!!

Hello Guest! Kumusta!

Thank you for visiting PiPho Forum!
It would be best if you will register so you can use the additional benefits of the community such as joining events, interacting with fellow members and view the hidden boards of the forum.

 
 
Mabuhay, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.

Recent Classifieds Posts

Recent Forum Posts

adidas campus by likesups
[Yesterday at 07:17:39 PM]


adidas adilette by Jesse Temple
[Yesterday at 11:08:48 AM]


adidas ultra boost by Jesse Temple
[Yesterday at 11:03:16 AM]


Please recommend canon camera semi pro by likesups
[October 19, 2019, 07:23:48 PM]


Landscapes & Seascapes For All by likesups
[October 16, 2019, 08:42:20 PM]


Happy when It Rains by likesups
[October 14, 2019, 03:24:39 PM]


Life in New York by likesups
[October 12, 2019, 07:22:57 PM]


VRFPhotography by xcaliber14
[October 07, 2019, 09:53:08 AM]


FS: Nikon D850 dslr 45.7MP Camera body by fotoplace
[September 24, 2019, 07:11:49 PM]


Letting go of all or none at all. by wilybarrozo
[September 22, 2019, 09:41:27 PM]



Author Topic: lens or body? an answer to a myth  (Read 10834 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline retina

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 6464
  • Liked: 1046
  • Gender: Male
  • Camera: Fujifilm
  • Field: Travel
  • Model: Nikon D750
  • Nickname: Doc A
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2011, 08:04:56 AM »
That's different story and people make that argument when they recommend certain brand for someone looking for a new Cam.
Parang secured sila pag maraming option yong brand name in case they will upgrade later. Lalo na pag sure na sila kung ano na yong needs nila. Kung bumili ka ng car, you will choose the ones na maraming option esp sa parts pagmasira. The reason why Canon is so popular , very strong yong local presence nila at marami silang service center.Well, aside from the truth na they have a lot of lenses. Whether those are *toink* or not...well, its up to the buyer.

Pinoy Photography - Philippines Online Photography Community

Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2011, 08:04:56 AM »

Offline dtmateojr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 4
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2011, 08:18:19 AM »
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but generalizing that heavy lenses won't let you have fun while shooting is IMO total hogwash.

I don't think a few sore limbs would take away the fun factor of shooting festivals or events. It's all in a persons mindset.

The "myth" your trying to dispel is no more than a comparison of value between a lens and a body. Although you do need both to take pictures nowadays (if you're into full sized interchangeable's) people commenting in that particular thread take into consideration the rate of depreciation between the body and lens mentioned so the person can have have the best bang for the buck.

As far as kung mag enjoy sya or hindi,  i don't think covered na yun nung discussion.

Another example of heavy gear but still having fun is shooting landscape photography. Tripod, body, UWA (na hindi naman talaga magaang), There is that possibility of gears getting soaked or dipped in salt/ freshwater or worse the myriad of accidents waiting to happen while trekking dangerous areas just to get a few shots.

Why keep doing it if it's not fun?

You have valid points but dont mistake the fun of "doing the act" vs the fun of "carrying the lens". Dont you think birders would die for a light 600/2.8 lens if such thing exists? But heavy lenses are necessary evil for the fun that goes with the ACT of taking photos. Not just lenses but tripods as well so people pay heaps for carbon fiber. Going for heavy premium lenses when you can't even decide for yourself what to buy is moronic.


Offline dtmateojr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 4
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2011, 08:38:00 AM »
That's different story and people make that argument when they recommend certain brand for someone looking for a new Cam.
Parang secured sila pag maraming option yong brand name in case they will upgrade later. Lalo na pag sure na sila kung ano na yong needs nila. Kung bumili ka ng car, you will choose the ones na maraming option esp sa parts pagmasira. The reason why Canon is so popular , very strong yong local presence nila at marami silang service center.Well, aside from the truth na they have a lot of lenses. Whether those are *toink* or not...well, its up to the buyer.

Having options is a very valid point. That's the first paragraph of my post.

But most people take it to the extreme where it becomes the sole reason for going with a particular brand. Being a Nikon user (aside from Pentax), I have been asked countless times by other Nikonians that they want to switch to Canon because of wider lens selection. My answer is a straight question: "Why?! Are you buying ALL the Canon lenses?!!!". Really *toink* in my opinion. These people have invested on premium Nikon lenses and yet they want to switch brands.

When I decided to get the Pentax K5, it wasn't for the lens selection. It was because the K5 has a lot more features than even the top end Canikon cameras yet it is small and very very tough. It's a camera that does not get in the way. The Nikon D700 is a b1tch to deal with. The D3 won't be any better. Even those upgrading from a D90 find the D700 to be really cumbersome with all the analog dials, it feels like being trapped in the film era again. You can't even couple the timer with AEB (hello 1990?). It was only then that I discovered that Pentax has plenty of awesome lenses esepecially the primes and they are way cheaper than the competitor's. Where else would you find a water resistant kit lens? You will have to sell one of your kidneys for that feature in Canikon.

I'm just trying to fight extreme fanboism. It's not helping the n00bs and it's killing the competition.

