General Good Camera or Lens?

Good Camera or Lens?

  • APSC Camera + Expensive Lens

    Votes: 6 75.0%

  • FF Camera + Cheap Lens

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Total voters
    8
P

payal_choksi

Well-known member
hi friends,

if money is of constraints what should one go for?

A) APSC Body + Expensive Lens

or

B) FF Body + not so expensive lens

pls do drop in your views

regards,
 
Who says FF is better than Aps-c and vice versa?

One thing I do know is the Aps-c sensor from canon is at least 3-4 years old, that technology is dated and easily surpassed by newer technology. I mean Canon 7d only resolves like 700 lines of resolution compared to Panasonic slr cameras which are closer to 1000. Personally unless your a photographer there is NO reason at all to still be shooting on Canon's old technology. Now the new Mark III is using newer tech but at $3k you need to understand what you're getting into.

Now Canon C100 is a different beast and that sensor provided is truly resolving an excellent hd image.

Ultimately to answer your question I would be buying a Panasonic GH3 camera if I were you. There is no advantage at all to buying that old tech vs new tech. Now the 5d mark ii and iii have a certain look that can only be done on those cameras. So if you're looking for that wide shallow dof than 5d is it. Personally I used to be a Canon shooter and after using a GH2 and now buying a GH3 I'm not looking back.

Canon 60d which I owned has serious problems in 720p 60fps mode. Aliasing and Moire were very bad, but it was the only way to get good slow motion so I dealt with it.
Using a GH2 and barely having no aliasing and moire was a gift. being able to shoot those wide shots with such detail was something that is impossible on Canon dslr.

I can go on, but let me just say there are better options that Canon dslr right now.
 
LENSES LENSES LENSES!!!

u can get a T2I or a 5D and make a short film that looks awesome if you can afford high quality sharp lenses...I had people asking me about my camera and what I was using when they are using 4000 dollar cameras...and of course where you put the camera, how you put the lighting and do the actors fit the roles provided....but yes lenses to me in my personal opinion are more important then the camera...Unless you got a budget to get a canon C300 and have more options and higher resolution....
 
I'd usually say lens. BUT. Right now, APS-C is not in good shape. All the current Canon APS-C DSLRs are first-generation (lots of aliasing/moire; check this to see how they've been surpassed by newer cameras: https://vimeo.com/46037571). The GH2 has great resolution and a clean image, but looks a bit too digital for many. The GH3 is still pretty much unknown. The NEX-5N is a nice improvement in IQ but has some important limitations too (http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-5n/review.html).

On the other hand, both the 5D3 and the D800 are pretty strong offerings, and they are selling right now for $3K.

So, what's your budget?

Some options:
* T2i plus Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, and keep most of the money in the bank. Sell these when there's something better that you need / can go for.
* NEX-5N plus a set of vintage primes (I love my Leitz primes for Leica-R mount, others will say Nikon, or Zeiss for C/Y), and keep most of the money in the bank.
* 5D3 or D800, plus a set of vintage primes (if that still fall within budget).
* 5D3 plus 24-105 f/4L IS (if you don't need a faster lens for low light situations, this is enough for a lot of stuff).

The "keep most of the money in the bank" is very difficult to pull off, but it's usually a very good thing if you can manage to go through with it.
 
Last edited:
A few things to consider:
- The smaller the sensor, the more important the lens quality, and vice-versa. This follows from the relation of pixel size (photosite size) and lens microcontrast. Their MTF are multiplied to get the whole system microcontrast transfer. Hence, medium format + not-so-great lenses = awesome.
- Video compression in stills cameras kills lens resolution and lens microcontrast. So the point above mostly relates to stills. In video, you will mostly notice global contrast differences between lenses, and not resolution (and microcontrast) differences.
- If you are shooting video, choose a camera based on video qualities: video optimized sensor and codec. Most DSLRs suck in both departments.
- Lens price is not directly related to lens quality. There are good lenses for a nickel, and they will do a great job.

Also, a few words for beginners on lenses for video.
 
The GH series are definitely the most mature (still cam) products for video with the least issues. The GH3 appears to be the best of them all. But, if you are looking to get in for a low price...the T3i is worth a look. It has an articulating screen, audio level control and it has a mode where you can shoot with minimized aliasing/moire. The 3x zoom is not an effect at the 3 x setting...it is just using a smaller portion of the sensor. So for most things that the DSLRs are good at...shallow dof, narrative style shots of people...just use the regular mode, aliasing is still there in those shots but it doesn't announce itself. And when you need a deep focus shot where complicated patterns are present...like an outdoor scene with buildings, bricks, rooftops...flip into 3x. The only thing with this is you need to plan ahead for using that mode by having an ultra wide lens in your arsenal, but it's not a bad thing to have anyway. In ANY system though...I think keeping your lens selection in mind before buying is a very smart way to go. Bodies will come and go, but the lenses you can keep for a long, long time.
 
payal_choksi said:
hi friends,

if money is of constraints what should one go for?

A) APSC Body + Expensive Lens

or

B) FF Body + not so expensive lens

pls do drop in your views

regards,
Click to expand...

If you have no camera and want to get started, buy a used Canon 550D / T2i or T3i with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. You won't loose any money when you sell it and have a great low cost camera till the next generation of sensors arrive.
 
Neither, good training!

It's a matter of learning the basics and then moving up from there. I have seen great pictures made with a Quaker Oatmeal box pinhole camera. You are going to get fanboy answers from people who swear by a particular brand or model of camera, and to be very very honest, any modern camera is cabable of capturing great images, as long as it has a talented driver. Just buy a camera and lens which fits your budget along with some good training media and start learning!

