FX + DX bodies for event coverage: Which bodies with which lenses do you use?

[studio460]

<p>Well, it looks like I'll be pursuing more event coverage in the future. But, since I'm not a fancy-dancy <em>WireImage</em> shooter, with two company-supplied Nikon D3s bodies, instead, I'll be combining an FX body (Nikon D3s), with a DX body (Nikon D7000) for economy's sake. This isn't a, "Which lens should I buy?" thread--it's more like a, "Here's what I chose to use, and I was just curious what other FX/DX, event shooters are using," kinda thread.</p>

<p>After considering the 24-70mm f/2.8 short FX zoom as an "event" lens for my D3s to pair with my 70-200mm, I soon realized that two bodies are mandatory for fast-moving event coverage. So, instead of buying a short FX zoom to complement my 70-200mm, I decided to press my DX body into service as a second body to cover the shorter focal lengths. Now, I had a Nikon D7000 I bought for filmmaking, with the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G kit lens, which I only own because I was too impatient to wait for body-only kits when the D7000 was released. I was actually totally planning to sell this lens (since I had never even used it), until I did my first event a couple weeks ago. But, who knew? The darned thing sure came in handy for my first two-body event shoot. It's kinda pokey, so no available-light photos with this lens. But while it worked great for that first event, I figured, I wanted something faster--I wanted to be able to balance my flash with ambient light on occasion with my D7000 rig. So, I decided on the 17-55mm DX short zoom instead for my D7000. Here's the outfit:</p>

<p>'A' Body: Nikon D7000 + AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G DX + Nikon SB-800 + Quantum Turbo<br /> 'B' Body: Nikon D3s + AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I + SB-400</p>

<p>So, the 'A' body is used for short-distance arrival shots, with flash, and is actually my "primary" body. This, because, for flash-photography, low-noise performance isn't as important. Almost no consideration is given here for exposing for any ambient light. This is pure, down and dirty, straight-on flash photography. And since most of these events are outside, there's no ceiling-bounce going on either. This is mainly for "fashion shots," where the buyer/client is interested in what everyone's wearing to the event, so almost all of these shots are verticals. So, I needed a flash bracket, but I couldn't find my old Stroboflip VH2000 until I stumbled on it last weekend, after the event had already happened, completely by accident. So here's what I ended up with:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/7000arrival1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> DX body: Nikon D7000 + AF-S 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II</p>

<p>Without a rotating bracket, I've got that stupid shadow to the right. I plan on getting the super-slick (and, super-pricey), Newton FR2 bracket to replace my old Stroboframe for my next event. Anyway, typically, photographers are generally 6-10 feet from the subject at these things. Again, fashion shots are key for arrivals, so 99% of these shots are verticals.</p>

<p>For my own artistic wants, I fitted my FX body with a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. It's a nice combo, since I've got the FX-equivalent of a 24.5-82.5mm range, covered by the 17-55mm DX lens, and the 70-200mm FX lens completes the range. I used this lens without a high-voltage powered flash (since I don't want to wear two Turbos), as an available-light, "candids" body.</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/hayley1.JPG" alt="" /><br /> FX body: Nikon D3s + AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I</p>

<p>So, that's my two-body, FX/DX rig . . . for now. Do you have an FX/DX, two-body combo for shooting events? What's in your rig?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I would have done it the other way around... 24-70 on the D3s and 70-200 on the 7000, but that's me... </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Very interesting... I do not shoot weddings but it happen to have in family one recently... after a huge debate in my head I went with this rig:<br /> D300 + 24-70/2.8 +SB700 on bracket - about 50% usage<br /> D700 +24/1.4 - about 45% usage<br /> In the bag I had 85/1.4 and Sigma 150/2.8. These two were used about 5% in total.<br /> For me it was perfect... with the equivalent on 36-105 on the crop sensor it was just perfect for me... just in very few situation I needed more. Also my favorite lens 24/1.4 did a great job in available light on D700...<br /> I will die if I'll have to carry all the wedding 24-70 and 70-200 + two bodies... Too much load for me.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>I'm not an expert event shooter by any means, though I do have one coming up soon. But with that disclaimer, I'm with Peter. For all-round versatility, I pack a D700 with 24-70 and D300 with 70-200. More total range, and I don't miss the 70-105mm (full-frame equivalent) gap. And no need to buy an expensive DX-only lens.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>+1 Peter and Kent</p>

