There are some really awesome pictures from D40 and similar entry level Nikon's on many of the online galleries including alot of very dramatic shots in black and white. I don't think anyone should be made to feel that "serious" photography requires a certain camera and above. I actually met a guy who was able to get a coffee table book published based on snaps he took from a pretty simple <$250 point and click film camera during his hikes in India. His shots were amazing even enlarged(we used some of his shots for a local museum event). I've also know a fairly serious photographer who don't play with the ISO on his D200 and use other things like fast glass, tripods/monopods, and judicious use of off-camera flash to deal with low light scenarios. The D3100 also has a host of things (like spot metering) that you didn't find on entry level film cameras when I was younger.

A friend of mine believes a full magnesium body is a must based on his F4's experience with freefall in Yosemite. Another believes you should have a cheap plastic kit you can carry everywhere so you never miss a shot due to weight or fearing theft or damage. Another friend is addicted to VR taking hand held shots indoors. Another believes you should choose the right background, the right foreground, bring a tripod and shoot at F8 as the sun is rising or setting to get the dramatic lighting or you shouldn't shoot at all.

Photography's an individual pursuit that attracts a bunch of nut-jobs. Bear that in mind as you troll the forums.

@Aslightdelay - Sorry for the late post and thank you for the complement.

It was beautiful day here and I went out shooting ;)

Two examples of what I was speaking to. Taken with a D300.

85mm f2.4

35mm f1.8

TaoTeJared: Very well put; if that post had appeared earlier in this thread, perhaps the rest of it would've taken a much different tone. And the questions you ask at the end are good not just for those of us just getting started, but probably a good reminder for those who've been shooting a while as well.

Another thought is you would have to judge current technology of bodies. If you are saying the difference between a 5 year old body and upgrading to a high body that is brand new, then the change in body might be a very significant one. Kind of hard to argue one way or the other without having a certain case to deal with. Depends on the jump in bodies and the jump in lenses + use of both.

As the owner of a D50 (looking to upgrade to D7000), I will say that in many cases, the body will make a huge difference. The best lens will do nothing to improve things like high ISO performance, AF speed and accuracy, dynamic range, body ergonomics/controls, etc. But then the best body won't make up for a bad lens, either.

I agree that the photographer is #1. The body (or maybe I should say the sensor) vs. lens debate is more subjective depending on what you have and what you want.
I've had my D50 for 5 years and my photos have improved over the years without upgrading anything except my skill (which is free), but they could be better with better equipment.

I really want better low light/high ISO, more pixels, and more/better controls, so in my case it's much more worth it to spend $1000 on a new body vs $1000 on a new lens, especially since a lens is limited in practical use (I can't use one single lens for everything) but the body is always constant.

I would look at it like this. Lets say you have the optimal camera settings shot by the best photographer in the world. The pictures will be the best they can be for the camera and lens in the photographers hands. Will you get a better picture by having a D300S with the 18-55 kit lens or a D5000 with the 18-55 kit lens? On the other hand will get you get a better picture with a D5000 and the 70-200 f2.8 or a D5000 with the 55-200 kit lens?

I think a little depends on the camera, but I think you would see more significance in the glass and not the body.

this time it's going to be me who will terminate this discussion for violation of rule number 2:
"2. No trolling, bashing or use of abusive language. Personal attacks on other members will NOT be tolerated and posts will be deleted. Try to keep your comments with the discussed topic and avoid discussing other forum members. This rule is valid for everyone, including the forum moderators and admin. Moderators word is final when there's discussion going among users (considering the rules) and admin's world is final when moderators have a disagreement."

also jonathennn is going to receive account suspension for 7 days - first post 1st Offense, 2nd post 2nd Offense
"1st Offense: A formal warning will be sent via PM
Upon a members first offense, a PM will be sent to them informing them of the rule violation and they will also be informed of this Offense Structure.

2nd Offense: Account suspension for 7 days
Upon a members second offense, the member will have their account suspended for 7 days. Any attempt to circumvent this suspension by creating extra accounts on the forum will directly lead into a permanent ban from the forum."

it's a discussion board as jonathennn wrote, people can have different points of view, but PERSONAL ATTACK on anyone will NOT BE TOLERATED, either You like it or not. If You doesn't agree with one or other users/posts and want to use abusive language go ahed and do it privately. But for God sake, not in the forum.

I've cleared the topic so it doesn't have all the unpleasant aspects, as IMHO it's valuable and jonathenn, once Your ban is lifted You are more than welcome to the forum.

I'm gonna delete my post in 24h, just wanna all to get familiar with this what happened here, and why some of Your posts got deleted.

It comes down to what each photographer WANTS TO DO. They are just tools.

I have hammered a nail back in the deck with my boot but I didn't build the deck with just a boot. I have changed my oil in my car with a cheap socket set from pottery barn, tin foil, coffee can, and a string.

My point, for one-off's, any of us can make do with almost anything. What changes is that we start to find our focus and thus the tools become refined and less oil is on the garage floor.

Example: I can't get the same mid day landscape shot of a grouping of birch tree with a full blurred background from a 18-85mm lens that I can with my 85mm 1.8 even though they both hit 85mm with the constraints I have. I could have taken the same shot with almost the exact same results with a D70 that I did with my D300. Now if I took that photo at late sunset, my D300 makes a huge difference with the ISO, noise, and detail. Same goes for if I shot it in brighter sunlight and I needed my shutter speed to go above 1/4000.

The fact is that I have never seen a Holga camera as primary camera at a game, wedding, or shooting the kids at a Christmas concert.

Too many times photographers (with good intent) tell casual or new shooters that "equipment doesn't matter" or a $200 dollar lens or cheaper body will do anything that pro $1k equipment can. No one (including me) wants to see a friend spend unnecessary amounts of money. We all know equipment does matter for each individual - some more than others.

We need to help new photogs know what questions should be asked. Not, is it the body or the lens, but an take the extra 5 minutes to ask them the basics;

Who or What is your subject?
When are you shooting?
Where are you shooting?
Why are you shooting X?
and How do you want it to look?

I really don't see the point to this thread. Its like asking what makes a delicious meal, the oven or the pots and pans. Too many variables go into creating a "quality photo". I predict peoples "feelings" are just going to get hurt in this thread. Let's NOT turn this into another "what I said was" back and forth.

adamz said:So here's the question:
What do you guys think makes pictures what they are? Is it the body the photographer uses, whether it be a $500 SLR or a $5000 SLR? Or is it all in the lenses with which the pictures were taken?

Since you said you know the photographer is ultimately what makes the best picture, I'll attempt to do my best to answer this question:

On the technical side of things, generally the lens is going to make the bigger difference. However IMHO, I believe a lens' fullest potential can be brought out on a good body. However, on the flip side, I've seen what good lenses can do just to the quality of a shot even making noise appear less obvious. I will always opt for a better body but I also invested in quality Nikkor glass.

So overall, I believe both are important but the glass will outweigh the body and as someone else mentioned is overall a better investment.

I'm going to have to agree with adamz, cameras like the D3000 are more than able to capture good images. Camera choice comes down to three things, budget, needs and primary subject matter. Example, my primary body is a D300, because I shoot birds, and I needed a camera with a high quality AF system. Guess what though, my backup is a D40X, and I can get just as good an image out of it as the D300. It may be easier for me to get the images I want out of the D300, but the D40X works just as well most of the time.

@adamz, I'm not talking about the subject matter, or moment, of a picture. I'm talking about the quality of a picture. Whether it has the correct colors, appropriate focusing, whether it's distorted or blurry, and things like that. Things that go on INSIDE OF THE CAMERA AND THROUGH THE LENS. I honestly can't personally make an accusation as to how important the camera is. I feel the lenses are definitely more important than the camera, but I just don't know how much more. I originally said it was 90/10 with lenses being the 90, then switched to 70/30 with lenses still being on the heavier side. I guess I'm just a little biased when it comes to the cameras. I know I don't want the bottom rack, but know I can't afford the top shelf.

jonathennn said:
...but you do indeed need something more than a D3000...

bullshit, even with d40 You can capture beautiful photos. guys and gals, don't let any equipment stop You from taking great snaps. I've seen crap pictures taken with d3 and beautiful images captured with iphone. it's only up to You to make the picture. lenses are important as they capture the light (and are more beneficial to technical aspects of photography than bodies), cameras are important as they make the light visible to human beings, but we are the most important factor as we capture the moment.

@aslightdelay, I like how you stated that your camera would be "as blind as a bat" without it's lenses. Very good point as well as analagoy. :)

I guess I went a little too far when I said it was 90% lens and 10% camera. I feel it's more like 70% lens and 30% camera. As everyone is saying, you don't need a D3s to get great pictures, but you do indeed need something more than a D3000. For instance, it seems like most people have a D90 and love it. That would be the middle of the lineup for Nikon, the D90. That means that they went above the D3000 entry-level cameras but didn't want to go as far up as legit top-of-the-line cameras such as the D3 line. So they went about 30% of the line (since, in my opinion, the D90 is at the bottom of the mid-level cameras, being passed by the D300(s) and the D700) in cameras and are apparently spending more money on their collection of lenses.