All the Best!

Dave
 
Canon APS sensors = "old technology"? While that's true, the image you get from, say, a T2i today is no worse that the image it made three years ago. A T2i body from ebay for $300-$400, a lens adapter and an old manual Nikkor will give you a $600-ish rig that makes images similar to many TV commercials and professional films (that used the same basic sensor).

I still shoot with my T2i setup and consider it my "pretty" cam. It still shoots luscious stuff and with the right lens, the images just have some soul & mojo that's hard to beat. I'm waiting to see if BMC gets their supply chain and inventory together, and what their 2nd gen product may be, before dumping a ton on the next gen of gear.

There's a reason Canon DSLRs were lusted after (and started tens of thousands of forum posts) - they make nice images that you can broadcast and make money from. If you can afford a RED or Alexa, jump right in... or a C100, sure. But for well under a grand, I can't think of another solution with that "DSLR/Cinema" look. It ain't a "video" camera with ND and XLRs, but it's capable of beauty that the video rigs can't match.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but if I could buy a used T2i for $300-$400 from ebay... I'd actually buy a used NEX-5N instead, for about the same amount. Much better image, I don't mind the small downsides. (BTW: this is not really hypothetical, I used to own a T2i, now I own a NEX-5N, I wouldn't go back, the image is clearly better)
 
Samuel H said:
Yes, but if I could buy a used T2i for $300-$400 from ebay... I'd actually buy a used NEX-5N instead, for about the same amount. Much better image, I don't mind the small downsides. (BTW: this is not really hypothetical, I used to own a T2i, now I own a NEX-5N, I wouldn't go back, the image is clearly better)
Click to expand...

Images in themselves are subjective though. I like the look if the Nikon video right out of the camera, others don't. The whole point here IMO...is to get something within your personal budget, think out the whole system...lenses, add ons, etc. Try the ergonomics of each cam if possible and go from there. All of them are capable of nice imagery when used right. But I am so brand agnostic it's sacrilegious. The GH2/GH3 is the most mature, the NEX systems have 60P and are great in low light, the Nikons have their own special look, the Canons are tried and true w easy manual set up...
For the cost of any of the cheaper bodies, I don't think one can go wrong. Learn it, experiment, make pretty pictures.
 
I got a T2I when they first came out and still use it, and love it. Honestly though get something cheap like the T2I or NEX-5n (havent tried it but have heard great things about it. Not sure if it has a nice hack like the t2i has magic lantern). Once you get a camera just shoot and keep shooting, experience is going to get you the best image, not the lens or the camera.
 
No hack for the NEX-5N yet. But it has focus peaking and a nice histogram, so I still miss ML (zebras, custom cropmarks, waveform) but I can go by without it.
 
David W. Jones said:
Neither, good training!
It's a matter of learning the basics and then moving up from there.
Click to expand...
Definitively! And to be honest, if you can't do something nice out of basic equipment, then a high-end camera won't make your work better anyway.
A camera is only a tool. The way you handle that tool is what makes the difference.
Michael Carter said:
Canon APS sensors = "old technology"? While that's true, the image you get from, say, a T2i today is no worse that the image it made three years ago.
Click to expand...
MiniDV is also "old technology". But Canon still produce HDV based camcorders. And about the T2i (which I also own), I'd say it's just like my HV40: once you know it's limitations, you know how to "drive" it and get the best out of it.
Many people swears by DSLR over camcorders for low-light. While it's not totally false, you still need lights to do a proper job. As I said, when you know how your camera works, what's possible (or not) to do with it, then you can shoot more than decent stuff with it.
Gary Huff said:
Skip training, just go shoot, and shoot often.
Click to expand...
It's (for me) the best training so far. Read about what you have to do, then experiment it "in-the-field".
 
Back to the original question....

For outdoor and sporting events type work the ASP-C cams with great lenses produce spectacular images. If you need to do low light work or more artistic shallow depth of field like weddings and dark music gigs, I'd go with a full frame, some vintage primes and build your lens collection down the road.

The problem with brand specific lenses is that they are not cross platform compatible. Manual primes are spectacular but much more difficult to run and gun with. There's no simple solution if you want a well rounded package.

I found that for my style the T3i with it's 3x zoom function and a few premium lenses in conjuction with a higher end consumer camcorder for run and gun work has served me very well. Don't underestimate the value of good autofocus, OIS and very decent onboard audio that can be had fairly cost effectively in some of camcorders these days.

If you are planning on doing narrative work exclusively, go with the full frame. Start with manual vintage primes and build your lens collection from there.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Hey Samuel - please consider posting a concise NEX thread? Pros and cons, workarounds, results? Not finding a ton of info and it's an interesting piece of gear. I see there's a freaking viewfinder available for the thing... that seems kinda cool to me...
 
Michael Carter said:
Hey Samuel - please consider posting a concise NEX thread? Pros and cons, workarounds, results? Not finding a ton of info and it's an interesting piece of gear. I see there's a freaking viewfinder available for the thing... that seems kinda cool to me...
Click to expand...

There's also a new model in the NEX series...the NEX6. Same great sensor as the 5, but with the superb OLED vf, and costing way less than the NEX7 flagship model. The bargain of the bunch is the NEX 5N. Since the 5R has come out, it's only $499 body only.
 
+100000000000000000000000 For Lenses!!!

I am still using lenses on my DSLR that I have been using since my old 20D!

Camera bodies go out of date in like 2-3 years. Good quality lenses can last 15+ years! Some of Canon's "L" lenses have been out since the 90's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top