Effect of film camera body on final image quality

[aaronseymour]

Hello. This might be a stupid question but how much does the body of the camera impact on the final quality of photos taken? Other their any other factors than quality of exposure system? Is it better to buy a cheaper body and invest in more expensive lenses?

thanks,

 

[westman]

body deosen't affect the quility very much (except it got a lot of dust in it)
but lens' quility (optical) does affect also the films (format of the films , quility of films..) . other thing is the way you develop the films , do you use good quility equiments to develop and the technies..

of coz , if u got money buy a better body , the functions and performences are much better than the cheaper one . if you don't have much money , u can just forget this..
i think spend on good lens is nice , actually lens does affect the image very very much .

 

[ferny]

A camera body just holds the film and operates the shutter and aperture. If you've got a lens and two camera bodies to fit it, one worth £100 and one worth £1000, you won't notice any difference in the quality of the final image if the same settings are used.
There is a difference between the two bodies though. The more expensive one will probably be stronger and have more features (faster shutter speeds and other things). That's why there is a huge second hand market in photography. The body makes very little difference.

The lens is what makes the difference (as westman said, there are other issues but I'll ignore them). The light which creates your image passes through the lens, not the body. You want that light to reach the negative or sensor of your camera with as few alterations to it as possible. That's why the more expensive lenses will normally give you a better picture. They're a far higher quality. That isn't to say it is always the case and that doesn't mean all photographs taken with a cheap lens aren't any good. Far from it.

If you've got the choice between a second hand body in good condition and a brand new start of the art one I'd go for the second hand one. Ok, you won't have all the features but in normal photography you'll never use half of them. And you'll have more money to spend on your lens/lenses.

 

[ksmattfish]

Is it better to buy a cheaper body and invest in more expensive lenses?

Probably, but it's a very general question, and there are a lot of variables.

What cameras are you looking at?
What is your planned subject matter?

 

[deb]

To some extent, the body can (not necessarily does) affect the images. If the body allows light to enter, you will get the "holga" effect (which has its own merit, but more as a novelty than as a standard). If you choose a second hand body, you may want to have a camera shop clean it and check the seals just to be certain there are no light leaks or dust to ruin your pictures.

 

[Walt]

As mentioned repeatedly above the lense is more important. That doesn't mean the cheapest camera available is ok. The camera should have a good, consistant light meter and shutter. It takes a bit of research but some cameras may be better than others at keeping the film perfectly flat. Also make sure the body does the minimum of what your need are, ie: pc socket for studio lights, depth of field preview, mirror lock up etc.