Why do Pros Use Inferior Camera as a Back-up

Personally I use a Full Frame and a Crop camera. Neither is really a "back-up" they are both prime cameras that provide a lot of different options with the same set of lenses but one is always there in case the other fails.

For a long time, I shot with a 5D and a 40D. The 40D was the backup. Why? Simply put, I didn't have the money to buy two 5D bodies.

When I got the 6D, the 5D became the backup. Why? Because I didn't have the money to buy two 6D bodies.

Both the 40D and the 5D are still capable, worthwhile cameras. Why not continue to get use out of them?

BushWacker wrote in post #17437023
Personally I use a Full Frame and a Crop camera. Neither is really a "back-up" they are both prime cameras that provide a lot of different options with the same set of lenses but one is always there in case the other fails.

I have the same. Doing the 5DII and 7D for years as my "combo" to get different shots and if I had a buddy to help, they got to use one. I am now, hopefully, getting the 7D II soon and will be using that often. But there's no main and second for me. I know some pros want their kits to be the same so they can switch off easily and not have to adjust to the crop or FF, but I like it for my work flow and style.

As for the OP's question, it is a valid one, and I appreciated all the responses so far. Good food for thought.

Larry Johnson wrote in post #17426940
Like many, I've been looking to upgrade cameras. One of the cameras that I'm considering is often described as "a good back-up but not my first choice." (I'm assuming that a back-up is a spare that is used if something goes wrong with the first choice camera.) Why would someone use what they consider to be a second choice camera as a back-up. If it's not your first choice, why would you have it as a spare. On the other hand, if it's good enough as a back-up, why not use it as your first choice. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with cost, but that just doesn't seem logical to me from a professional stand-point.

For me, living in an area of VOG and salty sea air, I use a back-up so that I don't need to change lenses in the conditions I shoot in. That's the reason I have two 5d II's.

This thread supposes that we are all wedding and event photogs......So, then look at the best cam you can afford and multiply by 2. Duplicity is paramount and the only solution to your question simply put.

I see "inferior" camera bodies as my old allies....the ones I did not sell....ready for the job because I know them but not my necessary first choice.

A superior violinist can break a string and transpose the rest of the score on the remaining three. A superior photographer is best served by a variety of cameras and know how to use them interchangeably. Possibly even being better than planned.

Too much nerd talk here....

UFObuster wrote in post #17475190
This thread supposes that we are all wedding and event photogs......So, then look at the best cam you can afford and multiply by 2. Duplicity is paramount and the only solution to your question simply put.

I see "inferior" camera bodies as my old allies....the ones I did not sell....ready for the job because I know them but not my necessary first choice.

A superior violinist can break a string and transpose the rest of the score on the remaining three. A superior photographer is best served by a variety of cameras and know how to use them interchangeably. Possibly even being better than planned.

Too much nerd talk here....

No assumption was made regarding the type of photography. In fact, the review I was referring to in my initial post was for a 7Dii which is generally advertised as a sports and wildlife camera.

This is not nerd talk at all. I simply wanted to understand why reviewers would describe a new camera as a good back-up to a higher model camera.

Yes, I understood your post and appreciate your perplexity....how can a "good" camera be an inferior back-up....My reference to 'nerd talk' was to a number or your responses. A lot of others responses were right beside our question. The "back-up" is often the discarded mistress. But, in every other way a useful partner. Few of us can afford the route of 2x the best cam we can own. It's always in the skill...

Larry Johnson wrote in post #17426940
Like many, I've been looking to upgrade cameras. One of the cameras that I'm considering is often described as "a good back-up but not my first choice." (I'm assuming that a back-up is a spare that is used if something goes wrong with the first choice camera.) Why would someone use what they consider to be a second choice camera as a back-up. If it's not your first choice, why would you have it as a spare. On the other hand, if it's good enough as a back-up, why not use it as your first choice. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with cost, but that just doesn't seem logical to me from a professional stand-point.