<p>When shooting a DX/FX combo, I prefer the DX for telephoto use and the FX for wide/normal coverage.</p>

<p>Personally I prefer to not use zooms, but for some events it can't be helped. The 35/85 combo on FX is my preference, but when FX/DX is used, then I'm using the set up that Peter describes, albeit with a D300s in place of the D7000.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[breogan_gomez]

<p>I find the 70mm too tight on DX. I have a 70-210/4+D200 and many times I have to step back a bit for half body portraiture, particularly when two persons are on the frame. Never shoot an event thought.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i shoot events with a d300s and D3s. i generally use the 24-70 on the FX body and the 70-200 on the DX body, except when i'm shooting avail-light indoors and need to go high-ISO and have reach.</p>

<p>using the 17-55 rather than a 24-70 limits the flexibility of your setup, since that can only go on the DX body. you lose reach there in situations where it could have been useful. i generally dont take any DX lenses when shooting a hybrid format 2-body rig for max versatility.</p>

<p>also, the 24-70 on DX sometimes is all you need to cover an event, unless there will be group shots necessitating wide-angle.</p>

<p>one thing i would not do is use a sb-400 with a 70-200. even with a D3s, there are going to be times when you want to use flash. for longer-range photos the 400 isn't powerful enough and you have to go into the camera's flash menu to control manual flash exposure. if i were you,i'd pick up an sb-600, which has an AF-assist light (which the D3s lacks) and external controls. the 400 works best close-range, and bounced. but you can't easily dial down exposure. i have had good results using a 400 with a tokina 12-24 on DX, with a 50-150+sb-600 on my other DX body for tele shots.</p>

 

[kohanmike]

<p>I shoot events often, but I don't feel compelled to go FX, and I'm also somewhat of a cheapskate. I use two D300s bodies (factory refurbs at $1249 US each), one ISO 400 with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC (Nikon's 17-55 does not have VR) and SB600 for the posed shots, the other body ISO 1600 with a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (great lens but will probably trade it in for the upcoming OS version) for candid available light. My clients are extremely happy with the results .</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as many probably know, i had michael's 17-50/50-150 combo too. the 50-150 solves the tightness problem of a 70-200 on DX, but you do lose some coverage on the long end. iQ-wise, there's not a whole lot of appreciable difference between the 70-200 and 50-150. the nikkor is aces, but the sigma isn't chopped liver either. that's why i held on to mine after i went FX, since i still have and use DX bodies.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The general rule would be</p>

<ul>

<li>middle to long zooms on APS-C [DX] camera (1.5X 'factor')</li>

<li>wide to middle zoom lens on 35mm-sensor [FX]</li>

</ul>

<p>that gives you a longer overall range for the same size and weight.</p>

<p>Of course, other factors such as speed (frames per second sort of thing) may cause modifications depending on the 'event'.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Zoom:<br>

50-150mm on DX and 17-35mm on FX</p>

[studio460]

<p>Thanks for everyone's replies . . . I always think it's interesting to see how others work. While most seem to prefer the short zoom on the FX body, and the 70-200mm on the DX body, that wouldn't necessarily be the optimal set-up for my application. The FX/long zoom was used primarily to shoot available-light candids (which tend to be further away) at very high ISOs (e.g., 1,000-5,000):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/sarah4.jpg" alt="" /><br /> FX body with 70-200mm f/2.8 @ 2,000 ISO; available-light, no flash.</p>

<p>For a typical red carpet, the short-zoom is typically used 100% of the time with flash-fired exposures, so only low to moderate ISOs (e.g., 100-400) are required. So, it makes sense to use the noisier body, the DX, on the shots which are completely lit, and don't require extreme ISOs. Here's another flash-fired, DX/short-zoom shot:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/7000arrival8.jpg" alt="" /><br /> DX body with short zoom @ 400 ISO; flash-exposure only, over-powering existing ambient.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Mihai said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the bag I had 85/1.4 and Sigma 150/2.8 . . . so my favorite lens 24/1.4 did a great job in available light on D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I absolutely love that lens! But, I left my 24mm f/1.4 at home for this job. I did bring two additional primes in a ThinkTank pouch, but at this type of event there's absolutely no time for lens changes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will die if I'll have to carry all the wedding 24-70 and 70-200 + two bodies . . . Too much load for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but there's nothing better for covering fast-paced events, IMO. I can't go that route since a second FX body, plus a 24-70mm f/2.8 would cost me another $4,000. With the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom, I'm out for only $1,400!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Michael said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot events often, but I don't feel compelled to go FX, and I'm also somewhat of a cheapskate. I use two D300s bodies (factory refurbs at $1249 US each) . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like your style, Michael! Almost every Nikon body and lens I own is either a refurb or used!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My clients are extremely happy with the results .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your clients are happy, that's all that matters!</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>At events I shoot D700 with 24-70mm and Olympus with 50-200 f2.8. This gives me pretty seamless 24- 400mm f2.8 range with no lens changing.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I was wondering--how is everyone powering their Speedlights? Do you have one on each body? If so, is everyone using Quantum 2x2s? Ideally, I would have an SB-800 for each body, but I only have one SB-800 (but two Quantum Turbos). I have four SB-600s, but they don't accept high-voltage inputs. A Quantum Turbo 2x2 would be great, but those things sure are expensive.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I have three SB600s, use one with the 17-50 always, a second when needed with the 50-150, third as a backup and for remote positions. I keep 16 nicads at hand in two small holders, which always last me through the event.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I finally got my AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens! I bought a used one off of Ebay recently, but had to return it to the seller due to auto-focus issues. But, I just happened to stop by my local dealer today after work, and they had just received a Nikon-refurbished 17-55mm--got it for only $999! Looks brand new. Just tested it a few moments ago--focus is spot-on. Got lucky!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Eric said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>using the 17-55 rather than a 24-70 limits the flexibility of your setup, since that can only go on the DX body. you lose reach there in situations where it could have been useful. i generally dont take any DX lenses when shooting a hybrid format 2-body rig for max versatility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it wasn't an easy decision, especially since I found <em>both</em>, a 17-55mm, <em>and</em> a 24-70mm as Nikon refurbs at my dealer yesterday (selling for $999, and $1,490, respectively). So I did have the opportunity to re-think the decision. However, I would really miss the 70-105mm range with that set-up, since those are my preferred focal lengths for headshots. Plus, it's a good way to "use up" my mostly un-used D7000. If I didn't already have a D7000, it may have made sense, since the $1,200 spent on the D7000, applied to the purchase of a used D700, would've gotten me much of the way there. But the money spent on the D7000 is a sunk cost, and I had to evaluate the decision from there.</p>

<p>Believe me, I surprised even myself that I was willing to spend $1,000 on a DX-only lens. With a few exceptions, I've deliberately only acquired FX glass with the planned intention of moving to FX. But, in the end, the 17-55mm was the most practical choice for my needs. I was playing around with it today, and really love the focal range and aesthetic control the wide aperture affords.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>one thing i would not do is use a sb-400 with a 70-200. even with a D3s, there are going to be times when you want to use flash. for longer-range photos the 400 isn't powerful enough and you have to go into the camera's flash menu to control manual flash exposure. if i were you,i'd pick up an sb-600, which has an AF-assist light (which the D3s lacks) and external controls.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I chose the SB-400 for its compact form factor, and for a "puff" of fill, if desired. If shooting in manual mode on the D3s, the SB-400's output can be easily controlled via the exposure compensation button/dial (I also own four SB-600s, but I just didn't want to carry around another full-sized Speedlight).</p>

[studio460]

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/jess55.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D7000; AF-S 17-55mm DX f/2.8G @ 55mm [82.5mm-equivalent]; ISO: 1,600; f/2.8 @ 1/320th; available-light.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Are you posting that so you can find out what needs to be fixed?</p>

[studio460]

<p>If you're referring to the 17-55mm that I had an auto-focus issue with, no. I sent the problem 17-55mm back to the seller. I just bought a new (refurbished) 17-55mm from my dealer Friday afternoon. That image is from the new 17-55mm I just bought, which is fine.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>No, I meant the photos.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Not sure what you mean, Jeff.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Sorry, had some of the file names mixed up.</p>