Second Body

[Rich Silfver]

No, this isn't one of those 'I'm trying to decice if my second body should be black or chrome' 🙂 .... rather it's about why people need a second body.

I've taken photos on and off since maybe 1997 or so and I must admit that personally I've never felt the need for a second body. A second or even third lens sure - but body? No.

I find this particularly interesting when it comes to rangefinder users - part of what attracted me to the rf cameras are;
- minimal weight and size, and
- back to basics (sort of).

Adding a second body wipes out the size/weight advantage and since I am surely not a professional photographer in any sense of the word I can't even begin to imagine what missed shots would be worth the pain of lugging around a second body.

I think I've heard all the reasons;
"one for colour and one for b&w" always crack me up especially when people add that 'and i use b&w in the black body and colour in the chrome'.
Let's get real here for a second - that is simply trying to justify your need of a new toy! 🙂
Have I ever felt that I wish I had a colour film loaded when coming across a particularly nice colourful scene? Sure - but so what. There are also times I don't carry a camera. Such is life.

In addition to the above I once read - and agree with - that you can never truly excel in both colour and b&w photography if you keep going back and forth between them.
The reason for that statement is that when 'seeing' b&w images one focus on pattern, shadows, contrast, etc and when 'seeing' colour one look at complimenting or conflicting colours, colours isolated, etc. Two ways of seeing that is so different so that if one is really intertested in honing ones photographic skills one shouldn't mix too much (and if one is in the market for a second body one would think that that person IS serious about photography)...

I also don't carry my camera in a bag like domke, etc - I carry it out in a half-case and/or strap. If I truly would use a second body I would need to carry it the same way (heck if the opportunity comes up I want to be able to use the camera quickly).
Two cameras carried like that attracts a lot of attention - gone is your 'stealth mode'. (Not to mention that they would bang against eachother and drive me crazy worrying about the pretty expensive glass).

If you want a second body to 'use when the other is in the shop' I'd say change your camera brand. If you're a non-professional user your camera should be able to be with you atleast 95% of the year. The remaining 5% take the 25 dollar GSN out for a spin - you know you've neglected it and it needs some shutter exercise 🙂

I would honestly be really interested in hearing people's argument for getting a second body - maybe there are good reasons and I've simply missed them.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Very well said!
I too have weighed the reasons for needing a second body. My wife and I have had a portrait business for quite some time (on the side). When shooting on location we always used a medium format ('blad) for the main camera and 35mm (Nikon F4) as backup. We never had to use the backup. That was when the money and the shots were on the line, it was comforting to know the shoot could continue if there were malfunctions.
As far as my personal photography is concerned, I don't see a reason to carry a second body for all the reasons you have so eloquently stated above. Another reason would be to limit exposure, I've already had one Leica stolen, what if I had two in that camera bag?
My only reason for wanting another "M" body would be to allow myself and my boys to shoot along side each other, now that would be cool!
The question now is "how many rangefinders are enough? I have 8 and can only use one at a time, I know others here can triple that number!

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Richard, I'm a two body man, a two-beer commander, a two car garage owner and I like things in twos, like hands, feet and computers. 😉 Heck, everything except wives!!! When it comes to that, I'm strictly and happily monogamous. 😀

But, all in all, I wound up with two Leicas... out of mischief, bad luck or call it how you like it. I was (yes, I admit) between a black and a chrome body when I got my first, and seeing that a lot of the used available lenses were in silver chrome, I got my first Leica in silver finish.

It turned out to be a troublesome one. Light leaks!! 😱 😱 😱 Since it was under the seller's warranty, I sent it to the designated shop, but I already had decided to sell it.

So, to compensate the future absence, I bought a black one, traded my first 'cron for a black one and got ready to sell the silver body.

The camera came back from the shop; they were unable to fix something they couldn't reproduce, so they changed the light baffles and sent it back with a prayer. When I saw it in my hands again... I decided to keep it and, oddly enough, pair it with the 'cron for B&W, and get me another lens for the color film-loaded black body. I did get additional glass, of course.

Well... I've been happy ever since! I sometimes carry only one camera... in a Domke bag. When I need it, I pull it out and use it. When I'm done, it goes back in the bag (which also acts as storage unit). And, speaking of bags, I have another where the two bodies and three lenses with flash fit in. It's a LowePro, with lots of pockets, zippers and room for film and sandwiches. And I do the same thing: I pull out the camera body-lens combination I want, use it for a while, and put it back in.

But then... regarding the mastery of B&W and color... I never try to fool anyone with trying to master either medium. I just like to take pictures! 🙂

See, there are lots of reasons to have two camera bodies... They make great toys!

 

[Rich Silfver]

Francisco, your story is a little bit different - and how you ended up with two bodies - than most others.

The decision to have more than one camera body is an individual decision noone can make apart from yourself and that's fine.

What I'm trying to understand are what true benefits there are with carrying two bodies with you - as an amateur - that outweighs the downsides I listed above.

I've read A LOT of posts - especially on photo.net - where 'what second body should I get' was discussed at length without anyone seeing to question WHY get a second body 🙂

 

[back alley]

ok richard, i think i see your 'plan' here.
a while back you posted in the photo.net leica forum and caused quite a stir, asking about leica quality and the lack of good photos posted there.

then you bought a leica!

now, here you are challenging us about the need for a second body.

you're gonna buy another one, aren't you??!!

joe

 

[Rich Silfver]

I'm all about getting second, third and fourth opinions 😉

 

[back alley]

so, have you picked it out already or just started looking for one?

joe

 

[Peter]

Alright! I confess! I have three Bessa R2s because I want to make sure that I will still have a R2 when I am 60! 😛 Personally I seldom bring two bodies for any shoot as the main reason in using RF is the weight factor. Two R2s and lenses are not really light and I have a friend who used to say that shooting ability is inversely proportional to the weight of equipment carried. I would say for my case, the second or the third body is strictly an insurance policy that I would still have a RF to play in my old age! Voigtlander products are so cheap and fun to use! 😀 If I were to buy a Leica body, I would probably leave it in the dry box for fear of damage or theft! 😛

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Knowing Richard... he's lined up already a M4P, a M5 and a couple of M6 Classics.

BTW, Richard, you're a very understanding guy. Before my Leica mishap I considered it an act of snobism to carry a backup camera or to claim both were loaded with different kinds of film.

I guess that makes me a snob... 🙁

 

[Rich Silfver]

A snob is an attitude - not what you own 🙂

And no - I honestly don't have any serious interest in a second Leica. The reason I started thinking about 'a second body' was actually this past wekeend when I was about to go out and toyed with the idea of bringing an Oly 35SP along as well. But after carrying both of them for 5 feet I decided against it. It felt like overkill 🙂

 

[back alley]

first, i don't really think that carrying 2 bodies is all that tough.

if you're just walking around looking for a shot then sure one body, one lens is just fine.

but if you are on a mission then 2 bodies and 2 lenses is a must.

for almost 20 years i was on the photo crew of our local (& very good) folk music festival. my job was to document the festival.
i carried 2 eos bodies and 2 zooms, 17-35 / 80-200. i was in constant motion and tried my best not to miss a shot. i used every focal length and when one camera ran out of film the other was hoisted to my eye.
one camera and lens would not do.

now that i'm a paying customer and i shoot for myself and don't concentrate on the performers i use one camera and change lenses as i feel the need.

but...i'm always looking around for another bessa r body, at just the right price.

joe

 

[Rich Silfver]

Joe, keep in mind that the question was especially aimed at 'if you are an amateur/non-professional' like myself - a professional or paid photographer have very different needs 🙂

 

[back alley]

richard, i'm not a pro and while i have been paid for some things i have done in the past, i'm pretty much in the same boat as you now.
i think it's clear that i was saying if you're a amateur shooter then one body - one lens is the ticket. although part of me always wants a second body.
as a festival shooter i was a volunteer, but the thrill was being a 'photographer' for the weekend, in that, my sole purpose was to photograph. in that there was a great need to have at least 2 bodies so as not to miss a shot.

i'm not really argueing with you - you are mostly right about not needing another body for everyday amateur shooting.

but - for getting the shot - anything i need is what i want!

joe

 

[Laika]

Flexibility, convenience and to have a back up are my main reasons. I haven’t really travelled much since getting into RFs but when I do travel two bodies are a must for me. My normal travel gear is a pair of manual SLR bodies and 3 or 4 primes. One is normally always loaded with fast neg film and the other slow chrome or B&W. For me photography is only part of travelling, not the reason I travel. I often find myself outdoors shooting off some chromes is a square or of a cityscape then literally second later I’ll walk into a church or dark building , I’ll discreetly switch bodies and continue…. If I have to stop and fumble around switching films three or four times a day, writing number on leaders and wasting frames its going to impact on my experience, its also going to annoy my girlfriend and that going to annoy me as well 😛 … On the back up issue, once I was caught out in heavy rain with my Nikon F3, I did keep it under my coat most of the time but it did get pretty wet and with the combination of my body heat the viewfinder fogged internally so I could no longer see thru it 🙁 I’m sure if it wasn’t so cold the would have cleared itself but the camera was out of action till that night when I could give it a gentle warming with a hair drier in my hotel room, my second body was handy to have.

I also like the one lens, one body travelling light thing with my RFs but when it comes to extended travel on the other side of the world on a trip that has sucked up all my savings for a year I wont be putting all of my eggs in one basket so to speak, regardless of the camera brand.

 

[pvdhaar]

Twenty five years ago, I bought a Zenit E, a Soviet mechanical single lens reflex. It was all I could afford and it was all I had for quite a while. It was also the only camera I took on holidays and it never ever failed me even once in over fifteen years.

About seven years ago, I 'upgraded' to 35mm SLR cameras of a well known Japanese brand, because they were supposed to be so much 'better'. In other words, I had swallowed all the advertising; line, hook and bait in a single gulp. Oh boy, what a bummer. I never had so many glitches and I really needed to get a second body even when I was out a single day. But it wasn't really any better.

I had a mechanical one of which the shutter curtains would invariably get stuck in the middle of a roll, and an AF one which would go into a stupor when held vertical (the ISO button would engage, and lock out all other functionality). The AF one was traded in again two times for models up the line, and it wouldn't really get any better (I'm sure it's just me because they didn't really fail, they just wouldn't do what I wanted them to do).

Two years back I decided to abandon my 35mm SLRs altogether for a single rangefinder camera. It's been working so dependently during this time, that I now feel comfortable again when I'm out with a single camera.

From this you can draw your own conclusion about what I as an amateur photographer think about this whole second body stuff.

 

[RML]

Richard, I've found myself carrying two bodies a couple of times now, all as an amateur. My first time was when I was shooting the marathon here in Amsterdam last year. My Bessa L + 25/4 and a FED2 + 50/2 went along with me. I'm glad I did as the sports action was swift and past by in seconds. When I had exhausted the FED I shot on with the Bessa. When the FED was exhausted as well the action was over as well (at least where I was standing at that moment). I had a breather and reloaded the cameras, then went on my way to the finish line where I shot some more.
All the other (at least three) times have been in India on holiday. Instead of switching lenses (LTM lenses are a drag to switch, as you know) I just switched between bodies, the Bessa L + CV 25/4 and the Bessa R + J-8 50/2.
One camera was hanging from my neck, the other was in a Zing bag hanging from my belt or in a belly pouch (whatyacallthesethings?). A handful of rolls of film, sunglasses, and a few other items went in as well. The extra weight was negligible.

My beater M2 is on the way and I doubt I'll get another Leica very soon, but when I go on holiday or visit some (family) event I often won't leave home without 2 bodies. The M2 with its M bayonet might make me change my mind, though, as switching lenses is much easier and less fraught with danger of dropping them.

 

[GeneW]

Re: Second Body

In addition to the above I once read - and agree with - that you can never truly excel in both colour and b&w photography if you keep going back and forth between them.
The reason for that statement is that when 'seeing' b&w images one focus on pattern, shadows, contrast, etc and when 'seeing' colour one look at complimenting or conflicting colours, colours isolated, etc. Two ways of seeing that is so different so that if one is really intertested in honing ones photographic skills one shouldn't mix too much (and if one is in the market for a second body one would think that that person IS serious about photography)...

Richard, I think there's a lot of truth in this. In my film SLR days I had two Olympus OM-1 bodies -- black for B&W and chrome for, you guessed it, colour slides. I'd go out in the field and shoot all chrome and the black body was just extra weight. I'd do some street shooting and the chrome body was just extra weight.

I've been experimenting recently with shooting col negative film to cover both aspects in a single body. Technically it works not badly, but I know I don't shoot as single-mindedly for B&W as I do when I'm shooting B&W film.

Similarly, I can't mix digital and film in the same outing. Just doesn't work for me. I start shooting digital and get into a digital mindset and the film cam is just extra weight. I need to leave the digital at home when I want to shoot film.

What I haven't yet found is a trad B&W 400 ISO film that looks really good when scanned. I shoot mainly Tri-X and HP5+ and neither looks as good in a scan as they do in a real darkroom print. I don't mean aesthetics -- I mean the overall graininess and look of the image is different. Anyone got a fav B&W 400 film for scanning that is NOT chromogenic?

Gene

 

[back alley]

gene, are you chromophobic?

joe

 

[Oldprof]

Re: Second Body

... I think I've heard all the reasons; "one for colour and one for b&w" always crack me up ... Let's get real here for a second - that is simply trying to justify your need of a new toy! 🙂 ...

Not necessarily so. When I am doing my anthropological fieldwork I use two cameras - one with Kodachrome and the other with Tri-X for black and white. I need the Kodachrome slides for classroom and professional meeting presentations and the black and white for illustrating book chapters and journal articles (most publishers won't do color because it is prohibitively expensive). You can make black and white prints from Kodachrome slides, but the quality suffers. I prefer to have original black and white negatives along with my slides.

 

[GeneW]

gene, are you chromophobic?

joe

lol, Joe, maybe I am 🙂

If I'm going to shoot b&w I prefer to do my own developing. That's why I'm looking for a traditional film or a T-grain film that scans well.

Gene