Photographs of a Camera Body, only? (Page 4): :sm24: :sm09:...

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

You're all missing the point on the photo of the camera w/o the cap. It's a grey market camera sold by Abes and the cap was extra.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Sex sells and showing the iridescent glimmer of the sensor adds pizazz to the image. Also, it infers "sensor envy" where "mine is bigger than yours" mental game. Of course those in-the-know understand that sensor size has advantages at both ends of the spectrum.

It's also quite possible that the camera is a non-functioning prop much like the cellphones at the cellular store where hoards of folks fondle them, drop them and get their "didn't wash their hands after toilet use" covered fingers all over them.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Scruples wrote:

I have searched and have not found an answer. So, I am bringing this question to my fellow Hoggers. Every time I see a photograph of a camera body, there is no lens or body cap to prevent dust and debris falling onto the mirror, the lens contacts and the shutter mechanism. I wonder why this convention exists and if it has an impact on the inside of a camera.

Fauci says "Mask up...two is even better." DO IT DO IT NOW!

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Real Nikon Lover wrote:

Fauci says "Mask up...two is even better." DO IT DO IT NOW!

Nothing beats the plague mask - Fauci can't top that!

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

chrisg-optical wrote:

Nothing beats the plague mask - Fauci can't top that!

Awesome. My co-worker has one of those hanging on his office wall. "Nice Cod Piece" is the running joke.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

johnblenko wrote:

If the camera body has been photographed for an advertisement, as in “buy me,” I think seeing the exposed mirror raises the level of excitement more than seeing a body cap on the front of the camera.

Duhh!

Pumble

dsmeltz wrote:

Duhh!

I think those that seriously considered and answered this thread are easily spoofed. The question was nothing short of click bait and many fell for it. It is no wonder phishing is so easily done by fraudsters.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

chrisg-optical wrote:

Then 10:20, 10:13 or 10:15 would do fine too? Or the magic time of 11:11... some use 1:50 as someone else pointed out but almost all of the ads I see in public (subway) are 10:10.

if you have time to post that comment you need to find another hobby as you have WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Scruples wrote:

I have searched and have not found an answer. So, I am bringing this question to my fellow Hoggers. Every time I see a photograph of a camera body, there is no lens or body cap to prevent dust and debris falling onto the mirror, the lens contacts and the shutter mechanism. I wonder why this convention exists and if it has an impact on the inside of a camera.

I just saw this post so I looked online, duckducking "Nikon D6". I did not really do a thorough search, but of the 40-50 images I saw, only 1 had no cap or lens covering the hole.

Did not look at any other models.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

At the end of the day, I feel the OP's question is entirely legitimate. I don't mean it as a joke or want to cause and chaos, disruption or distraction.

What I can not understand is the reasons for many of the nasty and sarcastic responses. If anyone thinks any question is silly, frivolous, not sophisticated enough, or beneath their level of expertise or if any topic, thread or question is of no interest to themselves, why don't they just move on and join another conversation that is more to their liking?

Some of the responses were fine. They addressed protecting the camera's mechanisms and electronics. Other mention the impression a lensless, open, or capped camera body impresses readers in advertising new or used gear.

Many folks post questions about camera straps, bags, cases, and other protective and transport gear- so why not a discussion of lens and body caps?

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

Last trip to B H I bought some generic caps for camera body and lens rear ends. Price under $10.00.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Pumble wrote:

I think those that seriously considered and answered this thread are easily spoofed. The question was nothing short of click bait and many fell for it. It is no wonder phishing is so easily done by fraudsters.

The OP, Scruples, is a regular on this site who has made a good many postings. Spoofing and click-bait are not things I have ever known him to participate in. I congratulate you on never having asked an unusual question on a forum.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Scruples it was good to hear from you. I thought your question was entirely legitimate, but I have to say you sure stirred things up. I hope you and yours are doing well.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

LFingar wrote:

The OP, Scruples, is a regular on this site who has made a good many postings. Spoofing and click-bait are not things I have ever known him to participate in. I congratulate you on never having asked an unusual question on a forum.

Scruples is a person whose posts I always read. I know that he is good decent fellow who does much good charity work in the community in which he lives. I find him to be a regular kind of fellow who heads up a close and loving family and much of his photography is centered around them. I saw his question as something that might be asked if a group of friends were sitting around talking photography matters and someone was to say "Hey, did you ever notice how many cameras are photographed without the body cap on, wouldn't this allow stuff to get in there?" I do know this Scruples is a good decent fellow and if I'd rather eat a meal with him than most of those snotty smartasses who attacked him. just saying.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

how do we know or not know if these are real cameras, dummy , or failed inspection so they are just display cameras