jgitomer Loc: Skippack Pennsylvania

I know you are a Canon shooter and may not know that in the case of Nikon ALL of the current bodies are capable of capturing excellent images :lol:

All kidding aside you do raise a valid point.

Given the current crop of kit lenses on both Canon and Nikon most amateur photographers won't see much, if any, improvement in image quality from a more expensive lens for MOST of their photographs.

The one key exception I can think of is indoor photos of family and friends where an f/1.8 or f/1.4 50mm (35mm on a crop camera).

Jerry

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Upgrading lenses should be done with the body in mind: crop sensor or full frame. There are some great "crop sensor" lenses that would produce average results on a full frame camera. "Full frame" lenses would likely produce a better result on a crop sensor camera. If you plan to move to a full frame camera at some point in the future, buy the more expensive glass now.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Lenses. Invest in good glass. Get rid of the kit. Good glass will last a lifetime. Get Full Frame and be prepared to move to FF bodies in the future.

Guy Johnstone Loc: Ocean Shores WA

What do you what to do that you can't do now?

tradergeorge Loc: Newport, Kentucky

I always try to buy just the body when selecting a camera. This way, rather than accepting a lens that plays to the lowest common denominator, I can choose my own "walk-around" lens and save the money I would have spent on a seldom used kit lens. However, for some people, especially novices, the kit lens is the best choice, given their limited needs and budget. As usual, JMHO, YMMV

amehta Loc: Boston

In the film days, the camera, lens, and film were used to produce the image, and the camera was least involved in the actual light. With a digital camera, however, the camera includes all the film you can ever shoot with it, so I think the digital camera is at least as important as the lens.

Another consideration is that a good lens will serve you well for years, perhaps even decades, while a good digital camera is likely to be used for 4-8 years. Many point out that the lens will last for several cameras, but I think that is balanced by the camera being used with several lenses for the next few years.

For example, looking at the DxOMark scores for four combinations,
* Nikon D7100 + Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G: 19
* Nikon D5000 + Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G: 13
* Nikon D3200 + Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G: 18

* Nikon D7100 + Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR: 15
* Nikon D5000 + Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR: 9
* Nikon D3200 + Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR: 12
They did not list the D3000, D3100, or D5100. The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G is the one DX pro-level lens from Nikon. The scores with either the "good glass" or the "good camera" are all about the same. For the sensors,
* D7100: 24mp, 2013
* D5000: 12mp, 2009
* D3200: 24mp, 2012
* D610: 24mp, 2012/13, FX
so the D7100 and D3200 are pretty close because their sensors are similar. The D5000 has a weaker sensor and the better lens cannot make up for that.

If you want to toss FX options in the mix,
* Nikon D3200 + Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G: 19
* Nikon D3200 + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II: 21
* Nikon D610 + Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR: 21
* Nikon D610 + Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G VR: 20
Again, all basically the same and all in the same price range, $2000-2500. For context,
* Nikon D610 + Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G: 27
* Nikon D610 + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II: 28
* Nikon D3200 + Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR: 14
* Nikon D3200 + Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G VR: 12
The camera and the lens both seem to be worth about 7-8 points.

This is just about image quality. None of this discusses operability, features of the better cameras, and the idea that there are some shots which the better camera will get but the lower level camera simply won't, usually because it cannot focus as needed.

In a nutshell, I think "always put the money in the glass" is one of several (many?) mythical-memes.

tradergeorge Loc: Newport, Kentucky

Except......All other factors being equal, you will get better results with great glass on a mediocre camera body than you will with mediocre glass on a great body. I am sure this is not a myth or as you say, "meme". It has been constantly reinforced by many great and trustworthy people through long and arduous experience....Even the pixel-peepers are forced to agree when they see the evidence enlarged beyond recognition...Just my not so humble opinion, YMMV

amehta Loc: Boston

Except, the scores show that you will get basically the same results.

A lot of people repeat things they have heard without carefully looking at what is really going on. And in this case, I think people assumed that the statement was true for film, so it must be equally true for digital. I think that is a false extrapolation. With film, the lens gathers the light, the film records the light, and the camera is just the box which holds them together. But with digital, the lens gathers the light and the sensor records the light, but the sensor is part of the camera.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Thank you ahmeta for yet another wonderful post. You are a great asset to everyone here at UHH.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Thanks for this comparison.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Wow. Great post. You make a compelling case. Thanks.

Mike

amehta Loc: Boston

I can overwhelm with numbers! :lol:

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Better than wit, BS and profundity.

Though they are not necessarily mutually exlusive. :wink:

amehta Loc: Boston

:lol: :thumbup:

amehta Loc: Boston

Thanks, lighthouse. :-)