Image Quality - Body vs Lens?

[Pi]

It turns out that all zoom lenses like the Canon 28-135mm are bad in the corners of the image, or cost more than the body 5D classic.

I am not sure why we are discussing here a lens like the 28-135 vs. the much higher class 17-55 but while we at it, I do not see the dreadful corners here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

or here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Obviously, not the 5D classic (it is 16mp vs. 12 mp) but corner resolution is not really so much dependent on pixel density. The 1DsII (16mp) with the 28-135 outperforms the fancy 17-55 on the 60D petty much across the range, according to TDP.

Now, imagine a real lens on a recent FF body. Wait, I do not need to imagine it.

[FTb-n]

I shoot a lot of indoor sports and lots of figure skating -- fast, erratic moving subjects in sometimes challenging light.  I went from an XT with a 70-300 f4-5.6 (non-L) to a 60D with a 70-200 f2.8 II.  Somewhere, in between, I borrowed a 70-200 f2.8 Mark I for my XT and saw a huge improvement.  But, noise at 1600 was still noise.  With that one experience, I was sold on the 70-200 L.  But, I also realized that sensors do matter.  It's not like 40 years ago when Kodachrome 64 was just as good in a Canon FTb as it was in the F1.

Since then I upgraded to the 7D and my keeper rate went up significantly due to better focus tracking.  But, I still needed Noise Ninja or Lightroom to clean up the noise.  I often shoot between 1600 and 3200.

Early this year I upgraded to the 5D3 and my image quality increased dramatically.  Rarely do I need to clean up noise.  Images are sharper and with the bigger pixels, color depth is deeper.  For challenging, harsh lighting, I have more flexibility in Lightroom to tone down the highlights and bring out detail in the shadows.

I went through a lot of mind games to convince myself that I would never "need" full frame because I just couldn't see myself spending the money for it.  I thought the 7D was the greatest camera made -- until  my 5D3 arrived.

Granted, for outdoor stuff, I still get some good use out of the 7D.  But, it's a backup body when indoors.

It's easier to invest first in lenses.  They often last longer.  That 100 f2.0 should be great lens on crop or full frame.  (It's still on my wish list.)  But, sometimes there's no escaping the benefit of upgrading sensors (even if the body surrounding it isn't top of the line).

So, body or lens?  Yes.

[FTb-n]

One more note.  It is true that the 5D3 yields sharper images than the 7D when using the same lens.  The image quality comparison tool on The-Digital-Picture.com illustrates this quite nicely.  Contrary to popular belief, the extra pixel density of the 7D doesn't necessarily result in sharper images compared to cropping a FF image to the same perspective.

When I made my move to FF, I feared the loss of that extra reach with my 70-200.  I had grown accustomed to capturing shots of skaters at the far end of the rink with an effective focal length of 320mm.  So, when I got the 5D3, I did lots of comparison tests between it and the 7D with the same 70-200.  I cropped the 5D3 images to the same perspective of the 7D.  In my tests, the cropped 5D3 images typically looked as sharp or sharper than the non-cropped 7D images -- and always looked richer in color depth with less noise.

[ajfotofilmagem]

It turns out that all zoom lenses like the Canon 28-135mm are bad in the corners of the image, or cost more than the body 5D classic.

I am not sure why we are discussing here a lens like the 28-135 vs. the much higher class 17-55 but while we at it, I do not see the dreadful corners here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

or here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Obviously, not the 5D classic (it is 16mp vs. 12 mp) but corner resolution is not really so much dependent on pixel density. The 1DsII (16mp) with the 28-135 outperforms the fancy 17-55 on the 60D petty much across the range, according to TDP.

Now, imagine a real lens on a recent FF body. Wait, I do not need to imagine it.

I mentioned the 5D classic, much praised in CR. Of course, other superior models show the full frame advantages over 5D classical. Looking at the comparison of the link you posted, I see the corners of the image (which I mentioned) of 28-135mm with much chromatic aberration, and less sharpness compared to the same lens aperture F. I also realized that this comparison (even at the corners), 17-55mm shows moiré that certifies the ability of the lens resolution surpassing the 60D sensor.

[RLPhoto]

Glass > Body

[Pi]

Looking at the comparison of the link you posted, I see the corners of the image (which I mentioned) of 28-135mm with much chromatic aberration, and less sharpness compared to the same lens aperture F.

Comparing at the same vs. the equivalent apertures in one of the reasons for the myth that on FF the corners are softer. In the links I posted, the FF combo had a disadvantage, in one of the shots -  it is at f/4 instead if f/4.5.

