Do you use two bodies?

Even using disparate bodies works for me: a RF with a wide angle lens and an SLR with telephoto.

But I would not chose to travel like this. Having bodies with different lens mounts is inefficient in terms of weight.
 
Last edited:
I've had two bodies that are the same: Pentax P3n. I've used them on trips that way I have two lenses and one body with color and one with B&W. I've also used two not the same bodies. One for open shade or cloudy scenes and one for sunlight; these of course are B&W.
 
I have two identically setup Sony Nex-3's for quick seamless digital with legacy lenses. My Canon film bodies are all different. VT, 7, 7S, and P, which all operate somewhat similarly.

When I had Leicas, I switched between M5, M4-2, and M2 without issues, even under pressure situations.
 
Having two cameras that accept the same type of lenses (same mounts) offers more flexibility that using two cameras with different mounts. These days, I sometimes bypass this rule,and I use one digital camera and one film camera.

It used to be that some people have a color film in one camera and a B&W film in the second body.
 
I shoot with either a triplet of bodies (Nikon F2, FA and FM) or a quartet (Nikon S3, SP, CV R2S and Nikon F SLR) and in either case the body conrtols are essentially identically placed.
And with the exception of one lens (Tamron SP 35~105 2.8) used with the SLRs which focuses "backwards" (or Canon-like), all the others' aperture and focusing rings adjust properly in the directions of Nikon lenses.
So no, I don't have any trouble using multiple bodies and lenses.
 
I shoot with two or on occasion three bodies. Slow fine grain BW, a 400 BW and maybe one with either Ektar or Provia 100. If they are Leica Ms they are close enough for it to be easy to work with. Jim
 
Currently in france and have, m6 with 35/2, pentax 67 with 105 and nikon fm (for my 18-35)

All rather different but hopefully ill manage
 
Yes, normally the M3 for colour and the M2 for black-and-white. I find the M2 very hard to use with a 90mm lens and likewise the M3 is less convenient with a 35mm lens because I need an external VF. So there iis another reason to have both - and together they cost 1/5 of the price of a new M9. That's about 20 years' worth of film and processing.
 
Thanks everyone for sharing!

Great range of responses here, and I'm interested to see that a few people share the same preference I have for working with two cameras with similar controls. I take Frank's point that for leisurely shooting it should not matter much. I have become very used to the Leica M control locations, and I'm pretty comfortable with that. In contrast my Pentax SLR has the focus ring turning the wrong way and the aperture ring close to the body (instead of in front of the focus ring as per Leica M).

I collected a cheap Olympus OM-1 recently, and after shooting a few rolls I realised why it's so comfortable - the lens controls (focus and aperture) mimic Leica M. Now I'm hunting for an OM 85/2 lens to give me a SLR/lens combination that will complement the Leica M with 35mm lens, as I think the two would work well together for me. Cheers! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom