What's more important? The Body or the Lens?

I had a discussion with somebody earlier, about which is more important to think about when going into the dSLR world... the body or the lens...

It actually started with a guy, who wanted to upgrade from his P&S to a dSLR, and he wanted to know which entry-level body was the best, best value, etc.
Anyway, this other guy (350D user) said to him:

Member said:

The DSLR body isn't really a big issue here; it mostly comes down to the lens your using. In fact, some very expensive bodies such as EOS 1Ds mkII actually produce worse image quality than cheaper bodies, unless you use very good glass. There are some differences between the noise levels of different bodies, but unless you're going to be shooting ISO 400+ or doing exposures of more than 30 secs it really makes no difference which brand you choose. It is widely accepted, however, that Olympus' DSLR bodies create most noise (comparatively small physical pixel size) while Canon is the least noisy choice.

Click to expand...

I ended up saying this back to him:

Member said:

I know a lot of folks say that the lens is more important than the body itself... I personally don't find that to be completely true. The dSLR body makes up atleast 50% of the image quality, and 75% (if not more) of the overall photo-taking-experience. It's the body that decides noise levels, resolution/detail, number of photos you're able to take per second, time it takes to write onto a card (memory card), etc. Together with the lens, it decides auto focus speed, accuracy, low-light capabilities, image quality (sharpness, colour/saturation, etc). It's also important, i think, to be comfertable with your camera. I personally was not comfertable at all with the 350D's size/ergonomics, which is why i didn't choose it. The lens is of course important, but IMO not any more important than the body.

Click to expand...

Who's right, in this case?

--
Danny Rasmussen - aka - the Great Dane

Owner of: E1, 14-54mm, 40-150mm, SHLD-2 battery grip, FL-36 flash

You're both right.

I use an E-300 and an E-1 using the same lenses on both. As I'm more comfortable with the E-1, albeit less MP, my images from the E-1 "appear," IMO (and this is very, very subjective) to be "better."

While I'm not using high end or, for that matter, medium grade, lenses on either I think that the body has something, intangeable, to do with IQ.

I think that discovering the "sweet spot" of the lens has a bit to do with the argument also. With my E-10, the sweet spot is f/5.6. With the E-1/300 it's between f8 and f/11 but the E-1 seems (again, subjectively) to do a better job overall.

How's that for a "non-answer?" ;-)

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.
Eschew obfuscation.
The frumious Bandersnatch

DLL_4ever said:

Who's right, in this case?

Click to expand...

Both of you.

Ergonomics on a camera are very important in my opinion. If a camera is not good to use it tends to get left on the shelf in my own experience.

Things like noise, how many fps it can shoot at can be decided on an individual basis. Yes Canon are the kings of high ISO but if you prefer the size of an E500 over a 350D and don't shoot high ISO why bother with the 350D if he E500 is better to hold and use?

But for an SLR camera you also need a good choice of lenses. That is where Oly lags behind. Yes some can get what they want with the current range but some people can't so if THE lens you want is not available in the Oly range you have a tough choice to make if you prefer the Oly camera.

Dave

lenses are where the real investment is. I have noticed a big improvement in the performance of my E-300 with better glass. I know that eventually I will be using a different body, but the glass will still be there.
--
Theresa K
http://theresak.smugmug.com/

Back when I was shooting Canon equipment it was always amusing to read threads about people willing to pay big bucks for an expensive DSLR like a 1D Mark II & then wanted to go cheap on the lenses when they'd have been better off buying a less expensive body and getting the best glass possible.

Today I use an E-1, E-300 and three lenses, the 7-14, 14-54 and 50-200. Two to three years from now I'm not sure what body I'll be using but I CAN tell you which lenses will be used on it- the 7-14, 14-54 and 50-200. Bodies come and go fairly fast today, but the reason you buy a DSLR is the ability to interchange lenses. The lenses are the part of the outfit that, in theory, you'll keep longer, so why not get something that you'll be happy with for a longer period of time?
--
'I am the world's second worst typist'

A good photographer can make a good picture with ANY camera (even a Holga), while anyone can take a bad picture with a $30,000 Hasselblad.

