Anybody only use 1 body?

[slipper]

Is it that much of a hassle to just have one camera body and 2-3 lenses to switch off from? I cant afford 2 bodys.


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

[newbie_photog]

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

hope this helps
Jared

[cosworth]

I'm a firm believer that the second body should be manned and not sitting idle. Myself and another POTN'er are planning to do some weddings tag team. If one goes south, you have an assitant or someone to shoot while you pee.

We do plan large weddings though...

[mmahoney]

Originally Posted by slipper

I cant afford 2 bodys.


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

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

[howzitboy]

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

[philpereira]

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

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

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

[liza]

I shoot with two and have a borrowed 3rd camera handy in case of equipment failure. You should always be prepared for the worst possible scenario, especially if you're accepting money for your work.

[Tish]

+ 1 to everyone else, of course. Check out recent threads by Tim & Banbert on why backup equipment is so necessary.

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

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

[Bubble]

idealy, 2 bodies would help. My backup body has been sitting in the trunk for awhile now.

[Scott_Quier]

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

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

[Philco]

The bottome lines is that something you shouldn't miss will happen either too close to you or too far away from you depending on which lens you have mounted and you will not get the shot because you're stuck with one choice at any given time.

[Phil V]

Originally Posted by slipper

Is it that much of a hassle to just have one camera body and 2-3 lenses to switch off from?

Not what you'd call a MAJOR hassle.... until it breaks.
If you're a primary shooter at a wedding - even as a favour, you should at least hire a 2nd body. If you're setting up in business, backup gear is as essential as primary gear.

[jt168]

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

[Naturalist]

When shooting outdoors with film in my Canon Elan II and A2 I loved having the second body and it wasn't just for back-up either. On one body I kept the shorter lens and on the other I kept the longer one and just bounced between the 2 as needed.

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

[Orbit]

I've been lucky and most of the time I used just one body. After a couple of months, I got a 10D as a backup since I couldn't keep trusting in my good luck for much time.