Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg says...
The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
sensor.

The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.

It's as easy to replace the sensor as to replace the lens.
Buy a new body. They're becoming cheaper every hour. Look at
the prices of bodies first made 5 years ago if you don't belive me.

Now, good lenses keep their value for a long time, if you don't
damage them. And often are many times the price of a small
up-to-date body with a good sensor.


You seem to advocate the strategy of using low quality lenses on
high-end bodies and replace the lenses after some years (when
the body's worth little). That's rubbish. If you want to go
cheap to test the waters, buy a used, older body and kit lenses
(say 18-55 + 55-200). See what you like. See what you miss.
Then make an informed decision which lenses to buy (if any)
and of what quality and speed they are needed to be. If your
body works for you, no need to upgrade it.

Anyway, as I see it, the last few years have brought body
improvements in
- adding 20+ MPix sensors, for which you really want high
quality glasses, and which most people simply don't need,
- adding higher usable ISO ratings (Sports, available
darkness shooting, ...) for which you want fast (wide
aperture) lenses anyway
- movie mode, the usefulnes of which is limited to
a) professional movie makers with focus pullers & co
b) specialized needs
c) "for fun" projects with little budget and no problems when
restricted to one focal length and focussing distance
because otherwise a consumer camcorder is much better.
And for proper using the movie mode you really want non-focus
breathing, parfocal lenses, which cost an arm and a leg, an
external monitor, proper mikes and co and so on.
- peripheral systems like AF, which you may need to be top notch
(then you need an expensive top of the line body) or which work
OK for you anyway.

You'll note that about everything that directly impacts the image
wants a good or excellent (and expensive) lens to be worth the
body, but you'll still make almost the same quality (a few less
MPix and not at ISO 6.400) with lesser bodies. Which was my point.


-Wolfgang