Camera vs. Lens

[henryrabbit]

In your opinion, which is worth more to someone on a budget? Should I go for broke on the camera itself, and just get a kit lens or other inexpensive lens, or should I get a lower quality camera so I can afford a nicer lens? I am obviously new to the DSLR game, so I don't need a ton of special lenses right away. Would the kit lens for something like the Nikon D40 or the Canon Rebel XT be sufficient? Also, is it better to go with a different brand of lens as far as value for the money goes?

Thank you in advance to anyone who can help!!

[Mr Yuck]

I find the Rebel XTi's sensor cleaner and extra room in the buffer very much worth the extra money.

I don't even have the kit lens but I see many good results with it. (I have the $70 50mm F1.8 and a $500 Sigma 10-20mm)

Adorama.com and Amazon.com have pretty good prices on lenses and cameras.

[walterick]

I'm always a "walk the middle" kind of guy. So my answer goes something like:

"Buy the best you can afford of each"

Your camera should be slightly ahead of what you currently need so you can grow into it. That being said, DSLRs are obsolete every 3 years or so these days so don't drop a ton of cash on your first one as it will be considered a dinosaur tomorrow. Your lens should be an above-average lens as most cameras these days will take a good picture provided your lens is sharp, etc. Lenses don't tend to improve as quickly as cameras do - with the exception of vibration reduction/image stabilization - so a wise investment here will last you longer than your body will. Provided your lens needs don't change.

Well, if that's too much of a non-answer let me know and I will try to clarify. You might want to consider posting in the Digital SLR's Forum if you have specific questions about the cameras you are looking at, if you haven't found it already.

Good luck in your decision!
Rick

[reverberation]

In your opinion, which is worth more to someone on a budget? Should I go for broke on the camera itself, and just get a kit lens or other inexpensive lens, or should I get a lower quality camera so I can afford a nicer lens? I am obviously new to the DSLR game, so I don't need a ton of special lenses right away. Would the kit lens for something like the Nikon D40 or the Canon Rebel XT be sufficient? Also, is it better to go with a different brand of lens as far as value for the money goes?

Thank you in advance to anyone who can help!!

You can find a deal on the camera you want without the kit lens and spend that money on a different lense that would be higher quality. The 50mm lense Mr Yuck got is well worth the money, and a smarter choice then the kit lense, in my opinion. Just look at some of the shots in the 50mm lens war thread.
The more important issue is to get a camera you will be comfortable shooting with. You are not just buying a camera but also a lens system. A six megapixel camera is fine, I still take pictures with a four megapixel Kodak camera. The question to ask is if the lenses you buy for your six megapixel camera will work with the ten or twelve megapixel camera you would be upgrading to.
I really can't answer your question on lenses because all the lenses I shoot on are old. The new lenses are much lighter, and I think the edges are a little sharper. It depends on the lense. Thats the only answer I can give you. There are people here that will know the good offbrand lenses.

[Greg McCary]

I agree totaly with Rick. Personaly I had rather have a good lens but I also find that image stablization is well worth the investment.

[mjs1973]

Rick, have you ever thought of going into politics? JK Buddy!

I also agree with Rick about getting a body you can grow into.

I have been using a dinasour of a camera body for several years now (original DRebel). I have been wanting to upgrade the body for a long time now, but I have chosen not to, until I get my lens selection where I want it. A good lens will last you a lifetime.

[Liz]

I agree about the 50mm/f1.8 lens. It's very inexpensive and a good lens. You just have to use your feet for the zoom. It's 1.8 aperture is good in low light and the results are very good. I had this lens for a few years and was very happy with it. Personally I would prefer this to the kit lens. Having said that, the kit lens isn't that bad either (Canon), but you won't get good results in low light - and the images probably won't be as sharp.

I have the XTi which is a great camera. I upgraded from the XT - and I must say that the XT is also a very nice camera - never had a problem with it. I would compare the features and specifications of the camera you're interested in. Of course, now the price on the XT has dropped considerably.

BTW, Costco has the XT kit and a 2g card for $559 and they have a 90 day return policy and you don't have to be a member to buy online.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US

Liz

[I_Fly]

In your opinion, which is worth more to someone on a budget? Should I go for broke on the camera itself, and just get a kit lens or other inexpensive lens, or should I get a lower quality camera so I can afford a nicer lens? I am obviously new to the DSLR game, so I don't need a ton of special lenses right away. Would the kit lens for something like the Nikon D40 or the Canon Rebel XT be sufficient? Also, is it better to go with a different brand of lens as far as value for the money goes?

