Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

[gferdinandsen]

Really, how many people are printing at sizes that require higher MP? I understand that Canon has to compete with what others sell just to stay competitive, but that's because the consumer is buying their camera based on just MP. How many of you ever shot with a 1V, 3, 7/7E, or even a Rebel? Except for speed, AF, and weather sealing (OK the 1V offered a very primitive EXIF data), there was very little difference. What I am trying to say is that the resultant picture was usually just as good regardless of the body (not the lens though). I still have my 28-70, I have no plans on upgrading to the 24-70 much less anything that comes down the road.

Only when we do very large enlargements (bigger than 8x12, probably larger than 13x19) would we see a difference...and very few photo's get enlarged to that size. Frankly, I don't have the money to afford the framing for all the enlargements that I would like.

I'm sure the lenses Ansel Adams used would be considered vastly inferior by today's standard...but I'll take his photo's over mine anyday. Technique is worth far more than glass and sensors anyday.

And as a side note, on sharpness and landscapes. Lens sharpness is a moot point for any longer exposusers on a tripod, all it takes is a breeze, much less a gust, and sharpness goes out the window.

 

[awinphoto]

Really, how many people are printing at sizes that require higher MP? I understand that Canon has to compete with what others sell just to stay competitive, but that's because the consumer is buying their camera based on just MP. How many of you ever shot with a 1V, 3, 7/7E, or even a Rebel? Except for speed, AF, and weather sealing (OK the 1V offered a very primitive EXIF data), there was very little difference. What I am trying to say is that the resultant picture was usually just as good regardless of the body (not the lens though). I still have my 28-70, I have no plans on upgrading to the 24-70 much less anything that comes down the road.

Only when we do very large enlargements (bigger than 8x12, probably larger than 13x19) would we see a difference...and very few photo's get enlarged to that size. Frankly, I don't have the money to afford the framing for all the enlargements that I would like.

I'm sure the lenses Ansel Adams used would be considered vastly inferior by today's standard...but I'll take his photo's over mine anyday. Technique is worth far more than glass and sensors anyday.

And as a side note, on sharpness and landscapes. Lens sharpness is a moot point for any longer exposusers on a tripod, all it takes is a breeze, much less a gust, and sharpness goes out the window.

I agree with your sentiments regarding skill... with my clients, most portraits, the sizes range from 8x10's to 11x14... Keep in mind, even with the 7D at 300dpi it's native size only pumps out a 17.5"x11.5". While that's more than most people, and I know you can print at 240dpi and get slightly larger, it isn't as big as you would really think. I also have clients that like 2 page spreads and their magazines are roughly letter paper sized and so you are looking at about 11x17 right there, plus needing enough for a bleed. Lastly, on epsons you can get away with printing at lower DPI, however with commercial printers, they still require 300 DPI or they look crappy with the crappy CMYK color mode... As said before, I'd rather have the extra MP in my backpocket to shoot with as needed than need it and not have it. PS.... this last spring a company going to a tradeshow wanted a mural shot for their tradeshow booth... It was at 10 feet wide by 8 feet tall... I only needed to shoot it at 72dpi because of the printer they were using for the booth... with the 7d vertically, I was able to shoot the mural in 7 photos overlapping a little each time and used photoshop to quickly stitch them together... I was able to produce an image at their resolution and size that required no interpolation and fractal enlargement you would need if shot with a lesser camera.

 

[torger]

Torger... regarding your post, it seems like you are trying to point out all the limitations and saying if you want to do this, this, and that, you cannot use x, y and z. Handholding is bad on a 7d because of camera shake? Ever hear of faster shutters and as a backup? Tilt Shift to make up for DOF? Are you kidding me? Yes you can (if you have your angles right) get a horizontal focus however subjects on the floor and ceiling will be OOF at shallow F Stops... The fact is yes we are venturing into a new horizon, and yes, canon, nikon, sony, et al are all creating new lenses/cameras/gadgets to prepare for the new wave of cameras... Yes, diffraction is a reality, but it's just something to overcome... anyone remember reciprocity in the film days? a 1 second exposure quickly turned into a 30 second exposure just depending on the type film you were using! Diffraction has always been there but print sizes and resolution were so small with 35mm's that no one saw it. Odds are with the 7D, at 8x10, you probably wouldn't see it with decent glass. Stop worrying about what your camera CANT do and starting finding ways to overcome and be a better photographer.

Yes fast shutter speeds is a good backup, but then you usually have too little light to go for ISO100, and then electronic and shot noise takes down the effective resolution, so you pretty much end up at around that 12 megapixel effective resolution anyway. Thing is you need really short shutter speeds to avoid camera moves that makes 12+ megapixels tack sharp, shorter than "traditional" hand-hold times since those are based on what resolution you would expect from 35mm film.

The purpose of the whole discussion with hand-holdability does not need more than ~12 megapixels was to make clear that if you only do hand-held photography you shouldn't scream for more megapixels today. The megapixel hunt is for us that shoot from a tripod with mirror up and remote shutter and dream about affording a medium format system so we could do even larger prints. It is probably quite a small group, but we exist.

Tilt is to make up for DOF, shift is perspective control. Anyone that has worked with a view camera in landscape photography know that tilt is used *alot*, perhaps in the majority of photos. You often don't get 100% perfect sharpness in the whole image of course, but you can in many cases make a much better sharpness optimization than you can without tilt, and new compositions of near-far-type is possible. When you may have needed f/22 without tilt you could get away with f/8, and thus both get less diffraction and shorter shutter speed with less wind problems. The more resolution your system can produce, the more you want to avoid the smallest apertures, and the more valuable the tilt function becomes. Some compositions made possible by tilt have so much depth of field that even f/22 is not enough.

I'm not exactly worried about performance. However, I invest quite a lot of money in my hobby and thus make careful technical analysis of the performance of the system. If quality wasn't important to me, I'd just go for a Canon S95 compact camera and happily shoot my landscapes. Aside from quality, it can do all pictures I can do with my current system. But I kind of like the photographic craft and want to be able to produce the best technical quality within my budget, so that the 4 - 5 pictures I manage to do a year that do have sufficient artistic quality to be framed on the wall also have true professional technical quality and can be made very large. So I gather all this technical knowledge to be able to make wise investment decisions, and to know how to make the best possible out of a situation in the field. But it's not like I don't shoot pictures if I can't use ISO100 and optimal aperture... .

 

[gferdinandsen]

Maybe this is another subject, but for those of you you never shot transparancies (E6), for those of you who picked up photography in the last few years. The Dynamic Range of slides, from what I remember, is about 3.5 f stops (E6 = 3.5, C41 = 8) . As I look back at all my slides, I wonder how much better they would be as digital; but, you learn much better technique when you are constrained (ISO 100, 400 max; limited dynamic range; no photoshop). Film (C41) has much better dynamic range, but much less color saturation...just my two cents as someone who learned their *art* with a film camera. And no matter how good photoshop is, you can't dodge and burn like you can in a wet darkroom. I'm kind of missing my trusty 1V now as I respond to this thread

 

[awinphoto]

Torger... regarding your post, it seems like you are trying to point out all the limitations and saying if you want to do this, this, and that, you cannot use x, y and z. Handholding is bad on a 7d because of camera shake? Ever hear of faster shutters and as a backup? Tilt Shift to make up for DOF? Are you kidding me? Yes you can (if you have your angles right) get a horizontal focus however subjects on the floor and ceiling will be OOF at shallow F Stops... The fact is yes we are venturing into a new horizon, and yes, canon, nikon, sony, et al are all creating new lenses/cameras/gadgets to prepare for the new wave of cameras... Yes, diffraction is a reality, but it's just something to overcome... anyone remember reciprocity in the film days? a 1 second exposure quickly turned into a 30 second exposure just depending on the type film you were using! Diffraction has always been there but print sizes and resolution were so small with 35mm's that no one saw it. Odds are with the 7D, at 8x10, you probably wouldn't see it with decent glass. Stop worrying about what your camera CANT do and starting finding ways to overcome and be a better photographer.

Yes fast shutter speeds is a good backup, but then you usually have too little light to go for ISO100, and then electronic and shot noise takes down the effective resolution, so you pretty much end up at around that 12 megapixel effective resolution anyway. Thing is you need really short shutter speeds to avoid camera moves that makes 12+ megapixels tack sharp, shorter than "traditional" hand-hold times since those are based on what resolution you would expect from 35mm film.

