How do you get the most out of a dual format kit, or do you stick to one sensor size?

<p>When I started shooting weddings, I used a D300 (a crop-frame camera body). Later, I began renting a D700 body for weddings, and using my D300 as a second body (now I own a D3 and a D300, and similarly carry them together).</p>

<p>I can't put my finger on what's irritating me about this setup, and I wonder whether I'm missing a key ingredient that would make this combination fun to drive. Under most circumstances, <strong>when I have the FF body as well, I don't like using the crop-frame body</strong> except when I absolutely must -- so it sort of becomes my lens holder and back-up body of last resort. A belt-mounted lens bag would be lighter and almost as useful. </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure part of my hang-up is the better low-light performance of the D700/D3 as compared to the D300, but I don't think that difference completely explains my aversion to using my D300. Perhaps part of the problem is that different sensor sizes (and slightly different control setups) require more attention. Whatever it is, I find myself wanting another FF body and thinking mean thoughts at my D300, which really is an excellent piece of equipment on its own. </p>

<p>To weddings, I usually bring a 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 f/2.8 set, plus a 50mm f/1.4. I've also borrowed a friend's Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for the D300 a few times, which certainly improved the feel of that body as compared to using the 24-70 on it, but still didn't compel me to use it instead of the FF with the 24-70.</p>

<p>So I'd like to hear what you do -- whether you use two FF bodies, one CF and one FF, or two CF bodies. I know WW likes the dual format kit, but I couldn't quite find a thread in which he describes his approach and why he values it (just a couple threads in which he alludes to it - so WW, if you see this, feel free to incorporate prior comments by reference link, if you don't feel like elaborating).</p>

<p><strong>What am I missing about this dual format body combination?</strong> When do you use each body? (Or, if you stick to two identical bodies, please helpfully explain why I am stupid even to bother trying a dual format combo.) Do you keep the 70-200 on the crop frame body a lot, and use it for sniping? Does that result in noticeably less subject isolation than you'd achieve if you had it on your FF body?</p>

<p>If you help me understand and appreciate this combination, you can save me $2000. It would then be my pleasure to write very nice things about how smart and helpful you are.</p>

 

<p> . . . well I want the publicity so I will attempt to save you $2000 . . . but first you gotta switch to Canon, 'cause it gives you x1.6 . . . that Nikon stuff is only x1.5</p>

<p>More seriously: I have a meeting in a a few minutes so I'll answer with details about how I go about my stuff, later today, my time.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Never thought of that, William. That is an <em>excellent </em>way for me to save money.</p>

<p>The advantages I can think of for using two different formats are:</p>

<ul>

<li>It is less expensive.</li>

<li>Full frame lenses used on a crop body at large apertures may in some cases vignette less and have higher or at least equal resolution at the corners than on a full frame body.</li>

<li>A slightly wider range of field of view is available with a particular set of lenses (in your case 35mm equivalents from 14mm to 300mm, despite only having a 200mm lens).</li>

<li>The maximum depth of field available may be higher with the crop camera, depending on the lenses’ minimum apertures (may not be applicable to wedding photography).</li>

</ul>

<p>The disadvantages I can think of for using two different formats are:</p>

<ul>

<li>The crop camera will tend to have lower image quality, especially near the center of the frame.</li>

<li>The camera interface may not be absolutely identical, as it would with two identical bodies.</li>

<li>The subject isolation for the Nikon crop body will look as if the aperture was 1.17 stops smaller. If you have the freedom to shoot at very long distances and can tolerate the extra telephoto compression, then shooting at longer than 133mm focal length will help mitigate this (same depth of field, but a smaller angle of background visible, probably giving greater isolation).</li>

</ul>

<p>Right now I would argue that the cost trumps all of the disadvantages, especially since for formal portraits you can just use the full frame body. If you believe that a second full frame body could pay for itself (whether by charging more, getting more business, or not losing business to full frame competitors), then it might make sense.</p>

<p>I never had a formula for using a dual format kit. I just kind of knew what and how I like to shoot, and went from there.</p>

<p>I use my cropped sensor 40D kind of as my tele body at times and kind of as my no flash body at times. In the 'getting ready' room, it is often my no flash body, where I use my 50mm and 24mm wide aperture primes while my 5D has the 28-75mm f2.8 zoom on, with and without flash.</p>

<p>During the ceremony, if it is dim and or flash isn't allowed, the 40D takes my 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm lenses for the wide apertures--even takes a 1.4x converter to get close to 300mm. If there is enough light and/or flash is allowed, or it is an outdoor ceremony in bright light, I use my Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 zoom (equivalent to 70-200mm) with and without flash.</p>

<p>During the reception, I use it with the Tokina for candids and for the tele, with bounced flash mostly, and it can trigger my off camera flashes. Sometimes I use it for the close-up rings shots.</p>

<p>For bridal tele shots, I use the 40D with primes or the zoom. I sometimes use the 40D by itself for beach engagement shots. I have a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens for it as well. The reason I do this is because it is smaller and more compact, and the lenses are smaller and more compact. This last fact is also something I like when shooting weddings, because the 40D lives at my left side, on my home made strap.</p>

<p>The noise response difference does not bother me at all. I strive to shoot 'right on' with exposure, and I mostly crop in camera. With tele shots, one is not normally shooting small detail.</p>

<p>About the only thing I don't like about the dual kit is that when I'm packing light, I have to do a bit of thinking in the back up situation, with lenses. That's about it, though.</p>

 

<p>Good analysis, Joe, and in terms of cost, it's probably the most effective, because it's the combination I already have (except that I don't have a set of DX lenses). The issue for me, however, is something more aesthetic -- I don't <em>like </em>shooting with two bodies with different-sized sensors, but I'm not sure that I <em>couldn't </em>like it -- I might just be "doing it wrong." Hence my query. I'd prefer to learn how to appreciate it and save the money, rather than buy (or continue to rent) another, more expensive, body.</p>

