When buying entry level cameras, are lenses really more important than the body?

Question

Original Question: Is there a D5100 alternative

I was considering my first DSLR Nikon D3000, then saw D3100 and was fixed on it, then saw D5100 and I though yes,this is the one to go for. While browsing here, I came across comments that "Lenses are your first thing and then body", "Spend money on lenses and spend less on body". While I am new (and could be wrong), I don't quite agree with it. I compared images of D3100 Vs D5100, the picture quality is way better (and I believe with same lenses). I do like D3100 for it is lighter (highly desirable), cheaper and a full DSLR, but I am really impressed with D5100, its flip screen, image quality (80) vs (65).

D5100 is perhaps a little bit heavy for me, and does not feel that great in hands. I like the feel of Canon T3i better (a lot better) but then, I do believe D5100 has a far superior image quality (in my view). HDR is a plus for me as well. My question is, should I consider D3100, or a Canon? My price range is below $1000 but can go up if justified.

I like to photograph plants, sceneries in spring, myself, mountains, hiking, take shots of ppl and perhaps historic places and thunderstorms. Please suggest. I am already getting a good deal on Nikon5100. Is there anything I am missing. It is a first time big investment for me on camera.

Answer 1

Cameras matter too, and at the bottom end there's a considerable difference between models. That advice largely starts to apply for film or more for cameras above the 1k mark, where the basic features are all included and you're differing on the quality of included systems - not simply if they're present. That said - the kit lens included with most of these cameras is not very good and you should consider getting something better as a top priority. The aperture doesn't go wide enough to give you sufficient creative control over depth of field. Consider picking up a cheap 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 and you'll learn more and get better results.

In regards to the specific camera question, if you can stretch a little above the 1000 dollar mark - go for the D7000. Its in a class clearly above the others. 100% viewfinder, in body motor, high IQ, weatherproofing, dual controls - its a much better camera.

If thats not an option, there are certainly features on the D5100 that are attractive vs the D3100 - which you've already listed and are generally correct. But I think you're overstating the difference in IQ in normal situations - the D3100 is certainly no slouch. The D5100 reportedly feels a bit clumsy from a user experience perspective. Notably, it lacks the drive mode switch of the D3100. The easier your camera is to use to you, the more you'll like it than just higher IQ.

I can't tell you which features you'd use more, but I certainly wouldn't base my sole decision on the IQ between the D5100 and D3100 (even though the D5100 is better). If its between the D5100 and the kit lens or the D3100 and a better lens - I'd get the D3100 and a better lens. If you've got the cash, spring for the D7000 and pick up a 50mm or 35mm f/1.8.

Check out this also:

What should I look for when shopping for my first DSLR?

Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost?

---

Canon, Pentax, and Sony are all viable options too - What are considerations when choosing a DSLR brand? In your price range, they've all got advantages and disadvantages and there's no clear winner - pick one you like and consider the advice in that question.

Answer 2

Yes, it matters, a lot.

There is little difference in image quality between cropped-sensor bodies these days and certainly a lot less compared to the difference in quality between a poor and a quality lens. Even between a D5100 and D7000 which costs much more, the quality difference is small. The same is true in Canon's line-up.

Even more important, the lenses you choose affect your photography far more than image quality. Depth-of-field, focal-length and perspective change your photos dramatically, giving you much more creative power with the right lenses. If your photos are not compelling, no one will care about their image quality.

As others have said, cameras matter too. They do, but for less important reasons. With digital cameras, bodies evolve rapidly and are constantly improving. Lenses change very little and quickly form a large part of photographic investment, so it is a good idea to buy the right ones for the longer run. Lenses other than the cheapest ones tend to increase in value as all manufacturers periodically raise their prices. This rarely happens to cameras.

Answer 3

Firstly, the classic advice 'invest in lenses not bodies' is somewhat out of date these days; it's really a leftover from the days of film. With film cameras, the body is little more than a light-proof box holding the film, so you were better off investing in really good glass.

Nowadays, however, the body has much more to do with the final image - the sensor, AF, metering and other functions are all important factors. That's not to say that you shouldn't invest in good lenses, just that the lens/body balance is more even these days.

So, if you can afford a better camera than the D3100, go for it. Whether that's a D5100 or a Canon is up to you. Personally I prefer the sturdier feel of the Nikons. Image quality is the most important factor in my opinion, so if you feel the Nikon does better in that regard, and you are getting a good deal on a 5100, it seems a no-brainer.

Answer 4

Speed and precision of autofocus and high-ISO image quality still vary quite a lot between bodies. However, faster lenses and off-camera flash help with these, and ultimately give you better images than you could get with more expensive body, cheap lens and no extra light.

But your usage patterns also matter here: if you are shooting situations where you can carry stuff like tripod, off-camera flash, fast primes etc with you, things like low-ISO performance matter lot less. If you are a photojournalist or traveler who has tight limits to luggage, or wedding photographer who has to capture non-repeatable moments, the body starts to matter more.

But, if you are shooting for money, then you ultimately want to get them all - good lenses, near-the-top body and proper lighting equipment.

Answer 5

Bodies come and go, lenses are forever. Wait a couple of years and the top-of-the-line camera body you bought yesterday will be worthless. They go off as fast as mackerel. Wait a couple of decades and the top-of-the-line lens you bought yesterday will still be a very good lens.

Besides, there is a much bigger difference in the image quality you get with a poor lens versus a good lens than there is between a cheapo DSLR body and an expensive one. Unless you actively need top of the line autofocus, which tends to be available only in the upper tier of camera bodies, or you need weather-sealing (ditto), or you actively hate the ergonomics of the entry-levels (which I do, frankly; I dislike the weight of my 1Ds II but it feels soooo right in my hands), the entry-level DSLRs are more than good enough. Spend the money on glass instead.

Alternative: Pick up a second-hand, previous generation, mid-tier camera body. Not the el cheapo stuff, not the big heavy pro stuff, but one of the ones in the middle. You will save a bundle of cash versus buying a new one and still get most of the goodies of the current generation mid-tier bodies. DSLRs reached the level of "good enough" quite some time ago.

Answer 6

You get different things when you spend your money on a camera body and when you spend it on a lens.

A more expensive body gives you more features, and better results in difficult situations. Generally a more expensive camera handles high ISO settings better.

A more expensive lens gives you things like more light ("fast" lenses), better edge sharpness, faster focus.

As both affect the result, but mainly in different ways, there should be a balance between the cost of the camera and the cost of the lens. A cheap camera doesn't benefit much from an expensive lens, and you don't get nearly as much as you could from an expensive camera with a cheap lens on it.

Answer 7

My take on it is simple: a newbie should be getting a newbie camera and going from there. You will only get photos as good as you are able to take. When you start getting really good, then invest in more and better quality lenses. When you start feeling you're on the verge of being a "pro", upgrade the camera and the lenses will already be there for that upgrade.

I have a D3100 myself even now in mid-2013, and I can still take photos as good as a newbie with a more expensive D7000 — I'm sure of it. Anewbie will produce the same pics with a high quality body costing thousands as he/she will with a lower model. This is why they are considered a beginner, after all. I have used higher quality kit, for sure, and I will be honest: I do notice the differencem but am I good enough to invest in buying a top-end Canon 5D? I dont think so — it would be wasted on me. I'm better off buying some lovely glass for my future investment when I get pro-level good.