Spend on the body, save on the glass

I can appreciate your point of view as you start out. When I moved from a P&S to a dslr(D70), there was an initial learning curve. It also took some time before I realized what aspect of photography I enjoyed most, and to make purchasing decisions based on that need. I'd have to say I probably spent more money on lenses initially than I should have until I reached that realization.

Once you determine which area, or areas peak your interests most, then your in a much better postion to assess your needs, and take that next step-up in investment to meet those needs/wants/desires. With this approach, you don't spend your hard earned money on something that may sit on the self in six months. Of course all this is determined on the one critical factor...and for most of us that is money.

By the way, I don't consider the 35 a cheap lens. It's one of the few inexpensive gems out there. Just like the 50 1.8.
Enjoy your new camera.
jk

Although I love pro gear.....build quality is the only real issue regarding price.

After years of owning 1.4 & 2.8 glass.. and still people think im talking rubbish,,the d300 / 18-200 combo has got me shots equal to any £3000+£2000 body / lens combo i have ever used...

I have large enlargements printed off everywhere........nobody who views them can differienciate from 5k of equipment to 1.5k...i AM fussy also....

Okay i know about better bokeh etc and the need for speed for some pros....

but basic IQ......i would happily take a D40 / 18-200 and compare my pics next to a guy using D3 / 70-200 2.8 (at same settings) in good light....

laugh if you want.......but im the one really laughing, there is NEVER £4500 difference in photo IQ!!!! ;-)

Just my opinion.............;-)

Jon.

--



Cheers,
FletchUK / Fletch147
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30649408@N00/

I think lens technology evolves more slowly than dSLR technology. I really do believe a good lens makes a hugh difference. But, the way camera technology is changing, I am believing a camera can make a bigger difference in pic quality. I still love good lenses and am willing to spend a little more for a better quality piece of glass...
--
Dejan Smaic
http://www.sportifimages.com

Dejan80501 said:

I think lens technology evolves more slowly than dSLR technology. I really do believe a good lens makes a hugh difference. But, the way camera technology is changing, I am believing a camera can make a bigger difference in pic quality. I still love good lenses and am willing to spend a little more for a better quality piece of glass...
--
Dejan Smaic
http://www.sportifimages.com

Click to expand...

Agreed....despite what I said you are right.

The 18-200 is a completely different beast on the d300 than the d200.

All slower consumer lenses will perform better on better bodies that have great high ISO IQ.

so..in a way it IS the body that is more important than the lens?????

can of worms opened lol

Regards,

Jon.



Cheers,
FletchUK / Fletch147
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30649408@N00/

I commend you on your post and welcome to the SLR world.

Stepping up to a dSLR is a wise decision if one is desiring better images and more control over the camera. And I see nothing wrong with you wanting a more serious body vs. a d5000 or something even if it meant you had to skimp on lenses.

However, investing in "decent" glass is of high importance for great image quality. It's more important than the actual body used as a good lens will last for decades (hopefully) vs. camera bodies which get replaced every few years.

One important thing to note here however. "Decent" glass doesn't have to be $1000+ lenses. And, there are a lot of great old lenses that qualify as high quality optics that can be found for decent prices used. And, no one would fault you for that 35 f1.8 - it looks to be quite a good lens.

Another thing to keep in mind. Most people build a "kit" over a long period of time. People that go out and purchase the trinity along with a d3 are far and few between (heck that's around $10,000 US).

I think you will find as you progress in the hobby that your original opinion here will change as a bad lens can actually handicap the body. I started just like you....with a point and shoot, moved up to a d70s and a couple of lenses. Now I think I have 9 lenses & 3 bodies.

My 1st DSLR was the D70, and I was very happy with that camera for many years. I stepped up to the D300, and continued to use my $100 50 1.8, my $180 85 1.8 (used), and a Tamron 28-75 2.8. What I quickly realized was, my lenses were like putting family sedan touring tires on a Ferrari. Just limited total performance. Sure, they work, but why jump up to the Ferrari without the right "total" package. Get the D80, D90, D5000, you'll be just as happy with the results when paired with any mid grade or consumer level glass.

After shooting with my old lenses on the D300, I liked the results I got from my D70 better....until I stepped up to a 24-70 2.8 Nikkor, I couldn't believe the difference in color, clarity, depth....it quickly made me realize the body should be paired with the right lens. I've since purchased several other pro level FX Nikkor lenses and have been very satisfied....and when the day comes for me to move to a D700, D3, or whatever else may come down the pike, I'll be ready. Sure, it costs, but you gotta pay to play and like you, I wanted the performance of the D300, not the image quality which I easily got out of my D70 (for what I was shooting at the time).

The pro lenses hold value MUCH better than bodies, if you look at it as an investment.
--
http://www.teamrivers.com

I've said this before but I believe we date camera bodies but we should marry lenses. I just don't think most people will be happy long term with a cheap lens. They're like a one night stand; pretty fun for a while and you can ignore the limitations of the "relationship" but you soon grow tired if there's not more to it.

