Ugly Hedgehog Newsletter

So which one is more important, the glass or the body. I have been holding off buy lenses, because I dont want to wasting my money, buying expensive lens for my entry level camera. I have a Canon Rebel.

Ken

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Tricky question, with a number of options:
Entry level bodies and "kit" lenses are usually pretty well matched to each other. With any upgrade, you stand the risk of using an entry level body with lenses that are more capable than the bodies, or in the event of an upgrade, a body that outshoots the "kit" lenses.

Common logic is that upgrading lenses (or "L" lenses in the case of Canon) achieves more Image Quality. However, L lenses are quite expensive new and high priced on the used market. Furthermore, you lock yourself into the System and somewhat committing to Canon when the time comes to upgrade more lenses and higher level cameras.

If you're fully convinced that you are a Canon shooter, then I'd probably opt for a lens in the L range first. Your best bet would be a 50, or 85 prime to spend a bit less money and to see if you can dig a bit more IQ out of your Rebel. Then, I'd seriously examine whether Canon will work for you before committing to the system.

Remember that is does not behoove Canon (or Nikon and others) to make the Rebel shoot like the Pro bodies, just because you have Pro glass. They must escalate the return on R&D by making higher level glass work better on higher level bodies.

Lot's of research involved, and your question is just the beginning.

Almost better to rent or borrow (?) upgrade glass before you can truly decide.

Then there is a the issue of third party glass. Sigma and Tamron are noted third party lens makers, who often match image quality to Canon lens sharpness and rendering, but who also occasionally experience issues with Quality Control.

Yes, you guessed it! The hobby is expensive, fraught with wrong choices and much research. Good luck.

Try one lens upgrade, and then be prepared for either making a commitment to the system by considering an upgrade body, before spending high dollars for a second lens.

Also remember that neither Canon nor Nikon meet all peoples needs. There's plenty of switching to Sony, Sigma, Pentax, and many others by people who all have different needs for capabilities and budget.

The good news is that a lot of Canon and Nikon equipment gets sent to the "used" camera marketplace.

To go back and answer your initial question. First important move is "AWAY" from kit glass. Second most important move is to assess two things. Your commitment to a MFR system and then a higher grade body, most likely in and APS body or perhaps Full Frame. When talking cameras, it appears a lot of people like to shoot in the dark (perhaps literally), so ISO (noise) is a significant talk factor. I find that humorous, since most of the time I am in low light, I am there to enjoy an event.... not memorialize it in photographs. People are odd, don't you think?

MovingMountains

I'm not a professional photographer, but I take photos professionally, if that makes any sense. I photograph homes that I have designed or staged for use in marketing the homes for sale. I currently have a Nikon D90 and a Nikon 14-24mm2.8 AFS lens. I used a D40 for years with this lens and was able to take beautiful photos with this combo. Of course the D90 is much more functional and takes higher quality photos. IMO if you can only afford one, the glass is the most important factor. Purchase a lens that will still work for you when you are able to upgrade the body.

I agree that renting equipment before you buy is the way to go. I rented a Nikon 14-24 mm lens on 3 separate occassions before I purchased to make sure it lived up to my expectations.

Randyb1969 Loc: Armpit of California

I think MM touched on a very important point. When looking to upgrade your lens, keep in mind that it be compatible with future body upgrades. I know with canon, the EF-S lenses don't work on every model camera. Strait EF lenses are more expensive, but they are generally better and will fit whatever you go with in an upgrade down the road (assuming you stick with Canon).

Randyb1969 Loc: Armpit of California

I should also note that it also depends on what you're talking about body wise. If you're using a T2i, upgrading to a T3i or 60D isn't a huge jump. But if you're using an XT or even XTi, the addition of IS and video capabilities along with the huge jump in resolution could be a very compelling argument over a lens upgrade.

flyingscot4

I remember an internationally famous photographer named Gerhard Bakker who had a great answer for the question. His camera was a bottom-of-the-line Minolta SRT 101 with three inexpensive lenses, none of which were "fast" (or expensive) lenses. His 50mm was an f2, his 24mm was f3.5, and his 135mm was an f4.0. He just got the "best" out of his glass and his average exposure (he said) was at f8.0! I only asked him about his lens once, and he said, "I'll write it down for you," which he did. The note on the piece of paper he gave me was, "T-R-I-P-O-D," and that is still the least expensive piece of my equipment. High equipment cost is never a good substitute for knowledge, creativity, and judgement. Rather than expensive anything, knowledge can be bought (photography schools or courses) and it is never out-dated, it doesn't break down, and it can't be replaced with money. Very few of us who made our living with a camera started out with good equipment. I put my Hasselblads away and retired a few years ago, but I didn't start with them. It took me 20 years in the field with far less expensive equipment to really learn what good photography is, and it doesn't start with a camera or lens. I suggest that you put your money in you! Just a little different perspective.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

The faster lens will allow you to use faster shutterspeeds and smaller f stop numbers. Get the fastest glass you can afford. A couple more things to think about. One research the lenses you are thinking about. Go to pophoto.com and check out their buyers guide. Popphoto still does the best reviews and testing especially lenses in the business. Second if you decided on a lens you want go to keh.com,adorama.com, or b+hphoto.comm and click on used department. These are the three most trusted names in used equipment. You can save some serious moola buying used.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

There truly is no substitute for the photographer's skill. In no particular order:

1) You can develop steady hands and learn to use your environment when a tripod is not available. A 200mm lens should be able to be used at 1/8 of a second (full frame) with no extra helping support but your hands and body. The picture of the Hoover Dam shown here was handheld at over 1 second exposure time (using available steadiness augmentation - a place to plant my elbows) shooting on slide film in the days before digital.

2) You can learn composition and when to shoot. Motor drives are only there to keep your eye on the action. There is always one best moment, and you must strive to capture it. As a photo editor, I once went through 50,000 images from three "photographers" shooting on a not ready for prime time modeling TV show. Six models were involved, and I had to find five good images of each model. From 50,000 images, I could not find the 30 images. It is NEVER about quantity or hearing the "motor drive" of a digital camera click away. It is ALWAYS about the ONE shot. In the old days, 36 exposures of color slide film cost the photographer about $18 to shoot. $0.50 PER CLICK. The idea of mindlessly shooting 10,000 images NEVER came up, yet it does now in the "free" digital age. A pro gets the shot, regardless, in just a few frames.

3) You can learn lighting, or at least, begin to appreciate the fact it's an ongoing skill. Sure, there's many a career based on maybe half a dozen "looks" (or fewer) but that is the nature of the beast, being recognized for your look. Lighting is kindred to EXPOSURE, and they must work in harmony to achieve a photograph. There are billions of snapshots, but only a very few "photographs." When you know how to deliver the difference, if only in a specific way which is your look, well, there's your career, marketing, nepotism, hand-shaking, back scratching, and kicking in their teeth aside. The second image is a daylight portrait, shot outside, like in noon-day sun, no strobes, no lights, but standard daylight lighting controls employed, along with a green screen to make for a more interesting background.

But then, back to glass v. body.

I have shot with Tamron's best pro lenses. They do not belong on a camera and are better as boat anchors. Ditto for Sigma. Buy the best lens you can afford from your camera manufacturer's line. You can always tell the good ones when the price jumps stratospherically. Where you can save a bundle: buy the best non-auto anything lens (manual focus and iris) which forces you often to work in manual mode. Such lenses will allow you to focus on SKILLS like those mentioned above. Besides, once you know which way to turn for infinity, and get the relationship between shutter speed and f/stop, things afforded you by going manual, you will begin to become a photographer and not so much a snapshooter.

Hoover Dam by Richard Brown


Exterior Daylight Portrait by Richard Brown

notnoBuddha

The ongoing debate. Should one spend the top dollar for the most expensise lens, or is there a point where the best is a quality where 99.99% of the people will never be able to tell the difference? Myself if I was not a commercial photgrapher who was shooting hundreds of photos a month, many greatly enlarged, most for very demanding clients I would pocket the extra money or take some classes. If I was one that had myself convinced that I had to have the very best at whatever cost - and rationalized that this would make me better; I doubt if anyone could talk me out of it. Do not kid yourself - marketing is as much about human emotions then about the product. Good luck.

flyingscot4

Well said! Being diabetic with the associated tremors never allowed me to get below 1/15th. Both of the photographs you showed are brilliant. I can't think of one pro photographer that would not be happy with those images.

Back to tripods - they force you to slow down and think about your finished photograph. I travel a lot and spend a lot of time taking travel snapshots, but I still use a tripod or monopod most of the time. I absolutely agree with you about the old manual lenses that are available and are very reasonably priced. It's another way to make the photographer think about the final image. Cheers.

docjoque Loc: SoCal

I remember a seminar i went to in 1980ish to listen to a world renowned photog. I was just getting into photography, so much of what he said was over my head. Something that he said (that didn't make sense to me at the time), finally sunk in 20 year later when I finally experienced it for myself.

He said, "A body is a body is a body. The glass is what's going to make jaws drop. Determine a budget and figure out how much you can possibly spend on a lens - then double it!"

I always did the opposite. I spent a fortune on bodies, and scrimped on the glass. I never thought about it, because my pictures were great (so I thought). I bought my first L series lens and the VERY FIRST picture did make my jaw drop. I had forgotten what I had heard 25 years earlier, but it all came flooding back after that first shot.

I met a photog in the field who was shooting with an old Pentax camera. I recognized him and asked him why he was shooting with a old Pentax, especially when he was sponsored by Canon. He said basically the same thing; the body doesn't matter and it's all about the lens. His favorite lens happened to be a Pentax lens, so when he was by himself and thought there was no chance of running into people, he'd ditch his Canon and shoot his Pentax.

So back to making me a believer: I have a 1D, 5D, 7D, and a Rebel. I don't notice a difference in the bodies, but I notice a huge difference with the lenses.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Your #2 point for me brings up wedding photography today. Most wedding packages I see advertised include something like 1500 edited shots to the customer on DVD after 1800 to 2400 shots taken during the wedding day. It wasn't that long ago that I shot weddings with about 325 shots taken and the customer was overwhelmed with 225-250 decent shots to choose from for a package of 150 prints. At 325 shots I had a hard time squeezing out even one more molecule of creativity after shooting everything from preparations at the bride's home through to drunk Uncle Bob laying face down on the table in a pool of his own vomit at the reception.

So what in the hell can a main photographer and a second shooter (maybe even a third shooter) take 2400 pictures of on a wedding day? The bride scratching her butt? The groom picking his nose? The bride trying to get into a bathroom stall with her dress up over her head? A macro shot of the tire tread depth on the rented limo? I don't get it.

It seems to be a competitive marketing technique to include so many shots in a package when in reality most of them are going to be mundane or just plain bad. 2000 shots in 12 hours is one shot every 2.77 seconds and there isn't something going on every 2.77 seconds. I talked to a photog at a reception a month ago and she said she still likes to shoot manual although her Canon cameras do an excellent job on Auto. Shoot manual and shoot every 2.77 seconds? That's about as likely as Lee Harvey Oswald getting off 3 shots in 3.x seconds. Flashes can barely recharge themselves in 2.77 seconds.

Post-edited shots that are resized for later printing, exposure fixed, cropped, and color corrected would require a minimum of 3 minutes of editing X 1500 shots = 4500 minutes of editing time minimum which is 75 hours (unless it's bulk editing). 75 hours of editing for a single wedding plus the 12 hour day of shooting? Okay, so they make $1800 for the package but that's averaging less than $1.00 per edited shot which is lame.

That seems as mind-numbingly stupid as taking 50,000 exposures to maybe get 30 decent ones. I once read that a Sports Illustrated model shoot typically was 15,000 FILM shots per model which I thought was also excessive.

User ID

Depends on your intentions.

(Download)

User ID

Mindnumbingness and weddings are inseparable. So what else is new ? Fast forward ten years if you wanna see it get even more worserer.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Zombie resurrection of 2011 thread.
Why? Did you mistakenly hit <Last> rather than <Next>?