<p>Nadine, you've named two APS-C lenses (Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 50-135). Let me ask you (and anyone else): <strong>how important a role do these APS-C lenses play in your kit? </strong>If you only had FF lenses to share between your 5DII and your 40D, how much do you believe that would tend to diminish the 40D's usefulness? </p>

<p>The 17-50 works about like a 24-75 on the D300. I actually like that combination -- with that lens, the D300 feels the most "usable" during a wedding. Plus, it has the added benefit of VC, which doesn't solve every problem, but does help compensate for having to keep ISO at or below 2000.</p>

<p>The noise difference between the two bodies is mainly apparent at ISO 2000 or higher. Below that, I know (at least, my head knows) there's not much of an IQ difference, though I still tend to favor the D3 enough to go swap a lens.</p>

<p>I also find it jarring when I have to recalculate mentally what a lens is going to do. And I think it's that distraction that bothers me so much. </p>

<p>So about those APS-C lenses, Nadine: does having the pair of them mean you just equate them to the FF equivalents (17-50 = 24-70; 50-135 = 70-200) and never think about it again? </p>

<p>The Tamron and Tokina combo is available for about $1,000 total. That's less than replacing the D300 body, but it is extra glass to carry, and non-interchangeable glass, to boot. </p>

<p>I'm hoping someone can say <strong>"When I carry two bodies, I almost always use the FF for <em>this,</em>and the APS-C body for <em>that, </em>and I do it that way because I get <em>this here </em>benefit."</strong> Super-Bonus points for "And it's <em>this specific lens combination </em>that makes it work for me, where it wouldn't work if I only had <em>that other lens."</em> </p>

<p>Nadine, you've identified size/weight as a benefit to you, which though relevant isn't quite as important to me (actually picking up another used D3 would save weight compared to the D300-plus-grip, and would standardize batteries). Any other benefits to using the two formats? I sorta got the sense from a post from WW in September or October that both you and he use a dual format kit because you like some specific results or some identifiable added flexibility, but I haven't figured out what those benefits are or how to tap into them yet, so I can't tell whether they outweigh (or even counteract) the added mental calculations and complexity of using two control setups.</p>

 

 

<p>The Tokina plays a bigger role than the Tamron, for my 40D. The Tamron, I actually keep in my car, unless I am only using the 40D. As I said, the 40D functions half the time as my tele body.</p>

<p>Now, I carry 3 lenses in my shoulder bag, with 2 others in a smaller bag that I can also strap on or swap out of when needed. Those 3 lenses in the bag are my 24mm f1.8, 17-35mm f2.8 and the 50-135mm f2.8 (the only cropped sensor lens). The 2 lenses in the smaller bag are my 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.8, and the bag is kept under the front seat of my car. I determine whether I'm going to need them depending upon the next segment of the wedding to shoot, and the location. I carry the 1.4x extender in my shoulder bag. The Tamron 28-75mm is on my 5D. The 50mm f1.4 is on my 40D. I don't consider it too much to manage.</p>

<p>No, I don't think the 40D's usefulness would diminish if I didn't have the two cropped sensor zooms. Now, the Tokina is more useful to me. I don't find it mentally jarring to think about the lens based on which body it is on...maybe I'm just used to it. I do equate the cropped sensor lenses to their full frame equivalents.</p>

<p>In your financial calculation, the Tamron 17-50mm would not enter into the picture, as I don't really use it at weddings, so the cost (if you were to shoot as I do) would be about the Tokina, which is about $500-550.</p>

<p>I think I've identified the tele/wide aperture/compact benefits clearly? :^) I don't have a vertical grip on the 40D (on the 5D either). I used to, and then decided I didn't really like them. I am short, so I don't have a lot of body real estate for big cameras.</p>

<p>I think you should not fight your inclinations. If you chafe under the 'weight' of having the dual formats, just sell the D300 and get another full frame. Do I get brownie points for being direct and solving your problem? :^)</p>

<p>Ian, I think you are not playing to the strong sides of each format so for you there is no benefit having two completely different cameras.</p>

<p>There are things in one system that is unavailable in the other but you don't use any of that.<br /> For instance:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 24mm f/1.4 is a large aperture wide angle. No such lens on DX.</li>

<li>The 50-135/2.8 and 50-150/2.8 DX are small tele zooms and about half the weight of the 70-200. No equivalent exists on FX.</li>

<li>There a few options covering the 17-50/2.8 on DX with stabilisation. No 24-70/2.8 lenses with VR on FX.</li>

<li>The D300 is light weight (compared to the D3) but since you put on a battery grip you have removed that advantage.</li>

<li>The D300 will make you an equivalent 300/2.8 VR on FX but light weight with the 70-200/2.8. No such thing on FX.</li>

<li>You don't use many primes so the advantage of having each prime be two focal lengths doesn't apply.</li>

</ul>

<p>The D300 is not matched to the D3 when it comes to noise. When you shoot with the bare minimum DOF to get everything i focus and can use say f/4 on the D3 you could use f/2.8 on the D300 and get the same DOF. But that will only get you one stop lower iso and the D3 is about 2 stops better than the D300 so the D3 is still the winner.</p>

<p>To me it sound like it would be more beneficial for you to sell the D300 and the battery pack and get a D700 or another D3 if the weight doesn't bother you.</p>

<ul>

</ul>

My M.O. is very similar to that which Nadine describes in her first post. I use a 5D2 and a 400D, with the 17-40 remaining on my FF 80-90% of the time, except when I am doing portraits, in which case I swap it for my 50 f/1.8. The 400D is usually mated to my 50mm. For longer shots where I want to remain out of sight, I mount my 24-105 lens on it.

<p>In summary, I fully leverage a dual-format kit. Admittedly, the gap in things like user interface and ISO performance is more like a rift in my case ;-) so I tend to favour my FF and only use my crop in brighter conditions and at lower ISOs ...

<p>Nadine, you don't need brownie points. I'll make you a batch of real brownies and ship 'em to you any time you like. Just ask. :) (But greatly helpful answers and explanations, as usual, so thanks.)</p>

<p>I'm only fighting my inclinations just to be sure I'm not missing an important opportunity (namely, to save money, happily using what I already have). I wasn't sure whether I was missing a key technique or piece of kit that could transform how I understand and use the D300 as a companion to the D3.</p>

<p>Pete, of course you're correct that the D300 doesn't match the D3's ISO performance. I was only observing that, at 1600 ISO or below, both bodies do well and exhibit better-than-acceptable noise; it's above 1600 that the D300 starts to suffer, whereas the D3/D700 can go two stops higher and do well.</p>

<p>Purchasing and using the 50-135 on the D300, and not renting the 70-200 every wedding (that's one I don't yet own) would save its cost in rental fees over 10 weddings, or, because the 70-200 is next on my buy-list, would save $2000 if I just didn't bother using that lens on the D3. Relegating that focal length to the APS-C sensor camera doesn't seem entirely desirable on first blush, but I'll try to rent or borrow one for a wedding to see how it feels before making a body-swap decision. Pete has pointed out a few other strengths of a dual format kit, some of which I won't maximize (e.g., dual focal length using several primes, lighter body weight), but some of which I could benefit from (e.g., lighter lens choices, less expensive lenses). </p>

<p>Good stuff, guys -- thanks for thoughtful responses (as usual). I remain interested in WW's thoughts, when he returns.</p>

<p>Well, Mark, it sounds like you're doing what I'm doing (though with perhaps less irritation) -- I, too, favor the FF and only use the APS-C body in brighter conditions. At my last wedding, I shot about 80% of my photos on the FF, meaning I did plenty of lens switching, even when the APS-C body had a lens on it that would have worked.</p>

<p>I guess if I'm carrying two bodies, what I keep wanting is to have one body with the 24-70, and the other with the 70-200, and to have full confidence in each body, so that they are interchangeable and I can just drop one to my side and pick up the other, based on where I am and what I'm doing. </p>

<p>Sounds like I could get close to that with:</p>

<ul>

<li>the 24-70 on my FF, and the 50-135 on the APS-C body, <strong>or, </strong>conversely,</li>

<li>the 17-50 on the APS-C, and the 70-200 on the FF.</li>

</ul>

<p>But in both cases, I'm using one body with inferior low-light performance, so I <strong>also </strong>have to decide with which focal length I can tolerate that performance drop. I suppose that might change during the day from one location to another.</p>

<p>You've helped me put my finger on the heart of my problem, and it really <em>is </em>the low-light performance difference between the two bodies. Mental attention to the focal length multiplier would go away if I mostly stuck to one of those two setups. But the ISO performance difference would persist.</p>

<p><strong>HISTORY:</strong><br />I had, what I see as an advantage, of planning a digital kit from scratch.<br />The short history is we sold our studio when we was still using film, (645 and 135 format for Weddings); I kept a loose association as a Photographer now and again, but a few years later I cut the studio over to digital. We initially required two full kits, but ended up with three and a smaller, fourth kit. (Yes - essentially the studio owned all the equipment, the hired Photographers used.)<br />I took a while thinking about the whole concept of digital as a new business tool: I had been using a digital camera myself (a 20D), but I had to put my business hat on and think differently for the job which I was asked of me.</p>

<p><strong>The TWO striking business advantages of a Digital Kit I realized were:</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>Control over ISO at the twist of a dial</li>

<li><strong>Dual Formats</strong> WITH the SAME lenses – big FL coverage</li>

</ul>

<p>And another advantage – B&W from any image – (no need to carry a body with specific B&W film)<br />I thought I was in Wedding Photo Heaven – instead of dragging TWO 645s two with different films loaded and three 135 bodies (each kit, with their OWN compliment of lenses) . . . bingo: we could have TWO digital bodies and a selected cache of lenses and still most likely pull 24 x 36 canvas prints to high quality. <br />I choose Canon Digital, essentially because at the time the 5D was King: and we had no alliance the Nikon, (i.e. we had two only Nikon Lenses, so therefore we HAD to buy into a NEW system anyway). That said we still used 645 Film, for the Formal Shots at some Weddings for about a year or so.</p>

<p><strong>The SYSTEM and my THINKING: </strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Remember I am “Canon-speak” and I am limiting to Canon EF and EF-S lenses – you can adapt the thinking and apply it to Nikon or Third Party lenses. </li>

<li>Note also, that Canon EF-S lenses WILL NOT MOUNT on Canon 135 format cameras - aka “Full Frame” cameras.</li>

<li>Further point to note – having driven the studio myself – we all tended to shoot a lot of Available Light and that style was still popular with the new owner – so Fast Primes, were on the agenda.</li>

</ol>

<p>The first premise was to have one fast zoom, which would be the workhorse, the options:<br />EF24-70/2.8; EF16-35/2.8; EF-S17-55/2.8 IS</p>

<p>Next was to look at the best leverage of the Fast Primes: so options were the obvious: 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135, 200, 300. (Considering all options – hence the 300 did get considered – but got dumped quickly because of price)</p>

<p>The next thought was about “special stuff” – and in this regard I looked at: 15/2.8 fish and EF-S 60Macro and 100/2.8Macro and 180/3.5L Macro. (The 180/3.5L got dumped because of price).</p>

<p>The next step in the thinking was looking <strong><em>at the zoom cache alone</em></strong> and deciding if a second or third zoom was appropriate.<br />My first thought, one I held for a long time, was to get the trilogy of F/2.8 zooms – 16 to 35; 24 to 70 and 70 to 200 IS. I held onto the idea of the three zooms, until I stared to think more about HOW we generally used our Zooms and Primes <strong><em>AT the Wedding</em></strong> and also, what the usual Print sizes that were purchased. I then realized that, there was a parallel with using the 5D and a set of PRIME lenses to using the 645: when we dragged the 645 gear out for the Formals – now we might do “Loose” Formals at the Home (Bridal Portraiture) and also at Church (Wedding Party and Family) and also at a third Venue (Wedding Party). At this point I began to think that the APS-C camera should be the “workhorse” and essentially be used for the “Storybook” or the “General Coverage”.<br />So back rethinking the Zooms and that meant the 24 to 70 was out of the equation for the workhorse zoom, because it was not wide enough on an APS-C body – now the EF-S 17 to 55/2.8 IS is just a wonderful lens BUT then came up the question of BANG for the BUCK and my pet topic of <strong><em>SYSTEM REDUNDANCY</em></strong>. The EF-S lens can’t mount on the 5D – so the answer for the workhorse lens and body was: 30D + 16 to 35/2.8.</p>

<p>Having settled on getting the 16 to 35, the light globe went on in my head and I realized that the 24 to 70 was a superfluous zoom, if we had a 70 to 200/2.8, and we used two formats.<br />[i.e. 16 to 35 and 70 to 200 with a 30D and a 5D, gives FL equiv: 16 to 56 and 70 to 320 all at F/2.8 – the 57 to 69 “gap” is nothing]<br />Moreover slinging two cameras – the 16 to 35 on the 30D // and the 70 to 200 on the 5D, we have FL equiv: 25 to 56/2.8 and 70 to 200/2.8 and even though I (personally) don’t use zooms as much as the other photographers that two camera kit could be used by some - <strong><em>for the whole job.</em></strong><br />So the zooms were decided and basically the Primes just fell into place. It was just the maths of it to get the widest coverage, at the fastest speed, in the lightest kit, with the best value for money. My answer was: 24/1.4L; 50/1.4; 135/2 – providing FL equivalent: 24/1.4, 38/1.4, 50/1.4, 80/1.4, 135/2, 216/2.<br />Then I thought about the cost and the weight of the zooms and whilst I could not skimp on the 16 to 35, unless we wanted 17 to 40 and loose a stop of speed, which I did consider buty decided we wanted the F/2.8. However, we did only buy ONE 70 to 200/2.8IS – and shared it. But for “telephoto insurance” we also bought a x1.4MkII tele-converter to use with the 135/2 and we only bought one of those 135L, also.</p>

<p><strong>MY KIT </strong><br />One point for me to mention, (to answer part of the question asked by Ian), is once I got through the “thinking” I didn’t have an issue with using a 30D as the “main working” camera for a Wedding. Basically the 16 to 35 sat on it. And the 5D was taken up mainly with Prime Lenses throughout the day. So I think if Ian gets a Nikon APS-C body with high quality and high ISO he can more easily make the same decision as I.</p>

<p><strong>MY Canon kit is: </strong></p>

<ol>

<li>5D, 30D, 20D (note the APS-C is the “back-up” camera’s format, because that has more “lens leverage” than having a 5D as back up. </li>

<li>16 to 35/2.8MkII and 70 to 200/2.8</li>

<li>15/2.8Fish; 24/1.4; 35/1.4; 35/2; 50/1.4; 85/1.8; 100/2.8M; 135/2</li>

<li>x1.4MkII; x2.0MkII</li>

<li>Borrow at any time: 70 to 200/2.8IS; 300/2.8; 400/2.8</li>

</ol>

<p>For the last two years of Weddings I did – the Digital kit chosen would something like:<br />30D, 5D (+20D back up), 24, 50, 135 and 16 to 35<br />And depending upon the venue and the layout of the home, I might add either 85/1.8 or the 35/1.4 – if I took the 85, I would usually not take the 135.<br />What I mean by “my kit” for the Wedding - is that I would take is the two cameras and the lenses I would CARRY on me – <strong><em>I would have all the other stuff available.</em></strong><br /><strong> </strong><br /><strong>HOW I USED IT (typical usage and Wedding time line)</strong><br /><strong>Carrying:</strong> 30D + 16 to 35 and 5D+ 50: 24 and 85 (or 135) in belt bag or pocket. Both cameras have a Flash.<br /><strong>HOME:</strong> The 16 to 35 on the 30D and a Prime on the 5D – usually the 50. If a tight house I would take the 35.<br /><strong>HOME Formals:</strong> 5D + 50 (or 35)</p>

<p><strong>CHURCH:</strong> The 16 to 35 on the 30D and swap 24 and 135 on the 5D for wide and long during the service.<br /><strong>CHURCH Formals</strong>: 5D + 50 (or 35 if tight Church or swap to use 16 to 35 @ 35 if no 35 Prime)<br /><strong>FORMALS at other location:</strong> 5D + 50, 5D + 35 (or zoom) 5D + 85 or 135 (30D ready with 16 to 35 catches impromptu events.<br /><strong>RECEPTION:</strong> 30D + 16 to 35 – use Flash mainly, 5D using Available light the 24 is nice for that<br />So basically I would go the whole event with one zoom and three Primes (sometimes two after the Church, as I would dump the 135).</p>

<p>In the event of a stuff up I had redundancy at my finger tips as for practical examples –<br />The most likely tool to fail is the CAMERA –</p>

<ol>

<li>The 30D fails at a critical time and on it, is the 16 to 35 – options: I have slung on me the 5D and it most likely the 50 on it – if I can use the 50 I am safe – if I need wider I swap the 16 to 35 and use the 35 end.</li>

<li>The 30D fails and (for some unknown reason) on it I have a Prime – I move or crop and use the 5D - e.g. I have the 24 on the 30D - I use the 24 on the 5D and shoot wide and crop OR I use the 50 on the 5D and move back – OR I use the 16 to 35 on the 5D at 35 (most likely the last option would be it, because my lens protocol would be to put the 16 to 35 ON the 5D if it were not on the 30D. </li>

<li>The 5D fails at a critical time – on it I have the 50 – I use the 30D and the 16 to 35 . . . at 35.</li>

<li>The 5D fails at a critical time – on it I have the 24 – I use the 30D and the 16 to 35 . . . at 16</li>

<li>The 5D fails and I need the 135 – I use the 30D with the 50 and crop or use the 135 and move back.</li>

</ol>

<p><br />The next most likely tool to fail is the FLASH:<br />So for this backup there are very few critical condition failure possibilities - the Processional and Recessional being the obvious – so with the 16 to 35 on the 30D, I would typically cover with the 24 on the 5D for a short Aisle and the 50 on the 5D for a longer Aisle – maybe even for a very tight Chapel - the shooting scenario would be 5D + 16 to 35 and 30D + 24 for the – in this case if the Flash on the 5D failed I would need to choose to either continue at the beat with the 30D + 24 or swap lenses and get the 16 to 35 on the 30D.<br />This is the one of the most difficult “Fail Scenarios” I have played through for a using Dual Format kit: i.e. Short Aisle / Large Wedding Party / Kids in Wedding Party / Flash Fails – need Wide Lens with Flash quickly.</p>

<p><strong>SUMMARY: </strong><br />I understand, and I have had it said to me that I am too “formula based” – but the selection of a key set of tools designed around:</p>

<ul>

<li>What I use most</li>

<li>Light weight, quick to manoeuvre, and everything can be carried</li>

<li>Is quick to dump and use a backup</li>

</ul>

<p>So IMO, my thinking makes me <em>more efficient</em> such that I can concentrate of NOT being formulated during the coverage and <em>concentrate on what is happening</em> knowing that I have at my finger tips the tools I need ands a complete back up system also.</p>

<p>I think the lens change procedure and where they go after lens change is important.<br />Essentially my 16 to 35 stayed on the 30D.<br />My LEFT coat pocket is WIDE.<br />My RIGHT coat pocket is LONG.<br />So if the 50 comes off the 5D and I need to 24 the 50 replaces the 24 in the left pocket.<br />If the 50 is replaced by the 135 (or 85) then the Right pocket is used.<br />If the 16 to 35 is swapped to the 5D (unusual, but possible) then the Pockets work the same for the Primes swapping on the 30D.<br />In the unusual event that both cameras have Primes – then the 16 to 35 moves the left pocket – because it is the widest.<br />NB- it would be very unusual to have the 50 and the 135 employed and thus the 24 in the right pocket. More common, would something like the 24 on the 30D and the 50 on the 5D working low EV and shooting Available Light, in a small Church, for example – and in this example I have with one lens swap on the two cameras, a 50 on the 30D and a 24 on the 5D – giving another combination of a fast Wide and a fast Tele – with a greater spread between the two.<br />Another discipline, is the lens change itself: and that is something I practice, a lot, being able to do it by feel.</p>

<p><strong>The 70 to 200 – how does that fit in?:</strong><br />It stayed on the 20D and close by.<br />Sometimes, especially in the Church, I’d have a wrist strap on the 20D and clip that to my belt, just behind my right hip – i.e. I would be carrying three cameras for the duration of the Service.<br />The 20D did not have a Flash on it.</p>

<p><strong>Carriage and other stuff: </strong><br />5D around my neck and 30D on a wrist strap on the right hand – I can drop the 30D and shoot with the 5D. Yes this puts a lot of strain over the day on the right wrist – I have a strong right forearm and probably have work related injuries which will stuff me up, when I get old.<br />I can shoot: inverted camera; and also with my left hand; also From the Hip and Hail Mary Style with either AF or Zone and Pre Focus techniques – but these techniques are typically are not used at most Weddings – though I know of one member, here, who displayed shooting with two cameras – two handed, one inverted - I understand this method and the reasons.<br />I rarely used continuous fire.<br />I do practice techniques – a lot.<br />I am fanatic with it. To me, my cameras are my tools of trade and I simply think that, a pianist would practice scales, or a swimmer does laps, I should practice too, so stuff like changing batteries can be done with hands behind the back or a lens can be changed one handed (if necessary), on a slung camera, as examples.</p>

<p>These techniques, and a fanaticism for them, and combined with a clinical approach to knowing DoF and Tv LIMITS do not suit all people – so I am not suggesting you should take them up – but all this information goes to answering the question of how and why I love a dual format digital system – because for me it was a release to move to only using two cameras . . . from using five.<br />And a Dual Format Digital System allowed me to carry VERY fast lenses on my person and have very powerful and comprehensive fully redundant kit, <strong><em>at my fingertips, all day.</em></strong></p>

<p><strong>The REAL SIMPLE VERSIONS:</strong><br />Prime Kit : 30D + 5D + 24/1.4 + 50/1.4 - very suitable for mostly all indoor parties and functions covering with Available Light or Flash Fill – nothing in the pockets – carry two cameras.<br />Zoom Kit: 30D + 5D + 16 to 35 + 70 to 200 – very suitable for all outdoor parties and functions for Available light or Flash fill again nothing in the pockets.</p>

<p><strong>The UPDATED VERSION –</strong><br />In Canon, if I were still shooting Weddings I would use a 7D + 5DMkII and my (existing) 30D, as my Back-up camera carry. I would not sell my 5D, but keep it too as a standby – because owning the 5D already and keeping it, I have more leverage having a second 5D available to me, rather than what it would be worth converted to cash and that cash to buy another tool – as I would not need any other tools. <br /><br />There are other niceties with the 30D, 5D, 20D combination - the fact they all used the same batteries was one. I like that. Also their FUNCTIONALITY was very similar and weight and size too. I use a battery grip on all my cameras – two batteries in each . . . more system redundancy.</p>

<p><strong>To Ian:</strong><br />To answer your specific question I thought it was best to lay out what I did and explain each step.<br />It is up to you to apply my thinking and my experience to your specific applications, how you might like to work and, of course, the Nikon System.<br />I note that you seem to have an hybrid “style” – or at least that’s what I interpret - you seek to tell a story , but you do the “Formals” also.<br />On a quick peruse of you galley, it seems you don’t use the 135 to 200 FL all that much? Maybe I am mistaken – anyway I just mention that because I will often go sans 70 to 200 and carry the 135 and the tele-conveter - I think that is a very useful combination and often overlooked.<br />If you have a specific question I have not covered, just ask.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>PS the above was written off line - without reading other's responses - you might have moved on and made decisions: but I posted the whole story so I have it later, for reference, rather than as you mentioned, bits and pieces here and there.</p>

<p>WW, in the future, I wish you would provide more thorough and more organized responses. It is an embarrassment to the entire p-net community that your responses are so brief and unhelpful.</p>