Now that isn't to say that you're wrong because you're not for your situation. I just believe in buying really good lenses and planning to keep them forever.

Oh BTW I do agree with your logic on the body selection. Go ahead and buy a cheap body if it's just a glorified P&S, but get something you can grow into if you plan to progress beyond the basics.

Just my opinion.

Keith

"Maybe" being the key word here. Your logic for a good body makes sense i.e. dim VFs, bad LCDs, etc. but no matter what size you are printing, how do you know they cannot get better?

You can apply similar logic to lenses as you apply to camera. Better built, Quality glass elements, VR, ED, etc.

I have had a Sigma on my D70s for 3 years before I ugraded to the VR 70-300mm and I get way more keepers than I got with the Sigma.

--
--Nick.

I generally agree with those who say that good glass is the better investment over the long term, BUT one key point that I think may have gotten short shrift in this thread is the FILM (digitally speaking, of course). Analogizing to film: Today, a digital camera body is not just the camera body, it is also the FILM . Until sensors become readily replaceable and upgradeable while keeping the same body, the implications are interesting: While this suggests that the camera body is critical because it houses the sensor, ironically it is the sensor that is more likely to be improved upon multiple times in the course of only a few years, and thus the temptation to upgrade is constantly recurring. Personally, my current thinking about camera body is that I will upgrade if and when a camera is issued that significantly upgrades the dynamic range, noise level and image quality produced by the sensor. And, apparently, major changes in sensor and body are more likely than changes in lenses.
--
AviBen

Again, I have to say THANK YOU to you all for this fruitful and friendly discussion. The fact that about 1/3 of all postings agree with my decision shows me that I’m not totally wrong. The others probably have MUCH higher personal standards in terms of iq than me and therefore of course favor the better glass.

To this veterans I want to say : For someone coming from p&s area even a cheapo like the 140€ Tamron is a gorgeous lens and gives me possibilities I’d never dared to dream of. Think about a blind person getting 50% eye sight back … still very limited but happy like a child on xmas.

A note on the D70 because it was mentioned a couple of times. I borrowed this cam from a friend some time ago and took some shots to get a feeling for a DSLR. But … although everything was just fine the small low res lcd drove me crazy. Even zooming into the pic was a real pain. I was very disappointed because my TZ5 p&s has a 3 inch 460k lcd that looks far better than the D70 lcd. This was the moment when I decided that only a body that makes me feel good can become a companion for a long time. ... btw ... this insight and some playing around with Olympus E620 and Panasonic G1 ruled out everything except Nikon and Canon.

I do think the biggest leaps are cleaner images at higher ISOs in smaller bodies.
--
Dejan Smaic
http://www.sportifimages.com

Photography is just like audio. Hotshots have heated debates on tiny differences in the sound of their very expensive cables etc. On the other hand it is remarkable how much more difference is among cheap portable stereos you may buy for your shack. The more expensive the gear, the less difference you see without the magnifying glass.

One element that I find people "ignoring" these days is that the mantra of "invest in the glass" seems to avoid the fact that the lenses themselves now (apparently) have an "electronic shelf life"

If we look at the last two lens releases, the update to the 18-200 VR - with the addition of a zoom lock button, and the 70-200 with "updated" VR theoretically supersede the previous generation.

For sure this doesn't mean that the previous generation lenses explode/disintegrate/cease to function - any more than my D300 did on announcement of the D300S.

However is does indicate Nikon's desire for people to upgrade their lenses to the latest spec, a process which is certainly not because of the uptake of digital (check the list of 80-200 f/2.8 lenses going back in time)

While I understand that fantastic shots can be taken with the "older" lenses (back to any age which still physically fits on the camera) - exactly the same can be stated for any "older" digital camera.

If the operator has skill and vision then they would whoop my backside with a pin-hole camera

The history of lenses has shown (relatively) incremental improvement over time, with major steps at significant way points, such as the introduction of auto focus.

This trend appears (as with most things) to be speeding up, with the introduction of more electronic (rather than glass based) improvements at each iteration.

The (para-phrased) statement of "your lens will still have value in 10 years time when your digital body is just a doorstop" seems to ignore the fact that we will be at VR XI by then (giving 700 stops of improvement), auto focus at warp speed and for all I know Holographic Spatial Interpretation Algorithms - rendering todays "pro" lenses irrelevant and valueless.

In summary, buy what you can afford and justify - get out a shoot! These aren't supposed to be be investments (for most of us) but a hobby to enjoy...

Neil

Suntan said:

Lexus330 said:

Body comes and goes,good lense will stay with you for many many moons
--
Regards

Cris T.

Click to expand...

I don’t necessarily agree with this either.

Maybe you have money growing out your wazhoo, but I can’t justify dropping thousands and thousands of dollars every other year for the newest camera. The advanced features of a better camera can be beneficial for many, many years. And it is something that does have a tangible value to a person that looks at them as something more than just a step in their ever-increasing collection.

So while I do agree that the lens has a lot of value in the equation, more so for the actual quality of the image, I always get annoyed whenever someone flippantly talks about $1,000 to $3,000 worth of camera like it is a throw away item.

