camera body or lens?


Status
Not open for further replies.

moimoi

New Member
Apr 10, 2008
40
0
0
#1
hi all

this qn may be asked b4

is it more worth it to invest in a dslr body or a good lens? if budget is tight at the moment
 

Kit

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,708
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#2
You will natually know what to buy if you know what you need. If you don't know what you need, then don't buy anything at all until you figure it out.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#3
I am not for the arguement of buying lens because lens holds value more. I just think one should weigh the options against wat the user needs.

if u need the lens capability more get the lens.
if u need to get a particular body capability more, get the body.

And if budget is really too tight, u shld re-evaluate if the upgrading is really even necessary

Ryan
 

luntut

Senior Member
Oct 19, 2007
1,884
0
36
Punggol
#4
tight budget, dun play DSLR.

dun need to think too hard on how to make ends meet to buy that lens or body of yours, when you decided on waht to get.

buy camera only when u got budget. excess budget.
 

moimoi

New Member
Apr 10, 2008
40
0
0
#5
how about picture quality. which would affect picture quality more? a better body or a better lens?

i'm not deciding btn the two, i'm just curious about it.

and i'm not tight on budget either.

i'm also not taking abt specific lens like for marco or for portraits.

like buying a better body use kit lens, or use a more basic body use a better lens, which produces better pics? for general purpose walkabout lens

if u think the topic is too stupid, then dont need to reply.
 

Last edited:

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#7
You cannot weigh it like that, because in different situations, different remedies will be required. That is what Kit, Ryan and luntut are trying to bring across.

For instance, if your images regularly require you to shoot at high ISOs, and the noise control is not desirable, or you require fast, accurate AF for sports, then an upgrade of body is required.

On the flipside, if your lens range lacks a long lens for what you need to shoot, then a lens purchase is on hand.

Get what I mean? There is no one-track answer to which is more worth it or will affect your image quality more. They all do, in different ways. Whether they will benefit you depends on the situation you are in.
 

Trapper

New Member
Sep 25, 2008
288
0
0
fr0z.multiply.com
#8
What is your setup and how is it limiting you? Without relevant information no one can give you a good answer.
 

Flashbulb

New Member
Jun 20, 2008
530
0
0
#9
hi all

this qn may be asked b4

is it more worth it to invest in a dslr body or a good lens? if budget is tight at the moment
if budget is very tight, rental is the answer to try first. check the commercial services thread.
 

Feb 16, 2008
610
0
0
the blue planet
#10
hi all

this qn may be asked b4

is it more worth it to invest in a dslr body or a good lens? if budget is tight at the moment
if you want to *invest* your money, do it on good lens.
even a latest, most-feature-packed cam body gets outdated in 1-2 years. when new model comes out, price of the old one drops drastically:hung:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#11
how about picture quality. which would affect picture quality more? a better body or a better lens?
how important is picture quality?

are you a billboard poster printer? unless you are using the first generation dslr, or are a night cat, chances are picture quality at low iso is really quite consistent, i personally do not think there is much improvement. maybe more megapixels but that's all.

both affect picture quality in different ways; but pictures are produced by people, and people have different demands, and different sets of skills. for me, i will consider whether LENS or CAMERA BODY is limiting me in any way.

if either are stopping me for doing something i want to do, i get either. if both are contributors, i get both. of course the something i want to do isn't some silly project like shooting xmm in a dark room at night. i make sure it is something long-term, something that justifies the purchase.

if neither are doing that, and i am actually being bored and indulging in some purchase daydreaming, i realise that i can put the money to better use, knock myself on the head, and go out and shoot more.

photogrpahy is about shooting pictures, not investments. the utility derived from getting the pictures you want, pictures you can love, pictures you can be proud of because of their value to you, the statements they seem to make and communicate your viewpoint to the world.. the experience involved in shooting it.. not simply just because it's pretty. and that utility cannot be measured, cannot be given a price. i know i've made my investment in photography (as meagre as it may be up to now) more than worth my while a thousandfold over.

focus on the pictures you want to have, the photographs, the act of photography. there is a reason why a photographer is called a photographer, not a cameraman, not a cathayphotoman, not a lensman, not a drycabinetman. if you have to ask people what lens to get, which camera body to buy, one or the other to purchase, it suggests (although this may not be true) that you are just looking for a joy purchase. in that case, just buy both and buy a dry cabinet to go with it too. the more the merrier.
 

Last edited:
Apr 15, 2008
2,291
0
0
Singapore, east-ish
#12
regarding TS's question:

Totally depends on what you're planning to shoot right?

Supposing you're interested in macro photography and own a entry-level DSLR. Will upgrading to a D3 help you at all? Or will just buying a (much cheaper) Tamron 90mm macro lens do the trick?

Likewise, If you do concert photography, even an f2.8 lens isn't gonna be of much use if your camera body has abysmal noise performance

Question answered?


Hope so :)
 

Jul 31, 2006
77
0
0
#13
From personal experience, I think that even an entry-level system can produce great pictures if properly used.

After own an camera body and several lens, I realize that the weakest point in my "system" is neither my camera nor lens, but the photographer-myself. So I decide to register for a course in fine-art to "upgrade" myself, hopefully.

Just to share my viewpoint.
 

Apr 15, 2008
2,291
0
0
Singapore, east-ish
#15
From personal experience, I think that even an entry-level system can produce great pictures if properly used.

After own an camera body and several lens, I realize that the weakest point in my "system" is neither my camera nor lens, but the photographer-myself. So I decide to register for a course in fine-art to "upgrade" myself, hopefully.

Just to share my viewpoint.
well said ;)
 

mrleech

New Member
Mar 16, 2007
114
0
0
#16
From personal experience, I think that even an entry-level system can produce great pictures if properly used.

After own an camera body and several lens, I realize that the weakest point in my "system" is neither my camera nor lens, but the photographer-myself. So I decide to register for a course in fine-art to "upgrade" myself, hopefully.

Just to share my viewpoint.
I totally agree.

Many times I realised that I did not fully utilise the system (ME). if I get a dark picture, I immediately think its the flash. I can also adjust the shutter speed or ISO too. So yeah, I think a good knowledge and application skills would be a better bet than just the body or lens.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom