Lens or camera aka chicken or the egg....

OK, in an ideal setting, I would have the best camera I could afford (and operate) along with the best glass with top primes and telephotos. BUT.......let's get real. If you could have one or the other, and also have Nikon lower end/older but working products to complement your gear, would you rather have top glass or top camera? Which camera and which lens would you start with?
Or, put it another way, would it be better to gain experience operating DSLR's with an older model (again working) along with the bi-functional DX/FX glass? I would like your reasons for your answers, too, please. Thanks!

Sue

Following your guideline of "one and only one"..... A used or refurbished D7000 because it has the capability to use Nikon's best lenses, regardless of age. A "one and only" lens? Something in the 17-200mm zoom range. I'd spend more on the lens than the camera if it was necessary.

You can start low, and work your way up in both as your interest and funds allow...

Nikons, within certain time frames, retain their value enough to make upgrading relatively painless... I recently bought a D7000 with lens for $900ish... and sold my D90 and the lens for $800ish...

I did the same with a D5000 to D90, and a D40 to D5000 over the last couple of years... I do try to save/bargain for better lenses because of their backward compatibility....

It's difficult to shoot for expensive cameras without some knowledge/experience in what your needs are. My interests and knowledge have grown over the years...

Of course, it's just a hobby for me... I could have taken up race car driving as a hobby, and it would cost a couple thousand dollars a weekend for tires and gas...

Frankly, equipment matters less than knowledge of photography, People can take the fantastic pictures with a used D40 and the 120 dollar nikkor 50 1.8.

Its the knowledge of compostition, light control, and well an thinking of the framing.

Then

The equipment balances your knowledge, and as your skills and knowledge of photography grows, well so does you love of the equipment that helps make it happen.

so, like the knowledge of the process of taking photos grow, so does your knowledge of
the equipment grow.

To choose lens over camera is kinda silly, they are a the balance of the equation. With that said, I will say that I prefer a mininum level of SLR, but frankly, every Nikon SLR made today far surpasses that mininum level, they are ALL fantastic.

My Bias,,, is a camera that reads old glass (can meter), can drive D series lens for focus, can bracket at least 3 shots, and has both command dials front and back.

choices D100, D200, D300, D7000, D700, D600, D800, D1,2,3,4

less choice D40,D50,D70,D80,D90 -> Can't meter old glass, but can use older AFS lens

but this is my bias for old glass, and manual controls.

if you want to shoot more aperature priority mode, well, and use the +- feature

then 3100,3200,5100,5200,, very fine cameras


Then for lens, I perfer to match the lens to my use, do I want a travel lens with wide zoom,
do I want small light weight wide angle, am I looking for fast low light, a lens for beautiful bokah, maybe I am looking for reach,, then again, maybe close up micro, or correcting the perspective control in the city, or playing with a fisheye with wicked distortion, I am less hung up with the rating, and more on does the lens do what I asking it to do, or better yet, do I understand the shot I am wanting, and matching the correct lens. I like manual lens, I like autofocus lens, sometimes in the mood for simple primes, other times appreciate the flexibility of a zoom.

Ahh, the fun of collecting lens,

so start your journey, and enjoy.

stmv said:

To choose lens over camera is kinda silly, they are a the balance of the equation. With that said, I will say that I prefer a mininum level of SLR, but frankly, every Nikon SLR made today far surpasses that mininum level, they are ALL fantastic.

Click to expand...

A lot of words, but not really an answer the OP can work with. A very good camera will not make up for a crappy lens, but a better lens can bring the most out of a mediocre camera.

"Silly" is certainly your opinion, and one that I haven't much credence.

You can get great primes for much less than great zooms. The 50mm ($200) or 85mm ($500) 1.8 g's for the most part outperform the most expensive zooms available. My personal opinion is get the best body you can afford and start out with some great low cost primes. The problem with low end bodies is you grow out of them fast, you will not grow out of good primes.

This is not the popular opinion, but that's mine.

