Another lens or a 2nd camera body? (Page 7): I think that if I were in your position I would go for an 18-300. The best one that is in your budget. Two bodies are nice but is...

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

kb6kgx wrote:

Not for money, strictly volunteer and on my own time. We're coming up to what looks to be another active "fire season". We had a fairly wet winter and all that nice, green growth is going to dry up and become good tinder later in the summer and fall.

I think that if I were in your position I would go for an 18-300. The best one that is in your budget. Two bodies are nice but is cumbersome to lug around. Did that in film days doing pr and newspaper photography. Did not like changing lenses in the field.

Chuck

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

DeanS wrote:

Flexibility and backup says second body.
Frugality and convenience says get Tammy 18-300.
Your call of course.

Fortunately my credit cards are all paid off and, although I’m all about not spending foolishly or needlessly, flexibility and backup wins over frugality.

uhaas2009

I have the 7000 and the 810. The 810 give me way more Freedom -first if I shoot “wider” and crop there is still “enough” pics left. The focus system is way stronger, too and I can shoot in higher ISO too. I bought my 810 used.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

kb6kgx wrote:

Fortunately my credit cards are all paid off and, although I’m all about not spending foolishly or needlessly, flexibility and backup wins over frugality.

Enjoy!

Photocraig

quixdraw wrote:

I've shot two bodies since film days. One body will always work, and under nasty conditions you don't have to open the camera to the elements. Carry two and use both interchangeably. You will nearly always get the shot. I have a shoulder bag, ThinkTank, that holds two bodies with lenses mounted - opens away from the body. That speeds things up.

My Think Tank "Sling Bag," also might be convenient for this task too. @ bodies durning my film days ws essential. Never missed a shot (well mostly when I was paying attention).

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Photocraig wrote:

My Think Tank "Sling Bag," also might be convenient for this task too. @ bodies durning my film days ws essential. Never missed a shot (well mostly when I was paying attention).

I got a sling bag maybe 10 years ago. One strap over one shoulder. The bag hangs on your back like a backpack. When you need to get into it, you slide it around so it's hanging in the front. In that orientation the top opens so you can get into it without spilling everything. Holds 2 bodies with lenses and maybe another lens and a pile of other stuff (filters, speedlights, cards, batteries, a pocket for paperwork).

Greer Loc: SOUTH GEORGIA

kb6kgx wrote:

Here's what I'm using: Nikon D7100 with a Nikon 70... (show quote)

Kbk6gx
Reading about your problem I have to put in my 2 cents. I have to advise, if getting a new camera, go with the full frame FX. I had been shooting pics for my local church with my trusty D7100. This kept me busy most if the time. The only lens I had for it was the $1,500 journalist lens (the 17-55mm DX). It’s a great lens but bought a 70-300 DX for personal reasons. I Loved it. When I decided to move up to full frame, I wasn’t to keen about the flagship D850’s price, so I justified getting the D750 by the fact that buying the D750 would give me a camera with many controls and features of the D7100 and at a reasonable price. I don’t like change. I do love the D750 as do a lot of people. It’s a very good camera at a very reasonable price. By the way, the D850 really is as good as its hyped to be. When D750 arrived I had to purchase my first FX lens as the other was the $1,500, 17-55mm DX and the 70-300 DX. I don’t do kit lenses. At least you have a great lens. I elected to go with the FX 50mm f/1.4. It’s been a great lens only now I’m shooting more wide angle photos and regret not getting the 35mm. Also added 85mm f/1.8. Couldn't justify the f/1.4’s price. If you can afford it and shoot lots if portraits, it preferable. Was shooting with the DX 70-300mm DX on my D750 the other day because I wanted to try BIF’s. (I know your not supposed to, but I did). Well, I thought the pics were nice but explained to wife why I had to have a new FX version. So, then saved and bought the FX 70-300 which was just a little faster than the DX version. The difference in quality literally blew me away. From now on every lens going on the grand D750 will be nothing but Nikon FX. you are not getting the quality from your pics you deserve when you put that Fax lens in your DX camera. Either splurge in moving up to full frame with new lenses or buy the Nikin DX 17-55mm lens (although I wouldn’t want to expose it to the elements you have described as it runs around $1,500 last time I checked.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

kb6kgx wrote:

Here's what I'm using: Nikon D7100 with a Nikon 70... (show quote)

Definitely a second body with a short/wide telezoom and a long one. No need to change lenses and helps to keep dust/dirt away from the sensors. Not changing lenses in the field has enabled me to not need a sensor cleaning in 15 years of shooting digital.

lightyear

When I used two bodies, I had separate OpTech neck straps for each, one short . Wide angle on one, zoom tele on the other.
I had no problems with camera selection or use.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Somebody mentioned the Nikon 18-300, but I've had great results with the 28-300mm.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

uhaas2009 wrote:

I have the 7000 and the 810. The 810 give me way more Freedom -first if I shoot “wider” and crop there is still “enough” pics left. The focus system is way stronger, too and I can shoot in higher ISO too. I bought my 810 used.

That is the other part of the two bodies question. A second identical body or do you want one crop and one full frame? There are pros and cons to both.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I would go with the second body , As far as the 18-400 goes I really like that lens ( it pretty much lives on my second camera) on a crop body (Canon 7dmk2) but it does not do well in low light/action which could be the case quite often for your stated use though you would be able to get better overall results with time to learn the lens

lwp99 Loc: East Valley of Phoenix, AZ

DirtFarmer wrote:

I have been shooting 2-3 bodies for several years ... (show quote)

DirtFarmer;
Is it the Downloader Pro which enables the YYYYMMDDHHmmSSss format? I have Canon cameras and Photoshop Elements and haven't been able to find that format. As you noted, this would help with sorting burst shots! Thanks.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

lwp99 wrote:

DirtFarmer;
Is it the Downloader Pro which enables the YYYYMMDDHHmmSSss format? I have Canon cameras and Photoshop Elements and haven't been able to find that format. As you noted, this would help with sorting burst shots! Thanks.

In the Downloader Pro preferences, I set up a template, which defines the final file name. (First image below).

The template is made up of tokens, which are delineated by {curly brackets} and are shown in the rest of the images below. {J} is the "job code", which is a text string that I use to describe the shoot. For a pro it might be an invoice number. e.g. Kitchen Door Lock 20200519 12403470 D800E 4225 was a photo of a lock cylinder that I need to replace.

As you can see, I download my files to an external drive (H:) and both the path and the file name are given in the template, so {Y} is YYYY, {m} is MM, {D} is DD, {t} is HHmmSS, {s} is ss. I also add the camera model {T} and the image number {r8} to the file name. (Note that the template is case sensitive).

All of the data come from the EXIF data in the file from the camera. There are a lot of things you could put into the file name if you really wanted to but I see limited utility in adding the ISO, aperture or shutter speed. If you are shooting multiple bodies of the same model, you might consider including the camera serial number.

(Download)

lwp99 Loc: East Valley of Phoenix, AZ

Thanks! This is helpful. I've taken burst shots of whales breeching -- and the sequence is backwards! Confusing, but hasn't been the end of the world. Thanks, again!