Photographers: In your experience was it the body of the camera or the lens that ultimately produced your best images?
So as you know I’m thinking of downgrading from 60D to 10D or Nikon D40. The 60D is loaded with functions, just stacked with key features that the downgrades wouldn’t be able to offer.
However also in my experience I know the difference between a good photographer and novice is their use of lens and knowledge of aperture, iso, shutter speed, lightning techniques etc.
Have you ever had experience where the body of the camera was just so awesome without it’s functions and capabilities none of the lens would matter? Or vice versa perhaps? Your lens was so awesome it just makes puts the body to shame? Or do you find a balance and are just super manual with your photography that it doesn’t matter what you shoot with?
Please state whether you are digital or film person, or however you answer the question, as long it pertains to your camera style.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
8 Answers
The lens. Although the electronics in the body may make a difference in terms of chip and pixel size.
Beyond some minimal competence of the digital sensor or film, the lens will make a huge difference.
And with the kinds of cameras you are comparing, two very good DSLRs, I’d say the lens will make more of a difference for most shots than the special features of either body.
By the way, what are you doing with your 60D? Are you selling it?
@Rarebear I’m jobless at the moment and needed some leverage with the cash flow. And I haven’t been active with photography (which I only use as an art escape) Also I haven’t utilized it’s video function. All in all, I don’t really bring it out as I’m not comfortable just snapping anything and everything on any given day. This camera makes me feel super conservative as I don’t want to damage it at all. I think by downgrading I’d be carefree again and plus make some money.
So are you selling it? If so, how used is it and what are you asking? I’m in the market.
Both effect the outcome; agree the lens probably has a larger effect. You might want to keep your lenses for a long time and you could just upgrade the body as you are able to. The way I see it, if one is better than the other, the other is your limiting factor and you will want to replace it with something better eventually. I have a Canon 50D and can’t fully tap its potential with the one lens I own, so the power of the body is kind of being wasted. I bought used though so not so much money in it and don’t have to be as paranoid about beating it up. I bought the lens new because I wanted to be sure the glass was pristine. I don’t think there is anything wrong with downgrading. You have to start somewhere, and then you learn what works for you and what doesn’t. You could downgrade, and then one day you might want to upgrade again.
Lens definitely. You don’t need a billion megapixels to take professional grade photos…You can use a good 5 megapixel 10 year old Canon SLR and put a good lens on it and never be able to tell the difference. I have a friend who is a photographer and that is in fact exactly what he does. I was surprised at first….usually photographers are so up to date and have the newest everything….but it doesn’t have to be new, just quality, and good lenses. It’s not all about the camera, either. There are so many factors.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
