Second camera?

butterflygirl · Sep 5, 2007

Hi all! I'm looking into getting a second camera to use while I'm shooting weddings - right now I have a Canon 30D a Tamron 17-50, Canon, 28-90, Canon 50 mm and Cannon 70-300 as well as a 580ex flash.

My question really is if I get a second camera - I'll be using one camera with a wide angle lens and the other with the telephoto - should I get another 30 D or go a step down, say a Rebel XTI?

Or should I just scrap the whole second camera idea and get a couple of other lens'? I still want a 90mm telephoto!

Decisions, decisions - help!

Thanks!

WDodd · Sep 5, 2007

From what I hear it is invaluable to have a second camera with the setup that you are talking about. To allow for the quick change between the camera with the telephoto and the wide angle could be the difference between getting the shot you otherwise could not.

I would say it still depends on your own views. If you don't think you need it or you have time to switch lenses and still get what you need/want its probably not worth it.

I have never shot a wedding so take it for what its worth

Don Simon · Sep 5, 2007

Personally for a backup camera I would want something that is solid and reliable, and also familiar in terms of handling. Instead of a Rebel I would probably look at the older 20D, maybe even a 10D. There's nothing really wrong with using a Rebel as a backup, just that personally I wouldn't choose to.

Sw1tchFX · Sep 5, 2007

If you get a 2nd body, you'll want it to be identical to avoid confusion. using different bodies is just asking for trouble when you don't have time to think, "oh crap, this isn't like my 30D, I can't do do that. I have to do it this way".

Really, only you know whether or not you need 2 bodies and/or faster glass. You need to make the decision on what's more important.

Big Mike · Sep 5, 2007

I wouldn't dream of shooting a wedding without a 2nd camera. Sure it's nice to have two, each with a different lens...but you must have a backup when shooting weddings.

The Rebels are attractive because you can get a new one for a good price or a used one for a steal. But you have to consider than they are laid out quite differently than the 30D. When shooting a wedding, you don't want to have to fiddle with the settings because you were just using a different camera. For this reason, I suggest getting either a 20D, 30D or the really cool looking new 40D.

The 20D is still a great camera and can probably be found for a good price.

JIP · Sep 5, 2007

For me (and his is what I intend on doing) I would step up for the second body. I agree with the others that if you are charging someone any money to shoot their wedding you are playing with fire to not have a second body on-hand. I imagine I do not have to go through the litany of things that can go wrong and have for me but just imagine the lawsuit you will have on your hands if your only body fails in the middle of the ceremony and you do not get a shot of the bride and her father walking down the aisle.

abraxas · Sep 5, 2007

I'd upgrade on the second camera and use what you have now as the backup.

Mike_E · Sep 5, 2007

Your 90mm need is covered twice, get another body, even if you have to get a film camera that will accept your lenses. You don't want to have to step to the front and say "Time out, I've got to fix this camera."!

S2K1 · Sep 6, 2007

abraxas said:
I'd upgrade on the second camera and use what you have now as the backup.

This is what I would(and plan to) do. Keep the 30D as backup and get a 40D.

EOS_JD · Sep 6, 2007

Get a 20D as it's almost the same camera..... Makes a big difference when using the same menus etc. the rebels are different and sometimes it's a pain when changing the settings. I use a Rebel XT (350D) as a backup but would much prefer another 20D or a 30D.

Also don't you find the 70-300 too slow for weddings?

usayit · Sep 6, 2007

Another recommendation for a 20D. For a wedding or an event that you are being paid for, I can't imagine not having a backup. Even it means a film camera.

butterflygirl · Sep 7, 2007

Thanks everyone! Good points!

I do have a second camera - but it's film - not what I really want as a back up

So I think I will either go with the 20D or if I save up a little more I can upgrade :mrgreen: Fun stuff!

butterflygirl · Sep 7, 2007

EOS_JD said:
Also don't you find the 70-300 too slow for weddings?

It just depends on the wedding - right now I'm working as an assistant for a photographer and he has me shoot in the balcony for most of the ceremony and on a tripod it's not too bad. Off a tripod in a church, not so good. Outside weddings it's perfect for close-ups of the bride and groom, rings exchange etc.

I don't use it at all for receptions, just not enough light, plus I'm not using a tripod at receptions.

sabbath999 · Sep 7, 2007

Take it from an old wedding shooter who has had equipment failure occur during a wedding (a shutter linker thingy -- which somehow links the button to the shutter mechanisms -- on a VERY expensive Hasselblad C500 broke) and if I had only had one camera I would have been totally and completely stuffed. I had two C500's though, so I was able to just set it aside and continue on with the shoot (switching over to one of my trusty Pentax LX's as my second camera for the rest of the wedding).

You can't reshoot a wedding, so a second camera is an absolute MUST. I would never, ever, ever consider taking a job without a complete backup of every single critical bit of equipment.

Personally, if you can afford it I would buy another of what you already have, or even step up a notch and use your current one as backup. I would avoid stepping down in camera to an XTi, simply because it is a few dollars cheaper.

My philosophy is to charge enough money to pay for the best equipment, or don't bother doing it at all. Obviously, when a person is just starting out this doesn't work... so take that with a grain of salt...

Again, IMHO, I would never, ever, ever, ever shoot a wedding without a backup camera. Ever.

Having a second camera body that fit my lens system totally saved my bacon when disaster occurred.

butterflygirl · Sep 7, 2007

sabbath999 said:
Take it from an old wedding shooter who has had equipment failure occur during a wedding (a shutter linker thingy -- which somehow links the button to the shutter mechanisms -- on a VERY expensive Hasselblad C500 broke) and if I had only had one camera I would have been totally and completely stuffed. I had two C500's though, so I was able to just set it aside and continue on with the shoot (switching over to one of my trusty Pentax LX's as my second camera for the rest of the wedding).

You can't reshoot a wedding, so a second camera is an absolute MUST. I would never, ever, ever consider taking a job without a complete backup of every single critical bit of equipment.

Personally, if you can afford it I would buy another of what you already have, or even step up a notch and use your current one as backup. I would avoid stepping down in camera to an XTi, simply because it is a few dollars cheaper.

My philosophy is to charge enough money to pay for the best equipment, or don't bother doing it at all. Obviously, when a person is just starting out this doesn't work... so take that with a grain of salt...

Again, IMHO, I would never, ever, ever, ever shoot a wedding without a backup camera. Ever.

Having a second camera body that fit my lens system totally saved my bacon when disaster occurred.

Thanks for the thoughts - I see on your Web site you take photos at zoos, but you haven't been to the Detroit Zoo! :mrgreen: Hehe - just a thought - I understand, Detroit isn't the most fun place to visit.