Camera upgrades vs getting better lens's. An opinion

<p>What I am about to say is obvious to long term shutterbus, but with the many recent posts about upgrading cameras and the "worry" about all the new cameras that are/might be coming out, I thoguht I would state the obvious anyway.</p>

<p>I have been shooting since about 1992, and as many who just start out, I got as good a camera as I could afford, and then realized I need lens's. So I got a Tamron and Tokina, a Sigma and a Promaster, and read all about the great Nikkor 80-200 and figured "big deal"; I have a good camera and a bunch of lens's. (What IS the darn plural of lens??)</p>

<p>When digital came out I knew I would change my outlook and start from scratch. I got a decent camera (D70 and later D90 - I then IR converted my D70, after skipping the D80) and slowly started to get good NIKON lens's.</p>

<p>I cannot be happier. True, there is always the want to upgrade lens's too. I have an 80-200 and would love the 70-200, but I also know that the 80-200 is as good as they come. It's my favorite lens. I got some other Nikons over the years, and I am comfortable in the knowledge that even if a D90s or D95 comes out, I don't care! I don't have that "Oh no, I need a better camera" feeling. I simply look at my stable of good quality lens's and am Happy!</p>

<p>I am not saying anything new here, nothing that has not been said 2k times, but sometimes it just needs to be said yet again.</p>

<p>If your camera works, keep it. Get another lens. Or save up for one. Skip the next generation of camera. No one (OK, OK, hardly anyone, to you diehards ;), is using an F4 anymore, but I bet they are all using the lens's they got when they got the F4 or the N90. Get stuff that will last 10 or 20 years. As soon as a digital camera comes out, its already old.</p>

<p>Just some food for thought.</p>

<p>lenses :-)</p>

<p>Lenses would always be the prudent investment!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If your camera works, keep it. Get another lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about "if your lenses work, keep them. Get another camera". You want another lens because you think it may help you to get a better picture. Well, another camera can also help you to get a better picture and this is a lot truer in digital than in film cameras</p>

<p>It's ok to upgrade as much and as often as you can afford</p>

<p>I'm not so sure that one can make such a statement that applies to everyone, despite the "buy lenses not bodies" being a very popular thing to say here.</p>

<p>Surely the real answer is based on judgement and balance, and on what will be the best investment for a photographer given their current needs and capability gaps. Sometimes that will be a lens, sometimes a body upgrade, and sometimes something else like a tripod or a flash system.</p>

<p>Also we can't be too presumptive about why certain people enjoy this passtime. More specifically, there are some that are gear-focused and gain pleasure from having the latest models and features, irrespective of what they do with that gear. And that is a totally legitimate approach for those people (in fact I sometimes get irritated at responses that are derisive of people's enjoyment of the gear side of things as I think they are snobby and judgemental).</p>

<p>Bottom line for me is that I don't think being prescriptive is of use to anyone, nor is it really even relevant due to the highly individual nature of this art/craft/passtime. Let each make their own decisions and gain their own enjoyment.</p>

<p>The real question is, what are your needs and how well are they addressed by the equipment you have? Upgrading the camera makes perfectly good sense if you need a faster frame rate for continuous shooting, or if shadow noise is a problem, as long as you ensure that your new camera will actually be enough of an improvement to matter. You might want to upgrade your camera for better environmental sealing, or for compatibility with certain lenses. The question is whether you know why you're upgrading. The biggest problem most people have with upgrading is that they don't really know what they need, nor do they understand the technology well enough to know what the upgrade will really get them. And in all too many cases they think upgrading hardware will somehow make them better photographers when what they really need is to improve their own artistry in ways that have little or nothing to do with hardware.</p>

<p>Your analogy to film cameras ("no one is using an F4" -- wrong, btw) doesn't really work because film is not built into the body the way digital cameras' sensors are. If I don't like the results I get with, say, Tri-X, I can always switch to T-Max or one of the Ilford films; I don't have to change the camera. I use films today that didn't exist when my film cameras were made, but Nikon doesn't let you upgrade your D2's sensor to the one used in the D3x.</p>

<p>As for buying better lenses, that can be an unhealthy obsession every bit as bad as chasing camera upgrades. If you can't take great pictures with a kit lens, you can't take great pictures with anything. This is not to say that there is no need for great (and sometimes expensive) lenses, but as with the camera, the real question is whether you understand what you need and why you need it, as opposed to buying the latest and greatest $2000 lens just because everyone says it's better than the old version you already have.</p>

<p>Buy both lenses and bodies...it keeps the manufacturers in business!</p>

<p>For a while there, at a certain point, you needed a better digital camera as the DSLR segment grew to maturity. I wouldn't tell a D1 owner to invest only in better lenses, for sure. Hence my recent overdue upgrade from D50 - D90. the OP did the same when he upgraded from D70 to D90.</p>

<p>But the laws of diminishing returns are at play here, as I agree with the OP that the upgrade from D90 to D90s or D95 or D-whatever will likely not be very compelling to me (unless it has low noise to ISO 200,000... I admit that...).. I don't need any more megapickels. ISO 1600 and the occasional 3200 work great for me on this camera, I use the video very very seldom, and what it has works fine for me, and all the features I really want are there. Instead of 4 years between new camera purchases this time, next time it might be 8, when the D90 finally maybe dies.</p>

<p>But for pros it's often a different story, as they have to compete with other pros, so all this holds true if you're an amateur, but for a pro? That's a whole different topic. Then again, for guys who shoot for magazines, web sites, newspapers, stuff like that, if they have a D3s and/or a D3X... how much more are they really really going to need?</p>

<p>I suspect that this market is mature enough that we might see some disturbing information with regard to DSLR sales in the next 5 years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for buying better lenses, that can be an unhealthy obsession every bit as bad as chasing camera upgrades</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm, ... yeah .. NAS ..... ==> Hard to handle and tough to beat .... :-)<br />But on the other hand, if you can afford it , it's sheer fun to play with those wonderfull<br />new toys :-) .<br />Also, like with a lot of things : "The availability often creates the need" .....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The "buy lenses" thing is over-stated. If it were true, I'd have a D40, not a D700. I got the D700 because I needed specific body features - I wanted full frame for wide-angle and low-light shooting, and live view. Any body depreciates far more than lenses (except perhaps the old 24-120), but you can run into the limits of the features on your body just as you can wish for wider or longer lenses, or more aperture, or sharper performance, or VR, or AF-S, or more portability. This is more true in digital than in the days of film - I can take photos just as well with my Eos 620 or Eos 500 as I can with my F5, although the latter is more reliable at getting the shot; there's much more difference between a D1 and a D3x.<br>

<br>

That said, "buy lenses" is still the right advice for the novice, not least because most of the features of a D3x will be wasted (I'd not have known how to use one when I got my first digital). A lens makes far more of a difference to an image than the body, but it's not 99% of the story as it was in the film-only days. (At least, it wasn't the whole story then either, but film didn't get updated as often as sensors do.)<br>

<br>

My $.02 in the campaign against over-generalisation.</p>

<p>Avi,</p>

<p>I agree with those who dissented above -- the important thing is to acquire what we need for the kinds of things we photograph. And that is my biggest disagreement with you. You have said nothing of what you like to photograph. Unless you are a collector, no equipment discussion makes sense if it doesn't include something about what you shoot. You tell us what your favorite lens is, and there is nothing wrong with it, but it isn't what you would select for, say, hour after hour of hand-held candid photography.</p>

<p>You even mention the IR conversion of one of your DSLRs without touching on the potentially fascinating reason for deciding to acquire that capability. In fact, your paying to have that conversion made suggests that you can't do what you do without obtaining something rather special in the way of a camera body. So you really are into having a camera body that few of us will ever own. What does that do to your argument?</p>

