What does an advanced body give you that a beginner body doesn't?

[Early]

I'm not a Nikon guy, but on Canon's the layout is more well tuned for the advanced user. Manual controls are a lot less clumsy, and such.

Agreed! All things being equal, res., noise, etc., settings are usually much easier with pro machines.

 

[Battou]

So instead of spending $3000 on a camera body, I should spend $3000 on lenses?

Well....yeah.

The exception that prooves the rule here.

If you alredy have a lens inventory that is in excess of $3000, then you can spend $3000 on a body.

Now, appart from the obvious "if you already have it you're not buying it" lets take it appart a bit. The way I see it (in all honesty I have not read all the replies after or even before mine so....) Duribility and longevity is the biggest asset to Pro bodies. This is not exactly something your average hobbiest thinks about when buying a body. Under normal circumstances they do not need duribility and longevity. Now we take the glass into play, How many Hobbiests have in inventory of lenses that exceeds $3000? Few. A true professional should have the right lens to accomplish the desired task when desired, obviously this would indicate a good collection of fast primes before being hired to do the task whatever it may be. This means that if one is lacking the correct lenses they need to get them first and then worry about the body, plain and simple. That is not to say that hobbiests are not going to have that many or that sort of glass. I can think of a couple different subjects where one might find needing that type of investment from a hobby stand point. A Canon EF 400mm 2.8L runs a little over seven thousand dollars, a Canon FD 400mm 2.8L runs around twenty five hundred to three thousand. Yes a 400mm L lens is top of the line and a rather restricted lens that your average noob has no real reason to hold let alone shoot, These lenses are often used to shoot sports and wildlife. This is something any intermediate to advanced hobbiest can do, but wile thay are doing it there enters the element of risk to the body. Balls, pucks, rain, rocks you name it, so many things that could result in a body being dropped and/or otherwise impacted. Now when you are up in the stands at your sons collage football game or out in the middle of the woods that ability to take a hit, repel water and shutter life makes a big difference. These things can be done with beginner and intermediate camera bodies, but I would hate miss the remainder of a game because some guy celebrating a touchdown nocked my camera or to be miles away from civilization and have my camera shit the bed.

As a guy with a good handful of wildlife shooting experience, I'll tell you, my camera takes a beating, I can't tell you howmany times it has been rained on or how many times I dun smacked it off a tree or a rock trying to get into a good shooting position.


To put is simply, if you have a camera, glass first, body later. There is no reason to do it backwards, one is only hindering them self to do so.

 

[prodigy2k7]

The D700 is a whole different ball game. That's a FF sensor which cost a lot more to produce since they cut a lot less from a wafer compared to an APS-C sized sensor and the larger surface area gives more chances for defects and more lost expensive FF sensors.

+1