Offline wally

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Tocino + Rice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Posts: 207
  • Liked: 7
  • Gender: Male
    • SiWallyNi
  • Field: Portraiture
  • Nickname: Wally
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2011, 09:32:39 AM »
and it is a common issue here when somebody is asking what body upgrade to choose and somebody would advice a lens upgrade...

Offline caterpillar

  • Trade Count: (20)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2007
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 36
  • Gender: Male
    • none
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2011, 08:37:12 PM »
Why it is foolish? I have a lot of fun with 24-70.I don't find it heavy because I can leave behind the 24,28,35 and 50. Changing lenses is no fun and I rather carry an all around zoom.

"Most photographers think that lens is everything"...How can you presume and assume this? Did you have a data to say so? It does not sounds opinionated already...it looks like a fact !!!Well, sorry I hope I have not misread the post but I am still entitled of my opinion.

 It is a matter of preference. I have a friend who has this trio: 24-70L/17-40L/70-200 f2.8L IS. I have another who has the 50f1.4/16-35f2.8L/70-200 f2.8L and he likes the 70-200 the least. I had the 10-22/24-105L/70-200 f2.8L IS. This is for pro work use in weddings/events. As one can see, different strokes for different folks. I don't have the 24-105L anymore, now use the 17-50 f2.8 di-2 tamron. My friend who has the 24-70L loves this lens and the 70-200L. I like my 10-22 and tamron better.

   I chose the 24-105L before because of the IS and the longer FL. I  just didn't like the size and weight of the 24-70. My other friend, thinks 50mm on a crop is as long as it goes. He only got the 70-200L because in the USA he can't get close.

  But if I were not doing pro work, I'd probably be happy with just a m4/3 or a NEX if I have one. General photography is different and I wouldn't have a slower lens as long as it is lighter and optically still very good.

  Once I have the money later, I'd probably get a NEX or a GF3 for all day carry. If not, I'll even be contented with a P&S like the Canon SX230. I am using my brother's SD-4000 now, and it is very good for a small sensor. I miss the control though especially the DOF control. So, maybe, I'll be better off with a GF3 or something like it. It will cost me more though.

   
--- Caterpillar ---

Offline knifebox

  • Buraot sa Buhay
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 1141
  • Liked: 153
  • Gender: Male
  • Idem Sum Qui Semper Fi
    • Images by James Enriquez
  • Camera: Lumix LX5, Canon S95
  • Field: Landscape
  • Model: Dory
  • Nickname: JC
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2011, 10:46:15 PM »
You have valid points but dont mistake the fun of "doing the act" vs the fun of "carrying the lens". Dont you think birders would die for a light 600/2.8 lens if such thing exists? But heavy lenses are necessary evil for the fun that goes with the ACT of taking photos. Not just lenses but tripods as well so people pay heaps for carbon fiber. Going for heavy premium lenses when you can't even decide for yourself what to buy is moronic.



Like what you said, its a necessary evil, but I don't get why it has to be.

If every other photographer out there  b i t c h e s  or whines about how heavy their equipment is then maybe they're in the wrong hobby.

It's pointless to keep doing something if you're not having fun.


And asking people in a forum for suggestions on what to buy does not make one a moron.

Para naman tayong hindi dumaan sa pagka newbie nyan  ;)

 
Creating Value From Experience  Digital Light Photography Lifestyle
Lens.ph

Offline iampoch

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 554
  • Liked: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Camera: Olympus, Panasonic
  • Field: Travel
  • Model: OMD-EM5, GX1
  • Nickname: Poch
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2011, 11:00:22 AM »
and it is a common issue here when somebody is asking what body upgrade to choose and somebody would advice a lens upgrade...

That is so true. Sometimes, those asking for advice really want to upgrade bodies but others disregard this and advice changing lenses instead. It's like asking for a spoon and getting a fork instead.

BUT, that really doesn't mean that those advices are wasteful. A better approach to such advices would be to offer thoughts on an advisee's original query, and then include a lens upgrade as an alternative ("I think Camera B would suit your needs, but personally, I'd invest in a good glass instead since your current camera is still good enough").

As for what to prioritize in an upgrade, it all really depends on what you need. I upgraded from D90 to D7000 quickly because I needed high ISO performance (and I can't afford a D700). When the time came that I can afford a D700, I opted to buy newer glasses instead (85mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8, and 35mm 1.8) because these would benefit me better in fashion photography as the D7000 can hold its own (it also helped that there was supposed to be an upcoming announcement of a new FX camera... that eventually didn't materialize).

Ideally, it's great to invest on glasses since these carry on with you all throughout, unlike bodies that not only depreciates in value, but gets outdated every couple of years at least. However, there's only so much glass that you'll need (unless you want to start the expensive hobby of collecting lenses). So my current philosophy is investing in whatever tool that could immediately fulfill my needs. If none, then I'll just keep the money and saved up.
Freedom is the right of all sentient photographers.
Olympus OMD-EM5 | Panasonic Lumix GX-1 | 14mm 2.5 | 45mm 1.8 | 25mm 1.4

Offline ShowMeTheMoney

  • I want a digital camera with no LCD on the back.
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 28
  • I shoot people.
    • I shoot people.
  • Field: Travel
  • Nickname: Josh
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2011, 02:59:55 PM »
Well, there is that fairly popular saying going around that glass is more important than the body.  A throwback from the film days when the camera was really mostly nothing more than a box that held the film and lens.  With digital, IMO, this is less true since you can't change the sensor that comes with your camera the way you can change film.

