I'm wondering if with then advent of digitals were putting too much of a focus on new bodies and new sensors and less so on lenses.

If you think about the advancements since the 90's in bodies and compare them to lenses, atleast in my opinion, you have to wonder if it's the same company creating both.

Obviously it's more profitable to releast a 35D then a 17-70 F 2.8 L (least I would think it is considering volume) but should be be asking for more in lenses and less in body replacements?

Tim

Both cameras and lenses have been improving quite a bit recently.

With the improvement of technology, sensors are getting better and smaller. Cameras are becoming more automated and computerized. There's a lot more technology packed into cameras than in lenses so that's why they get updated more.

Lenses are benefiting from modern technology advancements. Zoom lenses are really hard to design, but with the assistance of computers, we can design much better lenses. Lenses have their share of technological improvements too, such as IS, but lenses are far more similar to the ones used 10 years ago than camera bodies.

We have to pay more attention to the camera because there is no accessory sensor optin with different characteristics like there is a choice of films.

That aside, the modern camera is largely automated and the choice of camera greatly affects the performance and ergonomics of the automated features.

It is worth getting the right camera body for your applications and has a suitable ergonomics because a crappy-feeling camera is one that will not induce good photography. It won't prevent good photography but it won't make you want to go out and use it.

Lenses are vitally important for excellent photographic results beyond the artistic part of designing the image. However, the camera selection is no longer as much less important than it was.

I see the focus on bodies as more an issue of achieving parity between them and lenses. It used to be the lenses were more far important than the body in terms of image quality - the film was an external factor, designed by some other company. The advice to "invest in glass, not cameras" is still given today.

But today's digital bodies are so complicated and the particular image sensors so vital to image quality that more time needs to be invested in their development. In that sense, the glass can take a bit of a back seat, if you will.

I think Alan hit on it. The advancement of the digital body is along the lines of the prior advances in film technology. Previously, a film body was a very fancy light box for the film. Now, digital bodies are the box, the film, filters, developer, etc.