Something to think about

[bramley]

I quite fancied getting an 85mm f1.8 lens, which is around £300 (roughly, can't remember exactly) as sometimes I find my 50mm lens requires me to get just a little too close to people for the shot I want.

I shot my first wedding the other day and borrowed a 20D off a mate as a second camera, which rather than just leaving in the car as a backup, I used in tandem with my camera. All the controls and buttons were identical so it was a piece of cake to use. As it has a cropped sensor it made my 50mm lens became 80mm (which I really liked), and of course still gave me f1.4.

If I do more paid work it would make sense to have more than one body, so what I'm saying is that a 2nd hand 20D off ebay for £200 ish would not only give me a second body, but also give me the benefits of extra focal length on the lenses I already have, so for the same price as a converter for the 70-200 I'd have 320mm on the 20D, and 80mm from the 50mm, and two cameras!

Plenty of clean 20D's around on fleabay so this route seems to make great sense. The only downsides I can see are the inferior high ISO performance, lack of spot meter and a small screen on the back. 20D takes the same batteries as the 5D which saves me a few quid too.

Might be a good solution for others too.

[nick_bbb]

But you're not really getting those focal lengths. You could crop the images shot on the 5D and have the same effect.

[bramley]

True, but having gone through 1,000 wedding shots recently that took me 4 days (!) I'd have been quite happy to cut down on the amount that needed cropping, by having the subject fill the frame in the first place. I agree it's not quite right, but there is some value in it I think.

[beano500]

...Plus, if you're being relied upon to come up with the shots: you need a back up.

bramley said:

The only downsides I can see are the inferior high ISO performance, lack of spot meter and a small screen on the back.

Well, you're using fast primes - tick; your other body has the metering you need - tick; so two out of three aint a problem!


I'd love a second body, but on the "N" side of the fence my only options are the new-fangled FX sized thingies that have got to come down in price a bit yet I think you've got a lucky advantage on the "C" side...

[Simpo Two]

A smaller sensor is not always bad. In Nikon terms, to get the same field of view as a 200mm f2.8 with a small (DX) sensor but on a FF camera would need a 300mm lens, and the fastest feasible is f4 - much bigger and heavier than a 200mm f2.8.

Lower noise aside, I think that on balance DX is more suited to weddings than FF, at least for my work.

[beano500]

Simpo Two said:

A smaller sensor is not always bad.

Can be a bit more demanding of lenses, though (that's what I found with the D2X - to be fair I knew this to be an issue before I bought it). But with something like a good quality prime 50mm this would/should be no issue at all.


I did have a conversation with a cousin the other day, and it was a revelation when I said not to go for the maximum megapixels on a compact if two different models - you know, say one was ten and the other twelve - that are otherwise the same are on offer. But they thanked me for explaining something which they now see as "obvious".

Course, in a few years time we'll all look back and laugh when our standard Mark IV Ipodapplesandorangesphones all pack 100 megapixels in something the size of a 5p piece......