But for me, it still depends.  I don't know if it's a fact that most photographers prefer a lens upgrade to a body upgrade (based on my experience in various online forums, it seems to be the opposite).  For quite a lot of people, a body upgrade is simply sexier than a lens upgrade.

Speaking for myself, if I had some excellent glass, or even just 1 lens that suited my needs, then a body upgrade would make more sense, and would be a lot more fun.  But generally, I'd still go glass first in most instances. Like I like to say - I'm a lens man, if I like the lenses, then I tend to like a body more.  :D

Some would call it foolish, but I don't see a problem with my plan on building a 15/21/31/35/43/70/77 prime set-up. I might even consider having a 16-50 and 50-135 zoom with the primes.  :-\  They simply have different purposes, some are weather sealed, some are pancake lenses, while some render differently despite very similar FL's.   Some might call me a collector, but I use and abuse my gear, if it doesn't get used, it gets sold.

More importantly, I like having choices. I rarely head out with more than 1 lens.  Sometimes I head out with 2, very rarely do I go out with 3 or more.  So what's the point in having lots of lenses? I like having the right lens - sometimes small size is important, sometimes weather sealing is important, sometimes speed is important etc..  Some people say it's overkill to bring a DSLR for a lunch-out to the mall with the family.  I usually take that to mean they've got a big *toink* zoom on their camera.  Why should I settle for a small sensor P&S in a usually poorly lit restaurant to record the moments that are most important to me? That's when my foolish choice in lenses comes in handy. I get to pick a pancake prime or a fast prime or a fast flexible zoom or a close focusing prime or whatever I feel is right for the event.

But at the end of the day, people simply have different preferences.  Some people like using or recommending 24-70 lenses for crop bodies (para future proof daw), which for me is just down right ridiculous, since IMO a 24-70 lens on crop is almost as useless as a 70-200 on crop, but that's just me, it seems to work quite well for a lot of people.  Some people don't think size and weight is important, for me it's one of the top criteria in choosing gear.  Some people don't like changing lenses, me, I don't mind standing in the middle of a crowded street, and changing lenses. etc.. etc..



Offline dtmateojr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 4
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2011, 03:11:23 PM »
Like what you said, its a necessary evil, but I don't get why it has to be.

If every other photographer out there  b i t c h e s  or whines about how heavy their equipment is then maybe they're in the wrong hobby.

It's pointless to keep doing something if you're not having fun.


And asking people in a forum for suggestions on what to buy does not make one a moron.

Para naman tayong hindi dumaan sa pagka newbie nyan  ;)

 

Apologies if that came out as being harsh. I have the tendency to exaggerate. I just remembered someone who got a new 5D2 and 24-105L and started using the forum (not this forum) as substitute to the user manual. Unfortunately there are good and bad and really *toink* questions.

Offline Thor Lidasan

  • Beyond Visible Photography
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 1102
  • Liked: 227
  • newbie
  • Camera: Bayer & Foveon sensors
  • Field: Travel
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2011, 09:45:50 PM »
@ Demo,

I hope you take this as a constructive criticism and as something to consider.

As a photographer, your shots are well-composed, tight in terms of messaging, the colors are grounded on what you are trying to convey in the image. In short, gifted ka 'pre.

As a writer, I had a hard time making a connection between you as a photographer and you as a writer. I agree, you do have a tendency to exaggerate. I would qualify it more as "bombastic" and "assuming too much". Since this is a photography forum, let me react to your blog coming from a perspective of a lens.

Your blog is like being written from the perspective of a wide angle zoom lens that tried to cover as much depth of field and as much latitude it can cover on both lateral ends.

That is one problem that newbies have when they first wield a wide angle zoom lens. Alam mo rin yan as photographer, sigurado ako. Your blog reminded me of such as analogy. There is so much generalizations and sweeping statements that I could not find what is the prime message that you wanted to convey.

Let's take some points from your blog as examples of being all over the place without getting any specifics:

1) You wrote that the D3100 sensor is better than D300:
     - How do you define "better"?
     - Can you post a technical discussion why it is "better"? A link maybe?
     - Have considered pointing out that the advantage of D3100 sensor is that it is product of design improvement over the D300 sensor? Which begs the question of, how does the design improvement translates into real-life improvement?

2) You wrote that premium lenses are not fun:
     - Have considered using a Voigtlander 125mm 2.5 SL APO?
     - Or a Switar 25mm 1.4?
     - Or a Nikkor 50mm 1.2?
     - Shooting at aperture of 1.2 at iso 6400 on a dark and stormy night is fun for me! Seriously.

3) You wrote that, "prematurely investing in premium lenses is the surest way to fanboism":
     - Seriously? Ok, I am not really serious when I typed "seriously".
     - I gather by adding "prematurely" gave you a wiggle room out of that statement.

Regarding recurrent questions and answers about lens and bodies in forums, well, that is the nature of forums that caters to newbies and grizzled veterans. Maybe browsing over to forums like Luminous Landscapes might offer you some alternate takes on different perspective about photography. I do and I come back here at this forum to keep myself grounded and hanging out with the so-called "newbies". We all started as such and I still consider myself a newbie.

« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 10:07:25 PM by Aries6263 »

Offline caterpillar

  • Trade Count: (20)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2007
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 36
  • Gender: Male
    • none
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2011, 01:23:49 PM »
That is so true. Sometimes, those asking for advice really want to upgrade bodies but others disregard this and advice changing lenses instead. It's like asking for a spoon and getting a fork instead.

   Well, those who are in the field a long time know that for most people who ask for a spoon but get a fork instead, the reason is simple - they do need a fork, not a spoon.

  Look at today's camera body. You can find the same sensor or close to it in a 60d and a 600d. I presume that goes the same for the d7000 and dxxx bodies. Therefore, the differentiation of models is no longer sensor sensitivity or low light performance/quality. It has, for many years shifted to AF speed/accuracy, build, weather sealing, fps, buffer capacity, ability to control audio in video mode, kelvin/temp control, microadjustment of focusing, etc.

 A newbie, unless he knows what he wants, not in terms of specs, but in actual photographic needs or type of shooting, often thinks he needs a body upgrade. In truth, he needs just to change or add lenses.

  I for example, still have a 5-6 year old camera bodies. My highest pixel count is 10mpx  (400d) and my fastest framerate is 5ps (20d). Should I upgrade? Yes, if I want to. But I'd rather wait. Why is that? It's because my lens lineup and flash setup is solid. The body is the accessory of the lens. My universe revolves on knowing that it's the lens that I should cover first once I know what I need or type of photography I often go into. Before I sold my 100 f2.8 macro, I could basically  do all types of photography because I had the proper lens. But even today, I could do a makeshift of macro because I still have my ET's. The only type of photography I will have a hard time is bird or wildlife as my longest lens is the 70-200 f2.8L IS. But then again, I can, on a limited way go 280mm with a 1.4x TC.

  And this is why when some newbie asks, most of the time, the Masters say they need a fork, not a spoon. It's because, most likely, the shooter still has not even explored his own likes and exploited his camera body.

  Moreover, unless, one does sports or extreme shooting, today's bodies are already in the fringes of pixel count and frame rates even for midlevel or entry level bodies. Most sport 16-18mp. Most can basically go 3.7fps, sometimes even 4fps. So, if you do basic and general photography your body has got you covered. You can do the ff with most entry level dslrs like the 600d:

  - general all around photography
  - macro
  - landscape
  - events
  - entry level birding/wildlife
  - etc.

  The only thing the 600d can't do is really fast shooting like sports or action or where one needs better control. But if one has a 600d most of the time, it's the lens that is lacking. Look at the list and you will see that the user with the 600d will just need to get a true macro lens to do real serious macro shooting. For events, he will need to get fast lenses. For birding or wildlife, he should get long lenses. So, it is a fork he needs, not a spoon. Lenses.

  So, it is no accident that most experienced shooters will rather advise the newbie to upgrade or get other lenses. If for example the 600d user gets a 400L or 100-400L, then it's as good as it goes for him. Add a 1.4x he gets more range. The only time he will have to upgrade the body is when he wants BIF. 3.5-3.7fps is going to be slow. He now should start looking at a 7d or a 60d. Or if he can afford it, a 1D class body.

  Think if he was advised to get a 1d mk3 or 4. So, he has a fast body. But does he have the range? But if he has the 400L lens, even with a 1000d, he can already shoot from afar.

 Same with landscape. A 600d is 18mp. Even if he will get a 5d mk2 to increase his pixel count, he still doesn't have the lens to go wide. Now he will have to buy a 5d mk2 and a 17-40L or some exotic and expensive uber 14-15mm prime. But all the while, he just needs to get a 10-22 to go wide or some other 10-xx brand. Besides, most people cannot afford the expansion to get a body and lens combo. So, in the end, one is likely going to be constrained by budget limitations. Getting a 10-22 or even 70-300 IS lens or a 400L lens, though expensive is still less expensive than upgrading for both lens and body. And the lens upgrade, assuming one gets a good one and the proper one, will carry over when the time comes when one can afford the body upgrade.

 But it's the lens that stays the same if he got that L lens or the best for that type of shooting. Same if went for events shooting or macro, I can still do a decent job, even with a 6-7 year old bodies. The only thing I don't have is pixel count. And the only reason I am holding out is

 1) I am waiting for what canon will bring in terms of MILCs
 2) I am not shooting that much pro for a spell and I am not into landscape so pixel count isn't paramount
 3) I am short on funds

 But if I have to I can get a NEX 5n now if I want. And I know that would be tantamount to shifting. One should think 10x if one is to shift. The thing is, there is no rush for me. But if I were to shoot an event or something by tomorrow, my lens lineup and bodies are ready. And I know 1)my limitations 2) the limitations of my equipment 3) and what they can do.  And that is what is important. That is the lesson for the newbie should learn.

