Why people buy decent SLRs and crappy lenses

[Nanobaud]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: soydios
the 5D (and D300) don't actually have an exceptionally high "resolution". sure they capture a wider field, but my D50 has denser pixels than the D3, and the D2X(s)/D300 have the highest pixel densities on the market.

the pentax k20d begs to differ

Let's see, my K20D has ~ 44,000 pixels/mm2, my Panasonic Lumix FZ50 (for example, I'm sure it can be topped) has about 265,000 / mm2 (had to double check the math on that, damn those sensors are small). The lens on the Lumix is decent, but probably a fair step shy of a basic SLR 'kit' lens, yet I can still get some damn sharp pictures out of it under the right conditions. If lens choice is to be driven by matching the sensor resolution across the aperture range, then I've wasted a lot of money over the years on glass and Kodachrome.

nBd

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: bigi
I've seen so many people/friends who got 5D and Sigma 28-300. It is like f/6.4 @ 300mm.
I don't even elaborate on its optical quality.

People, read reviews. Don't get kit lenses, etc. Your new shiny multi $$$ SLR will suffer.

I dunno, when I'm just wandering around with friends, I'm glad to have the kit lens. I don't worry about it, it covers a very useful range (16-105), it's a lot easier than carrying multiple lenses, and for most intents and purposes the quality differences between it and my better lenses are indistinguishable at 8x10 and below.

Also, many people buy DSLRs out of frustration with the shutter lag of point-and-shoot digital cameras. For these people, an expensive lens makes no sense. They just want a convenient lens that will let them treat their DSLR as a point-and-shoot that doesn't have infuriating shutter lag. I really wish that digital point-and-shoot cameras could fix the shutter lag issue. It was never that bad with film point-and-shoot cameras.

ZV