[geomez]

Hello everyone,
This is my first thread
I just upgraded from the K100D to the K-5 IIs and am excited about WR. I was reading around different photography sites that suggest traveling with your lenses removed from your dslr. That got me thinking...
Shouldn't a weather resistant dslr body come with a weather resistant body cap? Because the body cannot be technically weather resistant unless it's wearing a WR lens. I don't know, it just seems like common sense to me to at least sell one as an upgrade. That way you would be covered during travel or storage.
I searched around the forums for such a question and came up empty handed.

[magkelly]

Would it really matter though? Might be nice but if the lens and the body are truly sealed than it doesn't really matter what cap is on there I would think. The lens is already sealed and protected. The cap is just an extra thing to block out light when you don't need any.

[Parallax]

Would it really matter though? Might be nice but if the lens and the body are truly sealed than it doesn't really matter what cap is on there I would think. The lens is already sealed and protected. The cap is just an extra thing to block out light when you don't need any.

He's referring to a WR body cap, I believe, so the body is sealed if no lens is attached.
I'm not sure under what conditions though anyone would be carrying the camera exposed to weather without a lens.

[jellinga]

Would it really matter though? Might be nice but if the lens and the body are truly sealed than it doesn't really matter what cap is on there I would think. The lens is already sealed and protected. The cap is just an extra thing to block out light when you don't need any.

I may be wrong, having never owned a WR lens, but don't WR lenses prevent water from entering the body? I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't be too keen on having water sloshing about the lens cavity, covering the sensor, mirror, prism, and who knows what else; the cap that came with my K-30 certainly is not capable of keeping that out.

To answer the topic question: I'd never thought about that. I've always assumed the water resistant feature was more for shooting than storage, and I tend to shoot with the lens on my camera.

[Na Horuk]

Hello there.
Hm, if not a body cap at least a WR pancake lens. Its a great idea, I think

[calculator01]

Hello everyone,
This is my first thread
I just upgraded from the K100D to the K-5 IIs and am excited about WR. I was reading around different photography sites that suggest traveling with your lenses removed from your dslr. That got me thinking...
Shouldn't a weather resistant dslr body come with a weather resistant body cap? Because the body cannot be technically weather resistant unless it's wearing a WR lens. I don't know, it just seems like common sense to me to at least sell one as an upgrade. That way you would be covered during travel or storage.
I searched around the forums for such a question and came up empty handed.

For the price they would want, being a very slim market, you could buy a used WR 18-55 or a very nice ziploc bag

[jatrax]

No idea why you would want to travel without a lens on. Do you have a reference to this? I never leave the camera without a lens, WR or not. Could not tell you where the body cap is, in the box I guess.
Just puzzled as to the reasoning behind this.

[geomez]

No idea why you would want to travel without a lens on. Do you have a reference to this? I never leave the camera without a lens, WR or not.

How to Travel With Cameras | PhotographyBLOG

Flying With a Camera -- Use These Tips for Flying With a Camera

How Can I Safely Travel with My DSLR Camera and Photography Gear?


The idea is that the lens attached creates a greater chance of damaging the equipment if jostled while traveling because of the extra weight and shape. Also it all fits better in camera bags that aren't huge when everything is detached. You may think the idea of a weather proof body cap is trivial, but I feel that it is useful, even if it is limited use. It would be cheap and easy to produce. A plastic bayonet mounted cap with a rubber gasket. Charge $5. I think some people would buy it. Maybe not a lot but I think people would.

And if somebody is willing to produce this thing...
A Spiffy New Camera Body Cap for Canon EF Mounts | Fstoppers
...than why not a body cap with a little more function?

[kevwil]

Shouldn't a weather resistant dslr body come with a weather resistant body cap?

I think so.

I would be happy if my K-5 would have come with ANY body cap instead of the $0.02 cheap plastic plug that falls out if you tilt the camera down. My only disappointment with the K-5 so far.

No idea why you would want to travel without a lens on.

If you drop your bag and have the lens attached, you could bend the mount, perhaps even damaging both the body and the lens.

[jatrax]

How to Travel With Cameras | PhotographyBLOG

Flying With a Camera -- Use These Tips for Flying With a Camera

How Can I Safely Travel with My DSLR Camera and Photography Gear?


The idea is that the lens attached creates a greater chance of damaging the equipment if jostled while traveling because of the extra weight and shape. Also it all fits better in camera bags that aren't huge when everything is detached. You may think the idea of a weather proof body cap is trivial, but I feel that it is useful, even if it is limited use. It would be cheap and easy to produce. A plastic bayonet mounted cap with a rubber gasket. Charge $5. I think some people would buy it. Maybe not a lot but I think people would.

And if somebody is willing to produce this thing...
A Spiffy New Camera Body Cap for Canon EF Mounts | Fstoppers
...than why not a body cap with a little more function?

Interesting reading. Thank you for posting these. I won't say I agree with the theory but then I don't have any big glass like those folks do. I guess it makes sense to take off the 70-200 f/2.8. I travel with either my F 35-70 or F 50mm on the camera and, really I cannot imagine any impact that would make a difference whether the lens was on or off. But with big glass, OK I guess so.

I've never used a body cap as in my way of thinking a camera without a lens on is kinda useless. But that's just me. If you use body caps, by all means let's have a WR one. But how is the camera supposed to get wet in your bag? Oh well, I'm not your customer but I'll bet if you design a WR body cap and get someone in China to make it you would sell enough to make it worthwhile.

[patrick9]

o idea why you would want to travel without a lens on. Do you have a reference to this? I never leave the camera without a lens, WR or not. Could not tell you where the body cap is, in the box I guess. Just puzzled as to the reasoning behind this.

How many shots are going to be missed because you have to get the lens out and mount it , I also have just a rough idea where my body cap is My cameras only have a lens off for changing lenses.

[Jonathan Mac]

Interesting idea but it makes sense that if there's no lens on then the camera isn't being used, in which case in bad weather it should be in a WR bag of some sort.

[magkelly]

I guess that answer up above tells you how much I use my body caps, laugh. Honestly the idea that the cap he was asking about was the body cap didn't even occur to me. I always have a kit lens on any camera of mine at least unless I'm storing the body in a dry box for longer storage and won't be using it for a while. WR camera and lens? I'd probably never take the lens off except to change it for another WR one. That cam would be ready to go at a second's notice.

[JimJohnson]

Heck I would settle if the camera came with a body cap that engaged the bayonet mount. My K-r just had a push on cap that is next to useless. While it is rare that the body is without a mounted lens, I spent literally a couple dollars and bought a body cap that actually mounts and won't just fall off. Okay, it still isn't truly weather resistant, but as others have mentioned, I can't ever picture myself transporting just the camera body without additional weather appropriate covering.

[Kerrowdown]

I travel extensively and always have lenses mounted ready to go, never yet had a mount problem, maybe I've just been lucky.

But I guess if we're talking transit shock of level to affect mounts, I'm guessing that maybe the rest of the camera internals would also be floating about loose within the camera bag. If it all does goes pear shaped, I pay enough to the insurers to cover my equipment, they can stump up for the repairs or replacements.

The real question for me is, why would you have unmounted bodies subject to inclement conditions?