lenses before cameras, sill valid in this time of rapid technological change?

mrjames

mrjames

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,240
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so we're all told to invest in lenses not cameras, and there's no doubt they hold their value better, but if we think about cameras and lenses as image making tools rather than investments, does it still make sense now that cameras are improving so rapidly in the digital age? The rate of change in the film world was glacial, you bought a camera (a light tight box that opened and closed) for 10 years of use and bought better film stock as it became available, but now with digital you get a seismic shift in IQ every year or so, and although theoretical sharpness and pixel pitch doesn't directly effect artistic quality, stock agencies, clients, customers and critics are becoming more discerning

Print size:
more megapixels=more cropping potential, and I think the maths is 4x mp count=2x resolution, so there is little difference comparing 6mp to 10mp, 10mp to 18mp etc, but comparing the 36mp d800 with my 10mp 1d3, you should be able to crop down by half and still get the same print size- so my 150mm lens would also be a 300mm, doubling my lens count!

Noise:
f you have a 6mp 10d and a 70-200 2.8 ISII, vs a 5d2 with a 70-300 5.6m, and you shoot a concert with the 5d2 at 300mm iso6400 1/320 f5.6, and shoot the 10d at 200mm iso 1600 1/320 f2.8
which would get a better shot?


This is the dilemma i'm facing at the moment: I shoot a 1d3 and a 1ds2, I have shot a 7d and the IQ is not even in the same league as the aging 1ds2, and the high iso on the 1d3 beats the 7d every time.
I have evidence to suggest the 5d2/5d3 is much better than my 1d3, but the 1dx is better still than the 5d2, so much much better than my 1d3

So shooting gigs and events in low light i'm frequently shooting 6400 f2.8 1/160 with a 150mm prime lens- getting acceptable, but noisy images.

0J9W7792-Edit.jpg


To improve IQ I could get new lenses: a 135mm f2, a 150mm 2.8 OS, or a 70-200 2.8 IS/70-200 2.8 IS II, or I could get a new body and keep using my current lens. A 5d2 to go along side the 1d3, or to sell the 1ds2 and the 1d3 and plump for a 1dx?

Decisions decisions. Clearly once I own a 70-200 I will keep it for life, and upgrade bodies as required, but at this moment in time with only so much pocket money saved up and a need for cleaner high iso images, the question of new lens or new camera is one that will take careful consideration


disclaimer: I am not a pixel peeper, nor a brick wall fanatic, look at my website, see the aesthetics of my images and realise that I want the best from my equipment to take professional images that impress clients, not to shoot test charts
 
mrjames said:
So shooting gigs and events in low light i'm frequently shooting 6400 f2.8 1/160 with a 150mm prime lens- getting acceptable, but noisy images.
Click to expand...
My take on this is the ISO is what is killing the image. As you rack up ISO, dynamic range, tonal range and colour range all decrease. Therefore you want to shoot at low ISO.

Why not take a look at something like the Olympus OM-D EM5 with a 75mm f1.8 prime (2x crop so equivalent of 150mm on full frame). Not only is the lens spectacularly good, the cameras ISO performance is supposed to be very good too. You may find a more modern sensor, coupled with a stop and a bit of extra light might make the world of difference to the photos.
 
mrjames said:
but now with digital you get a seismic shift in IQ every year or so,
Click to expand...

I think that may be going a bit far. Higher ISOs are become useable but for anyone that doesn't require really high ISOs I am not sure it is seismic.
 
I think we're starting to reach a plateau, certainly in terms of sensor resolution for full-frame sensors. The 5D mk II and III are both around the 20mp mark, which is good for enormous enlargements and produces hefty RAW files. There have been quite a few comments that the D800 at 36mp produces RAW files that are just too unwieldy, given that you can't really do much more with the increase in resolution.

The main area of improvement will probably remain high ISO. I can see the time not too far away when DSLR's will be able to shoot in virtual darkness (some already can!) and the 'standard' ISO will be around the 1000 mark, with some electronic trickery included to allow for slow shutter speeds and large apertures.

Prime lenses have probably got about as good as they're ever going to get, assuming some new and exotic glass formulation isn't discovered. There's still room for improvement in zooms, particularly ultra wide angles - expect the quality to go up and price to come down over time.

To answer your question, a decent full-frame body like the 5D, D700 etc. will produce top-notch quality images for many years to come, and is a definite jump in quality over a cheaper crop sensor-based body. I'd invest in FF first and then go for lenses.

A.
 
thanks

I think i've made up my mind to go with 1d3 and 5d2, speed and high iso albeit in 2 bodies

could trade both in for a 5d3 (realistically 1dx is a little out my league) but I think I might miss the speed, having 2 bodies, and having a 1 series camera


@ernesto, ok maybe not seismic, I was getting over excited., but it's still a major improvement, going from a clean 3200 to a clean 6400 means you can get the same images in half the light, a 2x improvement is pretty major in my books, especially when you are already pushing the limits of your equipment so you really feel the improvements
 
I'm not sure IQ has got any better iso performance has and resolution has, but i still think my d40x took a nicer cleaner sharper image at iso100 than my d5100.
 
Tend to agree, with my very limited test between a 8 year old 20D and a current 1100D. There was no noticeable difference in IQ at low ISOs with uncropped image.

However, the progression on ISO is clearly a good thing but as an outside daylight type of person not applicable to me/all. Being able to get a clean shot from ISOs in the millions will certainly help many.
I would rather have more effort put into the dynamic range abilities. If a camera sensor could at least match what my eyes see it would be a great benefit. My eyes don't give me many blown highlights :)
 
ISO 6400 is a problematic one, particularly with older cams. If you really want a clean image, you need to look at ideally 1DX or at least 5DIII. The other alternative is f/2 OR IS lens to allow shooting at ISO3200 or lower. The problem with 5DII at that light will be AF, or lack of it. At the end of the day 1Dx + f/2 or IS lens will give by far the best possible image. Processing also matters - LR4 gives images head and shoulders above the competition. I'd almost go as far as claiming that LR1 to LR4 sequence gave far greater improvement than let's say 1Ds2 to 5DIII would be. The old 1-series looks dreadful with canon's own software for example, and so does 5DII.

Len's-wise - lenses are much better investment as they hold their value so well. Camera bodies at some point depreciate very quickly. f/5.6 vs f/2.8 can give a totally different image, even if you can compensate with ISO, while sharpness is ever as important. Gone are the days when soft clunky zooms or terrible primes were acceptable.
 
I thought the 5d3 was similar to the 5d2 in terms of noise, hmm, and is there really that much difference between lr3 and lr4? I'm a lr3 user

I think the 100f2 is definitely on the cards, or maybe i'll switch in the sigma 150 macro for a 100 IS, although shooting primes for event photography has me changing lenses in the field and it's only a matter of time before one goes tumbling to the ground, so if I stick with primes i'm stuck shooting 2 bodies and a lot of time spent cropping in post.

I guess really I just need some money, and lots of it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top