Rick M said:

You can get great primes for much less than great zooms. The 50mm ($200) or 85mm ($500) 1.8 g's for the most part outperform the most expensive zooms available. My personal opinion is get the best body you can afford and start out with some great low cost primes. The problem with low end bodies is you grow out of them fast, you will not grow out of good primes.

This is not the popular opinion, but that's mine.

Click to expand...

I agree. But, the OP confined us to "one camera", and "one lens". That's why I chose a zoom.

TedG954 said:

I agree. But, the OP confined us to "one camera", and "one lens". That's why I chose a zoom.

Click to expand...

Ok, makes sense, it pays to read the whole thing!

My revision:

The Best body you can afford and a 50mm 1.8g for only $200. From there you can grow your lens collection without outgrowing your body (unless your like me and eat too much cake )

TedG954 said:

I agree. But, the OP confined us to "one camera", and "one lens". That's why I chose a zoom.

Click to expand...

The point of silly, is that cameras have reached the point that they are all good, and well, first worry about becoming a good photograher. Any SLR and just about the entire SLR lens catolog work fine, and can take excellent pictures,

so, tune your lens selection on the composition.

Sure, a great lens can make a picture slightly better, but won't make a poorly framed picture great.

laughs,, ok,, I will answer directly your question:

LENs first! best quality you can afford, take your time.

Bargain great lens

50 mm 1.8 prime
35 mm
35-70 2.8
200 mm F4 (manual)
100 mm 2.8 series E
85 1.8 ED
60 1.8 ED (fire sells right now)
55 mm 3.5 (super and cheap)
20mm 3.5 manual (cheap, wide, small, nice)
18-105 (really nice used zoom)
80-200 ED (really sharp for the money)
(and many more)

if you have more cash
50mm 1.4
85 1.4 (manual or auto)
105 or 135 DC lens .. both beauties
any of the holy trio (14-24, 24-70,70-200 2.8s)
and many more

The catalog is so vast, that you can develop your own list, and buy over time.


and like my post stated

Any Nikon SLR, used or new that can meter and focus the lens catolog.

stmv said:

The point of silly, is that cameras have reached the point that they are all good, and well, first worry about becoming a good photograher. Any SLR and just about the entire SLR lens catolog work fine, and can take excellent pictures,

so, tune your lens selection on the composition.

Click to expand...

Is that what the OP asked??

Here are some quotes from real experts....

1) Easy and timeless answer: always put your money into your lenses. This is because lenses have far more to do with picture quality and ease of use, and because lenses retain their monetary and photographic value indefinitely while camera bodies become worth little in a few years.
Whatever lens you buy today you'll probably still be using in five or ten years. You'll wanting to trade in your digital camera in not more than 18 months, while the best lenses will still be current for years.
The dumbest thing I've seen people do is buy a top camera and put a cheap lens on it. I've cringed for decades every time I see someone with a Nikon F5, a $1,500 camera in its day, with a no-name zoom on it. Today the F5 is only worth several hundred dollars, but any of the f/2.8 zooms you could have gotten with it are still still worth, used, about what they cost back in 1999, and these lenses will be perfect on the new Nikon D3. The Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 I bought back in 2000 is still the best and most practical wide zoom for the D3 today.

2) Making the move into a DSLR camera system is an investment, both in money and in results. The two main components of a camera system are the body and the lens. Many new buyers often make the mistake of not budgeting enough for lenses and undervalue their role in photography.

Click Here: Why Lenses Are a More Important Purchasing Decision Than Camera Bodies

3) Check out Photography community, including forums, reviews, and galleries from Photo.net for some rabid photo discussions....the net of my experience and research says that it is better to spend less on the body and more on the lenses. I have a Canon 20d (awesome) and several lenses. GENERALLY, the zooms that try and cover a large focal range (like the one you mention) have some shortcomings on the short and long end. Doesnt mean it isnt PRACTICAL, it means depending on how "picky" you are, it may not be as sharp as a zoom with a shorter range or a PRIME (fixed focal length) for example. I have a $90 Canon 50mm 1.8 that is awesome, so you can get very good quality for less in some cases. If you are a Canon fan (or considering) the Rebel XT is an excellent choice, and despite online criticism of the "KIT" lens (18-55) I think it is a good value. Check out Bob Atkins - Digital Photography - Camera Reviews - Lens Tests - Canon EOS FAQ - Nature - Wildlife - Gallery for a great overview of Canon DSLRs and lenses.

stmv said:

Sure, a great lens can make a picture slightly better, but won't make a poorly framed picture great.

