JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

And a high quality sensor won't handle light better than a cheap one?

MtnMan Loc: ID

If you mean use data over belief, the answer is yes.

Subject movement matters and is not part of DXOMark testing and should be independent of lens. But once again the camera matters most because that is where the focusing system and shutter are.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

OK so now your are basically saying that because DXO is objective on one level it is therefore objective on all levels????!!!!!! YOU MUST BE JOKING!

Lenses focus systems are different and they ARE NOT "independent of lens". The ability to lock focus varies. So either you are saying that DXO’s tests account for this because they account for other variables, or that it does not matter.

Or are you saying that a buyer should not care about the how quickly a lens focuses since DXO does not test for it?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

The lens is the most important part but it also depends on the kind of photography you do as to whether or not you should own a different camera body. If you shoot in low light conditions you might want one that has a good sensor that handles noise better than a camera made 8-10 years ago. If you shoot wildlife you may want a camera body that shoot 8-10 fps rather than one that only shoots 2.7 fps and the buffer is so small that you can't get more than 3 frame and it's full. So the bottom line is what do you like to shoot? Get the right body first and then think about the glass you want. If you already have a body that does what you want, go for better glass.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Good glass is nearly always a better bet than a camera upgrade.

The only exception would be if you have a particularly dated, low resolution camera and are looking at a big step up with important, newer features.

Otherwise, if you were selecting from all the DSLRs any particular manufacturer offers right now, you'd be better picking the cheapest model that fits your needs... the one with the minimal features you need... and putting some of their best glass on it.

Unfortunately this is just the opposite of what most manufacturers sell... they put their cheapest "kit" lenses on their consumer DSLRs and most people just gobble them up. We spend a lot more time comparing cameras, on the whole, than we do lenses. People even upgrade cameras in hopes that somehow their photos will improve, when the faults actually lie with the lens(es) they're using (or sometimes just with the way they are using them).

"Quality glass" effects image quality most directly. For example, today Canon crop sensor cameras range from 12MP T3 to 20MP 70D and their full frame from 18MP 1DX to 20MP 6D to 22MP 5D Mark III. You can spend anywhere from about $400 to well over $6000 on a Canon camera. For many uses, much of the time, most people will not see a lot of difference in their images between any of these models (there are more significant differences between features such as autofocus, frame rates, durability, etc.) But compare a $120 lens to a $1200 or $2400 lens on any one of those cameras and you can expect to see more of difference in your images. Besides optical superiority, "better glass" often also means autofocus drive that's faster and more accurate, larger apertures that both help AF performance and can make for stronger background blurs, and more advanced and effective versions of image stabilization than is typically found on the cheaper, more entry level lenses.

I'd normally council people to put about 1/3 of their budget toward the camera, 2/3 toward the lens(es) they'll use upon it. Maybe with a large budget that should be 1/4 vs 3/4 or even more. Unfortunately with kit lenses it often works out more the opposite. Still, that might be a good starting point (some kit lenses are fairly capable).

Someone already mentioned another key consideration... You are likely to upgrade cameras every few years, while lenses might see a much longer "life span". I still use three out of the four lenses I originally bought in 2001 when I first switched to Canon. I started with film cameras (two EOS-3 and an Elan 7E), first moved to crop DSLR (10D) in 2004, and have used several generations of DSLRs since (primarily 30D, 50D, 5DII, 7D), both crop and full frame. I've added glass over the years and grown my lens kit to about 20 today... But have only ever sold off and replaced one (an ultrawide zoom, when I was shooting crop sensor DSLR pretty much exclusively for a few years).

I also have some lenses that I could sell for more today, than I paid for them 8 or 10 years ago. And I've used them to take plenty of shots in the years between then and now. Meanwhile, the DSLR that cost me $2000 in 2004 is worth about $150 today. The film cameras have actually fared a little better... depreciated to approx 1/3 their original purchase price... but started out a lot cheaper too.

DSLRs aren't advancing now at nearly as fast a pace as they did in the 2000-2010 decade. So there might not be as much pressure to upgrade as frequently. For example, I've used my two 7Ds for nearly five years now and my 5D Mark II a little longer... But that may all change pretty soon.

If I do upgrade cameras, I'll largely be using the same lenses, some for as much as 10 or 12 years.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I didn't say any of those things.

I said I value test results over opinions. DXOMark is clear on what they include in their tests.

The dichomety you raise is false. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Stop being absurd of course you did. You attacked my simple statement that DXO was laboratory based with a sarchastic statement comparing my statement to Astrology.





Own up to your own words.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I did indeed equate your statements to Astrology.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Sage advice.
Also, computers aren't advancing much more now. ;)
So I believe we are moving at about as fast as people can (or desire to) for today's technology.

In my opinion, I think the D3300 is the bottom of the top offerings in affordable cameras.
It was more than I was thinking of spending when I jumped in, but I have no regrets.
I'm a Grandpa on a retirement budget wanting to record life and Grand kids around me. So "All of the Above" was my goal.
The D3300, with it's kit lenses (however mediocre to some opinions), has given us some great photographs.
Meanwhile, sales and price reductions do come along.
Only you know where you want to jump in. :-D

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

And "input regarding behavior in the field" could be from simple anecdotes or from actual experiments or research conducted in the field.

YOU leapt to the assumption that I must be referring to anecdotes rather than actual experiments or research, therefore your sarcastic, antagonistic remark.

Kuzano

If you are shooting using proper technique, proper metering for exposure and manual operation whereby YOU are controlling the settings, the camera quality is of little concern if:

The camera shoots proper shutter speed
The camera aperture works as it should
The recording media, film or digital is responsive to the subject and lighting situation to your satisfaction.

You should have noted by now that entry level cameras often use the same sensor as midlevel or Pro rated camera's. Often a mid or pro camera is simply a better build, and with more refined programming in the process engine, which generally affect only JPEG production.

If you are shooting RAW, the lesser camera will often produce the same RAW image with exception to the few capabilities and life span enhancements. ie better shutter box, mirror setup.

However the price differential will likely overcome the lifespan issues which are often controlled by camera care and lack of abuse. Shutter count expectations do not come into play as much as one thinks. I have had at least a half dozen cameras that exceed shutter life forecast by double. Not necessarily expensive camera's.

Professionals however will opt for the highest priced tools as they have the advantage of "writing off" or depreciating the price and they may more often use the advantage written into the camera's features.

Then, there are the people who equate price with quality....Hmmm. The very reason there is a market for Leica, Ferrari, Bentley and Range Rovers, all pretty much high maintenance and high shop time acquisitions in the transportation world.

These are opinions. I have purchase high end, but usually find that the lesser level camera's perform as well as high end, for my purposes and excellent glass, primes and fast apertures offer me much more return.

I don't see that there is, for most needs and desires, a down side to staying in the budget market for the camera, while I will spend more for high quality (proven) glass. Glass can be your onetime best purchase, within a MFR stable of lenses. Camera acquisition goes on.....and on..... and on....

And the evolution and actual image capability is somewhat the same in the budget level as in the mid to Pro-am level bodies.

Proper exposure
Proper Shutter Speed
Understanding of media speed of light capture
Understanding of white balance

Which can all be done with any manual camera, and using RAW to equal the playing field. Even then the process engine for JPEG is usually the same in the first three levels of any mfrs offering.

Just opinions here, for those whose jockeys are starting to "bunch up".

I will also say that none of my comments pertain to full frame, as that market is not appropriately a part of the original question. I have only had one FF camera... a Canon, and find the need for my purposes unnecessary. Just want to be clear that I would not pit a budget camera against a FF for this discussion.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I invite you to offer data of the quality of DXOMark. That would be of value.

Anecdotes are not of value. They are what supports false beliefs like Astrology. Nothing sarcastic in that factual statement.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

A lot of magazines take new equipment out in the filed and tes...

Oh, forget it. You have made up your mind and just want to avoid all other input.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

The message I get from your original post, is you want a lens for landscapes, (screams wide angle) and for "family photos" Although I shoot Canon, I'd suggest a lens like the Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC, in a Nikon mount. 24mm is a good wide angle, and 70mm will get in close enough for family photos, and the 2.8 is enough for low light situations. As far as the lens vs camera, it will be the lens to give you the photos, although the sensor size will matter as to a possible crop factor. Tamrons' VC will allow hand held shots of the family, and even landscapes. This lens will also double as a pretty good portrait lens, and works well with a speed light. Nikon also has a 24-70mm equivalent, but does not have VC, at my last look. The old saying holds , "Put the money into the lens, glass is forever."

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

MtnMan, your remark was completely uncalled for. It was meant purely to incite anger and had absolutely no place here in that conversation.
I did not see here anywhere, where the person you are responding to got personal with you.

DS deserves an apology for such rude behavior on your part, but I doubt you will give it. :thumbdown:
SS