 So, that should explain why when one asks for a spoon, you are given a fork :)  Most of the time, in my experience, the newbie just needs an external flash and a different lens, not another or different body. And in an interchangeable lens universe, the true driver is the lens, not the body, even during the times of film. Think lenses you need and the body will follow.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 01:33:17 PM by caterpillar »
--- Caterpillar ---

Offline iampoch

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 554
  • Liked: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Camera: Olympus, Panasonic
  • Field: Travel
  • Model: OMD-EM5, GX1
  • Nickname: Poch
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2011, 03:18:32 PM »
@ caterpillar:

Yup agree :) Hence the reason why I said such advices are not wasteful nor unwarranted. I guess my take on that would be to first give the person asking a spoon, but tell him how much better the fork can be in her/his situation. That way, his curiosity is satisfied fully. He'd know the answer to his original inquiry, but be more knowledgeable of a much better alternative with glass and flashes. In this way, the relevance of the fork becomes that much more pronounced.

I also agree with your upgrade path: stabilize your lens and flash lineup first before moving on to body upgrades. For one, there's only so much lenses that you'll need, and one would only need at most one flash per body, so once that's set, then you can already concentrate on bodies. I do believe, though, that relevancy gap between body features and lenses are getting narrower, so a mix of upgrade paths of both are more prevalent (for example, high ISO performance vs fast lens. I'd usually go for the former since that's most important to me). But again, that would only depend on how long you've been shooting (which would also mean that you've already planned your lens lineup at the least, since you know in what field you'd want to concentrate on), just like you said :)
Freedom is the right of all sentient photographers.
Olympus OMD-EM5 | Panasonic Lumix GX-1 | 14mm 2.5 | 45mm 1.8 | 25mm 1.4

Offline dtmateojr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 4
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2011, 05:45:12 PM »
@Aries:

I'll answer your questions:

1) yes, the D3100 is superior to the D300 in terms of image quality. The D300 sensor technology is ancient. That is a fact.

2) i said premium HEAVY lenses. The one being sought after by newbies

3) yes, PREMATURE lens investment is the root of all evil :) Not just for newbies but even experienced photographers. It's called GAS.

Re the way I write is consistent with my views. I'm different to most people. I learned C when my classmates in high school learned Pascal. I use Linux when everyone is enjoying BSOD in Windoze. I am pro one-good-body-one-lens when everyone else is spending their fortune collecting expensive lenses. So yes, you wont like my post because it is very very different to your principles. You are entitled to your opinion and I fully respect you for that.

My post, afterall, is heavily opinionated as I have stated BEFORE posting my link. Take it as it is.

Offline someone

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tocino + Rice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 161
  • Liked: 13
  • Gender: Male
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2011, 08:09:31 PM »
The myth/argument for body vs lens stems from gear heads in this forum.

This my sound harsh but the hypocrisy of some people here is mind boggling.

People preach the "Indian vs Pana" rule yet they drool all over Nikon's or Canon's next camera release. People instantly equate new models, new technology as automatically better.

I am not surprised as to why a newbie would get confused on buying things, just take a look at the Photography Discussion and Measurebating section THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

Offline retina

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 6464
  • Liked: 1046
  • Gender: Male
  • Camera: Fujifilm
  • Field: Travel
  • Model: Nikon D750
  • Nickname: Doc A
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2011, 10:18:00 PM »
Photography Discussion and Measurebating section THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.
Why are these sections the same? EXACTLY WHY?

Offline DennisP

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 1308
  • Liked: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • "Say hello to my little friend."
    • Dennis' Perspective
  • Camera: Nikon
  • Field: Architectural
  • Nickname: Dennis
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2011, 10:32:11 PM »
Yeah, kindly enlighten us, Einstein.
DP Design Studio
Architecture and Interior Design

Offline dtmateojr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 4
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2011, 11:35:57 PM »
   Well, those who are in the field a long time know that for most people who ask for a spoon but get a fork instead, the reason is simple - they do need a fork, not a spoon.

  Look at today's camera body. You can find the same sensor or close to it in a 60d and a 600d. I presume that goes the same for the d7000 and dxxx bodies. Therefore, the differentiation of models is no longer sensor sensitivity or low light performance/quality. It has, for many years shifted to AF speed/accuracy, build, weather sealing, fps, buffer capacity, ability to control audio in video mode, kelvin/temp control, microadjustment of focusing, etc.

 A newbie, unless he knows what he wants, not in terms of specs, but in actual photographic needs or type of shooting, often thinks he needs a body upgrade. In truth, he needs just to change or add lenses.

  I for example, still have a 5-6 year old camera bodies. My highest pixel count is 10mpx  (400d) and my fastest framerate is 5ps (20d). Should I upgrade? Yes, if I want to. But I'd rather wait. Why is that? It's because my lens lineup and flash setup is solid. The body is the accessory of the lens. My universe revolves on knowing that it's the lens that I should cover first once I know what I need or type of photography I often go into. Before I sold my 100 f2.8 macro, I could basically  do all types of photography because I had the proper lens. But even today, I could do a makeshift of macro because I still have my ET's. The only type of photography I will have a hard time is bird or wildlife as my longest lens is the 70-200 f2.8L IS. But then again, I can, on a limited way go 280mm with a 1.4x TC.

  And this is why when some newbie asks, most of the time, the Masters say they need a fork, not a spoon. It's because, most likely, the shooter still has not even explored his own likes and exploited his camera body.

  Moreover, unless, one does sports or extreme shooting, today's bodies are already in the fringes of pixel count and frame rates even for midlevel or entry level bodies. Most sport 16-18mp. Most can basically go 3.7fps, sometimes even 4fps. So, if you do basic and general photography your body has got you covered. You can do the ff with most entry level dslrs like the 600d:

  - general all around photography
  - macro
  - landscape
  - events
  - entry level birding/wildlife
  - etc.

  The only thing the 600d can't do is really fast shooting like sports or action or where one needs better control. But if one has a 600d most of the time, it's the lens that is lacking. Look at the list and you will see that the user with the 600d will just need to get a true macro lens to do real serious macro shooting. For events, he will need to get fast lenses. For birding or wildlife, he should get long lenses. So, it is a fork he needs, not a spoon. Lenses.

  So, it is no accident that most experienced shooters will rather advise the newbie to upgrade or get other lenses. If for example the 600d user gets a 400L or 100-400L, then it's as good as it goes for him. Add a 1.4x he gets more range. The only time he will have to upgrade the body is when he wants BIF. 3.5-3.7fps is going to be slow. He now should start looking at a 7d or a 60d. Or if he can afford it, a 1D class body.

  Think if he was advised to get a 1d mk3 or 4. So, he has a fast body. But does he have the range? But if he has the 400L lens, even with a 1000d, he can already shoot from afar.

 Same with landscape. A 600d is 18mp. Even if he will get a 5d mk2 to increase his pixel count, he still doesn't have the lens to go wide. Now he will have to buy a 5d mk2 and a 17-40L or some exotic and expensive uber 14-15mm prime. But all the while, he just needs to get a 10-22 to go wide or some other 10-xx brand. Besides, most people cannot afford the expansion to get a body and lens combo. So, in the end, one is likely going to be constrained by budget limitations. Getting a 10-22 or even 70-300 IS lens or a 400L lens, though expensive is still less expensive than upgrading for both lens and body. And the lens upgrade, assuming one gets a good one and the proper one, will carry over when the time comes when one can afford the body upgrade.

 But it's the lens that stays the same if he got that L lens or the best for that type of shooting. Same if went for events shooting or macro, I can still do a decent job, even with a 6-7 year old bodies. The only thing I don't have is pixel count. And the only reason I am holding out is

 1) I am waiting for what canon will bring in terms of MILCs
 2) I am not shooting that much pro for a spell and I am not into landscape so pixel count isn't paramount
 3) I am short on funds

 But if I have to I can get a NEX 5n now if I want. And I know that would be tantamount to shifting. One should think 10x if one is to shift. The thing is, there is no rush for me. But if I were to shoot an event or something by tomorrow, my lens lineup and bodies are ready. And I know 1)my limitations 2) the limitations of my equipment 3) and what they can do.  And that is what is important. That is the lesson for the newbie should learn.

 So, that should explain why when one asks for a spoon, you are given a fork :)  Most of the time, in my experience, the newbie just needs an external flash and a different lens, not another or different body. And in an interchangeable lens universe, the true driver is the lens, not the body, even during the times of film. Think lenses you need and the body will follow.

I am not dismissing the importance of a good lens. A lens is an investment but it isn't always the best option especially for starters.

Going from a kit lens to a megabuck 2.8 zoom lens will not improve your chances of getting the right photo as much as going from a Nikon D60 to a D7000 for example. The features, ease of use, the fun that you get from the body upgrade are magnitudes better than the minute difference in image quality you get from that expensive lens. Most lenses are the same when you stop down to f8. Once you outgrow the initial orgasm of shallow DoF when you junked your point and shoot for a DSLR, you will learn that even premium lenses are not as sharp as you thought they were when used wide open. Physics prevails over your hard-earned cash. Then comes the camera of your dreams but you can't buy it because you have fenced yourself from the "dark side" by buying that expensive white lens. I have witnessed this happen all the time. Tell me where is the fun in that?

You invest in lenses when you start realizing that your lenses and camera don't matter; when you realize that you can nail that shot even if you where given a pinhole camera.

Offline iampoch

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 554
  • Liked: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Camera: Olympus, Panasonic
  • Field: Travel
  • Model: OMD-EM5, GX1
  • Nickname: Poch
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2011, 11:42:29 PM »
The myth/argument for body vs lens stems from gear heads in this forum.

This my sound harsh but the hypocrisy of some people here is mind boggling.

People preach the "Indian vs Pana" rule yet they drool all over Nikon's or Canon's next camera release. People instantly equate new models, new technology as automatically better.

I am not surprised as to why a newbie would get confused on buying things, just take a look at the Photography Discussion and Measurebating section THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

Of course they would. The "Indian vs. Pana" argument doesn't mean that people disregard the advantages of newer technology. Do newer gear make a difference? YES. For one thing, newer cameras give photographers better and more varied tools to utilize their talent. Would it make a newbie take better photographs? Not necessarily. It will enable them to have better IQ and such (i.e. the technical side of photography), but without a better grasp of composition, etc. (i.e. the art side of photography), then all those technical advantages wouldn't amount for much.

