backup cameras

[james_kennedy9]

<p>I very much enjoy reading about which camera is the best backup for another camera, because I learn a lot from the experts about the attributes of both the primary and secondary cameras. As a pure amateur, I generally pack backup batteries and memory cards and bring a variety of lenses. If I have a secondary camera along, it will be something like a Canon Powershot, just because of space and weight. </p>

<p>Wouldn't the best backup be an identical model of the primary? That way there would be no differences in the man-machine interface. If I were getting paid for the job, I would certainly bring a backup, and if I were shooting a wedding, I would be so paranoid as to bringing a backup photographer, as well as backup equipment.</p>

<p>The one time in my life when a backup was important was in 1985 when my wife and I took a trip to England. That was long before I became psycho-photo, and my wife was the designated photographer with her Canon Sure-shot. After we took off, she discovered that she had left her camera behind. Luckily, I had packed my Retina IIa and with the help of sunny 16, we brought home some nice photos. Other than that, I have never had the need for a backup.</p>

<p>I think it would be interesting to hear from the pros out there of incidents when you wish you had a backup or when having a backup saved your bacon.</p>

<p>I am grateful to photo.net for providing advice from real life photographers which I find much more enlightening than the manuals.</p>

[iwong]

<p>Back in the film days, having a backup camera was essential when shooting weddings. You'd have to change films every 36 shots, and having another camera already loaded with fresh film will help make sure you don't miss any important moments. Nowadays with digital, you'd still count on having an extra camera, fitted with a different focal length lens, to avoid changing lenses frequently. A backup is not only a nice-to-have, but essential.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't the best backup be an identical model of the primary?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From a useability point of view, certainly. However, in 30+ years using Nikon SLRs, I have never owned 2 of the same model; the closest was that I had (still have) and FE and I added an FE2 later on. Currently I have a D300 but while I like to have video, I am resisting to buy a D300S, opting to wait for the next model.</p>

<p>The problem with DSLRs is that they depreciate rapidly. I certainly would like to have a good DSLR as my primary, but it is hard to justify a second one. I would rather wait for another upgrade and my current primary becomes the backup. Today I use a D700 and a D300 side by side, and it works out just fine.</p>

<p>If you are paid to shoot weddings, news, etc., I would say having one or perhaps two backup DSLRs is a must. You never know when you'll drop your camera and completely damage it in the middle of some wedding.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The need for backups rises with the amount of photography you do, the importance of the assignment and the extreme locations you shoot. I have destroyed several Hasselblad's, over the years, dropping them on location. One from a tower in a coal-fired power plant in Louisiana and one from a ladder in a tomb in Jerusalem. In both cases, my assistant calmly went to my case and pulled out my spare body <em>and</em> lens, and I kept on working. When your livelihood and professional reputation are on the line, you don't fool around. You <strong>always</strong> have backups. </p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>I use D300 and have D200 as a backup. True D200 is older in few aspects but it takes the same battery and same cards so that was a winner for me. Plus the price was very good for a used camera with only 3K clicks.</p>

[mark liddell]

It varies really. If you are rich then two of the same might be the way to go and on the other end of the spectrum is keeping your old body as a backup when you upgrade.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Definitely most desirable to have two identical bodies - but especially with digital this isn't always financially feasible or prudent. In 30+ years of using Nikon bodies, I always had at least two bodies; sometimes identical (or nearly so), sometimes not. I never had one designated as "backup"; they were always used equally and I never had an occasion were one had to serve as backup to one that failed. In fact, I had only one Nikon ever fail - a D200 that fried its flash and the exposure meter right with it. An EM that gave me trouble once was sold soon thereafter as I had lost confidence in it. As much as I would love to have a second D300 body (or a D300s) now; I am holding out for the replacement and use a D300 and a D200 side by side.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>At times, two camera bodies (both do not have to be identical) is a plus. Think of going to the beach and blowing sand. Much better to have one body with a wide-angle (zoom or prime) lens and one body with a telephoto. No risk at getting sand in anything if no lens changing is needed.</p>

<p>Some Nikon D-SLR bodies, i.e., the D80 and the D40x, are light enough to carry and use both as needed.</p>

<p> </p>

[Sanford]

<p>Even to a non-pro a backup camera is important. It makes sense for them to all be identical, especially the way Nikon slightly changes things/controls around from model to model, but then you would out the fun of using different cameras. My best camera is a D300, but it is so heavy I usually carry a D80 which is perfectly adequate in daylight. But I also switch to a D50 sometimes for it's own special charms, light weight & quiet, 1/500 sec. flash sync, JPEGS that need very little processing compared to the other two. Sort of like the story of the three bears.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>An odd way too look at it:</p>

<p>My favorite FL are 35mm and 24mm. With a dX and a fX cam, one lens provides both...why not take advantage? To a minimalist, it's godsend! </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>My favorite FL are 35mm and 24mm. With a dX and a fX cam, one lens provides both...why not take advantage? To a minimalist, it's godsend!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that is what you want, the more common "one body, two lenses" approach seems to make a lot more sense. A second lens is typically much smaller and much cheaper than a second body, certainly true for 24mm and 35mm type lenses (unless you use Leica lenses).</p>

<p>But I totally agree that this alternative is a very odd way to look at it. :-)</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I believe in having two identical camera bodies. For over 30 years I had two F2 bodies, one all black for b&w film, the other chrome and black for color film, switching a wide angle and longer zoom lens between them. For the last four years I've had two D70s bodies with 4gb cards, one with a 17-50 zoom, the other with a 50-150, swapping with a 12-24 and a 70-300 VR as needed.</p>

<p>As soon as I can afford it, I'm getting two D300s bodies. I'm a die hard APS-C Dx believer, no need for Fx by me.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>If that is what you want, the more common "one body, two lenses" approach seems to make a lot more sense. A second lens is typically much smaller and much cheaper than a second body, certainly true for 24mm and 35mm type lenses (unless you use Leica lenses).<br>

But I totally agree that this alternative is a very odd way to look at it. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun---</p>

<p>I should mention that the 24mm is not my full minimal kit, it was just an example of the DX/FX advantages</p>

<p>I also have the 17-35mm (travel/landscape/street) which becomes 26-52mm semi standard zoom (for people street shots). My 85mm "environmental full body portrait" lens becomes a 130mm "head/shoulder shot" lens...</p>

<p>My complete minimal travel kit, a three lens two cam kit is 24 F1.8 / 17-35 2.8 / 85 1.4 on d700/d200. I rarely shoot tele but I bring my 75-150 3.5 mm on occasions</p>

<p> This kit seems less odd to you:))</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>...Of course, the 24mm 1.8 becomes my low light night lens. Either with 35mm FOV or 24mm FOV depending on the cam.)))</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I think it's very different if you're shooting casually or PT (weekender) or FT. When I worked FT I would carry 3 or 4 Nikons with 6-10 lenses and 4 or 5 Bronica SQa with 5 or 6 lenses, later similar Hasselblads. Some were pairs, others were add on pieces as newer stuff came out, I never really gave it much thought. For example at one point I was using F3, N2000, Canon F1, pair of FM2s and then when the N90 came out I liked it and bought one. Eventually I sold my F3 and I really disliked the FM2s, they failed more times than I care to remember. The integrated N2000 and N90 proved to be very reliable and wracked up high miles. Now I use pair of D200s but don't shoot much pro work so it's mostly casual personal stuff. I like having the pair that are the same, eventually I will add D300 or it's next relative, but I'm not in a hurry. For me though, I concern myself more with lights, I like big flashes that are capable of higher power. I don't think working in pairs is all that necessary, as long as if something breaks you can keep going to the extent you need to.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>I have always been an enthusiastic amateur - but I also always carried spares - in my film days I would use an F2AS and an EL - one loaded with B&W, the other colour. Now it is a habit - when I was in DX mode I used a D2X and D300 - Now I have switched to FX mode and use a D3 and D700, the only camera I have that is not backed up is an Infrared converted D100. Choice of lenses depends on the shots I am planning and expecting - usually the 12-24 f2,8 AFs Nikkor and the 24-70 mm AFs f2.8 Nikkor. I usually carry a third lens for the unexpected either 16 mm fisheye, 70-180 Micro Nikkor or 300 mm depending on location.</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>My wife and I both shoot digital Nikons. She uses a D90 and I use a D300. Whenever we travel I always lug a D200 body along just in case. This works nicely for us as all three cameras use the same batteries and lenses. We've not had a camera failure to date but I always worry about being out shooting and having a camera quit.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Currently I have a D70s and a D300s. I had a D90 for a time, but I traded it in for the D300s. Ideally, I'd have a D700 to go with the D300s since I see a benefit from both full frame and crop sensors. The D700 and D300 are so similar that it is like having two of the same camera without paying for 2 D700s.</p>

