Is it more important to sink money into a camera body, or into a lens?

Question

Here is my conundrum. I am currently using a Canon D60. It is a 6.3 Megapixel body, and it gives generally excellent results up to 11x14. Sometimes I need to crop, though...and a little more sharpness or pixels would come in handy. I am considering doing one of two things in the near future. I'm either going to buy a nicer lens like the 85mm 1.2L for my D60 (I am currently using the 50mm 1.4 USM) or I am going to sell my D60 and get a higher Megapixel body like the 40D or even the 1Ds. Either body will almost double my megapixels.

So, my question is, which will give me better results, a better lens on my current body, or a better body for my current lens?

Another note: Most of my photography involves people photos and portraits.

Answer 1

Mooch,
Everyone has really good advice here. Lenses last for a very long time, but then improvements such as IS in the Canon line, for Image Stabilization help in low light or shaky photographer hands. Version II vs Version I's are almost always improved upon in some fashion & almost always worth the extra money.

On the other hand you mentioned you are currently printing up 11x14 but that the need to crop for best image leaves you concerned about the IQ. Then you mentioned the 40D or the 1Ds. The 40D is a 1.6x crop sensor while the 1Ds is a full frame sensor. No comparison. What you didn't mention is what you are shooting. If you were shooting Landscapes I'd say the 40D without hesitation or for Portraits the 1Ds. But your dilemma is tied up in Body or Lens?

I am going to advise you to do both. Your old D60 is simply not up to snuff anymore. Sure it still takes great shots but with all the improvements in Digic III low noise processor which makes the ISO factor identical to the 1D Mark III up to 3200, 10 Megapixels, highlight tone priority, or HTP, which helps to prevent blown highlights, a higher magnification viewfinder, meaning this allows for a larger view of that same 95% view, it is actually larger & brighter, a 3" LCD, Live View just like Point-N-Shoots, among other really useful improvements.

Then whether you can buy new lenses now or have to wait, you'll want to get whichever lenses fit your shooting style. If only you had mentioned that. You may already know which lenses you need but if you need a little help outside of this let me know at my blog & I'll go into further detail.

Ahah I just saw your portrait edit, the 1Ds will give you the very best IQ. If you are shooting professionally that's the one you'll want. Otherwise the 40D is excellent for that purpose. I chose the 40D over the 1Ds with landscapes as the 1.6x crop factor allows for the use of a less expensive zoom lens when working with distance.

Good luck on your decision. Go for the new body too. Try BHPhoto.

Answer 2

First of all, the mega pixel do not make a good image, it's what type of sensor you are using. An older sensor will likely not have the quality of a newer one; this goes for all cameras. More megapixels are great, but most people do not need more than 10. For the average user, that is, non-professional, 10, 8, and even 6 are just fine. 12 is really too much, and 16, or 21, offered on the professional Canons are overkill. As for the lens, well, this is what the image is actually determines how nice your image will turn out. How saturated, contrasty, and so on. A good lens is just as important as a good photographer. No good lens, no good images. With that said, get the best lens you need/can afford. The 85mm 1.2 L lens will likely suit your needs for a long time. It's top notch. One suggestion would be, get both. The reason being, you suggested you might buy a 1Ds, Mark ?. Whichever you buy, this will be anywhere from $5,000-$8,000. If you can afford it, upgrade to a better camera body, such as the Canon 40d or EOS 5D. If you have the money, get the 5D, since it is an excellent full frame sensor. On the 40d, the 85mm will actually be a 136mm, due to the 1.6 crop factor on the sensor. Along with this, get the 85mm 1.2, or something equivalent. You wont go wrong. Hope this helped.

Answer 3

If you shoot often in low light situations, you will definitely want to try out a newer Canon dSLR. The D60 was the successor to the D30 and just about the only improvement it made was in the megapixel department, going from 3 to 6 approximately. The knock on both- slow to focus in lower light situations. Otherwise, if you're happy with the D60, go for the better glass. The 85mm lens, with the 1.6 lens multiplication factor will be closer to a a 136mm lens, while your 50mm is just about perfect for portraiture. Of course, unless you trade in the lens, you'll still have both. Camera stores will rent out equipment and if you're lucky enough to have one near you, consider renting both the lens and body you are interested in. Keep in mind the 40D has many improvements over the D60 beyond more pixels, better seals against weather, 6.5 frames per second burst rate (I know, I know, some tested it at a "mere" 6), and much more. Read reviews at cnet.com and other sources and don't believe what some would say- with some limitations, the live preview of the 40D can be a useful function.

Answer 4

Ultimately, A Higher Resolution Body Will Give You More For Your Money. HOWEVER, A Quality Lens Is A MUST For High Quality Images. If I Were You I Would Get The Lenses I Need/Want FIRST - By The Time You Get The Lenses The Price Of The Body May Be A Lot Lower Because Of Newer Models, Also Lenses Can Only Go Up In Price OR Down In Quality As They Show No Signs Of Changing The Current Lens Types Or Expanding Them Further At Present.

Also You Might Try Shooting In RAW Format For The Best Quality.

Answer 5

Well, I see some really great responses already...

This question really illustrates the reason why film cameras still have some advantage over digital, in regards to mp limitation, true color, etc. I do miss my F5 :( Anyhow...

Since photography is photography, your first concern would be to have decent glass. BTW, theres nothing wrong with a 50mm 1.4, as long its name brand glass and not some el cheapo from Wallie world. As mentioned, keep the multiplier in mind. Not too experienced with portraits, but 85mm is a well used lens, but with the 1.6 multiplier it would be more like a 136. I think the multiplier is both a negative and a positive benefit with digital SLR's, depending on your goal.

As you upgrade your camera body, you can always use the same lenses, as long as the manufacturer doesnt do something funky to prevent the new body from being backwards compatible.

Answer 6

No question: sink your money into a better lens. 6.3 megapixels is plenty, even with some pretty good cropping. Getting a 40D will increase your megapixels, but the the light still comes in through the same old lens, so any flaws, imperfections, or distortions in the lens will be much more noticeable.

One thing to do: consider taking classes in Photoshop. You can get better results in post-processing if you need to get some more sharpness or want to get more out your crops.

Answer 7

The body, as lenses can be added as you go along. For example, I have a Pentax SLR and only 2 lenses, the 18x55 mm that came with it and a 125x400 mm telephoto. They will cover most any kind of photography that I will be doing for some time. As I do mostly wedding and sports work, I may consider up-grading the body as the state of the art improves, but there is no digital out there that can compete with my Miranda 35 and it's lenses, and yes, I do still shoot a lot of film.