What is more important in relative terms: lens/optics or sensor?

[brien_m]

<p>When I just got into photography, I use to be obsessed with buying film cameras/systems known for having very good optics (leica, contax/zeiss etc..). While I did notice a difference in sharpness / distortion etc. compared to some cheap models (not generalizing on brands), I sadly came to the realization that I was mostly limited by my own photographic ability. Clearly, only I can fix the latter problem. </p>

<p>Now that digital photography is the norm (I'm not directing this at you purists), the sensors and other electronics are obviously significant determinants of image quality. </p>

<p>Just curious: do you think that sensors and built-in processors are now more important in relative terms then optics? </p>

<p>I'm thinking more in terms of the mid-range consumer SLRs and interchangeable lens systems, not hypothetical comparisons of good-bad lens-sensor combinations. Are we know getting to the point where most of the sensors are consistently good and innovations are only incremental?</p>

<p>Before, I would have bought an expensive film camera system like a leica (granted I also just liked having a well made predominantly mechanical camera). Now, given the importance of technology (its limited life expectancy and its pace of change) I can't see myself ever spending a premium on digital leica. </p>

[Brad_]

Sure, they're important. But in the end it's still about your eye and imagination that produces compelling

photos.

[Matt Laur]

<p>From where I'm sitting right now, I'd rather buy better lenses than spend a dime on a better sensor that wasn't also a completely different format.</p>

[richard_a5]

<p>A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Following up on Brad's comment, that includes what's behind the viewfinder.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Just curious: do you think that sensors and built-in processors are now more important in relative terms then optics?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's in the DSLR camera has become more important than previously in a film SLR - but I would not go as far as saying that it has become more important than the optics in front of it. There are differences between the sensor in different cameras from the same maker and certainly between different makers and also between cameras made at different times (sensor and process engine technology is rapidly evolving) - but the influence of the lens is still far greater than those in-camera differences. </p>

<p>Putting the same lens on a N4004 or an F4 didn't make one bit of differences to the resulting image; that certainly is no longer true with a DSLR.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

You forgot lens defect correction and noise reduction algorithms. This is why a P&S such as the Panasonic FZ35 can produce results that (at base ISO) are competitive with full-frame DSLR.

 

As the Yogi says, half of photography is 90% mental.

[jcuknz]

<p>Only 45% BIll? surely not :-) Generally most if not all cameras are good and it is only the technicians that bother about the differences. I remember when I started at photoschool and from the first we were expected to produce a print for the weekly crit session to professional quality ... of course we had a tutor hovering over us to help us and as we learnt this became less the case. The emphasis was on the creative side with technics taken for granted, and achieved.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Both. In fact, you really "can't have one without the other....."<br>

It's the task that determines the adequacy of the tools used. The tools determine what <em>can</em> be done, not what <em>is done to perfection</em>.</p>

<p>The technology (either lenses and/or sensors) is mostly a limitation, not normally a determining variable.<br>

Some people can get great pictures out of a crappy old box camera, others get kitsch out of a wonderful Hasselblad or Leica. The terms "P&S" and "Professional-level dSLR" can be substituted these days.</p>

[sravan]

<p>Following up on Dieter's comments, I do think that Lens is more important than sensor / camera even now. To elaborate further, Good lens stay with you longer than a good camera.</p>

<p>In the last ten years there has been a sea change in the sensors. So If you bought the first DLSR, you would be better served to upgrade now to the latest sensor. But if you bought a very good lens (most primes would be under this umbrella) at the same time as your DSLR, you wouldnt need to replace it now.</p>

<p>But I also think the advances in Sensor are to a point, where additional improvements are not in the magnitude of difference as the previous years. The megapixel race is dying down. I think the high ISO race is also petering out (or soon, my prediction is it wont go beyond the current range by more than 2 stops). So Camera's coming out now are turning more towards tricks like automatic panaroma's and automatic HDR instead of physical sensor updates. I think that is one of the reasons for the long duration of the top of the line Canon 1DS stagnation and the rumors of something totally different direction for the 1 series than a up the game in the traditional sense.</p>

<p>If somebody is buying a new DLSR now, i would suggest buy the latest model camera that you can afford and then forget upgrading for 5 to 10 years. Put the rest of the money in Lenses.<br>

If you have a Camera that is more than 5 years old, I think it is time to upgrade your camera. (Atleast this is what i am using to convince myself to upgrade my more than sufficient Canon 5D)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>We're at a point where the sensor qualities are so close (and quite consitenctly very good) that it's not the most deciding factor. It is hard to get a non-decent sensor these days, in an SLR or system camera (like Micro 4/3 and Nex). It's all seriously good stuff.<br>

So, to me, the question is more: what does it enable me to do, and what does the better one enable me to do more? Having a stop more high ISO performance can make a difference, for example. Same so better AF systems etc. In that sense, a body can determine a lot.</p>

<p>But a wide angle lens, a superfast prime, etc. are ultimately the tools that enable me more. Their mutual differences have more creative impact, can open up more options etc. And they stay good, and stay making that difference.</p>

<p>It's not either/or... but at the current status of seriously good sensors, lenses are a bigger differentiator than the sensor more often than not.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>IMO, sharpness is more in the lens than in the body/sensor. However, it will be "whats behind the viewfinder" that makes the biggest difference.</p>

[charleseagan]

<blockquote>

<p>I sadly came to the realization that I was mostly limited by my own photographic ability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's like that Yoda scene where Luke goes into that dark cave. You leave your camera gear behind and have to face the only thing you can take with you, your talent (or lack thereof).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>define "important."</p>

[brien_m]

<p>its "what's behind the viewfinder"..... wow... light bulb<br>

I guess my post should have been lens v sensor v photographer</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I think that the lens is still more important than the sensor with one exception. If you must shoot at very high ISO's then you need the better sensor.</p>

[ilkka]

<p>Lens is more important if the sensor is good enough. Good sensor does not necessarily mean more megapixels. More megapixels means more resolution and larger printable image size, provided that the lens is good enough. Many modern SLRs share the same or very similar sensor, at very different price points. In this case the lens is clearly more important for final image quality, though you get a faster focusing, more responsive, and more durable camera if you buy the higher spec model. In the Olympus system, for example, you could buy a practically identical sensor in either the top of the line E-5 model, in a small and cheap DSLR E-620, or in a very small micro 4/3 model with no built in viewfinder (EPL-1 or 2).</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Roughly speaking for me... sensors are incremental. A new generation sensor is just incrementally better than the previous generation sensor.</p>

<p>Lenses open new doors. A fast prime can do things a slow zoom can't do, which can do things other lenses can't do.</p>

<p>Better sensors will make your photos slightly better, more lenses let you take different kinds of photos. Camera *features* however (FPS, autofocus, etc.) also help you with your "keeper" rate.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>When I am out and about I am sometimes rather amused when the thought strikes me about all these people toting DSLRs around becuase they think they will get better pictures. There are so many top technical quality photos being taken, thanks to the genious geeks who design these tools we have, and so few good meaningful photograhs being taken.<br>

Written as a true lover of the P&S camera :-)</p>