The OP sets up two discussion factors: "Choice" and "professional stand-point."

I buy the camera that makes me the most money in what I do. When I upgraded from 5D to 5DII, I immediately started making more money from the very first job I did with it than I could with the 5D. The 5DII replaced in my bag both the 5D and my Mamiya RZ67. It enabled me to make satisfactory 30x40 family portraits from a digital camera that I couldn't make with the 5D, and I sold one on the very first job.

But a digital Hasselblad wouldn't make me any more money. I wouldn't sell any larger or more with a Hasselblad than I do with the 5DII. So I won't buy a Hasselblad.

Inasmuch as the 5DII makes more money than the 5D, "I can't afford two of them" is false economy. It pays for itself and its backup.

If I had only one 5DII and broke it, the 5D would not be a satisfactory replacement--"skill" isn't an issue. I had skill to make money with the 5D before the 5DII came out. But the 5D has less money-making potential.

Point taken. Your situation is exceptional and well planned. True, the OP question left some 'wiggle room'

I think that the question can be better answered if we reverse it.

"All pros shall be using an inferior camera as their primary and a superior camera as a backup"

Hmm... that won't fly....

Let's try this one:

"All pros shall be shooting with an identical pair of cameras"

That's better... Until it comes to replacement time...

Example.. Pro shooting two 5DII and wishes to upgrade. Would he buy two 5DIIIs or 1 Dx and keep one 5DII? (For more or less the same budget...). Chances are (for an all around photographer) that he would go for the 1Dx

Unless money is no object!... But then, you don't talk about a business (a pro)... You are talking about a rock star!

I read somewhere that rock star photographers RENT.

MakisM1 wrote in post #17477570
Let's try this one:

"All pros shall be shooting with an identical pair of cameras"

That's better... Until it comes to replacement time...

Example.. Pro shooting two 5DII and wishes to upgrade. Would he buy two 5DIIIs or 1 Dx and keep one 5DII? (For more or less the same budget...). Chances are (for an all around photographer) that he would go for the 1Dx

Unless money is no object!... But then, you don't talk about a business (a pro)... You are talking about a rock star!

I read somewhere that rock star photographers RENT.

For a professional, money is always an object--there are always things money can be spent on, such as little Judy's braces, a weekend away with the missus, a workshop in video, or if nothing else a bit more cash into the 401K.

Back to my own example, as a portrait artist a 1Dx would not make me any more money than a 5DIII--that would be spending money that could have gone for little Judy's braces. In fact, a 5DIII would not make me any more money than my current 1DII cameras...which is why I haven't bothered upgrading to the 5DIII.

For a professional, the decision to upgrade cameras is just like the decision to upgrade anything else we use in business. How do we decide we need a new vehicle? Do we upgrade just because the manufacturer has a newer model in the showroom? Of course not.

My point is, would you buy doubles? I think the answer is not...

MakisM1 wrote in post #17477630
My point is, would you buy doubles? I think the answer is not...

at least one pro does. see above posts.

maybe the tern "inferior" wasn't the correct term to use. "Lower model" may have been a better term. Still, it implies relative inferiority.

MakisM1 wrote in post #17477630
My point is, would you buy doubles? I think the answer is not...

Of course I would...there is no other logical business choice.

I did not "overbuy" with the my primary camera--I bought precisely what met my requirements, nothing more.

If the lesser camera meets my needs, it was not necessary to have bought the more expensive camera in the first place. But since my primary camera does no more than meet my needs, then a lesser camera is no back up at all.

I am sorry. I haven't seen any photos of yours, so I don't know what kind of portrait artist you are. If all you do is studio shots with the subject centered and you have full control of the light, you are right of course. You don't need anything better than a pair of 5DII's.

If you do outdoor portraits, with the subject off center, then you'd want the off center AF of the 5DIII and the AF point lightmetering of the 1Dx.

There is an economy of leapfrogging the technology. If you can do without it, more power to you.