Glass vers Body

paulr

We all know that we should spend our hard earned money on lenses rather than camera bodies. here is an image taken from over 200 yards away with a 55mm prime lens without a tripod. on a sunny day.

sevencrossing

The Glass rather than bodies is an urban myth ( same as the D400 is coming out next month

ThomasHorton

I think what people really mean is that it is better to invest on better glass than worry about a new body. A new body with low quality glass is probably not as good as a old body with high quality glass.

So if someone has some photo-bucks they want to spend, often the advice given to them is to look first at the glass.

sevencrossing

It is just something I just don't understand
I think we have agreed, with a few exceptions, Nikon don't make any bad glass
Today people want, high resolution, high ISO, and dynamic range, fast accurate focusing and exposure
An old body is unlikely to deliver this
IMHO the biggest cause of unsharp pictures is camera shake
take a modern camera, set to Auto ISO and it is difficult to suffer from camera shake

Ok if you are using an old third party lens , that is a different matter

Ironheart

Since this was taken with an Otus 55 and a D4 you can answer the question. Glass vs. Body? I'll take both please :-)

WestEndFoto

I will certainly take both too: It is a nice luxury to be able to afford whatever I want with a little patience. I think that the answer to the question, however, depends on context.

If your choice is between full frame cameras with superzooms and better glass/cheaper camera, then I have no hesitation telling anybody to get the f4 zooms and spend what is left over on the camera (or some variation on that theme).

Personally, I would not buy a full frame camera until I could afford the 1.8 primes, but now I am getting into personal preferences.

WestEndFoto

We all know that we should spend our hard earned money on lenses rather than camera bodies. here is an image taken from over 200 yards away with a 55mm prime lens without a tripod. on a sunny day.

How can you tell that this was not taken with a D7200 and 2.8 zoom? I am not sure that this medium is good enough to tell the difference.

sevencrossing

however, depends on context.

It does indeed
If you want to win a motor race
you need a fast car AND a fast driver
having just one, is not a winning formula
In the day of film, glass was what mattered
but in the digital age the camera is equally important
quite a few, full time professional new photographers, use a D4 and superzoom

WestEndFoto

however, depends on context.

It does indeed
If you want to win a motor race
you need a fast car AND a fast driver
having just one, is not a winning formula
In the day of film, glass was what mattered
but in the digital age the camera is equally important
quite a few, full time professional new photographers, use a D4 and superzoom

Yes, you can do things with a D4 that you can't with a D3500, regardless of the lens.

I suspect that over time, the camera will matter less and the lens more. Digital is an interesting aberration in that for most of digital's life, the lenses have been much better than the sensors/film, so an upgrade to the sensor (and camera) does make a real improvement.

However, I think that sensors are getting close to hitting a plateau with differences between generations starting to decline. In ten years, I believe that the sensors will be mostly the same. I suspect that all F-mount cameras, including entry level models, will have 36 megapixel or better FX sensors.

At that time, the reason to upgrade to a better camera model will be little about image quality and more about features. I see value in this. I like the features on my D800 and will likely stay at a professional level, even if the IQ advantage is small.

paulr

Must be the Yorkshire man in me, I know i have lost more money on camera bodies and actually made money on lenses I have had over period of time.
So for me the financial impact as also an influx, I am still on oxygen after two years, getting over the loss I took with a D3X. Just glad it was not a Hasselblad Digital body, I would have needed Entonox gas for that one.

henrik1963

A D700 + Nikon 200 F2 VRII vs. a D810 + Nikon 200 F2 VRII - I think you will see a difference in IQ.
A D810 + Nikon 50 F1.8 G vs. a D810 + Sigma 50 1.4 Art - I think you will see a difference in IQ.

In some situations you may not see a lot in the final output. But if you look at the RAW file I think it is there.

proudgeek

Both.

I used to shoot a D90 with an 18-200. Over time I started accumulating better lenses (105mm 17-35, 70-200) and noticed a huge difference at similar focal lengths.

A couple of years later I purchased a D800 and noticed a change that was just as, if not more dramatic.

One_Oh_Four

It is just something I just don't understand
I think we have agreed, with a few exceptions, Nikon don't make any bad glass
Today people want, high resolution, high ISO, and dynamic range, fast accurate focusing and exposure
An old body is unlikely to deliver this
IMHO the biggest cause of unsharp pictures is camera shake
take a modern camera, set to Auto ISO and it is difficult to suffer from camera shake

Ok if you are using an old third party lens , that is a different matter

Well.... if you have to CHOOSE: Having a D80 + 18-200 VR I, a new body or 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 VRII? I chose the lenses... But of course not too long after those lenses I bought a D7000 to go with those lenses! And a couple of years after that I invested in a D800...! And some more gizmo's... This way I gradually grew into a pretty nice system!

Anyhow, I can see how older "consumer"-lenses are outperformed on new bodies, while good lenses just give you every last inch of performance from your old body. If one has money for both at the same time, then that's the best solution, of course!

manhattanboy

If one has money for both at the same time, then that's the best solution, of course!

I would also recommend getting the best of both body and lens even if it means forgoing purchasing multiple lenses. Great glass is always nice, but for example if I had an extra $2K to spend, should I invest in a 58 1.4 or a new body the decision really should be dictated by what you like to shoot and need. What I mean is that I have "invested" in great glass over the years that sits unused most of the time. It would be far better in retrospect to put that money towards a better body then spending it on good glass that I used once in a blue moon. I guess what I am saying in all of my rambling is if you would benefit from a body investment, then do so and likewise for glass. There really is no fortune cookie recommendation for glass versus body other than perhaps "know thyself".

tcole1983

It really just depends. After a while replacing an old body with a new one can be a huge difference in picture quality. Lenses are generally a better "investment" if one has to spend more money, but at time there isn't as huge of a difference in quality gained by the lens alone. I see it and what I have done is invest in glass and then update my body 2 or 3 generations along.