Back up body recommendations?

[Danny_511]

Why do you need a back up? Just wondering.

Just incase anything were to happen to my current camera. Like I said, I dont have a warranty. Or maybe im doing a shoot and it dies, ill have a back up.

Are you taking on clients? If so, I would upgrade your current camera and use t1i as a backup. Or I would scrap the whole back up thing, and invest in some new lenses.

Yes ma'am I am. But I've decided lenses are my main priorities. Especially since I started shooting RAW and seeing what my camera can really do.

 

[TCampbell]

The T1i has fairly bad noise at ISO 1600 and I'd consider ISO 3200 to be unusable. A "used" 5D II not only has "usable" ISO 3200... even ISO 6400 isn't much of a problem (I can see noise, but it's minimal, only noticeable at large sizes, and no so bad that my de-noising software doesn't take care of it.) A 5D III is phenomenal -- "Noise? What's noise?"

This brings me to wonder what you're shooting that you'd need a back-up body which is _below_ the price point of a used T1i.

If you're doing live events such as weddings with a T1i then you're going to have huge noise issues -- I've used the T1i, in a church, at a wedding, and the _only_ reason I semi got away with this was because (a) I using only f/2.8 glass (24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS lenses) AND had decent de-noising software. The keeper rate -- not due to exposure problems, but simply due to noise -- was extremely low unless I was in good lighting. (again, I'm someone who used to do weddings regularly ... 20+ years ago ... today I just bring my camera with me if I go to a wedding, and all my friends know I used to do this and want my photographs. But I'm not hiring myself out and putting anyone's wedding photos in jeopardy.)

If you're hiring yourself out for events, you _need_ a better body. You need a combination of f/2.8 glass AND a body that can minimally shoot at ISO 3200 with low noise. That's why I suggested you look at a "used" 5D II (it'll cost less than a 6D and a LOT less than a 5D III). A more recent model Rebel body (T3i, T4i, T5i) or mid-range body (60D, 7D) would be a good improvement. Use the T1i as your "back up" body.

If you're doing outdoor daytime events (e.g. shooting outdoor festivals) then you wont be using ISO 3200... the T1i isn't bad at ISO 800 (there's noise, but it's salvageable.)

I'm wondering what you're thinking of in term of lenses, what sorts of things you're shooting that need a backup body, and where a better body falls in your list of priorities. I normally emphasize glass before camera bodies, but there are some minimums that the body needs to have depending on what type of work you plan to do with it.

 

[pixmedic]

I dont know what all the fuss is over high ISO. We rarely even go as high as 800, let alone 3200+.

Fast glass and better camera holding techniques for slower shutter speeds trump high ISO any day.

What did the pros do before digital cameras could handle ISO 3200?

 

[TCampbell]

I dont know what all the fuss is over high ISO. We rarely even go as high as 800, let alone 3200+.

Fast glass and better camera holding techniques for slower shutter speeds trump high ISO any day.

What did the pros do before digital cameras could handle ISO 3200?

I can tell you what the pros did.... we didn't take the shot.

When we did weddings, we went up the choir loft looking down over the church during the ceremony and took a few shots with the camera either on a tripod or resting on a rail so that we could take a long exposure shot. We couldn't get close. We couldn't take sorts of shots people expect today - while the wedding was actually happening.

When you see the old shots of rings being exchanged, etc... we faked those. After the wedding was over and we did the "formals" at the altar, we asked the officiant to remain for a few shots and we re-created those shots... but with lighting because ISO wasn't an option. That was normal. TODAY, a good body and a quality 70-200 f/2.8 lens will let you take the real shot. Sometimes the real shot isn't as good as the fake as we can't control someone standing in the way (I've had weddings where a bridesmaid or groomsman blocked the shot - I'll move around considerably to get a good angle, but it's not _always_ possible.)

This is really a problem "during" the ceremony. You cannot use flash photography during the ceremony. Afterwards... flash away! Just about every shot before and after the wedding as well as reception shots (including outdoor daytime shots) are shot using flash.

I can go through some weddings I've done and find the ceremony shots and a typical exposure might be ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/50th sec. In a _very_ well lit church I might get to drop the ISO to 800, but needing to shoot at 1600 or 3200 is common.

I do have a lot of concert event shots where I can't use flash and I will occasionally need to shoot at 6400. Not because I want some really high shutter speed... I'm often shooting at 1/60th or even 1/30th.

 

[Danny_511]

The T1i has fairly bad noise at ISO 1600 and I'd consider ISO 3200 to be unusable. A "used" 5D II not only has "usable" ISO 3200... even ISO 6400 isn't much of a problem (I can see noise, but it's minimal, only noticeable at large sizes, and no so bad that my de-noising software doesn't take care of it.) A 5D III is phenomenal -- "Noise? What's noise?"

This brings me to wonder what you're shooting that you'd need a back-up body which is _below_ the price point of a used T1i.

If you're doing live events such as weddings with a T1i then you're going to have huge noise issues -- I've used the T1i, in a church, at a wedding, and the _only_ reason I semi got away with this was because (a) I using only f/2.8 glass (24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS lenses) AND had decent de-noising software. The keeper rate -- not due to exposure problems, but simply due to noise -- was extremely low unless I was in good lighting. (again, I'm someone who used to do weddings regularly ... 20+ years ago ... today I just bring my camera with me if I go to a wedding, and all my friends know I used to do this and want my photographs. But I'm not hiring myself out and putting anyone's wedding photos in jeopardy.)

If you're hiring yourself out for events, you _need_ a better body. You need a combination of f/2.8 glass AND a body that can minimally shoot at ISO 3200 with low noise. That's why I suggested you look at a "used" 5D II (it'll cost less than a 6D and a LOT less than a 5D III). A more recent model Rebel body (T3i, T4i, T5i) or mid-range body (60D, 7D) would be a good improvement. Use the T1i as your "back up" body.

If you're doing outdoor daytime events (e.g. shooting outdoor festivals) then you wont be using ISO 3200... the T1i isn't bad at ISO 800 (there's noise, but it's salvageable.)

I'm wondering what you're thinking of in term of lenses, what sorts of things you're shooting that need a backup body, and where a better body falls in your list of priorities. I normally emphasize glass before camera bodies, but there are some minimums that the body needs to have depending on what type of work you plan to do with it.

I was looking for a cheaper body becausw I can't afford a used 5D. I'm not doing weddings yet either. Im doing basic photo shoots for people like the other kids at my school or whoever they recommend me too. What im shooting has nothing to do with why i wanted a back up body, I was just being paranoid about something happening to my current one. Lol and if you read the above comments ive already decided to invest in glass. (I hope that doesnt come off rude because its not supposed to)

 

[Danny_511]

I dont know what all the fuss is over high ISO. We rarely even go as high as 800, let alone 3200+.

Fast glass and better camera holding techniques for slower shutter speeds trump high ISO any day.

What did the pros do before digital cameras could handle ISO 3200?

I can tell you what the pros did.... we didn't take the shot.

When we did weddings, we went up the choir loft looking down over the church during the ceremony and took a few shots with the camera either on a tripod or resting on a rail so that we could take a long exposure shot. We couldn't get close. We couldn't take sorts of shots people expect today - while the wedding was actually happening.

When you see the old shots of rings being exchanged, etc... we faked those. After the wedding was over and we did the "formals" at the altar, we asked the officiant to remain for a few shots and we re-created those shots... but with lighting because ISO wasn't an option. That was normal. TODAY, a good body and a quality 70-200 f/2.8 lens will let you take the real shot. Sometimes the real shot isn't as good as the fake as we can't control someone standing in the way (I've had weddings where a bridesmaid or groomsman blocked the shot - I'll move around considerably to get a good angle, but it's not _always_ possible.)

This is really a problem "during" the ceremony. You cannot use flash photography during the ceremony. Afterwards... flash away! Just about every shot before and after the wedding as well as reception shots (including outdoor daytime shots) are shot using flash.

I can go through some weddings I've done and find the ceremony shots and a typical exposure might be ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/50th sec. In a _very_ well lit church I might get to drop the ISO to 800, but needing to shoot at 1600 or 3200 is common.

I do have a lot of concert event shots where I can't use flash and I will occasionally need to shoot at 6400. Not because I want some really high shutter speed... I'm often shooting at 1/60th or even 1/30th.

