How much do you spend on lenses vs camera body?
How much do you spend on lenses vs camera body?
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're viewing a single thread.
Unless you manage to stick to only one lens and/or buy a dirt cheap body you're probably going to wind up spending more on glass in the end.
This is super reductionist, but nicer/newer bodies being you:
- (generally) better dynamic range, although some current bodies are giving up dynamic range for readout speed
- better high ISO performance
- more pixels for cropping
- better video capabilities
Everything else is basically a creature comfort. You can absolutely snag great sports/action/wildlife photos with even a D40, you'll just have to work harder for it.
Lenses come with engineering tradeoffs and challenges, so odds are you'll wind up with more than one based on what you intend to photograph. One for things far away, one for things up close, one wide aperture fixed focal length prime for low light, one compact walk-around lens etc.
You don't have to buy more than one lens, but odds are you'll wind up with more than one.
Higher $$ lenses tend to offer better resolution and/or image quality, although that's not a hard and fast rule.
If I was budget shopping, I would strongly consider a D7x00 camera. They are the "top dog" Nikon APS-C camera line and all can drive any Nikon f-mount autofocus lens, including lenses going back to the 70s. This gives you tons of used lens possibilities. The older lenses especially, mechanical autofoced focused instead inside-the-lens motors, are pretty affordable. The f-mount was very popular, was around for a long time, and as Nikon shooters move to mirrorless used f-mount lenses have become even more plentiful.
I personally wouldn't take any camera kayaking without first putting it in something like a DiCAPac or the like. Other than Olympus in micro four thirds land, no company will actually provide a waterproof ip rating for their camera bodies or lenses.
As for adapted DSLR lenses on a DSLR body, I would personally not to there. For any camera/lens combo, the flange distance needs to be corrected. Mirrorless cameras lend themselves to adopting DSLR lenses because mirrorless cameras have very little distance between their sensor and flange, which means the adapter can make up that space easily. That's not always the case on a DSLR, so you might lose the ability to focus up close or at infinity. The electronics may work, but they generally won't be as reliable/responsive/consistent.
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?
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.
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...