I can't see why you'd buy a £500+ camera only to leave it on auto all the time, you'll never reach any of it's potential... Ta about the lens advice, guess I'll stick it out with the kit and go from there.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
why do people spend so much on the DSLR Body?
- Thread starter DoNoHarm
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't see why you'd buy a £500+ camera only to leave it on auto all the time, you'll never reach any of it's potential... Ta about the lens advice, guess I'll stick it out with the kit and go from there.
Me too. I bought a Nikon D200 and kit lens (18-70mm) when I converted from film to digital. And I can confirm that it produces terrific results... provided you point it at something interesting.
In 'real world' situations, I try to judge gear by what the results are actually like... not by the opinions I might read on a forum or - even less reliable - in a manufacturer's own advertising copy. The word 'kit' makes it sound like you're buying a piece of junk. Not so...
Getting to know a body/lens combination is, IMO, every bit as important as the specs or 'features'. You begin to know what your equipment does well - and what it does not so well - and tailor your output accordingly...
Because truthfully, most photographers are (a) lazy and (b) mediocre. Photography is all about light, but how many photographers take the time to learn about lighting? How many have the discipline to eek the most out of their shots? How many leave their tripods at home *every single time* or don't even own a tripod? If you're not trying to produce art, then maybe the auto modes are "good enough."
Paul
Paul, you know well and good that not every photographer can use a tripod in their genre of photography. The greatest tripod ever made is virtually useless to a street photographer. A tripod would have been useless to me yesterday, not to mention heavily constraining (I wasn't doing street photography, but a lot of on-the-move documentary work). A monopod may well have been useful, however. I keep meaning to replace the one I had that mysteriously vanished last year.
I moved to a D700 because I needed and often use the high ISO abilities and I wanted to get rid of the crop factor. I have not regretted that purchase. I also don't plan to get another DSLR for several more years. It's all I need for a long while.
I moved to a D700 because I needed and often use the high ISO abilities and I wanted to get rid of the crop factor. I have not regretted that purchase. I also don't plan to get another DSLR for several more years. It's all I need for a long while.
All digital cameras have sufficient "ISO", you are misusing the term like most digital enthusiasts do now if you are referring to High ISO:
The International Organization for Standardization acronym is used for a fixed reference of numerical sensitivity.
The term ISO does not mean just high sensitivity, I am not sure who started this habit, but it is really, really stupid.
I have the D3 and a bunch of great lenses. I also have the D5000 plus its kit lens and the 55-200mm VR lens, There are times when that little D5000 and kit lens come in very handy, and there are actually a few times when that little D5000 leaves the house sporting one of my "pro" lenses, too..... True, I don't put the 300 f/2.8 VR on the D5000, that just wouldn't seem right, but over the past couple of weeks with the snowstorm activity we've had here in the DC area, I've been venturing out with the D5000 and various lenses. Why not the D3? Well....I decided that if I were out there traipsing around and I slipped on the ice underneath that snow, I'd just as soon not damage my D3! I did go out with the 24-70 on the D5000 a couple of times, but mostly I've used the 70-300mm VR and the kit lens on it. Images that I've been getting have been more than satisfactory to me and to others who have viewed them, and in the end, that's what's important, is it not?
I have a casual canvas messenger bag that works really well for not only carrying everyday stuff but the D5000 with kit lens mounted and the 55-200mm VR lens as well, and that way I've always got a camera with me, can always grab a shot when the opportunity arises. On the other hand, the D3 and whatever lenses I'm planning to use with it really require a stronger, larger, more "serious" mode of transport (ie, camera bag).
So I've spent both a lot of money on a camera body (D3) and not as much money on a camera body (D5000) -- and I use both frequently, judging a particular situation as it arises. As has been mentioned in this thread, it's not only the camera body or even the lenses that make a difference, it's someone's photographic "eye" and experience as well. Heck, I've even gotten some nifty shots with my iPhone 3GS!
ETA: I forgot to say that I use my D3 for just about everything from shooting macros to shooting events to shooting birds....it's a camera that I have loved since the day I got it. Do I regret spending the money that I did on it? NOT AT ALL. I consider it my "real" camera and the D5000 as a sort of "P&S" although I don't use the D5000 in auto mode or scene mode, but shoot as I do with the D3. The D3 is one fabulous camera.
I have a casual canvas messenger bag that works really well for not only carrying everyday stuff but the D5000 with kit lens mounted and the 55-200mm VR lens as well, and that way I've always got a camera with me, can always grab a shot when the opportunity arises. On the other hand, the D3 and whatever lenses I'm planning to use with it really require a stronger, larger, more "serious" mode of transport (ie, camera bag).
So I've spent both a lot of money on a camera body (D3) and not as much money on a camera body (D5000) -- and I use both frequently, judging a particular situation as it arises. As has been mentioned in this thread, it's not only the camera body or even the lenses that make a difference, it's someone's photographic "eye" and experience as well. Heck, I've even gotten some nifty shots with my iPhone 3GS!
ETA: I forgot to say that I use my D3 for just about everything from shooting macros to shooting events to shooting birds....it's a camera that I have loved since the day I got it. Do I regret spending the money that I did on it? NOT AT ALL. I consider it my "real" camera and the D5000 as a sort of "P&S" although I don't use the D5000 in auto mode or scene mode, but shoot as I do with the D3. The D3 is one fabulous camera.
Junk glass like.... Give me an example of a current model Canon lens that can't take nice pictures?
Anyway, my progression was..
Canon Original Digital Rebel, with 18-55mm mk I
Canon 28-105mm USM - ~$100 "upgrade"
Canon 28mm f/2.8
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon 100-300mm USM (sold it pretty quick, I guess you could call that junk)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX (the old model)
Sold off most of the lenses and purchased 30D
Sigma 10-20mm
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L (replaced Sigma, was better but also 2x price)
Canon 70-200mm f/4 nonIS (sold pretty soon, didn't use it much and needed the money)
sold 30D for 40D
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 50mm f/1.4
Canon 24-105mm IS L
sold 40D bought 5DmkII
sold all crop lenses
Sigma 12-24mm EX
Current setup:
5DmkII with battery grip. (very ***** heavy compared even to 40D+grip)
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS L
Canon 85mm f/1.8 (want to sell as on a FF body I don't like its focusing range)
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 12-24mm EX UltraWide
One thing about the kit zooms is that you can fill the frame most of the time.
Which is sharper, a photo from a zoom that isn't cropped, or one from a prime that is cropped? Of course that all depends on circumstances like the amount of the crop and all.
Still, it seems a prime would have to be a whole lot better quality to overcome the crop factor and I think most of the differences are more subtle than that.
Also, there is the matter or things like VR. Kit lenses have VR, so if there was a bit of darkness, countered by maybe the prime being wider...well you get into all sorts of things making it really hard to compare.
I have compared my 18-55 to the legendary 55 mm 2.8 micro. Just a few tests, but nothing I can see in terms of sharpness. Now, if I had a 25mp camera of some sort, and really did make giant prints, maybe I would see something.
Another thing to consider is that the kit lenses are all of the most recent design and manufacturing processes. You get lots of perfect little lens elements made out of good stuff and of the latest computer design. Many of the primes were designed many years ago. This evens out the field quite a bit, I think.
Which is sharper, a photo from a zoom that isn't cropped, or one from a prime that is cropped? Of course that all depends on circumstances like the amount of the crop and all.
Still, it seems a prime would have to be a whole lot better quality to overcome the crop factor and I think most of the differences are more subtle than that.
Also, there is the matter or things like VR. Kit lenses have VR, so if there was a bit of darkness, countered by maybe the prime being wider...well you get into all sorts of things making it really hard to compare.
I have compared my 18-55 to the legendary 55 mm 2.8 micro. Just a few tests, but nothing I can see in terms of sharpness. Now, if I had a 25mp camera of some sort, and really did make giant prints, maybe I would see something.
Another thing to consider is that the kit lenses are all of the most recent design and manufacturing processes. You get lots of perfect little lens elements made out of good stuff and of the latest computer design. Many of the primes were designed many years ago. This evens out the field quite a bit, I think.
I'm surprised that the camera's focus system is not more prominent in this discussion.
After recently getting back into photography, I'm reminded that at the most basic level, the camera has to capture what comes through the lens. Whether the capture is any good, depends on whether the right part of the image is in focus and if the image is exposed correctly. While post production can dramatically compensate for the latter, there is nothing any amount of post production can do for OOF subjects.
Hence it's not surprising that every step-up in camera also provides a step-up in auto-focus systems. Thus, this one aspect to a body alone, can easily justify the added expense as much as any lens - if not more. It's clearly not wise to put expensive glass on a body that ends up providing OOF shots because the subject matter is beyond the capabilities of the focus system to resolve.
IMHO, you should buy the best focus system and the best lens for the subject matter you are shooting that you can afford. Emphasizing one over the other is likely to result in disappointing results.
After recently getting back into photography, I'm reminded that at the most basic level, the camera has to capture what comes through the lens. Whether the capture is any good, depends on whether the right part of the image is in focus and if the image is exposed correctly. While post production can dramatically compensate for the latter, there is nothing any amount of post production can do for OOF subjects.
Hence it's not surprising that every step-up in camera also provides a step-up in auto-focus systems. Thus, this one aspect to a body alone, can easily justify the added expense as much as any lens - if not more. It's clearly not wise to put expensive glass on a body that ends up providing OOF shots because the subject matter is beyond the capabilities of the focus system to resolve.
IMHO, you should buy the best focus system and the best lens for the subject matter you are shooting that you can afford. Emphasizing one over the other is likely to result in disappointing results.
That's another thing about newbies having zooms... they forget that they have these things called feet - which can successfully be used to move towards and away from the subject thus facilitating better framing.
This is an honest question here: I can clearly see where a superior AF will give you better shots in high speed motorsports, birding, action photography, etc. But, where is it helping for say landscapes, architecture, or macro? I was under the impression that the high end AF units will give you high speed tracking performance, but when it comes to stationary subjects, even entry level DSLRs are more than sufficient to get it sharply in focus. Even portraiture should be no problem for anything on the market today provided you know what you're doing.
IMO there is a certain degree of operator skill involved here too as I bet a seasoned pro with an entry level body will still be more consistent and have higher success than a newbie spraying and praying with a D3s.
Ruahrc
It depends on how you use the camera body. Personally, I always focus then reframe, so my focussing is done on the centre cross-sensor on my 5DII (which is more accurate and better in low light than other autofocus points).
A better body will have more cross sensors distributed across the frame.
So you could argue that someone who does low light street photography, and who composes then focusses will get a lot more keepers on a high end body - even though they're not photographing anything that you'd classify as 'difficult'.
Landscapes will often be shot at the hyperfocal distance, which means manual focus - so no AF advantages there.
However if it's a time exposure - for example if you want flowing water - that benefits from mirror lockup which is another "high end" feature.Architecture might be shot from a tripod, again with no AF advantage. Most cameras have remote shutter release of one sort or another, so probably no overall advantage at the high end except maybe mirror lockup (again) for ultimate clarity.
Macro is almost always going to be manual focus. I suppose you could argue that a high end body might have better focus indicators than lower end ones, or that additional focus choices (especially with the Nikons which go a bit overboard with 51 points) might provide some benefit. When I've shot macro, though, I tend to go by eye... so the only benefit might be a bigger, brighter viewfinder.
and pray tell why should they move their feet so they are standing in the middle of a major highway or lake when having that zoom thing allows you to take the photo from a more comfortable/suitable shooting position?
I saw one guy with a 5D II with a Canon EF 28-80 on it. I had it on a film camera as the kit lens. It was junk then and still is.