Getting to back to your question, in the days of film the body was only a device for holding the film in position. Today though, the imager is as important then the optics...this is especially important as the imager can't be changed, unlike with film bodies where you choose the properies of the image by the film you choose.

In every situation.

It's fine to use cheap lenses - sometimes they work really well, the 40-150 zuiko is a good example, as is the 28-105 nikkor - and sometimes they surprise you, the much derided nikkor 24-120 AFS VR lens, works really well on the much derided Kodak 14n.

What I'm getting at is that it's all depending on your purpose, how big your going to print, etc. etc.

the technical side is a part of being a good photographer - but only a small part, the real deal is that photograph you just took. Not what equipment you took it on.

(If you don't believe me, look at my website, I can take rubbish photos with all sorts of gear!)

kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Both are important, but secondary to the photographer and his/her skills. In the case of the Olympus, the E1 vs E300 vs E500 vs E330 has been debated many times. Each is different, each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. In general, none of the E series can approach the low light/high ISO performance of the Canon (or even the Pentax), but under normal conditions, any of the three, when used properly, can more than hold their own against even the best Nikon and Canon cameras. Personally, the Olympus, KM, and Pentax work better for me than the Nikon or Canon line (ergonomics). The KM, with the anti shake is unique while the Pentax has the best high iso/low light performance of the three. Color wise, I like the KM and Olympus the best, while the E1 and E300 have the solid feel of the old 35mm SLR's (and Leica rangefinders).

As for lenses, the kit lenses of the E300 and E500 are the best of the bunch. They focus well, have excellent resolution (like the generation 1 Minolta lenses), and are priced for the masses. The 8mp sensor of the E3xx and E500 gives up high ISO performance for extra resolution. The 5mp E1, although one of the best digital cameras ever made, has it's own following, and can hold it's own most of the time. Only when you are trying to resolve fine details might the Exxx cameras offer a little more. Having used them all, I prefer the E300 for travel (funky looks helps keep theft down, and it is less obvious as a fine photographic tool) and the E500 for hiking (lighter and smaller). The E1 is great for adverse conditions, but I no longer have one.

Oh, for those who think Olympus 4/3 system lacks enough glass, I beg to differ - Olympus has more DIGITAL optimized lenses than the competition. With Sigma, and soon, Panasonic, embracing the 4/3 concept, I expect more options in the future. However, for now, the two kit lenses can pretty much cover 99% of the needs for most photographers. Another interesting feature - all of the Olympus cameras use the same battery (actually, so does KM and Pentax). Canon and Nikon have changed batteries and this can be an extra cost option for owners of those makes.

Wayne

Cheap glass will take lousy photos. No way around it, it takes a fair amount of money to make good glass.

dslr bodies have been getting cheaper every day, and even the cheap ones do pretty well.

If one is very careful with an inexpensive DSLR body, don't drop it or let it get damp, or start looking for extensive bracketing options that aren't there, it will deliver good results. A cheap kit lens, on the other hand, won't take a good photo no matter how careful you are with it.

But that also depends on how one defines 'cheap' - as in inexpensive, or substandard.

A $600 E1 is cheap, but by no means substandard. Unless you're one of those 'give me MP or give me death' types, the E1 (or a D50, or any of the Pentax bodies) provides enough detail to keep just about anyone happy.

A good picture is 90 percent photographer and 10 percent (reasonably good) hardware.

Cheers!
--
Hans H. Siegrist

--
Andrew
FourThirdsFAQ - http://www.fourthirdsFAQ.com

Mike_PEAT said:

A good photographer can make a good picture with ANY camera (even a
Holga), while anyone can take a bad picture with a $30,000
Hasselblad.

Getting to back to your question, in the days of film the body was
only a device for holding the film in position. Today though, the
imager is as important then the optics...this is especially
important as the imager can't be changed, unlike with film bodies
where you choose the properies of the image by the film you choose.

Click to expand...

So why don't you just answer the question!?

• Sergey

I still think that, overall, lenses make the biggest difference in you actually getting the best shots but the body has sure come a long way. Back in the film days bodies used to be light boxes. It didn't matter what body you got, you could always stick Velvia, Tri-X or anything else you wanted in it. The bodies had some great features but they were not as important to the final image. Today, the body has our sensor and that makes it much more important. The sensor and company engineers and designers determine much of the final image. Canon's low noise, Olympus' Colors, that is all due to the sensor and tuning of it.

Lenses are still great and an expensive investment in good glass today means you will have a lens that you can take from camera to camera. Glass technology is not changing a whole lot but sensor technology is still evolving quite rapidly. So, while the bodies may "come and go" I do believe that they should be an integral part of any DSLR system purchase.
--
Tarek
http://focusonlife.net

No Text

Though for some photographers the body itself or one of the available lenses is the main point, I believe it's the combination of one or more lenses, one or more bodies, one or more light sources, one or more computer software that we actually should select (for most of us this selection includes a glance at the total cost!)

[I purposely omit the computer and its screen, the printer, ...]

A difficult challenge? I just switched to a new 'system' where availability of low cost batteries and large CF cards was a decisive point, but still have a serious problem: my old backpack is to narrow while my wallet is flat ;o)
--
Georges Lagarde http://www.panorama-numerique.com

This question cannot be answered unless some perspective and prerequisite can be placed upon. too broad an srgument should the question simply be put as " body vs lens "

FOA, if we take today's technology knowhow and tools availiable as a baseline, then the real underlying prerequisite needed to be known is how would the photgrapher work on his / her image post exposure. If one is looking at minimal amount of post exposure work, or even only going to do mostly default in camera JPEG. Then obviously the body do affect the image to a large degree and one can probably be safe to say both the body and the lens contribute enough to warrant enough attentions.

However, for photgrapher who are serious into their art and craft, likely to be using RAW and developer ( not in camera ) software. Then for real we need to look at the body as a capturing platform and a recording media ( RAW ). Then the fact is almost all DSLR had a decent capture and exposure control. By that account, then obviously the important factor lies in the Lens and the post exposure developing.

In a sense its analogy to the film days. Film shooter usually stay with a known type of film ( consistentcy ) and a good lab ( again consistent and quality development ). The camera thus become a shooting platform. Where the maturity of the technology almost guarantee that any decent working SLR ( and in digital DSLR ) will be more than enough to do the proper capture.

By that account, for an entry level, it might be true to say the body would count more as the lens performance is almost always never challenged in the said usage. But for more advanced user, the table is turned around where the body is now valued for its shooting, handling, and exposure control rather than the image quality. Take it that the in camera is more an added feature instead of a absolute need ( after the like of Sigma SD / Rollei Metric series where no in camera JPEG is provided )

--
Franka

If you want lots of quality in your images - it's the lens that matters.
If you want lots of images - it's the body that matters.
Maybe.

Regards.......... Guy

1. The lens is more important than the body
2. Thats the reason why I bought an Olympus DSLR:

The mid-priced Olympus lenses are as good as more expensive Canon L glass, And at wide angel the Oly/zuiko lenses are the best of all systems, there is no equivalent in quality to the Oly 7-14 at other systems, and the 11-22 is one of the best
--
cheers
Martin F

--------------------------------------------
My equipment is in my profile.
Sorry if there are typing errors in my texts.
I usually do not check that before sending.

Go on photo.net and look at the mundane bodies used for some of those jaw dropping shots! Lots of 300Ds, 350Ds, D70s, S2s, 10Ds, 20Ds, etc.

1/400th @ f8 is 1/400th @ f8 whatever the body!

A raw file and photoshop can do the rest!

But you can't 'add' things clarity, DOF or > insert lens quality of choice

The lens is the image! The body just records it!
--

--
http://www.notofthisearth.co.uk
http://www.abannforlife.co.uk