I know the general advice is to spend money on lenses and avoid spending on the camera body.
However, I'm in a position where I intend to purchase a camera to last for 15 or 20 years. I'm not a professional photographer, but I would like a DSLR anyway because I simply can't stand the noisy garbage that comes out of point and shoot sensors.
Based on Rfusca's recommendation, (again using Nikon as an example) I'm probably looking at a D5100 or a D7000. Now, there's a $500 price difference between these cameras, but that's really not true because the D7000 kit comes with a more general purpose (18-105mm VR) lens, while the D5100 comes with a plain ol' (18-50mm VR) lens (and the cost difference in the lenses is 2 to 3 hundred). With the D5100 kit I'd probably end up purchasing another lens now; with the 7000 I'd probably not be doing so for quite some time.
Now, with this in mind I'm considering spending the additional money for the 7000 kit. My main "stopper" for doing that right now though is that little voice in the back of my skull saying "don't spend that on the camera, spend that on lenses..."
I'm wondering if the foundation for that advice is for people who are going to replace their body every 5 years, which I won't be doing. Is that the case?
Answer
Personally I would go for the D7000 if you can afford it. While the 'buy lenses not bodies' advice is still sound to an extent, it was a lot more relevant in the days of film, when the body was really just a light-proof box with shutters inside.
Nowadays the bodies have a lot more features that have a greater impact on the photographs you take with them, and so if you can afford to get one with a better sensor, more focusing points etc, it's a good idea to go for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment