What is more important to invest in?

blackrose89 · Dec 13, 2011

A camera body or a lense?

MLeeK · Dec 13, 2011

In the end, lenses are everything.
This is my way of thinking:
First investment should be the most up to date/newest camera body you can possibly purchase. Then begin to learn on it with the kit lens. As you learn and develop your own style you will also learn what lenses you want and need.
If your camera body is up to date and you aren't feeling the pinch from it, you can invest all future $ in good lenses. Good lenses will be with you 10? 20? years? Forever? Bodies will come and go. If your body is up to date you won't want to be investing money in a new one so quickly as you would if you bought an older camera body that you'll outgrow faster.

RebeccaAPhotography · Dec 13, 2011

ditto

dxqcanada · Dec 13, 2011

Most modern camera's are perfectly fine to capture good images ... only from good quality lenses.

You can spend thousands of dollars on a camera, only to be defeated by a poor IQ from the lens.
I spend more energy upgrading my lenses vs. my camera.

tirediron · Dec 13, 2011

Camera bodies come and go, their technology is surpassed every 2-3 years. A top lens will last you many, many years.

bogeyguy · Dec 13, 2011

dxqcanada · Dec 13, 2011

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/265855-100-crop-entry-level-d5100-high-end-lens.html

Derrel · Dec 13, 2011

A lens is absolutely useless without a body behind it. A body without a lens will not take a photo.

I liked MLeeK's answer, "First investment should be the most up to date/newest camera body you can possibly purchase."

Huh....so much for lenses being "everything".

Frankly, the quality of even cheap mid-grade Nikon and Canon lenses is so high today that at smaller apertures, a $199 tele-zoom's image quality is almost the same as that from a $1,799 zoom. Popular Photography did an article a few years back comparing f/2.8 "pro" lenses with slower, consumer-grade lenses. At normal daylight apertures, the results were virtually identical. As in "virtually identical".

If you have a Nikon D3s, the High-ISO capability is so good that witgh a medium-grade consumjer lens, it will out-perform an older D200 with a professional-class f/2.8 zoom.

Put another way: I would rather own a Nikon D3s and a full set of "consumer zooms" than I would a Canon Rebel and a 16-35/2.8 L and a 70-200/2.8 Mark I.

Kerbouchard · Dec 13, 2011

Along the same lines as Derrel, if camera bodies don't matter, how come they need to be replaced every 3-5 years as technology improves? Put simply, if camera bodies didn't matter, they wouldn't come and go. You say lenses will last 20 years, but how many people sold their 80-200 for the 70-200 VR? How many people sold that 70-200 VR for the 70-200 VRII.

Heck, they all get replaced every 5 years or so. The biggest difference is that a lens 10 years old can still take the same pictures the modern lens can. The same cannot be said for the camera body.

My take on it is to buy older pro lenses and the newest pro bodies...Seems to make the most sense to me until the funds are available for the newest of both, which will probably be never. I'll probably stay 2 generations behind on lenses and up to date or one behind on camera bodies...that is unless Nikon decides they want to chase megapixels, in which case I will be shooting with D700/D3s's for the rest of my life.

2WheelPhoto · Dec 13, 2011

buy decent everything and don't sweat it

KmH · Dec 13, 2011

blackrose89 said:
What is more important to invest in?

Knowledge and understanding.

mwcfarms · Dec 13, 2011

Both lol. Each has their own advantages but using the equipment you have until you have gained all the knowledge you can from it and its preventing you from exploring further is important too.

jeremyamayora · Dec 13, 2011

MLeeK said:
In the end, lenses are everything.
This is my way of thinking:
First investment should be the most up to date/newest camera body you can possibly purchase. Then begin to learn on it with the kit lens. As you learn and develop your own style you will also learn what lenses you want and need.
If your camera body is up to date and you aren't feeling the pinch from it, you can invest all future $ in good lenses. Good lenses will be with you 10? 20? years? Forever? Bodies will come and go. If your body is up to date you won't want to be investing money in a new one so quickly as you would if you bought an older camera body that you'll outgrow faster.

I must agree I have a d3100 and I feel like it doesn't do enough for me and I only had for about 3 moths. Better body then great lens

kamerageek · Dec 13, 2011

I tend to live on the lens side of the discussion. I'm in the process of collecting a set of best lenses I can afford that will suit my style and preferences. My 40D body is a perfectly suitable camera for me and I'm happy with the results I'm getting.

I design and write computer software for a living and this debate has striking similarities to the discussion of whether a computer user needs a faster processor or more memory. There are benefits to each in their own right and the combination of the two will make for a great experience.

I get all excited when I think about how cool it would be to walk around with a 7D or a 5D, but at the end of the day I would shoot the same way with those as I do with my current body. I personally believe I'll get the best bang for my buck from a good set of lenses.

cgipson1 · Dec 13, 2011

Skill... spend time and effort with your current gear.. until you have improved enough to be able to use a new lens or body effectively! But as said, good lenses are more important than the body.