Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: 32BT on September 15, 2006, 04:23:58 am

Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: 32BT on September 15, 2006, 04:23:58 am
In light of the upcoming photokina and corresponding announcements I thought it would be interesting to poll the relative merit of equipment in Photography. Although in reality it is not a binary choice, if you had to choose between a high-end camera with a low-end lens, vs a low-end camera with a high-end lens, which would you rather have?

Let's assume that in either case the camera+lens combination has equal AF behavior. They both have similar output resolution.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: macgyver on September 15, 2006, 11:04:27 am
I'll take the nice lens every time.  As long as the camera at least can do the very basic of what I need its the lens every time.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 15, 2006, 03:25:19 pm
Quote
I'll take the nice lens every time.  As long as the camera at least can do the very basic of what I need its the lens every time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me too. Besides, in the present era it is cameras that become quickly obsolete, while good lenses go on being good for a lot longer.

-Eric
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on September 15, 2006, 06:00:00 pm
It's not "either-or", it's a matter of which is the weakest link.  If you put a great lens on a crappy camera (for example, one that has poor noise characteristics, or one that doesn't have the features you need to get the exposure or focus correct for your shooting conditions), that great lens isn't making your pictures any better than a mediocre lens. Since the digital SLRs we have available these days are really quite impressive, the lens is usually the weakest link; however, that's not necessarily always been true.  Rather than asking "which is more important", you should be trying to match the lens quality to the camera quality to avoid having one be too much worse than the other, since the weakest one with determine how technically good your photos are.

Lisa
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: dlashier on September 15, 2006, 10:02:53 pm
Quote
the lens is usually the weakest link;
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Umm, I think that the photographer is usually the weakest link  

But other than that I agree with you that a balanced approach is the best, although if I had to favor one it would be the lens.

- DL
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Fred Ragland on September 16, 2006, 12:41:39 pm
Quote
Umm, I think that the photographer is usually the weakest link   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76536\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a conundrum.  Leica, for example, offers excellent optics but may have been overrun by the digital revolution.  If a great Leica lens goes on a digital body that can't fully exploit that greatness, the image suffers because the technology of the body doesn't match the technology of the lens.

Canon faces this challenge with its wide angle lenses.  To get great wide angle images with a Canon camera you have to use someone else's lens.  The Zeiss 21/2.8 reigns supreme for wide angle images on Canon pro bodies.

And on it goes.

Exceeding photographer expectations, achieving cutting edge design and manufacturing control in both electronics and optics, and doing all of this cost effectively is a task no company has mastered.

To get an exceptional system that "balances" lens and body qualities may require mixing and matching of manufacturers which many of us aren't prepared to do.  

But we're learning.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Frere Jacques on September 16, 2006, 06:04:11 pm
I have a friend who shot some candids at a wedding with a Canon 300D and a rented 85/1.2 L series -- the output was gorgeous! The same camera with the kit lens attached looks little better than a p&s. Go for good glass.



Quote
In light of the upcoming photokina and corresponding announcements I thought it would be interesting to poll the relative merit of equipment in Photography. Although in reality it is not a binary choice, if you had to choose between a high-end camera with a low-end lens, vs a low-end camera with a high-end lens, which would you rather have?

Let's assume that in either case the camera+lens combination has equal AF behavior. They both have similar output resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: gochugogi on September 17, 2006, 03:58:29 am
I say go for both top quality cameras and lenses. Why make a choice? If you're short on benjamins, credit is easy and life is too short to fut around with crap.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on September 17, 2006, 04:27:49 am
It is strange in these confusing days where the camera contributes a major amount towards the final image quality as opposed to the film days where for a 'M mode' shooter like myself the camera was little more than a light proof box with dials.

However nowadays the chip is extremely important, you still would want to shoot pro film in your light proof box and the same goes for your digital camera, having a great lens will not help if you're chip is 'underpowered' for your specific needs.

Added to that is useability. If you need fast AF/performance then a camera with slow AF and lag will miss you shots and there is no use having that incredible lens hanging off your camera if you aren't able to get the shots!

It is both I'm afraid. When I bought a 1Ds I bought a 24-70L to go with it and vice versa. You need the tool which will fulfill your expectations and needs and a camera is just part of that system that you require, just as the lens is only part of it.

For non pros I think that the above question may make sense, what do you invest in first? For those who have to get the shot, whose livelihood depends on getting the shot, investing in that RRS L plate is just as important as investing in fast pro glass or a pro level camera, your whole system has to 'hack it', you cannot afford one single weak link in the chain.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Graham Welland on September 17, 2006, 07:25:50 am
There's definitely a trade off with digital vs. film. Now that the bar for DSLR entry level quality has risen so high that it's hard to buy a truely flawed DSLR image-wise, it easier to say that the quality of the lens is far more important than the DSLR body.

I'm a Nikon shooter (sorry ... LL imposter I know), and I can get excellent results from cheap travel DSLR's like the D50 using my Nikon premium AFS lenses. I can't get the same quality results from kit lenses with my D2X's unless I stop down or do post production with tools like DxO.

Establish the base line camera capabilities and image quality (Rebel Xt/D50 etc) and buy the best glass you can afford.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 17, 2006, 10:45:12 am
Interesting...

I look to the body first, then try and get the best glass on it I can.  Unfortunately, right now I cannot find that "best body" -- none of them have everything I want in a body, yet most of them have way more gimmicks than I need
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: boku on September 17, 2006, 12:18:34 pm
Just an observation (the obvious, perhaps)...

What used to be "camera versus lens" is now "imager versus lens". The imager now supplants both the former camera and film. When you choose your body, you are, in essense, also choosing your film.

Perhaps this means that camera bodies now are a bit more important than they used to be in the old days.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: OutsideShooter on September 17, 2006, 09:21:44 pm
Quote
For non pros I think that the above question may make sense, what do you invest in first? For those who have to get the shot, whose livelihood depends on getting the shot, investing in that RRS L plate is just as important as investing in fast pro glass or a pro level camera, your whole system has to 'hack it', you cannot afford one single weak link in the chain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think there's much one can add to pom's point. Sure a ton of verbage can be changed but his essential point simply cannot be altered. Every aspect of photography is only as strong as it's weakest link. RRS all the way up to the most expensive lens or body. Take a Hassleblad H2. The fact that the back is capable of 39MP means very little  if an inexpensive lens is attached.

Well said pom
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: giles on September 17, 2006, 09:51:18 pm
I agree it's one of those "weakest links" situations: a poor lens on a great camera limits the images, a poor body on a great lens limits the images, and a poor photographer limits the images regardless of the equipment.

In the digital realm, I think I'd prefer to have great lenses and a passable camera body than to "optimise" and have only good lenses with a good camera body.  Rationale: the camera bodies are still evolving much more quickly than lenses are.  For amateurs (for professionals tax deductions, depreciation, and professional competition might change this) buying lenses to "grow into" is I hope not ridiculously silly.

Personal disclaimer time: I've been guilty of attaching a silver 300D to a white 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, and yes, that is a pretty ugly looking combination.

Giles
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 18, 2006, 02:17:48 am
Considering that a camera system is serial (as opposed to parallel devices), the quality of the output will be controlled by the weakest link.

From an investement standpoint, it is indeed tempting to invest in long lasting good lenses instead of investing in a DSLR that will only stay top of the notch for a few years, but the such a way of thinking would stuck us in a position where our images at any given moment in time will always be inferior to what they could have been had you invested in the best sensor for our application...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: 32BT on September 18, 2006, 07:21:31 am
As mentioned earlier, it really isn't a binary choice and perhaps it should be possible to poll the relative importance of elements. But this means it is necessary first to separate the "chain" in simplified relevant elements.

My current thinking in order of importance:

1. Photographer,
2. Lighting,
3. Lens,
4. Camera,
5. PostProcessing,
6. Subject.

I think Subject is the least important, because with the right lighting and creative vision, any subject can be made to shine... For the same reason, Photographer is obviously the most important. Perhaps we should separate that also into "Creative Vision" and "Skill". The latter is not nearly as important as the former, and good lighting and post-processing can compensate a lot of ill skill...

Ergo:
1. Creative Vision,
2. Lighting,
3. Lens,
4. Skill,
5. Camera,
6. PostProcessing,
7. Subject.

Any thoughts on this?

Mind you, I'm not denying that certain contexts have different requirements. But even then you could argue about true value: You can buy 4 digital rebels for a single 1 series. The latter may be more dependable as a single unit, but having 3 back-up units obviously compensates dependability.