Thank you in advance to anyone who can help!!

Amanda,

An option no one has mentioned yet is buying a higher end, older camera, such as the Canon 1D and then buying some good lenses. The 1D series isn't for everyone because of the size but it has all the basic features and is immensely capable. It does lack some of the nice to have features of the newer cameras, such as a large LCD, ability to zoom on the LCD preview (makes it hard to chimp), self cleaning sensor, etc. But it's definitely a camera that you could grow into.

On the other hand, it is an older model and wouldn't have a warranty. Just thought I'd mention an option that may, or may not, work with your budget, plans and desires.

[freygr]

My 2 cents: The Kit lens with the Nikon cameras is slow but a very good performer. (18-5X) but the 18-70mm it depends on the lens mine is a good one but others have gotten not so good copies.

I can't say anything about Canon.

But I would say get the camera you like first with the kit lens and then purchase the better lenses as you find you need them.

[shutterman]

Unless you need the xtra pixels in a higher end camera - then get the best lense you can get. There is just no comparison to an image captured with a kit lense and one with a "pro" lense. Like someone mentioned - cameras get obsolete every 3 years, but good glass will last forever!

thanks,
Wes

[Mule]

For what it's worth, I was glad that the salesman talked me "up" into the Nikon D80 and the 18-200 VR Nikon lens. I originally thought about going the D40x route but I haven't been disappointed with this investment. The 18-200 lens consistently gets great comments from others who know much more about the subject than I.

[freygr]

Unless you need the xtra pixels in a higher end camera - then get the best lense you can get. There is just no comparison to an image captured with a kit lense and one with a "pro" lense. Like someone mentioned - cameras get obsolete every 3 years, but good glass will last forever!

thanks,
Wes

It depends, on the kit lens. Some kit lenses are good and others are not. But with digital sensors are low pass filters so a not so good film lens can look like a good lens until you upgrade to the next level of resolution.

[readingr]

Amanda,

I chose not to worry about the body being out of fashion and bought a 5D purely because of the need for 35mm sensor for landscapes - so my cleaning needs to be done once a month and its no big deal, couple of puffs with a rocket blower and the jobs done.

So work out what type of photography you want to do then spend the money on the lens which will do the job as it will last for a long time.

The body, you need to play with in a shop, as no body will fit every persons mental and physical needs. So for example I looked at the XTi and found it too small for my hands. Looked at the Nikon's and found I could not get used to where they put the buttons and menu items, same went for the Olympus and a few of the other manufacturers.

What sold me on the 5D was the 35mm sensor and I still haven't read the manual as all the buttons are in the right place and the items are in the menu where I would have put them. So it fits my mental and physical needs. Sorry I have looked at the manual on how to sort out the flash.

So sort out the type of photography you will do the most and then get down to the shop to play with the kit. Then spend as much as you can on the lens(s) leaving just enough to buy the body.

I will never advise anyone on brand as no one manufacturer will fit everyone's need.

Roger

[MarcusK]

As I was itching to get the last post, in order to give my own input, i found that Roger has said it all....

From personal experience buying a DSLR and not having such a big budget, I went with my favorite manufacturer... located the mid-range camera (i didn't find the need to invest in a "pro" level camera as I wanted to fully explore the potential of going pro first....)... and stuck with the kit lens for a good while, before getting a zoom lens (70-300mm Sigma), and then the afore-mentioned 50mm f/1.8 lens... I still have not felt the need to upgrade... although I am getting dangerously close to fixing a budget for better lenses... quality wise.

I would go with Roger's advice... find what you want, what makes you feel comfortable, and take your time on the lenses.... It's a shame to spend too much on a lens, now... you might not end up needing a particular lens that could have cost a good amount!

[henryrabbit]

Thank you all so much for your feedback. I have learned so much from all of you. I think I have decided to go with the slightly cheaper camera(Rebel XT) without the kit lens, and then get two nicer lenses. The 50mm that I hear so much about and then I can't decide on the other one, but I'll post about that later. P I am truly a beginner, so I don't want to invest a ton of money into a highly technical camera that I won't be able to understand. The nicer lenses will grow with me when and if I decide to upgrade later on.

