Cheaper body\good lens or better body\worse lens

T

tjmckeown

Suspended / Banned
Messages
62
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Some time ago I sold my D300 and lenses as I wasn't going out enough with them and bought a GF1. After taking the plunge into the world of 35mm film cameras again, I'm finding I want to get another DSLR.... so....

I have a couple of choices, budget of about £1000 would mean I could buy a D7000 and use an old Nikon zoom lens I have from a 35mm body (35-70 3.3-4.5), or buy a D90 from somewhere like mpbphotographic for about £400, and couple that to a 28-70 2.8 (which I can get for about £550).

What would you do? I pretty much know the answer already.... glass over body, but I'm trying to convince myself..... ;)
 
D7000, 35mm f1.8g and tamron 17-50.
 
id go for the better body with the kit lens for now and then save up for the lenses you like..easier to improve your lenses overtime than improve ** body.pluss the d7000 should hold its value pretty well compared to the dated but brilliant d90.just my opinion :)
 
wiganwez said:
ipluss the d7000 should hold its value pretty well compared to the dated but brilliant d90.just my opinion :)
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense, the older a body the more depreciation it has already suffered so there is less to lose, just like cars. A d7000 being brand new will depreciate very quickly, especially as retail prices drop.

Given the two choices on offer here I'd go with the D90 + good lens (although 28mm isn't really wide enough).

But, a D7000 + 35mm would be a great combo.
 
What about d7000 and the 18-55 lens - you can get that lens for next to nothing and the d7000 is at good prices now, when funds allow you can get some better lenses
 
always go for a better lens, putting good glass on a mediocre sensor is better than putting mediocre glass on a good sensor
 
what im trying to say is look at the d90 when released the value droped then rose then droped then rose. i have had one a year and have virtualy lost nothing on it yet becuse they arent depriciating as bad as others because 1.the camera won an award.and 2.was the best in class for along time. this is how i see the d7000 going easily best in its class and won an award etc.i dont see it depriciating so fast myself.kinda like the d90 back in 2008-2009

just my opinion :D

the d7000 and the kit lens is a very capable package.

Nawty said:
That doesn't make sense, the older a body the more depreciation it has already suffered so there is less to lose, just like cars. A d7000 being brand new will depreciate very quickly, especially as retail prices drop.

Given the two choices on offer here I'd go with the D90 + good lens (although 28mm isn't really wide enough).

But, a D7000 + 35mm would be a great combo.
Click to expand...
 
Lens over body every time.

You'll get much better shots from a good lens on an average body (i don't think there are too many if any "bad" camera bodies being made these days. Certainly not Canon/Nikon anyway) than you will from a good body with an average lens on it.

I see it this way, I'd rather be using a £300 body with a £2000 lens than a £2000 body with a £300 lens.
 
yeah been thru similar scenarios myself and I remember putting a 70-200f4 L on my lads 300d and thinking 'I would choose this over a 450d witn kit zoom anyday'..

@wiganwez, I would say the opposite, I find it easier to upgrade the body than lenses, most of the time you might only have 1 body you want to change wheras you might have 4+ cheaper lenses you want to upgrade.. only downside to changing bodies is they all have their own little quirks you have to get used to.
 
Your call at the end of the day,

IF you buy the D90 used then of course you can buy some good glass used from MPB as well. D90 is a good camera.

D7000 will hold its value quite long, thats how i see it and is indeed a good camera. If you buy that, i would say get the pack with the kit lens as well which i believe is a 18-135 (something like that). Then you can add glass to your collection in the future.

Either route is good mate.
 
Thanks to everyone for their replies!

Most people who are suggesting good body and not so good optics seem to be using residual value as the reason, but the same can probably be said for a good lens. The poorer quality lenses lose value quickly, but better lenses hold their value.

Oh well, time to hit the used suppliers' websites!
 
tjmckeown said:
Thanks to everyone for their replies!

Most people who are suggesting good body and not so good optics seem to be using residual value as the reason, but the same can probably be said for a good lens. The poorer quality lenses lose value quickly, but better lenses hold their value.

Oh well, time to hit the used suppliers' websites!
Click to expand...

Having had a D300 would you be happy with a D90? I know it's a great camera, but it isn't a D300.
 
But you can get some good glass quite cheap - as people say the 35mm f1.8 on the 7000 is a great combo and the 35 is around £170.

Loads of second hand good quality zooms on here that would do for extra length, and not be too expensive.
 
Second hand d300?
d7000 if you can


Lenses... depends on what you want to shoot.... whether you need a zoom...

I only use primes, so I would go for either : 35mm f1.8 nikkon or sigma 30mm f1.4. Wides, I can only say the tokina 11-16 :D.

Macro opens a world of choices, i use the nikkor 105mm others say sigma 105/tamron 90 or sigma 150...

Telephoto, no idea... sigma 50-500? or an 80-400? Poss a 300 + tc?

Zooms, something in the range of 24-105? Think there was a neat tamron one that is crisp...


all depends whether you can pick them up used or get a good deal new (jessops might still be doing the interest free (as long as you complete within a year)).

Good luck finding what you want!
 
Glass over body always, no point in buying a sensor that will record millions of pixels if the lens can't resolve the detail onto it.
 
If it were me, personally i'd buy somthing like a D70/s or somthing. then a new 24-70 2.8...
 
I'd say body, just because of the sensor. You can always buy better lenses in the long run, but if you're stuck with a crappy sensor, there's nothing you can do except throw the whole damned camera away and buy a new one. Now there's a problem we didn't have with film cameras... It didn't matter if you owned the crappiest body in the world, since picture quality depended only on the film and the lens! You could buy a Nikon F65 for £100 and save up all your dough for good glass.
 
the key part of the argument for body over glass from most users above cites, "you'll be stuck with a crappy sensor". I'd buy that argument if we were talking about a D100 vs D200. But we're talking about a D90 vs a D7k. The real world difference between the two isn't much for most people. And if the OP needed that difference, he wouldn't be asking the question.

Seems to me that a used D300 or used/new D90 is the body with the balance spent on glass dictated by what the OP wants to shoot.

thanks
rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top