How important is the camera body V lens

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Not trying to rewrite the rules with this question but has the priority moved so making the camera body more important than it used to be.
In the film days lens first was an indisputable fact,if you had a F2 and bought a F3 your results would be the same if you used the same film and lens,the film was your sensor,now with ongoing improvements to sensor capability's and the fact you cant take it out and fit one more suitable for the subject you have chosen, has the situation changed.
I notice some members have more than one camera body can i take then that they believe you need the right body for the job nearly as much as the right lens.

Just an idle thought on a wet Sunday morning :D
 

Bill16

Senior Member
Since I sorta fit into the description you mentioned, I'll see if I can help answer the question! :) So I would say Yes, in a way at least! With the advantages both DX and FX offer, having a combo of DX and FX is the best way to go! This is why I got the D7100 to go with my D800E, covering the wide and the reach in the most useful ways! Even my D700 fits into this combo very well, giving the portrait and multi shot needs priorities without the high MPs unneeded in some cases!
But everybody has their own ideas of what fits their needs, even if having just one camera is that idea! What works for you in you creative mind is what you should go with if possible! :D
 

J-see

Senior Member
I think that they're both as important.

I usually pick my cam to use based upon the subject I shoot and the lens is evidently the one with the best focal length/aperture for such. The quality of my cam defines a large part of what I use it for and that has to do with sensor size, DR or low light capacity.

Low light and night: D750
Portrait, landscape or any decent weather shooting without a specific goal; D810
Birding: D7200
 

jay_dean

Senior Member
Similar to [MENTION=31330]J-see[/MENTION], mine all have their niches. The D810 for aviation and other general stuff, the D7200 for birding (its never been used for anything else), and the D700 is for rolling aviation and statics. I guess in the SLR days, film played an important role that's now performed within the camera
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
Film is the sensor today. So yes cameras are important but unless you specialize in specific parts of photography you could get by with a good all around camera. Imo the d750 is it. Fast enough with fps excellent high iso. Excellent af. Decent price. Good sensor with nice detail. So you could use it for sports for low light shootibg for portraits for weddings. Its the best all arounder.
 

Retro

Senior Member
I appreciate this input as well. I find it interesting that DX does not stand to FX as a D3300 stands to a D7200. I have a friend who has a D7100 who is a beginner professional. I've been trying to get him to join here. He took a remarkable shot of a chickadee in take-off with a 300mm lens.

I tend to be an all-or-nothing persnickety person, and the D7200 would be my minimum body. Not having the money for that, I'll stick with film. Adding an F100 to my FE2 would give me much more satisfaction than a D5500.

Having said that, I wonder if some of you would suggest "If you have the money for a D7200, buy a D610 instead."

Alternatively, you might say "The D610 is an inferior FX, and the D7200 plays an important role in the line up, as J-See says, so buy the D7200, and the D750 later on." I heard something a while ago about oil being squirted on the sensor. Maybe that adds a really cool special effect or something (jk:)).

I suspect that some of you would recommend the D7200 and D750 in a 'full-bodied' collection. As the D7200 is an important tool (birding), it's an ideal camera, and there is obviously an ideal FX body. It seems that one does not move on from DX to FX the way one moves on from an entry level DSLR to a D750.

I hope I didn't hijack this thread.
 

J-see

Senior Member
I don't think the D610 should be considered an inferior FX. At some levels it still outperforms the D750. Not by much but it does. It's older technology however.

Moving from DX to FX is largely influenced by two factors. The biggest is money. Everything related to FX tends to cost more. The second is crop. It is very popular in birding and a lot of DSLR shooters bird. But that factor is running at its last legs because the FX will inevitably catch up in the pixel density battle. Once those odds are evened, it's only about money.
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I would tend to say it is about what and how you shoot, that would be the most important factor in what I would recommend to another photographer!
I have never owned a D610, so I can only mildly recommend it to someone looking for an FX! But the biggest reason to recommend upgrading from a DX to a FX is what kind of shots you shoot. Wide like landscapes being a big portion of the shot, the a FX is what I would recommend. You see?

Which FX would depend on fine tuning your list of needs to see which FX fits best at a price you can afford!
:D

I appreciate this input as well. I find it interesting that DX does not stand to FX as a D3300 stands to a D7200. I have a friend who has a D7100 who is a beginner professional. I've been trying to get him to join here. He took a remarkable shot of a chickadee in take-off with a 300mm lens.

I tend to be an all-or-nothing persnickety person, and the D7200 would be my minimum body. Not having the money for that, I'll stick with film. Adding an F100 to my FE2 would give me much more satisfaction than a D5500.

Having said that, I wonder if some of you would suggest "If you have the money for a D7200, buy a D610 instead."

Alternatively, you might say "The D610 is an inferior FX, and the D7200 plays an important role in the line up, as J-See says, so buy the D7200, and the D750 later on." I heard something a while ago about oil being squirted on the sensor. Maybe that adds a really cool special effect or something (jk:)).

I suspect that some of you would recommend the D7200 and D750 in a 'full-bodied' collection. As the D7200 is an important tool (birding), it's an ideal camera, and there is obviously an ideal FX body. It seems that one does not move on from DX to FX the way one moves on from an entry level DSLR to a D750.

I hope I didn't hijack this thread.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I don't have to pick my cam based on what I use it for. The D750 does it all . I laugh at you, D810!:emmersed:

Disclaimer: The above post was made in jest and good humor. To any D810 owner who takes it seriously and gets his/her/it panties in a wad, I apologize.
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
A book can be written on this subject, since there is so much to discuss. One of the details I didn't see mentioned earlier is that when shooting birds in flight with a long telephoto lens, it is easier for most to find and track the subject with a full-frame camera. It can be done with a crop sensor camera, but typically it is more difficult. (It can be difficult enough with a full frame camera, as it is.)

Back to your original question, though. The way I look at it, a photo taken at any particular moment depends upon three immediate things; 1) the camera, 2) the lens, and 3) the photographer. (I'm assuming that all else is equal. You could wait for the light to change, or move to a different vantage point, for the subject to change/move, etc., but we're going to assume that this isn't necessary.) Of the three immediates, each will impact your shot, and if any one of the three is deficient, it will impact your photo.

Yes, a camera body can be the limiting factor in your photography, and there are niche cameras that work better in certain situations. That is why some have more than one camera, and also why that for many, the camera is more important than it used to be. As well, the lens can also be a big factor; sharpness, light falloff, speed, durability, auto focus quality and speed all are factors often dictated by the lens.

However, time and time again, it is demonstrated that it is often the photographer, not the lens or camera, that is the limiting factor in taking a good photo.

WM
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Most newer bodies far exceed the capabilities of the glass most people buy. You need excellent glass to see the full potential of a D610 or D750..., ect. I like having the newest "best" body, but if I couldn't get the best glass I wouldn't bother.
 
And for some of us DX works just fine. I really don't need a FX at this time for what I shoot. I can afford it but just don't want one. If I were shooting professionally that would be a different story. Casual shooters that do the occasionally shoot for pay can get by with a D7100 or D7200 because for the most part people are not going to see the difference at the price level these shooters are charging. Good glass is a different story. The D7100 I have is really picky about glass. The old kit lenses I had with my D5100 just looked bad on the D7?00 cameras. I am slowly replacing my glass with full frame glass. I can tell the difference between my 24-120 FX lens and my 18-140 DX lens. I do have to pixel peep or crop a lot to see it though.



