1-Body, 1 lens: A renewed commitment

[shadowfox]

I know some of us have multiple M-bodies/lenses and for various reasons could justify doing so.

I, on the other hand, can't.

So as some of you already know, I finally sold my one and only Leica lens because it's a 50mm. I am back to having one M-body and one lens, this time an Ultron 35/1.7. (And please, mods, don't move this thread to the CV sub-forum like you did to my other one :) . This is very much about Leica M)

To some, this may be a step backwards, but I know exactly what I gain from this, and it is something concrete, more so than brand, myth, or other intangible qualities

... which, to me, is a step forward.

I love my M4-P. It allows me to take better pictures within its realm of specialty. I still think that it's one of the best investment I did for my photography.

To me, having one M-body and one lens puts the right amount of constraint that helped me to improve my selection of shots to take. But it also pushes me to keep taking pictures with what I have, instead of entertaining L-GAS for yet another magic bullet.

It makes me glad that I have just enough of picture-taking equipment whose potential is way beyond my minimal skills. Something that I can grow with, and nothing more.

Anyways, if nothing else, I hope this post will serve to inform a few Leica considerers (as I was once before) to consider this probably unpopular route.


Now... if there's a HU for a cheap collapsible 35mm... :D

[back alley]

i applaud your commitment to your photography and willingness to do what feels right for you.

[shenkerian]

There are collapsible 35s?

I'm almost with you, Will. I shot with a 50mm for about a year, then decided in October to try a 35mm for a few months. I'm now back to the 50mm, and I think I'll end up alternating them every few months or so.

[Brian Sweeney]

I'm glad that works for you. I get as much fun out of cleaning a J-8 or I-61L/D and checking them out with film as I do a Summicron.

There are inexpensive ways to "add to the arsenal". A J-8 for $30 or a 9cm F4 Elmar for $45 often go onto my Leica cameras.

[raid]

Using one lens would also fit with using a fixed lens RF camera. I wish you happiness in your endevor.

[akptc]

I so wish I had this much self-control, heck even enough to stop at 2 lenses. My attempt at one body + one lens led me to a K10D + an 18-250mm superzoom, works most of the time...

[gberger]

Self Flaggelation! I used a IIIc with the included 50mm 3.5 Elmar from 1945 to 1965, when I bought our M4, complete with the 50mm f/2.0.

If I had to choose one body and one lens (again), it would be the M7 with the 50mm 1.4 Summilux ASPH.

If you can't get a photo with this by moving around or other subtrefuges, I dunno' what to tell you.

Yes, I now use a 24m 2.8 due to macular degeneration; however, I believe my answer above reflects what I would tell the younger generations, viz, a body and a 50mm.

[JeffGreene]

I've been using a Canon 50 1.4 on my M6 recently, just because it seemed that I never took the 35 Cron off. As I continue to use it, I do find myself longing for the 35 MM. It seems a more natural fit for me. I've never been much of lens swapper. I carry a 35 and a 75 (which I rarely use). I suspect I'll be returning to my 35 in short order. 50 MM just doesn't feel right, but then again, I plan on giving it time. Who knows, maybe I'll convert! :D

[erikhaugsby]

One body, one lens?

That makes having 3 lenses and only one body a problem.
The only solution?
Buy 2 more bodies!
:D

[Al Patterson]

I know some of us have multiple M-bodies/lenses and for various reasons could justify doing so.

I, on the other hand, can't.

So as some of you already know, I finally sold my one and only Leica lens because it's a 50mm. I am back to having one M-body and one lens, this time an Ultron 35/1.7. (And please, mods, don't move this thread to the CV sub-forum like you did to my other one :) . This is very much about Leica M)

To some, this may be a step backwards, but I know exactly what I gain from this, and it is something concrete, more so than brand, myth, or other intangible qualities

... which, to me, is a step forward.

I love my M4-P. It allows me to take better pictures within its realm of specialty. I still think that it's one of the best investment I did for my photography.

To me, having one M-body and one lens puts the right amount of constraint that helped me to improve my selection of shots to take. But it also pushes me to keep taking pictures with what I have, instead of entertaining L-GAS for yet another magic bullet.

It makes me glad that I have just enough of picture-taking equipment whose potential is way beyond my minimal skills. Something that I can grow with, and nothing more.

Anyways, if nothing else, I hope this post will serve to inform a few Leica considerers (as I was once before) to consider this probably unpopular route.


Now... if there's a HU for a cheap collapsible 35mm... :D

The nice thing about keeping the M body is you can change your one lens at some future point and not have to buy a new camera.

[bmattock]

What do you do at an airshow?

[Gabriel M.A.]

One body, one lens?

That makes having 3 lenses and only one body a problem.
The only solution?
Buy 2 more bodies!
:D
There ya go! Using only one street for my car...well, that's an admirable discipline, anyway. :D

[Ken Ford]

What do you do at an airshow?

Take pics of the spectators watching the show, maybe?

[Chris101]

Hey Will, that's exactly the one lens-camera that I have. It sure makes it easy to decide what lens to use, eh? ;)

[jamxo]

Good on you!

My M6 + 35mm F2 Hexanon UC when it arrives and that is all I need in life.
(although my 35mm F1.2 Nokton may make the odd appearance when the sun goes down but its still the same focal length)

J

[maddoc]

M4-P is all camera you need :) About the lens ... one could argue :D

[kshapero]

Just when I was thinking of getting another body........

[Ara Ghajanian]

I admire your commitment also. The minimalist approach is best for forcing you to find shots as opposed to switching lenses every time you see something to shoot. Plus my eyes seem to get used to the frame lines and I can "see" shots in that focal length before I lift the camera to my eye. Also, it seems the 35mm focal length is a natural fit on an M camera. I have a 35 Cron and sometimes it's difficult to remove it from my M6. I only use my 90 for shots that absolutely need it. It seems like you're wasting the room inside the viewfinder with higher focal length lenses.
Ara

[Ken Ford]

Interesting. I've been thinking more and more about devolving my immediate RF kit to one body, two lenses with an ultimate goal of two identical bodies, two lenses. (A pair of M6s, 35/2 ASPH, 75/2 ASPH.) I find I shoot better when I have fewer tool choices to make.

[bmattock]

Take pics of the spectators watching the show, maybe?

Sure, because that's about all you're going to get.

I do not understand the minimalist approach if it means not taking photographs that I want to take. I like macro - so I have an SLR and a macro lens. I like airshows. So I have a dSLR and a very long lens. I like parades, so I have a nice wide lens. And etc.

If I took but one sort of photograph, then I guess I could see the point - maybe. If someone else wants to do it, I guess fine for them. I don't find it particularly 'admirable', but I'm not putting them down either - to each their own.

But if I need to haul stuff around - I get a truck. If I need better gas mileage - a small car. I don't see what is inherently wrong with using the right tool for the right job. This is photography, not a religious experience.

[RITskellar]

Here, here. Though I don't have your discipline for a singular solution, I do have multiple singles. Meaning, I hoard my favorite body and lens and have several of them. My MP and a Summicron 35 pre-asph is what always accompanies me. The only real variation is sometimes it's a Summilux 50 pre-asph when I want to be a little closer.

Anyway, I'm also a big fan of simple. Too many options is often, well, just too much.

[Morca007]

This is photography, not a religious experience.
Eh, what's the difference?

[Al Patterson]

Interesting. I've been thinking more and more about devolving my immediate RF kit to one body, two lenses with an ultimate goal of two identical bodies, two lenses. (A pair of M6s, 35/2 ASPH, 75/2 ASPH.) I find I shoot better when I have fewer tool choices to make.

I'm pretty much there, as I do have 2 CLs and 3 lenses, although I think the 90 has been used maybe once.

In the SLR world, I have two A-1s. But, I usually use the better body and keep the second as a backup. On short trips, the backup stays in the closet. On a long trip, I always have the second body handy.

Can you tell I've worked with Fault Tolerant computers over the years?

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is photography, not a religious experience.
ah rekon you ain't seen de light. Ah buleeve!

...in different things, but like you said, to each his(/her/their/its) own.

[Ara Ghajanian]

This is photography, not a religious experience.

Wrong... to some (myself included).

[bmattock]

Mmmm, okay. So to make my life even simpler, I'll just get rid of all my cameras and lenses, no film, no digital. I'll just *think* about taking the perfect photo. That's the direction we're heading here, right?

[shadowfox]

Thanks to all who chimed in. It's reassuring to me that this approach resonates with some of y'all.

Raid: To me, using an M-system is different than using a fixed focus length for the exact reason that I can change lenses from time to time as my preference shifted.

Bill: Notice which sub-forum I post this on? it's not a general statement about my photography :) The 1-body-1-lens principle only applies to my use of the M-system, and most importantly within the realm of its specialty (which an airshow probably isn't one, although I've taken pics at a balloon festival with my M4-P and got more interesting shots than if I had brought my zoomy-zoom-zoom gears :D )

Chris: You, Gavin, and I would be pretty fun to watch if we ever get together for a shooting session. We almost have identical gears.

To clarify some points:

- I don't have (enough) self-discipline, that's why I'm making this effort to limit myself, so I can develop some. A chicken or egg matter, maybe? :)

- I still have a few sets of SLR and prime lenses (I do not think highly of most zooms), but I won't be using them together with my M4-P. They are two separate systems that I use for two different situations. Sometimes they may overlap, but then I won't have a problem deciding which lens do I want to bring with the M4-P, will I? :)

- I just made my first LF shot yesterday (Yaaay!!), yet another system for a completely different application.

[kevin m]

So to make my life even simpler, I'll just get rid of all my cameras and lenses

Well, it would free up some shelf space.

When I shot weddings with M-Leicas, I carried two bodies. I spent a long while trying out various two-lens combos. 35/75, 28/50, 35/90. I finally settled on what everybody said the "boring" combo was: 35/50. But it worked. Those two focal lengths are the most natural match for the M viewfinder, and their use becomes second nature very quickly.

And lenses aren't trucks or cars. One can make one lens work where logic dictates it shouldn't, because that "logic" is usually just based on conventional wisdom, anyway. Creativity often arises out of poverty and/or desperation. Anybody can shoot an airshow with a 300mm telephoto, try doing it with a 21mm. :D

[elude]

You're going "back to basics" and that's a good thing.
It all depends on your approach of photography and I share this philosophy. The focal lenght doesn't matter; 12-15-21-28-35-50-75-90-135 it's all the same if you use your instinct instead of your intellect.
Have fun !

[kevin m]

Two good quotes from artists on this subject:

"Absence of limitation is the death of art." - Orson Welles.

"I'm all lost in the supermarket." - The Clash.

:D

[Lance]

I went in to Leica to go back to basics. I have two SLRs, a DSLR and five lenses to choose from. Primes and zooms. They are good for what they do and the Leica for what it does (for me). I bought my M6 with a 50 Cron - the only reason I have a 50. I don't like 50 so much. I only just got money to buy a 35. So now I'm thinking of getting rid of the 50. It's just not so much my thing.

The Leica is about moments for me. I use it mainly for street, and I don't have time to think about changing lenses. So why bother having more than the one lens you like the most?

[MikeCassidy]

For years all I had was my M3 and a 90mm. I didn't feel constricted.

Now I have a 21mm, 35, 50mm and a 90mm for my M3; a Rollie TLR and just now a Xpan with a 90mm. I dont feel constricted.

I read 30 years ago that Ralph Gibson shoots with just a 50mm. He has some nice pictures. I dont know if he still does this but it wouldn't surprise me.

In the same interview there is a great quote by him when asked if all his images are full frame:

"Even if they are not, I wouldn't admit it."

[MikeCassidy]

- I don't have (enough) self-discipline, that's why I'm making this effort to limit myself, so I can develop some. A chicken or egg matter, maybe? :)
One thing I did and I am only starting not to do it is print everything full frame, never crop. That brings disapline.

[jarski]

having 1 lens per 1 roll helps also control freaks like me, that want to record lens specs to filename of scanned photo :D (not to mention date when the shot was taken, which is another story) :D :D

[Brian Sweeney]

I can just see Bill dressed as a Monk and meditating on the perfect picture.

While he's doing that, I'll be sending two IIIf's in for CLA, adjust shim a lens for a Nikon, and build another CZJ Sonnar into LTM.

[raid]

Why use only one lens? Why why why?
I can see myself using only a 50mm lens, if needed.

[jarski]

Why use only one lens? Why why why?

1 lens per camera follows the old KISS rule ? forget about your lens options and concentrate about whats happening around you.

[bmattock]

Why use only one lens? Why why why?

They are searching for that 'satori moment' when their photographs get better because they are unconstrained by their own tools. By forcing artificial limitations upon themselves, they believe they are going to unleash a form of creativity previously denied to them.

One might as well choose to use only one shutter speed, or one aperture. Will it produce 'creative thinking'? Well, yes, from the sense that if all you have is a wrench and you need to hammer something, you'll have to figure out how to use a wrench as a hammer. Of course, it probably won't be a very good hammer, but the Satori Boys here think that it will be more pure in some way that cannot be seen in the result, but experienced in that mystical moment of bonding.

Or some junk like that. Frankly, it's lost on me.

I think there is too much belly-button gazing going on around here. But that's ok, I find it all rather amusing.

[bmattock]

1 lens per camera follows the old KISS rule ? forget about your lens options and concentrate about whats happening around you.

I don't use a deer rifle on rabbit. Tools are specialized for a reason - they each have a purpose. The photographer has to choose the appropriate tools for the appropriate job. Refusing to do so is like kicking your flat tire and walking away from your stranded car because you refuse to own a tire-iron, only a screwdriver. Tools matter.

I'm making my first foray into a federal wildlife preserve later this month. They have a photographer's blind, and the possibility that I might see some critters running around. Never done that before, but I'll prepare for it with a tripod, long lens, and some patience if I can muster it. I would not consider bringing my Yashica GSN - because I'd get crappy photos of skittish critters from 100 yards away. But this crowd would be thrilled if I somehow presented a bunch of dots on the horizon as my sum photographic output? You guys get a better brand of booze than I do, must be.

[gns]

I use only one lens. Of course there are different tools for different jobs. If I were hired to deliver a certain picture, then of course, I would need the tools for that job. But it is not a job (not for me, and probably not for the others considering this approach).

The primary problem with photography is where to point the camera. How to corral the world into some sort of order, isn't it? With one lens, the possibilities for this are already infinite. I just don't see that adding another lens would make things any more interesting. That's me.

Cheers,
Gary

[okto]

Great thing about Leica is when you start GASing, you realize that the Noctilux isn't nearly as good at keeping the rain off as your house is. ;P

[kevin m]

I think there is too much belly-button gazing going on around here. But that's ok, I find it all rather amusing.

And that's why we're all here: to amuse you. :D

[shadowfox]

Bill,

I, for the most part find myself agreeing a lot with what you said (not in this particular thread, but outside).

One thing that I observe is that you always use yourself as the yardstick of how you see others. All relative to your values, your methods, your experiences, your knowledge, and your (whatever).

I don't. I can't.

I measure myself against others and I constantly learn and derive inspirations from others (including you, sometimes :) ). So from time to time, I'd like to give back by sharing my experience hoping that it may inspire someone that came after me.

I am putting the 1-body-1-len stake in the ground not because I am proclaiming a breakthrough zen/minimalistic/"ommm...." approach, I did it because I need it. Because without it, I'll be a wannabe who end up with a bunch of super-optics and gears, and no pictures to show for. And I don't like that picture at all (pun enforced).

The Leica M-system is a perfect choice for me to draw the line in the sand because there is so much for me to achieve. Right now I can't take street-pictures worth a dime, by limiting myself to 1-body-1-lens, all I have left is myself to push forward. Nothing else.

So my post has nothing to do with belly-button gazing (funny picture, that :) ) or booze (I can't even finish one glass of beer without getting red in the face). It's about deciding which one is more important for me, the photographs, or the gear.

If my decision doesn't measure up to your yardstick, then I just have to live with that. :D

[MikeCassidy]

I used one lens, 90mm, for years because I didn't have money fro other lenses. It also helps to learn what a lens can do by using it exlusively for a month or two and you know it and know when to use it.

As far as kicking your head into the right place if using one lens does it for someone why get pouty about their method.

[bmattock]

Bill,

I, for the most part find myself agreeing a lot with what you said (not in this particular thread, but outside).

One thing that I observe is that you always use yourself as the yardstick of how you see others. All relative to your values, your methods, your experiences, your knowledge, and your (whatever).

I don't. I can't.

OK, fair criticism. Truth is, I use myself as a reference because I am all I know. Some things I can grok even though I cannot agree with. Some things I can understand the basic concept of, but I cannot quite get my mind around it. And some things just seem, well, silly to me.

The limitation is of course, mine. I accept that.


I measure myself against others and I constantly learn and derive inspirations from others (including you, sometimes :) ).


I know that I work in a different way. I never go to the gallery, for example. I have very little interest in the photographs other people take. I have a 'Flickr' friends list, and I try to look over the photographs I see there and make comments from time to time. And don't get me wrong, I like what I see - in many cases, their abilities far outweigh mine; it's just that left to my own devices, I'm not terribly interested in anyone else's photographs.

On very rare occasions, I see the work of some famous photographer and go 'wow' and want to see more. I am planning a trip before May to the Milwaukee Art Museum to see "FOTO: MODERNITY IN CENTRAL EUROPE, 1918–1945:"

http://mam.org/FOTO/

But I went to see an Ansel Adams exhibit here in Detroit and it did nothing for me - it was quite a let-down, to tell the truth.

I do what I do. I may take inspiration from others, I may learn from their techniques and their methods. But I may not. I read about Garry Winogrand's method of taking photos, and I'm not interested at all in trying to duplicate that. I like street photography, but the only street photography I find really exciting is Brassai. And I don't draw the line anywhere - I have never tried wildlife photography, but I'm willing to give it a go. I've done weddings, events, hot air balloons, flowers, portraits, parades, you name it. It's all grist for the mill. I'm not an artist - I do what I do.


So from time to time, I'd like to give back by sharing my experience hoping that it may inspire someone that came after me.

Again, fair enough. Sorry for poking fun at it.


I am putting the 1-body-1-len stake in the ground not because I am proclaiming a breakthrough zen/minimalistic/"ommm...." approach, I did it because I need it. Because without it, I'll be a wannabe who end up with a bunch of super-optics and gears, and no pictures to show for. And I don't like that picture at all (pun enforced).

Whereas I go to an airshow with a 70~210 lens, get some decent photos, but notice that I am not quite filling the frame, so I think a 300 zoom would be a good way to do that. I don't think hmmm, how can I get a more creative shot with the gear I have? I did that while I was shooting. When I think about next time, I think about how I could have done that better and what I'd need to do it.

I went to a ballroom dancing competition because it sounded like a pip. And it was. I learned a lot of new skills there. I really had to push myself. I took a slew of lenses because I did not know what would work. I began to work through my options and finally settled down with a 135mm f/2.8 lens shot at f/3.5 (with digital crop factor). If I had not had it, I would not have gotten the shots I wanted. So perhaps you can see where our experiences differ. I reach for a tool that seems to me to fit what the situation is, I don't try to match my situation to the tools I have.


The Leica M-system is a perfect choice for me to draw the line in the sand because there is so much for me to achieve. Right now I can't take street-pictures worth a dime, by limiting myself to 1-body-1-lens, all I have left is myself to push forward. Nothing else.

Yeah, I see now. I don't think I'm all that, either, but I am not worried about it. I just do what I do. If it challenges me and I enjoy it and like the results, I'm happy. I know they're probably unworthy dross to the rest of the world.


So my post has nothing to do with belly-button gazing (funny picture, that :) ) or booze (I can't even finish one glass of beer without getting red in the face). It's about deciding which one is more important for me, the photographs, or the gear.

I see them as inextricably intertwined. Mechanics use tools, blacksmiths use hammers, painters use brushes. Photographers use lenses.


If my decision doesn't measure up to your yardstick, then I just have to live with that. :D

No, you made your point. Well done. I'll stop now.

[Honus]

Will - for what it's worth, I encourage you to pursue your plan.

I look forward to following along as you go.

[Chris101]

... I read 30 years ago that Ralph Gibson shoots with just a 50mm. He has some nice pictures. I dont know if he still does this but it wouldn't surprise me. ...As of last year he still does. He also eschews red filters, and considers digital a passing fad.

[TheMadUkrainian]

I feel the same way...I just learned a few things about photography when I was a kid that conflicts with this simplicity. These few things have become my rules.

First, if you want to learn about photography...shoot.

Second, shoot slides to tighten your skills...it's less forgiving.

Third, never sell a Leica.

Since I have : inherited an M2, bought an M6 because it was a really good deal, and bought an M8 at full price just because I am at a point in my life where I can.

So, I found I can't violate my rules. Instead, I pick the camera I want to shoot with and use it. Mainly, I'd hate to get caught in a dark alley with all three.

[italy74]

Will

you have all my respect and esteem for what you're doing. Coming back to "basics" it's something I'm moving toward too. I consider RF shooting the utmost photographic level under both the creative and technical side. Mastering a manual RF camera it's for sure one of the greatest challenges a photographers can face in his life.

Best wishes.

[Brian Sweeney]

I firmly believe in the one-lens one-camera Philosophy being professed here.

Everyone with more than one lens and one camera, kindly list them in the Classifieds.

(Bill, SShhhh. Gotta lure them into range...)

[shenkerian]

What do you do at an airshow?I actually thought you were being ironic when I first read this. My immediate response was "Why the heck would I be at an airshow?"

[bmattock]

I actually thought you were being ironic when I first read this. My immediate response was "Why the heck would I be at an airshow?"

Yeah, I get you. Well, to take photos, I guess. Airshows are kind of fun. But they might not be to your taste.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157600948952895/

[back alley]

OK, fair criticism. Truth is, I use myself as a reference because I am all I know. Some things I can grok even though I cannot agree with. Some things I can understand the basic concept of, but I cannot quite get my mind around it. And some things just seem, well, silly to me.

The limitation is of course, mine. I accept that.



I know that I work in a different way. I never go to the gallery, for example. I have very little interest in the photographs other people take. I have a 'Flickr' friends list, and I try to look over the photographs I see there and make comments from time to time. And don't get me wrong, I like what I see - in many cases, their abilities far outweigh mine; it's just that left to my own devices, I'm not terribly interested in anyone else's photographs.

On very rare occasions, I see the work of some famous photographer and go 'wow' and want to see more. I am planning a trip before May to the Milwaukee Art Museum to see "FOTO: MODERNITY IN CENTRAL EUROPE, 1918–1945:"

http://mam.org/FOTO/

But I went to see an Ansel Adams exhibit here in Detroit and it did nothing for me - it was quite a let-down, to tell the truth.

I do what I do. I may take inspiration from others, I may learn from their techniques and their methods. But I may not. I read about Garry Winogrand's method of taking photos, and I'm not interested at all in trying to duplicate that. I like street photography, but the only street photography I find really exciting is Brassai. And I don't draw the line anywhere - I have never tried wildlife photography, but I'm willing to give it a go. I've done weddings, events, hot air balloons, flowers, portraits, parades, you name it. It's all grist for the mill. I'm not an artist - I do what I do.



Again, fair enough. Sorry for poking fun at it.



Whereas I go to an airshow with a 70~210 lens, get some decent photos, but notice that I am not quite filling the frame, so I think a 300 zoom would be a good way to do that. I don't think hmmm, how can I get a more creative shot with the gear I have? I did that while I was shooting. When I think about next time, I think about how I could have done that better and what I'd need to do it.

I went to a ballroom dancing competition because it sounded like a pip. And it was. I learned a lot of new skills there. I really had to push myself. I took a slew of lenses because I did not know what would work. I began to work through my options and finally settled down with a 135mm f/2.8 lens shot at f/3.5 (with digital crop factor). If I had not had it, I would not have gotten the shots I wanted. So perhaps you can see where our experiences differ. I reach for a tool that seems to me to fit what the situation is, I don't try to match my situation to the tools I have.



Yeah, I see now. I don't think I'm all that, either, but I am not worried about it. I just do what I do. If it challenges me and I enjoy it and like the results, I'm happy. I know they're probably unworthy dross to the rest of the world.



I see them as inextricably intertwined. Mechanics use tools, blacksmiths use hammers, painters use brushes. Photographers use lenses.



No, you made your point. Well done. I'll stop now.


this is the bill i fondly remember and miss.

just a thought bill.
joe

[bmattock]

this is the bill i fondly remember and miss.

just a thought bill.
joe

Let's hold a wake. I'll bring the booze.