Do you care how your camera body look cosmetically?

I feel tt I'm always dazed by the looks of higher end bodies like 1D, 5D, 7D, D3S and D700 becoz all of these bodies has a serious, pro and hardly look. I know looks has nth to do with making good photos but i always take a 2nd look at such bodies.

sry abt e confusion. I mean the camera style and design. Not the condition of the camera.

I don't care about cosmetics, but I certainly care about ergonomics and build quality.

Cameras are just tools, a means to an end. Expensive tools, so it's natural to take reasonable care of them if only to ensure continued reliability. But I really don't care about resale value, so the occasional ding, scuff-mark and user wear is par for the course.. Some of my old film cameras were well-brassed at the corners by the time I converted to digital.

xhack wrote in post #11657385
Cameras are just tools, a means to an end. Expensive tools, so it's natural to take reasonable care of them if only to ensure continued reliability. But I really don't care about resale value, so the occasional ding, scuff-mark and user wear is par for the course.. Some of my old film cameras were well-brassed at the corners by the time I converted to digital.

I miss the brass.

Nono, that's silly to care about looks. As long as the camerabody does what it's supposed to do, it's all you need, looks have nothing to do with how good your photographs will be. Spend your time worrying about stuff that really matters instead and you will be better off.

/ Magnus

That's what stopped me from being a carpenter. I thought all the hammers and saws just looked silly. I can't be seen with silly looking things.

//hold on let me get this rocket blower

I always take care of my stuff, and this includes my camera. It doesn't cost me too much attention to be careful with my stuff

I care, but not to the point of re-touching the scratches and dings with paint. A basic cleaning is always good.

Yes very much.

Your using the word cosmetic when I believe you mean style or design.

I would not buy based on look.

After buying, I certainly would take good care of my camera.

somsuj wrote in post #11657452
I would not buy based on look.

After buying, I certainly would take good care of my camera.

I think "look"is important when it comes to buy. A beat-up camera would be more likely to have problems. It's like a car, all you care is to do it's job, but it really matter how those thinks was taking care of. It the previous owner look like he didn't care to much about it I would not buy it.

The short answer to the question - No.

xhack wrote in post #11657385
Cameras are just tools, a means to an end. Expensive tools, so it's natural to take reasonable care of them if only to ensure continued reliability. But I really don't care about resale value, so the occasional ding, scuff-mark and user wear is par for the course...

Exactly.
As long as it performs like it's supposed to and the pics are fine, what is there to be concerned about.
As my camera tech once said to me when I was complaining about dust..."The only way to keep your gear pristine is to put it back in its box, wrap it in plastic and put it in a cupboard - and leave it there. It will always be perfect. Get out and use it for what it's designed for."
Since that day, I haven't worried about it.

I imagine most folks can make the distinction between abuse and 'fair wear and tear'. If you buy a well-used camera, the price will likely reflect the condition.

But, as most here know, the failure of electronics and mechanical components like shutters is arbitrary and does not necessarily reflect cosmetic appearance. Buy second-hand and you take your chances. That's the way the gamble works.

The "pro" look usually comes with some really excellent build quality. If someone designed a P&S that looked just like a 5D2, I wouldn't buy that based on looks. A serious camera will look like a serious camera, and the aesthetics kind of take care of themselves.