New lens... or new camera?

Hi,

I've had a Sony A100 with its kit lens for 5 years now. Mostly used for travel: landscapes and buildings.

I was considering buying a Tamron 17-50mm to replace the kit lens - on the basis that it is a better quality lens that (everything else being equal) should help me achieve better quality images. It always used to be said, I think, that a lens had much more impact on image quality than the camera body.

Is that still true today, or would the technological advances of the last 5 years be so great that I might see better results with a new DSLR?

I could stretch to around £500 for a shiny new DSLR, but is my Sony still capable of top results if I just upgrade the lens (for half that amount)?

Thanks,
mts

mtsnapper said:

I've had a Sony A100 with its kit lens for 5 years now. Mostly used for travel: landscapes and buildings.

I was considering buying a Tamron 17-50mm to replace the kit lens - on the basis that it is a better quality lens that (everything else being equal) should help me achieve better quality images.

Click to expand...

Unless you can point to specific problems that you notice with the kit lens, then buying a new lens won't be much of a benefit, save for being able to work in a wider variety of lighting conditions, and giving you a shallower depth of field wide open.

If the camera does everything you need, why not keep it?

As for your proposed lens upgrade, it might be worthwhile depending how useful its better capabilities are.

I wouldn't expect the new lens to give you appreciably "better" images. I'd suggest continuing to improve your skills behind the camera and in post-processing. I believe the kit lens you have is the 35mm equivalent of a 27-105. You may want to consider a lens with a wider view (either a zoom or a prime lens) to expand your horizons. Wide angle lenses can give you some more dramatic closeups and landscape shots.

It's true that the lens and camera can contribute to the acutance of an image, usually the lenses, but also in the case of the NEX 7's 24 MP, or a full frame DSLR, or larger sensor. However, real photo excellence is still attained by the photographer.

Study famous photographers' photos, Ansel Adams for instance, who used a lot less capable equipment, but persevered in producing arguable the world's best B&W photos. The more photos you take, the more you will discover any short comings in your present equipment, which will indicate what else you need.

Some of my best shots were taken with a Brownie Reflex, over 60 years ago and some are now taken with an $85 Nikon L22:

Thanks for all your comments.

I can't point to any specific issues I have. Sometimes I come back from a trip really happy with my pictures, and other times disappointed, without really being able to explain the difference in results.

I got it into my head that since the lens was "just a kit lens" it was the weak link, instead it's the person behind the camera that probably needs updating!

The camera has all the features I need. I don't crave the latest technology at all. So I think I'll go back to basics and practice more shots. I don't do much post-processing, so that's something else for me to explore.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to reply,
mts

Wow.... am in a similar situation with my A100, 2 kit lenses and 18-250 lens. I do love the camera but wondered if I "needed" an updated model. Wouldn't mind having live-view or video and a lighter camera. Have the newer Sony's improved that much ? Have been stalking the Sony page and haven't come to any conclusions.

A "friend" thinks I need a CanonRebel instead but that would mean all new lenses.

Anyone familiar with the A100 and it's limitations compared to a newer DSLR?

I have a Canon 30D, a contemporary of the A100... The one thing I would want from newer cameras is low light/high ISO capability, my camera does well up to ISO 800.

If there's a particular focal length you use most you might want to consider a fast prime, it could rekindle the old fire...

mtsnapper said:

Thanks for all your comments.

I can't point to any specific issues I have. Sometimes I come back from a trip really happy with my pictures, and other times disappointed, without really being able to explain the difference in results.

I got it into my head that since the lens was "just a kit lens" it was the weak link, instead it's the person behind the camera that probably needs updating!

The camera has all the features I need. I don't crave the latest technology at all. So I think I'll go back to basics and practice more shots. I don't do much post-processing, so that's something else for me to explore.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to reply,
mts

Click to expand...

If you're feeling your lens is not particularly good, get a nice, little, fast prime for not much cash. Then you'll see what a "good" lens is and what it can do. You don't have to spend a lot of money to get a good lens. You can see what all the fuss is about. And whether it really makes any difference to you. ;-)

I went through the same quandary, but my Sony was an A200. Ended up switching it out for a refurbished Canon EOS 50D. No regrets, luv Canon colors and the accessories scene is significantly easier.

Kelly Cook

I would suggest asking the question in the Sony SLR forum. Which would do you the most benefit depends on the conditions you take most of your pictures. The A100 has about 10 MP the new bodies 16 or 24 MP, so if you are printing larger images or cropping a lot the new sensors will help you. The new cameras have better noise performance at a given ISO level, if you shoot low light then the new bodies would help. The new bodies have better live view and better video, so if these are of interest a new body will help. They also have lots of useful "features" for doing HDR, multi shot noise reduction, etc. that may be of interest.

If 10 MP is enough and low light is not a big interest then I would look at getting a complimentary lens. A 17-50 f/2.8 or 16-50 f/2.8 is a better lens then the kit lens and would help in low light but most of the benefits are not really going to show up with a 10 MP sensor and it does not extend your focal length range any. So I would either get a wide zoom or a mid to long telephoto zoom depending on if you want to go longer or shorter. These do not have to be expensive lenses, the Minolta 70-210 is an inexpensive long zoom that generally has good image quality. The other option would be to get a longer range zoom like a 18-250 something of that nature.