2 camera's worth having.

Wilky76

Wilky76

Suspended / Banned
Messages
373
Name
Ste
Edit My Images
Yes
Been doing alittle bit of thinking today I have both the D300 & the little D40
Now i mainly bought the D40 as a light walkabout camera when the D300 wasn't practical ie hiking.

Now the last time i went on a walk i just took the D300 without the grip & the 16-85mm & left the D40 with the 18-55mm VR at home as i wanted the best pictures i could get on the day.

Now im deciding if it worth actually having 2 bodies, & sellingthe D40 on to somebody that would enjoy using it, than me having it sat in the camera bag.

It's a hard decision to make incase i get seller remorse.
 
Personally I don't see there is enough of a size/weight difference between the two cameras to justify keeping the D40 as a light walkabout.

I considered getting one of the smaler Canons to compliment my 40D but decided that I would probably just pick the 40D up. So I bought a good quality compact instead.
 
In the days of film I used to carry 2 SLRs (Slide& Mono). Since digital I only need 1. I actually have 2 DSLRs - My D300 and my old Fuji S2 pro which I keep as a spare as it's not worth selling - but I only use the Nikon.

I do have an old Fuji bridge camera that I can stick in the saddlebag of my bike but the use it gets is minimal.

Like Richard, I would sell the D40 and go for a Canon G10 or similar as a backup.
 
2 cameras are useful if any of the following apply.

  • You are taking photographs for money (or aspire to) and therefore need backup kit.
  • You need to use 2 different lenses and the time (or the conditions) to swap lenses dictate that 2 bodies is needed.
  • You are that in to photography that you can't bare to be without a camera.
 
ah wondering were this post went.

Well i stuck the 35mm F1.8G on it last night, for the first time & that lens really does compliment the D40, which is now making my decision even harder.

I'll give it a proper good think over the weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top