7

What does it mean for a DSLR camera to be described as "body-only"? I found one advertised for sale that was described as such, and I don't know if I'll need to add a lens. I assume that it means either that the camera is used without attaching an external lens, or that the camera is sold without a lens but and will need to have one added.

If it needs no additional lens, like a regular digital camera, what is its focal length likely to be?

pmocek
  • 103
  • 1
Cameron Jackson
  • 87
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 18
    I think that a $2200 camera probably isn't the right place to start in photography. You could get a camera suitable to your skill level for a tenth that, and if you drop it in a puddle or decide you just aren't enjoying yourself, you'll feel a lot better. – Michael Lorton Nov 11 '14 at 23:42

5 Answers5

30

You need a lens. It's probably possible to persuade the camera to expose the sensor without a lens on it, but nothing would be in any sort of focus whatsoever.

As an aside, if you're asking this kind of basic question about cameras, I'd question whether a full-frame SLR like the D750 is the right choice. You'll end up spending a lot more on your equipment (potentially 3x as much) for a relatively small change in the abilities of the system.

Philip Kendall
  • 21,867
  • 6
  • 67
  • 101
  • hmm, I understand that. Could you please ellaborate what you meant by "a lot more"? Exactly on what things? And what major difference are there between D5300 and D750? – Cameron Jackson Nov 11 '14 at 11:33
  • I've quantified my statement somewhat. As for the difference between the D5300 and D750, that's a different question so needs to be asked separately - but please read the similar questions that have already been asked on this site first. – Philip Kendall Nov 11 '14 at 11:39
  • 9
    I agree very much with the sentiment here. An expensive camera is only worthwhile if you know how to use it and the level of knowledge implicit from the question here is far from what is needed to make an expensive camera worthwhile. I would recommend learning a lot more about photography before spending a lot of money on a camera. You can't become a great photographer just by buying a great camera. – David Richerby Nov 11 '14 at 17:10
  • Again, people on their high horse thinking they know what's better for someone else. Doesn't really matter what model they buy, it's their choice. Sure, I agree with you that this camera model outweighs the asker's knowledge about photography (considering the question) but it's just a question. That's what stackexchange is for. – BBking Nov 12 '14 at 01:30
  • 6
    @BBking: No, Stack Exchange is for questions and their answers, and this is a responsible part of the answer. These people do know what's better for someone else, because they are experts, and consulting experts is what Stack Exchange is for. – Lightness Races in Orbit Nov 12 '14 at 12:22
  • 1
    @CameronJackson, if you're just starting out now with SLR cameras, then you might find that the features you end up wanting aren't the ones you've got. It'll take a bit of time and experience for you to work out what your preferences are, and what features you're looking for. So if you just get this camera now then you might find in a while that you wish you'd spent the money differently. Although if this is a second-hand camera body then you might as well buy it now, and then you can sell it later for about the same price (so long as you don't overpay or damage it) and buy something different – A E Nov 12 '14 at 12:40
  • For example, if I had a budget of x pounds then I'd probably spend more than half of it on lenses, and I'd consider getting 2 cheap bodies instead of 1 expensive one. – A E Nov 12 '14 at 12:41
  • 2
    Folks - there are a number of interesting questions here (partially but not completely covered by the well-linked What should I look for when shopping for my first DSLR?), but comments on this answer aren't the place for it. Ask a new question or take it to chat. – Philip Kendall Nov 12 '14 at 13:00
12

Yes, it's possible to capture some kind of images without a lens, but it's not useful.

It's like a bike without tires. It's possible to use it to transport yourself some distance, but it's not anything that you would call riding a bike.

