dinosaur39 Loc: Harpers Ferry, WV

This thread reminds me of the old saw: "If you had Ernest Hemingway's typewriter, would you be able to write The Sun Also Rises?"

Our photo club recently enjoyed a presentation by an award winning wildlife photographer who shoots only in color film. Pretty good shots, because she is a pretty good photographer.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

could somebody explain the difference between a snap shot and a photograph. still confused

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are correct with one caveat: We were able to play with the film parameter as the film choice was an important parameter. That choice has been removed from us.

Now we are dealing with sensors that for the most part are not able to exploit all the benefits of a 'good glass' so what are we left with?

Hype.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Off topic, please create a thread as this can be a topic all by itself as it is a matter of opinion.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

If you are testing basic quality in a lab this may be true but in real life I would say the most important component for good pictures is the nut on the shutter button!

Taking the Royal Photographic Society as an example - there have been many award winning images taken with a crop sensor camera and low price lens. In contrast - there are many people with extremely expensive cameras and 'top glass' who have never even been placed! I know a couple of photographers who regularly win completions with Canon 650D or 700D and Tamron 18 - 270mm lens.

Possibly the ones with expensive equipment are busy cuddling and drooling over it while those with cheaper equipment not only have learned how to use it but go out and use it when ever they can! :D

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Once again this about a match between elements not what folks are capable of doing.

The adage 'buy great lens' does not hold truth anymore.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Buy good glass Is a fix it all with folks with too much money and No skills. Good Glass does work with Good skills. You can't buy yourself into good photography, and to blame it on the sensor now is just too funny,Period...........

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I partially disagree with your statements. I said I partially disagree because indeed the sensor matters and I am in full agreement with you that if the sensor is "crappy" a professional optics will not render the quality images that we expect from the lens. Fortunately, there is no such a thing as a crappy sensor any more and the quality of modern sensors have been in crescendo for several years now.
When we were using film we had great choices to fit the film to our purposes and instead wedding photographers had to settle with "fast" films meaning at the time ISO 400. The quality of the enlargements using ISO 400 had a lot to be desired but we were used to it. Fuji unexpectedly introduced an ISO 800 film with "low grain" and many photographers found it to be very good for its stated ISO speed. It solved problems at the time for many wedding photographers.
It is only natural that photographers keep on wanting the latest and the best and for many of them zillions of megapixels is the goal. I do believe that for photographers that crop their images often more megapixels is a godsend. For the majority of those that do not practice cropping often 24 megapixels in a modern sensor are most probably all they need.
I remember one of the best cameras I ever had, the Nikon D2H. That camera used for the first time big, fat pixels in its sensor which allowed a better capture of light and the rendition of colors in my humble opinion was one of the best of all the cameras I have owned so far. It only had 4.1 megapixels and instead using good optics it was very capable of gorgeous images with lots of resolution to go to big enlargements if they were needed. Its main drawback was that it had tons of noise beginning at ISO 800 and for the wedding photographer that was a show stopper.
Modern AF engines are better than ever, not meaning I have something against using manual focus for those who want to work harder and most probably loose photo opportunities, especially the wildlife and action photographer. Old lenses and specifically OEM lenses are very good and they perform very well with modern cameras but to say that they are better than modern lenses is not necessarily a good statement. Technology has evolved a lot since those days and today optics are better and sharper than ever. Yes, they incorporate lots of plastics but those are resilient plastics most of which are the result of out of space research and perfectly suitable for photographic use. They have made our lenses lighter and because they do not contract during cold weather or expand during hot periods the chances of misalignment of the internal elements is practically nil. For many years they have proven their reliability.
DOF scales seem to be still very important for many old photographers (I am no spring chicken) but practically all modern cameras have a depth of field preview button and what better than to be able to actually see the real depth of field before we squeeze the shutter.
You are right, the circle of diffusion is different for a cropped sensor than it is for full frame and full frame lenses will fit perfectly well those cropped sensors that will only use the center part of the projected image by the lens where lenses are usually better. Just keep in mind that when those lenses were made digital was not even present in our wildest imagination. Lenses made for cropped sensors are designed to cover the area of the sensor and they can be used also with cameras that use the whole sensor although the camera will only use the area covered by the lens. To me that is a bonus although I know many others will not side with me on that.
Yes, the camera sensor is important, the camera firmware is important, the editing software we use is important and at the culprit of all of this is the photographer.

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

This is a Catch-22 situation. If you have good glass and a less than great sensor, your final product won't show the potential quality of the lens. If you have a great sensor in the camera and use a lesser lens, you won't get the best end result possible.

I have a Canon 60D and when I bought the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens, I saw a distinct improvement in color and sharpness of my photos over using the Canon 18-200mm EFS lens. Then I bought a Canon 6D and saw another improvement with the 70-200mm over the same lens on the 60D. Now I have a pretty full compliment of "L" glass lenses that I use on both the 6D and the 60D. The only non- "L" glass I use now is the Tamron 28-300mm lens. It's a great lens for general purpose shooting when I want to travel light, but when I have a specific photo I'm after, I only use the "L" glass lenses.

A great camera and a great lens won't make you a great photographer, but they will help improve the technical quality of photos from even a mediocre photographer. Since glass is often more expensive than the camera body, and you typically will accumulate at least several lenses, and since digital camera technology is expanding faster than lens technology, it is smart to buy the best glass you can afford. Otherwise, the ability to make full use of future camera sensor technology may be limited by your lenses.

That being said, there are many great photos that were taken with less than stellar cameras and lenses. The subject matter, framing and lighting will determine how good the picture is. But a good camera and lens might make it just a little bit better.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Its a proprietary algorithm that combines the several performance values of a lens into one overall value. We try to do this on our own and it is impossible to get an overall value. DPreview, which is probably the most authoritative site on camera and lenses out there has partnered with DxO for review information and analysis. THERE IS NO BETTER EMPIRICAL RESOURCE OUT THERE TODAY. If you don't understand it , don't knock it.

anotherview Loc: California

IMHO, image composition, framing, point-of-view, and exposure trump either lens quality or camera sensor capability, or both together.

Our human perception senses image graphic qualities first over other aspects of an image makeup.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Never considered glass "more" important. Have always considered it as important. Sometimes the match is magic, sometimes not so much.
The search continues .... LOL

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

lololo - and what do you mean by "Way Better". Come on answer that!!!. Today's lenses have less chromatic aberration, distortion and have coatings to reduce flares and enhance sharpness and saturation. This overgeneralized statement is just garbage. And to compound the pundit, he is "stuck" with the D800E which still remains as one of the top cameras ever made.

Let me go one step further, it is not the camera nor the lens! it's the photographer!#@!! If you can't get good images with a D800E and any of today's lenses, you just not a photographer.

You discount AF, then obviously you have limited your work to stills. Good for you but from that stand point, you really can generalize or discount anything about today's lenses.

Old glass still renders good images but they do not displace today's top of the line lenses by any means.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Which is why I keep showing up asking questions about cameras and lenses before purchasing.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

I wonder if the older lenses are in the database in LR and other programs that can correct for lens abberations etc.