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?
When you actually get the device manuals, the suppliers are remarkably coy about what “water-resistant” actually means and when it applies, beyond “less prone to water damage than those that are not”. So just be aware what you might mean by the term may well not be what the supplier means - and second hand items may have lost some resistance as well.
Also, if you are in rain or drizzle, you’re probably not going to be taking the best photos regardless of kit!
Yeah, I keep reading that on various photography forums. I’m not going to go swimming with it or anything, but I want a camera I can take on kayak trips and shoot on the water. And, worst case scenario, my budget takes into account the risk of the camera breaking.
Kayaking sounds more like you need water-proof than water-resistant. For interest, the following is from the “water-resistant” Canon R5 MkII:
I wouldn’t take it on anything more than class II rapids (ie. no whitewater). We don’t get wet on most trips, and that’s without trying to keep anything safe and dry (my phone is waterproof). IMO the risk is only slightly higher than walking next to a swimming pool or river with your camera, you could fall in but most likely won’t.
But someone else pointed out a $90-100 waterproof case, which is a better option that buying another camera just for this.