Why do you need 2 Digital M bodies?

M

Ming Rider

Film, the next evolution.
Local time
9:05 AM
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
302
A lot of posters mention that they have two (or more) M8/M8.2/M9's.

I can see the argument with Film M's obviously by having a selection of different films to hand but why the necessity to have 2 digital bodies?

Is there a practical reason or is it because you have a big ego/deep pockets?
 
Last edited:
for different lenses since there is no zoom, a wide and a long without changing all the time. backup as a secondary function.
 
A backup is my primary reason. If ever something should happen to my M9 I have my M8 to fall back on. My M8 sits on a shelf now. But it's just an insurance policy.
 
Cause I learned a while back that a backup is absolutely necessary. I don't have two M8s but I have one M8 and an M4.

These days with digital, dust is even more of a factor than with film. At least with film, you got a clean frame after each shot. With digital, every time a lens is changed, more dust has a chance to collect on the sensor. I hate changing lenses for this reason.
 
I like, to have a wide and a normal lens on each camera. It is much more comfortable to shoot this way.

I also like to mix cameras with different crops, to exaggerate the difference in FOV by changing lenses.
 
Ming Rider said:
A lot of posters mention that they have two (or more) M8/M8.2/M9's.

I can see the argument with Film M's obviously by having a selection of different films to hand but why the necessity to have 2 digital bodies?

Is there a practical reason or is it because you have a big ego/deep pockets?
Click to expand...

I always found that having two cameras with me at all times was great when one broke in the middle of an expensive trip. Now for me it was two Canon A-1s, or a QL17 and a CL, but if you are a pro who can write off cameras as a valid business expense, why not have two? If you go on a shoot with one camera and it breaks early in the day, what are your options?
 
I like to shoot with two bodies to have different lenses. And then a backup of some sort (even a p+s) after that. It was never to have different films (though sometimes a 3rd body might have had something different).
 
Yes, besides the ego of course and the (formerly) deep pockets, the good reasons are as above... for reduced lens changing (convenience and preventing dirt on the sensor), and for backup. If one goes in for service, you're not "out of business" for the duration. The backup should take the same accessories, batteries, etc, and work pretty much the same so the workflow doesn't change.

I was exposed to this concept years ago in a handgun class; we were told that when we identified the gear we liked best, to go right out and get a second one for backup. My cameras seem to go in pairs too; best to budget for that! Paying for two M9 would be painful, and two Leica S2 would boggle the mind. :cool:
 
Last edited:
The only time I don't double up on a trip is if the camera body is essentially an unbreakable spacer, e.g. Alpa. Then it's 2 lenses and 2 backs...

The 'two lenses for Ms' argument is good, too: for me, 35+75. But I have one on an M9 and the other on an MP (colour + mono).

Cheers,

R.
 
I don't do two digital Ms. But I do use two digital cameras.
I include a D300 (soon to be a D700) alongside my M8.2.
I do it for two reasons.
1) A DSLR is tough to beat when you want use telephotos.
2) It's a back-up of sorts. If one camera goes down during a portrait or documentary session, I know that I'll have at least one to fall back on.
 
I'm an amateur, and only carry one camera at a time for weight reasons. Nevertheless, for those who have several digital Ms, price must be a huge factor in this decision.

I certainly have several pencils in my house, don't you?
 
wintoid said:
I certainly have several pencils in my house, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes but don't tell the doctor. They don't allow sharp objects in here.:bang:

Thanks for all the replies. Seems that I'm not a Pro, though I do have a 350D and an MTL3, though only carry one body at a time.
 
Last edited:
Like others have said, two lenses and I have to have a backup. Having said this, I am not going to buy another M9 as most of my professional shooting is with my Canons but if I shot only with the Leica, I would have two.
 
I don't have (2) Digital M bodies.....but my M6 and (1) 45' IIIC K is always hanging around my neck, next to the M8 ~ SIMPLE ~ that's enough cameras for me to work with..... :D

Tom
 
Last edited:
Up until the M8 I always travelled with 2 bodies that took the same lenses. I would typically put fast film in one, but mostly it was for backup. With digital I don't need a second body for anything but backup, and at the M8's cost I thought it was ridiculous to get 2 of them, so I got a refurbed D-Lux-3, which so far I never needed to use even once. I suppose now I could get a second M8 at their low prices today, but I've done well with the little DL3 so far and rather save my pennies for an M9, at which time I'll keep the M8 for backup. Unless I sell off all my Leica stuff in the meantime.
 
1 M9, 1 M8u as backup, 1 M8 I that is redundant, but I don't want to part with...;)
 
Ming Rider said:
Is there a practical reason or is it because you have a big ego/deep pockets?
Click to expand...

Its rarely practical, only if you are a pro or on an extended mission. Mostly its ego driven. Some gear fanatics love to gain what they imagine is status, and of course two cameras have to be better than one don't they? Its comical when you see amateur Canon and Nikon guys with two around their necks, with Leica its just tragic.

Steve
 
250swb said:
Its rarely practical, only if you are a pro or on an extended mission. Mostly its ego driven. Some gear fanatics love to gain what they imagine is status, and of course two cameras have to be better than one don't they? Its comical when you see amateur Canon and Nikon guys with two around their necks, with Leica its just tragic.

Steve
Click to expand...

Steve - I respectfully have to disagree and state: this is nonsense.

When I used (and still do) SLRs, lets say at a racing track, I have one body with a tele (70-200 or a longer prime) and another body with a normal or wide lens.

It is simply impractical and uncomfortable to switch lenses around.

The same fits to my use of RF cameras. I have a small daily bag, that fits a 15" laptop and two Leica cameras with lenses attached for work.

I choose the two cameras and lenses, to complement each other well - one with a wide, the other with a normal lens.
One camera, which I prefer to shoot (M8.2) and another one, that fairs much better in low light (R-D1 or a film Leica).

I don't know, how you base such a reasonable use of more than one camera on your "ego - statement".
Just because, one does not earn the major income with photography and uses more than one camera qualifies for having a bad character, does it?

And for the record - my cameras are taped and I don't mind the scars, as I prefer, to not get involved in camera talk, while shooting - quite contrary to the ego driven usage of "luxury gear" - isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom