Best Body or Best Lens?

Marc Sabatella · 04-21-2010, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

Like you, i've bought an F2.8 Tamron zoom 28-75 for this theatre work, but by itself, that F2.8 is not adequate for the low light, besides limiting DOF.

I don't do nightclubs, but i imagine folks that like to take pictures of performers in that environment have the same problem that i experienced.

I think the main reason for the Kx's popularity is its high ISO performance. To the person that mentioned that a camera body is just a box to hang a lens off of, well its a bit more than that.

A bit, but only that. Despite the hoopla, the *actual* difference between the K-x and other APS-C cameras is not *that* great. Virtually nil below ISO 1600, opening to mabe as much as a stop (probably a bit less) by ISO 6400. But realistically, f/2.8 and ISO 1600-3200 is generally fine for nightclub performances, and as I said, the differences between cameras is just not as great as it is sometimes made out to be. I've got shots from my very average K200D and the K-x taken back to back at the same shoot, and I see more difference attributable to the lenses used than to the different high ISO capabilities of the cameras.

**rparmar** · 04-21-2010, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by philbaum

Like you, i've bought an F2.8 Tamron zoom 28-75 for this theatre work, but by itself, that F2.8 is not adequate for the low light, besides limiting DOF.

I don't do nightclubs, but i imagine folks that like to take pictures of performers in that environment have the same problem that i experienced.

Like you I end up shooting things like theatre, dance and performance art events. Certainly the improved ISO handling of a cameras would be a reason to use one over another, especially if one does a lot of work like this. But I have not found too much difference... or even too much improvement. In fact I am pretty sure my K100D Super is at the top of the game still, several models later.

But I don't use it because the K20D offers too many other advantages in terms of handling (yes, the body counts!) and is only incrementally worse.

All in all, the lenses matter much more.

But now, if you are going to consider full frame...

EDIT: I just noticed that Marc said essentially the same thing. This seems to happen.

Tuner571 · 04-21-2010, 01:01 PM

I have been taught that the glass is the main factor in image quality. So I believe that the lens is the one thing to spend a good deal of money on. However, better bodies do give the user better ISO performance and that can effect image quality as well.

Now I am confused?

GatorPentax · 04-21-2010, 01:13 PM

A body may give you better access to functions and better noise control, but for overall picture quality a nice lens will always trump a cheap one. And lenses tend to hold their value.

Blue · 04-21-2010, 01:15 PM

I personally like a "good" camera which includes 'feel' in my criteria. I want repeat what Robin said, since he made an accurate assessment regarding the bodies imo. Then I have always fitted them out with the best glass I could afford and/or get my hands on. I didn't get everything I have over night. Practice is the most important factor that typically gets over looked. Everything is practice for me. I don't think I have every taken a perfect photograph and may never, but I keep after it.

jct us101 · 04-21-2010, 01:16 PM

I don't really get how you can say that the Tamron 28-75mm doesn't allow you to shoot in low light, using that argument you could say that an f/1.8 lens couldn't either, because it's less than a full stop below f/2.8 and that's not really that much extra light. I had the Sigma 17-70mm which had f/2.8 on the wide end and that sure didn't keep me from taking low light photos with it.

Pentaxor · 04-21-2010, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Tuner571

I have been taught that the glass is the main factor in image quality. So I believe that the lens is the one thing to spend a good deal of money on. However, better bodies do give the user better ISO performance and that can effect image quality as well.

Now I am confused?

nope, PP softwares are. they are the cheap modern version of lens and camera IQ, at the cost of $50 only, which is only a short change compared to the price you pay for a great glass and a great camera.

Pentaxor · 04-21-2010, 01:24 PM

to simply the equation,

great camera + great glass + great PP softwares = great IQ

mind you that you also must possess great knowledge and skill about photography (includes actual shooting, material and equipments used and of course pp work). without this, it wont matter if you have a great camera, great glass and great softwares. with great powers comes great responsibility.

Nesster · 04-21-2010, 01:32 PM

Just a little note of caution. Fast does not automatically mean it's a good lens. Often a slower lens may be the sharper, less distorted one. But fast and good is expensive, while slower and good is less expensive...

In the film days, the camera being a box to hang a lens on was truer than today. However, today's electronics are obsolete tomorrow, while today's lens isn't. Strictly from a image quality (not usability) perspective, a K-x with the best lens affordable should be better than a K7 and a lesser lens.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K10D body, DA 18-55mm kit lens, Tamron DiII AF18-250mm lens; Tamrac Velocity 8	gimmepizza	Sold Items	9	12-01-2009 05:26 AM
Old Lens new body	Walter V	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	09-17-2009 07:38 AM
DA* lens blowing air from between the body and lens when zooming?	pasipasi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-28-2009 05:30 AM
istDS body, which lens best suits this body?	ilozic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	08-20-2008 01:50 AM
Which way to go? Body or lens?	Mallee Boy	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	04-09-2008 06:00 PM

04-21-2010, 10:52 AM	#31
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by philbaum Like you, i've bought an F2.8 Tamron zoom 28-75 for this theatre work, but by itself, that F2.8 is not adequate for the low light, besides limiting DOF. I don't do nightclubs, but i imagine folks that like to take pictures of performers in that environment have the same problem that i experienced. I think the main reason for the Kx's popularity is its high ISO performance. To the person that mentioned that a camera body is just a box to hang a lens off of, well its a bit more than that. A bit, but only that. Despite the hoopla, the actual difference between the K-x and other APS-C cameras is not that great. Virtually nil below ISO 1600, opening to mabe as much as a stop (probably a bit less) by ISO 6400. But realistically, f/2.8 and ISO 1600-3200 is generally fine for nightclub performances, and as I said, the differences between cameras is just not as great as it is sometimes made out to be. I've got shots from my very average K200D and the K-x taken back to back at the same shoot, and I see more difference attributable to the lenses used than to the different high ISO capabilities of the cameras.

04-21-2010, 12:49 PM	#32
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by philbaum Like you, i've bought an F2.8 Tamron zoom 28-75 for this theatre work, but by itself, that F2.8 is not adequate for the low light, besides limiting DOF. I don't do nightclubs, but i imagine folks that like to take pictures of performers in that environment have the same problem that i experienced. Like you I end up shooting things like theatre, dance and performance art events. Certainly the improved ISO handling of a cameras would be a reason to use one over another, especially if one does a lot of work like this. But I have not found too much difference... or even too much improvement. In fact I am pretty sure my K100D Super is at the top of the game still, several models later. But I don't use it because the K20D offers too many other advantages in terms of handling (yes, the body counts!) and is only incrementally worse. All in all, the lenses matter much more. But now, if you are going to consider full frame... EDIT: I just noticed that Marc said essentially the same thing. This seems to happen.

04-21-2010, 01:01 PM	#33
Tuner571 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,549	I have been taught that the glass is the main factor in image quality. So I believe that the lens is the one thing to spend a good deal of money on. However, better bodies do give the user better ISO performance and that can effect image quality as well. Now I am confused?

04-21-2010, 01:13 PM	#34
GatorPentax Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 372	A body may give you better access to functions and better noise control, but for overall picture quality a nice lens will always trump a cheap one. And lenses tend to hold their value.

04-21-2010, 01:15 PM	#35
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	I personally like a "good" camera which includes 'feel' in my criteria. I want repeat what Robin said, since he made an accurate assessment regarding the bodies imo. Then I have always fitted them out with the best glass I could afford and/or get my hands on. I didn't get everything I have over night. Practice is the most important factor that typically gets over looked. Everything is practice for me. I don't think I have every taken a perfect photograph and may never, but I keep after it.

04-21-2010, 01:16 PM	#36
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	I don't really get how you can say that the Tamron 28-75mm doesn't allow you to shoot in low light, using that argument you could say that an f/1.8 lens couldn't either, because it's less than a full stop below f/2.8 and that's not really that much extra light. I had the Sigma 17-70mm which had f/2.8 on the wide end and that sure didn't keep me from taking low light photos with it.

04-21-2010, 01:16 PM	#37
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Tuner571 I have been taught that the glass is the main factor in image quality. So I believe that the lens is the one thing to spend a good deal of money on. However, better bodies do give the user better ISO performance and that can effect image quality as well. Now I am confused? nope, PP softwares are. they are the cheap modern version of lens and camera IQ, at the cost of $50 only, which is only a short change compared to the price you pay for a great glass and a great camera.

04-21-2010, 01:24 PM	#38
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	to simply the equation, great camera + great glass + great PP softwares = great IQ mind you that you also must possess great knowledge and skill about photography (includes actual shooting, material and equipments used and of course pp work). without this, it wont matter if you have a great camera, great glass and great softwares. with great powers comes great responsibility.

04-21-2010, 01:32 PM	#39
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Just a little note of caution. Fast does not automatically mean it's a good lens. Often a slower lens may be the sharper, less distorted one. But fast and good is expensive, while slower and good is less expensive... In the film days, the camera being a box to hang a lens on was truer than today. However, today's electronics are obsolete tomorrow, while today's lens isn't. Strictly from a image quality (not usability) perspective, a K-x with the best lens affordable should be better than a K7 and a lesser lens.