When it comes to quality photographs, it’s not about the megapixels, nor the camera body. It’s all about the lens you have. A high quality lens on a cheaper body will produce better pictures then a stock lens on a really expensive body.
Totally agree!
Though I should say, there are a few rare cases when the camera enables the lens to do more. For instance, Nikon’s new D3 has a “Full Frame” sensor, which makes all the old film lenses work at their expected focal lengths. When used on bodies with a DX censor, you are essential using only 2/3rds of those lenses potential. (This is especially relevant to wide angle lenses.)
I agree, the full frame sensor has great advantages – the most important it captures more light. This reduces immensely the noise of the digital picture. If you are in available light photography, which i do a lot, efficient use of the light available is crucial.
There are some disadvantages, too: The price of the body is simply horrifying, and the lenses, too, are very expensive. The lenses are bigger and heavier, a problem especially with telefoto lenses.
For me, Canon produced with its EF-S series a serie of great lenses with really high quality, but only to use with the smaller sensor.
Especially the 10-22 (translates to 16-35 for the 35mm (full format) sensor) and the 17-55/2.8 (translates to 27-135 mm) are wonderful lenses which i use all the time.
Therefore i now changed from the Rebel XT to the wonderful new EOS 40D instead of waiting for the successor of the 5D. Nevertheless i am saving for some FF-Lenses, especially the 100-400mm IS.
I agree with you lechuck, it is all about the lens you have – think of it: you will buy a new body every few years, but you will stick to your lenses!
I strongly agree. I’m waiting to get a new lens for my camera since I still only have the stock lens that came with my camera
A Prime Lens is exactly what I need. I take photos of everything currently. I don’t have a specific kind as of yet.
I think the f-stop is significantly important. a f/2.8-_ lens is especially helpful in ordinary photo taking situations a like indoor portraits under tungsten lights, and so on. unless you want to blast you subject with in-built flash that you cannot control or bouce, you would be well served by a lens that allows in a lot of light through its big aperture (as with f/2.8 or even f/1.4). of course bigger aperture lenses are more difficult to construct and therefore cost a bomb. if you can’t afford canon or nikon, sigma and tamron are relatively chaper options that yeild great results. some canon EFs lenses are pretty ordinary. sigma is sharper and more on the money, as it were ;). i’d rather have a sinma 17-70 mm (2.8-4.5) than a canon 17-85 (4-5.6) USM IS [image stabilisation]. i have actually ordered, used and traded the latter for the former.
Post Comments