Which is MOST Important for you BODY or LENS
- Thread starter Rubber_Duck
- Start date
- Status
i would say depends on what kind of body are you talking about...
are you talking about 10D? if so, then body can be more important, as legacy bodies noise control at high ISO (can't even go very high) can be a significant difference.
but if you're talking about like 40D, 500D against 5D2, it is not so apparent. people can easily pull great pictures without a pro body.
lenses across the board, u typically pay for what you get.
i can see myself use a 'less pro' body and still do similar images. but downgrade lens? hmm, i'm not so confident now. not impossible, but not confident.
are you talking about 10D? if so, then body can be more important, as legacy bodies noise control at high ISO (can't even go very high) can be a significant difference.
but if you're talking about like 40D, 500D against 5D2, it is not so apparent. people can easily pull great pictures without a pro body.
lenses across the board, u typically pay for what you get.
i can see myself use a 'less pro' body and still do similar images. but downgrade lens? hmm, i'm not so confident now. not impossible, but not confident.
the reverse can be said as well... without the lens, what are you gonna shoot with the body :bsmilie:
Rubber_Duck
New Member
Hi all,
just want to re clarify again....
What I mean is.... ppl invest more $$$$ into good Lens rather than body.
example 'L' lens or Prime lens.
And some ppl keep upgrading their body once there is a new model in the market.
Lens and body is cannot be apart from each other and that is the fact.
So the Question will be the above mentioned.
I mean body can use for many many years...... but will obsolete every 1 to 2 year cycle.
but for lens the obsolete may not the same as body...
and to have a better IQ..... lens or body which one you'll be invested more?
mynameisgreg
New Member
definately lens. as a noob i wont be able to take full advantage of better bodies eg. higher fps.
davidtkl76
New Member
i think lens
RichardSeah
New Member
Hear! Hear! Without body lens is useless, so what a stupid question this is, ha ha
But I can understand what the original person who posted is trying to get at, ie whether we should spend more money on (upgrading) body or lens.
I have never owned expensive / good lenses and only on two occasions had the opportunity to try out fairly expensive / good lenses - a Carl Zeiss (80mm?) and a Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 - from my friend.
Sure, the Carl Zeiss had nice colours etc, but manual focus and, before I got used to it, many of my pixs were slightly out of focus. As for the Nikkor f2.8, it's so heavy after 10 minutes my hand started to ache.
On the other hand, I have had award-winning pixs taken with cheapo Nikon 18-55 (that costs only $100+) as well as relatively cheap Nikon 75-300 which I bought used for slightly over $300.
With regards camera body, I think one of the most important considerations is the SENSOR. This is equivalent to choosing the FILM before digital technology came along.
In terms of features, most brands come very close depending on how much you pay. However, features such as how many frames per second etc do not usually affect the final image (except in, eg sports / action pixs).
But the sensor can make a big difference - to noise level, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, etc. Yet not many people seem to pay much attention to this. I consider this the most important, because once you choose a sensor, cannot change!
I choose Fuji, for its Super CCD sensor technology.
Rubber_Duck
New Member
Hear! Hear! Without body lens is useless, so what a stupid question this is, ha ha
But I can understand what the original person who posted is trying to get at, ie whether we should spend more money on (upgrading) body or lens.
I have never owned expensive / good lenses and only on two occasions had the opportunity to try out fairly expensive / good lenses - a Carl Zeiss (80mm?) and a Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 - from my friend.
Sure, the Carl Zeiss had nice colours etc, but manual focus and, before I got used to it, many of my pixs were slightly out of focus. As for the Nikkor f2.8, it's so heavy after 10 minutes my hand started to ache.
On the other hand, I have had award-winning pixs taken with cheapo Nikon 18-55 (that costs only $100+) as well as relatively cheap Nikon 75-300 which I bought used for slightly over $300.
With regards camera body, I think one of the most important considerations is the SENSOR. This is equivalent to choosing the FILM before digital technology came along.
In terms of features, most brands come very close depending on how much you pay. However, features such as how many frames per second etc do not usually affect the final image (except in, eg sports / action pixs).
But the sensor can make a big difference - to noise level, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, etc. Yet not many people seem to pay much attention to this. I consider this the most important, because once you choose a sensor, cannot change!
I choose Fuji, for its Super CCD sensor technology.
Yes, that is my point of these polls is all about…
I read so many thread saying don’t spend too much $$$ on the Body and invest into Lens instead.
I think you hit the Jackpot..!!! The Sensor..!!
Yes so many ppl talking abt ISO, noise and etc… all this related to SENSOR itself.
Correct, once you decided which sensor (Meaning the either C,N,O, P and etc)
I love Fuji too…. They are good actually…..
But if sensor is the main concern, by getting a high cost Lens will helps?
lichtleiter
Deregistered
The one behind the camera is the MOST important
In film days, body is not as important as the lens. This is because the film and the film processing plays a big part.
Nowadays with the digital era, the processing is in the body. So now body becomes comparatively more important than in the old days.
Lenses are still important today.
But in the end, it is the person behind the camera that is the most important. Hardware are just tools.
Nowadays with the digital era, the processing is in the body. So now body becomes comparatively more important than in the old days.
Lenses are still important today.
But in the end, it is the person behind the camera that is the most important. Hardware are just tools.
One thing Richard, Cheap does not mean not-good. Contrary to the trend towards expensive gear elitism here in our little red dot, the Nikon 18-55 is a pretty good lens. Especially the non-VR version, it is actually ED glass inside. The only complain is the plastic mount that make me worry once in a while.
The 75-300 is a very good classic lens. You are lucky to get it cheap!
totally agreed ... anyway photography is all about knowledge and technique ofcos with the modern technology (upgrading is just an option)
SurrealDreamWalker
Senior Member
IMHO, both the camera body and the lenses are equally important especially when shooting infrared photos 
Hi, Both are important. However, the body can be slightly of lower grade than the lens to save cost, but they must be compatible. With a lower grade body, you will not have all the functions that a higher grade body has and will not be able to capture all images creatively.
- Status
Similar threads
