Do you Need an Expensive Camera?
Canon 400d | Original Photography 
It's something you hear all the time as a photographer, or even just as someone who owns a camera. 'It's not about the camera, it's about the photographer'. But is it really? Today I want to have a more in-depth look at this statement, and establish if it's actually true.
I have thought about this question many times before... Is it really just about the photographer? After having a conversation about it today, I decided it was finally time to have my own look at this!
If you are looking for a scientific/official comparison don't expect to find one here. This is an opinion piece with some of my own personal experiences and thoughts. Questions, comments and feedback are welcome though!
Before beginning this investigation though I want to say my expectations, as I said, I've thought about this many times before! I think the camera does matter. It is everything? No! But it is definitely something. Firstly, I think if you want to take photos on a professional level, you need some minimum requirements. I would say that 9MP is the bare minimum for resolution, as this allows for both decent 4k viewing (which is on the rise), and allows for some crop room. Further, nearly every phone these days is 1080p or 1440p. Computers and TV's are the same, with many now becoming 4k.
Further, 9MP allows for flexibility in cropping images. Anything below this and you being dropping resolution that you really can't afford to lose.
Any modern camera should come with these requirements, but a decent range of shutter speeds (preferably from 30 seconds/bulb to 1/400th/ or 1/8000th of a second) and ISO levels (anywhere from 50/100 to 6000+ should be fine) will help a lot. In my opinion, these are really the only requirements if you want to be taking good quality images for modern devices. Of course, lower resolution can result in great looking stylistic images, but unless you are going for a specific look, a lower resolution will look grainy. The ISO and shutter speeds are also unessential, but very handy for daily situations along with giving you some creative options.
Here is a table for comparisons of megapixels to resolution:
Source: Link | Megapixels to Resolution
The reason I decided to write this article is because up until around a year ago, I used an old Canon 400d. As many of you know, this is a very old camera that lacks a lot of modern features. However, it worked great, and I saw no reason to upgrade. But after purchasing a Nikon D5300 and using that for around a year, I have noticed a huge difference in image quality.
Medium-Range Shot.
@devi1714 | Melbourne, AustraliaUpon first inspection, this image looks quite sharp and detailed. However, when viewed in full resolution you can see it definitely lacks some detail (right click on the image and select 'open in new tab' to see exactly what I mean).
300% Crop
At 300% crop the lack of sharpness and detail begins to show. While the picture can still be easily made out, some details are lost in the process. This could be due to a few reasons, first being the lower resolution of the Canon 400d (9MP), a low quality lens, or movement during capture. However, due to the lack of blur I believe this to be caused by either the camera or lens. Either of which involves spending money on a more expensive overall camera.
@devi1714 | New Plymouth, New ZealandSince I have no direct comparisons on hand right now, I want to use this image from my Nikon D5300 that was taken at a relatively similar ISO and shutter, from a similar distance of 2-3metres. Blur should not be a factor in either of these images due to the fast shutter speeds and very well defined edges in both images.
300% Crop
Compare this image to the one taken on the 400d. This image was taken with a much larger subject and therefore the zoomed in area is much less complex (simple green, vs basically a whole image), however, the difference is vast. This shows the difference between the 24MP and 9MP sensor. While both take perfectly useable images, the Nikon D5300 provides substantial improvements in detail.
Landscape
@devi1714 | Auckland, New ZealandLandscape images are one of the areas where I noticed the biggest difference between the cameras. These are the images I most often crop, and further, they usually contain the most detail. To this day I still use my 400d for some macros shots, because they images it takes still look great! When it comes to landscapes though, I think the difference is much more vast.
300% Crop
Once again, a very useable image, but one that lacks some detail that would be retained at higher resolutions or with better quality gear.
@devi1714 | Seoul, KoreaThis is a complex image that is maybe a bit overexposed, but I think that it provides a fantastic example to show what I want to show with the increase in detail.
300% Crop
While both of the cameras struggle in this situation, I believe that the Nikon does still do better. All the text in the image remains readable, and the conditions of the photo were also more difficult. Although both cameras performed admirably here and I am honestly surprised with the quality of the Canon image. The Nikon image was also taken on a kit lens, vs the more expensive Canon lens... Just another thing to consider.
Macro/Close-Up
@devi1714 | New Plymouth, New ZealandIronically this is the area where the Canon impresses me the most (mainly due to the power of the 75-300mm lens), yet in this image performs similarly to the Nikon. This picture has very stark contrast and provides a difficult situation for the camera to perform in. However a dark/black background is also something a camera has to be able to perform in.
300% Crop
Amazingly the camera still manages to capture strong outlines (maybe due to the dark background), and the colours are well detailed. The white and pink colours on the petals look realistic and mix as they would in real life.
@devi1714 | Auckland, New ZealandI picked this image due to the relatively similar colour palette. However, while looking at these images side by side, something occurred to me. Canon is renowned for having the best colour of all cameras, and I think that this set of images shows that well. The Canon colours just look more... Life like. It's hard to tell when you haven't seen the subjects in real life, but take my word for it!
300% Crop
The very similar colours of the flower in this image make it hard to distinguish some parts of it, but much of the detail in this image is also kept. Both cameras did a great job in the close-up/macro section!
The Conclusion:
Do you need an expensive camera? No, I don't think so. But I do think you should spend some money on your camera. Any camera these days will have more than 9MP, and really anything over 9MP is perfect. I personally would aim for 18MP+ so that cropping is possible without losing image quality, however this is preference as I crop a lot.
Further, while not shown in this comparison, the D5300 outperforms the 400d night and day when it comes to low light shooting. With an ISO range of only 100-1600 the 400d can't possibly compare with the 100-25600 of the D5300 (or even only the 100-6400 actually useable ISO range).
In saying this though, the 400d and any other older camera for this matter, is perfectly capable of taking great images that will look amazing. But you do lose out on the ability to crop (without losing quality) so keep that in mind.
In the end though, don't let your camera define you. Just because you have a 'low end' camera, doesn't mean you can't produce amazing images. Someone with the best camera in the world won't produce the best images either, it's all about the photographer. However, the camera does help, and it can also make taking the perfect image easier.