Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Lens or body more important for picture quality

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    1,398

    Default 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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member jOhO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,485

    Default

    mostly i feel it's the lens that gives the "quality" that most pple are familiar with, which is detail and sharpness.

    however there are many more things that add to the quality of the photo imo, and that'll be things like noise and colour.

    lenses affect colour, but i feel not as much as the CCD which is in turn also associated with the WB sensor on the body. noise of course, is purely the body's problem, or lack thereof.

    so... i guess it's a mixed bag of beans, but most advise that u get the best lens u can afford, and no need to upgrade, whereas ur body will be the one that u upgrade more often.

  3. #3
    Member shawnlim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Jurong West
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clicknick
    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.
    The man behind the camera is more important

  4. #4
    Senior Member jOhO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shawnlim
    The man behind the camera is more important
    i think he's referring to technical quality, rather than artistic or aesthetic quality. u're right tho, if there wasn't any context to refer to.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jOhO
    mostly i feel it's the lens that gives the "quality" that most pple are familiar with, which is detail and sharpness.

    however there are many more things that add to the quality of the photo imo, and that'll be things like noise and colour.

    lenses affect colour, but i feel not as much as the CCD which is in turn also associated with the WB sensor on the body. noise of course, is purely the body's problem, or lack thereof.

    so... i guess it's a mixed bag of beans, but most advise that u get the best lens u can afford, and no need to upgrade, whereas ur body will be the one that u upgrade more often.
    Wow, thanks Joho and Shawn for instantaneous reply.

    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

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nowhere but ClubSNAP
    Posts
    191

    Default

    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...

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by detrop
    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...
    Thanks detrop and all who replied,
    so I guess conclusion is good lens has a bigger impact on picture quality than good body.

  8. #8

    Default ...

    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    A village in a forest
    Posts
    1,515

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Astin Studio
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    If a good lens can last a long time, then a prime lens may last forever. Get a 50mm prime, its cheap and good.

  11. #11

    Default

    photoshop

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,779

    Default

    Lens 70%, Body 30%, Photographer 100%.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bedok, Singapore
    Posts
    687

    Default

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •