Quality dslr camera or quality lenses?

Question

Im buying my first dslr camera mainly because I need to take some high quality photographs of products (books and cds), architecture and landscapes. However, i'm on a budget. I've been looking at cameras lately and i'm unsure whether to get a cheaper camera with an expensive lens or vise versa. The cheaper camera would consist of a Nikon D60 or used D200 with a $1000+ lens. The expensive camera would be a Canon 40D with a slighter better lens to the kit lens. Should I put my money into the camera or the lens?

Answer 1

I have some some high end prime lenses They're not that much better they my kit lens.  The kits lens that come with the cameras are really great. If you don't trust me just look up lens "reviews" they will compare a 2,000 dollar lens to a 200 dollar one . The 2,000 is no where close to "10 times better" in fact it's even hard to tell. Only thing that really helps with a high dollar lens is there fast. Allow you to take low light shots.

Seeing you're not taking any actions or low light pictures. You really don't need a mid range camera like the 40d.

The reason to buy the mid range cameras like this are for the fast fps and the low noise at high iso. Both that you will not be using.

I would buy a d80/d200 or sony a200-a300 so you can use old prime lens. Then i would buy a couple prime lenses for your landscaping. They are cheap and the look great. No need to buy a 1000 lens when a 75 dollar prime looks like as great.Then i would buy a lighting setup for your products. Lighting is what make products look good not the camera.

Answer 2

Both.  The truth is, it's the lens that determines the quality of the picture not the camera body. Thats when shooting film. However, when shooting digital, its the lens, the image sensor and the cameras engine (computer) that determines the quality of the image. The Nikon D200 is a fantastic and reliable camera. You may want to look at the Canon D5 and Canon's red line series lens.

Answer 3

I'd got for both a good camera and lens.  For a first DSLR i would suggest the nikon d 60

Answer 4

I don't agree nor disagree with the two answers you have already received-but I do believe that if you want to spend money, it's better to get a good lens, rather than get a mediocre one, over a more expensive body--as the lens will likely outlast the camera.

For example, Canon 135 mm f 2 L (Canon 5D)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

I am very happy with it.

I honestly do not know how it would have come out had I used a cheaper lens.

Answer 5

Well I would say put the money into the lenses. They are much more important to image quality than the camera body. That said a better camera will have a tougher build quality and will have some more advanced features. You have to ask yourself how much are you going to use the camera. If you expect to be taking 30,000 shots a year I would go with a better camera. If your taking a few thousand the cheaper camera will perform just fine. Seeing as your on a budget I will mention that from what you said you will be needing a couple of lenses.

For the landscape and architecture shots you will need a wide angle lens like a 10-22mm.

For products you will need a macro lens or a zoom like an 18-55mm or a 24-105mm depending on how small the products are and how close you need to get. There are many good lenses for this. I suggested the 18-55 because it will cover you for most things and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

I would add to your list a used or new Canon 30D. Since the 40D came out you can get a good deal on these.