Pro Body vs Pro Lens
- Thread starter crazypaladin
- Start date
- Status
Comparing the same generation say a D70 vs D2H or a 350D vs 1DMkII.student said:
How many here would use the 8 fps on the pro body to try to capture a sporting action moment, rather than anticipate and shoot? As Ian and Jed had mentioned quite a few times, machine gunning is not the way.
How many here use the higher resolution of a camera and say to themselves, "aiyah, can crop later lah; framing it just right is not important" ? :sweat: These are examples of lazyness and not wanting to learn the proper technique.
Analogy: If there is an expert system that can be used in diagnosing and provide solution for cranial and neuro injuries, how many interns would spend an extra mile to learn all the details? Even now, car mechanic defer to the automatic diagnostic and problem rectification system and avoid learning all the nitty gritty details.
my choice is 1 for digital, and my logic is as follows:
i'm shooting with a humble 300D now, and after a few months, i've gotten familiar with the limitations of what the body can do, even with a good L lens fitted.
recently i tried a friend's 20D, and the whole feel of the camera is very confidence-inspiring. the way the camera is more balanced, the higher fps, the better AF etc.
with a 1Ds, you get even more AF points, better metering, no need to buy a BG to have the extra set of buttons to shoot upright, the numerous other options, far better dark resolution and less noise than the 300D.. the list goes on.
i would say although a 1 series digital canon would put me out of my depth, the potential for me to learn is far more than an zoom or prime lens can offer, and third party lens or not, all you achieve is better colour/sharpness/build quality.
these are qualities inherent in the lens and you learn to live with it. it does not necessarily stifle your creativity nor does it hinder the development of your "photographer's eye".
a very basic DSLR however, will frustrate you to some degree when you miss great shots simply because your body makes the lens hunt in low light and you miss the moment, or the great view can't be captured without excessive ISO noise, or your frames in burst mode are too far apart because the camera shoots really slowly. when i got my 300D i thought the 3 sec startup delay was a small matter. god only knows how many shots i've missed because of the 3 sec delay by now.
just my opinion.
having said that, i think the resistance to going to a pro body is because a good body depreciates much faster than a good lens, and for most people they would rather collect lenses than to shell out for a body. however, i think we should recognise which will be of more value to us. as a hobbyist, my goal is to learn more, and in that respect, a pro body will probably do more for me than a pro lens.
i'm shooting with a humble 300D now, and after a few months, i've gotten familiar with the limitations of what the body can do, even with a good L lens fitted.
recently i tried a friend's 20D, and the whole feel of the camera is very confidence-inspiring. the way the camera is more balanced, the higher fps, the better AF etc.
with a 1Ds, you get even more AF points, better metering, no need to buy a BG to have the extra set of buttons to shoot upright, the numerous other options, far better dark resolution and less noise than the 300D.. the list goes on.
i would say although a 1 series digital canon would put me out of my depth, the potential for me to learn is far more than an zoom or prime lens can offer, and third party lens or not, all you achieve is better colour/sharpness/build quality.
these are qualities inherent in the lens and you learn to live with it. it does not necessarily stifle your creativity nor does it hinder the development of your "photographer's eye".
a very basic DSLR however, will frustrate you to some degree when you miss great shots simply because your body makes the lens hunt in low light and you miss the moment, or the great view can't be captured without excessive ISO noise, or your frames in burst mode are too far apart because the camera shoots really slowly. when i got my 300D i thought the 3 sec startup delay was a small matter. god only knows how many shots i've missed because of the 3 sec delay by now.
just my opinion.
having said that, i think the resistance to going to a pro body is because a good body depreciates much faster than a good lens, and for most people they would rather collect lenses than to shell out for a body. however, i think we should recognise which will be of more value to us. as a hobbyist, my goal is to learn more, and in that respect, a pro body will probably do more for me than a pro lens.
Watcher said:
i beg to differ. i shoot lots of photos of my 19mth-old daughter, and anyone with kids can tell you that trying to shoot a hyperactive kid can be as demanding as sports photography. while i agree to a certain extent that machine gunning is not the way to go for most situations, sometimes it's really cool to have that AI focus feature and still have control over other settings. with my camera i can only put it into sports mode and work with that. out of say 30 shots, maybe 3-4 are keepers. i'm not going to say i will get more keepers with a good pro body, but i have personally encountered moments where i wished i had a higher fps to catch more frames of a funny look.
yes, it may all boil down to my inadecuacies as a photographer, BUT.. the question put forward was which i would rather have, and i've griped more about my fps than the colour and sharpness of my photos. :dunno:
espn said:Say... if I can afford a D2X...definitely I can afford a SB-800 and 70-200VR.
Therefore... none of the above!
I would say you got the correct answer, seems that money is not an issue if you are willing to go for a pro-body.... really makes sense. :bsmilie: just buy the best on wide, prime or zoom lens that you need.
Not to start a brand war here, but the 300D is a crippled piece of equipment. Startup time? 3secs sleep to wake? 3 sec. Try the D70 or even the old D100 (which is a advance amateur), or 20D or 10D even. D100 came out in 2002 Feb; start up time <0.4 sec, etcDunnomuch said:
Also, if you have a 2.8L lens vs a 3.5-4.5 lens, which do you think will focus faster?
See the actual review by Phil Askey.My choice is number one..
With so much features already packed in a pro-body, I definitely can take better pictures with non-pro lenses. To name a few highly regarded lenses from canon - 50 f1.4; 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.0. They are as good as the L if not better..
With so much features already packed in a pro-body, I definitely can take better pictures with non-pro lenses. To name a few highly regarded lenses from canon - 50 f1.4; 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.0. They are as good as the L if not better..
user111 said:
I totally agree with what you say ...
A good body is the backbone of the whole system. One of the main reason is, their metering are not the same lor ... I choose 1 too ... :heart:
I will never try to put the 28-70 2.8 on the F50 lor ... :bheart:
if i have $4000 in my pocket, i will buy a F5 with a normal zoom 24-85mm. Then use it to earn the next $4000. ... then i will use it to buy the PRO lens :lovegrin:
Then i can use it to earn my next $4000 x 10 liao ... :kiss:
hi
for me, it's choice 2 cos I do usually have time to slowly compose my shots. I can therefore expose correctly using my cheap 300D . AF is also not so crucial for me cos my subjects are slow moving ones
for me, it's choice 2 cos I do usually have time to slowly compose my shots. I can therefore expose correctly using my cheap 300D . AF is also not so crucial for me cos my subjects are slow moving ones
I see alot of differing opinions but I feel actually all are valid, all depends on your usage isn't it.
I shoot stills, landscapes, architecture, posed portraits, things that don't move, using my crippled piece of equipment. And also I not using my cam to make $, just an interest. So right now, if have $, I'll buy a pro lens rather than upgrade to pro body. Have more $ then upgrade to pro body to compliment the pro lens. End of the day, best is have pro lens+pro body. Everyone wants ferrari chassis with ferrari engine what.
I shoot stills, landscapes, architecture, posed portraits, things that don't move, using my crippled piece of equipment. And also I not using my cam to make $, just an interest. So right now, if have $, I'll buy a pro lens rather than upgrade to pro body. Have more $ then upgrade to pro body to compliment the pro lens. End of the day, best is have pro lens+pro body. Everyone wants ferrari chassis with ferrari engine what.
Agreed...user111 said:
if yr "backbone" bone is gd, results will be better.
if can combine it with pro lens, is best.
sometimes ppl have to learn the hard way...(buy and sell)
user111 said:i have tried
17-35/f2.8L on 10d
17-40/f4L on 20d
20-35/f2.8L on 10d
28-70/f2.8L on 10d
70-200/2.8L on 10d
and various such combinations
the viewfinder still looks smaller than compared to 1D
oooops... i forgot about the size of the viewfinder hee hee me bad
but image wise, a crap glass is a crap glass.
ortega said:
In today's world, prosumer/third party grade lens and prosumer grade body both perform well enough for most applications though.
For those who do not have lots of money to spend on photography (either as hobby or work), prosumer/third party grade lens + prosumer grade body will do fine. For me, I use L as much as non-L for the pictures I have taken.
I would choose no 1. if I am using a digital SLR. I share the same sentiments as Dunnomuch because I am also using the 300D. I have a few L-lenses with me and how I wish the body could maximise the full potential of these L-lenses in terms on focussing accuracy, speed and better metering. Anyway, third party lenses can't be that bad right? Hey wait a minute...I've used them before. I still cant believe myself why I sold all those 3rd party ones and bought the L-lenses. Oh well. No turning back I guess.
Why I didnt get the 20D or something better? I am still in love with my film body and I am shooting a lot with it. Just my personal preference. Cheers!
Why I didnt get the 20D or something better? I am still in love with my film body and I am shooting a lot with it. Just my personal preference. Cheers!
Well, I haven't been active in CS for a darn long time as I was quite tied up with work. As a photographer I find this questions hard to answer initially but I have made up my mind now after all these years. Like some of you here I am faced with similar dilemma.
We all shoot different things. Some do sports, some reportage, some family snapshots, some still life, nature, documentaries, and in my case architectural, commercial, lifestyle, and corporate. I started photography in the film era, though only shooting for hobby and mainly street and documentaries at that time. I am easily satisfied with a Nikon FM2n and some prime lenses, usually a 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 105mm. I don't mind my camera not having complicated electronics, well not until the start of the digital revolution.
With computer aided technologies, I have discovered that lens developments just gets better and better. The so called "cheapo" lenses is today capable of delivering image quality either similar to or much better than those made 20 years ago. Zoom lenses with ED, UD, or SD glasses are hitting and flooding the market even in lower grade models. I would say that if lower end lenses fail to produce better quality than a high end one, it is usually only noticeable at the extreme ends of the aperture settings. When stopped down to f/8 or f/11, one would be having a hard time guessing which lens was used for that picture assuming shooting conditions are the same.
Of course, with more expensive or pro lenses we have the issue of better Bokeh, better shadow rendition, lesser distortion, better toughness, and better sharpness capability at maximum aperture settings, but for most users these issues are not that noticeable. That is of course without doubt as the saying goes, "you get what you paid for."
With digital being in the frontline nowadays the ball game have changed. As a full time professional I am still shooting with an amatuerish Nikon D100 and I am upgrading to the D2X which I am pissed that until now there is still non in stock. Not meant to belittle the D100, it is a darn good camera (if you know what you are doing) except that it can be a little slow to work with, and with a lowest ISO of 200 sometimes a nuisance. I have shot with Canon 10D for some of my work too but I just hate the slow start-up time. I heard the 20D is almost instantaneous but have yet to try.
Why did I say the D100 is slow? Well, I shoot a lot of Board of Director and people shots and I usually do them in NEF (or RAW to other brands) and have my camera teethered to a laptop so the art director could view the pictures before we decide if we can conclude the shoot. I don't mind if the camera takes a long time to transfer the image to laptop but what bothers me is when shooting NEF files the D100 buffer only allows a maximum of 4 shots, too little when shooting people, especially when they are smiling away and you can't shoot until the buffer clears. The D70 or D70s is not any better although it has a higher transfer speed thanks to the USB 2.0 cable but still slow IMHO. It is frustrating not only for me but the people I shoot.
The other issue that bothers me is the exposure lattitude. I guess everyone knows that due to the nature of the CCD or cMOS design digital is very proned to washed-out or white-out highlight renditions if you are not careful. A higher end or pro camera usually has a higher exposure lattitude than a lower end one. Although I do plenty of controls on my lighting setup prior to a shoot to balance the light source, there are times when I am shooting outdoors that there is not much that I could have done to control it. A higher end camera would allow better shadow and highlight rendition than a low end camera IMHO.
Then we have the file size and resolution issue. Although 6 megapixel is not a lot of difference as compared to a 12.4 megapixel D2X but there are still differences. For some of you who argued that you compose the picture properly in camera and there is no need for cropping I would say good for you, but welcome to the real world of professional photography. In more cases than I can recall, art directors and creative directors always asked for more background space so they can crop to their own liking during post productions to fit the required picture space allocated to them. They might want only a square format out of the vertical picture, or they might even change their mind later and do a long panoramic crop. If you had composed your picture tightly in camera then I can say good luck to you.
So after all my long mumbo jumbo I conclude that I would rather have a high-end camera than a high-end lens (although I already have high-end lenses) because in the real world of photographic industry many art and creative directors are not really afficionadoes of the sharpest pictures. It is the way you compose and light a picture and also a picture they can work with that counts.
We all shoot different things. Some do sports, some reportage, some family snapshots, some still life, nature, documentaries, and in my case architectural, commercial, lifestyle, and corporate. I started photography in the film era, though only shooting for hobby and mainly street and documentaries at that time. I am easily satisfied with a Nikon FM2n and some prime lenses, usually a 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 105mm. I don't mind my camera not having complicated electronics, well not until the start of the digital revolution.
