What makes the picture? Camera body or high end lens?

This question is just mental chewing gum as to if a superior lens can steroid a camera beyond its given ability. Or... Dude! It ain't helping.

Taking the photographer out of the equation; which makes the better picture?

1. Lets say D3100-7000 with a prime lens? Does superior glass elevate the quality of the photos that is clearly recognizable?

2. Example camera: D600 with a standard lens? Does this higher end camera make for a better picture and (not that it's actually possible) seemingly push a standard lens to a much higher quality photograph because of its better internals?

3. Doesn't matter. One half of the sum will not make for any appreciable difference without the other half?

If you so choose to participate in this mental chewing gum please dispose of your gum properly and not on the bottom of the keyboard.

OK....let's make this interesting then. Specify "standard" lens.....specify "prime" lens. otherwise, this exercise can't be done properly.

Sorry for my lack of vernacular regarding lenses, I'm still cutting my teeth. Standard as in just run of the mill normal - Ford or Chevy. Prime as the high end good glass - Mercedes - Lexus.

Really good equipment just makes the task easier that is all. Ever heard the story about the photography teacher who had a class full of students with all the latest and greatest gear? Not a damn one of them seemed to be able to make a good picture with it all. So she made everyone get a Diana and some cheap film. It forced them to think about what they were doing. They all became much better photographers.

I think it was Steichen who said something like "No photographer is as good as the simplest camera" - heavy duty statement right there...

I agree, but just for the sake of discussion and taking the photographer out of it what would be the result from the scenarios?

The teacher taught the students about "seeing" and "feeling" so when they went back to their "good" gear their work began to show something better.

Steichen meant that even the simplest camera cannot be completely mastered by a man in his lifetime.

A tool is just a tool. Without an operator the tool is basically useless in any regard no matter how fancy smancy it is.

Prime is just a single focal length. eg 28mm prime 50mm prime 85mm prime

Standard is just a standard focal length which is 50mm in full frame and I suppose DX too.

In regard to your op the first thing I would say is "not fair" if you will is comparing FX to DX. Now this begs the question which would make a better picture with a prime lens the DX cameras or the D600? Is that what you mean? It is an old discussion...haha

Inferior glass is always going to be inferior to superior glass plus a helluva lot cheaper too!

To carry it further I would put my Corvette up against any Lexus or Mercedes Just like I would put my Nikon up against any Leica...

It sounds like how your comparing cars is as mismatched as i presented my question comparing lenses :topsy_turvy:

To phrase it another way (not trying to compare dx to fx) in spite of the lower end internals of a 5100 can it take advantage of a top quality lens or do the internals hold it back from taking advantage of the improved sharpness of a high end lens because it just doesn't have the capability.

Conversely, is a D600 really held back by run of the mill standard lens and could produce no better than the 5100 when sharing the same standard quality glass.

My estimation would be that the 5100 images could be greatly improved with a better quality lens. The 600 in my estimation would have less noise from better internals leaving you with really clean but lacking the sharpness of high end lens.

Yes the D5100 sensor can take advantage of better glass...just as any camera body could. The D600 will net an even bigger advantage (relative to the D5100 sensor) because it is gathering more light and processing it faster.

The D600 is FX...which is a whole other animal imo...yeah a run of the mill lens on the D600 is going to perform better than a run of the mill lens on the D5100.

Now is your eye going to be able to tell?

I think the short answer to your question is that yes good glass will reap the best "quality" improvements. For example, D300s with 18-200 lens vs D90 with 70-200 2.8. As they have similar sensors and all else being equal the lower spec D90 would probably produce a higher quality image, whereas the D300 would be a nicer tool to use.

With some of the newer high resolution bodies, the image quality when using low end glass can be worse than on a lower spec body!

The normal logic is to invest in good glass over bodies but like everything in life it's a balance.

Too many factors exist between what you've referred to as Standard and Superior. I believe I understand your point as being "all other things being equal, standard = average (not poor) IQ ratings, superior = near the top IQ ratings" for the lenses. You've established the camera criteria.

If I apply it to myself, if I wanted to make a great photo would I rather go out with my 28-300mm and my D600 or a 70-200mm f2.8 and my D90? Definitely the latter. The better sensor in the D600 can only compensate so much for the so-so IQ I'd get in some areas of that lens. The D90's sensor is "more than good enough" to allow the lens to do the heavy lifting.

I don't know of many cameras that suffer from poor image sensors and stay on the market, so I'd rather go with fewer features and MP's and a really nice lens. As Geoff has pointed out, I've read of lenses that "shouldn't be used on the D800" because the resolution of the sensor is above what the lens can deliver. While not a part of this discussion, I think that's an extremely important thing to understand as a photographer upgrades, because I for one never considered the fact that a camera body can outpace your glass,

Good glass always wins. It's why people still cherish old manual lenses that delivered for them on their film cameras.

Of course, the real answer to the "What makes the picture?" question is the person looking through the viewfinder. A blind squirrel will find a nut with the right equipment, but give a great photographer any box and any glass and they'll be able to capture something worth looking at - even if it's not razor sharp and brilliantly colored.

BackdoorHippie said:

I don't know of many cameras that suffer from poor image sensors and stay on the market, .

Click to expand...

Jake, that made me smile when I thought about the POS Panasonic TZ20s that my wife and I bought last year. Sold within a month, my iPhone was better

In almost every scenario, the camera is limited by the lens. So with that in mind, the lens is more important, to a point. If you want high resolution large prints, the best lens in the world isn't going to help you on a low mp body. There is still a lot more to it, pixel density tends to expose flaws in glass. A D5100 has greater pixel density than a D600, you need good glass on both of them. Another point is great glass does not always mean expensive. The 50mm 1.8g only costs about $220.00 and performs great on every nikon body available. To date, my best shots have been taken by my D5100, for me it comes down to opportunity. I am however, going to get the most out of the next great opportunity.

On the whole a better lens should give better results, garbage in garbage out being the adage. However that is given the sensor in the camera is not a poor one or working outside its optimal limits. Then if you are not taking a photograph of/with movement a tripod with a reasonable lens say the old 50mm 1.8d will give you a technically better quality photograph than what ever the best 50mm is hand held. There is also the point of diminishing returns, some lenses are good enough that the better sensor will shine through, say a D90 over a D70 with greater resolution. It is a lot harder in these digital days, when we used film we could take a low end body say an EM and put K25 in it say and get as good a quality photo graph as an F3 with the same lens.
The most important thing and it is the thing that accounts for 99.99% of a photographs quality is the person taking the photograph. Like most things just because you buy the so called best does not make you any better, better to spend the money on books of photographs by some of the greats of the area you are interested in. Perhaps on a good course though a year of going to evening classes will give you more than a wk end one and should get you in-touch with other photographers in your area.

As long as the camera has double digit megapixels & a viewfinder you can see to me it is the LENS.

Read this article: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

It has some interesting observations related to this very question.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

Eye-level said:

Yes the D5100 sensor can take advantage of better glass...just as any camera body could. The D600 will net an even bigger advantage (relative to the D5100 sensor) because it is gathering more light and processing it faster.

The D600 is FX...which is a whole other animal imo...yeah a run of the mill lens on the D600 is going to perform better than a run of the mill lens on the D5100.

Now is your eye going to be able to tell?

Click to expand...

Can you tell the difference on your 'standard' cheap LCD computer screen?
What if I was using a high-end calibrated CRT?

Where do you stop?

Everyone who looks at photos loves them for the composition and content. Some of my favourite photos are taken with my Blackberry, because it was what I had with me.

My first 6 years was with a single zoom 43-86 with a FM, eventually added the 70-210 E series for the next 10 years, then slowly evolved and added lens as budget allowed, just for the pleasure of having more options, and very very slight improvements in quality. but its the picture that matters the most.




So,, here is a shot using the lowly (often Scorned) 43-86 Nikkor zoom lens, with old fashion film, taken 32 years ago.....but what if I had not told you that it was....

Brusader said:

Everyone who looks at photos loves them for the composition and content. Some of my favourite photos are taken with my Blackberry, because it was what I had with me.

Click to expand...

This is as 4 megapixel picture from 2004 that I took of my brother when we were were on a Europe trip (this pic was taken at Mont Blanc just outside the tunnel). It's from a Concord compact camera.
I did a resample in photoshop to increase pixels and made it into an A3 print that he framed and put in his living room.
Anyone seeing it cannot believe it's from a 4 megapixel camera because there's no pixelation even close up. People said I couldn't print to A3 because it would look awful.

Isn't it fun showing people what can be done and going against popular belief.