removing lens from camera
Jan 21, 2013 10:26:57 #
barbaradear
Loc: ny, usa
Should one remove the lens from a camera when stowing? Is there ever an appropriate time to leave the camera without a lens? (of course, meanwhile, covering the lens opening)? Hopefully, you get the idea of my question.
Jan 21, 2013 12:18:37 #
Seems to me that you should change lenses only when you need one different from the one that is already on the camera. Changing risks intrucing dust which may wind up on the sensor. When changing hold the camera front down and don't do it on a windy day if you can avoid it. An easy no, no is "don't drop either lens!".
With a lens on the camera, you are prepared for a quick shot when a sudden opportunity arises.
With a lens on the camera, you are prepared for a quick shot when a sudden opportunity arises.
Jan 21, 2013 12:25:07 #
Jan 21, 2013 14:56:15 #
Jan 21, 2013 14:56:32 #
Jan 22, 2013 08:50:52 #
barbaradear wrote:
Should one remove the lens from a camera when stowing? Is there ever an appropriate time to leave the camera without a lens? (of course, meanwhile, covering the lens opening)? Hopefully, you get the idea of my question.
Nope. I don't like to remove my lenses any more than I have to. That's why, whenever I buy a new lens, I also buy a new body for it. I might look strange walking around with six cameras dangling from my neck, but carrying the extra weight is good exercise, and the chicks dig it.
Seriously, I leave an 28-300mm on one body and a 16-28mm on the other. When the need arises, I use another lens. My D600 sensors are still spot-free.
Jan 22, 2013 08:59:36 #
Multiple bodies for the sole purpose of not having to change lenses seems extreme to me.
Jan 22, 2013 09:03:53 #
Db7423 wrote:
Multiple bodies for the sole purpose of not having to change lenses seems extreme to me.
I hope you realize I wasn't serious about that, hence the "Seriously" in last paragraph. Although, having one body for tele and one for W/A is ideal when I'm out shooting.
Jan 22, 2013 09:10:34 #
Jan 22, 2013 09:35:54 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I hope you realize I wasn't serious about that, hence the "Seriously" in last paragraph. Although, having one body for tele and one for W/A is ideal when I'm out shooting.
Db7423 wrote:
Multiple bodies for the sole purpose of not having to change lenses seems extreme to me.
I hope you realize I wasn't serious about that, hence the "Seriously" in last paragraph. Although, having one body for tele and one for W/A is ideal when I'm out shooting.
My comment was probably out of line- we all have different needs, styles, etc. I understood two cameras, two lenses that cover (mostly?) your general needs when out and about. I would rather carry an extra lens and change it if necessary rather than carry an extra camera and lens. I am at a disadvantage though if speed is a requirement- and I have missed shots. :)
Jan 22, 2013 13:02:29 #
Db7423 wrote:
quote=jerryc41 quote=Db7423 Multiple bodies for ... (show quote)
I really wouldn't want to change lenses when I'm out shooting unless there is an uncrowded area I could use. I wouldn't want to be rushed and jostled because I know I'd drop something or force the lens on wrong. It's easier to have the tele on the right and W/A on the left.
Jan 22, 2013 14:29:01 #
OR, buy a telephoto like the Tamron 18-270 and you rarely have to change lens at all unless you are shooting inside action shots. Great all around lens and seldom needs changing---mine seldom leaves my D7000. Sigma also makes a lens in this range.........
Jan 22, 2013 14:42:54 #
Jan 22, 2013 14:54:44 #
Jan 22, 2013 14:59:47 #
Greg K wrote:
Hell tell her he said 5 at least........lolIm going to tell the wife that A "Expert" named Jerry said I Had to have 2 bodys
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.