Camera bodies vs lenses - double standard? (rant/thoughts)

[cloose]

Not sure if this belongs in cameras or lenses, as it is a commentary on both, but decided to post this here.

Has anyone else noticed the disparity between "build quality" and relative "quality" of a body vs. a lens?

For instance, it appears to be the vast concensus that a 30D is a superior camera to a 400D due to build quality and ergonomics, even though there is no difference in image quality.

For lenses, it is stated that an EF-S 17-55f/2.8 is as good, and better than a lot of L glass even though it is sub-standard in build quality, and no better in IQ to a lot of L lenses.

Soooo, how does build define a "better" body, but not a "better" lens? I am the only one who considers there to be an element of purchase defense and elitist postering here?

[narlus]

good question. i would think that the build quality of a camera body would be a higher value, since you are actually touching/holding it a great percentage of the time, as compared to a lens.

[crn3371]

I think that for the most part, with bodies, they are all so close on IQ that the only thing we really have to rate them on is build/ergonomics. With lenses the main thing we judge them on is IQ, with build being a secondary consideration.

[Mark_Cohran]

With bodies, it's not just the build quality, but the user interface and other options (spot metering, frames per second, buffer size and write speed, etc.). The camera is the box the photographer controls to capture the image and therefore the ergonomics, user interface and features (what we use to capture that image quality) is also important.

Mark

[Mark_Cohran]

... but I am the only one who considers there to be an element of purchase defense and elitist postering here?

Quite possibly you could be. :)

Mark

[Hurricane_777]

For instance, it appears to be the vast concensus that a 30D is a superior camera to a 400D due to build quality and ergonomics, even though there is no difference in image quality.



I think the problem you'll never get around is that 'superior camera' is completely subjective. For me, there's a lot more that goes into it than just IQ though.

[ScottE]

Better or best is the camera the meets your needs. An XTi is a better camera than a 1DsMkII if you have $1,000 in your pocket and need to buy a camera today. Judging by the volume of sales it is a better camera for most people.

[cloose]

I think the problem you'll never get around is that 'superior camera' is completely subjective. For me, there's a lot more that goes into it than just IQ though.

Not at all....I completely agree that "superior camera" is VERY subjective, which is why I disagree with the ascertation that is made here frequently that there is an absolute superior between some camera bodies. I can definately see how some would consider this as their opinion, however it is usually presented as a fact.

It's really not a problem for me, as I am 100% happy with my gear, and that is really the only thing that matters, just was curious as to others thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[nicksan]

It's very difficult to qauntify non-visual aspects of an object. In this case the BUILD of either the body or the lens and how that makes one or the other better than something with a "lesser build".

Clearly, thinking in terms of build and ergonomics, the 30D is "better" than the XTi. Also quite obvious is that nothing of this sort will translate into IQ, that's for certain since they are very close. (Although I must include that there will be a quantifiable difference between a 30D and 5D)

But this is like asking why a Mercedez is better than a Toyota Prius. We have speed limits in the U.S., gas prices are high. Sure the Mercedez has a nicer feel to it and all the luxury upgrades, but as far as getting to point A to B, which is really the objective of driving for a regular person, they both achieve the same results...just in different styles!

As for lenses it makes it even more confusing because you can quantify it. It's visual. You can see it in the results.

For argument's sake, say the 17-55 IS take "better" images than a 17-40L on a 30D (Obviously there are many, many definitions of what makes a lens better than another lens...sharpness, color, contrast, distortion, vignetting, etc...) Does it make the 17-55 better? Or does the "L" status of the 17-40L make it the winner?

Hard to say, hard to say!!!

Personally for me, although not obvious based on the gear list, I would have to say that build quality, although an important part of the formula, is not the single biggest deciding factor. We take images. IQ is the biggest factor.

Now in shooting the image, if the lens breaks on first turn of the zoom ring...then I might have to think about that!



Not sure if this belongs in cameras or lenses, as it is a commentary on both, but decided to post this here.

Has anyone else noticed the disparity between "build quality" and relative "quality" of a body vs. a lens?

