# What is more important to invest in?



## blackrose89 (Dec 13, 2011)

A camera body or a lense?


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 13, 2011)

In the end, lenses are everything.
This is my way of thinking:
First investment should be the most up to date/newest camera body you can possibly purchase. Then begin to learn on it with the kit lens. As you learn and develop your own style you will also learn what lenses you want and need. 
If your camera body is up to date and you aren't feeling the pinch from it, you can invest all future $ in good lenses. Good lenses will be with you 10? 20? years? Forever? Bodies will come and go. If your body is up to date you won't want to be investing money in a new one so quickly as you would if you bought an older camera body that you'll outgrow faster.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Dec 13, 2011)

ditto


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 13, 2011)

Most modern camera's are perfectly fine to capture good images ... only from good quality lenses.

You can spend thousands of dollars on a camera, only to be defeated by a poor IQ from the lens.
I spend more energy upgrading my lenses vs. my camera.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 13, 2011)

Camera bodies come and go, their technology is surpassed every 2-3 years.  A top lens will last you many, many years.


----------



## bogeyguy (Dec 13, 2011)

gold


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 13, 2011)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/265855-100-crop-entry-level-d5100-high-end-lens.html


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2011)

A lens is absolutely useless without a body behind it. A body without a lens will not take a photo.

I liked MLeeK's answer, "First investment should be the most up to date/newest camera body you can possibly purchase."

Huh....so much for lenses being "everything".

Frankly, the quality of even cheap mid-grade Nikon and Canon lenses is so high today that at smaller apertures, a $199 tele-zoom's image quality is almost the same as that from a $1,799 zoom. Popular Photography did an article a few years back comparing f/2.8 "pro" lenses with slower, consumer-grade lenses. At normal daylight apertures, the results were virtually identical. As in "virtually identical".

If you have a Nikon D3s, the High-ISO capability is so good that witgh a medium-grade consumjer lens, it will out-perform an older D200 with a professional-class f/2.8 zoom.

Put another way: I would rather own a Nikon D3s and a full set of "consumer zooms" than I would a Canon Rebel and a 16-35/2.8 L and a 70-200/2.8 Mark I.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 13, 2011)

Along the same lines as Derrel, if camera bodies don't matter, how come they need to be replaced every 3-5 years as technology improves?  Put simply, if camera bodies didn't matter, they wouldn't come and go.  You say lenses will last 20 years, but how many people sold their 80-200 for the 70-200 VR?  How many people sold that 70-200 VR for the 70-200 VRII.

Heck, they all get replaced every 5 years or so.  The biggest difference is that a lens 10 years old can still take the same pictures the modern lens can.  The same cannot be said for the camera body.

My take on it is to buy older pro lenses and the newest pro bodies...Seems to make the most sense to me until the funds are available for the newest of both, which will probably be never.  I'll probably stay 2 generations behind on lenses and up to date or one behind on camera bodies...that is unless Nikon decides they want to chase megapixels, in which case I will be shooting with D700/D3s's for the rest of my life.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Dec 13, 2011)

buy decent everything and don't sweat it


----------



## KmH (Dec 13, 2011)

blackrose89 said:


> What is more important to invest in?


Knowledge and understanding.


----------



## mwcfarms (Dec 13, 2011)

Both lol. Each has their own advantages but using the equipment you have until you have gained all the knowledge you can from it and its preventing you from exploring further is important too.


----------



## jeremyamayora (Dec 13, 2011)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> In the end, lenses are everything.
> This is my way of thinking:
> First investment should be the most up to date/newest camera body you can possibly purchase. Then begin to learn on it with the kit lens. As you learn and develop your own style you will also learn what lenses you want and need.
> If your camera body is up to date and you aren't feeling the pinch from it, you can invest all future $ in good lenses. Good lenses will be with you 10? 20? years? Forever? Bodies will come and go. If your body is up to date you won't want to be investing money in a new one so quickly as you would if you bought an older camera body that you'll outgrow faster.



I must agree I have a d3100 and I feel like it doesn't do enough for me and I only had for about 3 moths. Better body then great lens


----------



## kamerageek (Dec 13, 2011)

I tend to live on the lens side of the discussion. I'm in the process of collecting a set of best lenses I can afford that will suit my style and preferences. My 40D body is a perfectly suitable camera for me and I'm happy with the results I'm getting.

I design and write computer software for a living and this debate has striking similarities to the discussion of whether a computer user needs a faster processor or more memory. There are benefits to each in their own right and the combination of the two will make for a great experience.

I get all excited when I think about how cool it would be to walk around with a 7D or a 5D, but at the end of the day I would shoot the same way with those as I do with my current body. I personally believe I'll get the best bang for my buck from a good set of lenses.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 13, 2011)

Skill... spend time and effort with your current gear.. until you have improved enough to be able to use a new lens or body effectively! But as said, good lenses are more important than the body.


----------



## thierry (Dec 14, 2011)

Glassssss


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 14, 2011)

I would say it is most important to invest in gear that you can grow with and be able to replace with new gear seemlessly once you out grow it. This is why we have so many debates over what type of camera system to use. This makes all the difference about how you will be able to grow with your gear. 

