Is it really ALL just in the lens?

[Paul870]

Thanks very much for all the comments, i've taken alot on board and learnt some bits and bobs which has helped me head towards what i'm after.

Just to say i'm not looking at spending anything at the moment, and definately not a 7D haha, I was merely looking to see how they compared and was taken by by what i'd saw.

If from what you are saying down to me learning more i'm going to stick with what i've got and get the best out of it before buying more!

Heres a couple shots, probably nothing great to what other people do, but the colour is now present that i'm after, and the focus points are a real improovement from what I was experiencing before making this thread, so thank you

I think I also need a focus on what I snap, I seem to forever keep taking pictures of so many random things, wether this is a good thing I dont know?!

 

[inaneredstripe]

yes, it is about lenses.
technique is first up, but...........
first DSLR which we bought was a 350D, followed by a couple of 30d's.
the 350D was a little dissapointing until we took off the standard kit 18-55, and stuck on the 17-85IS from one of the 30'S.
the difference in image quality was amazing.
a lot of kit lenses are built down to a price, and not as good as maybe they could be.

 

[trencheel303]

indeed but the IQ from a ten year old camera is never going to be as good as last year's camera at high ISO for instance.
It isn't just all in the lens because if the sensor is rubbish in the first place it doesn't matter, you could stick hubble in front of it and it still look bad.

 

[Nawty]

indeed but the IQ from a ten year old camera is never going to be as good as last year's camera at high ISO for instance.
It isn't just all in the lens because if the sensor is rubbish in the first place it doesn't matter, you could stick hubble in front of it and it still look bad.

The Hubble CCD is 800x800 pixels, which goes to show it IS what you put in front of the sensor that counts...

Realistically, it's all a balance but one thing is certainly true, bodies lose value much quicker than lenses and given that good lenses will be good lenses for ever, which is the better investment?

 

[HoppyUK]

It is 'all' about the whole imaging chain, not individual elements. The chain is as strong as its weakest link.

With film, the camera itself doesn't do much, other than hold the film and control the shutter. So it's all about the film and the lens if you like, plus the developing and printing. You need all those elements to be working at a balanced and optimum level.

With digital, the camera/sensor is also the film, so the camera assumes a much more important role. And post processing, either in-camera via the JPEG presets or in the computer, adds another big new element to the equation.

This latter point is becoming of increasing importance, with in-camera corrections of vignetting, CA and distortion now commonly being handled, not optically by the lens, but by the camera.

Nikon DSLRs do vignetting and CA in-camera, Canon does some in-camera and a lot more in its custom post processing software, all these things are fundamental to the 4/3rds imaging procedure (and without it some of their lenses are pretty poor), and compacts have been doing loads of lens corrections in-camera for ages.