For instance, it appears to be the vast concensus that a 30D is a superior camera to a 400D due to build quality and ergonomics, even though there is no difference in image quality.

For lenses, it is stated that an EF-S 17-55f/2.8 is as good, and better than a lot of L glass even though it is sub-standard in build quality, and no better in IQ to a lot of L lenses.

Soooo, how does build define a "better" body, but not a "better" lens? I am the only one who considers there to be an element of purchase defense and elitist postering here?

[Mark_Cohran]

Not at all....I completely agree that "superior camera" is VERY subjective, which is why I disagree with the ascertation that is made here frequently that there is an absolute superior between some camera bodies. I can definately see how some would consider this as their opinion, however it is usually presented as a fact.

It's really not a problem for me, as I am 100% happy with my gear, and that is really the only thing that matters, just was curious as to others thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for the dialogue.

It's not entirely subjective. If we compare to the XTi ,for example, the 1DMKIIN is clearly a superior sports camera. The 8.5 fps, 45 point AF and dedicated AF processor aren't subjective. Again, comparing to the XTi the 1DsMKII and the 5D are clearly superior for low-light, high ISO low noise photos. The full-frame sensor creates that superiority. You simply can't say that camera bodies don't have clear cut, objective distinctions.

Mark

[nicksan]

There you go.
Your gear is as good as you want it to be...
Now there will always be limitations...but that's with any gear.
Knowing those limitations and working around them is part of the formula.

No matter how much you spend on gear, if you suck at taking photos, it won't save you...kinda like how an air bag won't save you if you suck at drivng and drive off a cliff and take a 500 ft dive into oblivion!!!

It's really not a problem for me, as I am 100% happy with my gear, and that is really the only thing that matters, just was curious as to others thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[Bonjour43ma]

It's totally subjective, like many have said.

But generally speaking a stronger body and higher build quality WILL make a camera or lens "better" because it fits certain criterias of lens-picking for the photographer. A war-time photojournalist would NEVER use a plastic lens because it'll never withstand the kind of abuse that the environment will provide for the photographer, so even when a lens like the 17-55 IS can produce excellent IQ, it still may not be the right choice for the photojournalist and an "L" lens is perferred and is considered" BETTER" because of the build.

For a casual hobbyist, IQ usually is higher on the priority list than build quality so a lens like the 17-55 IS could be "better" than an L lens because of its versatility, IQ, and overall performence.

In regards to camera BODIES, again it's totally subjective, but overall speaking a better built camera feels better in your hands and usually offers more features and more advanced control over how you take your shots, so in the end that may be a "better" camera not because it provides better IQ (sometimes it does, though), but for what ELSE it has to offer as a camera.

Is a 1DMIII better than the XTi? of course! but is it better than the XTi for a newbie photographer just getting into the scene and has a limited budget? Definitly not. It's all relative, my friend. There's no element of purchase defence here, I don't think, just different people having different priorities when it comes to their camera equipment.

You may be questioning this now, but if you ever get a chance to use a Nikon F5, F6, or F100, or any of Nikon or Canon's pro-line cameras, you'll have a better idea of why some people INSIST on owning better-built items.

[cloose]

It's not entirely subjective. If we compare to the XTi ,for example, the 1DMKIIN is clearly a superior sports camera. The 8.5 fps, 45 point AF and dedicated AF processor aren't subjective. Again, comparing to the XTi the 1DsMKII and the 5D are clearly superior for low-light, high ISO low noise photos. The full-frame sensor creates that superiority. You simply can't say that camera bodies don't have clear cut, objective distinctions.

Mark

No argument there.....which is why I had typed "some" camera bodies :D

[cloose]

There you go.
Your gear is as good as you want it to be...
Now there will always be limitations...but that's with any gear.
Knowing those limitations and working around them is part of the formula.

No matter how much you spend on gear, if you suck at taking photos, it won't save you...kinda like how an air bag won't save you if you suck at drivng and drive off a cliff and take a 500 ft dive into oblivion!!!


Great analogy! :lol:

[DrJack]

You just have to face facts - some people are willing to fork out $1000 extra for a camera with a button a bit further to the right