One camera, one lens (not the usual thread)

[tom_uk]

Dear Joe,

Of course!

But this is also why I believe in treating terrorists like common criminals, rather than inventing special laws to glorify them.

The perception of risk and the reality of risk are often very different -- as is illustrated on this very forum whenever child photography is discussed. The big risk of child molestation is from relatives and friends of the family; the risk from strangers on the internet, or indeed from passers-by with cameras, is incalculably small.

(snipped for brevity - apologies, Roger)

Apologies for keep this thread firmly off-topic, but I found the UK Government's 'National Risk Register' a very interesting document. Here's a link:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/national_risk_register.aspx

Basically, they agree that terrorist attacks, although quite likely, don't present a very 'high risk' to the country and its society (though terrible and fatal for those involved, of course, and I don't minimise the impact on them). No, the biggest risk the country faces is a major influenza pandemic. "Up to one-half of the UK's population could become infected, and between 50,000 and 750,000 additional deaths (....) may have occurred by the end of a pandemic..... Normal life is likely to face wider social and economic disruption, significant threats to the continuity of essential services....".

I was pleased to see the document published, and disappointed that it raised so little public discussion.

 

[parsec1]

😀 better don't try that with mrs big fat nikon f5, it could bring you to jail for a long long time.





and I thought you were going to sell your m6 due to lack of reliability 😱

Oddly enough it was an attack on me that destroyed two of my F90xs by a very well known snooker player ..first name Ronnie. that bought me my first two F5s

 

[ruben]

For travel, one camera and one lens sounds to me like a really rotten idea. If the camera and/or lens stops working, what are you going to do?

More than two cameras, on the other hand, and you can be looking at a lot of weight and bulk, especially if you're walking much. There's also the point that you may spend more time wondering which camera to use than you will spend taking pictures.

The only way I'd carry one camera is with another -- good, cheap, reliable -- camera that I can leave in the room without worrying too much if it's stolen (Konica SIII in a locked suitcase) or in the hotel safe (e.g. Nikon F + 50/2, both of which are cheap nowadays) or even in my pocket if it's small and light enough (Retina IIa).

But as this is part of my livelihood I normally carry two Leicas, or one Leica + 1 MF (Alpa or Linhof). With the Alpa 12WA, the body is just a spacer and can't really go wrong, but I carry 2 lenses, 2 backs and (following the time I forgot, on a trip to India) 2 viewfinder masks.

Has anyone had a problem with taking just one camera that then breaks/is lost or stolen/otherwise fails to deliver the goods?

Cheers,

R.

Although I am not supposed to, I will go back to the original first post - kind of hijacking the thread back.

For me buying a new camera was always buiying two, at least, and then the third. No matter if we are talking about system cameras or fixed lens cameras. Although with system cameras the bulk is lesser.

Why ?
Because it doesn't cross my mind to go wherever without a back up camera.

But if I am already taking a back up camera, it doesn't cross my mind to leave it at home or at the hotel, instead of taking advantage of it, by using it.

Along my medium size photographic life, I have seen different photographers distributing the labor among the two cameras according to different perceptions.

Most take advantage of the second camera to mount on it a second lens. I myself give each camera a different ISO and/or type of film too.

Now, I don't agree that a third camera may add confusion, provided it rests in peace inside my bag - in the same way that three or more lenses shouldn't add confusion if they also rest in peace within my bag untill duty calls.

Of course that when you are walking with two cameras outside they must be of the same type, clearly differentiated by color finish or color of leather lower case.

And you should also be clear about which is your primary camera and primary lens, mounted on your primary camera.

Now, you can understand that if you dream about a Leica M7, or even a ZI, with me it is even further away: Two Leicas or nothing, two Zi's or nothing (i,e, nothing).

Yet, all this small gear talk is not but an issue of personal preferences and perhaps even personal caprice. There is no bible for creation, no bible for Photography.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Roger Hicks]

Although I am not supposed to, I will go back to the original first post - kind of hijacking the thread back.

Dear Ruben,

I didn't know you weren't supposed to! Your contribution is very welcome. All I'd add is that the two main cameras need not be identical -- pretty much any two film Ms will do, except perhaps M3 if you use 35mm (I do) or M1/MD/MDa -- and that if you carry a third, there is a fine tradition of 2x Leica + Nikon SLR for longer lenses. I used to carry that in India in the '80s (M4-P, M2, F) and indeed it's what I took to China a couple of years ago (MP, M4-P, F).

As for the earlier hijacking, that's fine too. Realistic risk assessment is a lot more important than worrying about cameras!

Cheers,

R.

 

[cjm]

Although I am not supposed to, I will go back to the original first post - kind of hijacking the thread back.

THANK YOU!

For a second I though I clicked on the wrong thread. Just looking for a little one camera one lens discussion. 🙄

 

[Migracer]

I have been on assigment for five days!

I have been on assigment for five days!

Any camera with no electrics. My first choice is my Kodak RF35 2nd choice is the Argus C3. Both of these 50mm lens cameras still amaze me with the clarity and sharpness of their output. Both are as close to indestructible as anything and are easy to jury rig to work if they fail.
I was shooting a 8 hour endurance sport car race this past week and then a charity fund drive and an awards ceremony and banquet. I decided since it was very cold I would only take what I could put in the pockets of my parka. The inventory was two Lumix digitals, and three point and shoot 35mm. A Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 loaded with Kodak Chrome 64, a Pentax IQZomm 200 with Fuji 200 and a Canon Sure Shot 60 in case all else failed. During the banquet and awards ceremonies, the digitals both ran out of power, the fast pace of the presentations did not allow for battery change they almost made it to the end. The lat ten pictures were taken with the Sure Shot 60.

 

[alcaraban]

Ummm....

Two days without shooting. Let's suppose you're in Dharamsala on March 9th, 2009, seat of the Tibetan Government in Exile, and your camera packs up. March 10th is the 50th anniversary of the Lhasa Uprising against the Chinese invasion in 1959.

[...]

Carrying a second body sounds like REALLY cheap insurance. What's an M2 cost nowadays, after all?

I never had a camera packed up, so I'm more worried about "something" ruining all my cameras (bag dropping from height, water/humidity, ...) or a fault of my own body (a broken arm e. g.).

As a mathematician, I couldn't help seeing a N-th M2 like a cheap insurance if my N-1 cameras pack up. 😉

BTW, I enormously enjoy taking/making pictures, but if I can't shot I just enjoy the trip.

Regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

I never had a camera packed up, so I'm more worried about "something" ruining all my cameras (bag dropping from height, water/humidity, ...) or a fault of my own body (a broken arm e. g.).

As a mathematician, I couldn't help seeing a N-th M2 like a cheap insurance if my N-1 cameras pack up. 😉

BTW, I enormously enjoy taking/making pictures, but if I can't shot I just enjoy the trip.

Regards

Bold 1: It only takes once... And sure, failure includes theft, damage, etc.

Bold 2: Well, yes, except that the likelihood on one camera failing is small enough that a second camera is all the insurance you are likely to need. As a mathematician, multiply the probabilities...

Bold 3: I don't, not least because I have to take pictures of publishable quality to persuade the tax-man that the trip is allowable.

Cheers,

R.

 

[alcaraban]

I have to take pictures of publishable quality to persuade the tax-man that the trip is allowable.

Oh, that's a good reason! In that case, I would find very difficult to go not with only one camera, but with only a system. When I go 10-15 days abroad without weight limitations I usually carry:

* Two SLR with primes from 24mm to 400mm (main system),
* Another SLR with two zooms covering 24mm to 300mm (nice when I have to bring things like a backpack, food for 1-2 days, etc.),
* A little fixed-lens rangefinder for non photography related situations (mostly dinner&beer related).

But all that gear is not intended for redundancy or backup, but for having the ability of choosing the right tool every time. If I had to justify the trip with pictures it would be even worse (change main system for a MF).

On the other hand, what are the more likely incidents to happen, in your view? I can mainly think about theft or some kind of fall, so a main lens (often attached to the camera and very likely to suffer the same fate) backup seems to me as (un-)important as a body backup.

 

[Roger Hicks]

On the other hand, what are the more likely incidents to happen, in your view? I can mainly think about theft or some kind of fall, so a main lens (often attached to the camera and very likely to suffer the same fate) backup seems to me as (un-)important as a body backup.

No, I have had (very rare) equipment failures. With Leicas, once with a IIIa (which took years to sort out, as it was a distorted spring) and once with an M2 (jammed shutter). I have also had a Hasselblad back unscrew itself (all 12-16 little screws fell out) and an internal lens group in a 200/3 Vivitar Series 1 unscrew itself -- both as the result of travelling long distances on dingle-cylinder motorcycles.