Thanks again everyone!!

[freygr]

Thank you all so much for your feedback. I have learned so much from all of you. I think I have decided to go with the slightly cheaper camera(Rebel XT) without the kit lens, and then get two nicer lenses. The 50mm that I hear so much about and then I can't decide on the other one, but I'll post about that later. P I am truly a beginner, so I don't want to invest a ton of money into a highly technical camera that I won't be able to understand. The nicer lenses will grow with me when and if I decide to upgrade later on.

Thanks again everyone!!

Please note that a 50mm lens on most digital cameras is not a Normal lens. Depending on the camera make and model and it just boils down to the sensor size. Canon makes there own sensor and have factors of 1 full 35mm sensor (pro) 1.3 and 1.6 most others the factor is 1.5 (sony, nikon, pentax, and others), so a normal lens range for most DSLR cameras is the range of 28-35mm. The 50mm on my Nikon is a nice portrait lens and a short telephoto for low light.

[henryrabbit]

Please note that a 50mm lens on most digital cameras is not a Normal lens. Depending on the camera make and model and it just boils down to the sensor size. Canon makes there own sensor and have factors of 1 full 35mm sensor (pro) 1.3 and 1.6 most others the factor is 1.5 (sony, nikon, pentax, and others), so a normal lens range for most DSLR cameras is the range of 28-35mm. The 50mm on my Nikon is a nice portrait lens and a short telephoto for low light.

That's really good to know!! That was actually one of the questions I was going to ask, but didn't because I thought I was asking too many already. LoL Thank you very much!!

[petershin_95]

both the D40 and the XT are good cameras... but if you are planning on getting more serious into photography, you will find yourself buying a better one.
I would say get a pretty good one now so you can save the hassle and money later. If not, then make sure you stick with the one you buy now and invest on a good lens.

[poker]

If you buy a cheap or highend body, it will be replaced eventually. Consumer DSLRs are like computer, a better one will be out in a few months.

A good lens will last forever with proper care. This is evident in Canon L lenses. The resale value on these things are very high and they rarely discontinue them.

I just used an old 6MP Canon DSLR with a L f/2.8 for a recent trip and I'm happy with the results.

Hmmmmm....what's my point?

Buy a low end body and a low end lens then both will be replaced in the future.
Buy a low end body and a high end lens then only the body will be replaced in the future.

Define this as you wish

[freygr]

That's really good to know!! That was actually one of the questions I was going to ask, but didn't because I thought I was asking too many already. LoL Thank you very much!!

The most important item is that the camera is comfortable in your hands! And that includes the controls feeling correct for you as well as the camera's menu. A camera is not any good for you if you feel that you need the manual each time you use it.

[another view]

Your camera should be slightly ahead of what you currently need so you can grow into it. That being said, DSLRs are obsolete every 3 years or so these days so don't drop a ton of cash on your first one as it will be considered a dinosaur tomorrow.

I'm going with this. Well, sort of. First, find the DSLR that does everything you need it to do right now. It's hard to know what you'll need (or really want) a couple of years down the road, so don't worry too much about that. Don't overbuy on the camera; the lenses are more of an investment than the camera.

Think of a DSLR as a computer, because that's what it really is. Down the road you'll need to update it; maybe every few years, maybe every several. Overbuying now with the idea that you'll need the capacity of a higher end model probably won't pay off. In a few years you'll have more experience to know more of what you want, and then a whole new crop of cameras will be out - but you'll be (probably) using the same lenses.

My experience as a guy who doesn't want to sink a fortune into equipment: Up until I trashed it over the summer I was shooting with a very out dated (two generations old, released in early '02) camera. The results were just as good as the day I bought it although newer cameras are much better at helping you get the shot (better AF, better flash exposure). I'm going to buy a friend's used camera when the "latest greatest" comes out. It will still be quite an upgrade to me, and a whole lot cheaper (but no warranty). Look at the work done on older DSLR's (Nikon D1X, Fuji S2, Canon 1D) and the good stuff is still amazing. In short, there really isn't any reason to upgrade everytime a new camera comes out unless you're a pro who wears them out or you really need the new feature on the next model.