What's more important......... the Camera, or the Lens
- Thread starter TedG954
- Start date
Depends on what your definition of a second rate junk lens is.
Also it depends on who is taking a photo.
I bet any money, that if Scott and I traded equipment He would get much better results on my 3100 and kit lens, then I ever could with his D800 and his best lens any day.
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
in between your ears.....but all that being said....better glass is the right answer.
You've gotta switch to the "P" mode on the dial, so you can get "Professional" pictures. The camera and lens don't matter.
Having said that, in the hands of a pro, I'd think moderate camera with best glass gets a better picture than best body with moderate glass. With tech these days, though, it really all boils down to the control nut hovering over the shutter release. Better tech makes it easier for moderate photographers to look good, but an artist can produce jaw-dropping work with much less...
Ok, that's it. I'm done, going home, enjoying the weekend and PUSHING MYSELF to become better. LA LUCHA!
Having said that, in the hands of a pro, I'd think moderate camera with best glass gets a better picture than best body with moderate glass. With tech these days, though, it really all boils down to the control nut hovering over the shutter release. Better tech makes it easier for moderate photographers to look good, but an artist can produce jaw-dropping work with much less...
Ok, that's it. I'm done, going home, enjoying the weekend and PUSHING MYSELF to become better. LA LUCHA!
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
Which is the more important blade in a pair of scissors?
In terms of technical quality, a camera can take no better picture than what it's sensor can properly render. It can also take no better picture than what its lens can focus. Ultimately, the quality of the final image is limited to the quality of the weakest component in rendering that image.
Of course, those who are into the Lomography movement would take issue with the entire basis of your question, and to some degree, I'd have to agree with them. There is certainly more to good photography than technical quality. I think nearly all good photographers, even those of us who don't follow the principles of the Lomography movement, recognize that there are places where perfect technical quality is undesirable, and where selectively reducing the quality of parts of an image makes for a better picture. I think the clearest example I can think of is the use of limited depth of field to blur out an undesirably-busy background and place better emphasis on the primary subject.
Consider the two following pictures, the first of which technically has better quality, but the second is clearly the better picture.
Both taken at ISO 100 on my D3200 with my ancient non-AI 50mm ƒ1.4 lens (which according to Nikon, cannot be used with this camera, but this lens, my camera, and I disagree with Nikon on this point). First is at ƒ16 and 30 seconds, and the second is at ƒ1.4 and 1/6 of a second. Here, there's a very busy, distracting background, which detracts greatly in the more technically-perfect first picture. In the second picture, due to greatly-reduced depth of field, the background is much less distracting, and the primary subject stands out much better.
SkvLTD
Senior Member
There's far, far more to a good vs a bad lens than changing the aperture on the same exact lens. If you want to compare it this way, shoot the same lens on DX and FX bodies.
Dennis Kussener
Senior Member
I would say lenses are more important than the body, a body has also a shorter lifetime than lenses so lenses are mor woth the investment 
Small nail, squarely hit with a very big hammer.
Answer to the title is lens, but the answer to the post is whichever one captures the light better for the image being sought.
However, considering the phraseology of the postulates, the proposed consideration is actually, can a whole passel of pixels overcome bad glass?
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Actually, assuming we're defining a them as a curved piece of glass that converges or diverges light, lenses go back thousands of years.
...
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
As I understand it, all the first photographic experiments used a single, convex lens. I'm referring to people like Thomas Wedgewood, Henry Talbot and that French guy who's name I couldn't spell to save my soul when I say this. I seem to recall there was some guy who tried putting a chemically light-sensitive pewter plate behind a camera obscura but the results were unsuccessful.
...