Click to expand...

But a "great" camera will ? Stating the obvious is so profound.

The "experts" are assuming that only expensive zoom lenses produce the best images which is wrong.

no,, but for the first 10 years of photography, I shot with a FM/2 and the lowly 43-86 and a 70-200, and thought about the picture.

That is my point that I am trying to make, so many people rush into the DSLR world thinking that equipment is going to make fantastic pictures.

I teach photography classes, and this obsession over equipment seems to have become the overriding discussion, instead of the subject.

so,, I so agree, but my point is why worry about the gear so much?

Start with a used D70, and a 18-70 DX lens, and go shoot! After 30,000 photos, then
think about the next step.

but, maybe our society just wants technology to solve problems.

I think it was the.....
.....

Thank you for all the responses! Very interesting comments. I guess my take is great/good gear does not necessarily make a great/good photographer, but the better tool you have to ply your trade, the better the odds of getting the results you're hoping for -i.e. great photography. Would you get a better picture from a D7000 or D4 using the same high quality lens if both were taken on auto (identical settings) of the same scene, subject, etc.?
Great doesn't necessarily equate to expensive, because if you compare results from a D7000 vs that of a D800, the results you get are not totally a result of the cameras. It's also a reflection of lens, experience, and the x-factor of the photographer "seeing" a picture. But, I have always heard that money is better invested into yours lens collection, so I am glad to hear that opinion voiced here as well.
I wholeheartedly agree with stmv - you still have to learn to photograph with the equipment you're blessed with, and that's what I've determined I need to do. I really enjoy reading the comments on all subjects on this forum and am very glad I found it.

I think the premise that high quality glass or high end cameras make good photos is just simply wrong. Pin-hole cameras take amazing photos in the hands of a knowledgeable photographer. I camera/lens combo is simply a tool like a paint brush and in the right hands it can produce masterpieces. But just because you have a very expensive paint brush does not mean you can paint a Mona Lisa. Perhaps if you rephrase your question into something like "what is the minimum amount of camera equipment I will need in order to learn how to produce the kind of photographs I see in my minds eye" then the question becomes a bit easier to answer.

I think I have been trying to say the same thing you are saying - you still have to know what to do with the equipment you have, no matter what it is. Even if I spent $3000 on new golf equipment, it wouldn't improve my game unless I took lessons and practiced consistently. (Even then, I probably wouldn't see $3000 worth of improvement ).

Why is it, then, that those that are so very accomplished in photography aren't satisfied with the equipment they started out with, but continue to upgrade? (Just a rhetorical question).

Would you have reached your skill level faster if you had better equipment to start with?

Sort of like playing guitar - my first guitar was a cheap little steel string with strings set so high I could hardly get strings down to the frets. It made playing miserable and the notes inconsistent. When I decided to go to a good quality guitar, the rewards in comfort and consistency in playing clear, precise notes made playing much more enjoyable and gave incentive to improve and expand my playing.

So, what is the minimum amount of camera equipment I will need in order to learn how to produce the kind of photograph I see in my mind's eye? - that pretty much sums up my initial question, I just didn't word my question quite right. I know the experience and knowledge is available here on this forum, that's why I posted the question.

My opinions were based on my personnel experience over the past 2 years. I had been into film photography for many years prior to going digital 2 years ago. I started out with a D3100 and outgrew that, into a D5100 and finally a D600 now. I feel the D600 will meet my expectations until it is worn out. I would have saved a bit of money starting out with a body which was more advanced than my digital knowledge. Since I spent a lot of cash in the process, I started out in Fx with the 50mm 1.8g and quickly realized that primes are far superior to the good zooms I had for my Dx bodies.

We need to know your expectations in order to recommend the minimum equipment