Body VS Glass

[BroMiCs]

What give you more bang for your buck, better glass or better body.

I mean there is a huge difference in price between hobby body's and pro bodies.
What more do you get (other than a full frame) from a better body than would you get from upgrading from a $300 lens to a $1500 lens?

 

[Derrel]

Not a popular opinion, but I think better bodies offer more bang for the dollar than better glass. And by "better" bodies, I mean the higher-level models, and the full-frame bodies which have better HIGH-ISO capabilities, higher resolution, wider dynamic range, and better use of the lenses that are actually 90 percent of the lenses on the market.

A FF body shoots pretty well even with cheap, vintage lenses, like old Pentax stuff from the 1960's on the "old" Canon 5D sensor, 12.8 megapixels on FF or the Nikon D3 or D3s...or the D700...those bigger sensors are simply more versatile, and give more bang for the dollar than the smaller-sensor, $1799 bodies.

The need for ultra-high-resolution lenses is here now for Canon shooters with the 7D and the T2i...and frankly, the vast majority of lenses are simply not up to the task. Considering how very,very expensive lenses are becoming, the argument in favor of moving to a FF body is becoming even more compelling.

Conversely, what people mean by "better body" can also be found in the pro-level, single-digit bodies from Canon and Nikon. The speed of firing, the handling, the incredibly quick response times of even an "outdated" D2 series Nikon or an "outdated" Canon 1D or 1Ds series body can maker a huge difference in shooting situations where speed of focusing, and good handling, mean the difference between average and good results. So, once again, the better body can make a difference; I can rely on my "old" D2x to nail focus in situations where my 5D fails all the time, or is a beat too slow.
Even if using a rather pedestrian lens.

 

[BroMiCs]

Sorry, I don't mean to sound silly here, but what do lenses and resoulution have to do with eachother?

 

[Hardrock]

FF. 10FPS
Better high iso.
usually more functions
100% view finder
dual memory card slots
larger body and vertical grip with buttons
only can use FF glass

crop. slower fps I think the 7D wins with 8FPS but Nikon might be close
Usually SD cards but some have 1 cf slot
Viewfinder is usually 95%
1.6 crop factor so you can buy a 200 F2.8 and it will be like a 300f2.8 on FF (well kind of)
usually slower processor
smaller body
not near as good high ISO
you can use FF and EF-s lens


Im sure there are alot more differences and Im not really sure how Nikon compares.

 

[Hardrock]

Sorry for some reason I thought you were comparing FF to Crop Bodies.

I noticed a huge difference when I upgraded my lens to prime or L series lens. But it wasn't a mind blowing difference when I upgraded from a XT to 50D. Other than its twice as fast (FPS) , Seems to track focusing better, higher usuable range of ISO, larger body felt better in my hands, and way better LCD screen. So both are obviously very important but I think the glass is the way to go if you are on some sort of budget. Bodies come and go constantly where as glass may stay the same for 10 or more years.

 

[dxqcanada]

Both Digital camera bodies and the lenses play a role in the image quality.

I think you get more bang for the buck in the lens.

The optics in a lens affects the resolution. Uncorrected aberrations will cause faults with the light that is falling onto the sensor.

 

[BroMiCs]

Both Digital camera bodies and the lenses play a role in the image quality.

I think you get more bang for the buck in the lens.

The optics in a lens affects the resolution. Uncorrected aberrations will cause faults with the light that is falling onto the sensor.

So with my 18 mega pixel T2i am i getting any less of a quality picture by running at full resolutions and only haveing an inexpensive lens?

Or it has nothing to do with that, you just get more from your higer resoultion by having a better lens? (that sounds confusing even to me :scratch

 

[dxqcanada]

More pixels does not necessarily guarantee a higher "quality" image.

 

[cfusionpm]

What give you more bang for your buck, better glass or better body.

I mean there is a huge difference in price between hobby body's and pro bodies.
What more do you get (other than a full frame) from a better body than would you get from upgrading from a $300 lens to a $1500 lens?