<p>I think we can all agree that the highlight of this thread is the line in which we learn that WW's head contains a "light globe." ... a claim which I am convinced is literally true.</p>

<p>I deeply appreciate your formula, William. Whoever told you that you are too formulaic simply misunderstands the value and proper use of carefully constructed formulas (and also misunderstands how your brain works). Your walkthrough was precisely what I was looking for. If part of my frustration is the need to divert attention to my tools, having an effective and understandable formula mitigates the distraction, because 90% of the thinking about that aspect of how I use the tools is done before-hand. I will read your post several times (along with the other responses to this thread) as I decide how to proceed.</p>

<p>You might be correct that I don't use the 135-200 range as often as other ranges -- I'll have to sort through some data in Lightroom to see how often those values come up. There are some critical shots in which having that 200 reach is very helpful, but after reading your response, I am now weighing the possibility of using a 135 f/2 instead -- something I simply hadn't considered before -- and whether that might change how I value having the APS-C body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>...why I love a dual format digital system – because for me it was a release to move to only using two cameras . . . from using five.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a great line, and although it does not represent the real value you get from your formulas, it does paint a great picture of the expression of delight that no doubt grew on your face as you considered these formulas and what they would mean in terms of weight and flexibility improvements -- you know, from the old, <em>old </em>days. (Not knowing what your face looks like, I have made up a face for you in my mind, and it is quite amusing.)</p>

<p>To be complete, all this thread needs now is for our resident Grumpy Uncle to come along with a post along the lines of "Sure, you could do it that way, but you'd be a jackass. Good luck. Also, even though Neil hasn't responded to this thread -- probably because he uses those nancy-boy rangefinders -- whatever he was thinking was simultaneously too obvious to post, and also wrong."</p>

<p>Everyone, your responses have really helped. Thanks for the ideas -- I'm gonna think about this stuff for a while, and probably rent a combination or two before changing anything. Great ideas.</p>

<p>P.S.: And DS, just to be clear, I'm kidding with you because I appreciate you.</p>

<p>Additional search terms to make this thread easier for people to find after it gets buried: DX vs. FX, Full Frame, Crop Frame, Cropped Frame.</p>

<p>Ian--I think you've figured out your priorities quite well, honing it down to the one thing that is the cause of the discomfort. If I may be direct again, I think you will not be happy with the two scenarios you point out, just because of the ISO restriction. However, I do think it is worthwhile to give it a whirl just to rule it out. I have found that I buy a lens thinking I'd use it in a particular way, and then find many other ways to use it, some of them perhaps pushing ahead past the initial reason for purchase.</p>

<p>It was this way with the Tokina purchase. I bought it initially to use for engagement sessions and for bright sun or bright light/outdoor ceremonies, where things happen fast and you may not have time to zoom with the feet or change a lens. Then I found many other uses for it and for a lukewarm purchase (emotionally) I find I am very glad I bought it.</p>

<p>I can understand your feeling about the ISO performance difference between the two bodies. However, I would point out that it might be worthwhile to think about (again, just as an exercise) how you can keep to ISO 1600 and below--in other words, ask yourself just how important that ability to go to ISO 6400 is. I personally don't go much beyond ISO 1600. Sometimes, for a dim, no flash ceremony, I will use ISO 3200 but I try to be very careful with not underexposing and cropping as close as possible in camera. As I've said many times before, I don't have any trouble using a tripod, and while IS/VR might be nice to have, I certainly don't find I 'need' it. Most ceremonies, I use ISO 1600, or as low an ISO as I can get away with. ISO 1600 on both my 'old' cameras is just great. As described above, I can whip out my wide aperture primes if the light is low (PLUS use the tripod).</p>

<p>Given a choice, and for sessions where I have control, I always opt for slower ISOs. I would not use ISO 6400 by choice for such sessions. Too much goes out the window with dynamic range (IMHO) and white balance. In fact, for controlled sessions, I might be reaching for my strobes, perhaps sooner than some, but then, that's me. You should do what's "you".</p>

<p>When discussing different approaches it might be good to keep in mind that there are some differences in characteristics between cameras and manufacturers as well.</p>

<p>For instance, for same size prints the 40D and D300 are equal in noise and the 5D is one stop better. However the D3 is one stop better than the 5D. So there is a much larger gap between the D3 and D300 compared the 5D and 40D.</p>

<p>What's interesting is that Nikon's new crop camera (D7000) is as good as the full frame 5D in the noise department. According to the lab data it also sports a ridiculous maximum dynamic range which may be particularly interesting to wedding shooters.</p>

<p>So the D7000 and D3 would be a better match in noise but maybe not in handling.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For the past 6 or 7 years (essentially since switching to digital), I have use a dual format setup.</p>

<p>The Wider end is usually my crop body as I want more apparent DOF for most of those shots. Right now that is the D300s (trying out the D7k too and like it well so far) with a 17-55 or 10-17 FE for some shots. This rig has a flash attached and serves as the formals cam and environmental style shot cam.</p>

<p>My other cam was the D3, but I don't like the bigger bodies (came from the F4/F5/F100 etc. without boosters). It is now a D700 and it adorns either the 85/1.4 (most of the time) or the 70-200 Vr. Currently playing with a D7k and Tamron 70-300 VC too.</p>

<p>I like that setup and it seems to fit my style quite well.</p>

<p>Ian, Firstly thanks for the fine publicity wrap.<br>

Appreciated – thanks again.</p>

<p>OK – I now have read the other posts, including your responses (remember I had not read them when I wrote previously) . . . a few comments:</p>

<p>I noticed Nadine wrote something like “I didn’t have a formula for a Dual Format Kit I just knew what I wanted to do” . . . I suspect that working FILM with 6x6 for weddings and also 135 format kind of stretches the brain into dual thinking. And – not putting words into her mouth – I reckon that - that experience does make a formula when moving into digital: but maybe the formula is just not recognized or dissected – women often “just do it” men often “disassemble it”.</p>

<p>Next I noticed that you are renting the 70 to 200: I dunno how many of the old posts of mine you found, but one significant thought running through them is: <em>“plan out what the final kit is you want, and proceed to build it, prioritising each purchase as the next most important – make a time line for the purchases.” </em></p>

