Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4035 times:
I take it we're talking film cameras...
Pretty much all modern / recent SLRs will produce good results. What changes is the sophistication of the metering systems and the speed of the AF (if they're AF), but if you can get the exposure right and in focus then the cheap end of the market should produce as good as the top end.
However, a duff lens will never produce good pictures, and the better the glass the better the result if you want to look at the results really critically (i.e. large enlargements, etc.). Also, the faster the lens, the more likely you are to be able to shoot something sharp.
If I had that choice, and assuming I had an at least reasonable camera body, I'd go for a lens.
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4050 times:
I have to agree with Charles and Andy! A cheaper body doesn't mean lesser quality, but a cheaper lense usually means bad quality. Just my 2 cents..........the big guys are the ones who know exactly what there talking about, I am just a starter. They are the ones who got me set on the right track! Charles was the guy who set me up with the best scanner, and lots of guys for my camera equipment, but mostly Joe and Mike.
Rindt From Germany, joined May 2000, 930 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4017 times:
Dmitry... I don't think Joe had anything to do with you buying Nikon unless he has of course changed his mind now, and admitting Nikon does indeed produce better gear
The lense IS the single factor that produces brilliant images (besides proper film), especially when shooting static objects, you'd NEVER be able to tell which shot looks better if it was taken with an F5 or an N2020... because they'd be exactly the same!
What other people think of you is none of your business!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4010 times:
I agree with the statements made, but what isn't made clear is exactly what it is you hope to improve. If your current shots are suffering because of poor exposure, or you are missing shots cause the AF is too slow, then a new body might be called for.
If you are happy with the camera's ability to capture the shots you want there's is pretty well noting you can do to the body to improve quality (other than stick a 6mp CMOS sensor in it ) and it all depends on the lens.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4004 times:
A camera is in principle nothing more than a black box with a hole that can be opened and closed to let light in.
A lens will form that light into an image (though a pinhole will also work).
Using a better lens will yield a better image at all times when using the same camera.
The only times you should seriously consider a better camera is when the one you are using is damaged (shutter or meter malfunction or lightleaks, scratches on the outside are no problem) or you can no longer get things like lenses or batteries for it.
Jan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4009 times:
>The only times you should seriously consider a better camera is when the one you are using is damaged (shutter or meter malfunction or lightleaks, scratches on the outside are no problem) or you can no longer get things like lenses or batteries for it. <
Only then, huh?
I would also upgrade when the camera body limits what I can create. Quicker Auto focus, more precise AF, quicker film transport... Just mentioning a few features.
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3998 times:
You might want to remember that if you use Canon USM lenses, the AF motor is in the lens, so it won't make a difference whether you use a top of the line EOS 1v or a cheap Rebel, the AF should still be fast.
A good body, as was mentioned, might have more sophisticated light metering and a few other functions, but generally speaking, I would rather have a cheap Rebel with a 70-200mm 2.8 L lens than an EOS 1v and a cheap 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 lens.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3968 times:
While the AF will be (relative to similar cameras of other makes) fast with USM lens on any Canon body, there are still significant differences in AF performance across the range - the type and number of AF sensors varies which affects the ability of the camera to accurately lock on to and track subjects.
Tonimr From Spain, joined Jan 2001, 325 posts, RR: 24 Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3948 times:
I agree that the same lens in different bodies doesn't autofocus at the same speed and with the same accuracy. In my case, I suppose this is reinforced by the fact that I don't use AF-S lenses (equivalent to Canon USM's), so the body does everything concerning AF.
Anyway, if we take Ben's proposal to an extreme, I think that most improvements in SLR bodies are biased towards speed, so a good lens/bad body would allow us to make less photos but with the same quality, having in mind that nowadays, even cheaper SLR's have a decent metering system...
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
AA_Cam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 3894 times:
The key thing to remember is that during the exposure there is nothing inbetween the film and the lens. So I've always been a firm believer that the photographer makes the shot, and the lens makes it happen.
Vez From Canada, joined Nov 2001, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 3890 times:
There's no doubt in my mind. If you set a Rebel at f8 1/125, it won't make any difference compared to a EOS1 at the same settings. The lens does the job of converging rays of light to the film, not the body.
In my opinion, a good photographer can compensate for the drawback of his camera body. For example, with experience you get to manually focus very fast, and you know how to set your aperture and speed with a specific light. A good photographer does"nt absolutely need 1865-point bionic AF, multi-matrix-calibration-giga lightmetering, ultra-smooth-lightningfast film transport, etc. He can set his camera himself (and all slr's have the hability to be setted at a given exposure!)
But, a good photographer with a cheap lens will never get a sharp picture if there is chromatic abberation in his picture, or if his lens doesnt allow him to have an aperture he needs in low light...you get the point!
If you're talking about a digital slr, then the body has a lot to do with quality, but not with film camera.
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 3893 times:
Well thats true Rob! Joe was pushing me down the Canon path at first, but I still decided on Nikon anyways, I think there are more pros who use Nikon's rather that Canon. He is the guy who told me what are good lenses what are bad and so on..........
How did you get started with Nikon instead of Canon? Mike sure helped me out also, you remember when I was playing all the guessing games and couldn't decide what I want, but final choice was Nikon. Now its my skills that need to be worked on.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3892 times:
The cheap line of Canons like the Rebels are Plastic. I don't think Nikon has a range that cheap. But you take a look at the good ones, and its a different story - they are either metal or high-tech composites (not plastic), and I'll use my EOS 1v as a brick to bash up your Nikon any day .
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3880 times:
Well it would take a lot of Canon to bash up my F5 if possible! Charles I am sure you know how rugged and strong they are. Well I have never seen a 1V what you have, but I am sure its great, at least the results are! Isn't that what Joe uses also? 10 fps? Pretty good! but I think guys use what they start out with, because its way to expensive to switch if anybody decides to!