«

Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> In article <ndednSY-x5->, Alan Browne
> says...
>> That's just component supply.

> The sensor is the most important component in a camera...

The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
quality). It collects and focusses the light, hopefully avoiding
too many lens imperfections (especially the ones you can't fix
in post). The sensor only records, and even mobile phone camera
sensors do good enough with good light.

Now, if you meant "camera body", you might have a point.
But again, depending on your type of shooting, you might need
fast, reliable, predictive AF more than the best sensor. Or you
might need good automatics for the JPEG engine more --- imagine
you shoot for newspaper or the web and need the photo really
quick (say sports), so no time for raw converting and WB fixing.
Or you need to hold your camera for long time spans, then it must
be comfortable to hold. No good sensor will help you if your
hand is too tired to properly hold the camera. How about long
battery life? Or tilt&swivel LCD, for those types of shooting
where even an angle finder won't do?

"XXX is the most important component in a camera" assumes far
too much about the circumstances of the shooting to be true.

-Wolfgang

In article <9jl1k9->,
Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
>Alfred Molon <> wrote:
>> In article <ndednSY-x5->, Alan Browne
>> says...
>>> That's just component supply.
>
>> The sensor is the most important component in a camera...
>
>The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
>quality).

The "weakest link" is always going to be the "most important"
component, in the sense that improvments to the limiting component
are going to have to most greatest effect on the image quality.
A lot of cameras do not have optics good enough to exploit a higher
pixel count, to pick one classic example. For such cameras,
improving the optics is the only way to improve the image. I
once owned a compact camera that, in closeup mode, could resolve
details down to one pixel. It could actually have benefited from
more pixels.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
>>Alfred Molon <> wrote:
>>> In article <ndednSY-x5->, Alan Browne

>>>> That's just component supply.

>>> The sensor is the most important component in a camera...

>>The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
>>quality).

> The "weakest link" is always going to be the "most important"
> component, in the sense that improvments to the limiting component
> are going to have to most greatest effect on the image quality.

True, but that's beside the point.

> A lot of cameras do not have optics good enough to exploit a higher
> pixel count, to pick one classic example. For such cameras,
> improving the optics is the only way to improve the image. I
> once owned a compact camera that, in closeup mode, could resolve
> details down to one pixel. It could actually have benefited from
> more pixels.

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.

With a weak lens ... well, even a good sensor won't help you.

Put a "coke bottle bottom" in front of a D800, and put a good
lens in front of a 2 MPix sensor. Guess wich one will give a
usable result.

-Wolfgang

Le 10/10/2012 11:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg a écrit :

> Put a "coke bottle bottom" in front of a D800, and put a good
> lens in front of a 2 MPix sensor. Guess wich one will give a
> usable result.

the result will ba at best what deserve tha worst element

jdd

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> In article <40tfk9->, 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.

As always, the "weakest link in the chain" rule applies. Why on earth use
crap lenses with good bodies/sensors, or vice versa?


> 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.


Actually with many good lenses costing as much as good bodies, there's often
not much difference in replacing either.

Trevor.

Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> In article <40tfk9->, 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

R. Mark Clayton <> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
>> Alfred Molon <> wrote:
>>> In article <40tfk9->, Wolfgang

>>>> 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.

> Agree.

> Would you buy this one second hand from Felix?

> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/wa...risingly-cute/

No.
1. I got one. (Mine needs quite a bit of microfocus adjust
for f/2.8.)
2. It's probably misaligned by now. It'd need a full factory
service first.
3. I fear the front lens and back lens is badly dinged by now
and would need to be replaced.


> looks like a rather nice 200mm f2.8 although the article says it is a zoom.

It is. See the 2 black broad rings? Focus ring and zoom ring.


>> 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 my current problem is that I have quite a lot of rather nice glass,
> but a FF digital body is ££££, as opposed to £££ for an APS size one. If I
> had wanted APS, I would have bought the Minolta Vectis SLR!

Sell your glass, buy a FF body. As Alfred found, "it is easy
to replace the lens".

-Wolfgang