A second body? Same or different?

It looks like I'll be fortunate enough to take a long tourist trip in a few months' time.  This has made me look closely at my camera gear!

On my last big trip, my E-5, 12-60 and 50-200 produced great photos, but I soon tired of carrying the 50-200 and left it in my room.  I bought a compact zoom (Panasonic travel zoom) to replace that focal range and just lived with the loss of quality in the photos.  Even the E-5 + 12-60 started to get me down and frequently my hands would ache from holding it.  But that's old stuff...

I now have an E-M1 + 12-40 + Panasonic 100-300.  This combination produces lovely images and if I use the HLD-7 grip it's juuuust big enough to hold.  Sorted?  Not quite.

The remaining down side is changing lenses.  I've long been sick of changing lenses and missing shots because of how long it takes, risking lenses and camera by fumbling, and often turning around and finding the group has moved on and I'm left behind.

I suppose I could buy a 14-150 and ignore the image quality but if I bought a 2nd body, I think my lens changing problems would be solved.  But which body?

A 2nd E-M1 would seem ideal.  I would automatically get a 2nd charger and compatible battery.  It would have identical feel, behaviour and settings to my primary camera.  And in my part of the world, for the rest of this month, Olympus is offering a sweet cash back deal.

But I recall that back when I was buying the E-M1, both the Panasonic GH3 and G6 felt better in my hand than the E-M1.  The G6 is cheaper than the E-M1 even with the cash back, and I could get it with some bundled (low end) lenses if I felt like it.

The GH4 seems like it's an upgrade over the E-M1, so perhaps the answer is to get one and consider the E-M1 the backup body.

Finally, the Panasonic GM1 is so small it has a trick that is almost magic: it can fit in my bag attached to the 100-300 as if it's a fat rear cap!  Apparently it can take good pictures, so why not get one?

So there's my array of choices laid out:

- save money and buy nothing (I would hate this as I would miss plenty of shots changing lenses)

- buy a 2nd E-M1 during the "cheap" time, i.e. now

- buy a G6 and score some cheap additional lenses

- buy a GH4 and consider my E-M1 the backup

- buy a GM1 "enhanced rear lens cap"

What do you think?  Can I go wrong with any of these options?

i'm not convinced you need a second body. you're planning to lug around two high-end cameras for a tourist trip? you really feel compelled to take pictures so often that the group routinely leaves you behind? and you think that loading up on more gear is going to solve your problems? is that really the way you want to spend your holiday? shackled to machines?

if i were you, i'd stick with what you have and consider the following:

- maybe you need a better bag. if it's well designed and just the right size, it could go a long way in terms of your whole photographic / travel experience. travel light! i've bungled lens-changing in the past not because i didn't have enough bodies but because the bag i was using was unwieldy and inefficient.

- maybe you need to take fewer photos. be more judicious. practice mindful seeing. snapping photos indiscriminately at nearly all focal lengths between 12-300mm is one of the least artful ways of being i can imagine. enjoy your trip and don't let all this ridiculous materialistic machine worship dictate your subjective experience of what ought to be a great gift: seeing a different part of the world (however near or far)!

pocketpygmy wrote:

i'm not convinced you need a second body. you're planning to lug around two high-end cameras for a tourist trip? you really feel compelled to take pictures so often that the group routinely leaves you behind? and you think that loading up on more gear is going to solve your problems? is that really the way you want to spend your holiday? shackled to machines?

I think the answers, in order, are: yes, yes, maybe, it's inevitable, reluctantly yes.

As a tourist, I'm wide-eyed with excitement and want to capture the (an?) essential part of what I'm seeing, stuff that I never see in my day to day life. A camera (or two) gives me that possibility, if I can use it.

So, if I were in, say, Paris, in front of Notre Dame, I'd have to take a standard "get the whole thing in" shot, because you're there and that's what you do. 12mm works well. Then I'd notice a detail (maybe a particularly interesting gargoyle high up) and the 12-40 wouldn't be the right lens. So, fiddle, fiddle, fiddle, fumble, fiddle, fiddle, 100-300 is on, line up the shot, take it, fiddle, fiddle, fumble, fiddle, 12-40 back on, and where did everyone go?

I predict that if it's a matter of slinging the E-M1 + 12-40 to one side and pulling out the ??? + 100-300 for a shot or two and putting it away, then I'll get what I want and won't spend so much time looking at the ground where a lens without rear cap is balanced badly while I fiddle with a body with no cap etc. I'll have better situational awareness (i.e. "everyone is leaving" or "that guy looks like a pickpocket") and I'll get the shots I want.

I may be deluding myself, but I'm willing to try.

if i were you, i'd stick with what you have and consider the following:

• maybe you need a better bag. if it's well designed and just the right size, it could go a long way in terms of your whole photographic / travel experience. travel light! i've bungled lens-changing in the past not because i didn't have enough bodies but because the bag i was using was unwieldy and inefficient.

If you can solve the "no bag is right" problem, you will definitely join my Christmas list!

I have experimented with bags (because it's cheaper than buying other things) and nothing quite works. The stuff that looks like it would actually work is those daft things where you strap several cameras to your chest. Would anyone wear one of those in public?

I suppose I'll take some combination of small backpack, maybe a snoot bag, possibly a belt with a pouch or two. I'm open to camera carrying suggestions, even crazy ones.

• maybe you need to take fewer photos. be more judicious. practice mindful seeing. snapping photos indiscriminately at nearly all focal lengths between 12-300mm is one of the least artful ways of being i can imagine.

You are right in all respects. But taking fewer photos doesn't solve the problem that some shots need 12mm and some need 300mm. (OK, hardly any need 300mm, but lots need more than 40mm). I'll still need to change lenses. That's a slow tedious thing that reduces my mindfulness. I'm willing to buy another body to see if that helps.

enjoy your trip

Thank you!

and don't let all this ridiculous materialistic machine worship dictate your subjective experience of what ought to be a great gift: seeing a different part of the world (however near or far)!

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it accurately characterises what I do. Using cameras adds to my enjoyment of the experience. Having to put up with their annoying physical foibles subtracts from it. I'm attempting to reduce the annoyances without reducing the enjoyment. At all times (I hope) I remain in the moment and aware of the mind-expanding value of travel.

pocketpygmy wrote:

i'm not convinced you need a second body. you're planning to lug around two high-end cameras for a tourist trip? you really feel compelled to take pictures so often that the group routinely leaves you behind? and you think that loading up on more gear is going to solve your problems? is that really the way you want to spend your holiday? shackled to machines?

I think the answers, in order, are: yes, yes, maybe, it's inevitable, reluctantly yes.

As a tourist, I'm wide-eyed with excitement and want to capture the (an?) essential part of what I'm seeing, stuff that I never see in my day to day life. A camera (or two) gives me that possibility, if I can use it.

So, if I were in, say, Paris, in front of Notre Dame, I'd have to take a standard "get the whole thing in" shot, because you're there and that's what you do. 12mm works well. Then I'd notice a detail (maybe a particularly interesting gargoyle high up) and the 12-40 wouldn't be the right lens. So, fiddle, fiddle, fiddle, fumble, fiddle, fiddle, 100-300 is on, line up the shot, take it, fiddle, fiddle, fumble, fiddle, 12-40 back on, and where did everyone go?

I predict that if it's a matter of slinging the E-M1 + 12-40 to one side and pulling out the ??? + 100-300 for a shot or two and putting it away, then I'll get what I want and won't spend so much time looking at the ground where a lens without rear cap is balanced badly while I fiddle with a body with no cap etc. I'll have better situational awareness (i.e. "everyone is leaving" or "that guy looks like a pickpocket") and I'll get the shots I want.

I may be deluding myself, but I'm willing to try.

if i were you, i'd stick with what you have and consider the following:

• maybe you need a better bag. if it's well designed and just the right size, it could go a long way in terms of your whole photographic / travel experience. travel light! i've bungled lens-changing in the past not because i didn't have enough bodies but because the bag i was using was unwieldy and inefficient.

If you can solve the "no bag is right" problem, you will definitely join my Christmas list!

I have experimented with bags (because it's cheaper than buying other things) and nothing quite works. The stuff that looks like it would actually work is those daft things where you strap several cameras to your chest. Would anyone wear one of those in public?

I suppose I'll take some combination of small backpack, maybe a snoot bag, possibly a belt with a pouch or two. I'm open to camera carrying suggestions, even crazy ones.

• maybe you need to take fewer photos. be more judicious. practice mindful seeing. snapping photos indiscriminately at nearly all focal lengths between 12-300mm is one of the least artful ways of being i can imagine.

You are right in all respects. But taking fewer photos doesn't solve the problem that some shots need 12mm and some need 300mm. (OK, hardly any need 300mm, but lots need more than 40mm). I'll still need to change lenses. That's a slow tedious thing that reduces my mindfulness. I'm willing to buy another body to see if that helps.

enjoy your trip

Thank you!

and don't let all this ridiculous materialistic machine worship dictate your subjective experience of what ought to be a great gift: seeing a different part of the world (however near or far)!

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it accurately characterises what I do. Using cameras adds to my enjoyment of the experience. Having to put up with their annoying physical foibles subtracts from it. I'm attempting to reduce the annoyances without reducing the enjoyment. At all times (I hope) I remain in the moment and aware of the mind-expanding value of travel.

fair enough -- you seem to have convinced yourself pretty thoroughly and i respect that you've thought it through and articulated it without getting mad (which happens here sometimes).

(i still think that two m4/3 cams for a non-professional trip is overkill though, and that you'd be fine with a 14-150mm or an FZ1000.)

if anything, may i suggest some reading for your travels (or elsewhere)? a little book called 'on photography', by susan sontag. food for thought.

I use an E-PM2 with a 9-18 because I prefer using the LCD with wide angles and an E-M5 with a 14-150 or 100-300 because i prefer a EVF with longer lenses. I'd rather have an E-M10, partly because it uses the same battery as the E-PM2. I could use two E-PM2s or E-PL5s with a single VF-4.

i'm not convinced you need a second body. you're planning to lug around two high-end cameras for a tourist trip? you really feel compelled to take pictures so often that the group routinely leaves you behind? and you think that loading up on more gear is going to solve your problems? is that really the way you want to spend your holiday? shackled to machines?

Here's an approach consistent with what you have posted. On a trip to Europe I am taking only the EM10, the Pany 20 and the Oly 45. Instead of changing the 20 for the 45 when needed, or carrying a long zoom when the 45 is too short, I plan to use the Digital Tele Converter.

Krugman

pocketpygmy wrote:

fair enough -- you seem to have convinced yourself pretty thoroughly and i respect that you've thought it through and articulated it without getting mad (which happens here sometimes).

I haven't worked out why people get so steamed up around here. If there's one thing I've learned it is that being angry is a waste of life. If I thought you were entirely wrong I'd just say so. I hope you'd be OK with that.

(i still think that two m4/3 cams for a non-professional trip is overkill though, and that you'd be fine with a 14-150mm or an FZ1000.)

Perhaps. I won't have to give up food to get a 2nd camera. I'm not stealing from a child's education fund. It's a hobby I have a passion for, but I'm not without reason. And maybe I'll just get a 14-150. But probably not.

The FZ1000 is a new confounder. It is likely to be good enough for almost all travel photos. It may even be available before I go. Then the E-M1 stays at home? Weird thought.

if anything, may i suggest some reading for your travels (or elsewhere)? a little book called 'on photography', by susan sontag. food for thought.

Ah, a polemic! Perhaps I'll find a copy. I'll consult my local library.

I'd stick with getting the same camera if you want to save time and confusion. Readjusting to a different body might only take a few seconds but the most valuable thing in traveling is your time. You only have a limited amount of time and those camera body adjustments (just like changing lenses) can add up to loosing a shot.

Generally speaking, when I want a second body as backup (that is, for the situation of a failure on a paid job), I want an identical body, configured the same. When I want a second body for the notion of a different lens, a different functional need, etc, then having the same is not so important.

For stills work, to me the E-M1 does the number best and works with my SLR lenses best (for several reasons, including the IBIS and PDAF). But for movie work, at the same level of competence, I'd want the GH4. If that split fits my need for a 'one lens per body' shooting methodology, I'd buy a GH4 instantly to complement the E-M1.

But out generally speaking,where my split happens is that I want the dynamics of the smaller format for telephoto work and the dynamics of a larger format for wide work, so my two body setup is E-M1 and Sony A7.

The Sony RX10 was created excactly for people like you, who feel that they need to have a really huge zoom range, but don't want to deal with the hassle of changing lenses, and the heavy weight of telephoto lenses designed for larger sensors.

Although I don't really understand the need for long zooms for general travel photography.

LMNCT wrote:

If not the same camera, than at least the same manufacturer. There is nothing so irritating as going back an forth between two dissimilar menu systems even if you know how to navigate both.

I love the variety. It keeps me on my toes and I like to think it keeps the little grey cells active.

I don't find jumping from one camera brand to another much more taxing than going from one of my G6's to the other, once I have messed around with their settings. I try to reset them both identically and to my default favorite menu scheme at the start of the day though.