I was just out at the zoo this weekend with my 7D and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (not the best lens, but definitely the best I own). I saw another 7D owner in an indoor tropical wildlife exhibit, and was going to ask them how they liked their camera.
Then I got closer and saw them attaching a 270 EX flash to it, and saw the 18-55mm kit lens from the old XT/XTi era (non-IS). I'm guessing they had a Rebel they liked, and upgraded the body, without upgrading anything else.
I'm no shining example of good lenses to go with a good body, but at least I'm not that bad
Then I got closer and saw them attaching a 270 EX flash to it, and saw the 18-55mm kit lens from the old XT/XTi era (non-IS). I'm guessing they had a Rebel they liked, and upgraded the body, without upgrading anything else.
I'm no shining example of good lenses to go with a good body, but at least I'm not that bad
Nice pictures? Well, pretty much any lens can take nice pictures (a) when pointed at something interesting in good light and (b) when stopped down. If you're regularly shooting landscapes at f/11 or higher, you're going to benefit less from really top-notch glass vs. someone (like me) who shoots events at f/2 and lower. If you've ever shot wide-open with an 85/1.2L (or a 35/1.4L or a 24/1.4L), then you know the value of REALLY good glass. And as MP counts get higher and higher, you'll start to see the limitations of lesser glass far sooner than you will with better lenses.
If I had $2500 to put into a DLSR system, I would be buying a 5D classic for $1100 and a 35/1.4L for $1400. But again, that's what I need for the kind of photography I do. Others may not need that type of fast prime lens (if you're shooting landscapes at f/1.4, you need to buy 'Photography for Dummies' before you buy anything else).
The point is that if one takes the ~$2800 it costs to buy a 5DmkII and a consumer zoom and instead invests it in a 5D classic ($1100 used) plus a few great lenses (like the 17-40 f/4L, 50 f/1.4, and a 70-200 f/4L, which can be had for ~$1300 used), the results will be far better in the latter case. If you're buying a $2500 DSLR body, you'd better have a pretty good reason to do so.
Well, at the severe risk of being flamed, I'll admit that I'm still learning and bought a Pentax K7 recently.
Why? Well, I used my K100D alot - tried various settings, learned to frame better by looking through the eyepiece and seeing a different world BUT, it had no dust removal on it which the K7 does; K7 also has HD video and the it shoots much faster (i snap pics of my kids sports often and email pics to the other kids parents)
Another important reason is the weather resistant body. I live in Canada It's not warm here and there have been many a-time when I've wanted to go out on a frosty morning or in inclement weather and snap some pics. I felt held back by the K100D. I absolutely appreciated having that camera though. I always wanted to get into photography when I was a kid b/c I often would snap what seemed to be tte oddest photos and my friends and family would wonder what I was doing. Now, I have that purchasing power to follow up on a dream or something on my 'bucket list.
Is this camera over my head?
In many ways - yes! In some ways, no - it's perfect. I feel I can grow into this camera. I feel that all the extra settings etc.. make me want to learn more. I'm not looking to make a career, but rather develop a nice hobbie.
I use the kit lens' (18-55 and 55-300) exclusively for now. I am looking to buy a pancake wide lens, but nothing longer than 300. I'm still learning about the various types of lens so I don't want to buy better glass when I don't know how to maximize them. That may sound backwards, but I'd rather buy the body and learn about it and photography techniques, then buy better glass.
And as someone pointed out, I don't think the glass they include is that inferior. I've taken some gorgeous shots so far (and yes, missed out on some others b/c I didn't quite understand what I should have been doing - thus learning lessons
Why? Well, I used my K100D alot - tried various settings, learned to frame better by looking through the eyepiece and seeing a different world BUT, it had no dust removal on it which the K7 does; K7 also has HD video and the it shoots much faster (i snap pics of my kids sports often and email pics to the other kids parents)
Another important reason is the weather resistant body. I live in Canada
It's not warm here and there have been many a-time when I've wanted to go out on a frosty morning or in inclement weather and snap some pics. I felt held back by the K100D. I absolutely appreciated having that camera though. I always wanted to get into photography when I was a kid b/c I often would snap what seemed to be tte oddest photos and my friends and family would wonder what I was doing. Now, I have that purchasing power to follow up on a dream or something on my 'bucket list. Is this camera over my head?
