What’s most important - lens or sensor?

Messages
11
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Looking at my collection of digital pics, the best ones were taken with a 6MP Minolta 5D DSLR.
The ones I have taken on a much more recent Sony Alpha 500 with a 12MP and presumably more modern and as big sensor, just don’t jump out at me, in the way the Miniolta ones did.

So does a lens always trump megapixels and sensor? Using the same lens, should I get a better result with the greater pixels and more modern sensor?
 
Hi Steve, welcome to TP.

Looking at my collection of digital pics, the best ones were taken with a 6MP Minolta 5D DSLR.
The ones I have taken on a much more recent Sony Alpha 500 with a 12MP and presumably more modern and as big sensor, just don’t jump out at me, in the way the Miniolta ones did.

Taking your post point by point, the 5D and the 500 were only a few years apart, and in terms of technology neither would be 'breathtaking' by current standards. You don't mention *why* the minolta images jump out at you, but I'd guess that the Minolta camera had a better set of presets internally compared to the Sony, or perhaps the old higher resolution sensor just simply wasn't as good as the slightly older but lower resolution sensor. Of course there are many other variables involved too, so without doing side-by-side evaluation you'll never know which was the 'better' camera outfit.

So does a lens always trump megapixels and sensor? Using the same lens, should I get a better result with the greater pixels and more modern sensor?

There's no single yes/no anwser for this, because so much depends on what you're photographing, why and how you're taking the picture. It's often better the view the camera and lens as a system that works together, rather as separate, unconnected components. A lens should be able to resolve the detail that you need for the image to work. The sensor needs to be able to provide an image that doesn't contain too much noise, is reasonable in terms of handling dynamic range and producing colours for what you want. It's no good photographing a landscape that requires extreme detail with a lens that's like the end of a wine bottle or a sensor that produces noisy images that have blown highlights and blocked shadows.

There's another component that's important too - the person taking the picture, and processing it (or not) afterwards.
 
I don't think there's any doubt that technically better kit helps you to take technically better pictures.

After that bombshell I suppose the sensor v lens argument can get a little more complex and some people make better sensors than other people.

The subject and the lighting maybe matters more than any of the rest unless you're going for technical excellence.
 
With anything less than a 4K display, you won't even get all the pixels from the 6MP image on screen at once without downsampling. The main things I noticed when switching from the 6MP to the 12MP generation of sensors on Nikon were better dynamic range (so harder to blow highlights), lower noise high ISO, and of course the ability to crop harder. With an uncropped image carefully exposed in good light there didn't seem to be much difference. But of course the light isn't always good and there isn't always time ro nail the exposure or get exactly the composition you want, so (using the same lenses) I got more keepers with the more recent camera. With different lenses, all bets are off - working in conditions that don't stretch the capabilities of the older camera, the lens might well make more difference.
 
Tha
His chaps or chapesses :) I know it’s not a great question, but I do think the “combination of lens and body” which works is a good point,
Unfortunately the 5D “died” because the CF card would no longer fit /load, completing bricking the camera :(. I carried on using the stock (18-70?) in the A500 body I bought, but the zoom motor died on that lens eventually :(

So I’m using some late 1990s Dynax AF lenses, which I wonder aren’t that good?
But at the same time I’m wondering if the key is the body.
I’m going to get a used Prime lens and see what I get from that - I think a bit of experimentation is called for :)

Almost all photos are either outdoor portraits of daughter and wife, or landscapes. The pics I took that I really like are very well saturated, and and in conjunction with very very good focus almost have a 3D like quality.

Anyway, thanks again :)
 
What processing is being carried out on the photos?

The original camera - the 6mp - was that outputting in a RAW format or JPG with some degree of in camera processing applied automatically?
The new camera - the Sony - what is that outputting in?
 
No processing, straight to computer, then some printed out,
Almost all would have been FINE or Extra Fine, and Full/Large size.
 
Tha
His chaps or chapesses :) I know it’s not a great question, but I do think the “combination of lens and body” which works is a good point,
Unfortunately the 5D “died” because the CF card would no longer fit /load, completing bricking the camera :(. I carried on using the stock (18-70?) in the A500 body I bought, but the zoom motor died on that lens eventually :(

So I’m using some late 1990s Dynax AF lenses, which I wonder aren’t that good?
But at the same time I’m wondering if the key is the body.
I’m going to get a used Prime lens and see what I get from that - I think a bit of experimentation is called for :)

Almost all photos are either outdoor portraits of daughter and wife, or landscapes. The pics I took that I really like are very well saturated, and and in conjunction with very very good focus almost have a 3D like quality.

Anyway, thanks again :)

As pointed out, processing is almost essential to get the best from an image - it's likely that the earlier camera applied a slightly more contrasty internal process to make the images pop a bit more, while the A500 is holding back, giving space for the photographer to do some optimisation. It's like the difference between taking your images to truprint for machine printing and going to a specialist printer who will get the best from them. :)

1990s dynax and other Minolta A mount lenses were a mixed bag. Generally speaking, the consumer zooms (28-80, 28-100) were garbage, but many of the other lenses range from good to excellent - I still use a 70-210 'beercan' even now, and have a 50 f1.4 that's flawed but beautiful. The 18-70 you have isn't a bad lens, and is probably a reasonable match for your A500's 12MP sensor. If you don't mind spending a little money, the Sony-Zeiss 16-80 can be had used with warranty from London Camera Exchange for around £200 and will out-perform your present camera. Consider also the 30mm f1.8 and 85mm f2.8 Sony primes used.
 
Update :)

So I bought a very good condition second hand Konica Minolta 18-70 which was the same lens I had when I initially started digital pic taking. I took it out today for a walk around the lake and took a range of pics of the lake and autumnal trees, and few of the family. Looking back at them on the computer it is like a revelation. I’m really pleased with the results. So I think the iPhone will be going back in the pocket for now and am looking to getting creative again! Thanks for everyone’s advice
 
Back
Top