What's more important - camera or lens?

JoshF

Ok, I know I like to obsess over these purchases a bit. Well, it's just fun to me! So am planning on getting a 7D. I'm a new shooter to DSLR but have always been very interested in photography. I am leaning toward Canon because I has an Eos 630 for years and loved it.

As I am researching(obsessing) about lenses I realized that good glass costs a lot. In your opinion would I be better off spending the extra money I would have on another lens to choose the 5D Mark ii instead? Also, that model looks like it came out a year ago. Is there a new one planned soon? I hate buying something only to see an update come out right after purchase.

What is more important, (after the photographer) the camera or the lens?

All reviews I find seem to speak very highly of the 7D so it's prob great for me. I just want some help from people who know better than me.

Jeremy Winterberg

Definitely the lens matters more. The 7D is more camera than you will most likely need. I say skip on the 5DMKII for now, and get some good Canon L glass if you can. If you can't afford L, at least get constant aperture glass (IE f/2.8 throughout the zoom).

I don't see the 5DMKII getting an upgrade anytime soon... if anything the next update wouldn't happen till next year at least. But I doubt they'll make the 5DMKIII this soon.

just my $0.02

photokandy

Besides the photographer, the lens is probably more important than a camera body (assuming a recent camera body, of course). The lens is what is going to affect the light the most; so it is important to have good glass between your subject and your sensor. The sensor in the 7D is excellent, but so is the sensor in just about any recent Canon dSLR -- all the way down and beyond the XSi (which is a truly excellent performer, even given its consumer status).

So, I would suggest picking up the 7D and good "L" glass instead of going for the 5D Mark II. Just beware: if you can't afford the "L" glass, don't even bother picking it up and playing with it. Why? You'll buy it anyway... ;-)

As to the question of updates... well..., all I know is that the surest way to get Canon to release an update to a camera body (or lens) is to buy the current version. ;-) (That said, not going to help on that front... I've bought plenty of bodies and lenses for now...)

colourbox

Definitely the lens. I never regretted getting a cheap Rebel body and an L lens and a fast lens. To make up for a slow lens, you need a body expensive enough for clean high ISO images. To make up for a cheap lens with limited sharpness and contrast, either you have to know your way around Photoshop or you possibly can't Photoshop your way out of it at all. A great lens saves so much time, when the images are beautiful right out of the camera.

Most camera bodies can do what you need, expose reasonably well and record pretty good pixels. Put a good lens on that and you'll probably be happy. But if you put a cheap lens on an expensive camera you're definitely wasting the expensive camera and setting yourself up for too much time in post processing.

As for photographer vs. lens vs. body, that's a trick question. You need all three, and success will depend on whichever link is weakest. Again, if the lens and/or body are substandard, the photographer will have to work much harder and good images will only be possible under the narrower capabilities of the lesser equipment. If the photographer is the weak point, then the equipment will not be used to its full potential until the photographer raises their game.

insanefred

It's both, they're equally important.
Here is a good example I use for myself. I seem to be unable to use Olympus E-3, with some great glass. Why, because I keep hitting some of the buttons accidentally . So, no matter how good Olympus glass is, I can't get used to the ergonomics.

FWIW, sadly in the digital world, it's how well you can photoshop and how much $$$ for gear that gets you to the top.

Art Scott

colourbox wrote:

Definitely the lens. I never regretted getting a cheap Rebel body and an L lens and a fast lens. To make up for a slow lens, you need a body expensive enough for clean high ISO images. To make up for a cheap lens with limited sharpness and contrast, either you have to know your way around Photoshop or you possibly can't Photoshop your way out of it at all. A great lens saves so much time, when the images are beautiful right out of the camera.

......I shot for over 2 yrs with a $40 manual minolta body+$400 lens+$350 flash....yes it was film and I used film purchased mail order as no one carried the low iso fuji films I wanted for their color saturation.........and as stated above a fantastic lens saves the day so much.....

colourbox wrote:

Most camera bodies can do what you need, expose reasonably well and record pretty good pixels. Put a good lens on that and you'll probably be happy.

Yep most any body can get you really good results as long as the noise doesn't get away from you.....if your stuck with a low level cam that doesn't handle higher iso well then learn your flash and be very creative with it....

colourbox wrote:

But if you put a cheap lens on an expensive camera you're definitely wasting the expensive camera and setting yourself up for too much time in post processing.

This is called setting yourself up for failure in the fast lane.........

Jekyll & Hyde

JoshF wrote:

What is more important, (after the photographer) the camera or the lens?.

Hi Josh,

Hey, tell us a little about what you (would) like to shoot, and how you like to shoot it.

Any specific shooting situations come to mind?

Do you like to get in close (intimate shots?). Do you like to capture subjects in their surroundings (wider angle?). Do you need to cover Faaast action? Looow light? How about stuff that's far far away?

Are you a goal-oriented shooter, or do you basically like to capture whatever comes along? Do you mind changing lenses? Do you mind carrying stuff?

What are your output requirements? What's your b-u-d-g-e-t? Ouch!

The reason I ask is that you'll get as many varied answers as there are photographers. And you know what? They'll ALL be right! You just need to decide which "right" parts apply to the photographer that inside of You.

I know that's kind of an oblique statement, but finding some of the answers beforehand to the questions above may save you a whole lot of time, money, and grief in the long run.

To quote... "Know Thyself!"


Best of luck Josh. Your enthusiasm is indeed infectious, and I think it will take you a long way.

Cheers,

J&H

craig_d

colourbox wrote:

But if you put a cheap lens on an expensive camera you're definitely wasting the expensive camera and setting yourself up for too much time in post processing.

I generally agree, but only as long as the phrase "cheap lens" is understood to mean "poor lens" rather than "inexpensive lens." For many purposes, Canon's least expensive lens, the EF 50mm f/1.8, is perfectly adequate. It's an inexpensive and cheaply-built lens, but it works remarkably well and produces fantastic pictures if used intelligently.

It really seems to be with zooms, mostly, that the cost vs. quality issue becomes really intense. Cheap zooms often seem to be crud, while cheap primes are often quite good. This suggests another way out of the quandary, "Do I spend my money on a good camera or good lenses?" -- buy the camera you really want and use it with low-cost, good-quality primes until you can afford high-end zooms.

JoshF

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

Hi Josh,

Hey, tell us a little about what you (would) like to shoot, and how you like to shoot it.

Any specific shooting situations come to mind?

Do you like to get in close (intimate shots?). Do you like to capture subjects in their surroundings (wider angle?). Do you need to cover Faaast action? Looow light? How about stuff that's far far away?

Are you a goal-oriented shooter, or do you basically like to capture whatever comes along? Do you mind changing lenses? Do you mind carrying stuff?

What are your output requirements? What's your b-u-d-g-e-t? Ouch!

The reason I ask is that you'll get as many varied answers as there are photographers. And you know what? They'll ALL be right! You just need to decide which "right" parts apply to the photographer that inside of You.

I know that's kind of an oblique statement, but finding some of the answers beforehand to the questions above may save you a whole lot of time, money, and grief in the long run.

To quote... "Know Thyself!"


Best of luck Josh. Your enthusiasm is indeed infectious, and I think it will take you a long way.

Cheers,

J&H

I would like to shoot:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
My dog in action at the park
Scenes around San Francisco, people, buildings
The ocean and places near the GG Bridge
My Motorcycle
Local bicycle racing

I do know myself. When I get into things I really get into them. I am extremely excited about my new purchases. I just signed up for some classes to learn to take full advantage of my new toys.<!-- / message -->

craig_d

JoshF wrote:

What is more important, (after the photographer) the camera or the lens?

This is a trick question for many reasons. For one thing, a camera that won't do what you need is worthless. To be able to decide this intelligently, you need to have a clear sense of what your needs are. I, for example, want the lowest noise levels possible and I want full-frame for a variety of reasons. These needs dovetail nicely, since full-frame cameras tend to have lower noise levels because (usually) they have lower pixel densities. So I bought a 5D Mark II and I'm happy with it. But if I wanted to do serious high-speed sports work where I'd need 8-10 fps burst mode, the 5D2 would frustrate the hell out of me.

So the first task is to figure out what camera bodies will really satisfy your needs, and only then try to juggle your options to get the best combination of body and lenses.

The tendency I have developed over the last few years is to avoid buying anything I think won't satisfy me. I don't want to spend money on something "just to get started with" only to have to replace it with something better later -- it seems like a waste of money and effort. If I really know what I want, I'd rather get that without going through something else first, even if it means I have to wait a while to save up. Good lenses often hold their value pretty well (unless you bought them new), but cameras generally don't.

JoshF wrote:

All reviews I find seem to speak very highly of the 7D so it's prob great for me.

If you look around, you will see less enthusiastic reviews, but you're right that many of the usual sources are very high on the 7D.

colourbox

JoshF wrote:

I would like to shoot:
My dog in action at the park
Scenes around San Francisco, people, buildings
The ocean and places near the GG Bridge
My Motorcycle
Local bicycle racing

This sounds like a job for a 7D. You have a fast-moving dog. You have fast-moving bicycles. These are all candidates for the new, faster, improved autofocus and the faster frame rate of the 7D over its competition. The SFO scenes, well, any camera can do those. But the 7D is what you want for the action. That and a fast lens will probably get you there, like the 17-55, which would be wide enough for the landscapes. But you might need a fast long tele or zoom for the bicycle racing, depending on how close you get.

On a budget, you could get the 7D kit and use the kit lens while you save up for a better lens. It's got a good range and the high ISO of the camera will somewhat compensate for the slow aperture, though with more noise of course.

I am unfamiliar with how well today's Rebels can keep up with action.

(I have a 7D, still getting to know it...)

Scott_Quier

JoshF wrote:

I would like to shoot:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
My dog in action at the park
Scenes around San Francisco, people, buildings
The ocean and places near the GG Bridge
My Motorcycle
Local bicycle racing

I do know myself. When I get into things I really get into them. I am extremely excited about my new purchases. I just signed up for some classes to learn to take full advantage of my new toys.<!-- / message -->

In order of importance to a good photo:

1. The scene in front of the camera and the light on the scene
2. The brain behind the camera
3. The lens on the camera
4. The camera - assuming it is a suitable solution to the problem it's being enlisted to solve (i.e., a P&S is not the first thing I would select to do a shoot in a cave as they are not low-light champions.)

The 7D will, if what I've read is the truth, serve you quite well and better than many other choices. That having been said, you may find that a less expensive camera is an option. A 40D/50D might be the right answer ... maybe even a 30D. I've shot a lot of quickly changing scenes (weddings and receptions) with a 20D, a 30D, and a 50D. Didn't miss many (if any) shots due to limits imposed by the camera - just the idiot behind the camera. If you can go with one of these solutions, you will find that you can more easily afford the really good glass and your photos will most likely benefit from the glass upgrade.

For your stated subjects, the 5DII is a bit of over-kill. This camera is a low-light and portrait champion. But it doesn't do quite as well with action - the AF is just not as good as is the AF of some other choices. And, the frame rate is not the fastest either.