Body vs glass - what would you rather invest in ?

Would you rather have old DSLR and invest in good lens or invest in a new camera

  • Modern camera first and then buy lenses

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Old camera with best lenses money can buy

    Votes: 25 75.8%

  • Total voters
    33
I'm personally opting to upgrade my D3K to a barely used D7K.. tonight actually :)
With the money I'm saving I'm going to buy a flash and also getting a tripod out of the deal for free basically. I'm then going to slap my 50 1.8G on the body and leave it there for the next month or 2. I'm going to challenge myself to get more creative and familiar with it while I wait for next month's budget on a new fast telephoto. Just my .02 and decision.

I think it all really depends on the individual. In my limited experience there's no doubt that glass can generally bring a big impact on your photos. That was made apparent to me when I first got my 50 1.8G. Drastic change in IQ once I put that lens on my existing body. However, I found myself hating the body, lack of controls, and most importantly the ISO limitations.
 
I'd like to have both but can't afford either so I'm focusing on improving my novice skills if there are any at all.:)

In that case, lighting. Well, if you're not shooting landscape, sports, or something similar then lighting is the way to go (goes back to appropriate tool for the job). Picking up a cheap off camera flash setup and learning how to use it will benefit you many times more than a new body or lens. You could hand me the first generation Canon Rebel 300D and the old 18-55 variable aperture lens and I could make good photos with it if I had a cheap lighting kit. I could probably get a setup with three lights, triggers, stands, modifiers etc... for under $500 most likely and that would just give me the ability to do so much more with the type of photography I do than a $2000 lens or $2000 body.

Actually, that's what I'm doing right now. I'm still waiting for my YN560 III and YN remote triggers to arrive ($110) All I have is a cheapo TTL flash. Remote flash and using manual is already beginning to interest me. May I'm not looking hard enough. Still can't afford Nikon speedlights. Maybe a used SB-600. But I don't think I'm looking hard enough.;)


@Dao I totally agree with you. And truth be told this subject has been asked a gazillion times already. Better gear enables to to take better pictures. But what is the use of better gears if your skills are not getting better by not taking the time and effort to learn and practice? I'm not saying that it's bad having gear envy. But it takes both gear and skill to master photography. As for me, let's just say my gear is far from perfect and so is my photography. But I still see the light at the end of the tunnel and I am to reach it. :)

Look for older too. Before the Strobist boom you could get SB28's for cheap.
 
If you are really wanting a newer body, maybe just pick up a 50 1.8 or 50 1.4 - those two are good glass and cost between 100-300. They also will work great on a newer body, full frame or crop.
 
As with most things in life, the answer is "it depends" - there aren't only two choices. Charlie came closest to being able to make this into a rule, but even in the first situation (old body, poor glass) it would depend on which was more of a limitation on the particular way you shoot.
 
Glass is an investment, bodies are an expenditure.
 
Glass first, always.

When I discovered I needed better low light performance, I opted first for fast glass on my crop body 60D. But I also figured I'd go full-frame one day, so no more EF-S lenses. That was definitely the right choice. I moved to a 5D3 3 months ago.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top