Spare Body or not

[Scubanomad 1]

I do have the 5D MK III and my great lenses. I am VERY happy with it.

Now for travel I am contemplating getting a spare body.

So if I were to buy a 6D or 5D2 it would not fit in the housing if my 5DIII breaks. So I would have to get a spare 5DIII body (Costly)

Or if the worst thing happens and the 5D3 breaks, send it off to the Locale Canon repair center whereever I am traveling in and wait until its repaired. In the meantime use a phone (no underwater photos) or buy a cheap PS camera while I wait for the repair.

Anyone has experience with it and how do you approach it? Thanks

 

 

[John Bantin 101]

Get a spare body but if you flood the first, I can tell you that you won't want to risk the second!

[johnspierce 25]

The more sophisticated housings get, the less sense it makes to have a backup body unless you also have a backup housing. The electronics in the housing will likely also be toast if you flood it.

[betti154 5]

I do have the 5D MK III and my great lenses. I am VERY happy with it.

Now for travel I am contemplating getting a spare body.

So if I were to buy a 6D or 5D2 it would not fit in the housing if my 5DIII breaks. So I would have to get a spare 5DIII body (Costly)

Or if the worst thing happens and the 5D3 breaks, send it off to the Locale Canon repair center whereever I am traveling in and wait until its repaired. In the meantime use a phone (no underwater photos) or buy a cheap PS camera while I wait for the repair.

Anyone has experience with it and how do you approach it? Thanks

 

 

I'm in the same situation, but don't have a great answer. I'm thinking that a small crop sensor camera might be the way to go as a secondary body and housing, will also give me more flexibility for macro shooting. I've briefly looked at the eos-m camera but am somewhat underwhelmed with it.

 

I've still got my 7D body and housing as backup, but its just as heavy as the 5D3 so makes for traveling with both a pain. I'll probably wait and see what happens with the 7D2 and go from there.

 

No great answer from me I'm afraid, but maybe some food for thought.

[Cary Dean 3]

Don't travel anywhere without spares.

If you're several thousand miles from home on an

expensive trip why risk all that time and money

over the cost of a spare.

[expatdiver 0]

I am in the proscess of putting together a new system, and the fist thing on my list is 2 bodies. I spare body not only gives you a direct replcement should your primary fail, it also give you additional spares (i.e. battery, memory cards, etc.). Plus you have any identical body for topside shooting during your trip; so you already know buttons and settings. I used to have to debate wheter to take the time to remove my camera from the housing when, say a pod of orcas started bow riding while we were out looking for whalesharks, to shoot topside or leave it in to be ready to jump. Now I don't have that debate anymore. I just grab whichever camera is necesary.

 

Also, depending on your housing, you can always switch to optical sync (if the electronics fail) or ambiant light photography (if optical sync is not an option).

[john70490 3]

One option nobody has mentioned is to buy a secondhand four thirds camera (Panasonic or Olympus) and cheap plastic housing. The total outlay will be much less and the extra weight negligible. The set-up won't do everything your primary set-up does but it will enable you to take prety decent shots (and videos) in an emergency situation and at least you won't come home without any pictures.

[rtrski 20]

Spare body makes sense if you don't have electronics in the housing to also fry, which generally means fiberoptic triggering...but you might lose a lens along with the body, so where does it end? Spare body is also nice if doing a combination dive/topside trip of some sort, even if you're not hiking/touring around, since you can have the spare with a different lens available without having to break everything down. When someone yells "dolphins at the bow!" and your camera is in a housing with arms and strobes that's some 25lbs out of the water, boy do you want that spare to have been available.

Edited May 19, 2013 by rtrski

[onewolf 2]

Spare body makes sense if you don't have electronics in the housing to also fry, which generally means fiberoptic triggering...but you might lose a lens along with the body, so where does it end? Spare body is also nice if doing a combination dive/topside trip of some sort, even if you're not hiking/touring around, since you can have the spare with a different lens available without having to break everything down. When someone yells "dolphins at the bow!" and your camera is in a housing with arms and strobes that's some 25lbs out of the water, boy do you want that spare to have been available.

 

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the whole flooded lens situation. I guess the 'backup' for my DSLR system is my wife's compact P/S system. Makes much more sense to have a backup body for a P/S system.

[E_viking 30]

You might already carry a 60mm and a 105mmfor macro. As well as a Fisheye and a rectilinear Wideangle.

That is sort of a backup. Admittedly not a 1:1 backup, but...

 

There is not that much electronics inside the Housings. The Hotshoe is mostly cables and should be ok after drying up..

OK, the Leak Detector would be fried. Not the end of the world though.

 

A backup Body would in my opinion be the most sensible backup.

That said I do not bring a backup. A good vacuum system should do the job instead!

 

/Erik

[adamhanlon 0]

Hi all,

 

A backup body does not only protect you from flooding. Cameras can go wrong too! They get dropped, damaged or simply stop working. Sometimes they get stolen

 

It makes most sense to carry two camera bodies of one type. This means that if a camera goes wrong (or floods) you can simply swap them over.

 

If your job depends on capturing images while you are away, your gear will (should) be insured, and hence the damage/flood will not be economically disastrous. Coming home from assignment without the images your client has sent you to take will be! A second body is the only way to ensure this doesn't happen.

 

Some people will actually hire their second body for the duration of their trip. This removes the capital expense of owning a second body.

 

Adam

[John Bantin 101]

As I already said, and I speak from a well-remembered and painful experience, flooding a body and lens does not encourage you to have a second go with a different camera! However, as Adam points out, we use strictly amateur equipment with sophisticated electronics that can go wrong.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I think it makes a lot of sense to have a spare camera body. Especially if you are going on important or once in a life time trips. Less so if you dive mainly at home.

 

For the record I've never owned a spare body for any of the Nikon SLRs I have used. And never had a flood or been let down by one (and done 1000s of dives, shot a handful of books and hundred of magazine features).

 

But I have seen many other people flood theirs. Especially newer underwater photographers are most vulnerable to making the mistakes in housing preparation that lead to most floods. If you look at the problem logically, it is impossible to argue against the sense in having a spare.

[John Bantin 101]

Thanks Alex. I was just in the process of convincing myself to buy a spare D800!

[Drew 0]

If one can afford it, it's a no brainer, especially if there's a mixture of topside and underwater shooting.

 

Fixing it at the local Canon dealer would mean at minimum a 48 wait period (if you are a CPS member) and probably a week or more. If it's a major drowning, they can't fix it anyhow.

 

I always have a backup camera which acts as a topside camera. The one time I did a "Mustard" and went with one body to Bali because I already had a huge video rig. My friend drowned my camera just 3 days before my super long boat trips. I had to fly to the closest big country (SIngapore) to buy a replacement, only to find they had no stock available and I had to scour the 2nd hand shops and pay a premium for a body which was older and because of the country's price differential, cost 90% of a new one back in the US.
Of course, on those trips, I didn't like any of the pics I took except for maybe 3. Was it worth all that trouble and expense when all I had to do was pack an extra body? NO!

Moral of the story, always have a backup camera. If you don't want to spend on a DSLR, then get a smaller P&S like the Sony RX100 and housing. It's more of a bonanza if you have optical strobes as it can be compatible.

[Bent C 18]

The one time I totalled a camera was on the first day of a live aboard. There was no way of getting hold of another camera, so I had to spend a week of diving cool places without any pics at all. A couple of my friends were as productive as ever, with no camera problems. I have never travelled without a spare camera since then. The added security it gives is way more worth it to me than the cost of adding the spare. And, as others have already mentioned, doing a bit of topside shooting is hard work without an extra camera. Drew´s advice os good, if you don´t want to or cannot afford to spend on another dslr, get something worthwhile using.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Bent C

[chris_l 6]

For those of you suggesting getting a second smaller and lighter system have you seen this:

 

http://www.opticaloceansales.com/housings/mirrorless/olympus-housings/olympus-e-pm1-camera-pt-ep06-housing-zoom-gear-combo.html

 

pretty cheap and gives you a double backup, housing and camera.

 

My bro-in-law flooded a nikon on a live aboard recently. Even if he would have had a spare, the electronics in the housing were toast and thus the second body would have done no good.

It depends on your system obviously.

And what if you couldn't determine the cause of the original flood, would you bring down the next body and lens?

 

I have an olympus epl2 in the oly plastic housing. If I flooded and had a spare body I could be back in business quickly. It only seems practical to me if you have optical strobes. Of course, I'd lose a lens, but I have 3 with me that I can use underwater. I actually could get a second body cheap now, but I'm more interested in spending that money upgrading.

 

If you're a pro on assignment, that's obviously a different situation and you need to be prepared.

Edited May 22, 2013 by chris_l

[John Bantin 101]

...or buy a book by David Doubilet!

[johnspierce 25]

One thing is for sure, having optical strobes is a more flood-proof technology than wired.

[E_viking 30]

 

My bro-in-law flooded a nikon on a live aboard recently. Even if he would have had a spare, the electronics in the housing were toast and thus the second body would have done no good.

It depends on your system obviously.

And what if you couldn't determine the cause of the original flood, would you bring down the next body and lens?

 

 

The only thing of real importance that I can see that would get fried is if you have a TTL Converter inside the Housing.

The Hotshoe is basically just wires => rinse in sweetwater => works

Leak Detector , well...

TTL Converter: would be toast.

 

I had a flooding about 5-6 years ago ( as always a really really stupid user mistake).

I never had to replace the Hotshoe ( strobe connectors) and even the Leak Detector was still working.

Therefore in most Housings a spare would help a lot!

 

/Erik

[tdpriest 115]

If you're several thousand miles from home on an

expensive trip why risk all that time and money

over the cost of a spare?

 

Because, for some of us it's a choice between the trip or the spare...

[Kelpfish 15]

As I already said, and I speak from a well-remembered and painful experience, flooding a body and lens does not encourage you to have a second go with a different camera! However, as Adam points out, we use strictly amateur equipment with sophisticated electronics that can go wrong.

I flooded my N90 film camera in a Subal housing years ago and had a back up N90 with me. Before I even considered putting the spare camera in the water, I recleaned the orings and basically did all the prep work on my housing all over. Then I stuffed the housing with paper towels, sealed it then took it in the water to test for leaks. No leaks. Pilot error. Trip saved.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Kelpfish

[saudio 6]

Echoing many who have already posted, I'm in the camp of carrying a spare body. If you buy a used spare body, you likely can sell it used again for very little loss, which makes it pretty cheap photo insurance. Only two trips after I started carrying a spare, I flooded my Nauticam NA7D in Roatan on the second day. I lost my beloved Tokina 10-17 for the trip, but I was able to rinse and dry the housing, pop in my spare body, and continue shooting the next day with my 100 macro and 18-55 Kit zoom.

 

I'm also one of those lucky and determined few who was able to flood a Z240. It isn't easy ;-) And, I flooded a FIX 500 in the Philippines. So, I not only carry a spare body, but a spare Z240 I bought on Ebay and 2 Sola 800s. To me, the idea of planning and paying for a trip, then flying 20 hours and then not being able to shoot is unacceptable.

 

By the way, the flood was total stupidity on my part. I was having problems with one of the controls on the Nauticam, and I opened the housing on the boat between dives to reseat the camera. Upon closing the housing, I missed a latch, and flooded it in the rinse tank. I can't tell you what it felt like to be handed my rig from the boat and immediately noticing it was a couple pounds negative instead of neutral. Ack.

[davephdv 0]

If your trip is ruined with flooded camera, then a spare body and all housing electronics.

 

Or a spare camera and housing. For this reason I got a Sony RX100 and housing.

 

Why would optical fiber strobes be considered a greater risk? I've seen lots of hard wired synch cords and or sockets leak or break. Some of them frying the camera or strobe.

 

Only problem I've seen with optical fiber connections have been fixed with duct tape

[TimG 62]

I always travel with a spare body too. As many have said, being able to topside photograph with the same body/lens combinations is really useful. And if the dreaded flood arrives you do at least have some options. Sure, you have probably written off one lens, but you do at least have a second body and, likely, other lenses.

 

And, again, as others have said, you also have a backup if a camera body develops a fault or you drop it.....

 

Camera bodies aren't cheap but spread over several years and compared to the cost of dive photography trips.......