Camera or Glass, where should my money go

[Gibby78]

Hi all, once more another photography newbie here, I'm looking at getting an SLR to take to the British Grand Prix next month as I don't think my Lumix TZ5 is up to the job, now my budget is pretty much nothing so would like your opinion on my options, I was thinking of going for a Sony Alpha a200 and matching it to a classic Minolta Big Beercan 75-300 lens (not sure if the beercan 70-210 will be long enough).

Now is the a350 a much better camera than the a200 I know its got a higher megapixel sensor but they are the same size, also if i go cheaper on the camera I can spend more on lenses and I'm sure thats where the best improvement in quality would come from, all advice reccomendations welcome especially from any Sony users but everyone feel free to chip in if theres something else I should look at.

[Starfighter]

Lens, every time.

Treat the body as a consumable and let it grow with your knowledge and understanding but get the best glass you can afford.

[RobDickinson]

It depends. Junk glassn on great body produces junk images.

But if a little more on a body gets you a much better body for what you want(fps, ISO, full frame or whatever) its probably worth it.

[miniman]

Canon or Nikon. Forget Sony, the lens selection is, IMHO, too limited. But as above, spend on the glass.

[Mr E Driver]

How about a Canon 40D camera body comes with 18 - 85 IS USM lens, hood, genuine Canon grip to hold 2 batteries plus 2 additional batteries, manuals, second focusing screen plus book on how to get the most from it. All in excellent condition, no scratches on lens, batteries all working/charging correctly. Its a well looked after camera, never been dropped, always carried in waterproof bag etc etc all for £500?

[gmilton]

Ok so your with sony just now and by the looks of it you haven't invested too much yet. This is good news. Like others have said I would seriously thing about jumping ship and moving to Canon or Nikon.

Very few people starting our think about the future until it is too late. If you are really interested in photography I'd definately move to either of the above brands as it will give you more options in the future. Both have a very large selection of lenses and have been making them for a very long time. This means you can experiment and buy a few second, third, forth... hand.

Anyway to answer your original question: You can stick good glass on a rubbish camera (if there is such a thing) and get great results. However sticking bad glass on a great camera will have a much greater impact on your final output.

Hope this helps,

Graeme

[S47]

Good glass everytime - Has as been mentined bodies are disposible items with a shelf life of 18 months or so. Good glass you'll want to keep a lifetime
Definitely go for Canon or Nikon, they have great glass already available, sony and the the others promise a lot but will they ever deliver, personally I doubt it.

[onomatopoeia]

The A200 and A350 both have CCD sensors which are good in good light / low ISO but poor in low light where high ISO is needed. Shouldn't be a problem at 2pm on a summer Sunday though. At Silverstone in the spectator areas you are a almost always a long way back, so 300mm is a must and you will be using it at the long end most of the time.

Both will do 3fps continuous and if someone spins you might find yourself wishing for more, however given the price range these fall into I'm not sure if there's anything available that can provide it. You also get body stabilisation so no stabilised lenses needed and all the old minolta lenses are automatically stabilised, but if panning you aren't going to want that turned on.

A lot of rubbish about lack of glass in the alpha mount is written by people who don't realise that Minolta introduced the mount 25 years ago and produced lenses continuously for it until Sony bought their camera business. This means there is a lot of s/h glass available. What you can't get at all in alpha mount is:

400/2.8, 200/2, 800/5.6

Those are all £5k+ lenses (which I suspect someone considering an A200 is not going to want to buy). Minolta made a 600/4 behemoth, Sony do not but there is a 500/4 in the pipeline. You also have to go to third parties for tilt/shift lenses, neither Minolta nor Sony have ever made one in a-mount. Pretty much all of the lenses that Tamron and Sigma make are also available in a-mount as well which gives a huge selection. If you go with a Sony body their 70-200/2.8 is very good (if a trifle expensive at around £1200) and helps compensate of lack of talent in the operator in my case . This is my main lens to use when I get a chance to take some snaps at motorsport events where the reach isn't needed (sprints & hills).

What you can get in alpha mount which you can't get on Canon and Nikon are some super Carl Zeiss lenses that autofocus.