<p>I also noticed that Nadine mentioned that she might leave her 85 and her 135 in a bag in the car, depending upon her needs and where she is in the timeline – notice I also mentioned: “I often dump the 135”<br>

Now, I am thinking that there might be many reasons why she and I have similar methods – but allow me to speculate on one: we both used to use 6x6 / 645 and 135 . . . and we both regularly mention we don’t use or have the need for a 70 to 200 . . . 135 on an APS-C is pretty long . . . but also I think we both <em>might be used to getting those “long shots” in the Church with an 85 (or a 135) – by getting the guts vantage point </em>. . <em>. because before we had to, because we didn’t have any lenses which were longer (on medium format).</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

So I AM NOT suggesting the 70 to 200 is not a great wedding lens nor am I arguing about “photojournalistic style needing the longer lens for stealth yet intimate capture” – I am just pointing out, to save $2000 - that spending two grand on a 70 to 200 zoom, is not a good return on investment if it is usually ONLY used as a 200mm telephoto lens or if it used for less than 40% of the haul – AND other lens / camera combinations could have covered those shots.</p>

<p>Now it is a different kettle of kippers IF your thinking is predicated on a ZOOM KIT and (likely) 135 FORMAT – then we could build: D3 + 24 to 70/2.8: D3 + 70 to 200/2.8 (standard “Press kit”) using the high ISO as the leverage for Available Light work at F/2.8 (have a fast 35 and / or fast 85 for safety – the 50/1.8 in both Canon and Nikon is a cheap as chips so have him also )</p>

<p>OR</p>

<p>As, I mentioned, the dual format light kit”: APS-C + 16 to 35: Full Frame+ 70 to 200 (and you play “swap the lenses” for the extra reach – and add a fast Prime or two for safety/redundancy)</p>

<p> . . . what I am getting to is (I think) because both Nadine and I (and others) were <strong><em>forced to use Prime Lenses</em></strong>, we use Prime lenses <em>MORE often now</em> and NOT <strong><em>just for</em></strong> low light of shallow depth of field work, which are often thrown out as the ONLY reasons, for having Primes.<br>

I will add that, the "zoom solution" has the potential for laziness apropos Perspective Control – but that is another debate / discussion and mentioned only as my point of view and not to derail the thread to debate it.</p>

<p>On another thread recently there was an interesting comment made in response to my mention that the Aperture (speed) of a lens will always be the final determining factor whether a shot is possible or impossible (I can’t find the thread ATM and I do want to give credit to the author) – anyway a bloke wrote basically that <em>I should get my head out of the 60’s darkroom around the new wave of thinking high ISO digital </em>– oh his was a sincere comment not nasty at all - but it did give me a kick in the pants and made me re-evaluate my thinking – and I did.</p>

<p>My conclusion is that Lens Aperture still will be the determining factor for low light available light work.</p>

<p>But APROPOS WEDDINGS: with ISO3200 pretty smooth in the affordable “business” cameras: <strong><em>F/2.8 and nice glass is becoming a more realistic “99% safe haven” for most Wedding work. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>R</em></strong>arely would most of us get a Service and NO FLASH rules, where we would need faster than: F/2.8 @ 1/30s @ ISO3200 – and that can be pulled with skill and practice using a monopod. . .<br>

So the “two zoom” solution has more legs as the high ISO gets better and better . . . if you are using the rig mainly for Weddings (and you don’t work in Conservative CoE Churches, in Northern England).</p>

<p> <br>

WW</p>

<p>I use the same size sensor cameras. Full Frame. I prefer a bigger, brighter viewfinder ... and that the perspective, DOF and draw of my lenses are the same camera-to-camera should one fail. I also didn't want to invest in crop frame lenses.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Nadine and WW regarding long zooms. I have a 70-200/2.8 which gets used only when the church has a balcony because it can be adjusted to fit the distance and width of the scene ... it is always mounted on a tri-pod with a cable release. If I did not have use for it for other work, it would've been to large an investment compared to a 135 or 200 prime lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you use what suits your style. Although this is long post and I'll be honest, I did not read it all, I thought I would put my little 2 cents in. I shoot Canon BTW. I normally use my 5D Mark II with my 70 200- 2.8 IS and its all but welded on it. I then use my 7D and 17-55 2.8 EF-s Lens as my wide shooter. I find most of my best shots come from my FULL FRAME. The 70-200 2.8 IS MAKES the full frame so useful indoors. The 2 main reason I love the full frame over my 7D, is how the noise looks. The crop frame has a real, dirty sensor noise. The full frame is so much more smoother at the same ISO settings. Not to hijack the post but over the next week, I will sell all of crop frame equipment. I know I will get beat up over this but to "ME", there is more than a stop of difference in the 7D vs. 5D MII ISO. To me, it is 2 stops and 2 stops is enough for me to go full frame full time. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>William, bringing back this topic, what you say is nice on paper but how feasible is it in practice?</p>

<p>You chose 16-35 because it can act like a standard zoom on 30D and wide zoom on 5D. However, from what you wrote above, you never mount the 16-35 on 5D! Even if you did, I question whether this is a feasible work method.</p>

<p>Basically you are using the 16-35 as a 17-55 or 24-70 but you are missing the point that</p>

<ul>

<li>a) 24-70 is optyically better than 16-35 in the 24-35mm range and </li>

<li>b) a 5D has +- two stops less noise than 30D. That's a major difference. </li>