To refer back to the formula 1 metaphor: I'm not arguing that a formula 1 race requires a formula 1 car, I am asking whether the car is more important, or the tires. For some this may mean a state-of-the-art digital back vs a refurbished unit. If that's your flavor, the question might be: would you rather have a state-of-the-art back plus the old Zeiss lenses, or a refurbished unit plus digitar lenses?
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 18, 2006, 09:49:35 am
Bingo!

Oscar, I think you have nailed it exactly. I like your analysis.

-Eric
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: macgyver on September 18, 2006, 02:59:04 pm
I disagre, subject is more important that camera or lens.  You can give me the best gear on earth and I can have the world's best vision, but if you put me if a 6x6x6 concrete room with all grey walls and no shadows i have nothing.

Or, think of it this way:  think of the difference in photos of little leaguers and major league ball.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 18, 2006, 10:36:07 pm
I think it is all about light and subject, then having tools that do not get in the way of one's creative vision.  The lens is simply a tool choice to render that specific vision; the camera a tool that captures it accurately.  So for me, the best gear is the gear that "becomes invisible" when I'm working with it -- and the body leads that set of choices.  

Cheers,
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on September 19, 2006, 03:52:03 am
Didn't MR write about this and put tripod before either? I agree with him as well!
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: dlashier on September 19, 2006, 05:02:48 am
Quote
Didn't MR write about this and put tripod before either? I agree with him as well!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMO all a matter of style - tripod cramps my style so I rarely use one (and hence my urge to return to RF for even less need), but I can see the need for MF with that big mirror slapping. If I had to fiddle/wait for my tripod I'd miss half of my best shots.

- DL
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: TimothyHughes on September 19, 2006, 11:51:00 pm
Quote
In light of the upcoming photokina and corresponding announcements I thought it would be interesting to poll the relative merit of equipment in Photography. Although in reality it is not a binary choice, if you had to choose between a high-end camera with a low-end lens, vs a low-end camera with a high-end lens, which would you rather have?

Let's assume that in either case the camera+lens combination has equal AF behavior. They both have similar output resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry but an image is only going to be as good as the "system". Now, if you were talking about a 35mm camera body, than I'll take damn near any body. With digital however, the body makes a HUGE difference. Think about how far Canon's D-SLRs have come since the advent of the Rebel 300D.  

That being said, good glass is necessary to capture quality shots. A lot can be done in post to increase color saturation and sharpness but it can't add details that the glass didn't capture in the first place.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: 32BT on September 20, 2006, 04:13:09 am
Quote
I disagre, subject is more important that camera or lens.  You can give me the best gear on earth and I can have the world's best vision, but if you put me if a 6x6x6 concrete room with all grey walls and no shadows i have nothing.

Which implies that lighting is everything. In this case I can already think up many different abstracts I would love to explore of lines dividing space... or a good old 15mm fe on FF?
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: 32BT on September 20, 2006, 04:15:42 am
Quote
IMO all a matter of style -
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps true for all of this discussion. Different types of Photography have different requirements, changing the relative importance of all elements. As an example in landscape Photography there is little one can do about light, but in a studio environment the possibilities are obviously greater.

I'm not sure which situation requires more creativity: a situation that requires you to overcome limitations, or a situation with an abundunce of possibilities?
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on September 20, 2006, 05:18:42 am
Don, I think that quote was landscape specific, given that when shooting closed down at sunrise/sunset you are almost always shooting in tripod territory shutter speeds, the best  setup will always give a better image.

I used to shoot with an manfrotto 055. It was a good tripod. Then I bought a Velbon CF tripod that was half the weight. It's a great tripod, but due to the weight I had to weigh it down in the field with a stone bag and I'm still noticing that it isn't as steady as the older and more simple aluminium Manfrotto.

I'm investing in a Manfrotto MF3 (CF) which from playing with in the shops is far more steady than the lighter velbon. I would buy Gitzo even if it meant saving up for a while, but I HATE twist leg locks!
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Yakim Peled on September 20, 2006, 06:00:22 am
>> Although in reality it is not a binary choice

Very true.

>>  if you had to choose between a high-end camera with a low-end lens, vs a low-end camera with a high-end lens, which would you rather have?

The latter.

>> I think Subject is the least important, because with the right lighting and creative vision, any subject can be made to shine...

I disagree.

>> Umm, I think that the photographer is usually the weakest link

I agree.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: dlashier on September 20, 2006, 06:22:53 pm
Quote
Don, I think that quote was landscape specific, given that when shooting closed down at sunrise/sunset you are almost always shooting in tripod territory shutter speeds, the best  setup will always give a better image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed Ben, sunset is about the only time I run into problems, but otoh this is a prime example of when a tripod cramps my style. I'm typically running around the beach, squatting down, shifting slightly, looking for reflections in the wet sand, and occasionally running from oncoming waves. Here's a shot that was somewhat compromised with no tripod because I didn't want to go below 1/50 which meant f4. Theoretically at 17mm f4 should have been adequate but I generally fudge a bit to guarantee distance sharpness so the close foreground is not optimal. But in any case I was standing (or squatting) in running water on sand - not exactly the best base for a tripod. In addition, the scene is changing very rapidly at this time of day and I can't afford to fiddle with a tripod for even a minute - I would have missed the shot.
[attachment=963:attachment]
- DL
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on September 21, 2006, 11:38:33 am
Gorgeous image, Don.  I also only occasionally use a tripod, because I usually don't want to take the time to mess around with one when I can take an image hand-held (in good lighting conditions only, of course) and then get going sooner to the next good photo spot.  Having a hyperactive spouse who can't stay in one place for long, and who is often with me when I'm photographing, has pushed me towards that style of photography, of course.  

And put me in the camp that believes that subject matter is one of the most important things to a photo, not the equipment.  A more precise description of my view is that, like in equipment, what makes a good photo also follows a "weakest link" rule - a great photo of a boring subject and a poor photo of a great subject are both poor.

Lisa
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Fred Ragland on September 21, 2006, 02:37:36 pm
Quote
...what makes a good photo also follows a "weakest link" rule - a great photo of a boring subject and a poor photo of a great subject are both poor...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77152\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but what makes a great photo depends on the use of the image.
 
Speaking only for myself, I've been able to get by with images for the web or small-to-medium prints with hand-held shooting.  But I've been sorely disappointed when I return from shoots with strong images not sharp enough for large prints or critical review.  Invariably, the problem was hand-held shooting in order to meet some time constraint or to stay up with a group.  Too often these have been images that will not come my way again.

So I discipline myself to use a tripod.  Its a hard discipline to learn and I'm years into the process, but my images are better, especially when the prints are large.  Technology has helped.  My heavy, clumsy tripods and heads of yesteryear have been replaced with a light weight, quickly set up Gitzo 1258 sporting an RRS quick disconnect head.  Altogether, my percentage of great photos of great subjects has increased...even though it was often made more painful by having to drag the tripod along.  With recent changes to airtravel, tripod shooting has required an even greater commitment.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: dlashier on September 21, 2006, 03:01:29 pm
Quote
But I've been sorely disappointed when I return from shoots with strong images not sharp enough for large prints or critical review.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What sort of shutter speeds and focal length have you been shooting at that this is a problem? My typical landscape (daytime) shot is in the vicinity of 1/500 to 1/1000 at 17mm to 35mm - tripod or no tripod makes no difference whatsoever. Evening tele shots (or even WA at times) are an entirely different matter.

- DL
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Fred Ragland on September 21, 2006, 09:50:43 pm
Quote
...What sort of shutter speeds and focal length have you been shooting at that this is a problem?...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Don.  I've long appreciated your concise answers.  Your image above is beautiful.

Soft images can be a problem when I shoot hand-held at 1/125 or slower with a 19mm lens!

"The rest of the story" is that in addition to shutter speed and focal length, aperature and ISO needs also affect how good the hand-held shot will be.  Of course, I'm not telling you anything new, just trying to pull together in one place some of the causes of soft images.

I shoot landscape and architecture with a 1Ds2 and a 4x5".  The 1Ds2 gets the most use.  For wide angle shooting with the 1Ds2, a Zeiss 19mm f2.8 lens is adapted for the camera.  The conditions I give myself (which is not to say I'll pass up other great shots!) are to minimize noise and to use the lens at its best aperature.  I prefer ISO 100 or 200 and rarely shoot above  ISO 400.  To get the best performance from the lens, I shoot at f8 (occasionally f11) which is the best compromise for depth of field vs. diffraction losses.

