Bodies vs. Lenses: Which is more a factor in why you own Canon?

Started Jul 12, 2008 | Discussions thread
Ivan Paganacci
Ivan Paganacci Regular Member • Posts: 157
You got it right

The people who automatically shout, Lenses! must have no experience with something current like a 1D3/D3/D300. When a digital camera can correct for aberrations, fringing, distortion, loss of contrast, front/back focus and other lens-related problems (as many current models do), it's time to re-evaluate the old position.

Of course a great lens with modern coatings can also eliminate, or at least compensate, for many of these problems, but they usually cost a fortune. The sensor and processing can take an average lens with decent resolution and make stellar images. You can see it happening now, where even cheapos like the Canon and Nikon 18-55 kit lenses are performing much better than you might expect.

A good lens is still important, but I agree it's at #2 when it comes to digital.


CBuff wrote:

Now, it's Sensor, Lens, Body.

I stay with Canon because the IQ of its sensor is unparalleled. I am
a landscape photographer, I don't know what to do with any ISO above

I can learn the ergonomy of a body. I can manage my way around a
flash system, or an exposure metering system, and learn how to best
use the one that I own.

But I can't fix a low image quality with a poor lens or poor sensor.

Autofocus might be important for most sport shooters and
photojournalist... and possibly wedding photographer. But not really
a must have for landscape.

To answer your question: if a camera system delivers an image quality
at low ISO that is superior to Canon, I will switch. Like I switched
from Kodak to Fuji when I discovered Velvia.


 Ivan Paganacci's gear list:Ivan Paganacci's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Panasonic LX10
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow