p.2 #1 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
They're both important. Body and lens are both tools that need to be selected carefully for the kind of shooting one does, pro or enthusiast. A Fuji S2 Pro body for sports shooting combined with a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 isn't going to provide even halfway decent results, regardless of that lenses' superb quality and that body's incredibly high IQ.
As far as the article goes, it's really quite thin considering the subject matter. The fact that the body is also now "the film" is a major, serious and complicated topic ... and a fact of photography existence that's costing many photographers an awful lot of money ... far more than things cost when the body was simply a light-tight box into which you could load any film you wanted for that "look" you were after. Nowadays, you have to purchase a variety of bodies ... usually from different manufacturers ... to achieve those different "looks." Trying this through post-processing doesn't quite cut it as most of the "look" is embedded into the camera's own electronics.
My cameras at the moment are the 5D II, the Fuji S2 Pro and a Panasonic G1. I have good to great lenses for each of these bodies. Each one of these cameras renders a distinctly different character to the files they output; dramatically different, in fact. The resolution difference among these cameras is of far less consequence than the difference in character. In fact, the S2 Pro files at the pixel level are so good that I have no trouble enlarging them to 5D II size and then printing them at 17" X 24." I love the S2's output ... but it won't shoot well at anything over ISO 800; nor will the Panasonic. So ... if low-light shooting is in the cards, off I go with the 5D II, and so forth. There are instances when it's the character of the G1 that I want ... its natural color, contrast and amazing rendition of detail ... not to mention its unobtrusiveness and light weight.
Bodies and lense go hand-in-hand. I would not suggest that one is more important than the other, but I will agree with the fact that bodies are far more important than some photographers would suggest, ie the cliche "lenses are more important than the body."
p.2 #2 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Lars Johnsson wrote: Yes you can take nice images with any of those bodies. But the same goes for the glass. I have seen very good photos with about every lens Canon have. From the ones with the lowest price, to the most expensive ones
I feel as thought the defects of cheaper lenses tend to be exaggerated on this board. A cheaper lens will definitely exhibit poorer quality images and confound those looking for technical perfection. However, when you sit down and actually look at some of the work produced by cheaper lenses (e.g. 18-55 non-IS or 28/35-80/90 or 75-300), many of the pictures are very interesting. Granted, you do have to slog through a fair amount of uninteresting photos, but that's less due to defects of the lens and more due to the fact that these cheap lenses are/were attached to most beginners' cameras.
This bring up the main point: In my opinion, the most important factor is the skill of the photographer. My pictures didn't improve with new gear; they improved when I slowed down to think about what I'm photographing.
p.2 #3 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Skill and creativity combined with any tool will result in better results than even the absolute best tool alone.
The author makes some alright points but in the end its all about knowing your tool and about producing the output within the potential of that tool. I would wager that the vast majority of people are not limited by their tools but by their skill and creativity and to blame a tool is merely a way of ignoring or rationalizing ones own shortcomings.
p.2 #4 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
The value of a image is almost always determined by the content and composition, not the super expensive gear or cheap gear used to capture it.
I am a gear collector, and have lots of L lenses, but if I had a cheap 50mm lens, I could still make good sharp photos. In fact, I bought one for $40 yesterday, and it takes excellent images.
p.2 #6 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
veroman wrote:
Bodies and lense go hand-in-hand. I would not suggest that one is more important than the other, but I will agree with the fact that bodies are far more important than some photographers would suggest, ie the cliche "lenses are more important than the body."
- Steve
Totally agree here. Lenses are very important obviously and hold value much better than the camera, but the upgrades in the camera body over the years has been very impressive as well, especially in the high ISO categories. I remember not every wanting to shoot above ISO 800 on my old Rebel XT. Now with the 5d Mk II, that is no longer a worry.
p.2 #7 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Well clearly both the lens and body are crucial. The balance of importance between them varies over time of course.
For example, it is clear that the emergence of 20+ megapixel sensors is seriously showing up sub optimal lenses, and I speak from experience as someone who has just coughed up alot of money to go from the 24L Mk1 to the 24L Mk2.
