Photography

4772 readers

81 users here now

A community to post about photography:

We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Photographer

How much do you spend on lenses vs camera body? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/photography

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hey everyone, I'm new to photography and wondering how much people spend on lenses compared to the camera body they're mounted on? Does it make sense to buy a higher end lens for a mid range camera, or would you be better off getting a slightly cheaper lens and spending some of the money on a nicer camera? Mainly wondering about used gear...

Currently shooting with my SO's D3500 when she isn't using it, and thinking of buying my own. Considering a used Pentax since weather resistant lenses seem easier to find for them than other brands...

Edit: how practical is it to use a Pentax lens on a Nikon with an adapter, and vice versa? I assume the electronics like AF and VR won't work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seems like waterproof housings cost 2-4x as much as a camera, and I think they only work with special lenses? I don't need a waterproof rating, I'm comfortable with the risk based on what I've read on forums about weatherproofing. And I don't really expect to get wet on the kind of kayak trips that I'd bring a camera on (I normally have a couple of canine passengers anyway, so it's usually pretty mellow).

I didn't realize mirrorless cameras had that advantage with adaptors, but those forums posts I saw about FTZ adaptors make a lot more sense now. Can you cross brands when adapting a DSLR lens to mirrorless body without losing electronics like AF?

[–] IMALlama 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Some of the waterproofing options, like the company I mentioned, are in the $1xx price range. Totally agree that they're not cheap. For low-key/leisure kayaking I agree on not being too concerned. Size/accessibility/keeping it somewhere it won't get drips becomes a more important factor than outright waterproofness.

Mirrorless cameras are going to either be $$ or you're going to be looking at older bodies like the A7 mk1 or A6000 that will still generally be more expensive than a DSLR without bringing much advante other than having a current generation lens mount. That would let you upgrade your body in the future for quality of life while using the same lenses unadapted.

Some adapters do translate electronic communications between different lens mounts (eg Nikon F lenses to/from Sony E bodies), but since the messaging strategy of those mounts was developed independently there will be some level of "not quite right" that occurs in the translation. How much this is to you probably depends on what you're going to be taking pictures of (slow moving things vs fast moving things).

I would personally avoid adapters if starting fresh unless there's a very compelling case that's specific to your use case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

OK, I found the waterproof case you were taking about and that actually seems like a pretty good option. A $90 case would let us safely use the D3500 on the kayak, and let's me think about other features when picking out my own camera. Thanks for the suggestion and other info, it's really helpful.

Edit: Looks like that case limits you to a ~50mm lens, which would be pretty limiting for shooting birds. On the other hand, it sounds like it's fairly common to have 2 camera bodies to avoid having to change lenses when the camera is wet/dirty, so maybe we could use the D3500 with a short lens in a waterproof case, and also get a weatherproof camera with a super telephoto prime. Lots of options to consider...