Zeke wrote:
Since the photographer is the main link in the photographic process, how will the photo be affected if a lesser quality lens is used on a pro quality camera body? It would seem that the lens would be the limiting link in a quality. Even if it is photoshopped would a pro quality lens produce the best result. It seems good lenses make excellent photos if everything else stays the same.
As with all generalizations, there are exceptions. Top of the line PRO gear is produced. primarily, for the following reasons, and situations. The users, mainly professionals and serious and highly skilled enthusiasts and artists need and are willing to pay for tools that are robust and durable. This usually includes redundant recording media, extra battery capacity, weather sealing, durable metal framing etc. From a Body performance standpoint, this includes the highest quality and capacity (to an extent) Sensor, highest performing image processing internal to the camera software, high ISO capability with little IQ depredation, fast buffering, fast frame rate capability. From a lens standpoint, this includes excellent glass and advanced anti-everything coatings, large and efficient and distortion free light gathering characteristics. These usually include wide maximum apertures.
These are all aimed at providing the top end user with a tool that will make and record as close to an excellent quality image in the most extreme conditions, no matter what. These are tall orders and they come with an correspondingly high price tag.
But, in the hands of an average or even above average enthusiast, these dream machines and lenses could be a detriment to their photography because of the excess of functions, features, controls, etc., not to mention their weight and size.
On average, most really fine photographs are taken in benign conditions, fairly good light with stationary or subjects moving at normal speeds. Often a tripod is also used. Most of these photos are captures within the f4-f8 "sweet spots" of even "kit lenses" and certainly within the higher quality ranges of good enthusiast level lenses--without relying on the special capacities of the expensive Pro level lenses. Moving subjects are usually photographed at "Spectator" distances, rather than Pro photographer's special access shooting positions, not requiring l high speed capture capabilities.
Within these more normal conditions where most of us dwell and practice our photography, the results of an equally skilled photographer (NOT to be underestimated) using Pro super gear, and a more modest "enthusiast rig" are usually indistinguishable. And especially when presented on screen, or displayed up to 11"x14" or maybe one step more, at normal viewing distances.
Simple message: unless you shoot in extreme conditions, or have unusually high resolution demands, the biggest determining factor is (CLICHE ALERT) what's 12" behind the lens. The camera, while vastly advanced beyond "the day" usually doesn't do much more functionality than the original definition as: "A light-tight box holding recording medium supporting a lens and providing for an ability to focus the image."
Since "Obsession" is a widely shared condition amongst this community, myself included, maybe it is best to obsess on our visualization, composition, exposure evaluation (NO IT'S NOT THE METER'S JOB!), and focus selection. Leave the GAS to the environmentalists and politicians.
In a mood,
Craig
PS: NOTE I never mentioned a mirror--once.