Yeah, noise doesnt bother me much seeing as how I taught myself on film lol

 

[Danny_511]

I dont know what all the fuss is over high ISO. We rarely even go as high as 800, let alone 3200+.

Fast glass and better camera holding techniques for slower shutter speeds trump high ISO any day.

What did the pros do before digital cameras could handle ISO 3200?

I can tell you what the pros did.... we didn't take the shot.

When we did weddings, we went up the choir loft looking down over the church during the ceremony and took a few shots with the camera either on a tripod or resting on a rail so that we could take a long exposure shot. We couldn't get close. We couldn't take sorts of shots people expect today - while the wedding was actually happening.

When you see the old shots of rings being exchanged, etc... we faked those. After the wedding was over and we did the "formals" at the altar, we asked the officiant to remain for a few shots and we re-created those shots... but with lighting because ISO wasn't an option. That was normal. TODAY, a good body and a quality 70-200 f/2.8 lens will let you take the real shot. Sometimes the real shot isn't as good as the fake as we can't control someone standing in the way (I've had weddings where a bridesmaid or groomsman blocked the shot - I'll move around considerably to get a good angle, but it's not _always_ possible.)

This is really a problem "during" the ceremony. You cannot use flash photography during the ceremony. Afterwards... flash away! Just about every shot before and after the wedding as well as reception shots (including outdoor daytime shots) are shot using flash.

I can go through some weddings I've done and find the ceremony shots and a typical exposure might be ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/50th sec. In a _very_ well lit church I might get to drop the ISO to 800, but needing to shoot at 1600 or 3200 is common.

I do have a lot of concert event shots where I can't use flash and I will occasionally need to shoot at 6400. Not because I want some really high shutter speed... I'm often shooting at 1/60th or even 1/30th.

Yeah, noise doesnt bother me much seeing as how I taught myself on film lol

I just read the rest of this post (sorry, just waking up lol) that sounds epic, I had no odea thats what happened.

 

[pixmedic]

I dont know what all the fuss is over high ISO. We rarely even go as high as 800, let alone 3200+.

Fast glass and better camera holding techniques for slower shutter speeds trump high ISO any day.

What did the pros do before digital cameras could handle ISO 3200?

I can tell you what the pros did.... we didn't take the shot.

When we did weddings, we went up the choir loft looking down over the church during the ceremony and took a few shots with the camera either on a tripod or resting on a rail so that we could take a long exposure shot. We couldn't get close. We couldn't take sorts of shots people expect today - while the wedding was actually happening.

When you see the old shots of rings being exchanged, etc... we faked those. After the wedding was over and we did the "formals" at the altar, we asked the officiant to remain for a few shots and we re-created those shots... but with lighting because ISO wasn't an option. That was normal. TODAY, a good body and a quality 70-200 f/2.8 lens will let you take the real shot. Sometimes the real shot isn't as good as the fake as we can't control someone standing in the way (I've had weddings where a bridesmaid or groomsman blocked the shot - I'll move around considerably to get a good angle, but it's not _always_ possible.)

This is really a problem "during" the ceremony. You cannot use flash photography during the ceremony. Afterwards... flash away! Just about every shot before and after the wedding as well as reception shots (including outdoor daytime shots) are shot using flash.

I can go through some weddings I've done and find the ceremony shots and a typical exposure might be ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/50th sec. In a _very_ well lit church I might get to drop the ISO to 800, but needing to shoot at 1600 or 3200 is common.

I do have a lot of concert event shots where I can't use flash and I will occasionally need to shoot at 6400. Not because I want some really high shutter speed... I'm often shooting at 1/60th or even 1/30th.

most churches we have shot in have been fine with flash photography.
the very few that don't allow it have been reasonably well lit enough that f/2.8 glass and ISO 800-1600 were enough.
plus, a lot of those churches that didn't allow flashes were more than willing to turn all the lights on for the wedding.
I don't know about "the good old days", but in the last 5-6 years, the churches we have dealt with for weddings have been very reasonable to our lighting requests, and some of them have even gone out of their way to get all the lights turned on and at their brightest just so the area could be as well lit as possible.
all our zooms are f/2.8, and if that wont quite cut it, we have a bag full of prime lenses. we still have to recreate the occasional shot, but not very often. I can definitely see your point as far as low lit venues go, but a lot of churches nowadays seem to be fairly well lit.
but hell, we're still in the equipment dark ages...nikkor D lenses... no VR, no nano coating...they seem to work though.
we don't shoot sports or concerts so i don't have much to say on those.