<p>The advantage of a brand with an established "system" of lenses, bodies and mutual compatibility is perhaps the most important factor in choosing a camera. You can then "leapfrog" your upgrades between lenses and bodies as your needs (and wants) evolve.</p>

<p>It's important to identify what it is you need to "improve" your present status. Questions like "which lens is sharper" have little meaning when the sensor limits the resolution, or you shoot by hand rather than with a tripod. Even "more pixels" is not so important if you seldom make large prints (e.g., 12 MP is good for 16x24" prints or smaller).</p>

<p>If you buy a solid film body, then you really only need better film, and better lenses. You're pretty much set.</p>

<p>I think that upgrading cameras is more important now than in film days. When a better film came out you bought the film not a new camera. Now the "film" is built into the camera. Now if, for example, you want better IQ at high ISO's you get a new camera.</p>

<p>Still, the advise is good for newbies who may not understand the value of better lenses, and more advanced photographers with limited budgets (which is most of us).</p>

<p>Upgrade when the need arises - either the lens or the camera. <br>

I upgraded from a D70 to a D200 when I realized the D70 shortcomings for the bird photography I was starting to do then. Similarly, at that point the 75-300 that had served me well before needed a replacement in form of the 300/4 AF-S. </p>

<p>Michael - the problem is in relying on someone upgrading the film. Even then, the metering, autofocus, shutter/flash sync speed and frame rate differ with body upgrades.<br>

<br>

I don't have any film that'll outresolve my D700 at ISO 1600. I can outresolve a D700 at ISO 100 by using Velvia in my Pentax 645, but doing so in my F5 is pushing it. I'd love a film camera that weighed as much as an F75 but also handled all lenses from AI to AF-S G VR, like my F5 does - and even that doesn't matrix meter AI lenses. (And F6 does, but still costs a lot and doesn't take invasive fish-eyes - just in case anyone gives me a 6mm...)<br>

<br>

I suspect a view camera would do my megapixel needs for a while, and at some point I'll get one, but it'll never replace a DSLR for most uses.</p>

<p>I take the OP's point somewhat. I see regular posts (here and elsewhere) where someone bought a good DSLR body and can't get the results they want due to limitations of the lens, usually a kit lens. Obviously, for best results, a given body will need a lens that's at least good enough to take advantage of the camera's capabilities.</p>

<p>It's interesting to me how many people buy a D90/300s/700 etc., and can't figure out why their pics are blurry in low light, or they can't get a pleasing OOF background, or they don't budget for lenses when buying a camera body. Then they cheap out on lenses, either by choice, from ignorance, or financial necessity, and end up getting nowhere. For a lot of folks, getting their first DSLR is like stepping in quicksand.</p>

<p>It's really unsurprising, given that camera manufacturers (<em>not</em> just Nikon) and their advertisers conveniently neglect to mention what it takes to make above-average photos. It seems to me they purposely lead consumers to believe if you get a Dxx camera, you'll automatically take great pictures. They neglect to mention the lenses (even though they're interchangeable, which should at least suggest the need for more than one), filter(s), lighting, and any post-production, never mind the need for knowledge and pre-planning/groundwork that all goes into making a nice image.</p>

<p>Even the demo images on Nikon's website leave out what lens was used for the shot, let alone any lighting or post. You can drill down for the focal length used, but there's no information regarding the specific lens used (only the specific body), and just getting to the focal length information isn't that obvious. I find that <em>very</em> odd, considering they sell more lenses than camera bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>the thing here is, there's not just one answer as everyone has different shooting styles and equipment needs. for some the answer might be lighting. for others, lenses. for others, a new body. for some all of the above. for others, none of the above.</p>

<p>it's not always a matter of technique, either. equipment can make a difference. i recently compared some of my shots from a concert with others i saw from the same show. my shots were good and reasonably crisp. however, one of the guys next to me in the photo pit had a 5dmkII, with a clear advantage in resolution over the d300. (sure the d300 is faster and has better AF, but that didnt matter in this situation). so while my shots might have been good enough prior to 2009, photo editors might get used to seeing 5dmkII pics and now think that's the baseline for publication.</p>