A lot of this decision would be decided by your style and the type of work you do. If everything you do is daytime then you can get by with lower quality stuff because you will have better coinditions. But if you shoot at night and do lots of portrait work like me on the fly a good motor with high ISO capabilities would come in very handy and help get the job done.


----------



## DCMoney (Dec 14, 2011)

Glass, even those who sell there lens to get the updated version how much of a loss did you sell the old one for? Try selling your body after 5 years and see how much you get for it. As an investment glass is where its at.


----------



## ghache (Dec 14, 2011)

I would say if you have a ****ty body, invest in a good one before spending 1000s on lenses. if you already have a good body w i wouldn't bother upgrading to the next new thing. get some lenses.


----------



## analog.universe (Dec 14, 2011)

Glass for sure.

Unless you're doing crazy high speed stuff and you need amazing autofocus and burst rate, it really doesn't take much of a body to get an excellent photo.  A lens upgrade will almost always have an impact on image quality, a body upgrade, not nearly as often.  As mentioned lenses also really hold their value well.

The way the economy is looking lately, they probably have a better depreciation rate than hard currency :er:


----------



## j-digg (Dec 14, 2011)

KmH said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > What is more important to invest in?
> ...



And lighting


----------



## Joel_W (Dec 14, 2011)

Actually, it's the total package that counts. a Good body with a solid lens will produce excellent photographs yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  Needing the latest, greatest has very little to do with taking superb pictures. The most important photographic tool is you. Your perception, execution, and delivery of the final product.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 14, 2011)

I'm already invested, not much left that I want.  I figure the cameras will be like my car....... when the wheels fall off.


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2011)

Joel_W said:


> Actually, it's the total package that counts. a Good body with a solid lens will produce excellent photographs yesterday, today, and tomorrow.....The most important photographic tool is you. Your perception, execution, and delivery of the final product.


Absolutely.


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2011)

As a very general rule of thumb I work on the following order of importance: Note I'm only going to talk about technical details, skills are a separate factor. 

1) Lenses
2) Lighting
3) Camera

That does not mean the camera body is worthless, it just means that I am far more likely to spend money on good glass and good lighting gear before I invest in a camera body. This is the typical pattern for most people and generally represents the greatest gains that you'll get.

Lenses - these are what directly control your light that you work with, further they also control what and how you can shoot. You want to take wideangle shots you need a wideangle lens; you want to do macro you need a macro lens; etc..... There are, of course, workarounds for many situations, but at the end of the day the right lens for the right job is important and will generally be the best way to get the best result. 
Furthermore lens technology advances at a much slower pace and the gains lens to lens can often (though not always) be more marginal. This means your lens investments, when spend on good quality glass, will keep their value and use for a much greater period of time. 10 years - 20 years maybe more. 

2) Lighting - well photography is all about light, so be it just a reflector or a full studio setup; equipment that allows you to exert indirect or direct control over the lighting really makes a massive difference in the quality you can get. In some fields its even more essential than the lenses (eg product shots are almost all about the lighting setup). And again this tech advances very slowly, probably even slower than lenses when you are using manual flash power outputs and not auto tech - so again its solid investments in gear that will last and retain its quality for a long period of time.

3) Bodies - the thing that records the light from the lens itself. From the current new market there really are no bad choices here, from rebels up to 1D bodies they are all solid choices; if used correctly of course. Now I'm not saying that a rebel is as good as a 1D, not at all, but what I am saying is that the quality gain is more minimal when comparing the two than if you compare a bottom market lens to a top market one. 
In addition the greater gain in bodies isn't so much the quality, but the additional features; the focusing accuracy and speed (though of course tied and limited to the lens speed there); the ISO range and quality of it; the metering; etc....
However much of this tech advances faster, so whilst older bodies are still working, they are not as easily comparable to the modern offerings. 



In the end that is my way of thinking; I'm far more likely to put down £4K or more on a single lens long long before I'd put down that money on a body. That isn't to say that the body is worthless, its just less important in my way of thinking to the final product. I've some justification for that too - I've a 400D and a 7D and to be honest I'm happy enough to use whichever body is closer to me at the time to get a shot. Sure if I want to head out to do wildlife the 7D is far preferred for its AF functionality and greater usable ISO range; but I could just as easily take out the 400D if I were not shooting in especially challenging lighting. 
Now glass wise I've a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 70-300mm sigma (cheap one) - I've not touched the latter since getting the former and honestly I wouldn't be happy to use the latter now that I've got and used the former. The quality difference in the field is massive - both in optical quality, but also in AF performance. 



However I will say that the body discussion HAS to be tempered against the format you want to work with. If you want to work with a 1.6 crop camera body that's great -  but if you want to work with 35mm (fullframe) then  the body upgrade has to come sooner rather than later. Same for if you want to do medium format or any other size of format -- in that situation you've got the get the right body early on so that you can build you working lens and methods around that. Trying to go the other way sort of works, but can run the risk that you're getting results you don't quite want for a long time and that you'll have to change the lenses you use to ones that retain the angles of view that you've grown used to working with.


----------

