Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby MULTILINGUAL NIKONIANS English Cafι (Public) topic #76613
View in linear mode

Subject: "Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?" Previous topic | Next topic
DigitalDarrell Team Member Founding Member of the Nikonians writer Guild. Author of most of the NikoniansPress books. Charter MemberMon 10-Oct-11 02:38 PM
5947 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"


Knoxville, US
          

I've been shooting with Nikon SLR and DSLR cameras and lenses for a long time. Over the years I've seen some interesting things, as have you. I have come to some conclusions. Read my daily blog:

Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
http://blog.nikonians.org/digitaldarrell/2011/10/dd-cameras-versus-lenses-which-is-more-important.html




Digital Darrell

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
avm247 Moderator
10th Oct 2011
1
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
DigitalDarrell Team Member
11th Oct 2011
15
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
EpicDan Silver Member
10th Oct 2011
2
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
gkaiseril Gold Member
10th Oct 2011
3
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
mklass Platinum Member
11th Oct 2011
4
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
11th Oct 2011
5
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
11th Oct 2011
6
     Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Baaker Silver Member
11th Oct 2011
7
          Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
PAStime Silver Member
11th Oct 2011
8
               Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
11th Oct 2011
9
                    Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
mklass Platinum Member
11th Oct 2011
10
                    Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Bass rock Silver Member
11th Oct 2011
11
                         Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
mklass Platinum Member
11th Oct 2011
12
                              Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
11th Oct 2011
13
                                   Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
mklass Platinum Member
11th Oct 2011
14
                    Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
PAStime Silver Member
12th Oct 2011
19
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Fovea Gold Member
12th Oct 2011
28
     Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
gkaiseril Gold Member
12th Oct 2011
29
     Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
12th Oct 2011
34
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
DigitalDarrell Team Member
11th Oct 2011
16
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
11th Oct 2011
17
     Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
11th Oct 2011
18
          Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
12th Oct 2011
20
               Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
12th Oct 2011
21
                    Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
12th Oct 2011
22
                         Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
12th Oct 2011
24
                              Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
benveniste Moderator
12th Oct 2011
25
                              Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
12th Oct 2011
32
                                   Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
mklass Platinum Member
12th Oct 2011
33
                                   Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
12th Oct 2011
35
                                        Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
13th Oct 2011
36
                                             Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
13th Oct 2011
37
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
KnightPhoto Gold Member
12th Oct 2011
23
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
DigitalDarrell Team Member
12th Oct 2011
27
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
DigitalDarrell Team Member
12th Oct 2011
26
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Floridian Silver Member
12th Oct 2011
30
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
mklass Platinum Member
12th Oct 2011
31
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
13th Oct 2011
38
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
nrothschild Silver Member
14th Oct 2011
39
Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
benveniste Moderator
14th Oct 2011
40
     Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
14th Oct 2011
41
          Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
MelT
15th Oct 2011
42
          Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Floridian Silver Member
15th Oct 2011
43
               Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
15th Oct 2011
44
                    Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Floridian Silver Member
15th Oct 2011
45
                         Reply message RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?
Ned_L Moderator
15th Oct 2011
46

avm247 Moderator Awarded for high skills in documentary architecture and aviation photography Charter MemberMon 10-Oct-11 06:01 PM
18518 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0


Rancho Cordova, US
          

I agree with you Darrell!


Anthony

The Moderator Page and My Gallery
The important things in life are simple; the simple things are hard.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
DigitalDarrell Team Member Founding Member of the Nikonians writer Guild. Author of most of the NikoniansPress books. Charter MemberTue 11-Oct-11 02:17 PM
5947 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 1
Tue 11-Oct-11 02:21 PM by DigitalDarrell

Knoxville, US
          

Thank you, Anthony!

This subject and my title is controversial ... on purpose!




Digital Darrell

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

EpicDan Silver Member Charter MemberMon 10-Oct-11 06:08 PM
702 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0


St. Paul, US
          

It is hard to assign which is more important; they are a system. That said, I agree with what I take from your post: buy bodies for their operation, buy lenses for the long haul.

I look at my glass and bodies. Bodys roll through and get replaced by better. Good glass stays for a very long time. I'm willing to pay more for good glass knowing it will be here for years to come. I pay a lot for bodies too but that is for the features and capture capabilities. Buying a new body is more of 'paying the rent' to photography. They are part of the operating cost since going digital.

Daniel McGowan
Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

gkaiseril Gold Member Nikonian since 28th Oct 2005Mon 10-Oct-11 07:21 PM
6739 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0


Chicago, US
          

Like in HiFi Stereo, get the best quality input devices to start with the best sound. Them upgrade the rest of the system. You can not post process lost quality.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Tue 11-Oct-11 12:59 AM
5908 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0


Tacoma, US
          

Kind of a pointless question when phrased like this. You can't use one without the other.

So far, lenses seem to outlive bodies, but even with one of the so called "Three-Kings", I wouldn't get some of the shots I get without my D3s, even though I had a D3 before it.

Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberTue 11-Oct-11 02:13 AM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 4


Philadelphia, US
          

I'm with you Mick. I think it's just not the right question.

A better question might be, though I'm still not exactly on board even with it, "Which is the better investment, a camera or lens?"

Even though the question, I think, makes general sense, there isn't necessarily an easy answer for this, unless, I think, you're talking about a very general purchase philosophy. I also think the that when many say the better investment is glass, they are talking top quality glass, not low end lenses.

Long term, at least for Nikon, where the company has made a conscious decision to permit long term use of lenses by not totally obsoleting them over time, unlike the dark side has done in the past, even though not all features might work as time goes by, high quality glass will greatly outlive most cameras. I still have a couple of lenses I bought more than 20 years ago, and they still work, and their IQ is still wonderful.

There is a point at which, even for many high quality lenses that time does pass them by, as new features which could have greatly augmented their usefulness are installed in their replacements, and as new optical designs eliminate or at least ameliorate their imperfections. Moreover, for zoom lenses, in my opinion, today's top ones are generally considerably superior in quality than ones made just a decade ago.

Most of the time when people ask, "Lens or camera?" I say lens, but not every time. Sometimes a new camera is the way to go. If it wasn't, I might still be using my F5 or my D70.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Tue 11-Oct-11 05:29 AM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 5
Tue 11-Oct-11 05:31 AM by MelT

Petersburg, US
          

I agree with Mick and Ned. I think the question is flawed and there are some contradictions to reality stated. Sure you can hang onto lenses and use them for a long time but the reality is that people don't if internet forums are any indication. As soon as a new lens is introduced which replaces a current lens, and the internet geek hype starts, you see people selling off their old lenses to get the new ones.

Now the 35-70/2.8 was the top quality lens of its kind that Nikon produced. While I invested in that lens many years ago, this does not mean I would not want a replacement in the future. Again, this takes away from the holding onto a lens for a long time premise. A new lens came around with newer technology and a wider zoom range.

While the premise of the blog entry may apply to film cameras, I am not too sure it applies to digital cameras. Film cameras were essentially a box that held film. Sure, over the years, features were added that aided in the capture of images but there wasn't a change in image quality. You would not see a change unless a new type of film was introduced. With digital cameras however, each successive generation of cameras brought greater image quality to the table.

The premise of the article implies I should want to shoot with the 24-70/2.8 to get greater quality. Now I rather shoot with the D3 and the 35-70/2.8 (a much older lens) then a D1H with the latest and greatest 24-70/2.8. I would have greater image quality with that older lens.

All this said, I have not bought a lens since 2004. Most of my most used lenses have been replaced by newer flavors. The last time I bought a camera was in 2006. The next purchase I will make will be a camera. I simply do not feel my photography would be hampered by my old lenses but would be enhanced with a new camera.

There is not a black & white answer to the question raised as implied by the blog entry and this answer can lead to the internet forum hype that one must get Nikon's top lenses to get quality images. Getting a new camera to replace an older camera can lead to to a far greater increase of "quality" in an image with today's cameras then the differences that one may find in today's lenses whether it is consumer vs. pro or old pro vs. new pro.

Just my thoughts...


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009Tue 11-Oct-11 08:08 AM
923 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 6


Dumbarton, GB
          

People can't always afford to buy the best body and lens. If you have to skimp on one over the other then a common consensus seems to be to spend the money on a better lens and less on the camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Tue 11-Oct-11 12:03 PM
2670 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 7


Kingston, CA
          

Thanks Darrel for starting an interesting thread.

I agree the question isn't the best. (I also think the article has too many irrelevant paragraphs about dealing with your spouse, etc. as compared with the amount of text in support of the argument).

I think a better question would have been: which can have the greater positive influence on your photography: a new body or a new lens? I would then argue: a new lens. I have shot with a D90 for the past several years. If I had upgraded to a D300, D300S, and then D7000, my images may have improved but not by much. I did however over those years introduce a 35mm f1.8 lens for low light, a 70-200 VR2, and an 8-16mm ultra wide. Each one of these has had a major impact on my photography. I can see the added variety and creativity in my images over time.

Cheers,
Peter

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberTue 11-Oct-11 12:50 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 8


Philadelphia, US
          

Peter, you're point about influence is well taken, and in general, I probably agree with you, however, to play "devil's advocate" for a moment, I don't think there has been a greater influence or impact in my photography since 2004, (the introduction and my purchase of the Nikon D70, my first DSLR), than my purchase of a Nikon D700 and its fantastic high ISO/low noise performance.

That one characteristic of the D700 camera alone, has far eclipsed the influence and impact of the wonderful Nikkor lenses I've purchased in the last couple of years.

So there are definitely times when cameras can impact and influence one's photography much more than glass.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Tue 11-Oct-11 01:20 PM
5908 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 9


Tacoma, US
          

You have a good point, Ned. There are camera bodies that are game changers, and loosen some of the restrictions the we might work under. In the DSLR age, this has happened frequently as the technology has improved. We always talk about "is it as good as film?", but the real question should be "how good can it get?", as we are no longer constrained by the film technology itself.

But, certainly, lenses can improve your ability to capture creative compositions and singular events. On a better body, you may get better results. It all, of course depends on the most important component, the photographer.

We all make trade-offs, based on our needs, desires and ability to pay, and those change with time and circumstances. Because of that, there is no answer to this question, and I do believe the question is as irrelevant as "which is more important air or water?"- philosophically interesting, but useless in practice.

Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Bass rock Silver Member Nikonian since 21st Dec 2007Tue 11-Oct-11 01:40 PM
968 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 10


Scotland, GB
          

> "which is more important air or water?"

Neither, whisky is more important than both.

And the photographer is more important than the camera or lens...

Bill
North Berwick, Scotland

My Website - My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Tue 11-Oct-11 01:54 PM
5908 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 11
Tue 11-Oct-11 01:55 PM by mklass

Tacoma, US
          

>> "which is more important air or water?"
>
>Neither, whisky is more important than both.
>
>And the photographer is more important than the camera or
>lens...
>
>Bill
>North Berwick, Scotland

Oh you Scots!

Lubrication for the photographer being as important as it is for the camera and lens?

Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberTue 11-Oct-11 02:00 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 12


Philadelphia, US
          

Mick and Bill, you won't get me to disagree that the photographer is the most important part of the equation.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Tue 11-Oct-11 02:16 PM
5908 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 13


Tacoma, US
          

>Mick and Bill, you won't get me to disagree that the
>photographer is the most important part of the equation.
>
But what about the Scotch, Ned?
(I prefer Irish Whiskey, myself.)

Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Wed 12-Oct-11 01:26 AM
2670 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 9


Kingston, CA
          


>That one characteristic of the D700 camera alone, has far
>eclipsed the influence and impact of the wonderful Nikkor
>lenses I've purchased in the last couple of years.

Good points Ned. I can see the arrival of the D700 all of a sudden making significantly more feasible the picture of a child in front of a birthday cake, with the scene lit mostly by the candles. (Just a fictitious example). Cheers, Peter

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Fovea Gold Member Nikonian since 26th Sep 2002Wed 12-Oct-11 04:36 PM
3629 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#28. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 4


Colombo, LK
          

>Kind of a pointless question when phrased like this. You
>can't use one without the other.
>
>So far, lenses seem to outlive bodies, but even with one of
>the so called "Three-Kings", I wouldn't get some of
>the shots I get without my D3s, even though I had a D3 before
>it.

I too have to agree with Mick,

But all these are based on the hopeful assumption that Nikon is never going to change the lens mount like Canon did in the past.

I think the days of the bulky SLR, in the form factor familiar to us, are numbered! Whether the new breed of cameras will evolve into capable enough 'pro' tools in our life times is uncertain - but eventually, I think it is going to happen.

Regards
Dinil




Struck by Light - Blog & Gallery
Visible Range - Photography & Beyond

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
gkaiseril Gold Member Nikonian since 28th Oct 2005Wed 12-Oct-11 07:48 PM
6739 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#29. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 28


Chicago, US
          

View cameras are still being made and used.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberWed 12-Oct-11 10:31 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#34. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 28


Philadelphia, US
          

I think there will eventually be mirrorless DSLRs, (I'm all for that advance for a variety of reasons.) which will reduce some of their size, but I'm not so sure the general bulk will disappear, as if you want a sensor as big as an FX sensor, you're going to need pretty big lenses, and if that remains true, you'll need a decent sized camera to hold them, so you can hold the combo. I'm not sure I want to loose the bulk anyway.

I actually added bulk to my D700 via the grip, more than any other reason to have enough heft, and room for my hands to hold the camera steady.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

DigitalDarrell Team Member Founding Member of the Nikonians writer Guild. Author of most of the NikoniansPress books. Charter MemberTue 11-Oct-11 02:18 PM
5947 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0
Tue 11-Oct-11 02:45 PM by DigitalDarrell

Knoxville, US
          


I love stimulating excellent conversation on photo subjects. Whether my concept is flawed, or not, is open to opinion. However, it has had the result of opening discussion in a beneficial way, which is what I intended. This is an important subject! Many new photographers think it is a good idea to buy a higher-end Nikon body and low-end aftermarket lenses to save money.

I believe that once digital camera bodies reached a certain point—such as with the Nikon D7000 and D700—that a level of camera maturity has set in that makes it unnecessary to buy the "next thing out." Even though most of us may desire the next camera released, wouldn't it be better to use the current camera and buy better lenses instead?

If a camera comes out with some wonderful new technology (e.g., Nikon D700 and D7000) that improves photography significantly, it is again time to consider a camera purchase. However, most new camera releases are only incremental in quality additions, while adding new menu selections (features) that may or may not help most photographers but certainly increases the camera's complexity.

The lens is what forms the light for capture by the camera. A cheap lens on a excellent body does not perform as well as a premium lens on a medium-priced body. I am still shooting with a Nikon D2X and D300S on a regular basis. If I didn't have to write a new book on new camera releases, I probably wouldn't even consider a new camera body for a while yet. I much prefer obtaining better lenses. I can use them for much much longer than any camera body I buy.

A good example is my Nikon D2X. It is now about six years old and is probably nearing the end of its useful life due to increases in noise control in newer camera bodies. However, lenses I purchased 15-20 years ago are still performing very well (mostly primes).

The main point of my blog was simply that lenses are more important in the long term and last much longer before needing replacement. Camera bodies come and go, but quality lenses hang around much longer. At the least, a good lens lasts three to four times longer than any camera body in the digital world. That makes good lenses a better investment, in my opinion.

Most who disagreed with my basic concept and title, admitted that they too have lenses they value and have used for many years. Lens obsolescence does happen, but it takes a much longer time than camera bodies, making lenses a better long term investment.




Digital Darrell

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Tue 11-Oct-11 09:27 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 16


Petersburg, US
          

>A good example is my Nikon D2X. It is now about six years old
>and is probably nearing the end of its useful life due to
>increases in noise control in newer camera bodies. However,
>lenses I purchased 15-20 years ago are still performing very
>well (mostly primes).

I am really hoping you mean that the D2X is nearing the end of its useful life when it comes to your shooting as oppose to making a general statement about the D2X.

>Most who disagreed with my basic concept and title, admitted
>that they too have lenses they value and have used for many
>years. Lens obsolescence does happen, but it takes a much
>longer time than camera bodies, making lenses a better long
>term investment.

Unless you are a working pro making money from equipment purchased, by definition, calling any camera equipment an "investment" is rather silly.

You are of the viewpoint that cameras can become obsolete which I disagree with. I can never understand why it is often commented that a given body is "obsolete" on forums and the constant complaint how digital cameras become obsolete quickly.

Sure you may not have the newer bells and whistles that comes with a newer body but not everyone needs these bells and whistles to create meaningful photography. My viewpoint on the obsolescence of a camera is that a camera is not obsolete until the day comes and you no longer get media for it or you can no longer get repair parts to have it repaired.


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberTue 11-Oct-11 10:53 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 17


Philadelphia, US
          

Mel, I too believe that cameras can become obsolete.

According to the dictionary, a book I often use, obsolete means, "No longer in use, outmoded in design, style, or construction..."

Case in point. For a number of years I used a D200 as my primary DSLR. I used it for travel photography, wildlife, events, weddings, etc. It performed admirably. Eventually, when the D700 came out and was in the marketplace for a while, after analyzing it and considering it had the FX vs. DX sensor, which meant some new lenses were in order if I went to the D700, in order to have duplicates for back up and simultaneous use, I moved to the D700, and purchased new lenses.

For me, the high ISO/low noise capability of the camera was so much better than the D200's capability that the D700 rendered the D200 obsolete. In comparison to the D700, the D200 was "outmoded." Now that I have the D700, while I still have one D200 as a backup to my backup. it's actually, "no longer in use."

I think I can give you many other examples, but I don't think it necessary to be able to safely say "Camera's can become obsolete, and in fact, many have become so."

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Wed 12-Oct-11 02:40 AM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#20. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 18


Petersburg, US
          

Ned,

I can understand why older cameras may be "obsolete" for you and your photography. This is why I asked Darrell whether his comment was general in nature or specific to his shooting. It is the general statement "the (insert camera) is obsolete" that I have problems with.

Sure, you could do a laundry list of things that you feel make the older digital cameras obsolete in your eyes and items on this list but it would be arrogant to think that your list is relevant for all photographers out there. Using your list, it would deem every camera made before the current crop of offerings as "obsolete" and this simply is not the case. You bring up ISO performance. So are you saying that every film camera out there is "obsolete" because they do not have the ISO performance of your D700? Your standards of "obsolete" would make the F6 "obsolete".

A slide rule is obsolete because the demand to use them went by the wayside when calculators were invented. The demand and need for buggy whips make them obsolete outside the Amish and Mennonite communities. Cell phones from 15 years ago are certainly obsolete since they cannot work with current systems. I could go on and on. You include perhaps the D2X or D1X among these items??? I don't own a camera (to include a 60 year old Nikon S2 that fits your dictionary definition of "obsolete". ALL of them can be used for general photography.

Applying the dictionary definition of "obsolete" to camerasa is really over reaching.


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberWed 12-Oct-11 03:29 AM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 20


Philadelphia, US
          

I'm sorry Mel, but your answer completely dumbfounds me. What definition of obsolete are you using? Please be precise.

If the dictionary definition doesn't apply to cameras, what definition does apply? Where can I find the definition?

Are you saying that just because it works, it can't be obsolete? Because if that's what you're saying then by that definition the slide rule isn't obsolete, nor is the Model A dump truck on which I learned to drive, or the Battleship, or the biplane, or my original IBM PC (actually my IBM PC doesn't work any more as I took out its motherboard and had it framed and hung on a wall in my office), or even my Brownie Hawkie camera I have in my closet (my first camera) Yet, all those items are very much obsolete.

I just don't understand your reply at all.

People use obsolete things all the time, but that in of itself doesn't make them not obsolete. I had a friend who until last year was using an old Gateway computer running on Windows 98SE. All he did was run WordPerfect on it, print to a laser printer, and use AOL. Last year he finally got fed up by its speed and moved on. Even though he was using the computer, he would be the first to tell you it was obsolete.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Wed 12-Oct-11 04:02 AM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#22. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 21
Wed 12-Oct-11 04:16 AM by MelT

Petersburg, US
          

Ned,

I am using the definition you posted and the reason you stated your D700 makes older cameras obsolete. I am rather dumbfounded over your statements. Now you are bringing up old computers and software? This is not relevent when it comes to "photography". I want you to answer this simple question but not in the context of your own photography but in the context of "photography". Are film cameras obsolete? Is the F6 "No longer in use, outmoded in design, style, or construction..."?


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberWed 12-Oct-11 10:41 AM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 22


Philadelphia, US
          

I understand why you are uncomfortable with my statement, however, I believe that cameras are no different than any other technology as to whether or not they are obsolete.

If a camera is no longer in use (I'm speaking in general terms.) or is outmoded in design, style, or construction then in my opinion, and in my opinion there is plenty of room for disagreement with my opinion as long as there is a logical basis for disagreement, the camera is obsolete.

If it's obsolete, it doesn't mean the camera won't work, or isn't worthy of continued use. The world of photography, as is true of the world in general, has a myriad of examples of the highly successful use of equipment which has already reached obsolescence. There are a host of photographers who continue to use D70 through D200 cameras, for example, to speak about photography with Nikon cameras, and there are many still using D1 and D2 variant DSLRs as well, yet they are obsolete.

I say they are obsolete because in general their use by the vast majority of photographers has been discontinued, and their design has been rendered outmoded by their manufacturers. Nikon, for example, will not be going back to a D70, or D2X design.

Now please understand I don't advocate anyone replacing their equipment solely due to its being obsolete. I'm still using an iPhone 3GS, yet there is no doubt in my mind that the iPhone 4 with its significant redesign, internally and externally, rendered it obsolete, and the iPhone 4S with its new Siri feature, the new voice-controlled artificial-intelligence system, has probably rendered every other smartphone in existence, obsolete, it's such a huge jump forward. I used the D200 long after it was rendered obsolete by the introduction of superior designs of DX based DSLRs, and pro FX DSLRs.

As to film cameras, it's my belief that the D3S, and the D3X, along with their counterparts from other manufacturers, rendered 35mm film SLR cameras obsolete, even the F5 (which I still have) and the F6. There was a long time that these film cameras still had an edge over DSLRs in the quality of their output. That time is over in my opinion. That being said I do believe that in medium and large formats, film cameras such as Hasselblads may not be quite obsolete, but if they are not, they soon will be, as digital technology has progressed amazingly far in recent years.

One can look at the highest quality "photo" magazines to conclude that. I am not certain if the last National Geographic photographer using film has retired (there has only been one film photographer left on their staff for a while now as the others switched to digital), but in general National Geographic magazine switched over to digital based photography a few years ago. Even Vogue Magazine, a hold-out now has photographers using digital cameras. Annie Leibovitz, the celebrated fashion photographer who shoots many Vogue layouts uses DSLRs and digital Hasselblads. In fact, in her book, "At Work" she says that she thinks digital has a distinctive intensity and captures what you see in color better.

So, to answer your question definitely, "Are film cameras obsolete? Is the F6 'No longer in use, outmoded in design, style, or construction...?'" yes, in my opinion they finally are at this point in time, at least the ones in the 35mm category, and even in the medium format category. In the large format category, perhaps not, but not for long. Of course, this doesn't imply that you still can't get nice images from those obsolete cameras.

To go into a bit more depth, I think they are obsolete for a variety of reasons beyond the actual capability of DSLR cameras to record images well, with features and capability which exceed that of the film cameras they have replaced. I think there are two other major factors which come into play; cost and digital darkroom. Trying to anticipate the argument of others that this is outside the scope of the camera itself, I can't agree. Producing a photograph is more than camera equipment itself, but instead has always been a process which includes the darkroom, only today's darkroom (digital) isn't dark. Plus cost always comes into play with any technology. I believe it's fair to bring this into the discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that overall, digital photography has brought down the cost of photography. The fact is that most people no longer send their photos away to "Kodak" for developing and printing, or do it themselves in the traditional darkroom, and that in general, most photographs are no longer printed at all, but displayed in other ways. The money saved by photographers by no longer having to pay for film processing and print making is staggering. It has freed people to take more and more photos without incurring huge costs, and to experiment, as it costs virtually nothing to do so.

We need only to look at the world in general, beyond the world of the photography enthusiast, or professional photographer to see that film cameras are no longer in use and digital is the camera type du jour. Heck, many have even dropped "digital cameras" for cell phone digital cameras. (The photo capability of the new iPhone 4S (8MP) is amazing.)

I had my own darkroom from the time I was in 7th grade, many, many years ago. Starting with B&W photography, eventually I even went to color darkroom work too. My Omega color head is in my attic now. (I probably should have sold it long ago.) I learned a lot about darkroom work via Ansel Adams (workshops and books), who was a master at correcting and manipulating in the darkroom using many tools and techniques. Darkroom work was tiring due to the hours on end you needed to spend to produce "special" high quality prints, and it was expensive. The work was exacting and difficult. There was a real art in using the tools available that was necessary to learn and perfect.

The digital darkroom, on the other hand, has revolutionized the work we used to do in the film darkroom, in so far as the cost of processing, the ease of processing, and the time it takes to process a photograph. This triumvirate of difference has been a major factor in the obsolescence of film photography, in my opinion. No longer do you need expensive enlargers, filters, trays, chemicals and other equipment. No longer do you need to spend large amounts of time to produce a single high quality enlargement. No longer does it take literally years to learn how to dodge and burn well. Indeed, the digital darkroom has played a major role in making film cameras obsolete.

The world of photography as we knew it for almost 180 years is over, obsolete, replaced by the rapidly changing world of digital photography across the globe. Those changes have rendered wonderful cameras like the F6, even though it's still in production today, obsolete, generally no longer in use, and outmoded in design.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
benveniste Moderator Awarded for is high level skills in various areas, including Macro and Landscape Photography Nikonian since 25th Nov 2002Wed 12-Oct-11 01:43 PM
9497 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#25. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 24


Boston Area, US
          

If it's obsolete, it doesn't mean the camera won't work, or isn't worthy of continued use.

When it comes to technology, I loathe the word "obsolete," and this debate shows why.

About half the dictionary definitions of the word imply that an obsolete item is of a "discarded type", or "is no longer in general use" or "no longer useful" or that "better" alternatives exist.

Another set of definitions focus on something being "outmoded in design or style" or simply that the item has been discontinued in favor of a newer item.

These two sets of definitions can produce very different judgments, especially for technology. For example, a slide rule is obsolete either criteria. But what about a computer CPU produced 2 years ago? Clearly, it's no longer being sold and better alternatives exist, but to say it's "no longer useful" is a gross exaggeration.

If you want to photograph a man spinning, give some thought to why he spins. Understanding for a photographer is as important as the equipment he uses. - Margaret Bourke-White

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Wed 12-Oct-11 09:21 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 24
Wed 12-Oct-11 09:27 PM by MelT

Petersburg, US
          

Ned...I have absolutely no discomfort over you using "obsolete". I simply do not understand the logic. The definition you posted included "no longer in use" and this is what I take issue with. We certainly do view the use of "obsolete" differently when it comes to cameras. Sure...the Polaroid Land Camera and the Kodak Instamatic are both "obsolete" and cannot be used any more because you simply cannot get film and flash cudes (in the case of the Instamatic). I guess I will continue to shoot and produce with cameras that are "obsolete" using lenses that I'm sure are considered "obsolete" since they have been replaced with newer models.

What is more important? The camera or lenses? They are both merely paper weights if you do not have a competent photography using them regardless if they are the latest and greatest pieces of technology or "obsolete". A competent photographer with cheap and obsolete equipment can still produce thought provoking and relevant images which can outshine the technically correct, perfectly focused with no fall-off, perfectly exposed but yet boring image taken with the latest and greatest equipment.

Far too much is made about equipment these days in forums and any time there is more than one photographer is in a group as oppose to discussions about "photography".


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Wed 12-Oct-11 09:29 PM
5908 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 32


Tacoma, US
          

Absolutely true, Mel. But the original question was only about cameras and lenses, which is why I questioned the relevance of the question in the first place. To me, this is a pretty pointless debate over a question with little practical value. People are generally smart enough to figure out if they need a new lens, camera or some training to achieve the results they want, based on where they are and what they have at the time. The answer of which is more important will change with the circumstances.

Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberWed 12-Oct-11 11:43 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 32


Philadelphia, US
          

Indeed! I think the photographer is more important than the camera or lens, but injecting the photographer into the equation is beyond the scope of the topic.

As to the definition of "obsolete" I have no problem if we agree to disagree about it, but I still would like to know what your definition is with regard to cameras, and why it should differ from a general definition. There is no reason in the world anyone has to have the same opinion on this subject, and I'd frankly be shocked if we did.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Thu 13-Oct-11 12:19 AM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 35


Petersburg, US
          

Ned....as long as I am able to use a given camera to capture an image, I feel it is not obsolete (or "no longer in use"). It is the final image that is important and not the equipment used to achieve it. Can I take images at the crazy-go-nuts ISO of the D700 or D3? Nope but there are so many other images that can be taken still out there. I still shoot film because of the different "look" that film brings to the table.

I am far from a luddite nor am I being overly defensive over the "obsolete" equipment I do shoot with. I am fully aware of the limitations. With my shooting the high ISO capability was not enough to get me to spend $5000 on a new camera that was still only produced a 12MP file. I am awaiting to see what the D800 will bring to the table.

If I can still produce images from a camera that draw the attention from others, I simply do not feel that camera is "obsolete". We will just have to agree to disagree.


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 13-Oct-11 12:43 AM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#37. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 36


Philadelphia, US
          

Thanks Mel. What you say makes sense, and now I fully understand your point of view.

Please enjoy the rest of your evening.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

KnightPhoto Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006Wed 12-Oct-11 07:30 AM
4262 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#23. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0


Alberta, CA
          

Hi Darrell,

I am at a stage where camera purchases are now the priority, by that I don't mean they are more important but I have the lenses that satisfy 90% of my photographic needs.

Once you have your core lenses then cameras become suddenly of more interest. I am planning on replacing my main and secondary FX cameras, compact camera, and any better high ISO DX camera in the coming years. I am an action and event shooter, so for me older cameras with poorer high ISO performance are obsoleted with each new generation because I rely on high ISO. For those shooting at base ISO and/or flash it is a completely different story of course, since base ISO has been very good for a lot of years now.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
DigitalDarrell Team Member Founding Member of the Nikonians writer Guild. Author of most of the NikoniansPress books. Charter MemberWed 12-Oct-11 02:49 PM
5947 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 23


Knoxville, US
          

>Hi Darrell,
>
>I am at a stage where camera purchases are now the priority,
>by that I don't mean they are more important but I have the
>lenses that satisfy 90% of my photographic needs.
>
>Once you have your core lenses then cameras become suddenly of
>more interest. I am planning on replacing my main and
>secondary FX cameras, compact camera, and any better high ISO
>DX camera in the coming years. I am an action and event
>shooter, so for me older cameras with poorer high ISO
>performance are obsoleted with each new generation because I
>rely on high ISO. For those shooting at base ISO and/or flash
>it is a completely different story of course, since base ISO
>has been very good for a lot of years now.
>
>Best regards, SteveK
>
>'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see
>without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
>My
>Nikonians gallery>
>
My Nikonians Blog

Steve,

Your experience exactly matches what I am talking about in my blog. Camera bodies come and go, but lenses stay for many years.




Digital Darrell

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

DigitalDarrell Team Member Founding Member of the Nikonians writer Guild. Author of most of the NikoniansPress books. Charter MemberWed 12-Oct-11 02:46 PM
5947 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0


Knoxville, US
          

I spoke of my Nikon D2X as being obsolete—only in the sense that it does not perform up to today's standards when taken off its base ISO of 100.

When comparing it with my other Nikons, the D2X cannot hold its own at the 400 ISO level against the D300S, D7000, and not even close to the D700/D3S (FX). So, yes, the D2X is obsolete for many commercial purposes, except for landscape shooting where I can leave it at base ISO on a tripod. Is it completely obsolete? No. For some shooters who have no better camera, the D2X still performs better than 35mm film, with less grain and better color. For a person who cannot afford a newer camera, the D2X is a fine choice.

As to my "investments" in lenses, yes, I am a commercial photographer, shooting weddings, traditional stock photography (I own http://www.NatureOfTravel.com), and portraits in my own studio. Therefore, my equipment is an investment. Lenses, in particular, can be sold later for a price that is often quite close to what one paid for the lens, if it is a higher-end lens. Not so with the cheaper, plastic lenses.

Many people delight in buying older equipment and saving lots of money. For someone shooting for pleasure that is fine. However, for a commercial shooter who must please clients, it is much harder to use older equipment, merely because the competition does not and one must compete with them. Planned obsolescence is the reality in this greedy commercial world.




Digital Darrell

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Wed 12-Oct-11 08:29 PM
2721 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 26


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>...Planned obsolescence is the reality in this greedy commercial world.

I'd take issue with at least the tone of this comment, Darrell, especially in the context of the current thread. Of course, manufacturers realize their products won't last forever, and there is no point in making them more durable than they need to be to last as long as users want to use them.

But look at your Nikon cameras and lenses. It seems to me Nikon is making them as good as technology at the time allows. They didn't make the D70 with the intention of making a camera that would become obsolete, even though they knew that technology would develop to the point that in a few years there would be much better cameras. They couldn't have made a better camera than the D70 at the time they made it. The same is true now of the D7000. Even though they know technology will allow better cameras in the future, the D7000 is the best technology will allow today, and nothing about it is designed to become obsolete. Eventually it will, but only because future technological advances will allow better cameras to be made.

I'd say the same thing about my car. My fist car was a Volkswagen, which needed a tune-up every 3000 miles, or it would quit running. My current car will go 100,000 miles between tune-ups (the manufacturer says, but I'm not there yet). It has more power than the VW, and also gets better gas mileage. Volkswagen didn't design my first car to become obsolete, but (despite the fact that people still drive them) it became obsolete because technological advances allowed auto companies to make better cars. I don't see how my current car could be better given current technology, and I can't think of anything in any of the cars I've owned that was designed to become obsolete.

Back to cameras, it seems to me companies are making the best cameras and lenses they can at this time, and are not designing any features into them with the plan that the products become obsolete. They will become obsolete, but only because technological developments allow us to have better and better products as time goes on.

Off my soap box,

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Wed 12-Oct-11 08:35 PM
5908 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 30


Tacoma, US
          

Well stated, Randy. I can't add a thing to what you said.

Mick
www.mickklassphoto.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Thu 13-Oct-11 04:55 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#38. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 26
Thu 13-Oct-11 04:57 PM by MelT

Petersburg, US
          

>Planned
>obsolescence is the reality in this greedy commercial world.

This is a rather silly statement. When it comes to camera equipment, I do not see "planned obsolescence" just like I do not see it with automobiles. Both are competitive markets and manufacturers produce to take a step past their competitors. Advances in technology allows the adding of features to a camera and to make it better then previous models. Do you really think there is are calculated plans made by Nikon or Canon to leave out features in their top cameras when they are introduced so it can be added to the next model of the camera? Their world is so competitive, they are going to go with every tested feature they can to surpass the other's offering.

Sure, both will leave out functionality on their lower end cameras but this is a price point decision. I really do not feel this is the case with their top cameras.

Would you call your car, that is only 3 years old, "obsolete" when a new redesigned model comes out with a lot of new sexy features? I know I don't because that 3 year old car can still do what I need it to do and that is to get from point A to point B. So what that it doesn't have a GPS, bluetooth, satelite radio come automatically installed. I weigh the cost of the new features and decide if I really need them or not. I do the EXACT same thing with cameras. This is why I have a problem with the labeling of older camera equipment as "obsolete" because a person can still produce great photography with them.

With regards to needing to buy new equipment to keep up for competitive reasons, I do understand this to a degree. While I am not a full-time pro, I do get hit up quite a bit for weddings, senior portraits among other things which I routinely turn down because it simply is not thing. I pick and choose what I will decide to shoot for pay. I have the freedom to do this. NOT once have I ever been asked "what camera do you use?" when a person is asking me to shoot for them. People will ask me to shoot for them because they have seen my work. My work speaks for itself. They could care less whether I am shooting with the latest and greatest camera or not. Do you get people ensuring that you are only using the latest and greatest cameras before hiring you?

Just keeping it real. Rant over...


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Fri 14-Oct-11 07:26 PM
10910 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#39. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

>...Planned obsolescence is the reality in this greedy commercial world.

I think if that were the case with Nikon we would see far more models, with yearly upgrades adding a feature here or there.

Nikon seems to upgrade only when there is such a major advance in technology that not only does it make sense but the owners of the prior models, for the most part, feel compelled to upgrade.

And I've never seen anyone complain about the unending stream of new models . Quite the opposite!

It seems to me that the body vs lens debate comes down to two body feature sets:

1. High ISO capability
2. Autofocus capability

For those that need neither I think all modern cameras are close enough that the body doesn't count much in terms of base ISO image quality. Yes, there are differences but there are certainly diminishing returns. Some claim they can look at an image stripped of exif and immediately determine the body based on image quality and characteristics. I can't. And I'm not sure that is the right way to look at an image

For those that need those two characteristics (and I am one of them) I think it is a complex juggling act to assemble all the right tools for the job.

I always feel uneasy buying a body because I know it will be considered dog meat in 2-4 years. Lenses are far easier to rationalize. Even my 70-200 original version is obsolete, but not as obsolete as my D70 and D2h I bought around the same time

If you want to experience lens obsolescence take a 500/4 AFS without VR and go shoot next to someone with a new modern VRII lens in challenging light.

I do have the satisfaction of claiming that Real Men Don't Use VR. But what was I saying about rationalizing things before ? -

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
benveniste Moderator Awarded for is high level skills in various areas, including Macro and Landscape Photography Nikonian since 25th Nov 2002Fri 14-Oct-11 10:37 PM
9497 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#40. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 39


Boston Area, US
          

It seems to me that the body vs lens debate comes down to two body feature sets:

1. High ISO capability
2. Autofocus capability


I wouldn't go that far. While I believe an end to the megapixel wars is in sight, alas I don't think we are there quite yet. Also, one of the reasons I haven't upgraded my D200 is I keep hoping for camera with the usable dynamic range of the now discontinued Fuji dSLR's.

If you want to photograph a man spinning, give some thought to why he spins. Understanding for a photographer is as important as the equipment he uses. - Margaret Bourke-White

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberFri 14-Oct-11 11:53 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#41. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 40


Philadelphia, US
          

I agree that the MP war is still with us, as it should be. While MP isn't everything, it's not unimportant. I understand about MP and IQ, and I also understand what more MP can do for my photography.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Sat 15-Oct-11 01:04 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#42. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 41


Petersburg, US
          

More megapixels at a lower cost then the present D3X is what would influence me to upgrade cameras. The reason for this? Because I want to take a leap in image size when I exhibit. Unfortunately, what comes with the purchase of a new camera with perhaps 24MPs will come the necessary expense of a larger format printer. No need having more MPs if you can't print it out.


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Sat 15-Oct-11 07:04 PM
2721 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#43. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 41


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>... I also understand what more MP can do for my photography.

This is a new issue manufacturers have to deal with. I have a 12mp camera and I've never wanted more. But I would like lower noise at high ISOs and greater dynamic range. I understand what you're saying, Ned. It's true for you but not for every DSLR buyer.

Only a few years ago everybody wanted more of everything. More mp, more dynamic range, lower noise, better color. etc. Every advance was welcomed by every buyer. Now, current cameras have all the mp some buyers (like me) want, but not as many as other buyers (like you) want.

Seems to me Nikon went in a good direction with the D3, making two cameras. I'd love to see this in the D400 too. More mp for those who want it, but also a 12mp sensor for those who want better performance in other dimensions.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberSat 15-Oct-11 08:02 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#44. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 43


Philadelphia, US
          

Randy, I never said or inferred that my opinion of what I want is what I think everyone should want. On the contrary, I was clear that my opinion was my own.

As our (scientists and engineers) understanding of the technology improves, and as new discoveries are made, why can't we look ahead to more MP to save more detail, and give us the ability to produce larger prints and displays, and lower noise at higher ISO levels, and improvements in other performance measures? Why should 12MP be the end of the line for that measure, to achieve other performance improvements?

Having observed first hand how amazing photos can be, landscape photos, for example, from the D3X, due to the detail in the images, for example, I'm guessing that many who believe they don't "need" more pixels are right, but that if they saw what more pixels could do for their photography, many would nevertheless want more, if they could at least have other performance measures such as high ISO with low noise remain the same, or better yet, improve.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Sat 15-Oct-11 11:28 PM
2721 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#45. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 44


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

Your comment makes me think you thought I was disagreeing with what you had said earlier, but just the opposite, I was agreeing. I was saying that for some people, like you, more pixels produce better photographs. At the same time, for photographers like me, more pixels would bring minimal benefits at best. I'm an amateur hobbyist with no ambitions to make money in any way from my photography. Occasionally I print as large as 20"x30", and not only do the 12mp photos from my D300 look good to me at that size, so do some 6mp photos I've printed from my D50. I did my first one just as an experiment to see what a D50 print would look like at 20"x30", and was so pleased I had more made. (I don't print them myself.) My largest print is 4 feet by 6 feet! And it looks wonderful. (I took a team photo of a high school basketball team and gave a jpg to the coach, who had it blown up and put on the gym wall.)

I don't doubt that if I were doing fine art landscapes for galleries I'd see a benefit to more pixels, but for many shooters, like me, I think there are minimal benefits to more.

I do need DSLR performance, though. I shoot a lot of sports in poorly lighted venues, and I shoot a lot of bands in dark clubs, and those are two pretty challenging assignments.

I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you, Ned. I was saying that now that 12mp is at the low end for DSLRs, different photographers will be looking for different things in new cameras, and that's a challenge to manufacturers they didn't face only a few years ago when all photographers wanted more of everything. And that's why I said I'd really like it if Nikon split the DX00 line like they've done with the D3, making one with lots of pixels and another with fewer to enhance performance in other dimensions. I'd want the latter.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberSat 15-Oct-11 11:55 PM
6619 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#46. "RE: Cameras versus Lenses – Which is More Important?"
In response to Reply # 45


Philadelphia, US
          

Thanks Randy. I did misunderstand your comment. Thanks for clearing it up.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby MULTILINGUAL NIKONIANS English Cafι (Public) topic #76613 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.