In 2010, I sold my Pentax gear and changed to a Nikon D700 and 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 as Nikon has a professional system available, where Pentax did not. After that, I purchased the a D7000 as well and 105 f.28 VR micro, 14-24 f2.8, 300 f2.8 VRII, 500 f4, all the TC's, then the 35 f1.4G and 85 f1.4G. Now I have the D800E and I couldn't be happier.
I picked this up in another thread and it got me thinking. When you get a second body, why would you get a different camera? Particularly when one is fx and the other is dx?
From my perspective, it makes so much sense to have a pair that are identicle. If you are using both, the images should mix as seamlessly as possible; if one is backing up the other controls will be different and when the sensors are different sizes lens swapping can be limiting. Again. having identical bodies is psychologically easier and mechanically simpler.
I understand the difference in cost, but think you have to work around it.....
Hmmm, I'm old...yet shoot 5 different cameras effortlessly. I know them like the back of my hand,
so the transition from one to another is seamless. I use different tools for different jobs, much the
same as we select a specific lens for the best IQ. Sorry, but I fail to see the point in duplicates. I've
set up each body to deliver the "look" I want with little or no PP. There is NO best body, why have 2
edit: I actually have 6 DSLR's but haven't sold a print in 5 years with my 1D so I didn't count it.
I spent a lot of my life as a photojournalist in situations that could be fast moving. With fewer zoom options, more bodies were a must. Being able to go from body to identical body is probably part of my DNA at this point.....
That said, I'd be curious to hear specific examples of situations improved by switching bodies, and an idea of how much the change benefited you....
Rodeos, horrible arena lights...different venues/different access. TC's not an option, so before the D800
came on board I could switch from D3 to D7K w/bread & butter 70-200 f2.8 fill the frame and the shots
would be up for sale on my www before my 1st beer was finished. Sold >300 prints last yr. works for me.
Simple -- I can't afford two D800's.... so I only have one. The other is my D7000 which I use more for wildlife. I'd love to have a D800/D800e combo, but not in the budget right now.
papageno wrote:
I picked this up in another thread and it got me thinking. When you get a second body, why would you get a different camera? Particularly when one is fx and the other is dx?
From my perspective, it makes so much sense to have a pair that are identicle. If you are using both, the images should mix as seamlessly as possible; if one is backing up the other controls will be different and when the sensors are different sizes lens swapping can be limiting. Again. having identical bodies is psychologically easier and mechanically simpler.
I understand the difference in cost, but think you have to work around it........Show more →
It really depends on what the person shoots.
For me I like,
FX + 24-120VR or 28,50 primes for landscape
DX + 70-300, 150, or 300+1.4TC for wildlife.
I used to shoot with a D700 and a D5100, and I loved the combo. The D700 was my main body and I pull the D5100 when I needed something smaller and one that shoots video. I really didn't want to lug around the D700 everyday but the 5100 was perfect for that.
I picked up a second body when I started doing some paid work. For a 'just in case' kind of thing. I don't do weddings, so a 3rd and 4th camera aren't needed, and most of my stuff I could easily reschedule if something goes wrong. I just like redundancy.
IMO there is a 'best' body....Charlize Theron happens to be wearing it...
On the camera side, I have thought about getting a higher resolution body to complement my D4 for landscapes, etc...but as an amateur I have enough invested in my gear already, so just have to suffer through with just the one body.
With two of the same you end up with two cameras that are both as good and bad at the same things but with two different bodies they can compliment each other better.
Virtually identical controls and menus, uses the same battery and grip. Easy to move back and forth depending on the situation.
Just added a D3s to the mix so we will see how that shakes out.
Yup, this is exactly the way that I went. I used the d300 and d700 side by side, for several years. To me, it was like having 2 complete sets of lenses to choose from. I could choose to have "overlapping" zooms, by putting the 70-200 on the d700 and the 28 or 24-70 on the d300. I could choose more or less DOF, without changing the aperture/exposure, on the same zooms, by putting the 28-70 on 1 body and the 24-70 on the other or the same with my fast primes.
Right now, the d3s is doing double duty. Sometimes it's an FX camera, others I will slap the 1.4x TC on it and make it a "DX" camera.
But, I only started doing this when the d700 became available. Prior to that, I had 2 identical bodies, starting with the d70. There are certainly benefits to having 2 identical bodies, but I prefer having FX and DX now, at least until the d300 is no longer useful.
If you are typically shooting weddings, having an identical camera as back up is ideal. Otherwise, I think it's better to have different cameras. Part of the reason is cost savings. I just don't like putting a lot of $$ into cameras because they lose value so fast, so I typically have a primary and a secondary camera. One is less money. I have a varied interest, so I like to have different capability. I use a D300 when I need blazing fast fps and have wireless remote camera capability. I use a d5100 when I want something very compact, and I LOVE that fold out screen for "street" photography. I also sometimes photo in hazardous conditions and want to use a cheaper camera for those times. Any more, I'm thinking a camera is a camera is a camera.......
I run a D4 and D7000
the only DX lens I have is the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and is my standard use lens for DX. I have various other lenses that end up giving me adequate coverage on both bodies. essentially from 14mm to 500mm+
I recently picked up a d7000 as a second body. I figured I would get a bit more range which in my head means its like I'm getting new glass even tho I'm not. Similar image quality to my d700 and video something I wanted as well. Also it gives me something to carry around when I'm just messing around. For me to get a d700 was, more expensive, no video and in some cases les flexibility in certain situations. The d7000 is rugged enough and excellent battery life as well. Getting the same second body as your primary camera makes alot of sense if the one camera meets all you needs. Mine didn't.
I've had both combos - identical bodies and different ones. Honestly, it doesn't make a ton of difference, but all things being equal, I liked having identical bodies better. However, sometimes you need two different cameras for different shooting scenarios (i.e. dx and fx).
While I understand someone having specific preference for different bodies, I prefer two identical. The controls are in the same places, menus work the same, etc.
Truth be told though, the last time I had that set up was film days with two EOS-3 with battery packs. My current line up is all different because these DSLR's are so much more expensive that I haven't had the budget for two at a time.
My second body is an Olympus OM-D mainly because I wanted similar image quality to my D300 but in a smaller and lighter package. It makes for a great travel camera and I really like it.
Now with a D800e and a D600 I'm still trying to find the ideal role for the D600 other than just a backup.
Back in the day, the D700 and D300 body combination was easy to figure out. They complimented each other. So I'd use the D700 for landscapes and have the D300 ready with a zoom telephoto for animals.