Let's use a soldier as an analogy. Rifle s don't kill opponents, soldiers do. So a rifle is only as good as the soldier who wields it. BUT pit two well-trained soldiers against each other, but one using an M1 Garand and another with a HK 417, and the latter would win out given the advantages of his tools. A true soldier trusts and relies on his skills, but he will never underestimate the advantages that new technology can give him.

Same is true with photography. Yes, a skilled photographer can take much better photographs with a D70 and kit lens than a newbie with a D3s and 24-70, but give the latter equipment at the hands of that skilled photographer and she/he can do wonders. And like the true soldier, a good photographer will never dispel, belittle, or scoff at new technology, especially if photography is her/his livelihood.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 11:48:16 PM by iampoch »
Freedom is the right of all sentient photographers.
Olympus OMD-EM5 | Panasonic Lumix GX-1 | 14mm 2.5 | 45mm 1.8 | 25mm 1.4

Offline caterpillar

  • Trade Count: (20)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2007
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 36
  • Gender: Male
    • none
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2011, 12:50:17 AM »
The myth/argument for body vs lens stems from gear heads in this forum.

This my sound harsh but the hypocrisy of some people here is mind boggling.

People preach the "Indian vs Pana" rule yet they drool all over Nikon's or Canon's next camera release. People instantly equate new models, new technology as automatically better.

I am not surprised as to why a newbie would get confused on buying things, just take a look at the Photography Discussion and Measurebating section THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

  Let me answer that question.

  The reason why people go for the measurebating is because specs and stats are clear and usually not subject to much variance or interpretation. If you want to judge if a picture is good or not, it is all subjective.

  Years ago, someone posted in some fora some pictures and asked people their comment on them. After some time when everyone has weighed in their answers, w/c was usually harsh and critical, like poor composition, or OOF shot, or bad subject placement, the OP finally revealed the authors of the pictures. They were all pictures of photographic Masters!  ::)

  With measurebating, the specs and the images are there for comparison on metrics that are clear-cut most of the time. Judging if a picture is good is never going to resolve anything. It is overly subjective.

  The Indian-vs-Pana (IvP), has lost its poison, except maybe to a few who hasn't caught on yet. The IvP is a romantic attempt to say that it's the man behind the camera that counts. That gear is 2ndary. That is one of the MYTHs I have sought to dispel. It is an erroneous analogy.

  I have always said that you need both. You simply can't take a picture, no matter how good you are without a camera. And yet, the most expensive and powerful camera is nothing without someone to wield it. The bow & arrow does not bend and let loose without the archer. And the archer is not an archer without a bow & arrow. It's as simple as that.

 But like the IvP, it is easier to talk about the bow & arrow and the archer or the Indian. But in photography and any other artistic endeavor, what is not clear is the target. And that is the other thing that the IvP does not talk of, w/c Zen does. The archer, the bow & arrow, and the target = are ONE.
   
  I don't mean to be mystical or spiritual about it, but that is the reason why people gravitate towards the bow & arrow and the archer. The target, w/c is art is simply hard to define. And those who attempt to define it, as that expt on posting the pictures of the Masters with 90% of those who responded ripped their pictures apart, just shows that many don't get it, and to try to talk about it is even more futile and misleading.

  I will agree though, that yes, there are gear heads, and there will be gear lust in many. Part of that is the marketing of those who sell us gears. And the other part is that deep inside we have this wish that, if only we had a 70-200 f2.8L IS we can take that great picture, or if we only have that newest d7000 we'll take better pictures. Add to that peer pressure and cajoling of the barkada (directly or indirectly) and the pressure is great to think people need more gear. Add to the mystique of carrying those large bodies and large white lenses, as if one is a macho or seasoned pro, complete with the squint and walk and that middle-eastern scarf, the role playing is complete!  ;)  One could easily go to a COSPLAY and play to the hilt a PJ, assigned to a mysterious and dangerous mission to document the war in Afghanistan!

   So, it isn't really hypocrisy, though I will admit, perhaps there is some of that in some people. But not all people. And I don't think it is intentional.

  There is no myth of body vs lens because there never was. The myth is there only for those who perpetuate and believe in such ideas and distinctions. It is a fabrication. The danger is when enough people choose to believe it, then it becomes real. The real question is, why should you?

   And like all myths, it is so easy to dispel. Sometimes, too easy that people will not believe you. And so it persists. Even if the simplest way to answer such a myth is asking a simple question such as, "Can you shoot with a camera without a lens?"



 

 

 
--- Caterpillar ---

Offline caterpillar

  • Trade Count: (20)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2007
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 36
  • Gender: Male
    • none
Re: lens or body? an answer to a myth
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2011, 01:17:32 AM »
I am not dismissing the importance of a good lens. A lens is an investment but it isn't always the best option especially for starters.

