not to cause a fight, but the photographer is relevant.

For example if someone came to me wanting to take sports photos of their grandchildren I would recommend a relatively inexpensive body and a 70-200 2.8 lens. I believe the lens is more important than the body in that case.

If someone else wanted to take landscape photos I might suggest a Nikon D810 and a 24-70 zoom.

Who the photographer is and what they are doing dramatically impacts what camera they need and whether the lens or body is more important.

Those who are arguing that the body is more important have a point. If the body the individual currently has is more than 5 years old they will get more benefit from a new body. However, that will be true of any new body not just the best.

It would be foolish for an inexperienced photographer to buy a D4s and a kit lens when he or she could get a 24-70 and a 70-200 along with a medium body for the same price.

All three components matter and I'm not the only one who said the photographer is most important. I just said it different than the other two who made the same point.

As long as you are getting a body that is up to date I will still side with the side that says best lens money can buy is more important than best body money can buy.

Medium camera great lens is better than great camera mediocre lens, but neither matters if the photographer isn't competent or doesn't have the equipment necessary for the kind of photography they are interested in.

Your answer is slightly specious. You would think that more expensive or "better" cameras would have "better" sensors. This is not nearly as true as it might (or should) be.... Sometimes, several cameras in a line use the same sensor, and in many cases, even the higher resolution sensors use the same technology as others. The truth is that above a certain point, the body ceases to be a governing factor in image quality. However, a better lens can contribute to much greater clarity and overall image quality....The rule of thumb as I understand it is to buy a decent camera body that has the features you need, and buy the best lenses you can afford.

Those experts are out of date. They were correct with film because all cameras could use the same film. They are not correct with digital cameras.

The best way to move from opinions to real data is to check out some lenses on DXOMark. Look at the results for different lenses on the same camera as compared to the same lens on different cameras. You will find that in many cases (most, maybe nearly all unless the cameras have the same sensor) the camera makes MUCH more effect than the lens.

OK T, time to get serious here? :lol:
Take that same 5dmklll and put that same 50mm Zeiss lens on it. Now take one of the new 50mp 5Ds's and put the 50mm f1.8 plastic fantastic on it. Stop them both down to say f8.
At 2 1/2 times the mp, which of those two cameras do you think will have the better IQ in a print at 60" x 48" with the lenses that I mentioned ?? And that's an EXTREME lens example.
I realize the new 5s is not out yet but I can tell you where I'm gonna put my money!! :lol: :lol:
The difference between the best prime lens on the planet and the worst prime lens currently made is a couple of percent at best, if THAT!!.
We're talking lenses that possibly span decades.
The difference between the two bodies that I mentioned is merely 3 years of technology.
Anyway, that's my opinion but I'm far from an expert, so we'll have to wait and see what the real heavyweight experts have to say!! ;-)
SS

I've bought stuff form B+H before, I'm thinking of selling my old A330, extra batteries and lenses to B+H to get credit on account towards a tripod. I got a quote from them and have 2 weeks to decide. Based on a search of e-bay, the quote about middling, but e-bay fees may make up for it. I could throw in my CPL. Nobody's ever responded to my ad on the hog and 'm not sure about working with Craig's List. I haven't asked my local camera store yet, but for the price they charge for everything I wouldn't expect them to give my a good price.