# Glass>Bodies



## slclick (Jul 9, 2016)

http://www.lightstalking.com/buy-glass-before-bodies/

A good read (of course, this is directed at those new-ish to the craft) and a philosophy I have always held.


----------



## Click (Jul 9, 2016)

Very good read.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## mtam (Jul 9, 2016)

Thanks for sharing the post. Not to mention the resell value of bodies vs lenes. DSLR Bodies with 150k actuation and 10 year old will worth like 10% of original value. While a used lens with 150k actuation and 10 year of age will hold its value pretty steady. To anyone having a tight budget, def spend your money on your lens


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 11, 2016)

My Philosophy is that things should be kept in balance. Getting a beginner DSLR and high end glass does not make sense to me. If I could afford a $5,000 lens, I'd find a way to get a DSLR like a 7D MK II, a 5D, or even a 1 series.

The premise that a camera was just a box to hang a lens on was true for film cameras, but for DSLR's, higher end cameras have better sensors and AF mechanisms. Certainly, even with a beginner camera, getting a lens like the 17-55 is a step up for those who have limited light, or want shallower depth of field, but you would want FF to get that really shallow depth of field, and a used 5D can be had for peanuts, even used 5D MK III's sell for relatively bargain prices.

The trick is to stay away from Best Buy where they often do not have decent lens upgrades to match the camera, at least, our local one does not.

His idea of using older lenses is also a issue, since they were not designed to counter reflections of light off the sensor. Someone who does not understand that could be having issues with washed out images and never know why. 

There is nothing wrong with the kit 18-55mm IS lenses or the 55-250mm zooms, they are very sharp, far sharper than old film lenses, and take excellent photos. The main thing you get with "L" lenses is durability and wider apertures.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My Philosophy is that things should be kept in balance. Getting a beginner DSLR and high end glass does not make sense to me. If I could afford a $5,000 lens, I'd find a way to get a DSLR like a 7D MK II, a 5D, or even a 1 series.



On the flip side, the improvements in sensor performance between 'consumer' level cameras and professional level cameras is nowhere near as large as the improvement in lenses when you make the same jump. 
I recall using my 30D with the 70-300 USM and I rented the 100-400L - the improvement in AF performance as a well as image quality was significant and the same happened when I tried the 100-400 lens on my wife's 600D a coupe of years later. The when I got the 7D, I compared the 70-300USM on the 7D with the 100-400L on my 30D and the 3-D/100-400L was far better.

All Canon DSLRs in the xD, xxD and xxxD ranges have decent AF (at least as good as my old 30D) and with modern 18MP sensors, given a choice between buying a camera with better AF and a L lens I would always recommend the lens first. 

This guy started off back in early 2000s with a 600mm L on a Canon 350D body - and IMO he got it about right

http://www.juzaphoto.com/me.php?p=1&pg=portfolio&l=en


----------



## Zeidora (Jul 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> His idea of using older lenses is also a issue, since they were not designed to counter reflections of light off the sensor. Someone who does not understand that could be having issues with washed out images and never know why.



Given the very short and black and-white-nature of the essay, the recommendation to get high quality, but old film camera lenses is excellent, particularly for budget minded folks.

I only have one left, a Zeiss F-Distagon 16 mm C/Y. I bought that lens new for ~$4K about 12 years ago (introduced in 1975), now sells around $1K. Last week, I tried to get ghosting by shooting straight into the sun against houses in the shade, but not one little highlight. Issues with reduced micro contrast has to do with coating of rear elements as well as internal baffling. Absence of ghosting is a good indication of exquisite baffling. High-end film lenses have good rear element coatings (T*).

The much greater issue with reduced contrast is the use of a hood. If I see a hood on a lens with other photographers, it is almost always reversed, shading the lens barrel!

By and large, a good essay. Pretty much the same that I tell people when I give talks on photography.


----------



## j-nord (Jul 11, 2016)

Glass definitely holds its value much better than bodies. However, recently (last 2 or so years) it seems glass re-sale value is dropping. There is some glass that holds value very well, mostly the highest end L's. The rest are dropping more/faster due to market saturation, availability, diversity, and a lot of new competition from Sigma (for example). The used lens market has grown and thus used prices have been decreasing. This is all good for us as a consumer, unless you are a first mover on new glass/bodies.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My Philosophy is that things should be kept in balance.



Exactly. Glass doesn't do you much good without a body, and without knowing where you want to take your photography, it's hard to justify major expenditures in lenses, or bodies, etc., let alone knowing how to prioritize. Hard and fast rules like "glass>bodies" are fine as generic advice, but they need to come with a giant heaping of salt.

Someone who intends to shoot in a studio most of time is perhaps better off putting more money into lights, modifiers, triggers, backdrops, props, and other infrastructure, than into either bodies or lenses. For someone who intends to do mostly street photography, good AF and general low-light body performance might outweigh the need for anything other than a cheap wide aperture lens (nify-fifty, for example); top of the line mid- or super-telephoto glass would be irrelevant. For someone into astrophotography, stable tracking mounts, cooled-sensor cameras, seats of stacking software, and powerful computers could take the priority over lenses, where a cheapish wide aperture wide angle manual focus could suffice. 

My general rule of thumb has been: buy things when I have a *specific *want or need. I have to throw want in there because, while I do earn a reasonable amount of money from photography, it's not my career; rather, I'm mainly passion- and curiosity-driven. I have mostly Canon gear, but have my feet in several other systems due to curiosity and, within the two systems I primarily use, I have a pretty good balance (I think).


----------



## JClark (Jul 12, 2016)

Composition>Glass>Bodies


----------



## slclick (Jul 12, 2016)

Like I said for people new-ish to the craft as I knew there would be multiple out of context or supposedly better advice from seasoned shooters. Everything has to be picked apart I guess online.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 12, 2016)

slclick said:


> Like I said for people new-ish to the craft as I knew there would be multiple out of context or supposedly better advice from seasoned shooters. Everything has to be picked apart I guess online.



I see nobody suggesting their advice is better. This isn't the drudgereport for camera stuff, it's a discussion forum.


----------



## josephz1994 (Jul 13, 2016)

Great Read!... most people tend to think camera's are more important than the lens. newest camera, they jump on the bandwagon


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 13, 2016)

Got my partner a 1200D, for a laugh (well not a laugh but wanted to see) I tried it out for a few days on different lenses,11-24, 24-70, 200L, 70-200, 100macro and so on, I was amazed how good the pics were.


----------



## awair (Jul 13, 2016)

slclick said:


> Like I said for people new-ish to the craft as I knew there would be multiple out of context or supposedly better advice from seasoned shooters. Everything has to be picked apart I guess online.



You're spot on with this advice.

I'm regularly in a position where I'm asked "what camera should I get?", I always reply by asking how much they want to spend, and what do they want to shoot.

Given enough time to explain, I suggest that they think about putting more money into a better lens, that suits their specific intentions, rather than an "all-singing" camera, where most of the options are never used.

Most body/kit combos seem to be heavily (price-)biased in favour of the body: you pay an extra $100 for a lens that sells for double or more, but you wouldn't dream of buying "that lens" after you've been "in the game" for a while.

For some, a kit lens might be all they want/need. Others, wanting to take the hobby further (or having a bit more $$$) might benefit from a customised solution.

Glass>Bodies is definitely the way to go for enthusiasts.



JClark said:


> Composition>Glass>Bodies


... is even more accurate, but where do you buy composition?

Ultimately, for a newbie, it also has to be:
Technical Knowledge>Composition.

If there is any opportunity to select something incorrectly (after power on), then Glass/Bodies don't matter!

And yes, I've done it all too frequently, (the mode selector flicks to B or M..., because some bodies don't have a lock)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2016)

To my mind, first step is to shoot in RAW and either get some software like lightroom and learn how to use it, or learn how to use the software that came with your camera. This is your darkroom! A lot of the magic happens there and no matter what camera or lens(s) you have, you need this!


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 13, 2016)

JClark said:


> Composition>Glass>Bodies



Love it! Well stated. ;D


----------



## lion rock (Jul 13, 2016)

Add warm bodies to the equation:
Warm bodies>Composition>Glass>Bodies
-r


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jul 13, 2016)

slclick said:


> http://www.lightstalking.com/buy-glass-before-bodies/
> 
> A good read (of course, this is directed at those new-ish to the craft) and a philosophy I have always held.



Trying to stay true to the original post... yes, I agree. Glass is more important than the body for someone starting out. 

A new photographer needs *a* body... something that physically can capture a digital image, preferably something a bit modern/contemporary in vintage, but even an older higher-end model is great for a newbie. They don't need dual cards, battery grips, 10fps etc etc... they need something with a shutter and button to control it and a few other basic settings, both from a budget standpoint, and from a pure user-experience standpoint. Too many variables is overwhelming to a new participant in any activity. Would you ever strap Nordic ski-jumping skis onto a newbie and send them down the jump? No way... you start out on the bunny-hill. 

If a newbie wants the photos to be self-inspiring or confidence boosting, spending a few more dollars on a glass upgrade from kit is probably money well spent. That money also has the potential to carry forward (most likely) as glass can usually move forward after a body is sidelined. 

On that note though, I would say, that glass, to a certain extent is good investment for a new shooter. There's a lot of lens-technique that may get beyond a newbie's grasp once you venture not very far into any one or combination of wide/macro/tele/fast aperture extremes... I'll venture to say that you can hand your 24-105 on just about any body to a newbie with everything set to one of the various semi-automatic modes and they can figure out how to use it in a pretty basic way... hand them the 600 f4 with a 2x on the same body and even with everything on Auto, they will still struggle. Thus the T-series with the kit lenses of slow aperture and limited focal length. Obviously that's a pretty extreme example as I can't think of many newbies buying a t-series at Target or Best Buy and then turning around and ordering a $11k lens - also highlighting a balance of budget to equipment for a newbie. 

It's about investment both initial and long-term. If money were no object, I'd tell people to dive into the 1D series and nothing but L glass f/2.8 or faster. But obviously most of us don't live in cloud-fairy-tale land where money is oozing out of our pockets. We all have to start somewhere... I'd venture that most of us started nearly the same way. For some of us, it was when you had to load a 110 film cartridge into a little plastic box with a noisy winding spring and click-wheel that tore the skin off your thumb and really chunky shutter button... which eventually evolved into borrwing Dad's old 35mm, then onto a new AE-1 and then the weird new world of digital... which I just started getting into somewhat recently. 

Every step on my personal journey required me to start over with new gear. Each time, I was literally awe-struck at what was possible using the new equipment and re-learning some of the old techniques. At least a newbie now days has a chance at longevity of the gear they buy with EF mounts being a long-lived constant in the industry (at least for now, I guess). 

A lot of the replies are adding variables... that's what comes with time... we all add variables over time to make our kit more flexible, agile, or capable as we learn (or just get lucky sometimes) with using the equipment we have and wanting to improve. I'd venture to say that most invest their money into glass over the long-term... thus, proving the article correct.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 14, 2016)

slclick said:


> Like I said for people new-ish to the craft as I knew there would be multiple out of context or supposedly better advice from seasoned shooters. Everything has to be picked apart I guess online.



I'm with you on this one and learned the hard way.

When I decided I wanted to move up to FF I bought the L glass first so that I would have it when I got the camera. This gave me great glass for my crop camera at the time, but also made the move to FF all that much more enjoyable.


----------

