Re: The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Ferrophot wrote:
All depends on what you\'re trying to do. Good light, reasonable lens (50 1.8, 85 1.8 etc) I doubt if anybody can tell the differnce between various bodies. Get out before sunup, expose at ISO 1600 or 3200 and the differences in bodies soon becomes apparent. Same for glass, good light, expose at f5.6-8, hard to tell the differences. Let the light fade, expose at f2.8 or 3.5 and the differences soon become real enough.
With the introduction of 18 mp bodies another factor has come in. Those who pixel peep suddenly see a difference in their lenses that wasn\'t apparent before. Some say this new body must be rubbish, some say Ooohhh, my lens is now rubbish, when really the only thing that\'s changed is the degree of magnification they are pixel peeping at. A4 prints will still look just like they used to.
Yes, I\'d go for nice glass before a nicer body, but there are times when a good body makes a world of difference.
Geeeez, there\'s a cute little blonde down at our coffee shop, now that\'s what I call a body! Forget about the glass she serves the soft drink in. See! Body before glass again! You just can\'t make hard and fast rules.
Why would the introduction of 18 mp bodies suddenly make the pixel peepers see a difference in their lenses ? Canon already have released a couple of 21mp bodies a rather long time ago.
And I have seen that argument since it was 6mp
Aug 13, 2010 at 07:26 PM
Previous versions of Lars Johnsson's message #8749713 « The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera »
