A BETTER LENS vs BETTER CAMERA, Which is more important?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июл 2021
- It's time to try an answer the question of which is more important, camera or lens?
Cheap camera with an expensive lens v Cheap lens on an expensive camera!
Patreon Page/Facebook Group Info:
www.patreon.com/user?u=31396950
Instagram:
@robsambles
@robsamblessport
@scorchersphotog
Twitter:
@robsamblesphoto
The gear I use:
Main Camera 1: geni.us/4QT5Lh
Main Camera 2: geni.us/COBgG
3rd Camera: geni.us/MJIBe
Camera I film my Videos on: geni.us/4QT5Lh
All round awesome Sports lens: geni.us/Q9ZDCqd
Great lens for low light: geni.us/MiTaTnG
Or the RF version: geni.us/g9hggV
24-70mm: geni.us/l9yg9I
My wide angle: geni.us/ZPIO
Older wide angle which I love on 7dii: geni.us/ghXxa5E
A great monopod: geni.us/SXQalkx
Laptop: geni.us/kQL4
Card Reader: geni.us/kbyW9F
My hard drives: geni.us/zuzDAHZ
My New backpack: geni.us/1kY4Axq
Great bag which I still use all the time: geni.us/z0bh
Roller Bag an awesome price: geni.us/AKvSdws
Hard Case: geni.us/vHSyw2
The gear from the accessories pouch:
Dongle: geni.us/xUCo
The Brush Pen: geni.us/z124
Swiss Army Knife: geni.us/kl02
Hex Keys: geni.us/eMyYk2b
Rain Cover: geni.us/UBuj
A better lens will usually give better image quality indeed, but what's often forgotten is that a good camera makes it much more easy to actually get that picture. The autofocus system of the R6 is on another planet compared to the 350 (I've used both), the 20fps vs 3.5(if I recall correctly), and when it starts to get darker, these older sensors can't do anything anymore. So yes, good glass with cheap body is better, but the good body gives you much more opportunity and ease to actually get the pictures
Yeah 💯
That being said, a good f1.4 lens always helps. I've been known to run Sigma Art on the lowly 5D original. I use a 5DMKII now that my 6D died. That being said, I'll grab an Eos R as a good compromise for mirrorless and the sensor from the 5D IV in an even cheaper camera body second hand.
Really good video about lenses and camera bodies. I read that if you have to choose between a good lens vs a good camera, to choose a better quality lens. You seem to prove that to me in your videos.
I absolutley love this idea. Such a fun way to give a practical response to the question of what to spend your money on. It would be really fun to see the comparison of the lower light pictures, as you were talking about with the R6 really coming out on top. Thank you for a very educational video, I enjoyed it very much!
It's also notable that the kit lens lets less light through compared to the expensive lens with the same F-stop value. So the photo from the 350d felt a tiny bit overexposed, which - on a cheap camera like that - could also have messed with the colors a bit. Would have also been interesting to see if sharpening the R6 image would get it closer to the 350. But anyhow, another great video !!!
I would love to see a sports test like this. You'd need sports lenses. Maybe a 70-200 f2.8 and 70-300 f5.6. Now get a friend who does not shoot sports, find a football match and you each shoot half with one kit. Then at the half trade kit. At the end pick the best 5 photos from each photographer and see which combo had the most "bests".
Nice idea
@@RobSambles If I wasn't 4000 miles away, I'd volunteer to be the friend.
Very nicely done, Rob. Yes…good glass is what’s really important. Impressive photo with the 350D!
Thank you
Really great comparison. You pretty much supported what I thought would happen. Where the lens, in a way, wins out. But it is nice to have someone do this and show the results it really Is a massive benefit to the new photographers. I just watched a few of your videos but will share your Instagram and youtube links with all my photography buddies. They are relatively new to the hobby and will benefit. I have been doing the photography thing myself since a young kid, but I know I will enjoy all your items. By the way, I have the 7dii and getting ready to buy an R5.
Absolutely great lens versus top of the line camera, but that said it depends what your subject is. I have definitely made great pictures that I've sold shot with a dirt cheap 18-55, but most often in most genres a sharper lens is a necessity.
It is great and mind boggling how little the sensor really affects things if there's mediocre glass in front of it. Sensor tech has improved immensely in terms of focussing, megapixels and ISO performance, but in good light conditions you can make great images with old cameras.
Great video, as it was playing I was hoping you'd show the expensive + expensive vs cheap + cheap of the same image as a reference. Will be interested to see that one!
Awesome video and I am looking forward to more of your lens vs. Body videos.
Thank you
Awesome video. Debating to get a new body for my tamron g2 lens. Does the r5 45mp give softer look than a r6 20mp?
Due to this video, I'm now considering getting r6 and a new 50mm 1.2 lens, instead of getting r5 with my tamron lens.
Great video! Easy to understand!
Keep moving forward ROB! Regards from Mexico!
Great video Rob! Really interesting to see the difference.
Thank you
Interesting topic. It leads to question I have. If you have focusing issues where images are a bit soft is that a lens or camera issue.?
Very interesting video. Always enjoy your videos. When it comes to sports shooting what is your opinion on getting a brands flagship camera (Sony A1) vs saving about $5-6 grand more and getting a 400 f2.8? Not that I can afford either 😂 but just curious on your opinion. Just something I have been thinking about for the future. Mostly shoot baseball and do have the 200-600 f5.6-6.3 so I have a lens with length but not a great aperture.
I want a Sony 70-200f4 but there so expensive new and second hand . Used are only a couple of hundred cheaper. Any thoughts ideas how much to spend? Great videos !
Thanks for the comparison.
This is the second video I am watching with similar set up. But I would also like to see expensive lense on expensive camera to see the difference in image quality compared to cheap camera and expensive lens. This will give a netter comparison how lens performed on different cameras.
Subscribed! Hopefully the simulator with get you the much needed wedge help!
excellent video and very clear explanation
i have a canon 6ti and sigma lens 30 mm 1.4
is a beautiful image quality
greetings from Argentina !!!
The most important is the photographer. I have seen some amazing work from a cheap camera and a cheap lens and some crap work from from an expensive camera and lens. The difference... knowing how to get the best out of the equipment you have. That is priceless!
Right, I get that, but trying to get dusk shots of race cars going into a braking zone at 150mph with a Canon XTi and the stock lenses is pretty hard to do, lol.
Wrong. You can get crappy shots with an expensive camera and expensive lens. But you cannot give great shots with a cheap lens. The camera sensor is the brain. The lens is the eyeball. Let's say you are blind and you want someone to describe a scenery for you. You have an average guy with a pair of clean sharp glasses and a genius with dirty filthy glasses. Which one would you trust on to give you a truthful description of the scene.
@@normwei nah
Im currently investing my money in the lenses but I did invest in a new body (for me) a canon 1D mark ii. Yes an oldie but as I mainly shoot festivals and music events needed something that could cope.
Fantastic camera
I've got a 750D, should I get a lens or a new cam haha
Would of been interesting (and more accurate) to of seen this done with manuel cameras. Nikon F3/Nikon EM with the standard lens that came with them.
LOL - the last few seconds was fun :P Got too much hair in my face too ;) Very good comparison, I choose lens over body too. That's why I look to upgrade for the better Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and 200 f/2.0 or 300 mm f/2.8. Depends if I get R6s...
It also depends on what your shooting let’s do a comparison at a football game. We’re auto focusing will become critical. Also a comparison of a still life f11 comparison. Like that your also doing good camera good lens in a future video!
Hi! Really appreciate the comparison you give a very good vibes and i enjoyed the entire video, but what I think is that there was a small lost of opportunity, because i think this is not what a lot of people are looking for.
I myself am more common with sony, so I will provide example on that equipment:
What I was looking for clicking on this video, and what i think a lot of people are looking for is not the cheapest possible outdated body for 40$ vs cheapest possible lens for 50$, but rather if they should buy a camera for 300-400$ (like sony a6000) and a lens for 1300-1500$ like those sony GM lenses, or rather get a Sony a7iii for 1600$ and a Signa lens for 400$
I think nobody would get a body for 40$ to put a 2000$ lens on it.
Besides that, i am still inpressrd by this comparison, even tho this picture example was simple, what about lower light condition, or when there is action happening, or how about geting auto focus, you didnt mention that and i think it would be very useful information
I consider this a very flawed test since you decided to place an EF-S lens on the R6 camera which is programmed to become a 8MP 1.6x crop body when used with an EF-S lens that will not cover full frame. In the old days, Canon placed a physical barrier on those lenses that prevented them from being mounted on the full frame body but made the questionable decision to allow users to do something unwise when they moved to the RF mount. Your test would have been considerably different if you had used a cheap EF lens that would allow the R6 to use its full sensor. IMO the best choice would have been the EF 50mm f/1.8 'Nifty Fifty' which was the cheapest lens you could get when your 350D was new. People who want to find fault with the R6 will point out that it has a small pixel count compared to other good cameras of today. Your choice to mismatch lenses weighted the results inappropriately. If you were set on using that kit zoom, the test would have been reasonable had you used a 90D body or waited for the rumored R7 (if the rumors are correct and Canon will release a crop sensor RF mount camera).
If we were looking at larger printed photos then yes maybe. Not so much with digital images on a small screen though
I"m just surprised the EF-S 18-55 worked on the R6. I thought you can't use EF-S on the new mirrorless cameras.
Yeah the canon adapter is for EF and EF-S
Love the video...
Do you live with your parents?
For me, unless you're actually zooming in, in a practical sense it doesn't make a difference. Especially after post production. So it seems it boils down to what type of photography you're into, which is mostly a question a more experienced person can actually answer.
Didn't using the 18-55mm on the r6 make the r6 use crop mode and use less megapixels?
Yeah that's right - didn't feel it was relevant enough for the video
@@RobSambles are the images still use able then in crop mode? If you had a better quality crop sensor lens? Only cos I have some crop sensor lenses that I'd hope to use with my r6 when I get one.
@@DelvesPhotos Yeah 100%
It really depends on your budget. It’s way too simplistic to say investing in lenses is better than investing in a camera. In fact it’s often better to get a better camera as the camera is the common component and allows you save on glass. If you have a very good camera, all of your images will improve where a lens is only good for that kens. A camera body can easily be 2 or 3 stops faster/better than a cheap body.
I think you should have used the expensive lens to the best of its abilities. The expenisive camera got to use all of its best features like more megapixels, modern processor, noise reduction, faster everything. So you should have used the lens to the best of its ability at f/2.8. I'll bet the cheap camera would have blown away the expensive camera if the glass was used to it's fullest potential.
I think going for better lens has one advantage, that is resale value. Good lenses can be sold for a good price whereas even an expensive camera like Nikon Z9 won't be worth much after a few years.
The better lens is an improvement in all situations and the better camera is an improvement in very specific situations
Black nissan sunny acssident
I'll comment because that helps. No wait, I commented last time and said Canon should send you some gear. I have a 7D Mark ii and usually shoot landscapes, beaches, national parks. I should probably expand to other photo interests. I have numerous lenses (7) so I'm keeping the 7D m2. I can't afford to buy the newest camera and throw away all my lenses because they don't fit any more. Maybe phones will eventually take over everything anyway.
I appreciate the comments Jon! The 7dii is a great camera. I still love mine
i commented for no reason but also this content was helpful
You can lose the noise, but you never get the sharpness back 🤷♀
It’s a pity you didn’t do all four possibilities in the same video, but great video otherwise!
Haha - I wish my retention was that good!
These results are not surprising. What you should have done is to pair 350d with 70-200 f 2.8 and R6 with some cheap telephoto lens like 70-300 and shoot some soccer.
Better lens
I think if you already have a more entry level camera, and you only have the money to invest in one piece of gear, get a better lens. Then later on get a better camera body when you can.
canon 350 & 24-70 2.8 vs canon 1dx ii (? didnt see an r6 ) & EF-S 18-55. matched settings . same subject. glass nudges it in these conditions when zooming in BUT when investing, any body with good glass beats the body with any glass, as good glass lasts longer.....
If you watch the bit where I show the 1dx again you should catch the explanation for that one
Is it physically possible to mount an EF-S kit lens on a 1dx ii without cutting away part of the lens' mount? That might end the test before it starts.
@@dougsmit1 I don't think so no. This was with the R6 using the adapter
The EF-S 18-55mm is not actually a bad lens. I think a better choice might have been the EF 75-300mm which is almost universally regarded as one of the worst lenses ever produced by Canon.
TLDR: Lens
7:10 There is nothing "sharper", this is digitally sharpened in camera of the 350D, this photo is actually not more detailed. My conclusion is: If you want image quality first, then a camera body is much more important than a lens, but that is because there are very affordable fast primes out there. If you need a parfocal lens for example, now that can be expensive, if you want a zoom lens which is sharp on every focal length that might be pricy. Also, as far as wide-angle lenses are concerned, there is also the problem of chromatic aberration with cheaper lenses. Everything else is MUCH more subjective than everybody assumes. At the end, if your camera allows a RAW format with as much information as possible, it is much more flexible than an Angenieux or Cooke can ever be.
Photos vs video is a whole different ballgame. With video, the codecs and data rates of the newer cameras probably be the better choice.
Get a shave 😁
At the end I think it’s not the gear, it’s the person behind the camera.
Very true
That's a very romantic view to apply to real world requirements. Everything depends upon where the captured images are destined - if the brief is to provide an A1 sized enlargement of just married couple to go over the fireplace, no matter how competent the person behind the camera, without a big enough file to start with, then pristine quality will be compromised.
Framing, composition, lighting, experience etc - yes, all very important, but it is a combination of all the factors that cannot be ignored.
@@Audit-The-Auditors Yeah agreed that's a little bit beyond the level of comparison I was aiming for here though
@@RobSambles Acknowledged, but I was more responding to Pascal.
It would be like attending a football match and attempting to get images from the sidelines with just a wide angle, kit is extremely important when it comes to specifics.
@@Audit-The-Auditors That sounds like a challenge to me 😎
The pretty lady looks a lot like eddy redmayne...
cheese
Better camera/cheap lens = a bucket full of boring images
Better lens/cheap camera = fewer keepers
Journalists can use the former and still publish the story. Amateurs will appreciate the latter. Professionals need not apply here; they'll have budget for *both* so as to not sacrifice one for the other.
I watched 80 seconds and learned nothing.
For the average photographer, especially the hobbyist, who is most likely NOT shooting predominantly fast action, sports, or in low light, this video demonstrates clearly that the most important thing is the lens. You cannot undo a low quality lens in post. It depends, on what the photographer values most, and how much they can afford.
For those who have very little money to spend, you have demonstrated that a cheaper body will produce adequate images.
Probably at the very low end, for someone starting out, its ok to buy a cheaper lens, and learn the ropes. In a way the cheaper lens will force the photographer to work a bit harder, to achieve good results. Its like when high jumpers walk around with weights strapped to their legs, so when they take them off, they feel much lighter, and their legs get stronger. So crippling the beginner a little bit may be good for them.
Regrettably, good photography is a bit of an expensive hobby or profession. If taking good images s important to the photographer, they have to either save up or prioritise over other things in life, good glass, especially good - autofocus glass, is expensive. The best you can do is buy it second hand from a reliable shop like mpb.com, which comes with guarantees, of a minimum acceptable quality.
Excellent demonstration, which confirms, good glass is the best aspect of the end result, and that's where to put most of the money in. Also, good glass will last for many many years, and be usable across, many incrementally improving models of bodies.
What I would have also loved to appreciate, from this comparison, was - how capable was the cheaper body to acquire focus, cos at the end of the day, all the best glass in the world still needs the subject to be in focus, for the best results. Could you kindly do a video on the comparative ease of nailing focus, between the expensive body and the cheap body. That would be most informative.
As an improving photographer, every time I review my photos, I find, as long as the composition is ok, i.e the framing, when culling images, to decide which ones to bother editing further, the most important thing I'm looking for is focus (assuming of course that exposure was properly nailed, in the 1st place).
So please I have subscribed so you can please share with me a video, that compares the following, between the two bodies - cheap body/expensive lens - vs - expensive body/cheap lens - same as you have in this video, but I want to know the following areas of comparison.
1. How easy was it to nail focus? For someone who is not shooting sports, is the 350D good enough, for shooting portraits, or children moving around, when paired with a good lens? Especially for many who do not shoot video, This may be a great way to start, without investing too much, until they know enough about the camera body features, which would be important to them, when they upgrade to a more modern body.
2. What aids on the camera body or lens, make one setup easier or harder to nail focus with?
3. When reviewing the images on the camera screen or in the viewfinder (aka chimping), which camera made it easier to double check, that one had got things right in camera, before going back to the computer to view on a larger screen. Its all well and good to have a great lens on the cheaper camera, but if the camera has issues like needing a micro focus adjustment (cos the lens is slightly off), which of these would be the better body. Regrettably one important aspect of today's cameras is we can view the images post shooting, which could save a lot of regrets, from coming back to the computer to discover, after a whole trip or day or shooting, that the images were less than sharp !!. So you can have a very capable lens, but if your camera body does not fully allow you to get the shots, in a manner that you can reliably double check that you got good shots, with ease, before leaving the scene/subject, that would be a big pity.
I sincerely hope I'll see you make this suggested comparison which would answer a lot of the questions that especially newbies would want to know, or those attempting to get the most for the least.
That's something I can try and do no worries
When you do portrait you do not want be too sharp..
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️