Pro Camera body vs Pro Camera Lens: Which one makes the difference?

Glass glass glass it’s alway best to put your money into better glass unless a body is holding you back. I think many think they have to have the latest and greatest body when a few year old body may get the job done. I have several lenses that are 10 15 20 or more years old that I still use. I don’t use any 20 year old bodies though. Plus good glass will always benefit from a newer body when that time comes. Bad glass and its flaws will only be revealed more and more with newer bodies IMHO

Looking at those comparisons the Bokeh was significantly better but there is a special charm to those Budget lens on pro camera shots If you've got the taste for it. I just did a Professional Event Shoot using two very old Canon Kit Lenses adapted onto an R8 and some of the results were absolutely phenomenal, never seen those lenses perform as incredibly as they did on that camera. As always Results depend on what you're looking for and what you can afford.

Personally, I'd say get a body one step below "Pro level" if you hug the poverty line (as I do) but really need a good camera. All you'll lose out on is a couple extra features that aren't fully necessary, maybe battery life and an extra card slot. But the performance and versatility will be worth it. If you throw your money into a single good lens on a cheap camera, you'll have less versatility (overall).
(Just my two cents if anyone is interested :D)

The cheap body with professional lens lens has better colour definition and balance a good quality lens makes a world of different when taking photos because the difference in camera bodies doesn't always mean lack of quality on cheaper body's they have smaller sensors lack the flashier tools that the more expensive bodies have but also part of the price difference comes from the fact that more expensive camera bodies have a better build quality for better durability as well as some sort of weather proofing all of which doesn't come cheap

If you take the best from each camera and make a 20x24 inch print, and only looking at the quality and ignoring the difference in depth of field, could you say one lens is better than the other? That is the real question. Images converted to dots per inch is the final test.

Can't really be told that way, depends on what you need.
Example:
I started on a Canon M50, changed to an older Sony full frame (A7 II) and arriving at a 7R III.
However, pairing this older, cheaper A7 II body with good lenses was absolutely fine, however the body limited my possibilities by his offerings in terms of video capabilities (very weak 1080 footage with lots of Moiré). So even putting a pro-grade super expensive 2000€ 50mm f1.2 G-Master lens would not have helped me out on this.
You need a good basic compromise between both. A body that is able to deliver the base technology you need, paired with a lens that can make use of these technological capabilities. In theory, lenses have a stronger impact on your image, but if the body restricts you in that creative use of your lens, the lens itself won't help you out, too.

I like the cheap lens + R5 combo better, am I the only one? I prefer the deeper depth of field that includes more of the environment in the shot and creates additional depth in the frame. The most obvious example is the third picture, two sharp three trunks on both sides and bokeh for the rest of the background does not do anything for me, compared with the multiple layers of birch in the cheap lens picture. Just my 2 cents.

If you are aiming for professional photography, always invest in a better quality body. It is always more weather resistant and it always contains two memory cards instead of a single one in entry cameras, which will keep your files better, and this wristband will give you additional features that you won't get in entry cameras. Such as a stabilized and stacked sensor and faster and sharper autofocus. Expensive lenses can always be rented if you need them for a special project.

The video shows us how important the lenses are and the difference they would make for the final results.

Agree the difference is in the glass. More interesting the comparison between Highend glasses Brand vs. 3rd party in the same tier (e.g. Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji vs. SIgma vs. Samyang et al.) Even so the comparison between a new High density sensor vs. an older lower density sensor in the same Size (so reducing at least one variable)

The micro contrast and bokeh is apparently superior in the premium glass.

I agree Marc , thanks for the video

Love my local Wex. I’ve just changed my main camera brand so traded in stuff. I’m always happy with the deal and the advice.

Glass is key!!!

Can you do a video Rf 85mm f/2 VS Rf 85mm f/1.2, and Rf 35mm f1.8 VS Rf 35mm 1.4? Because they are many photography want to see, many thanks for your help, hopefully can see they're soon.

What white balance is used here please? The temperature seems to be around 5300 I guess? Also, if you can please try RF lense on R5 next time? 😅 A kit lens Like 24-105 or 24-50 maybe?

This is obvious. but yeah you gotta prove to noobs :D

I Think a pro Body will give the photographer, more comfort in use, and very useful resources like IBIS and a reliable sensor in high Iso. But the lens is what pass the feeling of the image, the sharpness and that pro photo taste.

Hi, I'm just wondering did you do any color grading for your pictures? Is it normal for photographers to do color grading? My photos look wrose without them😂

Agree. the lens quality in most cases is the most important ...

Pro lens will give a better photo than a cheap lens. Obvious as the lens is the medium the light travels through. The body just records it.

Definitely a pro lens is HUGELY more important. This year I've found that lens is more important then even the sensor size. Top Pro micro 4/3 lenses with modern mft camera perform AT LEAST as good as FF camera with mediocre lenses (like 24-105) or even better.

From other side - most modern photographers/sellers are pretty sure excellent , interesting photos didn't exist before 2023 and completely couldn't exist in '90, '80, '70, '60, '50, '40, '30 of the XX century. Your equipment doesn't matter - right time, right place and You will get satisfaction (someone even was singing about satisfaction :)) with cheapest old machine for 200$ and f/8

Amazing! You have proven a point bro that many beginners get wrong. It is better to invest on lenses rather than changing hoping from camera to camera.

just added a sony 200-600 to my a6400 instead of going full frame and don't regret it.

Actually, I experimented on this with my old rebel and 5Dii. Rebel is still rubbish even with nice lens. I am not pretty much sure with mirrorless ones, but this shows a good basis for me.

If I had to choose then I’d always opt to spend more money on good quality glass over a good quality body every day of the week !!!!!!

My question is if you go for the middle price range do you get the best of both worlds or the worst ❓Like I have a Sony 6400 and some mid priced lenses am I getting the best value or should I spend more on one or the other ❓🤠

The lens is most important, the camera is not.

As per the old adage, "Date the camera, marry the lens ".........

I really want a mirrorless, but now I'm wondering if I should get a new lens instead. That comparison was amazing.

My thing is that I'm on a dslr (250d) and OVF is annoying the hell out of me (modern day problems), but I could always just keep taking shots and improving anyways 🤷🏾‍♂️

Choices choices choices!

Thanks for messing with my brain😅

Always get good glass.

Pro lens will give you better quality images. And blown out backgrounds in portraits with 1.4 apertures not forgetting bokeh.. I am a subscriber

I think most of the difference comes from the different focal lengths. The prime lens works like a 130mm full frame lens and you get the separation

I was always taught that you buy the best lens you can afford and then think about what that leaves you with for the body when beginning. I have always taken this to heart, and your video demonstrates this perfectly. Thank you for the demonstration.

The feeling of the picture is completly different (85mm looks much better) but.... If you would use 50mm 1.8 on R5 vs 50mm F1.2 on R100 (or better cheapest full frame), then the test would be valid. 85mm and 18-45mm it is fare off. My advice, take the cheapest full frame with the best 50mm and the best body with the cheapest 50mm.

A more accurate test would have been:
pro lens -amateur camera : Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM + Canon R100
vs
amateur lens- pro camera: Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS + Canon R5

Depends on if you shoot video or photos

Would be interesting to have the comparison with the R5 with the prime lens!

Agree with you 100%. Superb video.

I think all photos look brilliant

Nothing to see here just 2 guys in the woods with a camera!!😂

I've always put two-thirds of my budget on lenses and one-third on cameras. It seems to work.

Absolutely night and day. As much as everyone always says this, seeing it is mind boggling.

Funny thing… I own that 85mm f/2 “pro” lens and recently bought the RF 100mm f/2.8 L macro in hopes of being able to sell the 85mm. I’ve yet to be able to compare them on the R6 Mark II but I’m going to throw in the RF 24-105 f/4 L to the mix when I do compare them. I really feel I won’t need to keep the 85mm when that’s all said and done. I can recoup about $300 by selling the 85mm to MPB or KEH and I really think that’ll be a good idea. I’d like to get the 14-35mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/4 instead, I just don’t know which would be smarter. Especially since I own the budget RF 100-400mm lens. I’m leaning toward the 14-35mm. I just really want the 70-200!

It's all about the glass.

I'll take the pro body every day, for the user experience. I actually like cheaper lenses and tend to use them a lot more than the high end stuff, even when both are an option.

A bit of correction! With the R5 MKII out now the R5 is no longer 4,000 pounds. If you go to WEX photography right now they are selling it for 3,649.

Usually the lens makes the difference, except in some circumstances like with wildlife and sports, the body may also play a role. But even so, the PHOTOGRAPHER is the most important thing. A skilled photographer with a kit lens and mid-range camera can probably create a better compostion than a newbie with a pro camera and pro lens. But if given the choice, always get the best glass you can afford and skimp on the body if you have to because it's what will impact image quality the most probably in terms of sharpness. Now many kit lenses these days are quite sharp and sharp enough for the average person, but the general advice is to buy better lenses, and skimp on the body if you have to.

Using super sharp lens for portraits is not a good idea. You see all skin imperfections. Imho