The purpose of the whole discussion with hand-holdability does not need more than ~12 megapixels was to make clear that if you only do hand-held photography you shouldn't scream for more megapixels today. The megapixel hunt is for us that shoot from a tripod with mirror up and remote shutter and dream about affording a medium format system so we could do even larger prints. It is probably quite a small group, but we exist.

Tilt is to make up for DOF, shift is perspective control. Anyone that has worked with a view camera in landscape photography know that tilt is used *alot*, perhaps in the majority of photos. You often don't get 100% perfect sharpness in the whole image of course, but you can in many cases make a much better sharpness optimization than you can without tilt, and new compositions of near-far-type is possible. When you may have needed f/22 without tilt you could get away with f/8, and thus both get less diffraction and shorter shutter speed with less wind problems. The more resolution your system can produce, the more you want to avoid the smallest apertures, and the more valuable the tilt function becomes. Some compositions made possible by tilt have so much depth of field that even f/22 is not enough.

I'm not exactly worried about performance. However, I invest quite a lot of money in my hobby and thus make careful technical analysis of the performance of the system. If quality wasn't important to me, I'd just go for a Canon S95 compact camera and happily shoot my landscapes. Aside from quality, it can do all pictures I can do with my current system. But I kind of like the photographic craft and want to be able to produce the best technical quality within my budget, so that the 4 - 5 pictures I manage to do a year that do have sufficient artistic quality to be framed on the wall also have true professional technical quality and can be made very large. So I gather all this technical knowledge to be able to make wise investment decisions, and to know how to make the best possible out of a situation in the field. But it's not like I don't shoot pictures if I can't use ISO100 and optimal aperture... .

To be frank, you can easily get away with up to ISO 1000 in most situations on the 7D... I've shot with higher and noise isn't bad... I will say that the 50D has more noise than the 7D and has less MP... I shoot a lot of handholding with my cameras... sometimes you need to shoot 2-4x the MM of the lens you are using, but it's not hard getting tack sharp images with my gear unless you are shooting indoors... then yes, a tripod is required, but as you can expect with most cameras...

Heck the same can be said with large format cameras in regards to size and resolution, the 4x5 view camera had to be tripod bound cause of size and weight but they were able to come up with 4x5 feild cameras which were handheld and that has even higher resolution than modern digitals. Dont forget Image stabilization within lenses... Unless you have the shakes, you shouldn't have problems handholding with fast shutters and getting tack sharp images. What lenses are you using that cannot get sharp images? There's a difference between theory photography and practical photography... I understand your theory about MP and tack sharp images but in practice, in what situation have you ever had problems... please provide examples and details...

i've shot with 4x5's, medium formats, 35mm... to be honest 3 years ago I sold my view camera cause of lack of use... There are other ways to get around DOF including for landscapes and such including but not limited to focus bracketing and hyperfocal distance focusing which can use lower f-stops. To be honest, the latter of the two has never let me down on my landscapes. Also as lens quality improves, so will diffraction and this a new era in lenses and cameras...

 

[torger]

I'm sure the lenses Ansel Adams used would be considered vastly inferior by today's standard...but I'll take his photo's over mine anyday. Technique is worth far more than glass and sensors anyday.

And as a side note, on sharpness and landscapes. Lens sharpness is a moot point for any longer exposusers on a tripod, all it takes is a breeze, much less a gust, and sharpness goes out the window.

Yes, many underestimate the value of a very sturdy (and unfortunately quite expensive) tripod. Yes, in many cases you cannot get full use of the peak resolution of modern digital systems (medium format can do 80 megapixels these days, 200 in multi-shot), but you can in sufficiently large amount of cases that people do invest in these systems.

Ansel Adams lenses were inferior, but since he used 4x5 or 8x10 film (7 times wider than 35mm) it did produce quite sharp results compared to what we can do today on 35mm. Modern professional landscape photographers often use medium format systems, the 60 megapixel P65+ is popular, so we have not reached the point where the professionals say "I cannot make use of more quality than available in the current 35mm systems". At least not all of them, some that used early digital medium format systems while 35mm digital really sucked have moved to 35mm now with the 5Dmk2 and Nikon D3x which produces as good images as a a 6 year old 20 megapixel medium format digital back.

