PDA

View Full Version : Anybody only use 1 body?


slipper
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 14:24
Is it that much of a hassle to just have one camera body and 2-3 lenses to switch off from? I cant afford 2 bodys. :(


I have a 17-40, 70-200, and 50

newbie_photog
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 14:36
Most people are going to recommend that you have two bodies, and for a fair reason. You can use one body and change lenses its not that much of a hassle. However, what happens if you are on a paid wedding and your camera dies. You cannot finish the wedding thus ruining their big day and you are wide open for a huge lawsuit. I am just getting started and I shot a free wedding with only one camera for a friend but I would never shoot a paid wedding with out a backup. Also the 17-40 may be a little slow for an indoor wedding, as would the 70-200 if you have the F4 non is.

hope this helps
Jared

cosworth
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 14:39
I'm a firm believer that the second body should be manned and not sitting idle. Myself and another POTN'er are planning to do some weddings tag team. If one goes south, you have an assitant or someone to shoot while you pee.

We do plan large weddings though...

mmahoney
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 14:40
I cant afford 2 bodys. :(


I have a 17-40, 70-200, and 50

Sell one of those lenses and get another body .. you can get a Rebel or an XT for pretty cheap on ebay. You gotta have two bodies.
Mike

howzitboy
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 14:50
most photographers i know use 2 bodies also. Ive been shooting 1 body for soo long its taking me forever to make the switch. I carry my second body and its just dead weight lol. i cant find myself using it at all.
But, I got a wedding coming up in dark church so ill have to use 2 bodies. one with wide and one with normal/short tele. wish me luck!

philpereira
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:04
You should definitely have two bodies. I carry one digital body and a film body as backup, which is basically the bare minimum (I've toyed with the idea with using film in my workflow, but it isn't practical to have a digital/film hybrid really).

However, I really want to get a 2nd body that I can actually use, because during formals, my digital is equipped with a radio transmitter for my flashes, which makes shooting photojournalistic candids in between impossible, since I don't like to fuss with the settings (and taking the radio transceiver off) when I'm during formals. Having another body to shoot just natural light would let me keep shooting when I've normally been just idling waiting for the next group to do a formal shot.

If you're getting paid to do weddings, you owe it to your clients to have two bodies. No ifs ands or buts about it.

liza
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:10
I shoot with two and have a borrowed 3rd camera handy in case of equipment failure. You should always be prepared for the worst possible scenario, especially if you're accepting money for your work.

Tish
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:11
+ 1 to everyone else, of course. Check out recent threads by Tim & Banbert on why backup equipment is so necessary.

My own experience--I was shooting an engagement session last month where my primary 20D locked up on me with the dreaded err99. Simply dropped that one onto the grass, grabbed the second & picked up shooting again. The error was easily cleared when I had the time....but had I not had a second body, I would have missed a number of terrific shots while trying to fix the problem. You simply cannot afford to have that happen as the primary shooter at a wedding.

If you can't afford another body, then you need to plan & budget to rent one until you can. Do NOT shoot a wedding for pay without a second body--if you can't afford another camera, you sure as heck can't afford the lawsuit when you miss the most important shot of the wedding because your gear failed.

Bubble
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:13
idealy, 2 bodies would help. My backup body has been sitting in the trunk for awhile now.

Scott_Quier
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:14
Two bodies, carry them all the time. Usually, they both have flash attached (not that I use it all the time, but it's there if needed). I'm using the 20D and a 30D. The difference between them is the lens attached - I generally use the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. These give me lots of flexibility and the ability to quickly switch from one lens to the other.

So, aside from the insurance against camera failure (OK, Tim had both of his go south at a wedding and a third in the kit would be nice), I find that having the two cameras to be very useful. I'm able to capture moments that I would otherwise not be able to get.

Philco
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:31
The bottome lines is that something you shouldn't miss will happen either too close to you or too far away from you depending on which lens you have mounted and you will not get the shot because you're stuck with one choice at any given time.

Phil V
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:31
Is it that much of a hassle to just have one camera body and 2-3 lenses to switch off from?
Not what you'd call a MAJOR hassle.... until it breaks.:oops:
If you're a primary shooter at a wedding - even as a favour, you should at least hire a 2nd body. If you're setting up in business, backup gear is as essential as primary gear.

jt168
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:43
In addition to failure, it provides much more flexibility to have 2 bodies handy - for example, as bride walks down the aisle, use a telephoto to get close up as she walks towards you; as she gets near, grab the wide angle for some dramatic images... can't do that with a single body.

Naturalist
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 15:44
When shooting outdoors with film in my Canon Elan II and A2 I loved having the second body and it wasn't just for back-up either. On one body I kept the shorter lens and on the other I kept the longer one and just bounced between the 2 as needed.

Now that I have 1 digital camera I plan on getting another whenever the new Canon XXD comes out as having 1 body only slows the process up quite a bit allowing for missed shots when trying to capture wildlife and having to switch lenses.

Orbit
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 16:01
I've been lucky and most of the time I used just one body. After a couple of months, I got a 10D as a backup since I couldn't keep trusting in my good luck for much time.

jt168
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 16:02
In addition to failure, it provides much more flexibility to have 2 bodies handy - for example, as bride walks down the aisle, use a telephoto to get close up as she walks towards you; as she gets near, grab the wide angle for some dramatic images... can't do that with a single body.

Banbert
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 16:11
If you shoot a wedding without backup equipment your more than likey to get away with it BUT ... failures do occasionally happen and imagine how much it would destroy a new business if you were known as the photographer who couldnt delivery photographs because of an equipment failure .... if you cant afford a second body I would suggest you probably cant afford to be sued by a distraught bride because you couldnt deliver the photos she employed you to take.

Me and my mate shot our first wedding completely for free last year for a friend but still turned up with, 2 digital SLR bodies, a film SLR body, several lenses, 2 flash guns and all sorts of other bits and bobs.... you have to take it seriously even if your doing it for free, we didnt have any failures on that wedding.

1st wedding we shot for a friend this year, was another freebie but also a big do in a nice place with 150 guests but our friends could see we were taking it seriously so were happy to let us do it. At that wedding we had a body fail as soon as we got to the venue, it just stopped working completely and there was nothing we could do to make it work. We had 2 bodies each at that wedding so we still had 3 working bodies to shoot with.

4th wedding this year my 17-55 f2.8 IS lens died in the middle of the wedding, it just wouldnt auto focus at all, fortunately my mate also has a 17-55 f2.8 IS and I have a prime 30mm that i swapped to.

Its expensive to setup to shoot weddings properly, we have spent about 20k on gear in the last 10 months but we use the fact we have lots of redundancy and backups as a positive selling point to compete against the other weekend warriors who dont take it as seriously as we have :)

JimAskew
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 16:21
I bought a second camera body just to allow myself the freedom of shooting weddings. I would never shoot a wedding without both in my bag. In fact I put a zoom on one and a prime on another.

Yesterday I shot a wedding for two young Marine Officers (see my post here on Kaitlyn & Stan)...all day I had my 17-55MM or my 70-200MM on the 30D and rotated my 50MM, my 85MM, and my 100MM on the dRebel XT.

IMHO you must have two bodies and since you do then make the best use of them by paring primes with zooms :D

SHULTSIE!!!
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 16:24
In addition to failure, it provides much more flexibility to have 2 bodies handy - for example, as bride walks down the aisle, use a telephoto to get close up as she walks towards you; as she gets near, grab the wide angle for some dramatic images... can't do that with a single body.

I figured this out yesterday. I shot my first wedding with my 350D, switching between my 17-55 and my 70-200. Luckily I was able to move fast enough between the swaps, but I can see how this could put someone in a bind from that perfect shot when it gets a little busier.

Also, the f/4 w/o IS hurt a little when I was able to get the handoff of the ring from best man to groom, but with the slightest shake... ruined the picture.

AMeyer
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 16:25
My 2nd camera stays on me during the ceremony and part of the reception. The 17-55 is on one around my neck, and the 70-200 is on another on my shoulder. I use the 17-55 for the majority of the ceremony, then during the ring exchange use the zoom to get in close.

jessiper
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 20:02
I usually only carry one camera around during the wedding, except at the ceremony I go back and forth between both, but wouldn't go to a wedding with only one camera.

Emberghost
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 21:41
If you have some friends with an SLR you might wanna ask to borrow theirs for the day. Just an idea.

thekid24
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 21:50
Im with the consensus, a second body is an added peace of mind during a hectic day in which anything can happen.

I did my first wedding with one body (XT) and I came out of it with no problems, but I would not chance that again, so I now have second body which will now be my primary and the Xt the backup.

What I like about having two bodies is, like it has been said here before, I can have a lens on each camera that serves for different purposes.

italianfemmy
1st of July 2007 (Sun), 21:53
I will be doing my first wedding (when I feel comfortable enough to book it) with a rented back-up. And, if after that wedding, I didn't ruin the pictures and I feel good enough about myself to continue shooting weddings, I will be purchasing a back-up body but it will not be the XTI. It has too much dang noise! Or atleast my copy of it does.

snyper77
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 00:12
I have to admit... I've pushed my luck so far during my first 5 weddings (see my signature for my gear list). I know, I know... I'm rolling dice... but.... I am going to pick up a 2nd body.... soon..... and I also carry my Sony 717 PNS, which is one of the best PNS's of all time, but I still hope I never have to use it.

MrsOpie
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 00:27
I think my body is sexy. one is enough for me. :lol: :lol: :lol:

slipper
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 00:28
Good idea... Sony F-717s are selling for dirt cheap and are pretty decent. I'll have to look into that.

turbo212003
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 00:35
Only crazy people use one body or people that wanna be sued:)

grego
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 00:39
16-35/17-55/24-70 on one(depending upon the crop factor), 70-200 on the other.

If you are doing this for a career and want to be at the top, you need the two bodies. No way you can switch lens that quickly in key moments. And then of course its always good in case one goes bad.

italianfemmy
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 01:11
Can you shoot in RAW with a point and shoot? I don't think so but I could be wrong. If you can't shoot in RAW to save your butt for underexposure, overexposure, then DON't do it.. that's my advice anyway.

cdifoto
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 02:42
You don't have to USE two bodies at once, but you should have a 2nd ready to go if needed.

samnz
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 07:02
Get yourself a G6 point and shoot if you must! It's better to have an okay photo than nothing at all.

Phil V
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 08:06
Good idea... Sony F-717s are selling for dirt cheap and are pretty decent. I'll have to look into that.
Could you shoot an entire wedding with this and be certain of the results?:confused:

As I said before, if this is a short term venture, hire a 2nd body. If not then buy one, if you don't have the capital now but you're planning to do lots of paid work buy one on finance.