 

Bill16

Senior Member
Well for me personally, I still find having a better DX comes in very handy even with FX Nikon's being your main tools! It is either that or very expensive long range glass, and a nice D7100 comes way cheaper! Lol :) Well my friends it works for me, so I,'m happy! :)
 

Rick M

Senior Member
And for some of us DX works just fine. I really don't need a FX at this time for what I shoot. I can afford it but just don't want one. If I were shooting professionally that would be a different story. Casual shooters that do the occasionally shoot for pay can get by with a D7100 or D7200 because for the most part people are not going to see the difference at the price level these shooters are charging. Good glass is a different story. The D7100 I have is really picky about glass. The old kit lenses I had with my D5100 just looked bad on the D7?00 cameras. I am slowly replacing my glass with full frame glass. I can tell the difference between my 24-120 FX lens and my 18-140 DX lens. I do have to pixel peep or crop a lot to see it though.

Exactly. While I loved Fx for isolation, 99% of my shooting is landscape and I'm getting by just fine with even a 2x crop factor. Sure if we were making a living with photography it would be different. My M4/3 shots sell just as well as my D610 ones. Dx would now be a huge sensor for me :).
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Anyone really into photography (and stays out of Auto mode) really needs at least the D7x00 model, to have all the features. It would be very disappointing to me to discover "Oh, my camera won't do this. Or that."
Also if in Manual mode, I can't imagine wondering "I have to hold which button to adjust aperture?"
Of course, if I always stay in Auto, it can't matter much.

Regarding OP post, about the results being the same with the same film, and the camera not adding much.

They do today. The DSLRs have all the profiles, like Vivid, Landscape (about the same as Vivid), or Standard, or Portrait or Neutral. I do this in Raw, but even the purist has to switch modes at times. Landscape can offer the dazzling blues and greens, and my notion is that portraits are better in Neutral (because my family ladies insist on it, to not mess up the color of their hair).

So this does change things of course, but it is software, so the models can vary in what they do. I think the latest models do improve things.
 
Last edited:

wev

Senior Member
Contributor
Personally, I give much greater importance to the body holding the body and lens, whatever they might be. I seldom feel I am living up to the capability of either part.
 

Kevin H

Senior Member
Anyone really into photography (and stays out of Auto mode) really needs at least the D7x00 model, to have all the features. It would be very disappointing to me to discover "Oh, my camera won't do this. Or that."
Also if in Manual mode, I can't imagine wondering "I have to hold which button to adjust aperture?"
Of course, if I always stay in Auto, it can't matter much.

Regarding OP post, about the results being the same with the same film, and the camera not adding much.

They do today. The DSLRs have all the profiles, like Vivid, Landscape (about the same as Vivid), or Standard, or Portrait or Neutral. I do this in Raw, but even the purist has to switch modes at times. Landscape can offer the dazzling blues and greens, and my notion is that portraits are better in Neutral (because my family ladies insist on it, to not mess up the color of their hair).

So this does change things of course, but it is software, so the models can vary in what they do. I think the latest models do improve things.


Do I??

My D5100 takes pic's like this





 

WayneF

Senior Member
I'd say you're doing quite well. :)

But you are missing some features. I don' know what all, but like Interval timer, Commander, HSS flash, FV Lock (or programmable function button), locking the mirror up, two wheels for control, outside buttons for WB and ISO, non-cpu lenses in A mode, etc, etc.

If you would never need this, fine, you're doing great. But most of it is very handy in its appropriate situation. Even with it, you could still do every bit as much of course. :) Just saying, I would hate to be without it.
 
Do I??

My D5100 takes pic's like this






These are great shots and you do quite well with the D5100. I had some fantastic shots with my D5100 also. The camera though does have some limitations that the D7100 does not. That is to be expected since Nikon makes different level cameras at different price points for different levels. We have one photographer here that shoots with a Coolpix and has some wonderful photos of birds. I think a lot of what you do and I did with my D5100 is because of the shooter as much as it is the equipment. The D7100 is a better quality camera and it does make certain things easier but that does not take anything away from the D5?00 and even the D3?00 cameras.
 
Top