What’s more important the camera or the lens

M

Micro-four-thirds

Messages
811
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all, I have been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now, what is more important a decent camera and average lenses or average camera and better quality lenses? I keep coming up with equal pros and cons for each scenario.
Thanks
 
Well they have an equal part to play of course, but in my view (no pun intended!) the lens has the more important role to play.

I still look at images from my Canon 400D with affection, but it had a EF24-105 lens stuck on the front! It does make all the difference :)
 
All things being equal the lens everytime I would think.
If you are shooting sports then youd want to be stuck with high frame and average lens probably to get the shot but a better lens would still make better shots theorectically.
Lets say still have the same sport scene one with 5fps and one with 15 fps will I get better shot? Potentially but probably just more shots to delete
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Norkie said:
Well they have an equal part to play of course, but in my view (no pun intended!) the lens has the more important role to play.

I still look at images from my Canon 400D with affection, but it had a EF24-105 lens stuck on the front! It does make all the difference :)
Click to expand...
I’ve still got my 400d but I could never seem to get decent images from it. Maybe I need to go back to it.
 
If you want to shoot at 400mm I suppose the lens is quite important, ditto if you want to shoot at f1.4.

I suppose if you want to shoot at 20 frames per second or reliably track a bird in flight the camera is quite important.

If all you want is to shoot static scenes at f3.5-5.6 in good light and view the output as a 6x4 at arms length even a Canon DSLR will do :D

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

In reality it has to be a combination and the weight you give to either the camera or the lens depends on what you want to achieve and how you want to achieve it.
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
All things being equal the lens everytime I would think.
If you are shooting sports then youd want to be stuck with high frame and average lens probably to get the shot but a better lens would still make better shots theorectically.
Lets say still have the same sport scene one with 5fps and one with 15 fps will I get better shot? Potentially but probably just more shots to delete
Click to expand...
That’s a good way of looking at it.
 
With a poor lens, results won't be good, but with a good lens and less good camera, the results are more likely to be good than the other way round
 
dmb said:
"The most important part is the 6 inches behind the camera" :pics:
Click to expand...

It's a nice thought but "all" the user can do is spot the shot, set the camera and take the picture and in there there's the setting the camera problem as if the gear can't get you the shot it really doesn't matter how skilled the photographer is as diddly squat will be the result. As always it's a combination, it's the insight, eye and skill of the photographer and the technical abilities and limitations of the kit.
 
55 years ago, when I started taking pictures, the answer was obvious: "it's the lens, stupid"!

With the advent of computer based cameras, it's not nearly so clear. Lenses that might once have been considered mediocre, can provide much better results, due to the computer in the camera applying corrections as the image is made. So now the answer to the question becomes: "it depends".

One of these girls is using a film camera and one is using a digital camera. Which girl will come away with the "better" picture?

Girls photographing P1011478.JPG
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
55 years ago, when I started taking pictures, the answer was obvious: "it's the lens, stupid"!

With the advent of computer based cameras, it's not nearly so clear. Lenses that might once have been considered mediocre, can provide much better results, due to the computer in the camera applying corrections as the image is made. So now the answer to the question becomes: "it depends".

One of these girls is using a film camera and one is using a digital camera. Which girl will come away with the "better" picture?
Click to expand...

I don't think it was an obvious choice as even back in the film days we had the choice of different cameras and if for example you wanted to do a close up shot or a long shot a rangefinder would just stop you pretty much dead and you'd need to reach for a SLR.

I don't know which girl will get the better picture but one could be looking at the result 5 seconds later, have a print in her hand 5 minutes after she gets home and have it on friendface PDQ. If those things are important to you your choice is clear.
 
Last edited:
There's been so much development in sensor technology in the past decade that before you consider buying better lenses, you should make sure your camera's sensor is up to scratch. In my experience, a modern digital camera with a good sensor, coupled to a kit lens, will wipe the floor with a top-quality lens on a camera with a rubbish sensor. In this sense, cameras are almost a consumable - swapped out as the technology improves, whereas lenses are more of an investment. They don't improve at anywhere near the same rate. I still use lenses from the 1980's on my D850s and even one Zeiss Pentacon-6 50mm from the sixties, however, I've learned to always keep the camera up-to-date from D200 --> D700 --D800E --> D810 --> D850. I don't see any significant difference on the Z7, Z9, etc, however, I will swap when the sensors do improve again. You'll see an improvement with a good lens of course, as long as it's on a good sensor, and used correctly, however, the difference in images between a mediocre lens and a great one will be much less noticeable than the difference between a good and bad sensor.

The Skye mafia did a good piece on this in the latest Photography Online video mag "how far have lenses come?"
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm9mvOJ672E
 
Scooter said:
...a modern digital camera with a good sensor, coupled to a kit lens, will wipe the floor with a top-quality lens on a camera with a rubbish sensor.
Click to expand...

Scooter said:
used correctly, however, the difference in images between a mediocre lens and a great one will be much less noticeable than the difference between a good and bad sensor.
Click to expand...
Almost heretical, but true IME.
 
Most DSLR cameras will take a good photo IF they are coupled to a good lens.
I have all Canon cameras - mostly 8-10Mp(!) and when I put on my 70-300mm "L" glass lens I can count on getting a good picture. (Or even a 28-135mm lens)
All I have to do then is run the pics through a photo editing suite to get a pretty decent photo.
 
Micro-four-thirds said:
Morning all, I have been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now, what is more important a decent camera and average lenses or average camera and better quality lenses? I keep coming up with equal pros and cons for each scenario.
Thanks
Click to expand...
This of course will depend. If you're talking image quality, or a way an image looks then the lens is more important. If you're taking photos of something that requires deadly accurate quick focussing the high frame rate then the camera is obviously more important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top