In simplistic terms:

A better quality lens on your current body will result in a better quality image on your current body (compared to low-end or kit lenses).

A higher end crop body (like a 7D) won't take a better picture than the 550D using a low-end or kit lens.

A higher end full frame body won't even be able to use EF-S kit lenses, but would not see a benefit without an investment in good lenses anyway.

An upgrade to a 5D or 1D body would clearly be ideal, but the cost of such an endeavor would be significant. And even going used, you would need new lenses anyway.

So, because it comes down to "you really need to have new lenses anyway" and "you'll see instant results in better shots with a better lens" it's generally reccomended that you upgrade your lenses first.

The differences in body prices usually boil down to features: speed, processing, ISO and AF performance, etc. Features that help make shooting in certain situations a lot easier/doable. Of course bigger sensors also add costs as well.

Here's what the ~$600 EF 70-300 IS lens looks against the $2,500 EF 70-200 2.8 IS II when shot on the same camera (I shot this little test shortly after recieving my new lens in the mail a couple months ago):



Long story short: A new lens will see instant improvement in image quality on your current camera and (depending on what kind of lens) would serve as a long-term investment you could use with other high end bodies if you ever chose to upgrade later.

 

[BroMiCs]

Holly smokes,
Now thats some good hard evidence.

crap uke:... so now i gotta spend twice as much on my lens as i did on my camera to get amazing shots....

anyone got a few extra grand laying around they don't need?

 

[cfusionpm]

You don't need an amazing lens to get amazing shots. It certainly helps make a clearer or sharper image and its always fun buying new stuff! But content, composition, and post processing play huge roles too.

I took a lot of great shots when I went to Japan in 2007 with a Rebel XTi (400D) and the garbage non-IS 18-55mm kit lens. Granted they aren't as clean, have some fringing issues, but I loved some of them so much I had them printed, framed, and put up on my wall.

 

[tsblo]

Holly smokes,
Now thats some good hard evidence.

crap uke:... so now i gotta spend twice as much on my lens as i did on my camera to get amazing shots....

anyone got a few extra grand laying around they don't need?

Your lenses are going to out last your body though. A good lens will last longer than you will lol.

 

[Derrel]

Holly smokes,
Now thats some good hard evidence.

crap uke:...

Indeed: that 70-300 lens is a horrible performer. That is pretty bad performance from a $600 lens.

 

[pgriz]

I've gone through several series of cameras and the advice I got from much better photographers than me was to invest in the glass. When I got the T1i I started with the kit lens, then upgraded to a $600 lens , then to the L-series 24-105mm F4 IS. Each upgrade brought a visible improvement in quality (resolution, contrast). However, the last lens also made mistakes in focusing much more obvious, and in fact allowed me to figure out that the autosensor was front-focusing (since then, corrected by Canon). I went through a similar upgrade cycle with the telephoto lenses. Did my pictures get dramatically better? No, because composition, lighting, correct selection of focus and DOF, play a more important role than the actual hardware. If I take the time to set up the shot, put my camera on a sturdy tripod, focus precisely and use the other tricks, I will get the technical maximum out of the shot. It may still be crappy because of the subject matter, or the composition. So, I'd say focus on building up the skill level, and when you're bumping up against the limits of your equipment, then invest in better glass, and finally, in a better body. But that's my opinion, and it ain't necessary right for you. As Derrel has said in another post, YMMV ( and several other caveats as well) My observation is that most people's skill depth runs out much earlier than their equipment depth.

 

[cfusionpm]

Holly smokes,
Now thats some good hard evidence.

crap uke:...

Indeed: that 70-300 lens is a horrible performer. That is pretty bad performance from a $600 lens.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that. My "test" was admittedly a bit unfair (trying to show the lens at its absolute worst).

Under good conditions, it can get some pretty good results:

Here's a more fair look at those two lenses: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results