Sensor and body evolution and its influence on lens choice

Moderator: Stany Buyle

Post Reply
User avatar
Stany Buyle
moderator
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sun 30 Nov 2008 15:05
Active Member?: Yes
Post pictures?: Yes
Contact:

Sensor and body evolution and its influence on lens choice

Post by Stany Buyle »

Over the 10 years that I am shooting digital I remember soo many topics "Invest in lenses, not in camera bodies" and similar. But does that statement still holds if you take the enormous sensor and body evolution in consideration?
When I bought my D100 and later a second hand D1H nearly 10 years ago a friend of mine who is a professional photographer adviced me to invest in fast glass, not only for the possibilities of shallow DOF, but for keeping iso down together with reasonable fast shutter speeds while D100 and D1x became rather noisy over iso 400... So I did and bought a 17-35 F2.8 and later on a 17-55 F2.8 next to some even faster primes.
Now, 10 years later, D3s and D4 produce significantly cleaner images at iso 3200 or even iso 6400 than my D100 did at iso 400 those days, especially in rather difficult lightning...
Another point is lens choise for tele in relation to the evolution in AF. Even D3s could not AF with the expensive 200-400 F4 in combination with the 2x TCeIII, so if you had a professional need for longer reach than 400mm, a 400 F2.8 was a tempting investment, but now, with the D4 able to focus F8 lenses, a 200-400 F4 in combo with 2xTCIII becomes much more appealing...
In practice my D4 will serve my needs with a much less expensive lens arsenal than my former bodies: My 105 AF-S will turn into a very useable 210mm macro, my 18-35 F3.5-4.5 will do much better on my D4 than my 5 times more expensive 17-35 did on my D100, D200 and D2x, for tele a 300 F4 with 2xTCIII will do significantly better than a 10 times more expensive 600mm F4 would do on a D2x... 70-300 AF-S VR F3.5-5.6 vs. 70-200 F2.8...

And last but not least: The ability to use much lighter lenses on D4 body which -with exception of shallow DOF- will do as well or even better than on a D2x(here I think about 18-35 vs 17-35 F2.8 and 70-300 vs 70-200 F2.8...)

So, -TMHO- lens choice has changed importantly because of sensor and body (AF) evolution.

Your input and thoughts would be very appreciated.
Thanks for your attention.
kindest regards,

Stany
I like better one good shot in a day than 10 bad ones in a second...
http://www.fotografie.cafe
Leen Koper
moderator
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon 1 Dec 2008 23:53
Active Member?: Yes
Post pictures?: Yes
Location: Zierikzee, the Netherlands

Re: Sensor and body evolution and its influence on lens choice

Post by Leen Koper »

Not just cameras an sensors have evolved. We were used -in the beginning- to shoot digital with the same glass as we used for analogue photography. At that time, when digital cameras started to come to the market, there was the announcement of only a few lenses each year. Nowadays, when we look at Nikon or Canon each company produces 10-15 new lenses each year. Each 4-5 years the majority of lenses is renewed, and consequently, improved. just think of the VC, the improving AF and the silent built in motors.
Just look at the Nikon 18-105; a few years ago it would have been impossible to produce such an extremely good lens for so little money. As technology evolves, glass is evolving with it, although at a slower pace, due to the enormous number of lenses in the market.
Investing in quality glass is important, but don't expect, like my former employer did, to use the same lens at both the start and the end of your career. Lenses too "need" to be replaced, probably each 7-10 years. And it is going faster each year.
pam.meier
moderator
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu 28 Aug 2008 18:54

Re: Sensor and body evolution and its influence on lens choice

Post by pam.meier »

I have been reading photography-related websites for some years now and I think that there are many assertions which I don´t agree with.
I can only speak from my point-of-view, though, and am ready to discuss this view:

- the camera doesn´t matter
To me it does matter a lot. The D3s has opened up new spheres of available-light photography, e.g., small and silent mirrorless cams with swivel displays empower street candids that were only possible to people who practised very much (think Leica and hyperfocal mf). As much as people still think in terms of analog photography, digital DSLRs have as much to do with computing and processing as with the optical side of photography (apterture, depth of field), postprocessing even changes the game futher, as the effects will change the image even further (think Dragan effect and others).