<li>I'm not even gonna mention the change in DoF between 30D and 5D.</li>

</ul>

<p>That said, why not have two 5D2s: one with 24-70, the other with a prime (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2 or whatever).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find what I have written (above) feasible in practice, because what I wrote was drawn from and described, my Practice.<br />I didn’t re read all of this old thread: but I doubt I wrote that I never use my 16 to 35 on my 5D, as I do.<br />If you could quote the statement where I wrote I do not use the 16 to 35 on my 5D, I would be appreciative.<br />Maybe you are referring to the “<strong>(typical usage and Wedding time line)”</strong><strong> – </strong>well that is, what it was: an example of “typical usage”, an “indicative”: it was not an exhaustive list of every shot I have ever pulled.<br />***<br />I missed none of the three points you make.<br />I, however, in this thread did not reference those points.<br />Moreover many other points, issues and matters went un-referenced, also.<br />*** <br />However, specifically on the three points you raised:<br /><strong><em>1. 24-70 is optyically better than 16-35 in the 24-35mm range:</em></strong><br />Maybe. So what’s the point, if the 16 to 35 produces the goods?<br /><strong><em></em></strong><br /><strong><em>2. 5D has +- two stops less noise than 30D. That's a major difference. </em></strong><br />Irrelevant, if there is a 5D (5DMkII) and a suitable lens to use, anyway.<br />Also, this thread (here) speaks historically about the 30D model camera I used.<br>

<br />As you are well aware, in the thread to which I link here: <a href="00YQMD">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00YQMD</a> I answered only several hours ago your questions and mentioned specifically that those 30D’s were replaced with 50D’s and that within a few day’s time those 50D’s will be again replaced with 7D’s a 7D and 5DMkII:<br /><em></em><br>

<em>“When I moved out from my Wedding Studio (End 2009 F/Y), we were using 30D’s and 5D’s, the studio now uses 5DMkII (purchased end 2009) and 50D’s which will be shortly (in a couple of days) be sold and replaced with 7D’s, as the new F/Y began, yesterday.”</em><br>

and in that answer to you, I went on to write:<br /><em></em><br>

<em>"It is my opinion as at today, that within Canon DSLR system, in mostly all circumstances, the most potent, value for money, best business decision, W&P Kit would be based upon a 5DkII and 7D with a 5DMkII (or 5D) as the first back-up camera."</em><br /><em></em><br>

<br /><strong><em>3. I'm not even gonna mention the change in DoF between 30D and 5D. </em></strong><br />Irrelevant, if there is the 5D (5DMkII) and a suitable lens to use, anyway.</p>

<p><strong><em>4. That said, why not have two 5D2s: one with 24-70, the other with a prime (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2 or whatever).</em></strong><br />There are many reasons, <em><strong>for me</strong></em>.<br />In simple terms the main reasons (in no particular order) are but not limited to:<br>

> I don’t particularly like the EF24 to 70F/2.8L USM on a 5D + Grip or 5D MkII + Grip or 1 Series Camera<br>

> With two 5DMkII and three Primes I have <em>ONLY</em> three fast Primes, with respect to FoV . . . with a 7D and a 5D MkII and two fast Primes I have equivalent FoV of four fast Primes.<br>

<br />> With a Dual Kit, I can carry TWO Cameras and TWO zooms (16 to 35 and 70 to 200) and have a greater effective FoV, all at F/2.8, than with the THREE F/2.8 zooms and only 5D (5DMkII) cameras.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William, how much I appreciate your long posts and how much experience you might have, I find your approach quite theoretical and stiff. With all due respect, you're overthinking your equipment. It seems you want to be prepared for everything and thus be prepared for nothing. I prefer a more simple (not simplistic!) and intuitive approach.</p>

<p>I also haven't seen you talk about lighting or portable studios, which deserve at least as much thought as cameras and lenses. Some great photographers I've met put more thought into lighting, backgrounds and poses than cameras and lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>William has plenty of photographs posted here that show his skill and why it might be worth listening to him. I went looking for your photos...</p>

<p>William doesn't hide behind a fake name, either. Nor troll to stir the waters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>how much I appreciate your long posts and how much experience you might have, <strong><em>I find your approach quite theoretical and stiff.</em></strong> With all due respect, <em><strong>you're overthinking your equipment. It seems you want to be prepared for everything and thus be prepared for nothing.</strong></em> I prefer a more simple (not simplistic!) and intuitive approach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know many Photographers. One, whose work I admire tends to use a 5DMkII and an EF35F/1.4L another uses a Rangefinder mostly with two lenses – both these men are members of Photonet. I know another Photographer, here at Photonet who uses mostly a 5DMkII and a 24-70F/2.8L and one Prime - it appears that she has just developed into that system of gear and that seems to suit her to a tee so I expect she will keep it that way for a long time. I carry Two Cameras; One Zoom and Two (or three) Primes, mostly all of the day – which is the way I do things. We all choose different ways of making our Photographs.</p>

<p>With all due respect to your opinions: my choice has come about from a lot of thinking and much, much more “doing” at Weddings and Functions, making decisions as it were “on the hop” . . . I guess that is doing things <strong><em>“intuitively”</em></strong>. From that point, when I got back to the car I would think through what I could do next time which might be smoother, better and etc . . . thinking - YES: “overthinking” – NO.</p>

<p>I believe I have been prepared for most things which have popped up at Weddings and Functions and when I wasn’t: I filed that bit of information away and attempted to be more prepared the next time should there be a similar situation. In some cases, this learning process meant that I modified my gear – as I have already mentioned the biggest modification was cutting over from film to digital; and also as previously stated my kit, and the studio’s kits I have described are from the actual - and not an invention of the mind. </p>

<p>I therefore disagree with your evaluation.</p>

<p>*** </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also haven't seen you <strong><em>talk about lighting</em></strong> or <strong><em>portable studios</em></strong>, which deserve at least as much thought as cameras and lenses. Some great photographers I've met put more thought <strong><em>into lighting, backgrounds</em></strong> and <strong><em>poses</em></strong> than cameras and lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The functionality of a forum like this is that one person asks a question; or presents problem; or seeks an opinion: and then others choose to give their views on that particular matter. This thread is about a dual format kit, not lighting and poses and backgrounds. Lighting is important – that is how we make Photographs. Poses are important also or on the other hand so is the camera’s viewpoint for candid work. Portable Studios might be your go – they are not mine, generally. </p>

<p>There are many other elements to Wedding Photography and Photography generally, which are important, also.</p>

<p>All facets of Photography, or any Craft, require thought: thought predicated on both Theory and also Experience. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>