Ed Ludt 4:30am, 9 January 2013
I've participated in some of the discussions here re: "upgrading" to the D5100 or D7000. I currently have a D5100 with a Tamron 18-270mm PZD as my standard kit. For wildlife and birding photography, I use a Sigma 150-500mm. But I also have a D40 with a Nikon 18-135mm G lens (non-VR). My dilemma: continue swapping lenses on the D5100 or trade the D40/18-135mm combo for another D5100? Resulting in to D5100's, each with one lens, no swapping.... I'm finding that the D40 gets limited use these days.....
kgreggbruce 9 years ago
burly oatmeal [deleted] Posted 9 years ago. Edited by burly oatmeal (member) 9 years ago
For me in most situations (hiking/climbing/backpacking) carrying multiple lenses is hard enough let alone carrying two cameras. But having a back up camera close (in the car) could be priceless if something were to go wrong with your main camera!
ScottJ 9 years ago
I very rarely carry two bodies. When I do, it's usually when I'm shooting sports, particularly (American) football, because the situation can change in a second. You start out with the tele shooting the QB throwing a pass from the far hash mark, and in an instant you've got a wide receiver coming right at you, 10 yards and closing. That's no time to be changing lenses, but if you've got a second body at your side with a wide zoom on it, you can grab it quickly, get the shot, and get out before you get flattened.

If you encounter similar situations and the convenience of not swapping lenses is important, or if you're in environments where changing lenses will let a lot of dust, dirt, or moisture into your camera, the extra body might be justified, particularly since the D5100 is not terribly expensive.
Lee Longwater 9 years ago
Nikon announced yesterday that the D5200 is ready for US distribution. Should be a good time to pick up a D5100 at a real good price.
Ed Ludt Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Ed Ludt (member) 9 years ago

Thanks...I'm more interested in having the two body/lens combos readily available - not needing to scramble to change lenses. We spent 5 weeks this Fall in Canada and western US (Jasper down through Utah in the National Parks) and I usually had the 150-500mm on the D5100 and the 18-135mm on the D40. That worked OK.

Since that trip, I got the 18-270 for a single camera/lens combo for a trip to Asia in March, so now the 18-135 is excess equipment. I'm aware of the D5200 announcement. I think my local camera shop is/was selling the D5100 for $499. Now, if I can get a good trade-in on the D40/18-135mm combo...

Too bad KEH isn't coming to my local shop soon. The shop brings in KEH, you take your equipment there and sell it for cash or get the KEH price plus 10% in store credit!

AND...I keep telling my wife there is "a fine line between need and want".
JyBravo 9 years ago
Yes. Once you try it you will never want to go back.

I used my D90 and D40 on a photo shoots four times last year and it gave me a lot of flexibility. I used the faster primes and AF-D series on my D90 because of its in body motor and ISO headroom and the G serices telephoto lens or primes on my D40. This way you can get the wide to telephoto shots covered but with the weight of using 2 bodies and balancing between them, sometimes a hassle.
Ed Ludt 9 years ago

Maybe I'm just lazy (or jaded?), but when I'm shooting with the Sigma 150-500 now, I put the 18-270 on the D40, so I end up changing 2 lenses - Sigma to D5100, 18-270 to D40!

Although I have no complaints about the D40, I think the second D5100 will be my better option.
JyBravo 9 years ago
I tried my Sigma 150-500 on the D40 and it felt very off, like putting a 12 cylinder engine in a VW Beetle. It seemed like the body was just not fitting right and really made the lack of 2 control wheels obvious for aperture and shutter speed.

Still I found one with a wide and one with a telephoto makes for a good combination. The issue with my gear is the wide and super telephoto end work best with the heavier body, the D90.
KristopherBuck 9 years ago
I rarely use both my D90 and D40, BUT I do find at certain times the wife and I split up at an amusement park or venue with the kiddos and each of us take one.
Ed Ludt 9 years ago
I stopped by my local camera store yesterday and got a real deal! Traded my D40 with the Nikon 18-135mm on a new D5100 body for $225. Happy camper!
Lee Longwater 9 years ago

Glad you took our advice.
wisemail Posted 9 years ago. Edited by wisemail (member) 9 years ago
No; because of more weight, and cost. A second, light lens is better, to me. Two primes, maybe three. Note: That's APS-C minimum(today, for tonality, and color sensitivity, and with lower noise), and phase detect, optical-view, focus, thank you. Otherwise, why not have only fixed lens cameras?

This is not to say, we do not need more than one camera, to get certain benefits, or that there's anything wrong, with that. It's more to the shame of the camera makers, that we can't get better (and less expensive), in one body, and 2, or three (prime) lenses.

We need, fully optimized, removable lens systems, or optimized non-removable lens cameras, and we get neither. Not in low weight, and not in low price.

If we had competition, and that's real competition, then here is where it would be.
thygocanberra Posted 9 years ago. Edited by thygocanberra (member) 9 years ago

I agree with your critique of the offerings in the market place, but then the sellers might not sell as many cameras. The inbuilt (or at least uncorrected) imperfections create the environment for the neverending upgrade quest in the hope that the next model has what we want.
wrizzo64 9 years ago
For a while I used a D40 and D40x and would take them both to airshows. The D40 would have a wide angle and the D40x a telephoto, because often there would be a flyby and there wouldn't be enough time to change lenses. Came in very handy.
In certain situations having two active bodies with different lenses can be invaluable. I've shot weddings, fairs, birthday parties, and sports and I've had to use everything I've got.

The D40 with either a 35mm/f1.8 or a sigma 10-20mm.
The D5000 with a sigma 18-250mm or a prime.

Even better than that is to have two active shooters on a subject and then combine things in post production.
jamesgarvin 8 years ago
Depends. I shoot a lot of live music, and I'll use my D700 as my main camera, get my shots with the 50mm 1.4 prime, and switch lenses to my 70-200mm 2.8 for some more shots. I'll also carry a D5000 with a 35mm 1.8 prime for a couple of shots where I need a shorter lense when a musician comes much closer to me, and I need a quick 35mm lense. I may use the second body ten shots of three hundred, so I would not characterize it as essential.

On the other hand, when I am out hiking and shooting landscapes, I'll generally only take the D5000, with a 35 mm 1.8 lense and a 50-200mm kit lense. I don't want to carry a lot of gear, particularly if I am on a strenous hike. Plus, if I hit really foul weather, I know I'll damage less gear. If I take another camera, it will be an F5 loaded with black and white film, but that is just because I like the look of black and white on film versus digital, but then only if I know I'll have decent light.

I shoot a little sports, and I will again generally use the D5000 with the 70-200mm 2.8 lense. I do think a second body would be helpful for sports such as football if you are seated where a player is quickly coming towards you, but since I am usually not on the field of play, I don't need to grab a second body with a shorter lense. I will use the D700 for indoor basketball with the 70-200 mm lense when shooting a tournament. But even sitting under the basket, I find that the 70-200mm lense works fine.

In summary, for landscapes, I'd opt for one body. For music, two bodies. For sports, one or two bodies, depending where you located.
Groups Beta