If you shoot wildlife is it the camera or the lens? If it is the photographer that makes the shot but the camera or lens that takes the shot. All your camera equipment has been...

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

If it is the photographer that makes the shot but the camera or lens that takes the shot.

All your camera equipment has been destroyed in a flood and your insurance doesn't cover "acts of God".
Casper the Friendly Ghost offers you two options:

1. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $7,000 and one lens not to exceed $2500
or;
2. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $2500 and one lens not to exceed $7000.

No dodging around here, Casper is only offering two choices

Quixdraw Loc: x

Simply, the equipment has to have the functional ability to meet the photographer's skills. Your proposed budget is outside of reasonable for many who have worked all their lives and saved. Yes, at the extremes, given equivalent ability, the best gear probably wins.

Bill_de Loc: US

#2

---

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

quixdraw wrote:

Simply, the equipment has to have the functional ability to meet the photographer's skills. Your proposed budget is outside of reasonable for many who have worked all their lives and saved. Yes, at the extremes, given equivalent ability, the best gear probably wins.

This was meant to address the "lens/camera and which is more important controversy. I shoot a D7200 and a refurbished $140 70-300 kit lens. I just refinanced my house to do needed repairs and "stole" $700 to buy a lens I really couldn't afford. Believe me I understand limitations.

WillInMke

#2"Good glass, good imagination" then the camera body.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Curmudgeon wrote:

This was meant to address the "lens/camera and which is more important controversy. I shoot a D7200 and a refurbished $140 70-300 kit lens. I just refinanced my house to do needed repairs and "stole" $700 to buy a lens I really couldn't afford. Believe me I understand limitations.

No offense intended. I love fast cars and just had my Dodge Magnum RT completely overhauled - it will likely last my whole remaining life and do close to 150MPH much longer than I can drive at that speed. It is all a question of priorities. In today's dollars, when I bought my Df new with the Special 50 1.8 it was the most I've spent on a camera - if I recall, around $2600. Mostly, I buy used after shopping carefully.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Curmudgeon wrote:

If it is the photographer that i makes /i the sh... (show quote)

#2 - no contest ......
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Curmudgeon wrote:

This was meant to address the "lens/camera and which is more important controversy. I shoot a D7200 and a refurbished $140 70-300 kit lens. I just refinanced my house to do needed repairs and "stole" $700 to buy a lens I really couldn't afford. Believe me I understand limitations.

Get the Tamron 100-400 ......!

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Bill_de wrote:

#2

---

Thanks for taking the time to respond

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Curmudgeon wrote:

This was meant to address the "lens/camera and which is more important controversy. I shoot a D7200 and a refurbished $140 70-300 kit lens. I just refinanced my house to do needed repairs and "stole" $700 to buy a lens I really couldn't afford. Believe me I understand limitations.

Thank you

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

If I had $9500 to spend I'd go with a Canon R5 kit with a 24-105mm f/4 at $5000 then add a 600mm f/11 for birding at $700. That leaves me $3800 for some more glass. Let's see, hmmm, what glass would I get for $3800? Probably a portrait lens, a macro, a nifty fifty and still have some money left over.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Curmudgeon wrote:

Thank you

That wasn't the options I offered.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

# 2

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

UTMike wrote:

# 2

Thanks Mike. It's starting to look like glass over camera

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Option #2 all day long! I hate Casper!!!