Why 2 bodies?

[jrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tiptoed right up to the edge of buying another body today, and then I tiptoed back. I used to shoot archaeological photography under harsh conditions, and sometimes had as many as four cameras around for fear of failures (desert, massive amounts of dust, gallons of sweat turning the dust to mud, etc.) Also, we were shooting film, both b&W and color, and since archaeology is destructive, you *must* get the shot -- it's not going to be there tomorrow. So I understand backups.

 

But as an amateur now, shooting only when I please, I'm wondering about the utility of a second Leica. It's not like you can have different films in the two cameras. And carrying two bodies so you can have two lenses available defeats the Leica ideal of small, compact and handy, does it not? You could carry one body and four lenses in the same space.

 

Am I just suffering from a destructive attack of Gear Acquisition Syndrome?

 

JC

[Shootist]

If you're a amatuer and don't do photography for a living then I don't see the need for 2 bodies. That's not to say you can't or shouldn't have a backup.

A Pro would want 2 of the same bodies so they can go to the second if the first one fails and use all the same lenses and so they don't have to think about what is different on the backup. They can think about getting the shot, not how to use the camera and what is different from one to the other.

 

If you've got the money then you can have 2-3-4-whatever number of Leica M8's, or any other make/model you choose.

[adan]

1) Do not feel you need a second body unless you can justify it. And at $5000 for a spare M8 vs. $800 for a spare user M4-2 or some such, that can mean a lot of justification.

 

2) Backup for me is critical. Regardless of whether it's a pro assignment, or something on spec, or just a vacation, I want to be as sure as reasonably possible that I can come back with the goods. A second body doesn't halve your chances of complete camera failure, it cuts them exponentially (if, say, the chance of one camera's failing is 1 in a thousand, the odds of both cameras failing at the same time is more like 1 in a million).

 

But then I tend to keep 40 lightbulbs (or batterys, or rolls of paper towels) in the house at once, just to guarantee I won't have to drive to the store at an inconvenient time.

 

3) I use two lenses regularly that require accesory finders (15mm and 21mm). Keeping a different finder on each body saves a lot of time ( I don't like the multi/zoom finders as too big). So, of course, does having two lenses mounted and ready to go. While others may go out with one body and 4 lenses in a bag, I may go out with 2 bodies and two lenses and NO bag. And never have to expose the sensor(s) to dust.

 

4) Finally, of course, I can always choose to leave the spare at home if I just want the "one camera, one lens" experience.

[tbarker13]

I'm certainly not a pro, though I occasionally use my camera to supplement my newspaper reporting.

So I can afford to go without a backup. However, after spending nearly 3 frustrating months without my M8 while it was being fixed, I've decided to get another R-D1 to use as a backup. It'll also make me feel a whole lot better about my summer travel plans.

Still, I could not imagine a second M8 unless my professional life depended on it.

[ken_tanaka]

 

Am I just suffering from a destructive attack of Gear Acquisition Syndrome?

 

JC

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident."

[colorflow]

I am not a pro either, but have been tip toeing towards a second M8 also. I have always carried a backup ever since my Pentax shutter got mangled during the middle of a trip to the Holy Lands years ago. Since then it had either been a Nikon F3 and FM2, or a M3 and M6TTL before I went digital with the M8. I also always carried a small point and shoot for the convenience.

 

So now I am in the same quandry. My thought process is:

 

1. A backup is a must for expensive or hard to come by trips. e.g. don't see myself going to the Holy Lands in the near future.

 

2. Seems a pity if M8 fails and use something else while over $10k of Leica glass sit in the hotel room.

 

3. Obviously a lot less lens changing with two M bodies

 

4. Could bring the M6 but shoot film and scan is just not as convenient for me.

 

5. The RD-1? Still not inexpensive and older technology.

 

What's keeping me from taking the plunge other than the $5k :

 

1. Waiting for the dust to settle on M8 reliability

 

2. Will there be a new and improved M8 (not the next model) within say 12 months?

 

So far haven't tip toed to the edge yet.

 

Alan

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28cron on one body, 75 on the other during daytime.

35lux on one body, 50lux on the other at nighttime.

 

Always a wide and a portrait lens available in an instant with two different size neckstraps will make for quick reaction time in different situations and minimize dirt on your sensor.

[rwfreund]

A black one for B&W and a chrome one for chromes of course

or one wide or one tele (relatively speaking)

-bob

[BillBrittain]

I have two bodies, but I shoot weddings and need to have a backup. I used to have an R-D1 but never found it satisfying.

 

Having two Leicas does not deny the "small compact and handy" value. Imagine having two Nikons around your neck! I've been there and am much happier with 2 M8s.

 

All the same, if I did not require a backup and had $5000 burning a hole in my pocket, I'd go with glass. You know the Leica lenses are timeless and the M8 much more likely to be obsolete in a few years.

 

Then again, Bob's idea of a black body for bW and a chrome one for chromes, well that's ingenious!