Maybe I wouldn’t be so annoyed if all my tax dollars weren’t being carted off to “rescue” the people that tend to have this mindset.

-Suntan

Click to expand...

While I actually don't agree with the OP about cheap glass (coming from kit to Nikkor 2.8 glass - there is visible difference if many ways), I DO agree that DSLR's are, in fact, disposable...to an extent. The main reason is the little "D" before the SLR. It's digital, not film. Digital sensors, FPS, RAW, JPG quality, high ISO quality have ALL improved each year and will continue to. But with film, you basically chose a body that worked for your needs & that was it. There wasn't a new technology every 6 months being added that just made your camera out of date (ex. recent addition of video & faster FPS to D300...). I know that I can pick up my Nikon EM film body & shoot Ilford Delta Pro 400 today the same as I have shot in years past & still get the SAME results.

I also came from a D70 DSLR (my first DSLR) and it's light years BEHIND my D300, which I still love both. BUT, there are major flaws of the D70 that are only flaws due the lack of technology in that camera VS the D300. We will see camera bodies in a couple years, maybe less, that will make us look at the D300 overall like we do the original Nikon D1 now. Anytime you have 'digital', it has a lifespan, plain & simple. But with film, you can put a hole in a shoe box & get images.

I feel that if more people started out with film VS digital, the whole 'bodies are disposable' statement would make total sense. No, it doesn't mean that I'm out buying the newest D_ every time one comes out, but I am always on the look-out for next body that resolves some of the DIGTIAL problems I have with my current body (D70: bigger LCD, faster FPS, over 800 ISO performance, MP, etc... --- All were fixed by my D300, but still want: better ISO performance, less color/iso noise from JPG, wireless remote like my D70 all out my NEXT DSLR. The technology grows and gets better & resolves many problems as time progresses. But again, I can pick up an F100, EM, FM, etc.. film body & get great results.

It's ALL in the medium; analog VS digital. And until digital can get 'most' of the problems out of the way, film, although it isn't as convenient, will still be the benchmark of quality.

First off, as you said in your last paragraph, it's a personal decision. My experience is that glass is what makes the big difference. Once I went from crap off brand glass to only Nikon glass it was a big difference. Then when I went from a 70-300 Nikkor zoom to a Nikkor 300mm f4 afs, it was a HUGE difference. A difference in quality of the photo, and in performance of the lens. It acquired and focused MUCH better.

Secondly, its lens, not lense.
--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

Don't worry. Your lens lust will come in time. You are way ahead of the P&S world that you are coming from so for now you are infatuated with a great dSLR.

However, be prepared because if you keep this "Hobby" up I promise you that in the not to distant future you will want some faster glass. My suggestion, just don't ever use anything beyond what you have now and maybe you will be okay because you will never know the difference. ;-0

As smitten as you are right now with the D300's capabilities you might also find yourself just as smitten if you were to try some pro level lenses.

gl2k said:

Can't believe, I got usefull answeres and no mindless bashing what a dork am I.

regarding glass : As I said, I don't need ultimate quality and coming from a p&s even a cheapo like the Tamron is blazingly fast for me. Until last week I couldn't even shoot someone walking slowly towards me because my TZ5 needs almost 1 sec for focusing and than takes another couple of 1/10s for taking the shot.

regarding more cost effective body : The D300 is for sure one step above my skills but I'll learn how to handle it and having up to 8 frames/sec at my disposal together with weather sealing, intervall shooting, 51 focus points ... well I couldn't resist.

But again, BIG THANKS for usefull answeres !!!

Click to expand...

LGnikonD300 said:

While I actually don't agree with the OP about cheap glass (coming from kit to Nikkor 2.8 glass - there is visible difference if many ways), I DO agree that DSLR's are, in fact, disposable...

Click to expand...

It really comes down to the semantics of how you define “disposable.” I’ve shot well over 10,000 frames with the D70 and still use it for some things where it is more suited than the D300. If you want to call it disposable, so be it.

Yes, new digital cameras come out that offer newer/better performance than old one, just like film cameras did (abet at a much slower rate.) That doesn’t make them any more disposable than the car I drive, which is only a 2006 model, yet is lacking significant features that I would like to have which are only available on current model year products.

As I said, if you’ve got money growing out your wazhoo, feel free to toss your camera everytime something a little better comes out. I don’t have that kind of money and the money I do have I prefer to save so I don’t have to be a boat anchor to society when the good times come to an end.

-Suntan

but Suntan - you could be a boat anchor with GREAT glass

DubaiNeil said:

but Suntan - you could be a boat anchor with GREAT glass

Click to expand...

LOL, Classic!

--
Regards,

Jeremy

True. I could then offer to take free pictures for everyone that is forced to help me pay off my overly expensive house.

As it is, I’m still waiting for the list of houses in my neighborhood that have gotten tax money to help them pay for their obligations. I have a couple boxes of stuff I want to drop off for storage. I figure if I’m helping to pay for their house, I should at least get to use some of their garage or basement space…

-Suntan