In regards to those against the statement about the 43-86 lens, it wasn't my opinion on that lens, which is why I stated that it was claimed by someone else. But I just needed an example and that was the first place I went. I've no experience with that lens. I was just trying to make a point.

Furthermore, @sven, I am not a newbie to Nikon nor am I a newbie to photography in general. I mean, I may not be as experienced as you, per say, but I know enough to hold my own as well as get good shots. I've about five or six years under my belt. I do constant research and reading and everything as to guarantee I know the technical side of things. I also take my butt out every single day and take pictures. I even give myself a project for every day. I assign a topic and see how creative I can get with that topic. So I have enough experience to not be a newbie. I asked this subjective question as to start up conversation and see how everybody feels and whether they treasure more their lenses or their cameras.

short, and I heaven't went through the previous messages above - it's the PHOTOGRAPHER that makes the picture, nothing more nothing less

aslightdelay said:

Paperman: to your point of putting good glass on what you perceive as a crap DSLR: why not? I don't think that any of us plans to be shooting with the same body ten years from now, but the glass will still be as good then as now (provided that by then the cameras aren't out-resolving the lenses).

Just my $.02 worth.

Where have I used the word "crap" ?

I am just against the logic of pouring $4000 on two f2.8 lenses and not spending another $500 for a better body .

And what if a $300 kit lens 10 years from now will give better image quality than the expensive glass of today ? Any reason the lenses stop getting better ? Is this as good as it gets ?

I am just against the popular belief that one can create "wonders" with expensive glass and that the difference between a prosumer body and an entry level is marginal.

I say the difference between cheap and expensive glass is not THAT great to justify a 500% price difference for an amateur. You don't even get more sharpness - just an extra stop which a better body with a better processor/ISO performance will easily make up for . ( DOF advantage stays )

Welcome to the forum, Sven. I think there have been some great points made already. I think of the lens-camera-photographer system as something like a three-legged stool (maybe a tripod would be more appropriate under the circs?). The stool is only as strong as the weakest leg, so each photographer has to constantly evaluate for themselves and the way they shoot both a) which leg is most important and b) which leg should get the most care in terms of money/time. If there were some magical formula for every photographer and every photographer's budget then this thread would very short.

I think the key is to keep thinking objectively about what each upgrade means in terms of your photography, and no one here can analyze that better than you. The fact that you're asking the question is a good sign and a good start.

Hi all.

"If you put a crappy lens on a camera, such as the original Nikon 43-86mm (which Ken Rockwell rated as Nikon's worst lens ever), then your images will suffer regardless of your camera."

I wasn't allowed to shoot with the lens in Vietnam since all zooms were considered _of lesser quality, but I had that lens since new, and used it until it was stolen in the mid 1980's. It saw a lot of service. So my 2 cents goes against that.

I have a lot of lenses, most more expensive than my D90, and I don't by a camera based on other folks' ideas of what it should look like or what they think it should be.

I was one of those guys that had cameras strung around his neck 14-18 hours a day or longer, 6-7 days a week, so I appreciate lighter cameras and gear in general.

Ansel Adams said that you don't take a picture, you make it. He didn't say with what.

My best,

Mike

... but in terms of strictly talking about SLRs, I think it's 90% about the lens. If you put a crappy lens on a camera, such as the original Nikon 43-86mm (which Ken Rockwell rated as Nikon's worst lens ever), then your images will suffer regardless of your camera. I mean, the camera and the lens work together to produce good quality images, but I think it's moreso the lens since the camera has to work through the lens to get the image.

Well, I beg to differ. Perhaps you are a newbie to Nikon, in particular, and photography
in general - otherwise you would not have asked such a very subjective question.
I have had a 43-86mm since 1969 - and it saw active service with me in Vietnam, Africa
and Latin America - where on several occasions it got wet, covered in mud and has a
variety of complex mold and fungus problems, beri-beri, blackwater fever to boot!!
In fact it is in such a bad state of decay it really shouldn~t take any kind of picture at all! But your mention of the humorous rantings and subjective criticisms of the much despised and oft ridiculed Len Jockwell inspired me to take this very same, much abused lens off an old Nikkormat in my closet, dust it down and put it on a D2X - set everything to manual, guessed the exposure, right first time - well maybe a stop or so out but who cares as its easily covered in pp - Then I took the same pic with a 17-55 af-s - and I really cant see the difference onscreen - and I have a pretty decent set-up here - even if the eyes are not quite as good as they once were!! Just google up the 43-86 and you may be rather surprised at what you find in image quality. I took pity
on my old lens about 10 years ago and took it to a pro lens cleaner, He just looked at
carefully and said ^Dont waste your money, it is too far gone with the fungus growth!^
I will try and post these pics when I have learned how to post a pic on this entertaining forum.....................................

Jack the Ripper said; "THEN, take a little stroll over to the D7000 Vs D300 threads where it is made quite clear that anything less than a D300s is virtually useless for any real photography because all the other cheaper camera bodies are so crippled they are unable to work with them. (what happened to it being about the photographer?)"
This is not quite true. IF and photographer realy knows his/her camera than he should be able to take control of the settings of that camera. If as a photographer you rely the AUTO or PROGRAM settings and expect good results all the time, your so wrong.
I tell anybody who gets a new camera to learn how to shoot with ALL the settings. I sometimes find myself useing (with my D90) shutter priorty setting more and more and getting better results than AUTO. And with a DSLR it is SO much easier to learn what all the settings do. All you realy need to do is pick a still subject and shoot that subject with the differand settings. But with S,A,and M settings bracket the first shot with at least 3 shots above and below the first setting you use. This way when you take a shot in auto and don't like what you see you can "do it yourself" instead of the camera. Yes, to a good photographer the camera is only a tool. But if you don't know how to compleatly use your tool, than you just blew $3,000+ on your camera and lenses.
NOTE; I still have my first KODAK RETINA IIc (and my Nikon FTn Photomic) I still use once in awhile.It brings me back to my roots.

Lenses. I get your point, PB, but I figure that the camera, like me, is blind as a bat without its "glasses." :) Besides that, if it wasn't the lenses, we'd all be perfectly happy with an, oh, 62mm f/22. We have all those options for a reason; it's the lenses that allow the creative flexibility that make the camera so much fun in the first place. It's not the body that's allowing me to do UWA, macro, extreme telephoto, what-have-you.

Paperman: to your point of putting good glass on what you perceive as a crap DSLR: why not? I don't think that any of us plans to be shooting with the same body ten years from now, but the glass will still be as good then as now (provided that by then the cameras aren't out-resolving the lenses).

Just my $.02 worth.

I find it illogical to spend thousands of dollars on lenses if you own an entry level DSLR or maybe anything under a $1000 . Why not spend a few hundred or a thousand of that cash on upgrading to a prosumer body ( D300s )first and then you can go ahead with getting expensive glass .There should be a reasonable balance between the lenses you own and the camera you use .

I had arguments here a while ago which were not taken very well when I said a $300 kit zoom can be better in sharpness than a $2000 lens . One just has to know that not everyone will benefit from expensive glass .

I agree with PB PM that its a split, but i think it is closer to 50/50. Back in film the glass was super important and the film, didn't matter what body you had, but now in digital the body is super important. If you don't have a good base for your glass it doesn't matter. People don't get that when they shoot film they pick the best film out there to shoot, but in digital the sensor doesn't matter? They are the same thing, you wouldn't shoot crap film for something important why would you get a crap sensor?

I'm not saying you need a D3x, but you can't put a 24-70 2.8 on a D40 and say thats better then a D90 and a good lens. They need to even out, the lens can make a photo better, but it can only do so much depending on the sensor.

jonathennn said:
@Jack the Ripper
You definitely understood what I was asking! I also absolutely love how you pointed out that people UNDER THIS TOPIC will claim it's the photographer whereas they'll totally bash lower-level cameras in all of the other threads. Very good point. Kudos to you! Furthermore, I completely agree with your other points. I feel that it's 90% in the lens, and the other 10% is the camera and whether or not it's actually worth while. Thanks so much for your input! :D

From my point of view it is a 60/40 split in favor of the camera. Say what? The camera is the eye of the camera lens combo in the digital age (photographer is the artist, a given), while the lens is just a set of glasses. Without the eye the glasses don't do you much good. Basically you can have the greatest glass in the world, but if the camera cannot keep up with your subject, then it isn't going to get you the images you want on a regular basis.

If I could give an extra $5000 to Nikon, another f2.8 lens would sure be more exciting to me than a body upgrade, preferably one of those super tele 2.8s. For my interests (wildlife), lens is 99.9999% :)