Cheap camera Vs mid-high lenses... Is it worth it?

[th3_man89]

as mentioned in the title...

 

[bhop]

I don't really understand what you want to know.

 

[Overread]

The lenses 0 always the lenses.
here Canon 20D and 350D examples with top range lenses
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-mammals_reptiles_fishes_amphibians.htm

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.

 

[th3_man89]

I don't really understand what you want to know.

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?

 

[th3_man89]

The lenses 0 always the lenses.
here Canon 20D and 350D examples with top range lenses
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-mammals_reptiles_fishes_amphibians.htm

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.

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.

 

[Joves]

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.

 

[dxqcanada]

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.

 

[PatrickHMS]

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

 

[JerryPH]

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.

 

[Village Idiot]

$3000 Nikon D700, $1500 Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR & $1500 Nikon 24-70 f/2.8

 

[Samriel]

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.

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.

@Topic

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.

 

[Garbz]

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.

 

[sabbath999]

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.

@Topic

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.

I have now shot both.

You shoot both and you will see the difference between images captured with an older sensor and the new FX CMOS sensor at all ISO levels, without question.

You can tell a big difference between the D200's images and D300's images (I have owned both, and processed thousands of images with both, and directly compared them) and the D700 is superior in every way image-quality wise to the D300... but it is not nearly as dramatic as with the old D200.

The image quality of a D90 is vastly superior to that of a D200 because it too has the new CMOS sensor. I've seen the difference myself, first hand.

I got rid of my D200 shortly after I took pictures with the D300 and realized how much better the sensor in the D300 is... and it is significantly behind that of the D700.

I am in the process of trading out my wife's D80 for a D90 because of the vastly better sensor in the D90 (the D80 has the same sensor (basically) as the D200).

 

[Frequent Traveler]

In this "new" digital age, the balance between better glass - better camera "body" is really getting tough.

Back in the day (well honestly, for me it's still the same - i shoot film and digital), the cheapest camera body (or any level camera body) with the "ultimate" lens combined with the "ultimate" film would help ensure ultimate results.

These days one of the primary components of an image, the media (digital sensor), is not so easily variable. You don't simply change the sensor if a "roll of 36 exposures" or a particular sequence of photos don't look good. You're kinda stuck with the camera/sensor combo and HOPE that you can adjust in post-processing.

However, good glass NEVER lets you down - especially when you know how to best use it. If your lenses are out-resolving your sensor, no problem, most sensors have magnificient capabilities - most people never squeeze everything out of their gear.

When buying the best glass you can afford, you will have a measure of confidence and not be as distracted by perceived short-comings. However, if you spend big on a camera with a well-regarded sensor and put the bottom-dog worst glass available out front, you can be certain your images will be crap everytime.

 

[JerryPH]

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.

I own *both* a D200 and a D700. I never said a D200 was a bad camera. It is however, not a D700. It is not even in the same class.

Garbz, I would have agreed with you before I had a chance to shoot the same lenses on both cameras, but I am sorry, I have to disagree. I can easily tell what pictures come out of the D200 and D700 becuase the SOOC quality of the pictures are so much better. Colours are richer, pictures are clearer and yes, there is a ton less noise at anything above ISO 400. I use ISO 1600 the same way I use ISO 400 on the D200.

One would also think that higher ISO is not always needed... and again, I would have agreed with you before I experienced it myself, but now have to disagree. I can use ISO 800 on the D700 the same as I would ISO 100 on the D200 without even thinking about it and my flashes "act" way more powerful, they last longer, my pictures have greater depth of field in a given scenario, there is less motion blur due to being able to crank up higher shutter speeds without sacrifice in picture quality.

If you are talking mid-day sun and F8 on a static object, it would be closer and harder to distinguish but still possible, at least in the cases that I have seen with my time spent with both cameras.

Still, I fail to see the "instantly obvious" difference between the D200 and D700 in conditions where ISO is not a concern.

And I think you shall continue to do just that... until you shoot them side by side yourself, like I now have. There is a significant difference, irrespective of if you believe me or not. If you had both cameras, you would be saying the same thing. Matter of fact, anyone who has had a D200 and gone to the D700/D3 are all saying it, I am not alone, nor am I tooting my own horn. At this level, it has little to do with me.

Also, I don't think that a D700 with a kit lens will have higher IQ than a D200 with a pro-grade lens

Really? Have you tried, or are just guessing? I never got as nice results from my Sigma 10-20mm DX lens and D200 ever as I do with the same 10-20mm DX lens on my D700, maximum resolution aside. There are things that I can capture now, that were never attainable and impossible previously.

A small example. I know people that have been going to St' Joseph's Oratory for YEARS (myself included), and never saw the writing on this crypt! How come it suddenly became so easily visible? Because the D700 made it possible. I went back and looked at over a year's worth of pictures I took there (specifically over 200 pictures in this room alone) and cannot see this in any of them.

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'm not being disrespectful when I say that you have no idea what you are talking about... until you have had both in your hands for longer than 5-6 shots. I am continually amazed at what this camera does and I am just beginning to get to know it. I cannot wait until I have a few more month's worth of experience so I can again squeeze even more out of it. This camera has had a lot of hype associated with it. I say that even with all that hype... it is still under-rated for what it can do.

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.

Those are your needs, and I respect them, however, you are not basing any of your opinions on real life hands-on experience with a D200/D700 real life comparison, but I am... it's just too bad that unless you have the chance to get to know and use a D700... you won't know how good of a camera it really is.

That is no disrespect to the D200. It has won more awards than any other camera in Nikon's history, without exception... but that fact unfortunately, doesn't make it even a close 2nd to the D700 in the real world.