Two bodies for hiking to allow for better lenses?

In another thread on the Nikon D40-D90 forum I decided that D80 would fit my needs for hiking use. Now I am trying to decide on lens(es) to use. The main contenders are: (1) set of 18-55 VR & 55-200 VR, and (2) 18-200 VR. It seems that (1) might have an advantage in overall quality, but (2) has a significant advantage in convenience. Since (2) is slightly more expensive, I have this bizarre idea - what about buying two D80 bodies and carrying 18-55 on one and 55-200 on another. With the present low prices, the cost difference would be reasonably insignificant. Do you think it's crazy? I know I don't want to change lenses back and forth in the field, so it's either set (1) with two bodies, or (2) with one.

Assuming for a moment that cost differences are irrelevant, would you consider carrying two bodies in the above scenario based on the differences in lenses?

If conditions are bad (snow, dust) I'd consider it. Otherwise, I have one body (a second is in backpack for backup) plus a few lenses in a thinktank belt system. Plus an op tech harness. (Yes I look the photo geek).

I've done a fair amount of hiking with my photo gear and where I hike I need wide angle coverage. I mainly use a 10.5 and 12-24, and occasionally swap to a telephoto, such as the 18-200VR or 70-300VR.

For my next big hike -- the haute route in the alps -- I'm thinking of taking mostly primes, plus 12-24 and 70-300. But it is many months away so I can waste lots of time planning

Well, I also have the D80 and use it for hiking.

Up until recently I used th 18-70 AFS, but wanted wider so I replaced it with the 16-85 which gave me VR, wider and a bit longer for a little weight gain and slightly less aperture.

If I had to carry one lens
16-85 (18mm isn't wide enough for me)

If I had to carry two lenses and wanted quality:
16-85
70-300
and I have both of these (I used to carry the 80-200/2.8, but it's pretty heavy)

or perhaps a 3 lens setup:
12-24/4 AFS
50/1.8 AF-D
70-300 AFS

which I will have as soon as I get the 12-24/4.

Certainly the 18-55 and 55-200 would be super light, but the image quality may suffer (but they may be good enough for you and they are inexpensive for sure) and you won't have any really wide capability, which I find always useful.

Also, see one of my threads for the weights of the D80 and some of these lenses

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&message=30810849

Hope this helps - John
--

No, I would not do it. It is a significant increase in weight.

You could be considering a D90 instead of a D80. The D90 is significantly improved and will yield better quality pictures more often, esp in low light without increasing your weight over a D80.

I do that all the time. I have one body for my telephoto and one for the wider angle. I did a bike trip in India with only my D40x and my 18-55 and 70-300. Changing the lenses was a major pain. The telephoto is for animals etc and you just can't spend your time changing lenses. You need the camera, pronto.

So now I have a D300 as well. And a Sigma 10-20. And a Nikon 300 f/4. What I will do is mount the 10-20 on the D40X because you can get away with way lower shutter speeds and hence lower ISO. The D300 is suited for the 300 f/4, so that will be my setup ready to pick up and shoot. I'll also bring along my 18-55 (it's so small) and my 70-300 in my bags in case I want to use them. I will be in a kayak and on my bike, however, so I have room for that.

If weight is a concern for you what you may want to do is just bring a good quality P&S for the wider shots (they take good shots in good light), and keep the telephoto on your one DSLR body.
--
where the cold wind blows

For hiking, no. If you were a journalist or a wedding photographer or anything where your sole purpose is to get the shot, definately. When I'm outdoors I default to longer len, shorter indoors. It just seems like a lot of weight and bulk for hiking.
--

As I haven't read your other thread I'm not sure, but I assume you're buying the D80 as a backup for carrying around when you're hiking and don't want to lug a D300/700/3 around.
If that's the case, wouldn't bringing two bodies with you be kind of redundant?

If it's not, I'd still recommend against it. I don't know what kind of hiking you do, but from my experience bringing a D300 and a bunch of lenses backpacking, you probably don't want the extra weight and added inconvenience of two cameras to carry around.
--

Nikon D300
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
Nikkor 70-300 f4-6.5G
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8G
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G
Nikon SB-800

http://www.flickr.com/photos/morgoththebetrayer/

I've looked at D90, but outside of video (don't use it), better rear screen (not a deal breaker for me), and somewhat better high ISO (didn't see that much change), I didn't notice a big difference. Not enough to justify more than 160% price.

morgoththebetrayer said:

I assume you're buying the D80 as a backup for carrying
around when you're hiking and don't want to lug a D300/700/3

Click to expand...

Actually, no. I am SLR-less at the moment. Sold my old film gear, and all I have is a couple of compacts.

A day walk in the woods, I sometimes carry my 12-24 on my D80 and 70-300VR on my D300. I don't carry two bodies backpacking though. I wouldn't buy two of the same bodies just to have two bodies though. Having a backup was a partial excuse for upgrading.

I decided to buy the D80 with a kit of two lenses. I may sell one and get a different one later, but the kit price was so low, one can't lose.

This was the kit I ordered (hope it's not a violation to post a URL to Amazon since they own dpreview ):

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D80-Kit-3-5-5-6G-55-200mm/dp/B001F7AYPI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_10?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1234508107&sr=8-10