It's all about the glass.....

philthejuggler

philthejuggler

Messages
6,964
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
I often hear people going on about how important the glass is & urging buyers looking for an upgrade to invest in glass rather than a new body.

Since personally investing in several items of L-glass + other quality offerings I've only ever owned fairly recent bodies (5D, 40D, 50D). However with two beach holidays on the horizon I decided I'd like a to pick up an older body that I'd be less paranoid taking near sand!

Canon Bob had a 20D in super condition available & I relieved him of it yesterday (thanks Bob!). Last night and today I've taken lots of frames with it on my Sigma 150mm, the 24-105 & the 135L.

I have to say I'm absolutely delighted with the results! With decent glass the 20D is mega-sharp & unless I was doing seriously large prints I doubt anyone would tell the difference between it & my 50D.

Here is an shot with the 150mm + ring flash + extension tubes. On the original the eye detail is great!



More mega-pixels on the 5D & 50D might give some more cropping-ability, and the larger lcds (especially on the 50D) are nice, but I'm more than delighted with the image quality of the 20D with decent lenses.

My advice to anyone thinking "lens or body upgrade" even with quite an old body would definitely be 'Go for decent glass first & second!'

Just my 2-penneth!

Phil
 
Always spend on glass. In todays digital age, the camera will be updated within 12 months usually, but the glass will last prob longer than you.. Some of the older lenses around (20yrs plus) can give better results than their modern counterparts.

The 20d is an excellent camera anyway. (as was the 10d at 6mp). The other wisdom is that it's not the number of pixels that count, its the quality of those pixels.
 
Yep, I used my D70s for exactly the same thing, taking on the beach [not because i am worried about the D300 on the beach, its been on plenty, but simply weight reduction] when on holiday earlier this year and even with the original kit lens it came with, the pictures were stonking and with the nikon 70-200vr stuck on the front :love: :love:
 
fair point and fully agree (to a degree) BUT.. how do you find the focusing of the 20 compared to the 50?

Iv'e borrowed a mates 40 and can't get over the focusing, with a sigma hsm lens!
 
c_robinson said:
fair point and fully agree (to a degree) BUT.. how do you find the focusing of the 20 compared to the 50?

Iv'e borrowed a mates 40 and can't get over the focusing, with a sigma hsm lens!
Click to expand...

Not really compared the two yet. I used servo focussing this afternoon on my children flying down a long slide. The hit rate wasn't bad & it was particularly challenging due to some obstructions in view. I suspect the 50D would be better and it is a 'nicer' camera to use in many ways (particularly the customisable menu & the lcd). It has made me realise just how important the glass is though & put the body several notches down the pecking order in my mind!

Phil
 
Thanks Phil,

Iv'e switched from a nikon D60 (first slr) to a 20D, i'm going to keep the 20d as a back up (2nd) and have a 40d, along with some glass (300 f4, 70-200 4, something from 30 to 70 (got 15-30)

Thanks for your answer!
Charlie
 
If switching bodies - change from cANON TO nIKON. Always an upgrade that one. :popcorn:
 
Absolutely agree. I cannot stress enough the value of the best possible glass

Most dslr's these days have a good enough sensor and electronics to produce images of excellent quality. However, if the quality of the image is restricted by poor glass before it even reaches the sensor then no camera can help
 
daveproctor said:
Absolutely agree. I cannot stress enough the value of the best possible glass

Most dslr's these days have a good enough sensor and electronics to produce images of excellent quality. However, if the quality of the image is restricted by poor glass before it even reaches the sensor then no camera can help
Click to expand...

I think the only counter example to that is the 300D which was my first DSLR. It produced crystal clear pics, but there was something unrealistically digital about them. The 5D, 400D, 40D, 50D and now 20D I've used since have all been great.

Phil
 
you don't get confuddled with the buttons being reversed from 20/30d to 40/50d ? allways worried that would be an issue if I had an older body as a second
 
philthejuggler said:
I think the only counter example to that is the 300D which was my first DSLR. It produced crystal clear pics, but there was something unrealistically digital about them. The 5D, 400D, 40D, 50D and now 20D I've used since have all been great.

Phil
Click to expand...