With theft, yes, I've lost 2x 21mm lenses (21/4 Nikkor and 21/2.8 Elmarit-M) and one 65mm lens (Super Angulon in 'baby' Linhof fit) at the same time as the Nikkor.

Damage from falls is one reason for buying Leica kit: it's surprisingly tough. My 35/1.4 once fell 6 feet onto cobbles, and a friend lost his in the bilges of his boat for 6 months (he thought it had gone over the side). We're both still using the lenses in question, though his did need cleaning and servicing.

Quite honestly, if I had 2x M + 35mm and 75mm, my basic film outfit, I'd REALLY miss the 35mm, which is why I carry either an Ultron or a Color-Skopar as a backup, in a pocket, in the car. in the hotel safe -- NOT in the camera bag. Neither lens is worth very much, and neither is very big. The 75mm would hurt financially but I could live without it for the rest of most trips.

As a matter of interest, why would you switch to MF? I seldom travel much with MF any more, at least not far, except sometimes with Alpa. Most MF is too big, too heavy, too expensive to run, too few pictures (bear in mind that a lot of what I'm shooting is illustration) and no more salable than 35mm or M8 digital.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Berliner]

Never a problem. My trips are very short & rushed, usually combining a couple days of business and 1 or 2 of pleasure. Any trip could involve any number of: Planes, trains, taxis, metro, foot, bikes, cart, and pachyderm even! An M & 2/35, is strapped around me messenger-style, or in my brief case at all times. I figure, worst case scenario--I have to buy an emergency back-up camera somewhere-but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Robin Harrison]

I agree with the two camera philosophy. I like my secondary camera to offer something the first cannot provide. My history of gear selection on big trips, with an explanation of the back-up choice:

China - Leica CL w/ 21,40,90 lenses. Secondary camera: Yashica T4 (more point-and-shootable than the CL, minimum optical sacrifice, and with a built-in flash for when required)
Peru - Hassleblad X-pan w 45 lens. Secondary cameras: Olympus XA (obvious pocketability, reliable, discreet) and Canon A1 (waterproof for a rafting trip, flash for when absolutely needed)
Colombia - Fuji GS645 w/ 75 lens. Secondary camera: Olympus XA (how I wish I'd taken more shots with the XA - the Fuji developed an undiscovered light leak and the trip was a photographic write off)
London-Mongolia - Leica M8 w/ 15,25,35,75 lenses: Secondary camera: Olympus SW 1040 (waterproof, shockproof, dustproof, in keeping with digital main camera, flash, movies)

If your primary camera satisfies 100% of all photographic opportunities, you don't have to think this way. But for me, I like to feel I'm plugging some hole left by the primary camera, even if it's used for only 1% of all shots.

 

[ruben]

In the very latest posts we are like going back to our very first photography days, in which we were not aware that lenses should be exchanged with care, gear should be packed in the most simplistic bag (and extremely well paded at home) to minimize theft, theft awareness should be our sixt instinct, and the camera should never be lifted without a strap or wrist.

What is hapening here ? What brings us to the most basic ABC ?

I know. We are missing those days when we were richer than afterwards, when the Big GAS tzunami took us off shore :bang:


Cheers,
Ruben

 

[alcaraban]

As a matter of interest, why would you switch to MF? I seldom travel much with MF any more, at least not far, except sometimes with Alpa. Most MF is too big, too heavy, too expensive to run, too few pictures (bear in mind that a lot of what I'm shooting is illustration) and no more salable than 35mm or M8 digital.

I took for granted that MF pictures would be more salable than 35mm. Besides that, I find the 36 frames too long, I think I would prefer 10-15 exposures rolls and/or interchangeable backs. Also, MF cameras don't weight much more than big film SLRs (e.g. my Maxxum 7 weights 800 g. ~ 28 oz.) so total gear weight is not too much increased (maybe I'm wrong, I should check some numbers like lenses weights).

Last but not least, I don't like too much the 2:3 aspect ratio. I find a 4:5 or 6:7 more natural especially for vertical shots. Obviously there is nothing wrong with 24x36, but with me.

As a footnote, be aware that I never had to make a living from pictures, so I could be saying even more silly things than usual.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

As a footnote, be aware that I never had to make a living from pictures, so I could be saying even more silly things than usual.

You're my sort of person, and welcome at my table any time.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Reviving this thread. I'm the one who went on many trips with only one camera, one lens. Even with one roll of film loaded.

In fact for decades we have only one camera for entire family. Guess what, it worked. FED-2, I-26M, ORWO slide film. Nothing else. Or EOS300 with kit lens. France, UK, USA trips.

I would like post here real examples. Not sure if it will keep this thread "unusual". But without pictures it doesn't mean much, IMO. Pictures might reveal if one lens and one camera is right or wrong approach.

December 2018, trip to Boston and Vermont.

M4-2 and Jupiter-3 few rolls of film and nothing else.

I already posted more from this trip in another threads and at RF gallery.

And to be honest, don't we all have second camera these days? In the mobile phone.

 

[steveyork]

For travel, one camera and one lens sounds to me like a really rotten idea. If the camera and/or lens stops working, what are you going to do?

More than two cameras, on the other hand, and you can be looking at a lot of weight and bulk, especially if you're walking much. There's also the point that you may spend more time wondering which camera to use than you will spend taking pictures.

The only way I'd carry one camera is with another -- good, cheap, reliable -- camera that I can leave in the room without worrying too much if it's stolen (Konica SIII in a locked suitcase) or in the hotel safe (e.g. Nikon F + 50/2, both of which are cheap nowadays) or even in my pocket if it's small and light enough (Retina IIa).

But as this is part of my livelihood I normally carry two Leicas, or one Leica + 1 MF (Alpa or Linhof). With the Alpa 12WA, the body is just a spacer and can't really go wrong, but I carry 2 lenses, 2 backs and (following the time I forgot, on a trip to India) 2 viewfinder masks.

Has anyone had a problem with taking just one camera that then breaks/is lost or stolen/otherwise fails to deliver the goods?

Cheers,

R.

About ten years ago, while shooting polar bears up in Churchill, Canada, one of my film cameras broke through operator error. Fortunately I had a second camera. Since then I traveled overseas with only a Leica film M, because of weight considerations, and didn't have any problems. I'm not a professional, so no absolute need to get shots and if a camera breaks w/o a backup, then I'll just enjoy the remainder of the trip with my eyes. I guess you could always use a cell phone as a backup. But usually I'll take at least two cameras, typically SLRs, with no more then three lenses, and that seems to work. I would probably go back to a single film M with one lens if my traveling involved planes, ect., and weight was again a consideration.

I've had other cameras fail over the years, but other then the aforementioned trip to Canada it has always happened at home. Just had one mechanical SLR suffer a catastrophic shutter failure -- working one moment, then not. It can happen to any camera I suppose.

A corollary to the questions raised, what's the minimum number of cameras to keep if you always want two working for outings? My answer to that is at least 4, maybe 5, taking into account breakage, cameras out for periodic service ect. This too is based on experience. where one trip I had to scrounge around to find enough working cameras. So much for minimalist me.

 

[narsuitus]

Has anyone had a problem with taking just one camera that then breaks/is lost or stolen/otherwise fails to deliver the goods?

Many years ago when I first started working for a newspaper, I usually carried only one 35mm camera. When I was given an assignment to cover the maiden voyage of a new plane that the University had just purchased, I decided to borrow an extra camera to take with me.

At the beginning of the flight, my 35mm camera stopped working. Thank goodness, the borrowed Yashica medium format camera allowed me to complete the assignment.

 

[Godfrey]

The only time I've ever had a camera fail when on a trip is when my friend's son, running to get into the picture with his mom and dad, hit my arm and launched my Rollei 35 Classic Platinum off the patio onto the concrete driveway below. That was an expensive repair. I bought a disposable camera which I used for the rest of that segment of the trip.

I almost never carry more than one camera anymore, and usually at most two lenses. My last trip I carried nothing but the Light L16. It did a superb job.

G

 

[michaelwj]

And to be honest, don't we all have second camera these days? In the mobile phone.

This.
Unless it a photography centred trip (in which case take it all), a phone will suffice until I can either get to a shop and buy another camera or get home.

I forgot my film once heading overseas for a week, had only the half roll that was in the camera. Didn't go past a shop where I could buy film, so just used my phone once I ran out of film (I also didn't realise until I went to reload that I'd forgotten it). Still a great trip.