Two cameras... is it really necessary???

[bnlearle]

So I know that sounds CRAZY that I would even suggest this, but let me put it in context.

I often see people insisting on two cameras. I TOTALLY agree that if you're a working pro - in almost ANY capacity - you should completely have (at least) two cameras.

However, if you're starting out, never really shot a wedding, AREN'T REALLY CHARGING ANYTHING, a friend/family member who can't afford a photographer asks you to help them out, you explain you aren't a pro/never done this/don't have backup gear/insurance, and you come here asking advice that clearly indicates that you're starting out, why should you have to have a back up? I understand why you SHOULD have a backup - but people say you HAVE to have a backup. It seems to me that clients shouldn't have pro expectations with non-pro's, does it not? We don't expect starters to have insurance, incredible portfolios, and everything else, do we?

For the record, I think the starter photographer should be ENTIRELY up front about this, explaining that established pros have back up gear - and that he/she doesn't - which is why they are not paying typical pro prices.

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

__________________

San Diego Wedding Photographer (blog) (http://bobbyearle.com/blog)
Twitter (http://twitter.com/bobbyearle) -- Facebook (http://facebook.com/bobbyearle)
the Raddest Photo Trip Ever!!! (http://www.raddestphototripever.com)
Come on the next one Dec 6th-19th 2010!!!!!

[hofajoab]

I guess the people hiring them, even at a low price, would still expect photos and not an excuse like "sorry but my one and only camera gave up the ghost".. The photo's I don't think they'd expect to be spectacular (like a good pro's), or even the delivery of a great album, or projected presentation of proofs, or a service for guests to buy prints from etc..

I know what you mean though. Perhaps if someone doing it as a one-off or on a tight budget should at least explain to the B&G that they don't have backup gear, maybe even get them to sign a contract agreeing to that. - It wouldn't be right really for a one-timer to have to buy/rent gear (probably cost more than he/she is receiving) for that wedding, then again, maybe they should put their price up so they can buy/rent.

It may be unlikely for the body to go boo-boo but you never know, all it takes is one knock off a door or something along those lines. It has been known for two bodies to go out on the same wedding!

[tim]

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

Murphys law - what can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible time.

I had two cameras fail during a ceremony once. I got one going again, but that was brown pants time since I only had two. I know have three and i'll be getting another before next season. But i'm reasonably established :)

[bnlearle]

Oh I agree, Tim. You should TOTALLY have back up gear.

But again, if you're just starting out, not claiming or acting like you're a pro, are shooting a wedding for family/friends, and are completely upfront with the couple about this (that you don't have back up gear yet as you aren't an established pro), why should we imply that you MUST have back up gear?

[Duncan Frenz]

Oh I agree, Tim. You should TOTALLY have back up gear.

But again, if you're just starting out, not claiming or acting like you're a pro, are shooting a wedding for family/friends, and are completely upfront with the couple about this (that you don't have back up gear yet as you aren't an established pro), why should we imply that you MUST have back up gear?

I think the only cases I have seen where it is insisted upon having more than one body, is when someone has an expectation of getting photos of what is probably a one time deal i.e. weddings. It isn't difficult to rent or borrow a back up camera and should be expected of anyone acting in a professional capacity as a photographer. I don't think anyone said everyone, such as hobbyists, should ALWAYS have two or more cameras. Perhaps there is a thread where this is the case you could link? In which case, it is absurd unless you are acting in a professional capacity.

[bnlearle]

It happens most times that a beginner posts "do I have enough gear for my first wedding?" :)

[bnlearle]

LOVE your sig, by the way :D

[Marius B]

Its a hobby for me, but I am a 2 camera guy, changing lenses suck :)

When Im shooting at an event. Day at track etc. I have my 5D with 17-40 and the 40D with 70-200. And of course I have the possibility to put the 17-40 on the 40D etc. Now I am just looking for a shoulder bag to carry both cameras with lenses straight down.
Any suggestions?

[ScullenCrossBones]

You only need two bodies if one stops working. Or if the possibility exists of one stops working.

Just my experience, but the only time you will need more than one body is the day you only have one body.

[SuzyView]

Well, the other day, I was shooting with my 5DII, and the card I was using did something to the camera. I couldn't get it to turn off. So, I took out my 40D and shot the rest of the card I had in that camera. I took a break and worked on the 5DII some more and got it to work with another CF card, after taking the battery out. That's why you have 2 camera bodies. You can't stop at an event, like "Hey, Minister, can you stop the ceremony for about 10 minutes while I fix my camera?" Not going to happen and it's the client who suffers. Worth getting that second body and keeping it near you all the time.

[Rachel B]

no matter if your getting paid to do a wedding or promising pictures free of charge, there is still the expectation of receiving pictures, if camera fails before or during the session there is no time to call another photographer to take over, and the couple would have nothing to remember there day by.

[Duncan Frenz]

LOVE your sig, by the way :D
Thanks, I made it myself...;)

[adrian5127]

For amateurs like myself I would like a second body for piece of mind. If you take the trouble to go to something special which might cost to go to eg specialist wildlife trips for photographers and or involve travelling a long way to do it I would be mightingly p***** off if my camer broke down.

Secondly as has already been mentioned changing lenses, I go to events which at times you want a short lens, something happens and a long lens is required but not enough time to change.

I don't have one yet but as funds allow I will be upgrading my body and then my 40D will be my backup.

[Mike]

why should we imply that you MUST have back up gear?

no matter if your getting paid to do a wedding or promising pictures free of charge, there is still the expectation of receiving pictures

Exactly. It doesn't matter what level you are at, the couple expect to get photos of their day. If your one and only camera fails just before the bride walks up the aisle you are going to be a little bit shouted at!

[jonwhite]

Start as you mean to go on.

I think even if your shooting a wedding as a favor for a friend in a non professional capacity I think you have a responsibility to do whatever is reasonable to ensure you don't let them down or your self down on the day, (quick way to kill your business before you get started if you can't deliver pictures at your first gig) given that bodies can and do fail without warning I don't think its unreasonable to have 2 of them whether its a hired or borrowed one.

When me and Nick shot our first wedding for free for a friend we had 2 digital slrs, 2 film cameras and two P&S cameras .... we were sure we would have some pics of the day no matter what happened.

When we shot our first paid gig, (also for a friend so very cheap) we had about 10k of gear including 5 digital bodies between the two of us... which was good because we had one body die completely the night before and another one go flaky on the day.

We now take 3 bodies each to weddings, 4 generally get used but the others are backups we feel happy to have.

When your new and the kit is new to you the chances of something going wrong and you not being able to fix it quickly is pretty high so people just starting out have even more responsibility to have backups than others imo.

Same goes for other kit as well though, CF cards, Lenses and flashes (flashes to a lesser extent for some people) are all pretty much must haves and you should be able to loose any one single piece of kit and still be able to get the job done with no detriment to the pictures you deliver.

[DennisW1]

So I know that sounds CRAZY that I would even suggest this, but let me put it in context.

I often see people insisting on two cameras. I TOTALLY agree that if you're a working pro - in almost ANY capacity - you should completely have (at least) two cameras.

However, if you're starting out, never really shot a wedding, come here asking advice that clearly indicates that you're starting out, why should you have to have a back up? It seems to me that clients shouldn't have pro expectations with non-pro's, does it not? We don't expect starters to have insurance, incredible portfolios, and everything else, do we?

For the record, I think the starter photographer should be ENTIRELY up front about this, explaining that established pros have back up gear - and that he/she doesn't - which is why they are not paying typical pro prices.

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

Sorry, but I will respectfully disagree.

I'm not *insisting* on anything, but those that have do so either because they've "been there" or have witnessed someone else in the worst possible scenario situation of having their camera fail in the middle of an important shoot.

Today's cameras are, in many ways, a lot more reliable than their counterparts of years past.....but.....they are basically computers with lenses on them, and if you've spent much time using computers you know they are not 100% reliable either.

If you are providing a service, such as photogaphing a wedding, you have assumed a responsibility to the client. If nothing else, consider the impact on the bride and groom to find out that they aren't going to be getting any pictures of their wedding other than the ones 75 year old Aunt Edna took with her 10 year old point and shoot film camera.
It's also a really bad way to make a first impression as a "starter".

And not to be unsympathetic to the financial burden of having a second camera, perhaps an alternative would be to establish some sort of a backup agreement with a friend. If you know anyone with suitable gear that would agree to even rent you their camera on a daily or even hourly basis, that might be an alternative to buying one before you can afford it or having a shoot ruined due to an equipment failure.

Your sig and the link to your site arouses my curiosity a bit: You come across as someone who is more than a casual "starter" in the wedding business. Perhaps this is just an academic question on your part but my guess is if you're into it as much as you are already you know darn well why you need to insure your results and your reputation with things like proper equipment.

Am I close?

[SoccerRef]

no matter if your getting paid to do a wedding or promising pictures free of charge, there is still the expectation of receiving pictures, if camera fails before or during the session there is no time to call another photographer to take over, and the couple would have nothing to remember there day by.

Agree 100%...

Sorry, but I will respectfully disagree.

I'm not *insisting* on anything, but those that have do so either because they've "been there" or have witnessed someone else in the worst possible scenario situation of having their camera fail in the middle of an important shoot.

Today's cameras are, in many ways, a lot more reliable than their counterparts of years past.....but.....they are basically computers with lenses on them, and if you've spent much time using computers you know they are not 100% reliable either.

If you are providing a service, such as photogaphing a wedding, you have assumed a responsibility to the client. If nothing else, consider the impact on the bride and groom to find out that they aren't going to be getting any pictures of their wedding other than the ones 75 year old Aunt Edna took with her 10 year old point and shoot film camera.
It's also a really bad way to make a first impression as a "starter".

And not to be unsympathetic to the financial burden of having a second camera, perhaps an alternative would be to establish some sort of a backup agreement with a friend. If you know anyone with suitable gear that would agree to even rent you their camera on a daily or even hourly basis, that might be an alternative to buying one before you can afford it or having a shoot ruined due to an equipment failure.

Your sig and the link to your site arouses my curiosity a bit: You come across as someone who is more than a casual "starter" in the wedding business. Perhaps this is just an academic question on your part but my guess is if you're into it as much as you are already you know darn well why you need to insure your results and your reputation with things like proper equipment.

Am I close?

This is what I do. I have several photographer friends and I borrow equipment when necessary. AND, I LOAN mine when someone needs it. It's just smart to have backup equipment. Period.

[stevefossimages]

So I know that sounds CRAZY that I would even suggest this, but let me put it in context.

I often see people insisting on two cameras. I TOTALLY agree that if you're a working pro - in almost ANY capacity - you should completely have (at least) two cameras.

However, if you're starting out, never really shot a wedding, come here asking advice that clearly indicates that you're starting out, why should you have to have a back up? It seems to me that clients shouldn't have pro expectations with non-pro's, does it not? We don't expect starters to have insurance, incredible portfolios, and everything else, do we?

For the record, I think the starter photographer should be ENTIRELY up front about this, explaining that established pros have back up gear - and that he/she doesn't - which is why they are not paying typical pro prices.

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

I have not read the responses, and am simply going to give you my perspective.

It's not about you at all. It's about the wedding couple. Whether you are an amateur shooting your first wedding or a pro shooting your 301st, if you walk in with one body and that body fails, the wedding couple will not get the images to document what may be the single most important day in their married lives. It is that simple. If you lone body fails, then it is you who has failed the couple through irresponsibility.

That is why when I get questions from amateurs about shooting a wedding, I never fail to recommend borrowing/renting a second body. It costs very little relatively speaking to rent a body for a day/wknd. Even when I photographed my first I had a second body in tow.

[bnlearle]

Sorry, but I will respectfully disagree.

I'm not *insisting* on anything, but those that have do so either because they've "been there" or have witnessed someone else in the worst possible scenario situation of having their camera fail in the middle of an important shoot.

Today's cameras are, in many ways, a lot more reliable than their counterparts of years past.....but.....they are basically computers with lenses on them, and if you've spent much time using computers you know they are not 100% reliable either.

If you are providing a service, such as photogaphing a wedding, you have assumed a responsibility to the client. If nothing else, consider the impact on the bride and groom to find out that they aren't going to be getting any pictures of their wedding other than the ones 75 year old Aunt Edna took with her 10 year old point and shoot film camera.
It's also a really bad way to make a first impression as a "starter".

And not to be unsympathetic to the financial burden of having a second camera, perhaps an alternative would be to establish some sort of a backup agreement with a friend. If you know anyone with suitable gear that would agree to even rent you their camera on a daily or even hourly basis, that might be an alternative to buying one before you can afford it or having a shoot ruined due to an equipment failure.

Your sig and the link to your site arouses my curiosity a bit: You come across as someone who is more than a casual "starter" in the wedding business. Perhaps this is just an academic question on your part but my guess is if you're into it as much as you are already you know darn well why you need to insure your results and your reputation with things like proper equipment.

Am I close?
Close ;) No, I'm not a starter at all. Been a full time pro for a while now :)

I guess I have a different opinion than nearly EVERYONE here. I think it's insane that you all think that people who don't want a pro deserve a pro's security, but fair enough :)

Bobby

p.s. I've had camera failure happen to me for weddings in countries where I couldn't get a backup if I had a million dollars. Believe me, I know the value of back ups. I just know that I require myself to be secure in those areas because I'm a pro. If I wasn't (and wasn't acting like one) - I wouldn't turn down an opportunity just because I couldn't afford a second body ;)

[bnlearle]

If you lone body fails, then it is you who has failed the couple through irresponsibility.
How is it your fault if A) you don't have a second body, B) you aren't a working pro and don't act like it, C) you've made it entirely clear to the couple that working pros have back up gear because sometimes cameras fail, and D) if they choose you, you COULD potentially have camera gear failure and therefore not be able to shoot?

You've told an adult all the info they need to make the decision they, as adults, can make. I am so lost on how this is so insane to everyone. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! :p (A little Zoolander icebreaker :lol:)

[SoccerRef]

How is it your fault if A) you don't have a second body, B) you aren't a working pro and don't act like it, C) you've made it entirely clear to the couple that working pros have back up gear because sometimes cameras fail, and D) if they choose you, you COULD potentially have camera gear failure and therefore not be able to shoot?

You've told an adult all the info they need to make the decision they, as adults, can make. I am so lost on how this is so insane to everyone. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! :p (A little Zoolander icebreaker :lol:)

I understand what you are saying, and can even agree that backup equipment isn't NECESSARY. However, that said, I would look at anyone attempting to do a wedding without backups as foolish.

I would NEVER do it, nor would I ever give anyone advice that I thought it was OK to do so. To be perfectly frank, an SLR isn't NECESSARY to photograph a wedding!

(My uncle's favorite photo from his wedding, was taken by my mother with a P&S! She happened to be in the exact right place at the exact right time and happened to click the shutter. She is the first to admit it was a "Fluke Photo", but it is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS.)

[quoccy]

I still don't understand what you guys are saying...
I'm new to photography and if a family member/friend ask me to take photos at their wedding instead of hiring a PRO photographer, WHY should i buy back up gear??? (not that i wouldn't...)
If they really valued their wedding and the photos taken on the day, they would have hire a PRO after explaining to them that you are just starting and do not have back up gear.

[hofajoab]

OK, well even if it's family/close friends you're doing a wedding for and you only have one body, that body goes belly-up I'm pretty sure the B&G + family will be disappointed somewhat, of course they would be! I just think it's in your best interest to make sure they get something.. after all, as soon as you agree to do it they've got expectations of getting photos. Sure, if they weren't going to get a photographer in the first place then the disappointment wont be as bad.

It would be different if they only asked you out of your own interest in photography and weren't going to hire a photographer anyway.


If you're doing a paid event for someone then you'd have a contract and you'd have to state you don't have backup gear and in case of a "crisis" :) they may only receive photos from part of the event (or none at all)... Really though, as soon as you charge you're providing a service and if you want to go further with that then, again, it's in your best interest to cover yourself and to make sure you've got what you need to get the job done under any circumstances.

That's just the way I see it.

I also think it's not very responsible to advise someone it's ok to just have one body, sure they might only need one, but it's not good advise to give out - Hence why they're usually 'advised' to rent/buy/borrow a 2nd body.

[nicksan]

I have 2 cameras and though the security of redundancy is there, I don't consider one a backup of another.

For instance, if I have my 200L mounted on my 5D MKII, then I will have something shorter mounted on my 1DMKIII. I use my cameras in tandem. But sure, if one should fail, I can still shoot. Just not as convenient. But that's sure better that being SOL with a broken camera!

FYI, I do MUCH more pro bono work than I do paid gigs. In fact MUCH, MUCH more!:( I still always have a backup with me, especially if it's a big event, like a baby shower, concert/recital, etc.

Just this past weekend, I shot a baby shower with over a 100 people. I had both cameras with me in exactly the way I described before. I still switched lenses, but only on my 1DMKIII. The 200L was glued on the 5D MKII almost the entire time.

The very next day, I took some baby shots for some friends. Very informal. Only brought the 5DMKII and a few primes with me, being that it was a much more casual thing, and if something went wrong, I could always go back there again.

On a paid gig, which isn't too often for me, I always bring 2 bodies.

[SuzyView]

Nicksans has a point. My 40D isn't so much a back up as the other camera I carry with me. Good point.

[wdwpsu]

Backup is always needed. And, it's not just photographers. Any wedding professional should have backups. I was just at a wedding where one of the big speakers the DJ brought blew out. Monosound for the evening.. Oops.
If you think word of mouth advertising gets you jobs, I can just image how fast the opposite happens.

[KIP]

Its a hobby for me, but I am a 2 camera guy, changing lenses suck :)

Yes. I agree. I hike with 2 bodies just to not have to change the lenses!

In regards to back up gear for new photographers... rentals are awesome. Just include the cost of renting in your compensation.

[Mike]

How is it your fault if A) you don't have a second body, B) you aren't a working pro and don't act like it, C) you've made it entirely clear to the couple that working pros have back up gear because sometimes cameras fail, and D) if they choose you, you COULD potentially have camera gear failure and therefore not be able to shoot?

You've told an adult all the info they need to make the decision they, as adults, can make. I am so lost on how this is so insane to everyone. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! :p (A little Zoolander icebreaker :lol:)

I think that if you are taking on a job as a wedding tog you have a duty to ensure that you get the majority of photos that are expected of you. Certainly, you cannot always get every photo that the bride asks for but you need to at least show you tried.
If you cannot get a backup body for a wedding and you have been asked to be "the photographer" I really think that you should decline as you cannot be sure that you'll even get any photos.

Nicksans has a point. My 40D isn't so much a back up as the other camera I carry with me. Good point.

Absolutely. My 70-200 stays on one and I swap lenses round on the other.

[obnoxiousmom]

I think no matter how new you are, if you are shooting something as important as a wedding, you need two cameras. I only own one camera so I rent a spare when I do weddings, even if its only for friends

[jstrattonphotography]

Even as a beginning photographer, I use 2 bodies. Even when I am doing a bridal session or an engagement session I have both with me. Typically I will have a different lens on each and have another lens in the bag. It makes it much quicker to keep the action flowing than having to stop to change the lens every so often. Plus, I am scared that the main camera may fail when I need it most.

[RandyMN]

How is it your fault if A) you don't have a second body, B) you aren't a working pro and don't act like it, C) you've made it entirely clear to the couple that working pros have back up gear because sometimes cameras fail, and D) if they choose you, you COULD potentially have camera gear failure and therefore not be able to shoot?

You've told an adult all the info they need to make the decision they, as adults, can make. I am so lost on how this is so insane to everyone. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! :p (A little Zoolander icebreaker :lol:)

Seems to me as though we have a conflict here...

You say you don't need a second body since the couple have been made aware of the facts, then yes, by all means shoot under those conditions.

But looking at it from their side, since they are taking the risk of you having your only camera become strolen, broken or somehow unusable, perhaps they too will operate on the assumption that they have only one wallet and if they lose it then you won't get paid.

[RDKirk]

You've told an adult all the info they need to make the decision they, as adults, can make.

Because, honestly, what the bride and groom were told probably didn't truly sink into their minds...or at least not into the correct side of their minds. They were probably making a left-brain decision on what is really a right-brain issue.

But I'd darn betcha that if that had been told to the bride's mother, it would certainly have been heeded, because bride's mothers can be depended on to be thinking with their right-brains about their daughter's weddings.

I was at a restaurant the other day with my wife and daughter in which the waiter actually argued with us about what we had ordered. He had insisted that we didn't really want what we said we wanted. I asked incredulously, "Are you actually telling us 'no?'" At that moment, another waiter walked by with the same dish we were ordering--our waiter stopped the man so that we could look at it.

And he had been right--we would have been annoyed to have gotten that dish. He told us people were always annoyed with that dish. Hee couldn't help that it was on the menu, but he could try to make sure customers got what would leave them happy as they figured his tip.

This morning on the news, there was a story about the ethics of "concierge doctors" (such as Michael Jackson had) and whether they were likely to be able to say, "That's not the drug you need" to someone who was their only source of income.

It boils down to the fact that the customer is always right about what she wants, but she's not necessarily right about how to get it. Because the photographer is the more knowledgeble partner in the photography end of the wedding, part of what she depends on is our knowledge of how to make sure she gets what will really satisfy her.

[OdiN1701]

Why do you need two?

Err99

[figmented]

I was at a wedding last weekend as a guest (just brought my 50 1.8), and out of nowhere the mirror on my 5d fell off inside. I never had this happen before and was like wtf. The camera only has around 20k shots on it so its not been over used.

I quick googled about it on my iphone and lotta people had issues with this, and even the hired photographer who I knew said he had 3 5d's that had mirrors fell off and uses 1dsmk3's instead because the 5d is kinda poorly built for his rugged use, apparently mine too. I also mentioned to him it looked like it was just some adhesive dots to put it back on, and he recommended me not to do that and to send it to canon.

Come to find out that canon will fix it for free, good thing i didnt screw over my camera, but what if I was the hired photog and didnt have a backup - i woulda been up a creek.

[Bobster]

i shot my first wedding with 1 camera body and a 28-200 lens and Sigma 500..

[figmented]

Don't get me wrong, i shot my first 3 without a backup as well, but as soon as it dawned on me of what could happen and the consequences, i quickly bought a used 20d for $400 :)

[Markitos]

There are a lot of good answers in this thread already... I will just add that I think it depends entirely on what your end-goal is. If you are hoping to use a free (or very cheap) wedding or event as a springboard or portfolio material for paid work, I think it behooves you to treat it as a professional, paying gig and equip yourself accordingly--you are trying to make an impression, and a favorable one, so that word will get around that you are a good photographer and should be hired for money.

If, on the other hand, you are purely a hobbyist and wish to be viewed that way and remain that way (and there is NOTHING wrong with that), then a single body would probably be fine.

Even if there's not money or necessarily expectations involved, sometimes there are other variables. For me personally, my wedding cherry was popped shooting, as the primary photographer, my brother-in-law's wedding. I wasn't getting paid, there was no expectation of success or failure, but in the interests of familial tranquility, I borrowed a body from my dad to ensure that I had backup. I really didn't want to go through the rest of my life with my wife knowing that I botched her brother's special day because I didn't adequately prepare.

[Bobster]

Don't get me wrong, i shot my first 3 without a backup as well, but as soon as it dawned on me of what could happen and the consequences, i quickly bought a used 20d for $400 :)
sure, i had 1 camera for a while, it wasnt until after a year of use my shutter went and i needed to get it replaced that i realised that i needed a 2nd body..

[alessandro2009]

So I know that sounds CRAZY that I would even suggest this, but let me put it in context.

I often see people insisting on two cameras. I TOTALLY agree that if you're a working pro - in almost ANY capacity - you should completely have (at least) two cameras.

However, if you're starting out, never really shot a wedding, AREN'T REALLY CHARGING ANYTHING, come here asking advice that clearly indicates that you're starting out, why should you have to have a back up? I understand why you SHOULD have a backup - but people say you HAVE to have a backup. It seems to me that clients shouldn't have pro expectations with non-pro's, does it not? We don't expect starters to have insurance, incredible portfolios, and everything else, do we?

For the record, I think the starter photographer should be ENTIRELY up front about this, explaining that established pros have back up gear - and that he/she doesn't - which is why they are not paying typical pro prices.

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

Because wedding is an event really very important and if a non pro must do some shoot in this occasion will be very difficult forgive even if his isn't a pro.

I can say that I have seen a wedding photographer with 3 (yes 3!) cameras!
Totally crazy!


Note:
I am not talking about an assistant, but just someone who uses a non-pro for these events.

[FZ1]

I'm doing my first 'volunteer' wedding in a few weeks. I have been thinking about moving to a 50D anyway so it gave me the excuse (like I really needed one :) ) to buy one so now I will have 2 for the weeding. After which, the XTi will likely go up for sale. Because I'm anal, I'm also bringing my Panasonic LX3 P&S as a last resort. As the cliche goes - better poor pics than no pics at all (not that the LX3 takes poor pics!).

The moral is, I'd bring a decent backup p&s camera at least...surely most that are into photography enough to be doing a wedding has one or knows of one they can borrow.

[Christopher Steven b]

I do obviously agree that if you're a working pro, having two bodies is a necessity. But when one is starting up--as I am--having two is a kind of insurance that many cannot afford.

[alessandro2009]

In USA and probably also in Canada I do not think it is difficult to rent a photocamera for the event.

While in Italy is much more difficult.

I believe that the real question is:
in the unfortunate event that the camera don't function what stories say at the client?

I'm not a pro and i never shoot wedding and I'm not resource ... but I think that this kind of events can lead serious problems in these cases.

[spxxxx]

If you are starting up ..... trying to establish a reputation - why on earth would you risk everything with no backup?

Very very short sighted - even if shooting as a none pro - once you have missed the bulk of the day due to failure your "friends" won't be impressed.

And really couples that take on someone without the proper gear deserve everything they get ...... they won't be having a reception with a kitchen with just one cooker !

[Bobster]

And really couples that take on someone without the proper gear deserve everything they get ...... they won't be having a reception with a kitchen with just one cooker !
some do..

[RDKirk]

I do obviously agree that if you're a working pro, having two bodies is a necessity. But when one is starting up--as I am--having two is a kind of insurance that many cannot afford.

In that case, one should say, "I'll be glad to bring my camera and take some pictures if the professional you hire does not mind."

You don't take your first skydive until you can afford two parachutes.

[Christopher Steven b]

If you are starting up ..... trying to establish a reputation - why on earth would you risk everything with no backup?

Very very short sighted - even if shooting as a none pro - once you have missed the bulk of the day due to failure your "friends" won't be impressed.

And really couples that take on someone without the proper gear deserve everything they get ...... they won't be having a reception with a kitchen with just one cooker !

Just curious: what happens when both your main camera and backup fail?

[Christopher Steven b]

In that case, one should say, "I'll be glad to bring my camera and take some pictures if the professional you hire does not mind."

You don't take your first skydive until you can afford two parachutes.

I disagree. I think that when one is starting up and when the rates one is getting reflects this, it is understood by most that the photographer won't be equipped and insured in the same way that a seasoned professional would be.

[spxxxx]

Just curious: what happens when both your main camera and backup fail?

You get a third out or read up on your insurance ......

I disagree. I think that when one is starting up and when the rates one is getting reflects this, it is understood by most that the photographer won't be equipped and insured in the same way that a seasoned professional would be.

I doubt a client will differentiate

[mikekelley]

You don't take your first skydive until you can afford two parachutes.


I disagree.
???

[Christopher Steven b]

???


Haha. No, I concur with the parachute sentiment. I disagree with the implication with respect to photography. I don't think that those without > 1 camera bodies shouldn't be advertising themselves as and working as photographers.

[Christopher Steven b]

You get a third out or read up on your insurance ......



I doubt a client will differentiate

New rule, then: we should all have more than 2 bodies?

I think that the client who is paying not all that much more than a camera body rental would be, would be able to differentiate.

[morthcam58]

I keep on reading about a "new photographer" who "can't afford" a back-up body -- how much does a used 20D cost? Is is really "unaffordable"?

[RandyMN]

I disagree. I think that when one is starting up and when the rates one is getting reflects this, it is understood by most that the photographer won't be equipped and insured in the same way that a seasoned professional would be.

Possibly so, but irregardless the same risk must be accepted with or without insurance and/or equipment.

A professional just chooses to reduce risk by having both...

Just as back-up bodies are insurance to protect both the wedding couple and the photographer, so too is a written contract. My guess if if the back-up body is missing then so will the contract.

If this is family then who cares? Family fueds are quite common.:lol:

[RDKirk]

I think that the client who is paying not all that much more than a camera body rental would be, would be able to differentiate.

No, they won't. They will be very unhappy and they will not make that distinction. If you've ever shot a wedding and witnessed the intensity of emotion that a bride invests into her wedding, you would understand why any caring photographer would refuse to be in the position of being such a major disappointment by failing to do something so basic and so obvious as to have a second camera.

If the photographer can't afford to have a back up camera for once-in-a-lifetime jobs like a wedding, he should concentrate on less critical jobs like portraits until he can.

[tim]

Just curious: what happens when both your main camera and backup fail?

I call that "brown pants time". I had both my cameras fail in the middle of a ceremony once, fortunately I managed to get one going but it was scary. Even if i'd had a third it'd have been in the car.

The double camera failure last was using sensor cleaning fluid to clean the lens/camera contacts. Bad plan, it made an oxide layer and stopped communications between the lens and the camera. Don't do that.

Now I have three bodies, and i'll have four by next season. At least one body is kept separate and treated seperately from the others, in case it's user error.

[Bobster]

I keep on reading about a "new photographer" who "can't afford" a back-up body -- how much does a used 20D cost? Is is really "unaffordable"?

so this photographer is say charging $50 or just saying to the couple, cover my fuel costs etc.. are they then going to fork out $4-500 for a 20D?

sure if in your job you already earn 50-60K a year, then you'll going to have plenty of gear.. but for someone in a low end job who is using their camera as a hobby and then their best friend is getting married, asks them if they can take the photographs because they don't have a whole lot of money to spend..

when i got my 20D i didn't ever dream that the shutter would fail on me, id been reading that people had 2-300K of shots out of theirs already.. and i didn't have the funds at the time to buy another, nor was my pricing high enough to rent a body (renting gear over here in the UK is a pain in the butt!)

[jgrussell]

why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?Because if you're starting out, every success is just another job and every failure is a disaster. There's an old rule of thumb: every satisfied customer may tell one other person; every dissatisfied customer will tell 10 other people.

A wedding can't be repeated if you (or someone else) trips over your tripod (or trips you) and the camera and lens get broken. Do that even once and it'll cost you an awful lot more than a backup body.

[Christopher Steven b]

I call that "brown pants time". I had both my cameras fail in the middle of a ceremony once, fortunately I managed to get one going but it was scary. Even if i'd had a third it'd have been in the car.
The double camera failure last was using sensor cleaning fluid to clean the lens/camera contacts. Bad plan, it made an oxide layer and stopped communications between the lens and the camera. Don't do that.

Now I have three bodies, and i'll have four by next season. At least one body is kept separate and treated seperately from the others, in case it's user error.

And I thought I was sweating about the mirror issue I had at an event I shot a couple of weeks ago [mirror behind the stage which I didn't see but which led to massive flash ETTL failure--a problem I had to rectify in the moment by going to manual]. Another case of user error I say.

[bnlearle]

But then why stop at the body, is my point? Why not have to have EVERY lens backed up? Why not say you HAVE to have insurance?

[RDKirk]

But then why stop at the body, is my point? Why not have to have EVERY lens backed up? Why not say you HAVE to have insurance?

For sure, if any piece of equipment is essential to how you work, you need to back it up. But if I one out of several lenses, I can continue to work. I do back up my lenses with a combination of zooms and primes within the zoom ranges. I back up flash units, but even if I had only one flash and lost it, I could continue to work.

A professional wedding photographer should even have himself backed up--he should have other people to call on if he himself can't make the wedding for some reason.

And then still have insurance, both indemnity against being sued for failing to do the job as contracted (say, his only camera body broke) and for liability (say, he tells the bride to take a step back and she falls over the balcony).

[Christopher Steven b]

For sure, if any piece of equipment is essential to how you work, you need to back it up. But if I one out of several lenses, I can continue to work. I do back up my lenses with a combination of zooms and primes within the zoom ranges. I back up flash units, but even if I had only one flash and lost it, I could continue to work.

A professional wedding photographer should even have himself backed up--he should have other people to call on if he himself can't make the wedding for some reason.

And then still have insurance, both indemnity against being sued for failing to do the job as contracted (say, his only camera body broke) and for liability (say, he tells the bride to take a step back and she falls over the balcony).

If these were requirements for everyone starting out in photography, then there wouldn't be that many working photographers.

[bnlearle]

For sure, if any piece of equipment is essential to how you work, you need to back it up. But if I one out of several lenses, I can continue to work. I do back up my lenses with a combination of zooms and primes within the zoom ranges. I back up flash units, but even if I had only one flash and lost it, I could continue to work.

A professional wedding photographer should even have himself backed up--he should have other people to call on if he himself can't make the wedding for some reason.

And then still have insurance, both indemnity against being sued for failing to do the job as contracted (say, his only camera body broke) and for liability (say, he tells the bride to take a step back and she falls over the balcony).
You realize that I am not even coming close to talking about pros, right? I'm talking about people who have (typically) been asked by someone who knows they aren't a wedding photographer. I'm not talking about people who are marketing themselves as wedding photographers in any way.

Do you think those people should have everything backed up with insurance? If so, almost no one would start. If not, why not since everyone seems to demand that they have a second body (and lenses are just as essential as bodies)?

I just don't understand how this idea that beginners who are being asked to shoot a friend/family member's wedding - that explain that they aren't a pro and don't have backup gear (and explain the implications of that) - have to have a backup camera (and not lenses/insurance). That's where I'm lost...

Bobby

[RDKirk]

If these were requirements for everyone starting out in photography, then there wouldn't be that many working photographers.

Yes, you're right, there would be fewer photographers who lack even basic equipment to do a proper job. That's not a problem. It's not as though everyone must start out with weddings--there are plenty of other jobs such as portraits that one can start out with using a single body.

But there are more than enough people who can afford two DRebel bodies.

Weddings are probably second only to combat photography in the intensity of getting the shot without fail. I don't know why in the world anyone would start out with weddings.

[RDKirk]

You realize that I am not even coming close to talking about pros, right? I'm talking about people who have (typically) been asked by someone who knows they aren't a wedding photographer. I'm not talking about people who are marketing themselves as wedding photographers in any way.

The OP is talking about starting out in professional photography.

Taking on the task of photographing a wedding is serious business whether it's done for pay or not, it's not a lark. As I've said before, if a hobbyist is not properly prepared to shoot a wedding, he should simply beg off the request.

A prospective pro should beg off until he's properly prepared.

Wedding photographer is too serious. A person who is not properly prepared shouldn't take on that task, period, under no circumstances, ever.

[Markitos]

Yes, you're right, there would be fewer photographers who lack even basic equipment to do a proper job. That's not a problem. It's not as though everyone must start out with weddings--there are plenty of other jobs such as portraits that one can start out with using a single body.

But there are more than enough people who can afford two DRebel bodies.

Weddings are probably second only to combat photography in the intensity of getting the shot without fail. I don't know why in the world anyone would start out with weddings.

+1... I subscribe to your newsletter.

And to Christopher Steven b: Have you shot a wedding? If so, I would love for you to share why, in your experience, not having a backup for a once-in-a-lifetime event, would be prudent, even in a non-professional capacity where you were still expected to have something to show?

To those who don't bring backups and who want to shoot weddings for free/cheap and hope to get paid to do it in the future: good luck, because you're rolling the dice everytime you shoot without being properly prepared.

[bnlearle]

The OP is talking about starting out in professional photography.

Taking on the task of photographing a wedding is serious business whether it's done for pay or not, it's not a lark. As I've said before, if a hobbyist is not properly prepared to shoot a wedding, he should simply beg off the request.

A prospective pro should beg off until he's properly prepared.

Wedding photographer is too serious. A person who is not properly prepared shouldn't take on that task, period, under no circumstances, ever.
I am the OP ;) I'm not talking about starting out in professional photography. (I'm going to go and clarify again in the OP just in case it wasn't clear enough)

The moment you throw "professional" in there, it sort of requires the "starter" to be selling himself/herself as something more than he/she is. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about shooting a friend/family's wedding because a) they don't want to hire a pro, b) they ask the photographer at hand because they think "hey, we could save some money", and c) the photographer is interested in trying out wedding photography. So long as the beginner photographer explains "I've never shot a wedding. I don't have insurance. I don't have backup gear...", I just don't see a compelling argument as to why he/she should turn down the opportunity.

I can't tell you how many awesome pros started out the exact way I am describing above. They didn't start out as pro's, of course - they started out at hobbyists who were helping a friend/family member and were curious what shooting a wedding would be like.

Again, why should they stop at backup bodies? Why shouldn't they have to back up lenses and flashes? Why shouldn't they have to have insurance? Why shouldn't they have to have f/2.8 lenses?

[HMetal]

Its a hobby for me, but I am a 2 camera guy, changing lenses suck :)

When Im shooting at an event. Day at track etc. I have my 5D with 17-40 and the 40D with 70-200. And of course I have the possibility to put the 17-40 on the 40D etc. Now I am just looking for a shoulder bag to carry both cameras with lenses straight down.
Any suggestions?

I carry the same equipment as Marius except on my 5D, I keep the 24-70mm f/2.8. I do have the 17-40mm as well but only use it when I go out shooting landscapes.

[Markitos]

I am the OP ;) I'm not talking about starting out in professional photography. (I'm going to go and clarify again in the OP just in case it wasn't clear enough)

The moment you throw "professional" in there, it sort of requires the "starter" to be selling himself/herself as something more than he/she is. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about shooting a friend/family's wedding because a) they don't want to hire a pro, b) they ask the photographer at hand because they think "hey, we could save some money", and c) the photographer is interested in trying out wedding photography. So long as the beginner photographer explains "I've never shot a wedding. I don't have insurance. I don't have backup gear...", I just don't see a compelling argument as to why he/she should turn down the opportunity.

I can't tell you how many awesome pros started out the exact way I am describing above. They didn't start out as pro's, of course - they started out at hobbyists who were helping a friend/family member and were curious what shooting a wedding would be like.

Again, why should they stop at backup bodies? Why shouldn't they have to back up lenses and flashes? Why shouldn't they have to have insurance? Why shouldn't they have to have f/2.8 lenses?

I understood this in your original post, but I still take issue with parts of it and other statements in this post. I am very much a proponent of not buying more than you need for the task at hand, especially if the expectation is not for a "professional." As I think I said in a prior post, if this hypothetical hobbyist you speak of is just shooting this wedding for fun, for their friends, with NO expectation of becoming a professional, sure, one body might be okay.

This hypothetical person might even be fine if something went south, they didn't get a single shot off, and had nothing to show for their friend's/sister's/dog's wedding. That's all fine and good.

BUT!!! Word of mouth is a very powerful thing... how many people do you think are going to call on said hobbyist down the road, when they have a bar mitzvah, or a baby shower, or an office party that needs shooting? Probably not many, since our hobbyist didn't get any shots, and didn't have backup gear.

If you're okay with that, great.

But wouldn't it be prudent--wouldn't it be a good idea--to maybe consider having a backup, just in case, and do a brilliant job that everyone will talk about. Then our hobbyist might get more work, and have it build upon itself in that way, until at some point, lo and behold, they're a pro!

I don't think anyone is saying that it can't be done... but, given the choice, wouldn't you rather be more prepared than less?

And stop with the "where does it end??" nonsense. You know good and well what they practical limits are.

[quoccy]

The OP is talking about starting out in professional photography.

Taking on the task of photographing a wedding is serious business whether it's done for pay or not, it's not a lark. As I've said before, if a hobbyist is not properly prepared to shoot a wedding, he should simply beg off the request.

A prospective pro should beg off until he's properly prepared.

Wedding photographer is too serious. A person who is not properly prepared shouldn't take on that task, period, under no circumstances, ever.

I was in this situation earlier this year, just got my camera and my aunty ask if I'd would take the photos for her wedding because she was on a really really small budget.
So was I meant to turn this down because all i had was my 450D and kit lens and leave her with P&S photos from the guest?

[Bubble]

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

to guide them into the proper way to do business. :lol::lol:

[tim]

Bobby, you win the "creating the thread where people repeat themselves the most and go on and on and on and on" award ;)

[sdsviet]

im totally an amateur and i am trying to get in this field. i totally understand not having money to get a backup. it took me more than a year for me to get one. but for me, im very anal and careful and i think its more out of courtesy and be considerate to the bride and groom to have a backup just in case.

it is not a neccesity at all to have one especially if ur just a hobbyist and its a one time thing for a friend. but once you have that intention of maybe you can do this more (i.e. wedding or other important events) even if not at the pro level, then i have to say it is neccessary to have a backup.

quick example. lets says ur a hobbyist and a family member cant afford a pro and ask you to do it for them. u warn them about the whole spill of not having a backup. the day comes and ur equipment craps out. depending on the bride or groom, they might be ok with it but most of the time, its gonna be a real sad day for them and that just sucks period. eventho they knew it might happen but no one ever expects it to happen to them and when it does. it sucks double time.

to me its not a must at all if u dont want a back up body for soemthing u dont think u will ever do again but if u ever do, it becomes a neccesity. just like everyone else, word of mouth spreads fast and even if everyone knew that u take great pics and what not but once words gets out that one person's wedding didnt get any pics at all, its becomes a crapshoot on peoples mind if they even think to trying to ask u for anything.

weddings are too important to be playing russian roullete on whether u think u need a backup or not, even if it just family/friends, paid/unpaid.

[Billo78]

This is 2009, digi SLRs are EVERYWHERE and as we all shoot Canon here I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't all know at least one person who would lend us a body for the day.

If you're doing it as a favour, not getting paid for the wedding and can't afford (or simply don't want to buy) another body then you shouldn't be expected to fund one yourself, but you should do everything in your powers to throw your mate's old 400D in your kit bag in case it all goes tits up.

[RDKirk]

I am the OP ;) I'm not talking about starting out in professional photography. (I'm going to go and clarify again in the OP just in case it wasn't clear enough)

Well, you kept saying "...just starting out," which is what threw me.

I just don't see a compelling argument as to why he/she should turn down the opportunity.

I have explained that. The bride has invested a tremendous amount of emotion into her wedding. She might be thinking with her head in trying to reduce the cost of photography, but if you fail her, it will be her heart that is forever broken.

If you don't really care about that, fine, I guess. But if you do care, then you would either borrow a second camera or beg off the request.

I can't tell you how many awesome pros started out the exact way I am describing above. They didn't start out as pro's, of course - they started out at hobbyists who were helping a friend/family member and were curious what shooting a wedding would be like.

I myself also failed to think through a lot of the dumb things I did when I was young. But I did eventually realize that preparation trumps dumb luck.

Again, why should they stop at backup bodies? Why shouldn't they have to back up lenses and flashes? Why shouldn't they have to have insurance? Why shouldn't they have to have f/2.8 lenses?

I'll quote a couple of other respondents:

This is 2009, digi SLRs are EVERYWHERE and as we all shoot Canon here I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't all know at least one person who would lend us a body for the day.

And stop with the "where does it end??" nonsense. You know good and well what they practical limits are.

[alessandro2009]

... (renting gear over here in the UK is a pain in the butt!)
Really?

I thought that only on Italy there was this issue.

...
The bride has invested a tremendous amount of emotion into her wedding. She might be thinking with her head in trying to reduce the cost of photography, but if you fail her, it will be her heart that is forever broken.
...

I think that some photograph don't understand well the particularity of the wedding.

Originally Posted by Christopher Steven b View Post
If these were requirements for everyone starting out in photography, then there wouldn't be that many working photographers.
Fortunately this is a requirement only for these type of shoot.

Another option is rent a photocamera by a friend with one glass (example 50mm) to avoid eventual back front focus problem on the len.

[dithiolium]

A 2nd speedlite is more important than a 2nd camera. but i digress.
Anyone who has shot a few weddings knows how important it is to have backup-everything.
All these are good recommendations for new wedding shooters with zero/minimal expectations of them. But not critical, at most just learn the hard way.
Nothing wrong with shooting a wedding with a Rebel and kit lens either.
Customers get what they pay for. Cheers.

[hofajoab]

I would rather have a 2nd camera than a 2nd flash, I can take photos with a camera, can't do so with a flash :)

Don't think I could fool the B&G that I'm taking photos if i run around popping a speedlite and using an imaginary camera in my other hand shouting "tik-uut, tik-uut"..

It would generate a lot of talk mind you lol.

[elysium]

I am by no means a pro shooter but one thing I have come to enjoy about shooting with two bodies other than backup purposes is one prime per body. Whilst I do not have the same body, it helps to have one long and one short prime on a body meaning I rarely miss an opportunity.

I suppose it does depend on what you plan to shoot etc.

[CaptainK]

How is it your fault if A) you don't have a second body, B) you aren't a working pro and don't act like it, C) you've made it entirely clear to the couple that working pros have back up gear because sometimes cameras fail, and D) if they choose you, you COULD potentially have camera gear failure and therefore not be able to shoot?

You've told an adult all the info they need to make the decision they, as adults, can make. I am so lost on how this is so insane to everyone. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! :p (A little Zoolander icebreaker :lol:)

I have only just got to page 3 of his thread and realise someone may already have answered with this point on pages 3-6.

But... with refernce to the bolded bits...

You can tell them all you want. They won't appreciate and understand the risk that the photographer with a single body is prepared to take. They don't have experience of SLRs. They don't speak to pro togs on a regular basis. They don't browse forums. In short, they don't understand the significance of their decision.

My wife's neice, who got married last week and against all advice, hired a video company we'd not heard of.

On the day, the videographer hadn't turned up by 10:00 am. He should have been there scoping the place out from 8:30 and started filming at 10:00.

To cut a long story short, I got out the £150 camcorder I had in my kit bag. That had 3/4 battery charge and 30 mins worth of tape which was intended for some casual filming of my family friends after the ceremony.

I ended up videoing clips until the videographer turned at 12:00.

This as a result of her not understanding the risk we pointed out.

My neice will INSIST on all footage and give the video company my mobile number. The videographer will no doubt call me about the missing footage, at which point I will ask for some money which will then go to the bride and the B&G will then take them to court for breach of contract - after they have all the footage. BTW, the video guy lives less than 1 hour from the wedding venue, and so has no excuse.

[spxxxx]

Bobby - I think you are wrong - sorry mate

Captain K hits the nail on the head .....

As for having backup lenses - yes you should have more than one in case of failure - doesn't mean they have to be duplicates - as the second body doesn't have to be the latest and greatest.

[CaptainK]

If these were requirements for everyone starting out in photography, then there wouldn't be that many working photographers.
We're specifically talking about weddig photgraphers heere. When the B&G have spent thousands on a one-off event, it should be encumbent on the photographer to mitigate risk on his side.

As someone else suggested, maybe new photographers should start out by doing non-critical stuff shuch as portraits, etc, or even try and find gigs as a second shooter.

Regardless of how little the new photographer might be charging, word of a botched wedding will quickly put an end to many a budding career.

[bnlearle]

Captain K HARLDY hits the nail on the head. His parallel is with a professional videographer ;)

So here is what you guys are saying...

A bride and groom hired a wedding photographer. The day before, the photographer says there has been a misunderstanding - and the fees are actually a lot more than the bride and groom had thought. The bride and groom are now without a wedding photographer. They were originally planning on paying $300 (apparently it was supposed to be $1300) - they had no more than that. They have a friend who is supposed to do the music at the wedding - but that friend also has a camera and takes good pictures of other things... His camera? A film rebel with a kit lens and a crappy 75-300. They ask "we won't have a photographer... do you think you could take pictures?? We've got $300... please?!?" Under the circumstances, the friend says "yeah, sure" but refuses to be paid for something like this. All in all, it was either he shoot it or nothing at all.

You guys are saying he should turn his friends down, right?

That was my first wedding. My only point is that THIS scenario is COMPLETELY okay. And I think I'd possibly have turned that wedding down - and my close friends would be without any decent wedding photos - had I come here, asked adviced, and been pressured into saying "no, I can't shoot it... I don't have a back up..." And just to add, I didn't know a single person who had an SLR. I didn't have a dime to rent anything. I was dirt poor. My friends were dirt poor.

So to see if we're on the same page, THIS is the example I'm talking about. Would you guys tell that person to NOT shoot the wedding because he only had one camera?? If so, I entirely think you guys aren't thinking clearly. If not, we're on the same page ;)

Bobby

[hofajoab]

That situation is slightly different in that you're a friend, it's a last resort, asked the night beforehand, of course you'd shoot it and if a 2nd body was available, ideally it would be used - I don't think anyone would say "don't do it" in that case.

Completely different on how it was put across in the original post. 6 pages of nothingness - excellent work folk! :)

[alessandro2009]

Surely in your case you had two components that allow to deal more calmly the event:
- you don't ask a payment so the problem is more reduced
- furthermore, both were poor
In general problems usually have with those who are not located in the same situation.

So in your case is ok but in general i don't think is ok.

Because I don't trust much at verbal promises especially in circumstances that are so important.

Do you well but who will guarantee you that if the went wrong you would have forgiven?

[bnlearle]

From the OP...

"However, if you're starting out, never really shot a wedding, AREN'T REALLY CHARGING ANYTHING, a friend/family member who can't afford a photographer asks you to help them out, you explain you aren't a pro/never done this/don't have backup gear/insurance, and you come here asking advice that clearly indicates that you're starting out, why should you have to have a back up?"

[CaptainK]

Captain K HARLDY hits the nail on the head. His parallel is with a professional videographer ;)

The point being that the B&G don't understand the risk of something going wrong and therefore are not prepared for the consequences.

Seriously, what difference does it make if it was a videographer? My wife's neice is still massively uypset about the whole thing. It wasa situation that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Some people here don't seem to understand the risk involved in the whole thing. And yet people here have been around digital cameras for a while, read reports of failures, etc and yet think the B&G will be OK as long as they've been told about the risk?

The point is, they're too caught up in things to appreciate the consequences of things going wrong. I witnessed it first hand, last week.

Edit: Just saw the post about lack of finances - I know several people (incl. close relatives) in the business of photo/video - both say that in terms of finances they tend to be bottom of the priority list but in terms of results, the B&G and their families always expect a product that they paid top dollar for.

I'd been around the scene long enough (including a couple of years as an assistant) to know exactly what's involved in these situations and sometimes it ain't pretty. I still talk to these guys several times a week, and things haven't changed.

Thankfully I got out of the whole thing many years ago and now only shoot pictures of immedite family.

[johnstoy]

If nothing else... the second camera offers immediate access to a second lens... I often use a combination of the 24-70, 70-200 2.8IS, and the 10-22mm on my 30D and 50D...

The other day, I had an unusual event, (Horse Show) and had a 400mm f/5.6 on a tripod... the other camera had to accommodate one of the above three lenses... Now I wish I had a third body... As the horses and riders passed close by, I needed wider lenses for close ups and full body shots...

This same combo would have worked out well at an outdoor wedding by the lake too.

[SoccerRef]

....
Nothing wrong with shooting a wedding with a Rebel and kit lens either.
Customers get what they pay for. Cheers.

I shot my first wedding with a Rebel and a kit lens. (I had a few other lenses as well, but nothing real fancy).

Customers do get what they pay for, and if anybody would actually READ the Original Post, as well as all of his posts since, he has made it VERY clear that the Bride & Groom in his Scenario ARE NOT PAYING ANYTHING...

From the OP...

"However, if you're starting out, never really shot a wedding, AREN'T REALLY CHARGING ANYTHING, a friend/family member who can't afford a photographer asks you to help them out, you explain you aren't a pro/never done this/don't have backup gear/insurance, and you come here asking advice that clearly indicates that you're starting out, why should you have to have a back up?"

You are right Bobby. I agree with you 100%. Your scenario was my scenario almost exactly.

A very good friend who could not afford to pay for a photographer came to me and said, "I've seen your sports photography. Will you do my daughter's wedding? I can't afford to pay much, but I will be very grateful." I told him that I could not guarantee anything, as I had never shot a wedding, but that I would do my best.

I was lucky. I had a lot of time to prepare, so I found a local wedding photographer who was willing to let me be a second photog for a few weddings and I "learned the ropes" from him so that I wasn't completely clueless. I shot my first two weddings with him with my Rebel and realized I needed to upgrade. I was fortunate in that I was able to upgrade before my first wedding as "Primary Photog", but I still only had one 20D.

If I had said "no" simply because I had no backup, they would not have a wedding album. I have since booked three more weddings as a result of that first wedding and I have found that I truly enjoy shooting weddings. I have now been 2nd photog twice, primary photog twice and I have two more weddings booked in the near future.

My sig still shows only one 20D. It won't for long, as I am now going to start charging for my services, but I haven't been paid one dime for the first four weddings I participated in as 1st or 2nd photog, but I have gained experience that I could not put a price tag on.

Unfortunately, B&H, Adorama, nor any members of POTN take experience as a form of payment for a camera body!!

[Markitos]

Customers do get what they pay for, and if anybody would actually READ the Original Post, as well as all of his posts since, he has made it VERY clear that the Bride & Groom in his Scenario ARE NOT PAYING ANYTHING...

I, for one, DID read the OP, and never said it COULDN'T be done. But the OP says:

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

And I think all the answers to that question in this thread are valid. If you have bronchitis, and your doctor INSISTS you take antibiotics and not smoke to help cure your bronchitis, he is giving you good, sound, medical advice from his experience as a professional in that field. You certainly don't have to follow his advice, and you might get the results that you want. But then again, he might know what he's talking about.

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about people trying to give good advice. Sure, you CAN, and I'm sure many people DO successfully shoot weddings with one body. But as I wrote before, every time you do, you're rolling the dice.

[RDKirk]

I, for one, DID read the OP, and never said it COULDN'T be done. But the OP says:


Quote:
So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

And I think all the answers to that question in this thread are valid. If you have bronchitis, and your doctor INSISTS you take antibiotics and not smoke to help cure your bronchitis, he is giving you good, sound, medical advice from his experience as a professional in that field. You certainly don't have to follow his advice, and you might get the results that you want. But then again, he might know what he's talking about.

And so, the bottom line here is that the reason beginners are always advised to have a second body is because that is always the correct advice. It is never advisable to shoot a wedding with a single body.

[SoccerRef]

I, for one, DID read the OP, and never said it COULDN'T be done. But the OP says:

Quote:
So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

Sorry... Absolutes are always a bad idea...

And I think all the answers to that question in this thread are valid. If you have bronchitis, and your doctor INSISTS you take antibiotics and not smoke to help cure your bronchitis, he is giving you good, sound, medical advice from his experience as a professional in that field. You certainly don't have to follow his advice, and you might get the results that you want. But then again, he might know what he's talking about.

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about people trying to give good advice. Sure, you CAN, and I'm sure many people DO successfully shoot weddings with one body. But as I wrote before, every time you do, you're rolling the dice.

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy... I go to a doctor who is a PROFESSIONAL when I am sick and need his help. Yes, I can take it or leave it, but he is a PROFESSIONAL when I go to him, which is why I go to him. I don't go to a High School biology student who may someday aspire to be a doctor and ask his advice...

Bobby's original post was with the understanding that the photog approached by friend or relative IS NOT a professional. He is someone who has a greater interest in photography than most people do, so he will probably do a better job than Aunt Hilda and her P&S, but he is far from a professional.

And Bobby's gripe is that most photographers don't give ADVICE about what one should do, they rather INSIST that two bodies are mandatory, even for the Plain Joe who is trying to do his cousin a favor.

In soccer referee classes I talk all the time about the difference between Assisting and Insisting. Assisting is giving advice... Insisting is giving absolutes. If we give a potential photog the advice, "I know you are doing this out of the kindness of your hear, but It's a good idea to have a second body just in case..." That is a world different than "Don't even THINK about shooting a wedding without two bodies". The second isn't advice, it's an ultimatum.

And I think THAT is the point Bobby is trying to make...

[RandyMN]

From the OP...

"However, if you're starting out, never really shot a wedding, AREN'T REALLY
[B]CHARGING ANYTHING, a friend/family member who can't afford a photographer asks you to help them out, you explain you aren't a pro/never done this/don't have backup gear/insurance, and you come here asking advice that clearly indicates that you're starting out, why should you have to have a back up?"

This is an edit from what the original post read. I never saw the part about 'AREN"TREALLY CHARGING ANYTHING'.

In fact I interpreted the original post to read that there was money being charged and the job was being taken as a 'working professional' charging a minimal amount with a verbal warning that one would be acting as a 'professional' without meeting all risks that a professional would normally be prepared for.

I'm pretty sure the original post implied money was being exchanged.

I looked for a reply that directly copied the original wording but could not find it. The argument from most opposed to the OP was because one was acting as a professional and asking why two bodies are necessary.

Now that the OP has been modified, I assume this means shooting a wedding for free. Since you are shooting for free then the risk of not having two bodies should be acceptable and since the wedding couple knows that a freebie does involve risks.

It's a shame that after so many people have argued a a point, and now that the original post has been edited to better suit one side of the argument, these arguments seem unnecessarily biased.

My opinion certainly addressed the fact that the OP was acting as a professional and needs to accept that risks of wedding photography and be prepared for them.

By editing the OP my opinion has now changed. People want a free photographer then let them get free and go right ahead and photograph the wedding with only one body. That's the way I started, and once I began charging I made sure I had at least that risk handled. Having the second body is a no brainer since that should be written in the photographers wedding book of rules. In fact, I'm pretty sure you will not find one single book written that eliminates this as one of the first rules of good wedding photography 'how to's'.

[DennisW1]

Captain K HARLDY hits the nail on the head. His parallel is with a professional videographer ;)

So here is what you guys are saying...

A bride and groom hired a wedding photographer. The day before, the photographer says there has been a misunderstanding - and the fees are actually a lot more than the bride and groom had thought. The bride and groom are now without a wedding photographer. They were originally planning on paying $300 (apparently it was supposed to be $1300) - they had no more than that. They have a friend who is supposed to do the music at the wedding - but that friend also has a camera and takes good pictures of other things... His camera? A film rebel with a kit lens and a crappy 75-300. They ask "we won't have a photographer... do you think you could take pictures?? We've got $300... please?!?" Under the circumstances, the friend says "yeah, sure" but refuses to be paid for something like this. All in all, it was either he shoot it or nothing at all.

You guys are saying he should turn his friends down, right?

That was my first wedding. My only point is that THIS scenario is COMPLETELY okay. And I think I'd possibly have turned that wedding down - and my close friends would be without any decent wedding photos - had I come here, asked adviced, and been pressured into saying "no, I can't shoot it... I don't have a back up..." And just to add, I didn't know a single person who had an SLR. I didn't have a dime to rent anything. I was dirt poor. My friends were dirt poor.

So to see if we're on the same page, THIS is the example I'm talking about. Would you guys tell that person to NOT shoot the wedding because he only had one camera?? If so, I entirely think you guys aren't thinking clearly. If not, we're on the same page ;)

Bobby

I don't think that's exactly the scenario most people were thinking of. In that case out of compassion for the couple you were doing them a great favor.

Let's paint a more realistic picture:
A self-styled "wedding photographer" books a wedding, receives a substantial deposit for his services, and does indeed show up on time and ready to shoot. He has something along the lines of a 1D or 5D series camera, good glass, and enough lighting to get the job done.
For whatever reason, be it lack of knowledge, money, cheapness, or just refusal to admit that things might break or fail, he doesn't believe in needing or having a second body.

As luck would have it, in the middle of the day, his one camera fails. It's dead, not going to be able to be reset or rebooted. He's out of luck.
Unless he has a friend or business acquaintance very close by that he can call for help, this man is now what we would politely call "s**t out of luck". Not only him but the wedding couple as well, because other than snapshots taken by (hopefully) some of the wedding guests with their cameras, they're not going to have the photographs of their wedding day that they so planned on and paid for.

As you might have read in other threads about wedding mishaps, no matter what kind of compensation is given after the fact, the images and memories of that day are gone forever, period.

In your case, you were a very good friend to step in and help out as you did. No, nobody would even suggest that because you didn't have all the gear, skills, and experience of a regular, professional wedding photographer that you should have turned your friends down. Completely different situation.

[pixelharmony]

As you might have read in other threads about wedding mishaps, no matter what kind of compensation is given after the fact, the images and memories of that day are gone forever, period.


Your words ring so true to me.

Whether my shoot is for pleasure, family & friends, or for business the memories can happen only once. The wedding a very special day where thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours are invested.
Failover is key, having a second body (even a $200 investment in something old) is better than nothing. Ideally you’ll want two identical or one body that’s superior.

How many of you guys have failovers for editing? I’ve actually been in a situation where my harddrive (WD Raptor) just died after my own wedding. Luckily I still had all the pictures from my wedding on the CF cards.

It would be a nightmare for me though to tell the bridge and groom… "um sorry I feel really bad but my computer/camera/memorycard broke and I lost all your photos"

[DennisW1]

Your words ring so true to me.

Whether my shoot is for pleasure, family & friends, or for business the memories can happen only once. The wedding a very special day where thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours are invested.
Failover is key, having a second body (even a $200 investment in something old) is better than nothing. Ideally you’ll want two identical or one body that’s superior.

How many of you guys have failovers for editing? I’ve actually been in a situation where my harddrive (WD Raptor) just died after my own wedding. Luckily I still had all the pictures from my wedding on the CF cards.

It would be a nightmare for me though to tell the bridge and groom… "um sorry I feel really bad but my computer/camera/memorycard broke and I lost all your photos"


Whatever it is, I dump the cards to my internal hard drive and an external backup drive at the same time. I then make a third work folder and copy them into that where I edit. Not until everything is done do I delete any of the backup folders, and if possible I keep it on the card(s) until then as well.

[RDKirk]

Whatever it is, I dump the cards to my internal hard drive and an external backup drive at the same time. I then make a third work folder and copy them into that where I edit. Not until everything is done do I delete any of the backup folders, and if possible I keep it on the card(s) until then as well.

And that is the reason why you use numerous cards and don't simply download from the camera for each job and use the same card for subsequent jobs.

[DennisW1]

And that is the reason why you use numerous cards and don't simply download from the camera for each job and use the same card for subsequent jobs.

I haven't downloaded straight from the camera since I had a loaner Sony P&S years ago. It was a 1mp camera and didnt even have a provision for a memory card, when its internal memory was full you were done.
It was my first introduction to digital photography, and other than the immediate results it wasn't all that impressive.

[bnlearle]

Good God Almighty, I felt like I was in the twilight zone for a while there until you came along, SoccerRef ;)

I've always made it extremely clear that this starter/beginner has literally NOTHING to do with professional photography - nor is he/she even remotely close to acting like he/she is a working photographer. Typically, that starter/beginner has a relationship with the person asking - as why else would they ask someone who has never shot a wedding? Generally speaking, it's because they know them. I thought that would be a bit more obvious - but maybe I was wrong ;)

And that is the reason why you use numerous cards and don't simply download from the camera for each job and use the same card for subsequent jobs.
Are you saying you need different cards for different jobs? Like I have 10 cards that I'll use for one wedding and then a different set of 10 cards that I'll use for the next wedding? I'm lost ;)

[canonikon]

for a wedding photographer yes

[bnlearle]

for a wedding photographer yes
Did you even read the OP? Or just the headline?

[sdsviet]

my advice is the photographer should have more than one body, mine it being the second body could be a p&s if it has to come to it. take it or leave it with what u will. its more of a precaution sinces its always a crapshoot when you are only shooting with one body. it can still be a crapshoot with 2 bodies but ur odds are much much better. you dont need it but it is definitely recommended. this thread is getting a little too crazy for me.

[Markitos]

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy... I go to a doctor who is a PROFESSIONAL when I am sick and need his help. Yes, I can take it or leave it, but he is a PROFESSIONAL when I go to him, which is why I go to him. I don't go to a High School biology student who may someday aspire to be a doctor and ask his advice...

No, you misunderstood my analogy--I wasn't comparing the professional doctor to the amateur photographer... In my analogy, patient = hobbyist looking for advice, and doctor = professional photographers whom are giving advice to hobbyist.

Note that PROFESSIONAL photographers and PROFESSIONAL doctors are both.... PROFESSIONALs.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.... sheesh.

[DennisW1]

No, you misunderstood my analogy--I wasn't comparing the professional doctor to the amateur photographer... In my analogy, patient = hobbyist looking for advice, and doctor = professional photographers whom are giving advice to hobbyist.

Note that PROFESSIONAL photographers and PROFESSIONAL doctors are both.... PROFESSIONALs.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.... sheesh.


I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd be frequenting anyone whos title was "amateur doctor"

[RDKirk]

Are you saying you need different cards for different jobs? Like I have 10 cards that I'll use for one wedding and then a different set of 10 cards that I'll use for the next wedding? I'm lost

Back when I started as a PJ in the film days, I always started a new assignment with a new roll of film. Perhaps my last assigment left me with 15 exposures on the roll in my camera--no matter, I always pulled that one out, marked it, and started the next assignment with a fresh roll. I never mixed assignments on a roll.

I've always worked that way ever since: I never mixed jobs on a roll. Every new job started with a fresh roll. If something happened to one roll, it was far better to reshoot one job, if necessary, than two.

That continues with digital: I never mix jobs on a card. As with film, it means that an accident affects only one client, not two. It also means that I can hold that card as the "original" while working with copies of the files on hard disks. I won't format that card until that job is delivered.

What does that mean for my card purchases? Well, it still holds true that it's a mistake to buy more storage than you need this year--because storage is always cheaper next year (and you might have to go to an entirely new format by the time you really need more storage).

That means: Because I never mix jobs on a card, my cards need only be large enough to hold my standard jobs. Shooting portraits, I keep my total exposures to around 100. I buy cards that hold somewhat more raw exposure than that. Shooting weddings, again, I'd establish the number of cards I need for a wedding (ideally IMO no more than a capacity necessitating no more than four cards) and use that as my working basis.

Over time, as I've gone to cameras capturing larger and larger images (now up to 20+ megapixels), I've had to go to larger cards to get that 100-exposure capacity. Right now I'm using 4-gigabyte cards that hold about 140+ exposures at 20+ megapixels for portraits.

I have to have enough of those cards so that at least two of them are ready to be rotated back into use for each new job (one being a backup).

[Markitos]

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd be frequenting anyone whos title was "amateur doctor"

Can you read?

I wasn't comparing the professional doctor to the amateur photographer...

[DennisW1]

Can you read?

Pretty darn well, thank you.

(PSSSST!!!! It was a JOKE) :rolleyes:


....and hey, I thought you were unsubscribing to this thread anyway? (see, I read THAT!!)

[bnlearle]

Back when I started as a PJ in the film days...
Gotcha ;) I didn't know we were talking about portraiture at the time - as I think we can all agree that you shouldn't start shooting a wedding with cards that have the past wedding on them :lol:

[bnlearle]

The point being that the B&G don't understand the risk of something going wrong and therefore are not prepared for the consequences.

Seriously, what difference does it make if it was a videographer? My wife's neice is still massively uypset about the whole thing. It wasa situation that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Some people here don't seem to understand the risk involved in the whole thing. And yet people here have been around digital cameras for a while, read reports of failures, etc and yet think the B&G will be OK as long as they've been told about the risk?

The point is, they're too caught up in things to appreciate the consequences of things going wrong. I witnessed it first hand, last week.

Edit: Just saw the post about lack of finances - I know several people (incl. close relatives) in the business of photo/video - both say that in terms of finances they tend to be bottom of the priority list but in terms of results, the B&G and their families always expect a product that they paid top dollar for.

I'd been around the scene long enough (including a couple of years as an assistant) to know exactly what's involved in these situations and sometimes it ain't pretty. I still talk to these guys several times a week, and things haven't changed.

Thankfully I got out of the whole thing many years ago and now only shoot pictures of immedite family.
I've been around long enough to know the same. I am "those guys". Wedding photography is the only thing that I support myself and my family with ;)

Again though, you're referring to pros who charge very little, are you not? In what you say, you're dead on. When I was charging under $3k for weddings, the unrealistic expectations were through the roof (especially with the weddings that were sub-$1500). When I jumped to the high end market, people were much more realistic with expectations. Wanting simply what they paid for - my photography. I agree with you there.

However, the person I'm describing isn't a low-end pro. The person I've been describing this whole time is someone who's never shot a wedding and gets asked by aunt Patty, or something like that ;)

[bnlearle]

And I don't buy this whole "they don't understand the risk" business.

A fair amount of my weddings are international/destination weddings. I require the night before the wedding and the night of the wedding to be covered hotel/resort wise (wherever they're staying). I make it EXTREMELY clear that I think it's more wise for me to fly in two or three days before the wedding. I typically enjoy destination weddings (my wife and I experienced travelers and enjoy every second of it), so I don't charge any fees for me to fly in early. I only require that if they want me two days early, they have to cover the earlier night's room (again, wherever they are). I then go on to explain a story about a friend who had a wedding booked in Hawaii, the airline had serious problems, and the flight got delayed. He missed the wedding but had it locked in his contract that missed flights out of his control DO NOT warrant a refund. After explaining this, I leave it up to them. They are adults. They can decide for themselves. They aren't my children.

It's no different than getting insurance with your rental car. Odds are, nothing will happen. Tiny chance is my flight is canceled and I miss the wedding. You can bank on the odds going in your favor and save some money, or you can get the insurance.

[Markitos]

Pretty darn well, thank you.

(PSSSST!!!! It was a JOKE) :rolleyes:


....and hey, I thought you were unsubscribing to this thread anyway? (see, I read THAT!!)

Just checking! It's hard to read sarcasm over the internet! And I did unsubscribe, but then I checked back in.

I'm sorry that I jumped to conclusions in my exasperated state. :o

[DennisW1]

Just checking! It's hard to read sarcasm over the internet! And I did unsubscribe, but then I checked back in.

I'm sorry that I jumped to conclusions in my exasperated state. :o


Damn, if my sarcasm is that obscure I'm going to have to try harder!

[CaptainK]

And I don't buy this whole "they don't understand the risk" business.

You might, if it ever happened to someone close to you.

[bnlearle]

You assume way too much. Did you not even read my post? It spoke about a friend who missed a D wedding he was supposed to shoot because of a canceled flight...

Again, I treat people who book me like adults. Apparently you, who (if I'm understanding correctly) doesn't book weddings as you're a family photographer for family and friends, think you can make better decisions for people than they can. Fair enough. I don't.

I'm entirely capable of REALLY explaining risk to adults. I'm also capable of making them REALLY understand what I'm saying. I also believe in letting them bank on the odds that everything will be fine OR get the insurance. You don't. Again, fair enough ;) But there's "fine print" risk and then there's "in your face, you can't blame anyone but yourself because you understood everything beforehand" risk. Apparently you are saying there's no difference...

[CaptainK]

I don't assume anything. And yet , because I said "I don't to weddings anymore", you assume I've never done so. Read back and I plainly said I was in the business a number of years back.

The problem here is that we're looking at the sitaution from two differing viewpoints. You're looking at it from the point of the photographer, and I'm looking at it from the point of the customer, having discussed this with a bride at the request of her parents.

It's something we'll never agree on, so I'll leave it.

[johnstoy]

For me, it's not just a backup body... It's an additional lens, at the ready... and used alternately.

[RDKirk]

For me, it's not just a backup body... It's an additional lens, at the ready... and used alternately.

I shot a wedding back in the 70s alternating bodies. Turns out that on one camera, the lens was malfunctioning and every shot with that camera was ruined. Fortunately, I was alternating bodies as I shot.

[MT Stringer]

Whew, that was a long read! I'm not a wedding photographer but I do shoot a lot of high school sports. I started with only one body. But as soon as I could afford it, I picked up a second. Then started upgrading, but keeping two bodies. And thank goodness I did.

Last year I was shooting a regional high school girls softball game. After shooting a hundred or so warm up shots, then switching to the other camera for the lineup introductions, I settled in at third base with a 40D and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. At the very first pitch of the game, I got the dreaded ERR99 msg! No amount of trying fixes I had heard about worked, so I switched to my second camera, a 30D, mounted the Sigma on it and shot the rest of the game. Needless to say, I was very nervous. This wasn't a paying gig, but I do get paid for print sales. While I was dumbfounded and fumbling with my gear to get set up with the other camera, the batter got a base hit and was on first with no outs. Oh, god, please don't score while I'm down was all I could think of. A 1-0 game is not uncommon.

Anyway, it all worked out OK and I got shots of the game winning hit and the winning run scoring from second base so all was good. Except for the 40D which had a failed shutter.

Professional or not, I think if your photography is important to you, a second body should be in your bag. We went on a two week vacation last year and I may not ever get to go back again so I took both cameras and several lenses. Most of the gear stayed I the truck, but it was there to use just the same.

Mike

[jasonleehl]

I'm getting dizzy from the 8 pages of discussion. This is interesting because for the past few months I've friends who liked my photos (surprisingly - it's more landscape) and wanted me to cover their solemnization / weddings. Till date, I covered 3 such events.

I explained to my friends that by no means am I a professional, and that my skills is the same or marginally better than a serious amatuer. I don't ask for much cash, but I quote them the market rate for a decent photographer, and ask them to tell me what they are comfortable.

I covered the 1st and 2nd with a single camera; they worked out, is fine. Surprising, although I felt that the photos wasn't up to my expectation, the B&G were very happy. At this point, I thought about the disappointments if my equipment did fail.

I struggled with myself about having a back-up camera, but eventually rented another FF for my 3rd wedding. This time, I did better, and the B&G was happy with the photos.

Lately, I had 2 more friends asking me to help out as well. I'm now seriously thinking of buying a 5D Mark II as a 2nd camera. I won't cover the cost from them. That's for sure. But if I can afford it, I hate to see my friends in disappointment; and I could gain more exposure.

I really think that if I could turn back time, I'll be renting a camera for my 1st & 2nd wedding - asking my friend to top up slightly more to prevent failure from happening. Just my 2 cents. :)

[tim]

While we're here, I think PCs are better than Macs, MJ was assassinated, and Jack Daniels is not a real whiskey. Discuss.

[SoccerRef]

tim. AMEN!

[silent]

its definately nice not changing lenses...you could miss a photo opportunity.

[Karl Johnston]

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

Just in case the first one fails...I can't believe theres 9 pages + of this topic it's incredible how many different answers to a simple question you can get !

[Orguss]

I think that's it's up to you how many camera's you want to carry and use, it come with experiences....live and learn for those who doesn't take advise and wonder why the pro is carrying two or more bodies.

I use 3 bodies at event when my associate is doing video, his 5D becomes my 3rd camera and it's great that I dont have to change lenses as I hated it.

[PhotoMatte]

Its a hobby for me, but I am a 2 camera guy, changing lenses suck :)

When Im shooting at an event. Day at track etc. I have my 5D with 17-40 and the 40D with 70-200. And of course I have the possibility to put the 17-40 on the 40D etc. Now I am just looking for a shoulder bag to carry both cameras with lenses straight down.
Any suggestions?


I have to say, finding a method where both lenses point downward is crucial. I was shooting a wedding a few years ago and had my 2nd camera, with my 70-200 on it, strapped diagonally across my shoulders. I'd been shooting the bridal party with my main camera as they came out of a 2nd story balcony, then down some steps and along a path beside me, where they ended up walking completely towards me as they walked up the aisle. I was able to get great shots of them both on the balcony and as they came up the aisle, thanks to a gap in the hedge where I was standing. Unbeknownst to me, as I was shooting the bride on the balcony, someone was setting up a table right behind me (where the groom and bridal party were now standing) with wine, a candle and some bread. When I turned around to get ready for the bride walking up the aisle my 70-200 was poking out too far from my waist and I knocked the table over, spilling the wine on the groom and snuffing out the candle. The bread ended up in the dirt. Needless to say, the entire audience saw this; the only one who missed it was the bride (she was still hidden by the hedge as she walked from the balcony towards me). I ran into the kitchen with the wine glass, had the caterers re-fill it and set it back on the uprighted table. I was unable to light the candle again (why'd I ever quit smoking???),and the bread was still a little dusty. We all laughed about it afterwards but I would've loved to have photographed that, not done that.

[bric-a-brac]

While we're here, I think PCs are better than Macs, MJ was assassinated, and Jack Daniels is not a real whiskey. Discuss.
^^I'm a Mac user, and this post is still MADE OF WIN. :lol:^^

For me, the question of two cameras is a double edged sword. On the one hand, most beginners are charging truly beginner rates, and as a buyer you have to pony up and understand you can only expect what you pay for. unfortunately right now, it happens to be all that a lot of people can afford.

The other side of things as far as I'm concerned is entirely to ease my own conscience. I don't care if I'm shooting a wedding completely for free or being paid enough to make rent for the next year, regardless of compensation I don't think I'd let myself live it down if I agreed to photograph someone's wedding, got there, and didn't even make it as far as shooting because the damn camera went kaput. I'd feel like such an ass. it's purely a courtesy thing for me.

as a footnote, when I started shooting weddings I *did* only own one camera, but I had some good friends who'd always let me borrow a body for a day if I needed one. it's not so hard to do for most of us, as we tend to flock together.

[PhotoMatte]

i thought PC stood for Prehistoric Computer. does it stand for something else? i bet those pc users were glad when photoshop finally acknowledged them by making a pc compatible version (versions 4 and higher).

PS: when did someone assassinate michael jordan???? lol

[airfrogusmc]

And so, the bottom line here is that the reason beginners are always advised to have a second body is because that is always the correct advice. It is never advisable to shoot a wedding with a single body.

Or any paying job without backup

[bnlearle]

In regard to the above quote, no one ever questioned that piece of advice. I know I (the OP) never did. Having two cameras is definitely better than one. I was referring to those who INSIST that one MUST have two cameras ;)

[airfrogusmc]

I was just agreeing and adding in any paying job you need backup. If you're shooting for yourself and not responsable to anyone else then shoot with however many bodies you want.

[RDKirk]

In regard to the above quote, no one ever questioned that piece of advice. I know I (the OP) never did. Having two cameras is definitely better than one. I was referring to those who INSIST that one MUST have two cameras ;)

Well, you've edited your original post a couple of times, so I'm not sure what your original wording was. However, your most recent edit says,

So why does everyone ALWAYS insist with beginners that they have to have a back up body?

And the reason is still because it's the best advice. If you don't want to take the best advice, that's up to you. But don't expect professional photographers or even serious amateurs to give you anything less than their best advice. How you perform reflects on all of us.

[bnlearle]

We have a problem of language here. You seem to not see a difference between insisting and advice and I do ;) We might have to end it there. I think it's wise to advise - but kind of bully-ish to insist. There's our possible difference.

I advise people to do things the same way many here insist. I, however, believe that a beginner who's basically asked to shoot someone's wedding shouldn't have to turn it down because they don't have a back up. If you do, we disagree. If you don't, we're on the same page.

Have I confused people by looking like I'm asking for myself? If so, I'm a working pro with plenty of back up gear who triple backs up images on site. I take my professional work very seriously. This entire post has been about others who are not in any capacity professional. Hope that clears it up if there was any confusion ;)

[airfrogusmc]

Ok say you're shooting the wedding and you drop your camera. Its over now they don't get pictures because you didn't make sure you were backed up. Or the camera has a major failure. It happens and it seems to happen a the worst times. So what do you tell the bride?

[bnlearle]

I've been over this ;) In the situation I've described, you've already covered this with the bride and it's a risk she was willing to take - which is why she didn't pay for a pro ;)

You're not arguing with me about back up gear. I have it :)

[airfrogusmc]

I'm fully aware its not you but anyone that would take on that responsibility should be responsible!

[magnum703]

It just makes more sense to me to have 2 bodies. One at the ultra wide and the other in the telephoto! :)