 

[Tony S]

Don't be paranoid. Save your money so that when your skills get better and you are ready to upgrade you can get a better quality body. Be patient and wait, the way technology is going who knows what will be coming out in 6 months and what it will do. And with today's ship it over night option, having to wait for delivery is not a big deal.

 

[Danny_511]

Don't be paranoid. Save your money so that when your skills get better and you are ready to upgrade you can get a better quality body. Be patient and wait, the way technology is going who knows what will be coming out in 6 months and what it will do. And with today's ship it over night option, having to wait for delivery is not a big deal.

Agreed :thumbup:

 

[kathyt]

I dont know what all the fuss is over high ISO. We rarely even go as high as 800, let alone 3200+.

Fast glass and better camera holding techniques for slower shutter speeds trump high ISO any day.

What did the pros do before digital cameras could handle ISO 3200?

I can tell you what the pros did.... we didn't take the shot.

When we did weddings, we went up the choir loft looking down over the church during the ceremony and took a few shots with the camera either on a tripod or resting on a rail so that we could take a long exposure shot. We couldn't get close. We couldn't take sorts of shots people expect today - while the wedding was actually happening.

When you see the old shots of rings being exchanged, etc... we faked those. After the wedding was over and we did the "formals" at the altar, we asked the officiant to remain for a few shots and we re-created those shots... but with lighting because ISO wasn't an option. That was normal. TODAY, a good body and a quality 70-200 f/2.8 lens will let you take the real shot. Sometimes the real shot isn't as good as the fake as we can't control someone standing in the way (I've had weddings where a bridesmaid or groomsman blocked the shot - I'll move around considerably to get a good angle, but it's not _always_ possible.)

This is really a problem "during" the ceremony. You cannot use flash photography during the ceremony. Afterwards... flash away! Just about every shot before and after the wedding as well as reception shots (including outdoor daytime shots) are shot using flash.

I can go through some weddings I've done and find the ceremony shots and a typical exposure might be ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/50th sec. In a _very_ well lit church I might get to drop the ISO to 800, but needing to shoot at 1600 or 3200 is common.

I do have a lot of concert event shots where I can't use flash and I will occasionally need to shoot at 6400. Not because I want some really high shutter speed... I'm often shooting at 1/60th or even 1/30th.

most churches we have shot in have been fine with flash photography.
the very few that don't allow it have been reasonably well lit enough that f/2.8 glass and ISO 800-1600 were enough.
plus, a lot of those churches that didn't allow flashes were more than willing to turn all the lights on for the wedding.
I don't know about "the good old days", but in the last 5-6 years, the churches we have dealt with for weddings have been very reasonable to our lighting requests, and some of them have even gone out of their way to get all the lights turned on and at their brightest just so the area could be as well lit as possible.
all our zooms are f/2.8, and if that wont quite cut it, we have a bag full of prime lenses. we still have to recreate the occasional shot, but not very often. I can definitely see your point as far as low lit venues go, but a lot of churches nowadays seem to be fairly well lit.
but hell, we're still in the equipment dark ages...nikkor D lenses... no VR, no nano coating...they seem to work though.
we don't shoot sports or concerts so i don't have much to say on those.

I don't use flash during wedding ceremonies. It is 99% not allowed and it is disruptive. I would also not ask them to change the lighting to the brightest setting. This is their wedding, and they have hired me to capture it the way they planned it, and not what my camera is capable of. ISO is so very important to a modern wedding photographer. It is the #1 reason I upgraded to the mark III. Alot of weddings are also now taking place outside of churches in other venues, so you never know what kind of lighting you will have to work with. I think it is also really important for todays brides to get the "big" shots the first time they happen. I can't imagine asking them to redo their first kiss as husband and wife because I am at limits with my camera. Unexceptable in todays standards IMO.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Yeah.. no flash here even if it is allowed.