Which is MOST Important for you BODY or LENS

[Rubber_Duck]

Both are important. But I think lens is slightly more important than body.

In modern day dslr, once the specs of the body reach an acceptable level, the performance of the lens will take centre stage and greatly affect the image quality.

What do I mean by acceptable level body specs, it's actually subjective. But for me, I think 10mp, 5fps or more, fast start up time, low noise, 3'' screen, good metering and AF will do.

That sounds like D90 ;p

Dpreview mentioned that the 50D offers marginally more details than 40D, despite having many more pixels. This goes to show the lens affects resolution to a large extent and the 50D sensor outresolved the lens used for testing. Which is to say a sharper lens is needed.

I'm currently using a D70 and the sensor got outresolved by the lens :cry:

that's mean... even you have a good body... still need a GODD lens to pair it...
if not will be useless.....

 

[gymak90]

that's mean... even you have a good body... still need a GODD lens to pair it...
if not will be useless.....

so lens is most important. because with a moderately average body coupled with good lens, you will get good pictues.

 

[Anson]

so lens is most important. because with a moderately average body coupled with good lens, you will get good pictues.

Personally given today's modern dslr technology, unless you are shooting extreme high ISO or blazing fps... The image quality would not diff that much...

Any thoughts? :think:

 

[guianna]

Your eyes and brain is the most important :bsmilie:
You can have the best camera body and best camera lens,
But if you do not have you eyes... no lights will reach your retina to form the image that
is received from the viewfinder. If you don't have a good brain to interpret and compose your frame, it doesn't matter what you get from the best body and lens because most likely the output are good for your trash can only :bsmilie::bsmilie:

bro, the question is simple, dont make it complicated.

 

[David Kwok]

bro, the question is simple, dont make it complicated.

The whole thing is simple, take pictures and just admire, why complicate and ask such kind of questions in the first place ? Not as if one can make better pictures after you know the truth of this question. Isn't it ?

 

[solar]

i would get body for its iso performance, and lens for its sharpness n contrast.

but most of us i guess do not really push our iso to that high level. so i guess sharpness n contrast is more sought after.

Lens for me in my case.

 

[Big Kahuna]

When I am using my kit lens, I realized how much my picture can improved after I upgraded the lens.....but after I upgraded my lens, I realized again how much more my picture will improved if I upgrade my body......so my choice is both are equally important :lovegrin:

 

[Big Kahuna]

The whole thing is simple, take pictures and just admire, why complicate and ask such kind of questions in the first place ? Not as if one can make better pictures after you know the truth of this question. Isn't it ?

I think knowing the limitation will helps one to push the equipment to the limits...I have seen some photographer took very nice pictures with just entry level gear from Boleh land forums...this is true blue what we call "the man behind the camera that count" :thumbsup:

 

[shaoken]

I think lenses and bodies play a big part for a good photo.
With good lenses but lousy body to capture the image, it's also useless.

 

[surrephoto]

It depends on person to person but I can frankly tell you both are infact more or less equally impt.

I find the reason why people often focus on lenses is because we need to stockpile more lenses than bodies to cover a wide range of phtography...

I'm going to focus on bodies.

Why good bodies are very impt (both past & present arguments);

-Durability for professionals needed in pro bodies.
-Low-end body usually means lousier/non-precise/slower autofocus or no autofocus (Nikon lower-end with AF-D Example).
-Low-end body usually smaller and lighter means less stable and harder to shoot at long shutters.
-In the past, low-end bodies may mean crappy meters, resulting in bad exposures, light-leak chance.
-In the present (metering not big deal anymore), low-end bodies may result in one having worse ergonomics and functions. This is because of the marketing strategy of course, but as consumer, can't run away. (For example 1000D/400D doesn't have spot meter). This can sometimes prove fraustrating for advanced beginners.

 

[jgjonathangoh]

I choose body. It is not often we change the body. Lenses are more easily changed then the body.

 

[Diavonex]

The lens is what focuses the image on the film or sensor.

The poorer the design, the poorer the images.

 

[Blur Shadow]

I love them both. One's useless without the other.

 

[xylestesins]

Both are of importance.. to the subject matter you are shooting

A Canon G10 will give you very good landscapes and stuff like that, but you can barely get any bokeh without going macro. If you are talking about a studio shoot, it's definitely not lacking either.
*imagining a little Canon G10 with PocketWizards synced up with a dozen Profoto strobes* :bsmilie:


If you like doing outdoor shoots or enjoy bokeh, you can easily get a 6mp body from any of the DSLR brand names for a few hundred, and then get a beautiful f1.4 lens which is plenty sharp enough for the average user. An SMC Takumar f1.4 shouldn't cost alot, and even though the disability of AF is there, the optics are excellent and easily on par with the modern lenses at a fraction of the price.

Each to his own.
Most important is the wise distribution of budget!

 

[jaRv1s]

the most important thing lies behind the viewfinder...

 

[Snowcrash]

Taking up photography is not a cheap hobby..
as least you need to invest 1K to 2K....to own a DSLR & the rest of the equipment.
So body and lens may not be a concern to some ppl.....

But put $$$ aside...What is most important for a ppl would like to take nice and great photos?? Lens or Body? So in the first place, if their pix turn out not that great...
they should think is the LENS or body issue.... I know some of them may said is still due to the person taking the pix....



But some ppl, been using their old camera body, but still unable to give good result....
so meaning body is not very important compare to LENS?



I agree with you... quite sometime ago...
saw a TV show... a PRO Fashion photographer using a film PNS to shot his model.
so that meaning the camera body and LENS is not important at all..
But still why so many ppl invest into LENS and DSLR....and that really cost a lot of $$$$...

I'm the minority here. I choose "other" in your poll.
Firstly let's answer your question "still why so many ppl invest into LENS and DSLR... ... and that really cost a lot of $$$" - the answer is how advertisements affects us - if only we get that latest best item, it will fulfill our dreams!

For me to enjoy photography, i always choose the smaller camera that deliver the result I want. I'm still using a old low-entry made in japan DSLR with a 35/f2 (both are not the top range right?) on iso800. I enjoy it as it's the cheapest/smallest camera at that time that deliver the results.

Nowadays I'm enjoying shooting with a fujifilm camera as it's smaller.

Seems like the new Oly E-P1 (see advertisment is affecting) might be my dream camera...

Some people have fun getting the latest gear, some just enjoying taking photography, and MOST ENJOY BOTH to a certain extent.

Happy Shooting!

 

[Numnumball]

Both are equally important.
Emphasis is place on lens more though.

 

[liarliar]

What's more important? Your eyes or your brains?

 

[Lomographer]

i think this is rather personal

some feel lens is more imp,

some feel body is more

i feel both are equal but my passion for photography is most important

 

[liarliar]

What is passion? I have passion for nothing. Taking photos helps me kill time and i am just not quite cut out to be an artist. I only make believe. :sweatsm: