Better to get a good body and decent lens or decent body and good lens?

[robert_doyle]

I'm kind of looking for help deciding whether to go for something like a Nikon

D300 with an AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200 f3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR or a Pnetax K10D with

both smc PENTAX-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL[iF]SDM & smc PENTAX-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8

ED AL[iF]SDM

 

Both work out to be about the same price in total.

 

I take mostly shots of my kids in action and general touristy stuff most of the

time, but there are other times when I want to do some macro stuff of

miniatures (not as critical). I also like taking photos while hiking around in

the forest or hills. I also photograph martial arts and it isn't always well

lit.

 

The weather sealing on both models is important to me, and I know the DA*

lenses are sealed - is there a list of which Nikon's are?

 

I have been reading around for a while, and everyone talks about the merits of

one camera or another, but these are two cameras which aren't compared to each

other for many obvious reasons, but they both appeal to me. I looked at the

D200 but I figure in February when I am buying, the D300 for the more it will

cost will make more sense in the long run (also based on what I have read on

sites such as kenrockwell etc.)

[Matt Laur]

Go with the D300 and that good all-purpose lens, and spend $100 more on a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, which will help with the low-light athletic stuff when you're reasonably close to the action, and can serve very well for fairly close still-life type work or when you want to deliberately introduce shallow DoF.

 

The Nikon 18-200 isn't entirely weather sealed like its much more expensive all-pro cousins. But there IS a rubber seal around the lens mount area, which can help.

 

The general philosophy is indeed to spend more on glass than body, given the choice. But the moment you introduce things like sports into the mix, the D300's better high-ISO low-noise performance and high frame rate are pretty seductive, here. I use the 18-200 very happily for the walk-around touristy stuff you mention... and as long as you understand the trade-offs of convenience/versatility/IQ/speed/price, it is indeed a great option. Conisder working a good (better than you think you deserve) tripod into your budget, as well.

[godfrey]

Personally, I will always take a high spec lens over the consumer quality lenses, for any

body. A high quality lens on a mid-line body is much much more apt to produce superb

photos than a high end body with a consumer quality lens.

 

The Nikon D300 is an excellent body and Nikon's pro lenses are superb. It is a fast body. But the Pentax K10D body poses pro-quality features and Pentax DA* lenses pro-quality

performance at about half the price, with a small reduction in speed. Unless you really

need the additional speed and low light sensitivity of the D300 ... and are willing to pay

for it ... the K10D will do a great job.

 

Godfrey

[kev_400d]

In the old days any light tight box with a decent lens could technically take just as good a picture as a state of the art camera.

 

The only thing you get for the extra money that a decent camera body costs is "luxuries" such as a decent frame rate, better :-) metering, better auto focus etc.

 

These days with digital the sensor has an impact on the number of pixels, dynamic range, noise levels etc. So the body is more important. That said if you are not using high iso (eg you only use 100-800) any current dslr will take pictures with very similar quality to any other.

 

If you took the same picture with the same lens and the only variable was the camera body then made 8x10 prints even the most discerning eye would have trouble telling them apart. Although some would probably be able to guess the sensor size by the FOV.

[summitar]

I wish I knew how good is "good enough". As with most everything, the cost goes up very sharply to capture the final few deltas of quality.

[godfrey]

Good enough in terms of a DSLR body, for me, is a 5 Mpixel sensor, RAW capture, good

noise control up to ISO 400 (800 preferable), controls that allow me to work

exposure/focus settings without too much fuss, an at least decent viewfinder, and

satisfactory speed and responsiveness so that I don't miss photo opportunities due to the

camera being busy more than once in a great while.

 

With any body that meets the above minimum, a "better" lens is worth having. Of course,

I'm happy to have a better body... :-)

 

Godfrey

[mark from thailand]

Personally, I would go for a decent body (most are) & spend as much as possible on the lens.

Assuming you get the megapixels you want (at least 8), the lens will make more of a

difference (particularly in low light) than a few more features or buttons IMHO.

[wilsontsoi]

Evaluate the light you have to work with, then the lens, then the camera. Everything then will fall neatly into place.

[jeffpolaski]

At the risk of starting religious warfare, I second Godfrey's suggestion. My Pentax K10d is more camera than I'll ever need, and it will use superb Pentax lenses that I've had for 30+ years.