For a first DSLR, should I prioritize the lens or the body?
Asked 9/8/2011
5 views
2 answers
0
I’m buying my first DSLR and was initially looking at entry-level models like the Nikon D3100 and D5100, and also considering Canon alternatives because of handling and comfort. I’ve seen advice saying “spend on lenses first, then the body,” but when comparing sample images it seems like the higher model body gives noticeably better results.
I want to shoot plants, landscapes, mountains, hiking, people, historic places, and thunderstorms. My budget is around $1000, with a little flexibility if it’s really worthwhile.
For an entry-level camera, how much more important is the lens than the body? Is it better to buy a cheaper body and add a better lens, or step up to a better body first?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
20
Yes, it matters, a lot.
There is little difference in image quality between cropped-sensor bodies these days and certainly a lot less compared to the difference in quality between a poor and a quality lens. Even between a D5100 and D7000 which costs much more, the quality difference is small. The same is true in Canon's line-up.
Even more important, the lenses you choose affect your photography far more than image quality. Depth-of-field, focal-length and perspective change your photos dramatically, giving you much more creative power with the right lenses. If your photos are not compelling, no one will care about their image quality.
As others have said, cameras matter too. They do, but for less important reasons. With digital cameras, bodies evolve rapidly and are constantly improving. Lenses change very little and quickly form a large part of photographic investment, so it is a good idea to buy the right ones for the longer run. Lenses other than the cheapest ones tend to increase in value as all manufacturers periodically raise their prices. This rarely happens to cameras.
Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1620
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Both matter, but in different ways. For most entry-level DSLRs, the jump in image quality between bodies is usually smaller than the difference between lenses. A better lens affects sharpness, low-light ability, depth of field, focal length, and overall creative control much more than a small body upgrade.
That said, bodies are not irrelevant. Modern digital bodies contribute sensor performance, autofocus, metering, handling, and features like articulated screens or HDR. At the low end, those differences can be meaningful, so if a better body fits your budget and suits your needs, it can be worth it.
A practical approach: buy the system that feels good in your hands and gives you the features you care about, but don’t spend everything on the body and settle for only a basic kit lens. The standard kit lens is often limiting, especially for background blur and low light. Adding an inexpensive fast prime such as a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 is often one of the best upgrades for learning and improving results.
So: choose the camera system you like using, but leave room in the budget for at least one better lens.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Do entry-level and pro DSLRs use different sensor technology, and how much do sensor size and lenses affect image quality?
Can a Nikon D3500 take good portraits with a blurred background, and is it a good beginner camera?
Entry-level DSLR vs fixed-lens camera for a beginner: image quality, low light, and zoom
For a beginner DSLR, should I prioritize the camera body or the lens?
Should I buy a high-end point-and-shoot or stretch for an entry-level DSLR?