Aaagh - goodness I'm stupid at times! :bonk:

I didn't have much decent glass when I had the 300D - I've potentially just proved my own point!

Phil
 
It is true that the glass is more important, but you do need a decent body to start with. If you compared a 300D to a 500D I think you'd notice a huge difference in both image quality and useability, as they are both consumer grade bodies. Certainly my move from a 400D to a 40D last year was the best £550 I've ever spent. The high ISO performance, ease of use, build quality and images from the 40D are in another league
 
RichardC27 said:
It is true that the glass is more important, but you do need a decent body to start with. If you compared a 300D to a 500D I think you'd notice a huge difference in both image quality and useability, as they are both consumer grade bodies. Certainly my move from a 400D to a 40D last year was the best £550 I've ever spent. The high ISO performance, ease of use, build quality and images from the 40D are in another league
Click to expand...

Yes - I went from a 400D to a 40D & despite my 40D having some focussing issues I found it better to handle & got more keepers despite it having the same resolution as the 400D.
 
Hey guys,

You all mention being paranoid taking bodies on to beaches, thus getting a cheaper/lesser model for this purpose. You say you only have L glass or Nikon equiv, what do you use on the beach then, if you only have L glass?

I own a Sigma 70-200 that cost me £600, a shade on what L glass costs. I wouldn't even think about taking it to the beach, and that includes my other Sigma 15-30. All this equipment is too expensive to have a rogue breeze ruin it all.

How do you protect your gear when you do go to such an environment?
 
Because Nikon cameras are better than Canon ones - thats why.

All the photographers in films have Nikon cameras round their necks, so it must be true.
 
I too think the glass is more important.... once you reached a certain level of body! Great glass is all very nice but you need the body to drive it. The D40 for example is a perfectly fine camera and I loved using it, but all the great glass in the world won't make it better at ISO 800 and higher, and having a good amount of frames per second sure helps for that action shot.
So, what I'm saying is the glass rule still stands, but rules are meant to be broken :)
 
gordonfraser said:
Hey guys,

You all mention being paranoid taking bodies on to beaches, thus getting a cheaper/lesser model for this purpose. You say you only have L glass or Nikon equiv, what do you use on the beach then, if you only have L glass?

I own a Sigma 70-200 that cost me £600, a shade on what L glass costs. I wouldn't even think about taking it to the beach, and that includes my other Sigma 15-30. All this equipment is too expensive to have a rogue breeze ruin it all.

How do you protect your gear when you do go to such an environment?
Click to expand...

Well, I have a 50mm Macro that's super sharp and fairly inexpensive. The L lenses I'd most likely take to a beach are sealed and with a filter on the end & some care in handling all should be well! I've not damaged a camera or lens on a beach going on about three holidays a year for as long as I can remember!

Phil
 
I'm not at all sure that the glass is all important these days. It was with film, when the camera was just a box with a shutter, but today the camera is the film, and a lot more too.

The camera is not only the sensor also, plus a myriad of important controls that we never had before. The camera also has a lot of image processing software. This is being used currently to a quite limited extent, but the latest generation of cameras (Panasonic GH1, Olympus E-P1, Nikon DSLRs) also use software to improve lens image quality by sorting out CA, vignetting and distortion.

Pretty soon the camera will be essential to image quality, the lens will depend on the integral image processing, and will be pretty poor without it. Basically, right now I think you need both a good camera and a good lens.
 
neil_g said:
i love my 20D, i have no plans to replace it :)
Click to expand...

+1. It does everything I require and then some. ISO handling at 1600 is excellent considering the age of the body.

'The lens makes the camera (and Carl Zeiss makes the lens*)'

*sorry, force of habbit. ;)
 
ripclaw said:
I too think the glass is more important.... once you reached a certain level of body!
Click to expand...

And that's the problem with digital. The camera itself is the media that the image will be recorded by, where as with film camera's it was very simple to upgrade the sensor. I've got a 10D body that is my backup, when funds allow me to go up to a full frame sensor body, the 10D will get converted to infra red at a huge cost compared to just putting a filter on the front of the lens and some IR film inside it.

I do love the immediate gratification that digital affords me but I do also miss the flexibility of film.

Real grain. I miss it sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top