  Of course it isn't. Not all the time. But most of the time it is. After all, that is why SLRs and DSLRs became popular - the ability to change lenses as the type of shooting demands. If a person got a d3000 or a 1000d and he wants to do bird shooting, that precludes him from doing BIFs. But he can still do bird shooting IF he has a long lens. So, even with a modest d3000, he can still shoot birds, IF he has a long lens.

 But if he got a D3s with only a kit lens, can he do bird shooting? He can, but his success will be very small. And what he lacks in gear, he has to make up for in stealth as now, with a kit lens, he has to crawl to get close and get that shot. And he will likely crop heavily to get all the unnecessary space out of the picture, w/c means he will lose a great deal of pixels.  And if the bird is on the water, well, tough luck because he will also have to swim to get near. And he must swim stealthily so as not to scare that bird away. Now he has to find a way to carry that camera and his kit lens on the water and still make it take pictures!  ;D

  So, even if he has only a 100d, or a D3000, but if he has a long lens, he can do bird shooting. He can have the most expensive body and a cheap lens and he is sunk. Even if he buys an expensive lens if it is a wide angle or a 17-50, it won't cut the mustard for that type of photography. This is why the lens determines things first most of the time, not the body.

 But the need for the lens is determined by a higher power - the type of photography. And only the user can say what interests him most. It is thus imperative that the user/photographer KNOWS his own heart and interest. If he doesn't then it will cost him money jumping from lens to lens and body to body.

  If he is not sure what he wants, then he must stick with his current body-lens combo and explore the world of photography in baby steps. Volt-in and borrow lenses and bodies from friends. Go to seminars, workshops, photowalks, expeditions to find out the diffrent types of photography.  

  If lenses aren't good investments when one knows already what one wants to shoot, and it's not the body either, then what else is there to invest in, short of training yourself?

  And see your last paragraph. You may just have contradicted yourself by totally going wild and not needing a lens at all.  ;D


Going from a kit lens to a megabuck 2.8 zoom lens will not improve your chances of getting the right photo as much as going from a Nikon D60 to a D7000 for example. The features, ease of use, the fun that you get from the body upgrade are magnitudes better than the minute difference in image quality you get from that expensive lens. Most lenses are the same when you stop down to f8. Once you outgrow the initial orgasm of shallow DoF when you junked your point and shoot for a DSLR, you will learn that even premium lenses are not as sharp as you thought they were when used wide open. Physics prevails over your hard-earned cash. Then comes the camera of your dreams but you can't buy it because you have fenced yourself from the "dark side" by buying that expensive white lens. I have witnessed this happen all the time. Tell me where is the fun in that?

  The flaw in that argument is that you let specs speak first before need. What is the type of photography you want, you know why you or don't need the shallow DOF. You don't desire an f2.8 or f1.4 lens just "because" it is a fast lens. Your orgasm or lack of it is not the point. The point is what you intend to do with a f2.8 lens.

 The photographer must first define the area of photography he wishes to learn and explore. But since lenses are expensive, even with the entry level ones, may cost still dearly to many, then best to master what one has first. Shoot with the kit lens and do as many types of shooting. Get the feel of it the first few months or at least a year.

 There are exceptions to this of course. Some really know what they want. If so, then it is just a question of money and time. But if one knows what one wants, then surely, when the person is looking for bodies, he already knows he needs such and such body. That should not be a mystery to him. He mustn't pick a d40 or d60 but he wants to do sports shooting. Right off the bat, the body is wrong or very handicapped for that type of shooting.

 But more often than not, most are constrained by cost. Hence, that same sports or action shooter, best just pick a body that is middle ground, with a good fps and AF. Probably not as good as the top of the line for that need, but it should be good enough for him to learn and afford the lenses.  The good news is most middle or top-middle bodies like the 60d and the d7000 are suitable for the task.



You invest in lenses when you start realizing that your lenses and camera don't matter; when you realize that you can nail that shot even if you where given a pinhole camera.

  That is not always the case. IF such is the case, why bother buying a dslr or a MILC? Just get a P&S. End of discussion.

  And how did you get to know that you can nail the shot if you haven't tried it or know the particulars of the shoot?  You can't because most don't have a pinhole camera/lens. And nobody has tried it. Have you? Even if you do, situations change. In what capacity will a pinhole camera be effective? How many instances can a pinhole camera be useful?

 You conveniently forgot the type of photography you intend to do. Will you get away with that shot with a d300 and a pinhole in the middle of the night with lampost and building lights and you are to take a picture of the skyline with no tripod?

   You start looking at lenses when your photographic needs change. When the lens is the proper one for the job, and you still have a hard time, maybe it's time to look at changing the body. Or maybe  you just need other accessories like a flash, or an adapter, or ETs, etc.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 01:29:38 AM by caterpillar »
--- Caterpillar ---

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4146 Replies
767267 Views
Last post January 05, 2010, 09:30:06 AM
by tekgik
2638 Replies
376475 Views
Last post April 08, 2019, 05:04:37 PM
by ken2
26 Replies
3538 Views
Last post July 03, 2010, 02:58:15 AM
by ArtS
29 Replies
5915 Views
Last post August 18, 2011, 07:20:23 PM
by AFTRMTH


Get this spot now imagesmith photography Two Stops Over