mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
There are many and various reasons I have "go everywhere" or "beater" or "2nd body" cameras.
In general, though, I have lots of different cameras because I like using different cameras. Sometimes just to see what they're good for, sometimes for some different but particular purpose, sometimes just to see what they're like to use and sometimes because it's been cheap for me to acquire some of the great cameras I couldn't afford when I first wanted to take photographs. (I wanted an OM-2, or an FE-2, or an AE1-P, or, or, or - what I could afford ended up being an OM-20.)
Much more recently, I had (well, still have but no longer use) a Canon IXUS 40 as a "go everywhere in my pocket" digital camera. It had a hard life, surviving a substantial dent on the base I can't even recall giving it, a trip in the swimming pool and many lesser injuries. But it did it's job: I always had some form of camera with me - even if the most frequent use was photographing whiteboards, equipment assemblies and the like. But it's functions started failing me (nowdays it will zoom to longer focal lengths, but has to be power-cycled to return to the shorter ones) so it was retired. It's job has been taken over by an IXUS 80 IS, the only caveat being that the new one doesn't have a stainless-steel shell and so goes in a pouch on my belt. I doubt it would stand the abuse it's predecessor survived.
I have an Olympus Stylus Epic that's a "briefcase" camera - not quite as small as the digital but still small and easily able to stand the limited rattling around it's asked to live with. That's there for when I want a "mostly with me" film camera. More for taking "proper" photos than the whiteboards and suchlike that digital is much more suited for.
With SLRs, for my main user systems I usually have two bodies. That has generally come about because I've upgraded to a newer/better model and kept it's predecessor as a 2nd/backup body. Those often get used - one with a long telephoto and one with a wide zoom, for example. So I can switch between widely different focal lengths without having to change lenses (on those occasions I can be bothered carrying that much gear). The backup function has been used as well: on a trip/course photographing in a rainforest, for example, Dad managed to rip the hot shoe from his EOS 300D - he used my "backup" as his primary camera for the rest of the trip.
Sometimes two cameras in the same system can be used in different circumstances - I like the meter display of my FM3a better than my FM-2n in daylight, while the LEDs of the latter are much easier to see in low light.
Or, with some cameras, I just might not want to be without one. Given the lack of repair possibilities, I figure the best way to make sure I'm not without a Hexar RF is to have two of them and use them on alternate outings. That way they both get use but I figure only one is likely to be damaged or fail at any one time.
I have a camera I keep in my car - but it gets hot here in Oz in summer, so I don't want expensive optics or delicate electronics for that purpose. A Zorki 6 does the job there.
And so on. There are lots of reasons...
...Mike
In general, though, I have lots of different cameras because I like using different cameras. Sometimes just to see what they're good for, sometimes for some different but particular purpose, sometimes just to see what they're like to use and sometimes because it's been cheap for me to acquire some of the great cameras I couldn't afford when I first wanted to take photographs. (I wanted an OM-2, or an FE-2, or an AE1-P, or, or, or - what I could afford ended up being an OM-20.)
Much more recently, I had (well, still have but no longer use) a Canon IXUS 40 as a "go everywhere in my pocket" digital camera. It had a hard life, surviving a substantial dent on the base I can't even recall giving it, a trip in the swimming pool and many lesser injuries. But it did it's job: I always had some form of camera with me - even if the most frequent use was photographing whiteboards, equipment assemblies and the like. But it's functions started failing me (nowdays it will zoom to longer focal lengths, but has to be power-cycled to return to the shorter ones) so it was retired. It's job has been taken over by an IXUS 80 IS, the only caveat being that the new one doesn't have a stainless-steel shell and so goes in a pouch on my belt. I doubt it would stand the abuse it's predecessor survived.
I have an Olympus Stylus Epic that's a "briefcase" camera - not quite as small as the digital but still small and easily able to stand the limited rattling around it's asked to live with. That's there for when I want a "mostly with me" film camera. More for taking "proper" photos than the whiteboards and suchlike that digital is much more suited for.
With SLRs, for my main user systems I usually have two bodies. That has generally come about because I've upgraded to a newer/better model and kept it's predecessor as a 2nd/backup body. Those often get used - one with a long telephoto and one with a wide zoom, for example. So I can switch between widely different focal lengths without having to change lenses (on those occasions I can be bothered carrying that much gear). The backup function has been used as well: on a trip/course photographing in a rainforest, for example, Dad managed to rip the hot shoe from his EOS 300D - he used my "backup" as his primary camera for the rest of the trip.
Sometimes two cameras in the same system can be used in different circumstances - I like the meter display of my FM3a better than my FM-2n in daylight, while the LEDs of the latter are much easier to see in low light.
Or, with some cameras, I just might not want to be without one. Given the lack of repair possibilities, I figure the best way to make sure I'm not without a Hexar RF is to have two of them and use them on alternate outings. That way they both get use but I figure only one is likely to be damaged or fail at any one time.
I have a camera I keep in my car - but it gets hot here in Oz in summer, so I don't want expensive optics or delicate electronics for that purpose. A Zorki 6 does the job there.
And so on. There are lots of reasons...
...Mike
Ronny
Well-known
I agree with Roger.
J.M.
-
I understand that, but do you?
Is that "almost honest" or "almost never"?
I'm not upset at all.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
When entering a dangerous environment, one should leave their Hermes MP in the presentation case and bring only their normal, a la carte MP.
I use a similar philosophy. I'm a digital user, so when I am going to photograph on the wrong side of the tracks, I use my regular M9 instead of my Titanium M9.
FrankS
Registered User
Leica bashing aside,
If you have several/many cameras, it is natural to choose the camera most appropriate for the task, which also includes consideration of the possible damage risk.
If you have several/many cameras, it is natural to choose the camera most appropriate for the task, which also includes consideration of the possible damage risk.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
I guess I should've used some sort of emoticon... It was hardly "Leica bashing" I love Leica cameras, and even saved for a LONG time to buy an MP.
haempe
Well-known
Ok, I´m late.
I have a Bessa as alternative for the MP.
I use to carry the Bessa in "dangerous enviroment". This means, I take the camera for a enviroment, where is a chance to end the evening drunk.
Steve M.
Veteran
The X100 is a digital camera? Sorry, I'm not real up on the newest digital stuff.
If it is, it certainly isn't a replacement for a film camera. How could it be? It's apparently (and again, I have not much info on this thing) the newest digital toy.
As far as value, I sold one of the best street shooters you could get recently, a Bessa R2a w/ a CLA'd Summar. Guess I had about 600 bucks in that. Since I sold it, I've been looking at second, second string 35mm cameras. There's no way that I expect them to image like that one did, but they might be good enough. $600, to me, is an expensive camera, and I never worried about taking it or any camera wherever I went. A camera that I'm nervous about using is useless.
If it is, it certainly isn't a replacement for a film camera. How could it be? It's apparently (and again, I have not much info on this thing) the newest digital toy.
As far as value, I sold one of the best street shooters you could get recently, a Bessa R2a w/ a CLA'd Summar. Guess I had about 600 bucks in that. Since I sold it, I've been looking at second, second string 35mm cameras. There's no way that I expect them to image like that one did, but they might be good enough. $600, to me, is an expensive camera, and I never worried about taking it or any camera wherever I went. A camera that I'm nervous about using is useless.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
I no longer shoot film, and I have learned from years of bitter experience and the investment of a good deal of money that I am much better with an SLR than with a rangefinder camera.
My knockabout camera is a Canon 20D – a classic in its own time – with a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 EF lens. It’s tough, reliable, and precise, and the whole kit is replaceable for $400 or so.
My knockabout camera is a Canon 20D – a classic in its own time – with a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 EF lens. It’s tough, reliable, and precise, and the whole kit is replaceable for $400 or so.
Well, they both make photographs.
NickTrop
Veteran
How 'bout a Minolta Hi Matic 35 AF2? $10. Nice sharp 38/2.8. To me this is the quintessential "beater" 2nd-string camera. I've been shooting this one a lot lately. It's the only camera - film or digital, that I own that I couldn't care less if it was destroyed, lost, or (LOL) "stolen" (fat chance of that happening... Know what? It's still a better photographic tool than I am photographer... Know something else? Its no-name stone simple Minolta lens - probably some kind of simple Tessar design, is pretty darned good too! In its day (early-80's) I think these went for around $200 US street price, so this would be a camera that would be over $400 in today's money. Not pro gear but not "cheap".
Some of these "beaters" we sometimes laugh at aren't bad or incompetent photographic tools... They just didn't hold their value for reasons that have nothing to do with their capabilities... They're not "collector items" (a bizillion of these were sold), they're "lowly point and shooters"... not "cool" rangefinders or "Lomography-approved" gear... etc. Hence, sellers are happy to get a fiver or a ten-er for them...
Yet - I find this camera kinda endearing...
Know what? It's still a better photographic tool than I am photographer... Know something else? Its no-name stone simple Minolta lens - probably some kind of simple Tessar design, is pretty darned good too! In its day (early-80's) I think these went for around $200 US street price, so this would be a camera that would be over $400 in today's money. Not pro gear but not "cheap". Some of these "beaters" we sometimes laugh at aren't bad or incompetent photographic tools... They just didn't hold their value for reasons that have nothing to do with their capabilities... They're not "collector items" (a bizillion of these were sold), they're "lowly point and shooters"... not "cool" rangefinders or "Lomography-approved" gear... etc. Hence, sellers are happy to get a fiver or a ten-er for them...
Yet - I find this camera kinda endearing...
nosmok
Established
My MF stuff is sadly neglected these days, as is my digital. My carry-arounds rule. If I had to pick the ultimate, it would be the Ricoh FF1. Tiny, closes up on itself, meters better than I do most of the time, and SHARP. Plus it's cheap. For when I want even less of my motor neurons involved, the Fuji Silvi is the P+S I've always been looking for. My previous carryaround was an Oly XA, which I still love, but...
--nosmok
--nosmok