 

[torger]

i've shot with 4x5's, medium formats, 35mm... to be honest 3 years ago I sold my view camera cause of lack of use... There are other ways to get around DOF including for landscapes and such including but not limited to focus bracketing and hyperfocal distance focusing which can use lower f-stops. To be honest, the latter of the two has never let me down on my landscapes. Also as lens quality improves, so will diffraction and this a new era in lenses and cameras...

Sure, in the end it is mostly a personal preference on how one wants to work. Like some people prefer to use primes when they shoot, and some prefer using zooms. I find that to me tilt is valuable and I appriciate working with it. I do see technical advantages today, but perhaps I'll change the way I work in the future. Focus stacking is an interesting technique that I have used some, as well as HDR. I like to have many options to solve the creative problem.

 

[V8Beast]

Dont worry about hurting my feelings, however if you cannot get a shot with a xxd camera with the quality that you could get with a 1ds... then that kinda reflects on your ability to fully utilize your gear and skill. That's all I'm getting at.

That's funny. I'm glad your xxD bodies and 7D are suitable for your needs. I, too, remember the days when I had yet to reach the limit of lesser, entry-level equipment. Keep practicing, and maybe you'll get there too someday

By your account, anyone who shoots with a 1D or 1Ds isn't capable of capturing the same caliber of images with an xxD body. Using your logic, nicer equipment is for less skilled photographers, and the truly skilled studs like you stick with inferior equipment. Think whatever helps you sleep better at night, bud.

 

[J. McCabe]

I couldn't care less whether FF cameras can have more MP and at the same time superior noise control and DR. It's just that I don't want more MP.

It's the same problem I am facing. BMW are continually improving their performance while decreasing fuel consumption. I hate this efficiency war ! ???

And that's supposed to be an analogy how ?

 

[J. McCabe]

It's just that I don't want more MP.

Why not?

Because (a) extra pixels have extra cost, and (b) some people don't need extra pixels. Nikon seems to understad that.

 

[Loswr]

That's funny. I'm glad your xxD bodies and 7D are suitable for your needs. I, too, remember the days when I had yet to reach the limit of lesser, entry-level equipment. Keep practicing, and maybe you'll get there too someday

By your account, anyone who shoots with a 1D or 1Ds isn't capable of capturing the same caliber of images with an xxD body. Using your logic, nicer equipment is for less skilled photographers, and the truly skilled studs like you stick with inferior equipment. Think whatever helps you sleep better at night, bud.

That's funny. I remember the days when I was an immature jerk who thought that insulting others somehow made me a better person. Keep aging, maybe you'll grow out of it.

In case you somehow missed the point earlier, the idea is not that pros should use inferior equipment, but that top-notch equipment is not a requirement to produce top-quality work. Feel free to put your portfolio where your fingers are, bud - we'd love to see what a real photographer like you can produce (or maybe I have, if you're the same V8Beast with this photobucket album - who's pictures were taken with the top-notch Canon PowerShot G7).

Or, just keep up with the insults, if that makes you feel like a bigger man, so you can sleep at night.

 

[EYEONE]

Sometimes guys, a photographers skills aren't the only thing that determines what equipment he uses. You are assuming that if someone can get amazing pictures from a Rebel then they will never need a 1D or 5D.

Sometimes people just like to have better stuff. Some people are minimalists and don't care. And some tend to be tech dorks and want better stuff (like me).

My first camera was a Rebel XSi and I did some pretty good things with it in my opinion. When I decided to upgrade to a 7D I knew that it wouldn't make me a better photographer. And in practice the only thing it allows me to do that the Rebel didn't was go beyond ISO 1600 if I need to. Everything else, the 19 AF points, the higher res screen, the shorter shutter lag, and the bigger viewfinder just make the experience nicer.

I'm the type that does want a 1D Mark IV. Even if I could do the job with a 7D. I just find cameras extremely interesting and would love to have them all if I was stupidly rich. I do get paid for my work but it's not my primary source of income.

So, does that make me a wanna be?

 

[zerotiu]

Sometimes guys, a photographers skills aren't the only thing that determines what equipment he uses. You are assuming that if someone can get amazing pictures from a Rebel then they will never need a 1D or 5D.

Sometimes people just like to have better stuff. Some people are minimalists and don't care. And some tend to be tech dorks and want better stuff (like me).

My first camera was a Rebel XSi and I did some pretty good things with it in my opinion. When I decided to upgrade to a 7D I knew that it wouldn't make me a better photographer. And in practice the only thing it allows me to do that the Rebel didn't was go beyond ISO 1600 if I need to. Everything else, the 19 AF points, the higher res screen, the shorter shutter lag, and the bigger viewfinder just make the experience nicer.

I'm the type that does want a 1D Mark IV. Even if I could do the job with a 7D. I just find cameras extremely interesting and would love to have them all if I was stupidly rich. I do get paid for my work but it's not my primary source of income.

So, does that make me a wanna be?

Me too. I'm happy with my t2i. It is satisfying but the DoF is always not enough and the ISO is terrible for low light.

 

[YoukY63]

I still don't understand why people complain about "too many" pixels...

I also one of the guys that say "never enough". The printing argument is irrelevant: I never print any photo. Instead, I watch them on my computer. And as I am doing landscape (day or night), sometime I enjoy to look at a very small detail of my picture. The more details I can get the happier I am. ;D
And please, do not compare Nikon's strategy to Canon's one. Canon is deciding by itself what it will do. And since many years it is increasing strongly the number of pixels, in APS-C and FF models. When they released the 5DII, everybody was saying they are stupid, too many pixels, it will reduce image quality compared to 5DmI. Result: the 5DmII, 3 years later, is still one of the most amazing camera on the market. And still outperforms APS-C camera, for both image quality and pixel numbers.
In Nikon's land, the equation is different. They mostly depend on Sony's strategy. Ans I am amused to read people saying that Nikon is not running the MPxls race. Do you know what will be their next camera? The D400 will be 24MPxls! And their next FF will be around 40MPxls.

So then, I hardly imagine Canon releasing a flagship FF camera with <30MPxls camera, that would be economically irrelevant after 1 year.

And I have not doubt that their 30+ MPxls (can I ask around 40MPxls?) will outperform in noise control, dynamic range and iso ability (so image quality) the 5DmII, but also the next APS-C camera for the next 3 years.

The race is not over, it is just starting!

 

[macgregor mathers]

I still don't understand why people complain about "too many" pixels...

Because extra pixels have an extra cost. Yes, this cost drops with time, but that drop is cancelled by the extra pixels.

I also one of the guys that say "never enough".

And how this leads to the conclusion that no lower resolution cameras should be produced how ?

And please, do not compare Nikon's strategy to Canon's one. Canon is deciding by itself what it will do.

Indeed, Canon should decide whether it should lose customers to Nikon.

everybody was saying they are stupid, too many pixels, it will reduce image quality

Quality is not the only consideration.

Result: the 5DmII, 3 years later, is still one of the most amazing camera on the market. And still outperforms APS-C camera, for both image quality and pixel numbers.

Possibly because APS-C have 40% sensor area, and 85% the pixel count ?

Do you think that if canon made an 8.something APS-C camera (40% of 21 MP = ~8.5) during that period, it's image quality would still be worse than a 5DmkII's ?

In Nikon's land, the equation is different. They mostly depend on Sony's strategy. Ans I am amused to read people saying that Nikon is not running the MPxls race. Do you know what will be their next camera? The D400 will be 24MPxls! And their next FF will be around 40MPxls.

Let's talk a year or two after those cameras come out.

 

[NotABunny]

if you cannot get a shot with a xxd camera with the quality that you could get with a 1ds... then that kinda reflects on your ability to fully utilize your gear and skill. That's all I'm getting at.

This goes the other way as well. If you can't (usually) get (technically) better photos with a full frame rather than an equivalent crop, that shows your inability to fully utilize top gear. (I guess big DOF shooters are not so limited by the crop factor.)

Just because you could participate in an F1 race with a mass production car, doesn't mean that the people who build and drive an F1 car are wasting their money and time - you're highly unlikely to win any race against them (unless they don't know how drive it). Sure, in photography there is no single winner to cross the white line, but some people can still make the difference between a crop and a full frame, especially in limiting conditions like low light (as yourself said limits you).

 

[YoukY63]

I still don't understand why people complain about "too many" pixels...

Because extra pixels have an extra cost. Yes, this cost drops with time, but that drop is cancelled by the extra pixels.

Oh yes, right. That's why D700, with half of 5DmII pixel amount is also half the price... What, it is not!?! What the hell!?! : (it works also with D3s vs 1Ds)

And please, do not compare Nikon's strategy to Canon's one. Canon is deciding by itself what it will do.

Indeed, Canon should decide whether it should lose customers to Nikon.

Why should customers leave Canon? Actually, Canon just get more costumer during the past years than its competitors and increased its market share to become leader in 2010 (with it's 21MP FF bodies and 18MP APS-C bodies: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/canon-destroys-nikon-in-dslr-marketshare/), while Canon and Nikon was at the same level in 2007 and 2008 (http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/DSLR-Welt-im-Wandel)

everybody was saying they are stupid, too many pixels, it will reduce image quality

Quality is not the only consideration.

Really? So what are we expecting from a new sensor if not a better quality? Why are you crying for less pixels if it is not for quality? At least it is not for quantity. ;D

 

[awinphoto]

Dont worry about hurting my feelings, however if you cannot get a shot with a xxd camera with the quality that you could get with a 1ds... then that kinda reflects on your ability to fully utilize your gear and skill. That's all I'm getting at.

That's funny. I'm glad your xxD bodies and 7D are suitable for your needs. I, too, remember the days when I had yet to reach the limit of lesser, entry-level equipment. Keep practicing, and maybe you'll get there too someday

By your account, anyone who shoots with a 1D or 1Ds isn't capable of capturing the same caliber of images with an xxD body. Using your logic, nicer equipment is for less skilled photographers, and the truly skilled studs like you stick with inferior equipment. Think whatever helps you sleep better at night, bud.

Haha thanks for your comment neuro... All i'm getting at is you do not NEED as a prerequisite a 1Ds or equivalent to get awesome photos. You remind me of a photographer i went to school with who like you, was an elitist... He said in order to get the BEST photos, you need a hassy, hassy glass, top of the line this, top of the line that... between the two of us, I'm the one doing professional work and he has his hassy on his mantle collecting dust.

Yes, I'm am anxiously awaiting for new and an improved 5d mark III however I do not in any way consider any xxd or 7d or 5d camera, a "lesser" camera nor do I consider myself a lesser photographer for using said cameras... At the end, they are just tools of the trade and you have to push cameras to the limit to get the shots you want. Other than AF, there isn't much difference than a built in grip and weathersealing. And if I'm not mistaken, many photogs worked for DECADES with no AF just fine, and that was at that day in age when film cost money, lots of money when you throw in developing and or prints... If you screwed up a roll, that came out of your pocketbook. You learned how to nail focus with what you got every time or as you said, time is money and it cost you money. With your reliance on AF and the 1d in order to get an image you couldn't get otherwise with any other camera, as I said before, kinda shows your level of raw skill in this regard.

Lastly, while it used to be different 10 years ago, the rule of thumb WAS to spend twice amount on each lens than you spent on the camera body. At the end of the day, it was the glass that was important, not the camera. While prices of lenses has remained slightly constant and the prices of camera bodys have skyrocketed, even if you spent near 1:1 on glass, you should be in good condition... so if as you suggest is about the gear, what lenses are you pairing with your camera...

 

[Loswr]

Lastly, while it used to be different 10 years ago, the rule of thumb WAS to spend twice amount on each lens than you spent on the camera body. At the end of the day, it was the glass that was important, not the camera. While prices of lenses has remained slightly constant and the prices of camera bodys have skyrocketed, even if you spent near 1:1 on glass, you should be in good condition...

Lens prices have gone up, too - not as much as bodies, but they've outpaced inflation by a fair margin.

I think the advice still holds - the lens is going to have a bigger impact on IQ than the body. Personally, I've got a lens:body value ratio of slightly more than 3.5:1.

 

[awinphoto]

Lastly, while it used to be different 10 years ago, the rule of thumb WAS to spend twice amount on each lens than you spent on the camera body. At the end of the day, it was the glass that was important, not the camera. While prices of lenses has remained slightly constant and the prices of camera bodys have skyrocketed, even if you spent near 1:1 on glass, you should be in good condition...

Lens prices have gone up, too - not as much as bodies, but they've outpaced inflation by a fair margin.

I think the advice still holds - the lens is going to have a bigger impact on IQ than the body. Personally, I've got a lens:body value ratio of slightly more than 3.5:1.

I want to say roughly my lens:body ratio is around 2:1 however it changes year to year as I upgrade bodies and lenses... It gets kinda mind numbing when you crunch the numbers. =)