In many ways - yes! In some ways, no - it's perfect. I feel I can grow into this camera. I feel that all the extra settings etc.. make me want to learn more. I'm not looking to make a career, but rather develop a nice hobbie.
I use the kit lens' (18-55 and 55-300) exclusively for now. I am looking to buy a pancake wide lens, but nothing longer than 300. I'm still learning about the various types of lens so I don't want to buy better glass when I don't know how to maximize them. That may sound backwards, but I'd rather buy the body and learn about it and photography techniques, then buy better glass.
And as someone pointed out, I don't think the glass they include is that inferior. I've taken some gorgeous shots so far (and yes, missed out on some others b/c I didn't quite understand what I should have been doing - thus learning lessons
As a wedding photographer, I regularly find myself in situations where I literally have at most 5 seconds to set up or get a shot before I have to move on to the next thing. I usually just have to deal with whatever the lighting situation is, which for weddings is usually pretty terrible. Often, flash is forbidden during ceremonies, many of which can be very dim. For these reasons, I really need the low light capabilities of my 5D. Increasing the ISO is sometimes the only way to go, because I have to stop down in order for the DOF to cover say a large group of people.
I don't really think it's fair for people who shoot primarily landscapes, architecture, or macro, to berate those people who spend big $$$ on premium bodies. When you're in the business of shooting primarily landscapes, e.g., and have the luxury of waiting for perfect lighting conditions and can regularly stop your lens down to f/11, yeah, you won't really see the need for a big time body. That doesn't mean that your philosophy should apply to everyone; people who regularly do low light concert photography would rightfully disagree with your analysis that spending more money on high end bodies isn't worth it.
Having said that, who hasn't seen at least a dozen people with a 5DmkII body and a $40 lens walking around snapping photos in automatic mode. Spend enough time in a touristy area and you'll know what I'm talking about. It's the same reason people who buy P&S cameras from Best Buy think they need 15mp sensors the size of a pencil eraser.
I don't really think it's fair for people who shoot primarily landscapes, architecture, or macro, to berate those people who spend big $$$ on premium bodies. When you're in the business of shooting primarily landscapes, e.g., and have the luxury of waiting for perfect lighting conditions and can regularly stop your lens down to f/11, yeah, you won't really see the need for a big time body. That doesn't mean that your philosophy should apply to everyone; people who regularly do low light concert photography would rightfully disagree with your analysis that spending more money on high end bodies isn't worth it.
Having said that, who hasn't seen at least a dozen people with a 5DmkII body and a $40 lens walking around snapping photos in automatic mode. Spend enough time in a touristy area and you'll know what I'm talking about. It's the same reason people who buy P&S cameras from Best Buy think they need 15mp sensors the size of a pencil eraser.
Couldn't agree more. Case in point; I just sold my 70-200 f/4L. Not because it wasn't a good lens (it was a remarkably excellent lens), but because f/4 is at least one stop too slow for what I use that focal length for (I kept the 17-40 f/4L, because f/4 is usually ok for wide-angle use).
Remember, as lenses get stopped down, they get sharper (until diffraction sets in). So that consumer zoom will look great on your 5D at f/11. But it's going to look p**s poor at f/5.6 (which is wide-open, incidentally), an f/stop that is useless to me as an event photographer.
There is a market for high-end bodies, but if you're coupling them with a kit lens, you've wasted your money.
Who cares, I think we fixate too much on what others have, if they want to spend thier money on expensive bodies, let them. If they don't want to take it out of auto so be it. I'm too busy enjoying myself to care about others. There will always be those that buy the best because they can afford it.