1st July 2005, 11:20 PM
Lens or body more important for picture quality
Hi, I am very new to DSLR, have only a 300D, and will like to seek advice on the above question.
Is a good lens more important or a good body more important for picture quality?
Eg. If MP count is not important and only printing 8R max, compare Canon 300D+L lens versus 20D+consumer lens, which will give better picture? Is this a good example or should use other comparison?
Also, is there such thing as a DSLR body is too lousy for a L lens, so fixing an L lens does not give much improvement to the picture quality due to the body not good enough? Like is fixing L lens to 300D considered an overkill?
Appreciate all the experienced photographers here can give newbie advise, and please don't flame me if this is a stupid question. Thanks.
1st July 2005, 11:23 PM
1st July 2005, 11:24 PM
1st July 2005, 11:26 PM
1st July 2005, 11:30 PM
Wow, thanks Joho and Shawn for instantaneous reply.
Originally Posted by jOhO
OK, so if someone is on limited budget, but wants to take good pictures now, before he has $ to upgrade in the not so near future, will you advise him to:
1: buy entry level body+L lens
2: buy better body but use kit lens or cheaper consumer lens
1st July 2005, 11:34 PM
think imo, u can get entry level body like 350d or 300d or d70/d70s n those equivalent BUT get urself some more-decent lenses...
1st July 2005, 11:45 PM
Thanks detrop and all who replied,
Originally Posted by detrop
so I guess conclusion is good lens has a bigger impact on picture quality than good body.
3rd July 2005, 09:42 AM
but on the end it stills boil down to what u need... most people will buy a entry body with the kit lenses and save for a while. then later on, buy the lenses. ok...
now, i would buy a cam that has lenses which are easier to get. but for now, i don wan to confuse u with aperture and stuff.
3rd July 2005, 09:52 AM
Given a tight budget to work with, I would opt for a budget body with a good quality lenses. If after buying a 300D/350D, get a L lense if you still can afford it. A good lense can last a long time while a DSLR tends to get replaced by better models every 2 years.
3rd July 2005, 10:03 AM
If a good lens can last a long time, then a prime lens may last forever. Get a 50mm prime, its cheap and good.
3rd July 2005, 10:38 AM
3rd July 2005, 10:49 AM
Lens 70%, Body 30%, Photographer 100%.
3rd July 2005, 03:49 PM
Thanks all for advise, appreciate it.
Astin, I assume u mean cheap and good to be 50mm f/1.8? Might get one, but have to justify how often i utilize it cause I shoot mostly landscapes.
User111, I don't think I'm good enuf with PS to PP my pic until pro lens standard leh, my consumer/kit lens just doesn't capture the details/sharpnest/colour that i need. I'm spending alot of time learning PS now.
3rd July 2005, 04:23 PM
hehe..... if you're adventurous, get a EOS 1v with booster, get a good low-grain Fujifilm, and get good lenses like 50mm f/1.4 or L lens such as 70-200mm L IS USM. Good enough for most things, except wide-angle. No need to spend money on EF-S lenses because its full-frame. Cheaper than spending $7000+ on a EOS 1D II alone even if you factor in the film cost for many years before the costs break even.