<p>the problem is that a d3x is out of my reach financially, so i'm faced with a tough dilemma. do i wait for the sensor to trickle down into a sub-$3k body? or will i be forced to get a 5dmkII and a bunch of L glass just to remain competitive?</p>

<p>OTOH, there are times when a 24mp image will be overkill, if you're not printing/displaying at large sizes. not to mention the large file sizes, which take up a lot of hard drive and memory card space. thankfully,for most of the shots i do, 12mp DX is just fine. and for casual/non-professional use or internet use, 12mp might even be overkill.</p>

<p>if it was up to me, i'd rather have a D3s for the expanded low-light possibilities, but then i couldnt expect a significant resolution advantage from 12mp FX vs. 12mp DX.</p>

<p>therein, as they say, lies the rub.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Light only sees lenses.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>I agree that a better lens will make a bigger difference than a camera upgrade.<br>

I'm not sure it would be as obvious to me if I had not spent a year using the kit lens before upgrading. Looking at my pictures for a year, and learning how to use my camera allowed me to appreciate the better lens when i finally got it.</p>

<p>When I worked in a small, independent camera store I would always tell people to buy the best lenses the could afford instead of pouring money into the camera body. I usually sold a used camera body, if I had one around that met the customer's needs.<br>

Here is what I would tell them: When you buy a stereo system, you buy the best speakers you can afford and scrimp on electronics because it's the speakers that have the most to do with the reproduction of sound. The same analogy applies to cameras - buy the best glass you can afford because that's what passes the light, and thus your image, through to the film or sensor.<br>

I sold a lot of used bodies, new glass that way and never had anyone come back and tell me that they were steered wrong.<br>

Buy the best glass you can afford and a camera body that will do the job. </p>

<p>Notwithstanding what I wrote before, it is true that bodies have a far faster upgrade cycle and also far more 'bells and whistles' to be exploited by the marketing departments of the major manufacturers than lenses do, so I think it is true to say that the temptation to spend on bodies rather than lenses is one that needs the be offset especially for newbies. And this leads me to understand the 'buy lenses not bodies' mantra even if I don't totally agree and think it's over-simplified.</p>

<p>To Mark's comments above surely the trick is to buy both bodies and lenses to 'do the job', or alternately 'the best you can afford'. I don't see why one would use different criteria in selecting a body and lenses. In fact I thought the original point of this thread was that far too many people buy 'the best' of one element of the photographic system and sacrifice the other in doing so. Surely doing that in either direction is equally silly.</p>

<p>Buy the best glass you can afford.<br>

Sound advice.<br>

I buy the best glass I can't afford! I also know that I can resell the glass without much of a loss.<br>

My 4 year old 5D body is just dandy.<br>

Glad I'm not a birder.</p>

<p>There is an old addage that dates back to the day when only film cameras existed. Buy the body you need to do the job and spend your money on the glass. Granted, times have changed somewhat and the sensor is essentially permanently installed "film", but the basic addage is still true. Upgrading your body with a mediocre lens going to give you a larger image, of the same mediocre quality. In fact, it may look worse. You are far better off keeping the same body and getting some better glass.</p>

<p>I'm still not getting the rigidity of some of these views ... maybe I'm slow :-) </p>

<p>I just don't see why what Scott says above is not the same in reverse... that upgrading a lens but with a medicre body is equally silly. Why have thousands of dollars worth of glass in front of a sensor that falls short of good, current standards in dynamic range, noise performance, quality of metering, etc?</p>

<p>Practical example : is it silly or smart for someone to focus rigidly on acquiring the 'holy trinity' of fast zooms (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) if they have say a D80 or D200 to shoot them on? Would they be better off having 2 of the 3 lenses, but also getting a D300S or a D700 with the money from the third?</p>