A Theoretical Question

I have been mulling this over and I guess if I wasn't so lazy I could do a lot
of test shots to determine it myself, however I thought I would ask some of you
and see what your opinion might be.

I apologize if I am going to take a minute to layout what I want to know because
I don't want to get into discussion of which lens is better and which body is better
because we all have strong opinions about these things.

Imagine you are going to spend a day shooting at someplace like Anhinga or Wako
where there will be birds in somewhat static positions at distances which don't need
the greatest reach possible.

You want to bring two bodies and two lenses and use both combinations during the shoot.


Of the two bodies you possess, one you believe has better resolving power than
the other. For example lets say you have a Canon 40D and a Mark1 DSIII and you
feel the Mark1 is your choice for better resolving power.

You have two lenses of choice a 100-400L and a 300 2.8. You think the 300 2.8
is the sharper lens.

You goal is to produce as many excellent shots with both combinations. Now forgetting
crop and focus ability etc. assuming that will not be an issue. Do you match
your best lens with your lesser resolving body and the lesser resolving lens with
your better resolving body or vice-versa.

I run into this situation from time to time. I have a method, but I am totally not
sure I am right about it, more of a hunch than any empirical data. I am just curious
what opinions you guys might have.

Sorry to take so long to get to the meat, but I felt I needed to explain myself a bit.

Thanks in advance

Garry

Gary,

I use the 300 2.8, 100mm macro and my 28-135 on both of my bodies, a MK2N and 5D, both Canon. I have been to Anhinga many times. I use what will get me the closest to the subject. Since the 300 2.8 is a real sharp lens, fast etc, it still has to be a minimum of 8 feet away. Now the 28-135 and the 100mm macro will get me closer, 4 feet away. I used the 100-400 for 3 years and did not like the push pull. So I am buying the 70-200 2.8, at 4 feet minimum it will extremely good for Anhinga's human tolerant birds and mammals like the gators. My 5D will make better large prints, full frame and 12 mega pixels, than the MK2n will. But it is no slouch either, even at 8.5 mega pixels.

Either combo you use will make good prints. You have good gear. The photographer is the determining factor. :)

Hi Garry,

I agree that the photographer is the determining factor, as I have put my equipment to the test and found myself lacking!:D

I have the 40D, and just got the 5D MKII. I also have 3 L lenses which perform well on both cameras. I can get 1.5m away with my 300mm f4L IS and even had to back away when I was at Anhinga last March.

Since reach is not an issue in your hypothetical scenario, I would pair the better body with the better glass.

Good luck!:)

Hi Gary

Its all up to you !!! Don't get into the paralysis by analysis syndrome !!!

Would place the Mk3 on the lens I would expect to do the most with !!! Perhaps on the 2.8 since it takes converters so well.

Especially in situations where reach is not an issue, (non-focal-length-limited) I would pair up the larger, heavier lens (300, 2.8) with a full frame camera (such as a 5DM2 or 1DSM3 in the Canon world) and use that combo on a tripod. Sweet for high-quality, close-ups of birds.

I would then pair up the cropped sensor camera (such as a 7D, which usually has faster fps) with a lens like the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and use this combo for birds-in-flight, action shots.

Forgive me for using Canon as an example, but that's what I shoot. Nikon has similar lenses and bodies and I would use them as in the above example.

Just my two cents for what it's worth.

Alan

What I have done in the past is combine my 100-400 with my IDSM2 and my 40D with my 500.
I really don't know that it makes that much difference. It seems like I was trying to coax
the best out of each combination.

I was just curious at others opinions, thanks for responding.
GG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Gibson

I really don't know that it makes that much difference. It seems like I was trying to coax
the best out of each combination.

---

So it sounds like to me you cannot tell the difference or there actually is not much difference ? :) If so, any combination that get the job done is a good combination to me :D

I never thought that taking photographs could be so complicated. I always thought that the equipment helped but at the end of the day it was still the photographer that counted...now that I can prove to you that I'm right :o

Desmond, you are exactly right.

As I believe that Jack Nicklaus could go to Goodwill and buy an antique
set of clubs and beat the snot out of most advanced amateurs, I also think
that a skilled professional photographer could take a Canon 20D and a kit lens
and bring back more keepers than most amateurs with the best equipment available.

I think one thing about the conversations like above appeals to not only
the photographer in us, but the engineer, the scientist and overall our imagination.

thanks for responding