Image Quality - Body vs Lens?

[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.