So that sets the stage.  On a full frame 35mm camera a 19mm lens at f8 appears to be focused from between 2 or 3 feet to infinity.  If that depth of field meets my needs, shutter speed with an ISO of 200 on a "normal" day is perhaps 1/125.  Minimizing noise with ISO 100 drops shutter speed to 1/50.

Yes there are things I can do to get away from the tripod...but they may cause unwanted noise (increase ISO) and narrower depth of field (open the aperature).  

All of the above is with a fast wide-angle lens.  The need for a tripod is greater with longer, slower lenses.  

Just to close, Don I don't want to become the spokesman for tripods in the great tripod vs. no tripod shoot off.  This is just what I do and why I do it.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: dlashier on September 22, 2006, 03:57:17 am
Quote
"The rest of the story" is that in addition to shutter speed and focal length, aperature and ISO needs also affect how good the hand-held shot will be.  Of course, I'm not telling you anything new, just trying to pull together in one place some of the causes of soft images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Fred,

Your absolutely right, but you need to add a couple of factors that affect DOF: sensor size and desired print size.

> The conditions I give myself (which is not to say I'll pass up other great shots!) are to minimize noise and to use the lens at its best aperature.  I prefer ISO 100 or 200 and rarely shoot above  ISO 400.  To get the best performance from the lens, I shoot at f8 (occasionally f11) which is the best compromise for depth of field vs. diffraction losses.

I still shoot a 1D so ISO 200 is optimal, and I'm reluctant to go above ISO 400, and even rarely there. I also shoot (conditions permitting) f8 to f11.

> On a full frame 35mm camera a 19mm lens at f8 appears to be focused from between 2 or 3 feet to infinity.  If that depth of field meets my needs, shutter speed with an ISO of 200 on a "normal" day is perhaps 1/125.

Hmm, during daylight at ISO 200 and f8 I'm usually shooting at around 1/500 or faster, sometimes even 1/1000 or greater?

> Yes there are things I can do to get away from the tripod...but they may cause unwanted noise (increase ISO) and narrower depth of field (open the aperature).  

I agree that with 35mm near or after sunset a tripod is desirable, but it still cramps my style. Although at times I wish I had one with me, I'm generally a fair hike from the car and already lugging nearly 20lbs of gear so generally (not always) do without. With MF I suspect I'd nearly always carry a tripod as the equation changes.

>Just to close, Don I don't want to become the spokesman for tripods in the great tripod vs. no tripod shoot off.  This is just what I do and why I do it.

Nor do I wish to become the absolute advocate for no tripod. But it irks me a bit when someone (not you) flatly declares "you've got to use a tripod for best landscape". This simply is not true (like most blanket statements). You need to intelligently consider the factors and tradeoffs for the situation at hand. In decent light IMO it's rather foolish to always use a tripod except perhaps for MF/LF. Conditions change very fast (around here anyway) and you'll miss the optimal moment if futzing with a tripod for every shot.

- DL
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Hutch on October 16, 2006, 11:54:23 pm
To me there is nothing more sad then someone using a $3000+ pro body with a POS $300 Sigma or Tamron lens.  Bodies come and go however good optics are here to stay and will live through lots of bodies in their lifetime.  

My 2cents,
Hutch
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Jack Flesher on October 17, 2006, 10:25:40 am
Quote
To me there is nothing more sad then someone using a $3000+ pro body with a POS $300 Sigma or Tamron lens.  Bodies come and go however good optics are here to stay and will live through lots of bodies in their lifetime. 

My 2cents,
Hutch
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said.  

I'd only add that while a good piece of glass on an entry level body -- like a digital Rebel -- can indeed create an excellent image, if the photographer is expecting their favorite 24mm lens to behave 'normally' on the 1.6 crop body, they will be sorely disappointed.  Even using an 'old' 1Ds body, the favored 24 is capable of creating excellent images.  Hence my original comment body first, lens next, but perhaps I should clarify that and change it to sensor size first, lens second...

Cheers,
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: mahleu on October 17, 2006, 02:13:07 pm
Manufacturers need to get over the fact that consumers see Mp as quality and start improving kit lenses. My soft 18-55mm isn't solid enough to hurt the person who designed it, even if i throw it hard.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: sanvandur on October 22, 2006, 09:07:21 pm
Quote from: macgyver,Sep 18 2006, 01:59 PM
"I disagre, subject is more important that camera or lens.  You can give me the best gear on earth and I can have the world's best vision, but if you put me if a 6x6x6 concrete room with all grey walls and no shadows i have nothing."

I disagree with you, and agree with Oscar. Your concrete "empty" room is not empty. For starters, you have lines, concrete texture. You have yourself. You can do self portraits. If you've got vision, you can make it happen with *anything*.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: dobson on October 23, 2006, 12:37:38 am
Quote
Manufacturers need to get over the fact that consumers see Mp as quality and start improving kit lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm not sure if manufacturers will ever do away with megapixel marketing. It's just too easy for advertisers to say, "Ten megapixels are better than 8.", than to describe the nuances that make one lens better than another. Serious consumers are the only ones willing to research lenses and they rarely settle for kit lenses anyway. I'm sure the ad department is fueling the megapixel race, not the engineering department.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: macgyver on October 23, 2006, 01:01:07 am
Quote from: sanvandur,Oct 23 2006, 01:07 AM
Quote from: macgyver,Sep 18 2006, 01:59 PM
"I disagre, subject is more important that camera or lens.  You can give me the best gear on earth and I can have the world's best vision, but if you put me if a 6x6x6 concrete room with all grey walls and no shadows i have nothing."

I disagree with you, and agree with Oscar. Your concrete "empty" room is not empty. For starters, you have lines, concrete texture. You have yourself. You can do self portraits. If you've got vision, you can make it happen with *anything*.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, you see more of a subject there than I do, so that just goes to show how important subject is.

(yes, it was a poor example, im playing CYA now   )

However, I was operating on the assumption that the lighting being even enough nulls shadows.  And lets say its smooth concrete.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Ray on October 23, 2006, 11:25:16 pm
Quote
Let's assume that in either case the camera+lens combination has equal AF behavior. They both have similar output resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This condition to the question seems to have got lost in the replies so far. It sort of narrows the options a great deal. How many camera+lens combinations are there that have similar output resolution? By similar, I take it you are referring to DSLR camera bodies that vary by a pixel count of no more than 30% or so. Until recently we haven't had these options. The D60 had double the pixel count of the D30, the 1D Mkll double the pixel count of the 1D, the 1Ds double the pixel count of the 10D, the 1Ds2 double the pixel count of the 20D and more than double the pixel count of the D60.

In my view, all the above options should be excluded from consideration. A doubling of pixel count represents a far greater resolution advantage than a good quality prime versus a medium quality zoom.

A sensible answer can not be provided in this poll since the poll has not addressed any specific camera + lens combinations. The sorts of combinations that would be applicable are; the new 10mp 400D+85/1.2 versus the 5D+85/1.8; the 5D+85/1.2 versus the 1Ds2+85/1.8; the 20D & 30D+85/1.2 versus the 1DMkll+85/1.8. That's about it, although you can vary the choice of lenses. The 5D compared with the 1DMkll doesn't really fit the bill because here we have a low end camera outperforming a high end camera whatever the lens.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: pcg on October 24, 2006, 09:44:27 pm
I voted "lens," but agree with Jack's last comment. The camera is solely a tool, & one that we should not be aware of while shooting. Ditto the lens. The closest I've ever come to Jack's ideal is with Leica Ms. I sold all my precious Leica gear a few years ago to go digital (Canon) & have been wandering since in search of anything similar to the old Ms. I think Leica is now too far behind, even w/ the new M, but that simple body remains an ideal.

And all of that being said, the lens matters only if we are seeking the sharpest damn image possible. Let's remember that most of the 20th century's best images were popped off on 35mm bodies with crummy film & questionable lens. Which steers us right back to the IMAGE as being paramount.

My last comment: Artistic vision is often in conflict with the search for sharpness. But we all forget this.
Title: Camera vs Lens
Post by: Ray on October 25, 2006, 12:03:12 am
Quote
if you had to choose between a high-end camera with a low-end lens, vs a low-end camera with a high-end lens, which would you rather have?

You've all strayed off the point. The question was, if you had to choose. This implies some sort of contraint, either because funds are limited and you want the best bang for your buck, or because supply is limited. If there is no economic constraint, then of course you buy the best lenses available that fit the body, whether it's a low-end or high-end body, consistent with your requirements for focal length, maximum aperture and weight etc.

If you need an FL equivalent to FF 24mm for the cropped format, there are unfortunately no high quality primes available in that range for low-end cameras, so the comparison doesn't apply.