Cheap lenses or a cheap body?

ecphotoman · February 27, 2012

I'm curious, I've seen a few blog post's online that say one thing or the other. Some people think a cheap body and quality glass will yield far better images than a good body with cheap glass. What does everyone else think?

ziggy53 · February 27, 2012

For the majority of photographic pursuits, and amongst things you can control, it's lighting first, followed by an appropriate lens for the task, and the camera body is mostly important just for photographic specialities. For general photography, most any body "may" be just fine.

adbsgicom · February 27, 2012

Depends on how cheap the body is but, in the conditions, glass will win. The body will win in cases where the limits of the sensor technology are exceeded. So, if you are shooting in ISO 200, f/4 realms, then an inexpensive body with a great lens will get more crispness and better contrast in the image. When you get into low-light, the two get tied together. Let's say your cheap class is f/5.6 and your good glass is f/2.8 and you don't really care about DOF, so you want to be as wide open as possible. That's two full stops difference so your expensive camera with the f/5.6 would have to be at ISO6400 against the cheap camera at ISO1600 f/2.8. May be a win for the cheap camera still (depending on how cheap/old the cheap camera is). Now, if you need ISO3200 and f/2.8 to get the light, then you need both, the quality sensor and quality glass. Putting cheap glass on a high-end camera won't really unleash the quality you have paid for, so if you are looking for an investment arc, get the glass first then a new body to really unleash the glass. Getting the body first only makes sense if you have to replace the body and you know you'll be investing in quality glass soon. Note that the "kit" lens for the Canon 5Dmk2 is the 24-105 f/4L -- a really amazing lens.

Matthew Saville · February 27, 2012

How cheap is cheap? And, for shooting what? I'd rather have a rebel and a good prime than a full-frame camera and a 4-5.6 kit zoom, for casual personal photography. I'd rather have a rebel and an EF-S 10-22 for landscapes, than any cheap-o full-frame wide angle lens.

But, wedding photography? No Rebels, thank you very much. I'd rather have a Nikon D700 and the new f/1.8 AFS-G primes, than a beginner DSLR and ANY f/2.8 pro zooms. Yes indeed. In fact I'd rather have a third-party f/2.8 zoom than a Nikon kit 4-5.6 zoom.

The question is, how much do you have to spend, what will you shoot, and how serious are you about photography?

=Matt=

ziggy53 · February 27, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

...

But, wedding photography? No Rebels, thank you very much. I'd rather have a Nikon D700 and the new f/1.8 AFS-G primes, than a beginner DSLR and ANY f/2.8 pro zooms. Yes indeed. In fact I'd rather have a third-party f/2.8 zoom than a Nikon kit 4-5.6 zoom.

...

Same goes for sports/action. I started getting very good good keeper ratios once I purchased "both" a sports lens "and" a sports body. (That was a Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM plus a Canon 1D MKII body.) It's all about the right tools for the task.

ecphotoman · February 27, 2012

I was just asking out of curiosity. I've come to realize that for my purposes I can't afford to cheap out. I'm just to sure whether to go Canon or Nikon.

Matthew Saville · February 28, 2012

ecphotoman wrote: »

I was just asking out of curiosity. I've come to realize that for my purposes I can't afford to cheap out. I'm just to sure whether to go Canon or Nikon.

Nikon. Easy enough!

;-)

Okay, really, it depends what you shoot and how the camera feels to you. I prefer Nikon for what I do. (Weddings professionally, landscapes and adventures casually)

And indeed, in both situations I prefer to have roughly equally good lenses and camera bodies. The whole "amazing lenses on a mediocre body is better" is really ind of a misnomer; because there really are no "bad" lenses these days. Just mediocre ones and great ones, although even that is second to the specific function of the lens. (prime vs zoom, fast aperture vs extra range, etc. etc. THAT is what I'd prioritize when getting equipment...)

=Matt=

Moving Pictures · February 28, 2012

Glass first.

Brett1000 · February 28, 2012

ecphotoman wrote: »

I was just asking out of curiosity. I've come to realize that for my purposes I can't afford to cheap out. I'm just to sure whether to go Canon or Nikon.

I prefer Canon DSLR's but I agree lens are important. Most choose a particular lens for different situations and some inexpensive (cheap?) lens are actually pretty good.

ecphotoman · February 28, 2012

Brett1000 wrote: »

I prefer Canon DSLR's but I agree lens are important. Most choose a particular lens for different situations and some inexpensive (cheap?) lens are actually pretty good.

What is it about Canon that you like better than Nikon?

adbsgicom · February 28, 2012

I switched from Canon to Nikon about 6 months ago. Sold my 5Dmk2/7D for D700 and a player to be named later (D800/D4 once I figure out which route I want to go). What got me over the hump on making the switch was ultimately the ergonomics of the body. I shoot manual most of the time now, and when I'm not, I'm shooting Aperture-Priority. On the Canon, when I'm shooting Manual, the finger wheel is my shutter speed and the thumb wheel (which is way too far away from the grip) is my aperture. Very uncomfortable to control. Then if you switch to Av, the finger wheel becomes the Aperture, so you get this toggling of function. Never could find a control function that let me swap the controls for Manual... Nikon is consistent and well-placed. The thumb wheel is on the back near the top (where your thumb is) and the assignments of the finger and thumb wheels don't change based on mode.

As additional perks, I've found the general programability of the Nikon system to be more flexible (assigning control buttons on the camera body) and the AF works better in low light (no head-to-head compares, just a sense). Though I went from 24Mpix down to 12Mpix, I'm not feeling a loss in fidelity. As someone pointed out at 30x24 @ 200dpi you need 27Mpix to get there, however there is a trade-off here. One is you can do resizing (which is pretty good in LR) or try the RealFractals (which is now OnOne's Perfect Resize) to get to the large sizes when you need to. From an optics point of view, you shouldn't be viewing a 30x24 so close that you need that much resolution. There have been several articles written about how the dpi requirements drop as the size increases. That said, you will have clients who take their freshly printed 60" portrait and hold it up to their nose...

On Canon I liked the 580EX2 flash better than the SB900. It didn't have the thermal issues the SB900 suffers from. You can work around them, but the 580EX/2 just worked. Nikon is shifting on the D4 (and perhaps the D800?) to decoupling FEC and EC so if you use a flash while shooting in S/A modes, adjusting the ambient EC doesn't effect the FEC. Not sure why they did that in the first place, but at this point in my photo life, I don't shoot flash in anything other than manual now, so not a big deal. If you think you'll want to go with pocketwizard's TT1/TT5, note that the 580EX/2 puts out so much RF you have to put RF mitigation stuff around it to not mess up the radio signals. PW sells the stuff you need, but it is an annoyance.

Both systems will enable you to make stunning images, and both systems have really amazing glass. For me, my really sore thumb was what got me to make the switch, and I've be very happy with the thoughtfulness of the system design on Nikon.

zoomer · February 28, 2012

I would get cheap lenses before a cheap body. No contest.
Cheap lenses used optimally will do a good job for most subjects.

Of course low light, wide open. You need a great body and great lenses.

Brett1000 · February 28, 2012

ecphotoman wrote: »

What is it about Canon that you like better than Nikon?

Join a local camera club and you will see. I shoot with a bunch of Canon, Nikon, Sony people. On photowalks many times we are all shooting at the exact same thing and invariably the one's shooting with Canon just look better. And that's with less expensive bodies and lens!

ThatCanonGuy · February 28, 2012

Join a local camera club and you will see. I shoot with a bunch of Canon, Nikon, Sony people. On photowalks many times we are all shooting at the exact same thing and invariably the one's shooting with Canon just look better. And that's with less expensive bodies and lens!

That's because the PROS are all using Canon

Matthew Saville · February 28, 2012

Brett1000 wrote: »

Join a local camera club and you will see. I shoot with a bunch of Canon, Nikon, Sony people. On photowalks many times we are all shooting at the exact same thing and invariably the one's shooting with Canon just look better. And that's with less expensive bodies and lens!

I prefer to trust decisions / opinions made by people who have been able to handle both cameras *themselves*, not two separate people who have spent very little time actually using the other brands. Second of course to shooting with both brands YOURSELF, which is what I prefer. :-)

=Matt=

Brett1000 · February 28, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I prefer to trust decisions / opinions made by people who have been able to handle both cameras *themselves*, not two separate people who have spent very little time actually using the other brands. Second of course to shooting with both brands YOURSELF, which is what I prefer. :-)

=Matt=

I prefer it MYSELF - that's why I choose Canon !

Moving Pictures · February 29, 2012

Egad: not this argument.

My old paper's main camera was a nikon. I used it, and even bought new stuff when I was there. I see little difference between the two, these days.

ecphotoman · February 29, 2012

I've given a lot of thought and looked at lenses, accessories and bodies for both and have decided to go with Canon. I went to my local camera store and tested a few models and really like the ergonomics better with Canon.

zoomer · February 29, 2012

Really... this argument again??
If I shot a photo with a Canon and then with a Nikon. I am sure it would end up looking pretty much identical after I processed it.
Just different color tools.

Bendr · February 29, 2012

ecphotoman wrote: »

I've given a lot of thought and looked at lenses, accessories and bodies for both and have decided to go with Canon. I went to my local camera store and tested a few models and really like the ergonomics better with Canon.

There ya go! That's the way to choose (Canon) :hide

Glad you were able to try them both and choose what you like!

Ben

adbsgicom · February 29, 2012

Congratulations on the new gear. What body/lenses did you end up getting?

ecphotoman · February 29, 2012

Bendr wrote: »

There ya go! That's the way to choose (Canon) :hide

Glad you were able to try them both and choose what you like!

Ben

Either way I'm upgrading since I'm leaving my crappy sony DSLR behind.

Overfocused · February 29, 2012

ecphotoman wrote: »

I've given a lot of thought and looked at lenses, accessories and bodies for both and have decided to go with Canon. I went to my local camera store and tested a few models and really like the ergonomics better with Canon.

This is exactly my biggest problem with Nikon vs Canon - Nikons ergonomics aren't that good to me, especially the messy menus. And I'm a macro freak so I want the MP-e 65 lens with full functionality

Yes, let us know what gear you've gotten

And if you need advice on any I may be able to assist.

ecphotoman · February 29, 2012

Overfocused wrote: »

This is exactly my biggest problem with Nikon vs Canon - Nikons ergonomics aren't that good to me, especially the messy menus. And I'm a macro freak so I want the MP-e 65 lens with full functionality

Yes, let us know what gear you've gotten And if you need advice on any I may be able to assist.

Well i havent purchased it yet. I sent adorama my sony a330, a flash, two lenses and my old 35mm minolta vectis with two lenses.

Im hoping i will get at least 400 for everything plus about 200 in my own cash.

I might get the xsi, t1i or the 40D. Im not getting a very expensive
body so I can get a few lenses and a grip.

If I can save enough I can hopefully buy my self a 7D for Christmas.

Part of the problem I had with Sony was the ergonomics. I have huge sausage fingers and it would eventually hurt because it was kind of small and oddly shaped. Lack of support and lack of gear prompted my move away from Sony as well.

adbsgicom wrote: »

Congratulations on the new gear. What body/lenses did you end up getting?

ThatCanonGuy · February 29, 2012

If you have big hands, you should get the 40D. The grip is SO much bigger than the Rebels. You should be able to find one for $400 or a little more. A good starter lens is the 50mm 1.8 II. I've found that I love the 24mm f/2.8 on crop bodies... and it's pretty cheap too (at least used).

ThatCanonGuy · February 29, 2012

Here's a 40D: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20481993.html

Overfocused · February 29, 2012

I'd get the 40D for sure out of the list you gave. No question.

Jamesbjenkins · February 29, 2012

Cheap anything isn't a good idea...

ecphotoman wrote: »

I was just asking out of curiosity. I've come to realize that for my purposes I can't afford to cheap out. I'm just to sure whether to go Canon or Nikon.

If you value AF accuracy, especially in low light, Nikon is your only choice. There are some things that Canon is generally better at, but shooting people/sports/other moving objects definitely isn't one of them.

Up until the release of the D3, Canon had an absolute death grip on the pro sports shooter market, but since then, you don't see nearly as many ugly white lenses in the endzones anymore...

...and as far as cheap body or cheap lens? I shot a Nikon D90 for 3 years while I built up my pro glass arsenal. Now the D90 belongs to some guy on the Mexican border, and I'm still shooting away with my f/2.8's...

Don't cheap out on glass! But you don't have to buy it all at once, either...

ecphotoman · March 1, 2012

Bendr wrote: »

There ya go! That's the way to choose (Canon) :hide

Glad you were able to try them both and choose what you like!

Ben

Jamesbjenkins wrote: »

If you value AF accuracy, especially in low light, Nikon is your only choice. There are some things that Canon is generally better at, but shooting people/sports/other moving objects definitely isn't one of them.

Up until the release of the D3, Canon had an absolute death grip on the pro sports shooter market, but since then, you don't see nearly as many ugly white lenses in the endzones anymore...

...and as far as cheap body or cheap lens? I shot a Nikon D90 for 3 years while I built up my pro glass arsenal. Now the D90 belongs to some guy on the Mexican border, and I'm still shooting away with my f/2.8's...

Don't cheap out on glass! But you don't have to buy it all at once, either...

Is it really that crappy with canon?

Brett1000 · March 1, 2012

Jamesbjenkins wrote: »

If you value AF accuracy, especially in low light, Nikon is your only choice. There are some things that Canon is generally better at, but shooting people/sports/other moving objects definitely isn't one of them.
.

!

Nikon D90 is one of the worst for people and sports ! (and low light!)

ThatCanonGuy · March 1, 2012

In the pro/semipro realm, yes Nikon is gonna do better. But under $1000 I think they are similar. The Canon 7D is supposed to have excellent AF. I've used the 5D2 center point in low light and have been fine. The other 5D2 points are so close to the middle anyway.

Cheap lenses or a cheap body?

Comments