Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by th3_man89, Dec 9, 2008.
as mentioned in the title...
I don't really understand what you want to know.
The lenses 0 always the lenses.
here Canon 20D and 350D examples with top range lenses
When comparing the two remember that the camera just records what the lenses sees with the light the lens lets in. A low grade lens will give lower grade results no matter what body you put it on since its directly affecting and controling the light entering the recording device (the camera).
Always aim to build up a good strong body of lenses before moving up in camera bodies - it lets you do more and improve the quality of work far more than moving up in bodies.
is it worth it if i have a budget dSLR but i save up for high-end lenses??? or should i change the body first before i buying top range lenses?
i also seen a good shot done using nikon D50 with a high-end lens. i was thinking, the body cost $500 while the lens cost $1.5k. i just found it unbalance.
Glass is the king to making images. A poor lens on an inexpensive body will make the body perform worse. While a quality lens will make the body perform to its absolute best.
I would assume that most DSLR's do not suck when capturing/processing an image ... though some DSLR's will do a better job than others.
The Lens is something you want to invest in.
For digital camera's I would say a combination of both ... but you will probably see more of a difference by a change in the lens.
Once you have bought into a "system" (like Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus) and begin accumulating the lenses you need for what you do (kind of photos you shoot), try to have the best quality lenses within that system you can afford.
Then, when you have accumulated the lenses you want and need most, you will change out camera bodies (as technology changes, a new generation will eventually replace the existing one) far more often than you will ever replace the lenses under normal circumstances.
For example, I tend to buy only Nikon branded lenses, unless I want a faster (2.8 or less) lens, where the cost of the Nikon lens is more than I am willing to pay right now.
My D40 is the only body where compatibility is an issue, and all lenses I have are fully compatible with the D200 and D90.
Even a 20 year old high quality Nikon lens will do just fine, still taking nice pictures, and will still be compatible with many or most bodies within the Nikon "system" into the future. But, in the digital world where most of us are, a 5 year-old DSLR is considered as ancient and headed towards technical obsolesence.
But for what most of us do with a camera, that creates a very nice offering of really nice high quality cameras for extremely affordable prices as used cameras, like D50, D60, D70/S, D80, D200, and so on.
IMHO, few of us really need any more than these cameras are capable of doing very well.
I really like to take my D40 to just take out and shoot pictures, but when I need more camera. I likely would not ever have any need for anything my D200 or D90 are not fully capable of doing.
Like someone could really tell just by looking at a print whether that shot was taken with a D90, a D300, or a D700. Or more
While I totally agree with you that though camera bodies will change and top of the line lenses are forever, there is a line there where you get HUGE improvements with a camera body... and that is when you start comparing pro level cameras with basic level cameras. Comparing even a pro-sumer D200 to a D700 is not on the same planet. Take a SOOC shot at ISO 1600 out of a D200 and do the same out of a D700, I promise you that everyone here will be able to tell the difference in under 1 second, there is that much improvement.
Cameras like the latest crop of higher end or pro-level dSLRs are incredibly improved over their lower end counterparts, and if you have the budget and the experience to learn how to best exploit these cameras, will make a *huge* difference. These cameras demand nothing but the best lenses to perform like they do, of course... so in this case, it is a combination of the best lenses and best cameras working together with a knowledgeable user that give you some incredible results.
For the OP, you will find the the advice here very sound, though. In general a lower end camera with a top of the line lens will give you better results than a top of the line camera with a kit lens.
$3000 Nikon D700, $1500 Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR & $1500 Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
The D200 is a camera from a different generation than the D700 (and for Nikon that generation leap was quite big since CCD->CMOS), and I consider it quite professional. Still, I fail to see the "instantly obvious" difference between the D200 and D700 in conditions where ISO is not a concern. Also, I don't think that a D700 with a kit lens will have higher IQ than a D200 with a pro-grade lens, and both setups will cost more or less the same. So in the end it comes down to what one wants - a lot of low-light action photography, sports and journalism and the choice is obviously the D700. If there is no eminent need for high ISO performance, having faster aperture gives one more creative options. I'd even go so far to say that within the range of the new line of Nikon CMOS sensor camera's (D90, D300, D700, D3, D3x), the difference is not as important as with camera's of previous generations.
I had a D80 for a year now, and I still feel it fulfills most of my needs. Sure, I'd like to have a D700, but honestly, I don't need it at the moment- I rarely do actions shoots, and I almost always have a tripod with me. What I do need, and am planning to get sometime soon, is the Nikon 35mm F2 and the Nikon 50mm F1.4.
Yeah sure you can tell the difference when you push the bodies. Now assume for a moment that you don't. I can't say I run around with me D200 set to ISO1600 all the time. I'd still prefer some nice glass to a D700 though.
I don't think anyone could so quickly tell the difference between a D700 and D200 visually from an ISO100 shot. But let me guarantee that an ISO100 shot on a D200 with Goldring lens will easily beat a D700 with a Phoenix lens or other similar sort of thing.
Separate names with a comma.