and please use their services
Beginner good lens or good camera
- Thread starter Stevied
- Start date
- Messages
- 450
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Might be worth checking out your preferred lens options first, depends what you're after. For instance Canon do their nifty 50 for £100, you wouldn't get much camera for £40.
On the other hand an L series 24-70 is £800 plus and will deliver on an entry level body.
Cheers
Tim
On the other hand an L series 24-70 is £800 plus and will deliver on an entry level body.
Cheers
Tim
- Messages
- 25,297
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
What Tim said.
There's no golden ratio, but try to think of a lens as a fairly long term investment, and a camera as fairly disposable.
Spend money on getting out to take pictures, the most important investment is that in your learning.
Some genres require specialist gear, but a craftsman photographer can get excellent results with fairly basic kit, and a novice will struggle to get a great shot with tens of thousands worth of kit to hand.
I like this, so I keep repeating it:
Learners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about light.
There's no golden ratio, but try to think of a lens as a fairly long term investment, and a camera as fairly disposable.
Spend money on getting out to take pictures, the most important investment is that in your learning.
Some genres require specialist gear, but a craftsman photographer can get excellent results with fairly basic kit, and a novice will struggle to get a great shot with tens of thousands worth of kit to hand.
I like this, so I keep repeating it:
Learners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about light.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,667
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a Sony A7 which when new was quite expensive (for tight me) and pictures I take with it when fitted with an old lens that cost under £20 look good to me but I suppose the lens was a bit more expensive in its day
On the learners, enthusiasts and photographers thing... I've read that many times and whilst I agree with the sentiment the practical obsessive engineer in me believes it's simplistic and misleading as no matter how good a photographer you are or how good the light is some kit will make getting the picture easier or actually possible and the fact is that a balance has to be struck.
Similar stuff gets debated in the audio world. Many in that world have a line of thinking that says you should spend most of your money on the source (the turntable / CD / tuner) but there's no point buying the best source you can afford and playing it through your transistor radios amplifier and speakers.
Balance and overall fitness for purpose is best.
I like to start at the end result and work backwards to decide how I'm going to get it and the fact is that some kit will get my end result and some simply will not no matter how good a photographer I am or how good the light is.
So, if a cheap camera and an expensive lens or an expensive camera with a cheap lens will be more likely to get the end result you want then that's what you should use
but chances are that some middle path will actually be best.
Last edited:
Broadly speaking, a good lens on an lower level body will give far better image quality than an entry level lens on a 'pro' body, and there really aren't any 'poor' DSLRs nowadays. Just about any camera manufactured in the last few years - and many older ones - will work very well for most purposes. The same can't be said for lower end lenses, although there are some that offer quite good performance relative to their price.
There's no idea ratio of how to split your funds but, for 'general' photography I'd buy the best lens you can afford in the 18 - 50mm range (or thereabouts) and match it with an older, used, body. That's a reasonably versatile setup. Your own preferences will emerge with experience.
There's no idea ratio of how to split your funds but, for 'general' photography I'd buy the best lens you can afford in the 18 - 50mm range (or thereabouts) and match it with an older, used, body. That's a reasonably versatile setup. Your own preferences will emerge with experience.
- Messages
- 4,422
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's no ratio sort of speak but you have to remember that many models in a manufacturers range will share the same sensor and when they don't, provided the are the same size there will be very little difference in image quality between them. You are paying more for high model for it's better autofocus better build more direct control etc.. if none of these are a concern to you on your current body you would be wasting your money.
I'll start off by saying that basically I'm agreeing with all the comments made above.
If you want a slightly extreme example; done seriously but for a bit of fun ... N Magazine have run a comparison between a D3400 and a D5 this month. Now they say at the end the D5 is undoubtedly a more versatile camera, but that the entry D3400 can produce as good photos given the right circumstances.
You say in your first post "better to spend the majority of your money on a decent lens and have a lower quality camera body" but I thing you are phrasing it wrongly. You have to spend less to get a good quality camera body than you do to get a good quality lens. However modern "kit" lenses are pretty good quality too and in many cases will give a quality exceeding that which is required - its more when you are needing something specialised that you hit their limits and need to spend more. If you are starting out in photography, my suggestion would be that you want something versatile - for example in another thread I suggests buying a top end 85mm lens was probably not a good move as it restricts you in how you take photos; it may be that once someone has developed their style the 85mm is what they need, but a 24-105 / 24-120mm lens at the start would allow more versatility and for your own style to come out and so give "better" photos; even if they are technically not as share when you look at the pixels. As for the body; well as much as anything I think thats about getting a camera that suits you; the feel of it in your hand, how the various functions work, etc.
Going back to the adage, I think some of it is also going back to the pre-digital days when the camera body was a box to hold the film while its exposed and unless you were needing something specialist (better AF, faster operation, etc). what mattered was lens and then film. Of course in the digital era the sensor is important and that is part of the camera now.
Essentially though you are asking the wrong question ... there is no valid ratio and it very much depends what you are doing. I can't think of many examples when starting out where a single lens / camera combination is going to be 30/70 body/lens split in terms of cost (would you want a 70-200 f/2.8 on a D3x00?); but at the top end - the new Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 price £2,700 ... mounted to a D500 at £1,700 not quite 70/30 but closer.
Of course considering the whole kit ... yes but I suspect most people have a higher than 30/70 split body/lenses.
If you want a slightly extreme example; done seriously but for a bit of fun ... N Magazine have run a comparison between a D3400 and a D5 this month. Now they say at the end the D5 is undoubtedly a more versatile camera, but that the entry D3400 can produce as good photos given the right circumstances.
You say in your first post "better to spend the majority of your money on a decent lens and have a lower quality camera body" but I thing you are phrasing it wrongly. You have to spend less to get a good quality camera body than you do to get a good quality lens. However modern "kit" lenses are pretty good quality too and in many cases will give a quality exceeding that which is required - its more when you are needing something specialised that you hit their limits and need to spend more. If you are starting out in photography, my suggestion would be that you want something versatile - for example in another thread I suggests buying a top end 85mm lens was probably not a good move as it restricts you in how you take photos; it may be that once someone has developed their style the 85mm is what they need, but a 24-105 / 24-120mm lens at the start would allow more versatility and for your own style to come out and so give "better" photos; even if they are technically not as share when you look at the pixels. As for the body; well as much as anything I think thats about getting a camera that suits you; the feel of it in your hand, how the various functions work, etc.
Going back to the adage, I think some of it is also going back to the pre-digital days when the camera body was a box to hold the film while its exposed and unless you were needing something specialist (better AF, faster operation, etc). what mattered was lens and then film. Of course in the digital era the sensor is important and that is part of the camera now.
Essentially though you are asking the wrong question ... there is no valid ratio and it very much depends what you are doing. I can't think of many examples when starting out where a single lens / camera combination is going to be 30/70 body/lens split in terms of cost (would you want a 70-200 f/2.8 on a D3x00?); but at the top end - the new Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 price £2,700 ... mounted to a D500 at £1,700 not quite 70/30 but closer.
Of course considering the whole kit ... yes but I suspect most people have a higher than 30/70 split body/lenses.
A zoom starting at 24mm would be just about perfect for general photography on FF, but the OP seems to be starting out. Wouldn't it be rather long (36 - 38mm) on a crop body?
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
I think a crude ratio is over-simplistic, even assuming you were just going to buy one body and one lens.
There's a popular conception that you buy a camera, grow into it, grow beyond it and upgrade. And it usually results in the progression "entry-level" plus kit lens; followed by an "intermediate" camera with the same kit lens plus another low- or mid-range lens; and perhaps a move to full-frame plus a premium lens or two. But experience would suggests there's better value in going straight to the intermediate camera and sticking with it for longer and investing in lenses. When someone outgrows their entry-level camera it's more likely they just progressed beyond the kit/budget lenses they were using and they still had a lot more progression to make with the same camera and better lenses.
If you choose to start with a cheaper body and invest in lenses, think very carefully about what features you're prepared to compromise on and which are the minimum you require. Going too basic with the body may compromise the benefits you look to get from buying better lenses. Buying your first camera body cheap and basic with the intention of upgrading relatively quickly is very poor value.
An intermediate body and one or two better lenses would the best value starting point.
- Messages
- 4,422
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was a little frustrated with my D5100 after a while but at the time found it hard to justify the extra money for the d7000 because it shared the same sensor. Knowing what i know now though i would have bought the D7000. So perhaps with Nikon in particular the entry level cameras lack of controls i would pay the extra and go for a D7*** model. I'm not sure if other brands entry level cameras are as handicapped as Nikon.
What have you been considering OP?
What have you been considering OP?
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Nikon is unique with the focus-hamstring, but the ergonomic layout and controls of most manufacturers "entry-level" cameras are just as dire.
If I was the OP and starting out again, these are the minimum features I'd look for in a camera body:
- Full focus capabilities (not meeting this is a unique Nikon "entry-level" problem as far as I'm aware)
- Individual shutter speed and aperture controls (not push-and-turn dual function controls or having to wade through a menu, generally if you get separate controls all the other minimum features will also be present)
- PASM modes
- Direct focus point selection (ideally by a joystick or thumb pad, not by cycling through options)
- Live view
That was meant in reference to a different conversation I was recounting... essentially what I meant was its best not to limit yourself at the start. But yes a 18-85 kind of range on crop sensor would be equivalent.
The point being that should you buy an 85mm (or a 50mm or a 35mm) lens that will somewhat dictate the style of your photos; where as your style should dictate what lenses you buy and you won't know that until you start taking photos. (IMO of course). An that was related to the OP because it tends to be more specialised lenses where you end up with the lens costing more than the body.
I wasn't actually sure what situation the OP was in based on other threads he's posted (where they discuss having a D700 unless I'm confused which I may be!)
Last edited:
It would appear to me that Nikon tend to differentiate between D3x00; D5x00 and D7x00 (of a similar generation) by the functionality and controls with the sensor quality being very similar through the ranges; where as Canon go more for improving the sensors as you go up the range (1200d - 760d - 80d). In both cases you need to step to the top (D7200 / 80d) to get a second control dial (afaik).
@Alastair - I'm curious what you refer to in (1) by "Full focus capabilities" and what Nikon's entry level misses?
- Messages
- 5,420
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the main question which defines which body or lenses is "What will I shoot with my outfit"?
You may be interested in BIF or other wildlife for which crop sensor and high FFS would be advantageous.
On the other hand you may want to take landscape or studio shots, therefore a different set of equipment would suit.
This should be your first decision in my view.
You may be interested in BIF or other wildlife for which crop sensor and high FFS would be advantageous.
On the other hand you may want to take landscape or studio shots, therefore a different set of equipment would suit.
This should be your first decision in my view.
Sure. The OP's question suggested that he is starting out, and I assumed he would probably be looking for a crop body. I fully agree that your choice of lenses should be dictated by your objectives but, as you say, that creates a bit of a problem if you're a beginner! Preferences start to emerge once you have some experience, but the moderate wide angle - short telephoto is still a pretty versatile choice.
- Messages
- 5,420
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My old Nikon 18-105mm kit lens was superb on my D7000.
I'd suggest this combo every time to new users.
I'd suggest this combo every time to new users.
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Basic Nikon models lack a focus motor in the body, so can't auto-focus with lenses that don't have a self-contained focus motor. It's less of an issue than it was, but it still means you need to be aware of this when choosing lenses.
I understand now what you mean ... and yes it's an issue that Canon don't suffer from as all their EF lenses have motors.
Pentax also require a in-body motor for some of their only lenses but I'm not familiar with Pentax's camera range to know if all of them have motors for such lenses. Same for mounting early Minolta A mount on Sony bodies... do they have a motor?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Instant reaction is, sod the body, put your spend in the lens. BUT, I come from the film only era, when the body was little more than a light tight box to keep the film in; A-n-d, it wasn't uncommon to come accross folk with 'cheap' Russan Zenit's or East German Practika, SLR's sporting 'expensive' Ziess or Contax or Pentax lenses, and an owner who'd tell you, "Yeah, well saved my money for better film"... Which is an aproach that does make a lot of sense....
BUT.. these days the body IS the film... and the thing is, film was a one shot 'consumeable'. So, IS a better digital body, like film, something cheap and of limited use, you will replace frequently, OR as a film for life, IS a better body the 'better' film? It IS a conundrum.
Personally, I lean more towards the former suggestion. Electrification & ultra-consumerisation of cameras into the digital era, HAS made them significantly 'bic-biro' disposeable consumer products of synically short commercial and operational life span.. unlike my film camera, many of which were built to last a life-time, and plenty are still serviceable after forty years or more...
Leap into world of Widgetal SLR's was begged only a few years ago, by the 'death' of my third digi-compact, in barely a dozen years... each as successvely more mpressive in it's specs than the last.. as it was shorter lived!
Err... yeah... my old 'all metal' Sigma MK1 SLR is still going strong after forty odd years.. my little XA2 compact was retired after a very hard life through my youth, after twenty.. still works.. but some damage to the lens gives some curiouse flare effects occasionally.... I have a Ziess Ikonta 120 roll film, bellows 'folder'that is rather nice, that is probably seventy or more years old, and still going strong! Digital cameras that, on average, have a serivce life of just FOUR YEARS before they break?!? I have left film in a camera longer than that, and expected it to still work when I pick it back up!
NOT, like a widgy-pact, where I pick it up after five or six months, find it wont switch 'on' because of a flat battery, that wont charge; replacement of whch is either more expensive than a new camera, or impossible as 'obsolete part'!!! Heck! I can still get batteries for all my film camera's that even need them! NOT that they need them very often.. except the Olympus OM4.... which has always strugglesd to make a set last as long as a 36exp film... even if I shoot it in a day! But that's anther story!
It's actually a little ironic, that I bought my frst widgy-pact back in 2003, when I was assured it was a wonderful inovation, and despite the price, it would 'pay for itself' as I wouldn't have to buy film.... y-e-a-h rght!.. I'm still buying film! Thing took 4-AAA batteries, and quickly proved to have a rather gorgan apetite for them! Fitting rechargeale AAA's also proved futile, the 1.2v they delvered instead of 1.5 provided by an alkaline wouldn't power the thing up... and it rapidly became apparent that the ruddy thing cost more per frame in batteries than my film cameras did in film!
I was a little more circumspect picking my next one! A-N-D, it's main sales feature was that it ony took two AA's.. A-N-D I made chap in the shop PROVE to me it would power up off ni-cad rechargeables before I handed over money for it!....
Do you remember the joke about the man who ask for the time at a railway station? chap he asked put down his suit-cases, looked at his new 'digital' watch and said, "Yes, well its 42 Degrees in New York, the Deli stock exchange is down three points, Hong-Kong up two... Isreal seems to be arming for war again, whilst Russia haven't put nuclear missiles into Afghanstan..." And carries on offering world news headlines for ten minutes before 1st chap says "Yeah, but I JUST wanted to know what time it is?!".. "hold on", says the man with the watch... "Fantastic invention this, tells me ALL this stuff.. but have to work through the buttons to get to the one that tells me the time... Four minutes past three!" he adds eventually.. "Your train is late, it will be in in forty minutes the drver's name is Jim, look" and shows first chap the watch. 1st chap is much impressed, and asks him how much it cost "Oh! Only a fiver" he replies, adding "Amazing what they can do with electronic these days.... mind" He adds picking up the suitcases... "Batteries are a bit of a bugga to lug around"....
Yeah... how profetic was that in the '80's (I think he 2-Ronnies did a sketch around it), given interet enabled smart phones now? BUT.. that second widgi-pact was a bit like that.. diddy little camera... BIG bag of 'spare' batteries on my belt, to replace the ones in it that lasted about half a dozen shots!
Twice bitten, I WAS somewhat sceptical of the next, and the assurances over how long I could expect a 'dedicated' Lith-Ion rechargeable to last.. I will confess, it DID exceed my expectations... BUT.. those expectations weren't very high to begin with! lol!
Pace of development in consumer electronics in the last 20 years, has seen dramatic year on year specification improvements, accomanied by ever lower counter costs, that 'have' converged to an acceptable quality level, where image quality and costs 'may' challenge that of film, depending on how you do the sums.... Electric Picture maker, HAS cost me in the last five years more than I ever spent on film cameras and film for them, in the twenty five before.... and jury is still out over how much VFM I will get from it before it, like the widgi-pacts before 'dies' on me!
Hence, I am inclined to the opinion, that the camera body probably WONT last, and will have to be replaced in the not too distant future, when a newer 'better' model, will, likely offer even more bang for my buck.. for an even shorter service life! And at SOME point.. If the trend continues as it has for the last fifteen or twenty years, I will at some point be buyng new camera bodies, in 'five packs' like I did film twenty years ago... and probably about as often! Lol.
BUT, with a little luck.... the lenses may endure... or at least I hope so.
My D3200, four years ago, shipped with the 18-55 lens as a 'kit', and the body+lens consumer 'kit' WAS actually cheaper than buyng the camera body only.... so I got the kit lens essentially for less than 'free'.....
This sort of begs suggestion, that maybe it doesn't matter. Days of 'system' cameras with iterchangeable lenses, may be short-lived, and 'better' all in one, 'super-zoom' consumer cameras, could get to the point that they DO fullfill most of the promice they are 'all' the camera you will ever want, for most people, and probably packed into mobile phones, 'specialist' niches for anything in the market outside thier scope, whithers, and that's ALL you can get!
But hopefuly, I will still be able to buy FILM!
Ultimately, I think you have to look at the 'whole' these days. When started out, old-school attitudes were still strong, and cameras were expected to lat a life-time, and that you could 'build' your kit as and when you could afford or needed or wanted, around a pretty humble first camera. But that ethos is pretty much made redundat by modern marketing.
Now, makers try and sell you 'everything' you will ever need, here ad now, and then encourage you to chuck it all away when they can offer something 'bigger-better-faster-more' to convince you, it's no longer any good, and you need to buy it all all over.....
So I think you have to be that much more discerning, and NOT buy more than you really need t any one time, whilst being prepared to have to buy it all over at some point in the not too distant future, when it isn't enough, or it is broken, and any ecconomy from the legacy of what you bought orignally WILL remain signifcatly speculative.
Bottom line as far as the photo's are concerned is that the camera plays a TINY proportion in the results, and even that first widgi-pact I bought fifteen years ago, with a mere 1.3Mpix sensor, and incredibly limited manual control, and remarkeably 'dire' fixed lens, MADE PICTURES.. and todays electric-picture maker, for all its higher sensor resolution, for all it's more versatile lenses, WONT automatically get me very many more pictures I will get any greater enjoyement from looking at...
Do you pt your money nto the camera, or the lens?
NO! You put as LITTLE money into either as you ca get away wth, and go spend the REST takng ruddy photo's with it! THATS where yu will find more and better pictures; uing the damn thing, whatevr it is, whatever the specs or the price ticket.. outside, in the world where life happens... NOT n the box, that has batteries in it!
BUT.. these days the body IS the film... and the thing is, film was a one shot 'consumeable'. So, IS a better digital body, like film, something cheap and of limited use, you will replace frequently, OR as a film for life, IS a better body the 'better' film? It IS a conundrum.
Personally, I lean more towards the former suggestion. Electrification & ultra-consumerisation of cameras into the digital era, HAS made them significantly 'bic-biro' disposeable consumer products of synically short commercial and operational life span.. unlike my film camera, many of which were built to last a life-time, and plenty are still serviceable after forty years or more...
Leap into world of Widgetal SLR's was begged only a few years ago, by the 'death' of my third digi-compact, in barely a dozen years... each as successvely more mpressive in it's specs than the last.. as it was shorter lived!
Err... yeah... my old 'all metal' Sigma MK1 SLR is still going strong after forty odd years.. my little XA2 compact was retired after a very hard life through my youth, after twenty.. still works.. but some damage to the lens gives some curiouse flare effects occasionally.... I have a Ziess Ikonta 120 roll film, bellows 'folder'that is rather nice, that is probably seventy or more years old, and still going strong! Digital cameras that, on average, have a serivce life of just FOUR YEARS before they break?!? I have left film in a camera longer than that, and expected it to still work when I pick it back up!
NOT, like a widgy-pact, where I pick it up after five or six months, find it wont switch 'on' because of a flat battery, that wont charge; replacement of whch is either more expensive than a new camera, or impossible as 'obsolete part'!!! Heck! I can still get batteries for all my film camera's that even need them! NOT that they need them very often.. except the Olympus OM4.... which has always strugglesd to make a set last as long as a 36exp film... even if I shoot it in a day! But that's anther story!
It's actually a little ironic, that I bought my frst widgy-pact back in 2003, when I was assured it was a wonderful inovation, and despite the price, it would 'pay for itself' as I wouldn't have to buy film.... y-e-a-h rght!.. I'm still buying film! Thing took 4-AAA batteries, and quickly proved to have a rather gorgan apetite for them! Fitting rechargeale AAA's also proved futile, the 1.2v they delvered instead of 1.5 provided by an alkaline wouldn't power the thing up... and it rapidly became apparent that the ruddy thing cost more per frame in batteries than my film cameras did in film!
I was a little more circumspect picking my next one! A-N-D, it's main sales feature was that it ony took two AA's.. A-N-D I made chap in the shop PROVE to me it would power up off ni-cad rechargeables before I handed over money for it!....
Do you remember the joke about the man who ask for the time at a railway station? chap he asked put down his suit-cases, looked at his new 'digital' watch and said, "Yes, well its 42 Degrees in New York, the Deli stock exchange is down three points, Hong-Kong up two... Isreal seems to be arming for war again, whilst Russia haven't put nuclear missiles into Afghanstan..." And carries on offering world news headlines for ten minutes before 1st chap says "Yeah, but I JUST wanted to know what time it is?!".. "hold on", says the man with the watch... "Fantastic invention this, tells me ALL this stuff.. but have to work through the buttons to get to the one that tells me the time... Four minutes past three!" he adds eventually.. "Your train is late, it will be in in forty minutes the drver's name is Jim, look" and shows first chap the watch. 1st chap is much impressed, and asks him how much it cost "Oh! Only a fiver" he replies, adding "Amazing what they can do with electronic these days.... mind" He adds picking up the suitcases... "Batteries are a bit of a bugga to lug around"....
Yeah... how profetic was that in the '80's (I think he 2-Ronnies did a sketch around it), given interet enabled smart phones now? BUT.. that second widgi-pact was a bit like that.. diddy little camera... BIG bag of 'spare' batteries on my belt, to replace the ones in it that lasted about half a dozen shots!
Twice bitten, I WAS somewhat sceptical of the next, and the assurances over how long I could expect a 'dedicated' Lith-Ion rechargeable to last.. I will confess, it DID exceed my expectations... BUT.. those expectations weren't very high to begin with! lol!
Pace of development in consumer electronics in the last 20 years, has seen dramatic year on year specification improvements, accomanied by ever lower counter costs, that 'have' converged to an acceptable quality level, where image quality and costs 'may' challenge that of film, depending on how you do the sums.... Electric Picture maker, HAS cost me in the last five years more than I ever spent on film cameras and film for them, in the twenty five before.... and jury is still out over how much VFM I will get from it before it, like the widgi-pacts before 'dies' on me!
Hence, I am inclined to the opinion, that the camera body probably WONT last, and will have to be replaced in the not too distant future, when a newer 'better' model, will, likely offer even more bang for my buck.. for an even shorter service life! And at SOME point.. If the trend continues as it has for the last fifteen or twenty years, I will at some point be buyng new camera bodies, in 'five packs' like I did film twenty years ago... and probably about as often! Lol.
BUT, with a little luck.... the lenses may endure... or at least I hope so.
My D3200, four years ago, shipped with the 18-55 lens as a 'kit', and the body+lens consumer 'kit' WAS actually cheaper than buyng the camera body only.... so I got the kit lens essentially for less than 'free'.....
This sort of begs suggestion, that maybe it doesn't matter. Days of 'system' cameras with iterchangeable lenses, may be short-lived, and 'better' all in one, 'super-zoom' consumer cameras, could get to the point that they DO fullfill most of the promice they are 'all' the camera you will ever want, for most people, and probably packed into mobile phones, 'specialist' niches for anything in the market outside thier scope, whithers, and that's ALL you can get!
But hopefuly, I will still be able to buy FILM!
Ultimately, I think you have to look at the 'whole' these days. When started out, old-school attitudes were still strong, and cameras were expected to lat a life-time, and that you could 'build' your kit as and when you could afford or needed or wanted, around a pretty humble first camera. But that ethos is pretty much made redundat by modern marketing.
Now, makers try and sell you 'everything' you will ever need, here ad now, and then encourage you to chuck it all away when they can offer something 'bigger-better-faster-more' to convince you, it's no longer any good, and you need to buy it all all over.....
So I think you have to be that much more discerning, and NOT buy more than you really need t any one time, whilst being prepared to have to buy it all over at some point in the not too distant future, when it isn't enough, or it is broken, and any ecconomy from the legacy of what you bought orignally WILL remain signifcatly speculative.
Bottom line as far as the photo's are concerned is that the camera plays a TINY proportion in the results, and even that first widgi-pact I bought fifteen years ago, with a mere 1.3Mpix sensor, and incredibly limited manual control, and remarkeably 'dire' fixed lens, MADE PICTURES.. and todays electric-picture maker, for all its higher sensor resolution, for all it's more versatile lenses, WONT automatically get me very many more pictures I will get any greater enjoyement from looking at...
Do you pt your money nto the camera, or the lens?
NO! You put as LITTLE money into either as you ca get away wth, and go spend the REST takng ruddy photo's with it! THATS where yu will find more and better pictures; uing the damn thing, whatevr it is, whatever the specs or the price ticket.. outside, in the world where life happens... NOT n the box, that has batteries in it!
- Messages
- 6,423
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
I recently bought a Nikon D3300 for my daughter. I was expecting it to be fairly pants but having fired a few frames off the other day I was pleasantly surprised even with a humble 50mm f/1.8 it produces great images, even the included kit lens was much better than I expected, the new version is very fast to focus for this sort of lens. With Nikon anyway the drawbacks of the entry level type bodies is definitely down to the lacks of easy accessible controls, the focus systems and I.Q at higher I.S.O. If you can live with those draw backs the entry level bodies are more than okay.
We have several Nikon full frame bodies and we turn them over every 2-3 years or so yet we have lenses that are 6/7 year old. Investment in lenses over bodies every time for us. As others have said though there is no set percentage as such.
We have several Nikon full frame bodies and we turn them over every 2-3 years or so yet we have lenses that are 6/7 year old. Investment in lenses over bodies every time for us. As others have said though there is no set percentage as such.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21
- Name
- Drew Shergold
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is now my laptop background, love it!
- Messages
- 411
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A Lens will hold there value far better than camera body something to remember if you think you may have to upgrade sooner rather than later. If you buy a really good body that will last you a good few years and a cheaper second hand lens. When you come to upgrade the lens you will loose very little if any money on it, if you buy the right one.A canon 50mm f1.8 second hand will cost you £50 and you can sell it in two years for £50 if you look after it. I have canon's 24-70 F2.8 which cost me £900 after 7 years and 400 weddings I sold it for £750