 

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Even in the film era, I never called my second or third etc., cameras as a back-up. For convenience I had a wide lens on one camera, a short tele ( or zoom) on the other and if I had a third camera, maybe a different speed film, no lens on it. And many other variation. To day, most of the time I had minimum two cameras on me, and more in the car or bag, bags, and the lenses depend on, what subject I'm shooting. All of my cameras has a purpose, other then a back-up. My real back-up is in my pocket a small PS Canon.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Bela just reminded me, I forgot about my little Canon P&S that stays in the bag or my pocket as a backup while I keep the spare Nikon in the car.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>for amatuer use, i don't think that a backup has to be of same, let alone the same quality. but for professional use, i think it is essential to have the same camera as a backup, or at the very least, the same quality. it is a question that my wedding clients (and only wedding clients) ask; "is your backup the same quality as you main"?.....well of course it is. if not, i'm kind of saying that if my camera fails, it's not my bad luck, it's yours!</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>I upgraded to a d300 but kept my d200 as I could afford it. I only bring two of them out for long away from home wildlife trips, of which one will have the 300/4 attached and the 70-200 attached on my other. In general day to day use though, I still use the D200 as my main cam, and wildlife just the d300 on its own.</p>

<p>Alvin <- amateur :D</p>

[sergio_ortega7]

<p>Back in the days of film cameras, owning and carrying a backup body was a lot easier and less complicated. Rapidly-advancing technology and capability, and the ever-increaing higher cost for the latest-and-greatest digital body, wasn't as much of a consideration; cameras didn't have a three to five year shelf life back then. You could often use something compact and inexpensive, like one of the little FM series bodies, to go along with your more "professional" F cameras, without any loss of image quality, even after 20 years, since they all used the same film and, apart from a couple of new features, they usually didn't require memorizing a detailed 200-page manual to learn all the new features. Today, your backup is likely to be your primary digital SLR camera of just a couple of years ago, and usually with significantly reduced capabilty than your current model. Using a film body as a backup to a digital doesn't make much sense to me, but I supppose others might find that useful. For advanced or professional use, having the same body is probably the best way to go, but, unless you're a rich amateur or a well-equipped professional, who can afford a second D300, D700 or D3 every few years. I used a D70 (my first digital SLR) as a backup to my newer D300, and later a D700, and the reduced image quality, capability, much smaller viewfinder, viewing screen and sensor, and the general feel of the thing just didn't inspire much confidence. Luckily, having to change film after only 36 frames is no longer a problem and the reliability of the latest Nikon digital SLR bodies is fantastic. </p>

[kevin_swan1]

<p>I'm a wedding photographer, and I use identical bodies. I shoot weddings with a pair of D300's. I consider them interchangeable - I swap lenses on each of them, and honestly I don't even keep track of which one was my "primary" and which was my "secondary." I just use them both however is needed to get the job done.<br>

I always start out with my 17-55 f/2.8 on one body, and my 70-200 f/2.8 on the other, but by the end of the day, after swapping in my 55mm macro, the 10.5 fisheye, and my 50 f/1.4 prime for low-light reception shots, I don't know which one was originally paired with which lens. And I like it that way. Having 2 identical bodies makes it seamless to swap lenses/flashes as needed, during the event.</p>