DigitalRev Engages in More Tomfoolery; Sticks Expensive Lens on Cheap Camera and Vice-versa

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.digitalrev.com/en/pro-dslr-and-cheapo-lens-vs-inch-cheapo-inch-dslr-and-pro-lens-6943-article' target='_blank'>http://www.digitalrev.com/en/pro-ds...ns-6943-article</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"We got sent a question asking us: What would be better? A pro DSLR with a cheapo lens or a cheapo DSLR with an expensive lens? Well, we thought we'd answer that question in this video by asking two very different photographers to show us what they're like. We tested the Canon 1D Mark IV with a Sigma 28-300mm f/something and a Canon 550D with a 24-70mm f/2.8L. What produces better results? Watch the video to find out."</em></p><p><object width="600" height="360" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/hk5IMmEDWH4&amp;&amp;ap=%26fmt=18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hk5IMmEDWH4&amp;&amp;ap=%26fmt=18" /></object></p><p>*sigh* The real answer to that question is, budget on what you can afford for a base system (camera plus a lens or a few lenses and accessories), then add lenses (again, that you can afford) as you go along. I really dislike these questions; I see them all too often, and they are usually connected to the idea of having the latest and the greatest to show off with.</p><p>So in the above situation, the best thing to do would buy a 7D with a 17-55/2.8 IS USM and start taking photos.</p>

[timmy]

I don't really agree with you (or I might have misunderstood your message) since I thought the video was quite informative, though quite predictable conclusions. I think they managed to convey the message that you can actually spend a little less on the camera itself, since today's DSLR's are very good even on entry level, and spend a little more on the lenses. (That's what confuses me about your conclusion since that's what you wrote...)

However, your suggestion for good combo would set a buyer back approx $1700 for the camera and $1000 for the lens so that's not a entry level suggestion I hope. Going by the video's conclusions a relative beginner could start out with a 500D at$570 and the $1000 lens and probably get very good pictures anyhow, still saving around $1100.

[ptyork]

However, your suggestion for good combo would set a buyer back approx $1700 for the camera and $1000 for the lens so that's not a entry level suggestion I hope. Going by the video's conclusions a relative beginner could start out with a 500D at$570 and the $1000 lens and probably get very good pictures anyhow, still saving around $1100.

I think the point probably should be that the lens DOES matter more than the body in most situations, but that it is unlikely that someone who can throw $1000+ at glass is going to skimp on an entry-level body. More so, the difference between a decent $500 lens and a $1500+ L-series lens is insignificant to most folks. A $600 body with a $500 lens is going to create great pictures in most situations.

Case in point, last year I purchased a 7D with a 28-135 kit lens and then separately purchased a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens (hmmm, why does that sound familiar...). I gave my old camera body (original EOS digital rebel) to my wife along with the 28-135 (replacing the really ****ty 18-55 kit lens that ships with those). That camera's pictures are now 100% better than they were before. And though my 7D + 17-55 still puts it to shame in low light or action situations (and resolves more detail in portraits), it is nearly as good for travel / landscapes and fine for casual shots.

Ebay for my wife's setup is around $600. I got a good deal on 7D & 17-55, but still set me back around $2400. I'd spend that again and more, but there's no doubt that most folks could never justify spending 400% more for my walkaround kit.

Oh, and I still use my $80 nifty-fifty for some of my portrait shots with great results, proving that there doesn't even have to be "lots of glass" for it to be good.

[ptyork]

One other point to make is that a good lens is almost as good as real estate in terms of retaining resale value (as long as it isn't a kit lens for any upscale body--e.g., the 24-105L that ships with the 5D's). You might even make money if the exchange rates keep heading in the direction they've been going. Even when new versions come out, the old lenses are still highly desirable.

Bodies are terrible in this regard. Unless you find a local chump on Craigslist. :)

[timmy]

I think the point probably should be that the lens DOES matter more than the body in most situations, but that it is unlikely that someone who can throw $1000+ at glass is going to skimp on an entry-level body. More so, the difference between a decent $500 lens and a $1500+ L-series lens is insignificant to most folks. A $600 body with a $500 lens is going to create great pictures in most situations.

Agree, I think we're on the same page here :)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

A 24-70L with a 550D is about US$2k, has silly balance, and starts at 38mm equivalent. A 7D with a 17-55 now costs $2.6k, has a more useful range, and you get a more versatile body.

Most people who ask silly questions like these are normally the types with 2-3k to spend; have enough to spend on expensive L lenses *or* an expensive camera body, but not both. That said the 1DIV is way more than 2-3k.

The 7D has a way better viewfinder too; I've highlighted this before, but one reason why I don't use entry-level cameras nowadays is because they have crap viewfinders. For Nikons, their pro DSLRs and consumer DSLRs are also segmented by shutter release feel; the soft touch shutter release gets me half a stop to one stop more leeway when taking photos in low-light.