Sensors are getting better year on year to a staggering degree. In terms of print quality I would happily put my 5D2 images up against my 1990s Hasselblad film images, and cameras like the 5D2 are merciless to so so lenses. I've recently bought a 7D and I am really taken back by how technically demanding such a small detailed sensor is.
The way we are going it sensors that lead the race, and lenses are expensively trying to keep up in Mk2 designs.
p.2 #8 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Yeah, the sensor is the big difference now. In the film days, the film was what was crucial but the same high quality film could be used for different cameras, high end or low end. Nowadays, it's all about the sensor technology and that's gets better from camera to camera.
p.2 #9 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
The lens and camera are equally important to me. However important the CMOS may be, I haven't noticed a significant improvement from my 2005 5D to my 5DII or 7D. However the camera controls, interface and speed are a lot better.
p.2 #10 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
David Baldwin wrote:
For example, it is clear that the emergence of 20+ megapixel sensors is seriously showing up sub optimal lenses, and I speak from experience as someone who has just coughed up alot of money to go from the 24L Mk1 to the 24L Mk2.
Bear in mind that the 5D2's pixel density is similar to that of the Rebel XT or XTi (between 8-10mp on an APS-C chip). If the 5D2 is outresolving a lens, the XT and XTi should have outresolved the lens a while ago.
In my opinion, there's a lot of pseudo-science going on with the resolving power of lenses and sensors.
p.2 #13 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
dwweiche wrote:
Meh...
I usually think that out of the top 10 possible reasons for good/bad photographs, 1 through 8 are all the photographer. 9 is the lens. 10 is the camera.
p.2 #15 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
veroman wrote:
Bodies and lense go hand-in-hand. I would not suggest that one is more important than the other, but I will agree with the fact that bodies are far more important than some photographers would suggest, ie the cliche "lenses are more important than the body."
- Steve
My sentiments, exactly, Steve--a lot of that depends on what your subject matter is.
p.2 #16 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Just thinking here. I think of the camera, lens and photographer as a system. Similar to an F-16 fighter which has a pilot, airframe and engine. Eliminate one item from either system, and the remaining two can't perform their intended purpose. Add or delete any feature to/from one of the three components and you get better or worse results. Add or delete features/capabilities of multiple components and you can get results that are less than expected, better than expected or the same.
So, if your lens inventory consist of a maximum aperture of f4 and no IS, but you have a camera with excellent high ISO capability and a photographer with steady hands, you can still get that low light shot. Will it be equal to a photo using a lens with f1.8 capability? Depends on the photographers capability and camera ISO.
To me, it just depends, because there are too many variables. However, I will always expect a skilled photographer who knows how to use the provided equipment (reqardless of price and performance) over an amateur like me with pro gear.
p.2 #17 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
$8,000 lenses on $600 bodies will pull off a better pic (in the same conditions) than an $8000 body with a $600 lens. A bit extreme, I know, but it applies.
Besides, that article really doesn't say much that applies to digital.
p.2 #18 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
kakomu
Many lenses that struggle in the new 20+ megapixel era will do fine on crop, but will fall apart in the corners on high res full frame. Like my original 24L. (Of course there are other lenses which will struggle on both crop and full frame too). Here's a link to a great article:
"Its is a bad time to be a pixel-peeper. If you look closely enough on a high resolution full-frame camera, chances are you’ll find some minor flaw with every lens you own. "
and
"In the days of film the plane of film in the back of the camera wasn’t nearly as flat, and was a much more variable distance from the back of the lens than is a digital sensor — so such minor differences probably didn’t matter. Even with low resolutions sensors, the camera couldn’t detect these small variations in lens and lens mount assembly. With full-frame, high resolution sensors and cutting edge optical design, particularly for wide-angle lenses, they have now become apparent."
These modern sensors are very demanding of lens quality. I really wonder how many lenses will cope when full frame has the same pixel density as today's 7D.
p.2 #19 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Lens over body ...
Aug 13, 2010 at 04:39 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
droopy1592 wrote:
$8,000 lenses on $600 bodies will pull off a better pic (in the same conditions) than an $8000 body with a $600 lens. A bit extreme, I know, but it applies.
Besides, that article really doesn't say much that applies to digital.
Not at all.
It depends on what you are shooting. And what body and lens it is.
