Re: Multiple bodies

[adi <adisoon@pl.jaring.my>]

Hi,

I do realise the many benefits of multiple bodies. However, my question
arose from the school of thought, that said simplification and less
superflous excess will enable us photogs to get to the heart and soul of the
subject. Flowery as this may be, in essence you approach your subject, or
the person as another human being who just happens to have a camera in hand.
This approach is less intrusive than have multiple cameras dangling all over
or having to carry a huge, oversized camera bag around. The very design of
the M camera supports this kind of non excess, which is what, as a long ago
post has written said that NG's David Alan Harvey shoots whole essays with
one Leica M and one lens. May I add also, to this simplifying, the use of
one type of film only.

that is what I mean.

- --adi
>
>Adi,
>
>I'm butting in, but the main reasons people carry more than one body are:
>
>If you wear two or more bodies, with different lenses mounted on them, 
>you can switch from one focal length to another simply by changing 
>cameras. This is much faster than changing lenses on the same body; you 
>always have the right lens immediatly available. This is a very common 
>practice, and very useful if you are shooting quickly. Ted Grant often 
>has 5 or more cameras hanging off of him.
>
>Many people need to shoot more than one type of film at the same time 
>(such as both BW and color). Somebody in the LUG mentioned always using a 
>chrome body for chromes and a black body for BW, to make it a no-brainer 
>to remember which is which.
>
>If one camera has a breakdown (especially if it is something that is not 
>obvious, like a film transport problem) you still have the film you shot 
>with the other body or bodies; even if you are missing all of the color 
>shots, or all shots with a certain lens, at least you have something. 
>This can save your butt, since the more important the pictures are, the 
>more likely it is that something will go wrong.
>
>- Paul
>
>