"If you have to start all over again".
I wouldn't marry, thus I can have as many "bodies" as I wanted. Please pray for my death body if I won't be alive tomorrow....
Seriously, I still buy a 5D with 70-200mm f/4 IS, 16-35 MK II - and 24mm f/1.4 L plus 35mm f/1.4 L - instead of 24-70mm & 50 f/1.4.
1DX and 200-400 f4 L IS zoom. Obviously the 200-400 is not for general shooting use, but it should be nice. I will report on the combonation when my lens gets here, or I should say that I will do that if I am still alive when deliveries start.
One body/lens setup ? I'd probably go for Noctilux 50 f/0.95, however, I can't decide on the digital camera to go with it, as Leica bodies seem totally primitive (but silly overpriced) compared to the Canon dSLRs.
That's an easy one... if I could do it "all over again" I would buy that Nikkormat EL and 50mm f1.4 Nikkor, instead of the Miranda Auto Sensorex EE and 50mm f1.8 lens I ended up getting with the money from my first summer job...
ravisrajan wrote:
... since I have zoon using my feet.
I want to gag every time I see that "zoom with my feet" silliness, often expressed as if there is something more virtuous about using primes than zooms or that using zooms is a sign of laziness or unwillingness to take the time to compose carefully.
This old adage is wrong on virtually all counts.
First, focal length choice is an integral element of composition. I shoot zooms and I shoot primes, and I have more - not less! - to think about when I shoot with a zoom. Once I pick the angle from which I want to shoot the subject and the extent to which the subject will fill the frame, that's pretty much it with a prime. However, with a zoom I still have to or can consider whether to zoom wide and move close to eliminate foreground elements and shrink the size of background elements relative to the main subject, or zoom long and move back so that foreground elements may be included and the scale of background elements increases relative to the size of the main subject. I also have more control over the variables that allow me to separate the primary subject from foreground background including DOF and the choice of precisely just what sits within the frame behind the primary subject.
In addition, there are tons of situations in which "zoom with your feet" actually means "don't get the shot." For example, it is very difficult to find a camera position in thin air or in the middle of the water or on the field of play in many sports. It is also rather difficult to zoom, say, 10 miles with your feet in order to compose elements of a landscape shot.
There are fine reasons to use primes. I own more primes than zooms, and I returned this afternoon from a long trip on which I took only three primes. Some reasons include:
- Need for the narrowest possible DOF.
- In some cases - but not all - optimizing IQ when all other variable are controlled by means of very careful technique including tripod use.
- Situations in which you must work very quickly and want fewer variables to think about, such as certain types of street photography.
- Lens types that are unavailable in zoom form, such as tilt shift and macro lenses.
The one body and one lens question is seems to pop up here every few months. I'm never quite sure what the point is. I have occasionally shot with only a single lens. On various occasions the most appropriate one-lens solution for the shooting at hand has been a 24-105 zoom, a 100-400 zoom, a 50mm prime, a 135mm prime, a 85mm prime, a 24mm prime, or a 17-40mm zoom, or even others...
If I were a one lens person, I would not bother with a DSLR, frankly. I'd probably look for a good rangefinder or similar style camera.
My kit now is my event kit, two DSLR's that can do great high iso and bunch of lenses with a zillion flashguns. I'm giving events up though so I just want a carry anywhere camera, small, FF and able to take a great dreamy lens.
If one were to have no limit on budget, why would one only want one lens? That just doesn't make any sense to me. If it's for weight purposes, I'd just hire an assistant with my unlimited budget to carry all my other lenses. Kind of like a caddy. But much cooler.
In this strange alternate reality with the rules you provided, I guess a 1D-X with a zoom would make sense. However if practicality were to set in, I'd just ask him what his budget is, what he wants to shoot, and what other factors are coming into play. Based on that, a more meaningful analysis can be provided.
Difficult choice, I'd be tempted with a D800 & 70-200 VR II. However for me the Canon 70-200 mkII is the better lens so it would have to be a 1DX & 70-200L IS mkII. Got to love the speed of the 1DX as well