And no, (color) moire in this case does not indicate better resolution, you must be joking. It is an indication of resonance with the Bayer array.

[Ruined]

I think this answer is a bit more complex than simply answering "body vs lens".

If you are talking about a Canon 70D with a 50mm f/1.8 vs. a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L , then the answer will be LENS.

But, if you are talking about a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L vs a Canon 6D with a 85mm f/1.8, then the answer will be BODY.

While the LENS has a huge impact, so does the BODY.  But, the biggest impact the body has is FULL FRAME vs CROP.  So, you are probably better upgrading the LENS instead of upgrading to another crop body.  But if you are moving to FULL FRAME, you may get superior image quality by upgrading the BODY instead of the lens.

[DRR]

I think this answer is a bit more complex than simply answering "body vs lens".

If you are talking about a Canon 70D with a 50mm f/1.8 vs. a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L , then the answer will be LENS.

But, if you are talking about a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L vs a Canon 6D with a 85mm f/1.8, then the answer will be BODY.

While the LENS has a huge impact, so does the BODY.  But, the biggest impact the body has is FULL FRAME vs CROP.  So, you are probably better upgrading the LENS instead of upgrading to another crop body.  But if you are moving to FULL FRAME, you may get superior image quality by upgrading the BODY instead of the lens.

I agree with this. In my experience. I used to own a 7D. Going to L lenses from mid-range, slower lenses, offered me little to no difference in image quality. Upgrading at that point to FF though, made a huge difference. My conclusion was that the mid-range glass, like the 28-135, was well matched to the 7D, and thus, the 7D could not resolve much better image quality from the nicer glass. FF could though, I saw an immediate difference when I moved to FF, both from my L zooms and my mid range primes. The FF even made my 50mm 1.8 seem like a new lens.

The answer is not "body" nor is it "lens" the answer is to find the weak point in your equipment and upgrade that.

[dak723]

Go for good lenses and then you won't feel the need to upgrade bodies.  In my opinion from having rented a couple - and from reviews on the net - pretty much every Canon crop body will give you about the same IQ.  So going from a Rebel to a 7D or 70D will not improve your IQ much if at all for still photography.  What is added in the more expensive cameras is more features and buttons for ease of use. 

On the topic of full frame versus crop (especially if you have older non-supported lenses or non-Canon lenses) don't rush into the "full frame is better IQ" thought process.  Unless you are printing large scale and need the extra resolution or need the higher ISO settings, full frame has some disadvantages.  Just bought a 6D and when using an older non-supported lens, I have more vignetting and CA in the corners.  Also sharpness issues away from the image center are considerably greater on a full frame.  Full frame also offers less zoom, and the shallower depth of field can be a problem when doing close-up photography of flowers and other "not-flat" subjects where a depth of field of an inch or so is desirable.  I find the 6D excellent for landscapes, but continue to use my crop camera for "zooming" subjects and macro.

[sandymandy]

http://gizmodo.com/5642684/a-state-of-the-art-camera-with-a-102+year+old-lens

combination is the key

[ecka]

I think this answer is a bit more complex than simply answering "body vs lens".

If you are talking about a Canon 70D with a 50mm f/1.8 vs. a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L , then the answer will be LENS.

But, if you are talking about a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L vs a Canon 6D with a 85mm f/1.8, then the answer will be BODY.

While the LENS has a huge impact, so does the BODY.  But, the biggest impact the body has is FULL FRAME vs CROP.  So, you are probably better upgrading the LENS instead of upgrading to another crop body.  But if you are moving to FULL FRAME, you may get superior image quality by upgrading the BODY instead of the lens.

+1

Been there, done that. No more crops for me. Basically speaking, FF+zoom ~ APSC+prime, but FF+prime level is unreachable for crops. Maybe the new Sigma 18-35/1.8 on crop is close to f/2.8 zoom on FF (still not as good), but it's size (as big and heavy as 24-70LII) and price ($900) puts things back in their places. No free candy there.
On the other hand, any decent modern lens can produce decent quality images. The new EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM is considerably better and cheaper than the older EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM and, in many cases, it's not bad enough for upgrading to 70-300L.
IMHO, upgrading is not about mixing priorities, "FF vs better lenses" is like "bees vs honey", they should go together. Every L lens deserves a FF body . Size matters, specially in physics. Bigger sensor will always give you more ... , due to either bigger pixel size or their quantity.