which has more effect

[Ronald Garrett]

Which has more effect on image IQ................. the camera, or the lens?

[Walter_Kimmel]

in the days of film, as long as a camera could deliver accurate shutterspeeds, have no light leaks or undue vibration, etc, the technical quality of the image was dependent upon the quality of the lens as well as the sensor. Of course, the sensor was the film, and issues such as grain, sharpness, color accuracy, saturation, etc., were controlled by the choice of film. Even then, the choice of chemicals, temperature, development time and other factors also contributed, as did printing techniques. However, the lens had the major and most obvious part to play in image quality.

Today, the lens contributes the same factors in image quality. However, the sensor is no longer a frame of film. Sensor size, pixel pitch, sensor sensitivity and density, use of AA filter and approach to microlenses , dynamic range, and much, much more make for meaningful differences among cameras. Noise, blue fringing at high contrast junctures (not chromatic aberration caused by the lens), propensity to blow highlights, and moire patterns related to pixel pitch vs the size and frequency of detail in the subject, are just a few qualities attributable to the sensor. Add to that the accuracy of autofocus, ability to track a moving subject, shutter lag and numerous other factors that influence image quality are camera based.

Add to that the means of interpolation from raw data, the type of compression, accuracy of white balance as well as other firmware and software qualities that influence the image (which are part of the camera itself)
and it is possible to say that the camera has at least as much effect on IQ as the lens.

[Jerry Skrocki]

The photographer behind both camera and lens has the most effect on image quality.

[Noel_Carboni]

I agree wholeheartedly with Jerry.

Your question is a bit too simplistic, IMO. Even considering there being no definition for "quality" beyond "I'll know it when I see it", I might have asked which has more effect on the image quality:

1. The photographer.
2. The camera.
3. The lens.
4. The digital image post processing.

Of just those listed, I would vote for numbers 1 and 4. In reality it's a dance of all these factors. Lots of ways to go wrong, a few to go right.

-Noel

P.S., I never really think of the camera and lens as being separate entities.

[Ronald Garrett]

I guess one mught say that it is the "which came first, the chicken or the egg"?

I'll rephrase the question. Given the same post processing, given the same photographer, given the same subject, given the same conditions: which has the most effect?

I understand one won't work without the other, and that they work as a team, but which team is strongest?

[Noel_Carboni]

You could imagine a relatively sucky lens - say for example, the Canon 18-55 model 1 zoom, as delivered on the first digital Rebels... Soft in the corners, pincushion distortion, a good bit of chromatic aberration, but mounted on a capable (even a dRebel was capable) body it produced decent images. Add sophisticated post processing to correct most of the optical defects and guess what? Damned decent results for a less than $100 lens.

Some kinds of shooting REQUIRE special lenses. For example, night time sports shooting. Go out with a 100-400 zoom at a best aperture of f/4.5 and zzzzzt - terrible results. Take a 200 f/1.8 and bam, best in show imagery.

What you want is a camera/lens combination that sing beautiful music together. Perhaps a lens that's just sharp enough to suit the photosite spacing on the camera's sensor, and just the right focal length(s) and aperture for the kind of shooting you need to do... Then some expertise in using it properly to get the best possible results. The camera body has to be such that 1) you have it with you - i.e., it's not such a huge kit you don't actually take it - and 2) it's ready and able to shoot in the kinds of conditions you have. If the battery is unmanageable, for example, what good is 3492 megapixels? If the body is too big and heavy to take on the nature hike, that waterfall is going to go unphotographed.

And there's some overlap... If the sensor isn't sensitive enough to shoot in the low light you have with an acceptable level of noise, you might be able to compensate by getting a lens that's got more aperture.

As I alluded before, everything has to work together to make quality images.

There is obviously a range of hardware to choose from, each with different (and often overlapping) capabilities. It's a great time to be a photographer.

-Noel

[Ronald Garrett]

Noel, that's the best job I've ever seen to round about saying, "they're even".

I've been thinking since I wrote the question, {dangerous}. The lens is a relatively simple device when compared to a modern day top rated pro DSLR. Not sure, but I don't think there has been any revolutionary discoveries lately, {besides stabilization}. Cameras on the other hand , some brands anyway, also have this stablization. In fact the Nikon D300 corrects some lens faults. That fact would tend to make me think the camera has the stronger influence.

I also think lens will have some catching up to do if DSLR technology continues at present pace.

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying