A good CAMERA or a good LENS

If you are able to choose camera body and lens separately, it is better to have a basic (but reliable) camera body and a good lens than a body with all sorts of bells and whistles with a cheap lens. That is, at least, what I would have advised anyone buying a film camera. These days, with digital photography, there are two main things to consider - the sensor and associated processing circuitry and the lens. This means that both the body and the lens are of about equal importance in choosing a good camera and that the number of pixels which the sensor is rated at is a relatively minor consideration. Of course, a 12Megapixel camera will take more detailed photos than a 5Megapixel camera, regardless of what lens you are using but most people would see very little difference between photos taken on a 12Mpx camera and a 16Mpx one. What does make a significant difference, however, is the sensitivity of the sensor to different colours and the way that the processing circuity deals with and stores the raw data produced by the sensor. It is the quality of the sensor and the speed and quality of the circuitry which processes the image for storing on the card which now makes up a large part of the cost of a good body and, provided that you have an acceptable basic lens, you will probably be better off spending your money on a good quality body, paying attention to the usefulness and ease of use of the functions available. In the end, however, it is the person behind the camera that matters. A good photographer is capable of taking stunning shots with a cheap point-and-shoot camera because he understands the limitations of the camera and can 'see' a good picture. A poor photographer will take unremarkable photos, whatever camera he has (and will probably just be hopelessly confused by the settings available on an expensive camera and unable to hold such a heavy instrument steady enough). My advice to any would-be photographer would be to use a small point-and-shoot camera with limited capabilities for a while. If a good proportion of his shots are well above average as pictures, then, and only then, it may be time to move on to a more complex camera. It is no use thinking that a better camera will automatically produce better photographs in the same hands - actually, it is usually quite the reverse at first!

If you're serious about photography you never want to buy a cheap lens. They are made of lower quality materials and have poorer optical elements than more expensive lenses, and as a result they usually lack sharpness. They can introduce chromatic aberrations to an image--Nikon's AF NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G zoom lens is notorious for that, and a lot of photos taken with it will have subjects that are fringed in purple. It's better to go with a less expensive camera body and invest in good quality lenses. A few good lenses will last you a lifetime if you treat them right. Another bonus of investing more money in lenses is that you'll have more control over the light entering the camera, because more expensive lenses generally also have wider maximum apertures. If you're looking for a good quality lens to start out with, I'd recommend a 50mm f/1.8 because they're inexpensive, offer great quality, and are a good "normal" focal length to start out with. I always have mine in my camera bag when I go out to shoot. The other lens I always carry with me is a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di macro, which is great for extreme close-ups and portraiture.

For convenience, sometimes I will bring along my bridge camera. This is the "bridge" between the point and shoot and the dSLR. Recently I got the Canon SX50. You can find out more from the blog here