I've just read DiscoStu's thread, but his question was different. So, at the risk of turning theFB into a WhatCamera forum, here's my Q ...
I have 2 "current" cameras (forgetting about the phone).
A Nikon D5000 with an assortment of lenses out to 300mm. I like this camera.
I like it so much that I don't take it, or its lenses, on holiday to have sand blown into it, instead I take my old Canon Ixus.
The Canon is obviously nowhere near as good as the D5000, but it's most annoying in that it's a lot slower to auto-focus, and shot composition is nigh impossible to see on the little display in sunlight (no viewfinder). It's got to the point where the phone camera actually seems to be better, easier and quicker to use than the Ixus. Just back from a week away, and I'm not that happy with the Ixus' output (yup, bad workmen, but you try taking photos of running dogs on a beach in bright sunshine when the auto-focus is slow and you can't see what's in the actual shot when you press the shutter button!).
I'm thinking of buying a D3000 body & basic lens kit for £150. That means that my existing D5000 accessories (and extra lenses) are all interchangeable, I get a much better "beach" camera that I'm not so worried about getting sand blown into, with a familiar user interface, and keep my nice D5000 in nice, un-sanded, condition.
Is that sensible, or should I look at something else?
£150 is really the max I'd want to spend on a camera that's going to have a hardish life (ie might not live that long!).
Comments
I take my decent gear most places (I carted it round India and Nepal last year) but I'm always aware of when it's vulnerable so I'm just sensible with it. I wouldn't change lenses in the middle of a beach for instance. But at the end of the day, it's a tool to be used and I want the best pictures I can get so I'm prepared to take the risk.
On rare occasions when I don't want to lug a bag full of high end gear with me, I use a Canon Powershot SX240. Never had an issue with slow autofocus, it has a massive zoom range and it turns out decent images even in dim light conditions. I agree, the LCD "viewfinder" is always a compromise though and it's annoying when you cant see the screen properly in bright light.
On balance I'd say either use what you have already and take the risk or get the cheaper body.
I've bought a D7100 which is unbelievable and kept the D90 for abusive use.
Is the D5000 weather sealed? And do your lenses have ass-gaskets as Ken Rockwell likes to call them?
Nope, all my stuff is stock - no sealants or anything.
It's not bashng the body that bothers me so much (ie not keeping it pristine), it's more that it'll get sand in it, or bashed in a way that makes it unusable before it's finished its useful life with me (ignoring the manufacturer obsolescence cycle!)
I understand the point.
It's the same situation as gigging musicians who want a cheaper backup guitar for some of their gigs, where they know the risk of theft/damage is higher.
I know that the D5000 isn't hugely expensive now (wasn't "huge" even when new), but of course if I had to replace it, I'd still spend more than I needed to do, because there'd always be an option that was just a little bit more expensive, but so much better! So, I'd prefer not to put myself in that position, and keep that for the times (like this very afternoon) when I can use it quite happily as I know there's minimal risk to it.
Having it on a sandy beach, with 3 dogs and a backpack full of other stuff, means that the risk is a lot higher, so I'm looking for a cheaper, not-so-bothered-if-it-gets-damaged option. That *was* the role of the Ixus until I got too fed up with the quality/functionality compromise.
get a zipup padded bag to protect the camera when its in the backpack, and save up the 'spare camera' money and put it towards the eventual replacement/upgrade.
as long as you dont actually put the camera on the sand it will probably be ok and its worth the risk.