Guffa
  • 21,309
  • 3
  • 58
  • 85
  • Why the downvote? If you don't explain what it is that you think is wrong, it can't improve the answer. – Guffa Nov 14 '14 at 00:04
8

Yes, you do need a lens. But for starting out, a simple, cheap one will do - and there is a healthy market for used lenses. The best choices would be either

  • a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens, often called "nifty fifty" because for technical reasons it is a very simple lens design that can be made very cheaply while still providing great quality. As a prime lens it has no zoom, but makes up for it with its large aperture that shines in low light conditions. It can be found used for under $100.
  • an 18-55mm kit lens - "kit lens" means it's one that is usually sold with a body, which means it's produced in very high numbers and gives good value for its (low) price. Unfortunately, full frame cameras like the D570 need FX lenses, and there aren't any really cheap FX kit lenses.
Michael Borgwardt
  • 4,644
  • 16
  • 25
  • 3
    You're not going to find an 18-55 for a D750. – Philip Kendall Nov 11 '14 at 13:45
  • 5
    cheap lenses on expensive camera bodies is an amazingly bad choice. Like buying an expensive stereo receiver and pumping all teh output through $10 speakers. – The _traveler Nov 11 '14 at 23:48
  • 3
    @The_traveler: That's elitist nonsense. Cheap lenses don't automatically have bad quality. Specifically, 50mm primes can be cheap and good because they're very easy to build. And many of the advantages of a more expensive body don't require a great lens to make use of either. – Michael Borgwardt Nov 12 '14 at 09:20
  • @The_traveler's recommendation of a fixed 50mm 1.8 lens is a very good one. You typically get much better quality optics for the money than you would with a zoom lens. A 1.8 won't be too expensive - and I actually prefer my 1.8 to my 1.4 for most things. – A E Nov 12 '14 at 12:42
5

A body can capture an image without a lens, but it will most likely be shades of black/grey/white (depending of light source available and shutter speed).

No lens = no focal length = no "mm"

The reason why there are 'body-only' cameras are because camera bodies (and lesnes) get upgraded. So, if you have a lens that you really like, you can use it on a new camera body. Also, if a new lens comes out, you can use it on your body. But don't think that any lens with fit and/or work with it. There are different mounts and even same brands have different mounts.

While I agree that the Nikon D750 isn't the best camera to start with (considering your question), I'm not going to tell you what you should/shouldn't buy.

You can actually attempt pinhole photography but it's strongly suggested to purchase a lens.

As an example of pinhole photography, this was taken with a hole of about 100 micrometres (that is 0.1mm), taken with my OM-D:

enter image description here

mattdm
  • 143,140
  • 52
  • 417
  • 741
BBking
  • 2,765
  • 1
  • 16
  • 27
  • perfect! Exactly what I needed. – Cameron Jackson Nov 11 '14 at 11:34
  • 7
    The claim in the first sentence is incorrect. A camera without a lens will take a completely unfocused image but this doesn't mean that the colour information will be lost: the "image" will be the average of the colours coming in so, for example, a "photograph" of a blue sky with no lens would still be blue. – David Richerby Nov 11 '14 at 17:12
  • Could one simply take a sheet of aluminum foil to the front of the camera body and poke a tiny hole in it near the center to yield behavior similar to a wide angle "lens", or would something more sophisticated be required? – supercat Nov 11 '14 at 17:27
  • 1
    If you are standing in an unlit room with a small window and hold a magnifying glass in front of your camera with no lens, you can take a photo of the outside. It is usually worse than a pinhole lens, but can be fun for a couple hours. – Phil Nov 11 '14 at 18:03
  • 10
    A camera body without a lens is essentially a "pinhole" camera with a hole about two inches across. – Mark Nov 11 '14 at 22:24
  • @supercat, my pinhole lens is just that: a piece of aluminum foil with a cardboard frame for stiffness, with a carefully-made hole in the middle. I attach it to the camera with a pair of rubber bands. – Mark Nov 11 '14 at 22:25
  • @Mark You could almost get a camel through the eye of the needle that made that "pinhole"! :-) – David Richerby Nov 11 '14 at 23:48
  • The claim in the first sentence is incorrect. Golly gosh! I've edited my answer. It's pretty simple. It will be more uniform than a photo with a lens on it. – BBking Nov 12 '14 at 01:20
  • 1
    the "image" will be the average of the colours coming in so, for example, a "photograph" of a blue sky with no lens would still be blue. Untrue. If it's exposed for 10 seconds, it will be white. That's why I stated "depending on the light source and shutter speed". – BBking Nov 12 '14 at 01:27
  • 5
    I think this answer is misleading. A camera body on its own will not take any kind of usable pictures, which is almost certainly what the OP was asking. While technically you can use it as a pinhole camera, that isn't likely to do much good to the asker. – DJClayworth Nov 12 '14 at 02:56
  • You can actually attempt pinhole photography but it's strongly suggested to purchase a lens. How is that misleading? – BBking Nov 12 '14 at 05:58
  • Your pinhole is a lens, albeit a very crude one. – Loren Pechtel Nov 12 '14 at 18:59
  • @Mark: As another thought, if one had a uniform collimated light source, could one use that to photograph a transparent object which was placed very near the image sensor? Not so much as a means for taking a good photograph of such an object, but rather as a means of taking a picture with even less of a "lens" than a pinhole camera? – supercat Nov 12 '14 at 21:26
  • @supercat, yes. If the object is near enough, you're essentially making a contact print of the transparency, using the sensor as your printing medium. – Mark Nov 12 '14 at 21:41
  • @Mark: Indeed. But one need not have anything resembling a "lens" at all (if e.g. one had a 20' pipe with a black interior, a tiny light bulb at one end, and the camera at the other, collimation would be pretty good despite the complete absence of any sort of "lens"). – supercat Nov 12 '14 at 21:48
  • 3
    Rather than some random picture from a pinhole camera, how about a picture of what you'll actually see if you try to take a picture without a lens? – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Nov 12 '14 at 23:36
  • And THAT is exactly what I meant by most likely be shades of black/grey/white. It's not that random. It was taken with my OM-D and a pinhole cap of the car park at my work. I also used a m4/3 to OM adaptor for a narrower field of view. I took this photo. – BBking Nov 13 '14 at 02:31
  • 1
    "A body can capture an image without a lens, but it will only most likely be shades of black/grey/white ". I took that to mean that there will be approximately some kind of 'picture', only in monochrome. However that's not the case. It will be an essentially random jumble of pixels. – DJClayworth Nov 13 '14 at 19:42
  • 1
    @Phil The magnifying glass in your scenario is, in fact, a lens. – Michael C Nov 17 '14 at 06:02
2