- the lenses will stay, the body won´t
Leen has summed it up nicely, couldn´t say it better. Everything is changing, lenses get better, too.

- technique is essential for good photography
in short: photography is so versatile that there is a wide range from "point-and-shoot" à la Bresson or street shooting à la Jay Maisel which to my eye is not hard to do. I watched a video workshop by Scott Kelby and Jay Maisel - anyone can do it technically with a DSLR and a tele lens like the Nikkor 70-300 VR. On the other hand, there is sports photography, for example, that will take a lot of practise and very expensive equipment. Ever tried photographing a dog running towards you?

- new technology like Lytro is not to be taken seriously, it is no real photography.
Let´s wait and see, but I think it will be big one day. We may still use our D4s and then look like Leica MF dinosaurs look today (speaking tongue-in cheek). But the majority of people will be using their cell phones to snap pictures and one day they will use light-field technology ... I will use it as soon as it will be available.

So, yes, I agree with you Stany, there is nothing like wonderful fast glass for the bokeh images we love so much and there is not much of an alternative for wildlife images than very expensive super tele lenses. But upgrading your body every 4 years or so will give you new photographic possibilities.

I heard that Pentax may develp a medium format mirrorless system with the sensor of the 645 D. That to me would be truly exciting.
Steve Bingham
moderator
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue 5 Oct 2010 18:06
Active Member?: Yes
Post pictures?: Yes
Location: Payson, Arizona, USA

Re: Sensor and body evolution and its influence on lens choice

Post by Steve Bingham »

Some other considerations:
1- Some older lenses, like the 50mm f1.8, simply were not designed for digital. That is, the coating on the back of the rear element was either non-existent, or ineffective against the strong reflection coming from digital sensors - hence the mysterious ghostly circle that often showed up dead center on the frame. Of course Nikon later fixed this on later 50mm f1.8 (and other film lenses).

2- Even inexpensive lenses like the 18-105 VR and 70-300 VR can out resolve my D7000 16 mb sensor. It will be interesting to see how relatively inexpensive lenses like the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR do on a 36mp sensor. My guess is that other factors might well mess with resolution before the lenses do. We shall see.

Scroll down to my last lens test: http://dustylens.com/lens_tests.htm
Leen Koper
moderator
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon 1 Dec 2008 23:53
Active Member?: Yes
Post pictures?: Yes
Location: Zierikzee, the Netherlands

Re: Sensor and body evolution and its influence on lens choice

Post by Leen Koper »

Just the evolution in sensor, body and lenses has changed the way we photograph entirely. Especially the way we use our ISO: I used auto ISO just recently during a wedding as a kind of experiment (I had a second shooter covering for me!), shooting at 1/30 at F5,6 and VR on and everything came out wonderful.
Even I work sometimes without a tripod, something I never dreamed of until recently. People who know me won't believe it, but it is true.

Now, at last, everyone can be a professional photographer! Nothing to it! :lol:
DirkVermeirre
moderator
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 29 Aug 2008 01:02

Re: Sensor and body evolution and its influence on lens choice

Post by DirkVermeirre »

Well for me it's was quite simple. Since I have a full frame sensor 5D and 5DII (for the first time in my life I switched from Nikon to Canon because it takes to long before they came up with a FF sensor and better high iso levels (my last Nikon was the 2Dx), I was absolutely happy that I could use the 50mm (f1.4, I prefer that to the 1.2 due to the weight) on an FF sensor. And also because the results (I'm mostly photographing in b&w) where quite close to analog results that don't have that plastic look resulting from many camera's. In the meantime Nikon has made fantastic camera's, I used the D700 a few times (from a friend) and I must say that I absolutely love it. Maybe one day I will go back to Nikon, I still have lenses that I would like to use with a FF Nikon, several 50mm's, the 45mm Pancake and the 105mm DC.
Post Reply