With computer aided technologies, I have discovered that lens developments just gets better and better. The so called "cheapo" lenses is today capable of delivering image quality either similar to or much better than those made 20 years ago. Zoom lenses with ED, UD, or SD glasses are hitting and flooding the market even in lower grade models. I would say that if lower end lenses fail to produce better quality than a high end one, it is usually only noticeable at the extreme ends of the aperture settings. When stopped down to f/8 or f/11, one would be having a hard time guessing which lens was used for that picture assuming shooting conditions are the same.
Of course, with more expensive or pro lenses we have the issue of better Bokeh, better shadow rendition, lesser distortion, better toughness, and better sharpness capability at maximum aperture settings, but for most users these issues are not that noticeable. That is of course without doubt as the saying goes, "you get what you paid for."
With digital being in the frontline nowadays the ball game have changed. As a full time professional I am still shooting with an amatuerish Nikon D100 and I am upgrading to the D2X which I am pissed that until now there is still non in stock. Not meant to belittle the D100, it is a darn good camera (if you know what you are doing) except that it can be a little slow to work with, and with a lowest ISO of 200 sometimes a nuisance. I have shot with Canon 10D for some of my work too but I just hate the slow start-up time. I heard the 20D is almost instantaneous but have yet to try.
Why did I say the D100 is slow? Well, I shoot a lot of Board of Director and people shots and I usually do them in NEF (or RAW to other brands) and have my camera teethered to a laptop so the art director could view the pictures before we decide if we can conclude the shoot. I don't mind if the camera takes a long time to transfer the image to laptop but what bothers me is when shooting NEF files the D100 buffer only allows a maximum of 4 shots, too little when shooting people, especially when they are smiling away and you can't shoot until the buffer clears. The D70 or D70s is not any better although it has a higher transfer speed thanks to the USB 2.0 cable but still slow IMHO. It is frustrating not only for me but the people I shoot.
The other issue that bothers me is the exposure lattitude. I guess everyone knows that due to the nature of the CCD or cMOS design digital is very proned to washed-out or white-out highlight renditions if you are not careful. A higher end or pro camera usually has a higher exposure lattitude than a lower end one. Although I do plenty of controls on my lighting setup prior to a shoot to balance the light source, there are times when I am shooting outdoors that there is not much that I could have done to control it. A higher end camera would allow better shadow and highlight rendition than a low end camera IMHO.
Then we have the file size and resolution issue. Although 6 megapixel is not a lot of difference as compared to a 12.4 megapixel D2X but there are still differences. For some of you who argued that you compose the picture properly in camera and there is no need for cropping I would say good for you, but welcome to the real world of professional photography. In more cases than I can recall, art directors and creative directors always asked for more background space so they can crop to their own liking during post productions to fit the required picture space allocated to them. They might want only a square format out of the vertical picture, or they might even change their mind later and do a long panoramic crop. If you had composed your picture tightly in camera then I can say good luck to you.
So after all my long mumbo jumbo I conclude that I would rather have a high-end camera than a high-end lens (although I already have high-end lenses) because in the real world of photographic industry many art and creative directors are not really afficionadoes of the sharpest pictures. It is the way you compose and light a picture and also a picture they can work with that counts.
Hi Andy,
I agree with you whole-heartedly. I should have bought the 20D back then when I was shopping for digital cameras but instead I settled for the 300D because of budget constraint. At that time, I was also eyeing on some L-lenses (the L-bug caught me everytime) and I was still shooting on film. You're right about the image quality issues about 3rd party lenses. Sometimes I just cant tell the differences at all. Even if I did, it would take the 'special eye' or should I say the typical nitpicker to notice anything.
Anyway, 5D or not, I am eyeing on the 20D. Cheers!
I agree with you whole-heartedly. I should have bought the 20D back then when I was shopping for digital cameras but instead I settled for the 300D because of budget constraint. At that time, I was also eyeing on some L-lenses (the L-bug caught me everytime) and I was still shooting on film. You're right about the image quality issues about 3rd party lenses. Sometimes I just cant tell the differences at all. Even if I did, it would take the 'special eye' or should I say the typical nitpicker to notice anything.
Anyway, 5D or not, I am eyeing on the 20D. Cheers!
- Status
Similar threads
