Camera V lens

[hakhtar]

<p>I tend to agree that upgrading the lens rather than the body (if one has 350D or above) helps more in achieving better quality images as my recent uploads at PN tend to illustrate! For example, Canon 24mm f1.4L or Canon 100mm f2.8L macro on 350D or 500D produce good images! What do others think?</p>

[ryan_k]

<p>For film this is 100% accurate, but digital employs a fine balance between body and lens. Obviously, the higher quality of each, the higher quality image. <br>

However, once you have a body that you are satisfied with, you should only invest in better glass (from a camera vs lens perspective). <br>

The lens is the first element that light from your images interacts with. It should make sense that you start with as high of a quality as allowed.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

I actually think that in most cases it would be impossible to tell whether a small uploaded image was produced with the

24mm L prime or with the kit zoom shot at 24mm.

[justin_stott]

<p>I personally think this comes down to the classic essentials of photography: Light first, (subject and exposure), Glass second, Camera third (whether film or digital).</p>

<p>I agree that my feeling is that the resolving power on most DSLR's on the market today puts the lens as the limiting factor in IQ (given accurate capture and post processing).</p>

<p>Of course producing good images (a whole other idea altogether) is more about seeing good images and lighting in the first place, whether with an 8 X 10 view camera or a Holga!</p>

 

[steve_dunn2]

<p>It depends on how your final images are to be viewed. If you're posting (say) 1200x800-pixel images on a Web site, that's one megapixel, and you don't need a 350D and an L prime to make that look good. If you're hanging 16x24" prints in a gallery, then you need good hardware. (And, of course, in both cases you need a photographer who has some idea of what they're doing. A truly talented photographer with inexpensive equipment could take much better photographs than I can take with my higher-end equipment.)</p>

 

<p>I agree with the suggestion above that the rule from the film days (that the lens is more important than the body) doesn't entirely translate into the digital era. In the olden days, as long as your body was capable of meeting your needs (e.g. if you're shooting sports, you probably need a body with a good motor drive), that was enough; an entry-level body and a pro body, with the same lens and film, could produce identical images. These days, since the "film" is no longer something you can upgrade independently, the body does make a difference.</p>

 

<p>But if the resolution and capabilities of the body meet your needs, then yes, I'd say you're going to benefit more from upgrading the lens than the body. Even on my old 8 MP 20D, upgrading from the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM (one of Canon's better consumer-grade zooms) to the 24-105/4L IS USM was definitely an improvement, and on a higher-resolution body like my current 18 MP 7D, the difference between the two lenses would surely be even clearer.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I do tend to agree that lenses have more influence on IQ than the body, but there is a balance. If a cheap lens is keeping an expensive body from achieving its full potential, then its a waste of money to have that nice body. However, if an outdated body that's maybe only 3 or 4 MP has an expensive lens on it, then while this lens may provide possibilities not achievable with other lenses, the quality won't be to the full potential of that lens. This brings up a question of my own. When do MPs go beyond what a lens is capable of? And when does a lack of MPs start to hold a lens back? For example, is the 21MP on the 5D II so much that its overkill and the detail goes beyond what any lens can provide?</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>Nathan, there are times when 5D2 is very helpful:<br>

<a href="http://www.aooi19.dsl.pipex.com/htdocs/page12-1.html">http://www.aooi19.dsl.pipex.com/htdocs/page12-1.html</a><br>

This shot is from about 5 miles on a clear day: Used Sigma 70-300mm at 300mm - hand held - cropped - some PS treatment!</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>Well regardless of whether the a lens or body upgrade produces better results, I would always go for a lens first (unless you have a real hunk of crap for a body) because you can use that lens on later bodies, so you get more use out of it as it were.</p>