I'm gonna agree with all the answers before. Technicly it's possible to capture images without a lens but they're gonna be so blurry cause you can't control how to light hits the sensor.

My addition to the previous answers here is that you should not even try to take a picture without a lens installed. If you do so, the sensor will be exposed to any kind of dirt or dust that might be in the atmosphere. As a result, once you finally get the lens, you might not be able to get nice images.

The solution here is simple, you just clean the sensor, but I assume that as a beginner you don't know how to do it, and damaging the sensor is the last thing that you want to happen to your camera.

Chris K
  • 149
  • 2
  • Welcome to StackExchange. You might like to consider adding your thoughts as a comment to an existing answer if the main thrust of your entry is really only to agree with other answers. That may be the reason your answer has been downvoted. – Conor Boyd Nov 12 '14 at 21:14
  • Hello and thanks for your interest. Well I just wanted to add my opinion on the subject. My reputation didn't allow me to add comments, that's why i added an answer. I just wanted to make clear to the questioner that dust and scratches in the sensor could be fatal for the camera. Something that was not mentioned before from anyone. Too bad I got downvoted, can't understand the hate when someone offers his help. – Chris K Nov 12 '14 at 22:05
  • No hate from me. Don't take it personally. The voting is purely intended to help the best answers bubble up. Regarding my suggestion re commenting, I had forgotten that one needs a little reputation before commenting on other's answers, although maybe you have enough reputation to comment on the question itself? – Conor Boyd Nov 13 '14 at 00:42
  • 1
    @ConorBoyd: You can always comment on your own questions/answers, and on answers to your own questions, but otherwise it requires 50 rep. You can vote up with just 15 rep, though, which is what you should do if you have nothing substantial to add to earlier answers. That said, Chris, your answer does have something new in it, so here, have an upvote. :-) – Ilmari Karonen Nov 13 '14 at 12:22
  • Once again, thank you very much both of you for you interest. Yes I'll agree with @IlmariKaronen that's how the pointing system works. Once I posted this answer, my reputation was 1, and I was unable to do anything more than post an answer. I know it's nothing personal from both of you, as you're trying to help me. There are rules that we all have to follow. Just 20 more reputation and I'll be able to do almost anything. And thanks for the upvote! – Chris K Nov 13 '14 at 12:46