Lens or body more important for picture quality

clicknick · 1st July 2005

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.

jOhO · 1st July 2005

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.

shawnlim · 1st July 2005

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

jOhO · 1st July 2005

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.

clicknick · 1st July 2005

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

detrop · 1st July 2005

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...

clicknick · 1st July 2005

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.

Joel Lyn · 3rd July 2005

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.

kelccm · 3rd July 2005

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.

Astin · 3rd July 2005

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

user111 · 3rd July 2005

photoshop

Spectrum · 3rd July 2005

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

clicknick · 3rd July 2005

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.

yaoxing · 3rd July 2005

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.

1st July 2005	#1
clicknick Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hougang Posts: 1,403	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.

3rd July 2005	#8
Joel Lyn Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Bishan Posts: 95	... 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.

1st July 2005	#2
jOhO Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 6,453	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.

1st July 2005	#6
detrop Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nowhere but ClubSNAP Posts: 192	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...

3rd July 2005	#9
kelccm Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Somewhere near a chinese lake Posts: 1,109	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
Astin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Astin Studio Posts: 4,724	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	#11
user111 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 4,719	photoshop

3rd July 2005	#12
Spectrum Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Here Posts: 3,685	Lens 70%, Body 30%, Photographer 100%.

3rd July 2005	#14
yaoxing Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bedok, Singapore Posts: 773	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.