxes.

I enjoy adapting gear to the purpose at hand, and thereby trying new things. I do not enjoy p&s style fully-automated photography, and too often people make the assumption that if you are a gearhead like me then you necessarily like full automation. Not at all. I simply like whatever gets the shots that I want for the least expense and least fuss. Whether that's a cambo 8x10 or my 2mp blackberry camera phone, I just don't care.

The danger of being me is that the gear starts to fill your house. I now have two rooms that are completely unnavigable because of 25 camera outfits and such. I know that I should sell some stuff but I really appreciate the designs of these things and it'd be like selling children. What cameras I have sold I now miss terribly! Oh well.

Andy K · Dec 3, 2008

Absolutely a camera body makes a difference to image quality.

I find I get vastly superior images when using a camera body which holds film.

Paul Jenkin · Dec 6, 2008

Q.G. said:
Let's see.

There's measurements to start with:
The film gate needs to sit at the correct distance from the lens, within a few hundredths of a mm.
The lens mount and the film plane need to be absolutely parallel.
The lens to film distance needs to be exactly the same as the lens to focussing screen distance.
The film gate and focussing screen need to be aligned laterally.

Then there are the moving bits:
The mirror needs to return into the exact position (within those hundredths of a mm again) every single time it moves up and down again.
The shutter must work, be precise, and not bounce.
Diaphragm, mirror, and shutter need to be synchronized properly.
Film transport must be regular (frame spacing) and smooth (mechanical damage to the film).
The film (also a moving bit) must be put and kept in the same position exactly, again and again.
And the electronic or mechanical thingy (depending on the particular camera) that will be timing the exposure must work, and keep working.

You will want to see a large, bright and easy to focus viewfinder image too. So the optics of the viewing system must be up to scratch too.
Particularly important if the metering electronics also use the viewfinder optics.

I will have forgotten one or two things. And more can be said about the things i have mentioned.

But apart from that, no, a camera has very little effect on the quality of the images it produces...
Believe that, and you'll believe anything.

Yep, there's an awful lot to making a camera work properly. However, as most manufacturers do a good job making their consumer models (Nikon F65, F75 etc...) the main differences between those cameras and the F5 and F6, as far as the image is concerned, is the photographer holding it rather than the camera itself.

There are lots of examples that demonstrate that a pinhole camera in the right hands can produce better images than the most expensive professional kit being used by someone less gifted / experienced.

Paul

uwphotoer · Dec 6, 2008

Pete H said:
Everyone seems to be discussing technicalities here. What about ergonomics, feel, what you are comfortable with?

I would have to agree, the easier the camera is to handle in YOUR hands the more you will want to use it.....

But I must also say, about 18 years ago I had a customer at the camera store, where I ran the photo lab, do some testing on some of the high end Canon auto focus SLR cameras. His complaint was that even when working on a tripod the mirror slap actually shook the camera enough to make the image soft..... enough for him to not buy it, actually her returned it..... sure wish I could remember which camera it was...... but then again he was comparing it to images shot with his R series Leica, which he had to do to eliminate my enlarger lens......

uwphotoer · Dec 6, 2008

Paul Jenkin said:
There are lots of examples that demonstrate that a pinhole camera in the right hands can produce better images than the most expensive professional kit being used by someone less gifted / experienced.

Paul

As I always told students, know the limitations of your equipment and work within them. I have taken many a good photo with a disposable camera......

Marco S. · Dec 10, 2008

Thanks to all who replied... It's appreciated. I still would like the 1N, something about the plastic film guides/rails in the 7E that bug the heck out of me. I'm probably crazy and that's fine, as I don't think that matters much.

nicefor88 · May 3, 2009

Yes if the metering is bad or if there's any problem with essential parts (shutter, speed settings, compensation).
It's the lens that matters. You have a great lens then you may take sharp pictures with lots of detail.

Does camera body affect image quality?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency