Holier than thou

[Roger Hicks]

...because I have LESS kit.

Not me, obviously. But I am amused by the way that having fewer cameras/lenses is regarded by some as evidence of purity of vision.

I've been taking pictures seriously since 1966. I have a ridiculous number of cameras, some of which have NEVER been used -- often because they were gifts, or 'too cheap to pass up'. Others are historical accidents, or cameras that have been bypassed by technology or my personal evolution: much used once, little used now. Yet others are mistakes: I thought I'd use 'em much more than I do.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of pictures on www.rogerandfrances.com, mostly taken with M-series Leicas, so I don't feel an enormous need to defend myself as a photographer (as distinct from a collector/fondler). Even so, I sometimes feel that some of my kit gets in the way of taking more pics.

Any thoughts about your own kit/picture relationship?

Cheers,

R.

[Gumby]

No, I have no significant thoughts to share.

[FPjohn]

Hello Roger:

Perhaps, there is some virtue in economy of means.

yours
FPJ

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by FPjohn

Hello Roger:

Perhaps, there is some virtue in economy of means.

yours
FPJ

Dear FPJ,

I'm sure there is.

But I suspect there may be as many bad photographers of the 'one camera, one lens' persuasion as there are of the 'buy it all' persuasion.

That's why I wondered what others thought. There is, after all, a difference between economy of what you have and economy of what you use.

Cheers,

R.

[NIKON KIU]

Too much gear can create confusion.
Simplicity creates a comfort zone, lets one focus on the image rather than what to use.
For you that may be moot point but for some...
I hear HCB did most of his work with a 35mm lens.

Kiu

[Carlsen Highway]

I have one Leica, one lens. And a cardboard box full of dead, dying and injured.
You are asking me to attach meaning to this; I am unsure whether that is wise.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

I don't give it too much thought, honestly. Sure, for one person one could argue that I have a "lot of cameras" or a "lot of lenses." I certainly have a lot of film as one peek in the fridge would attest to... But I really enjoy taking pictures and I actually do use every last bit of it all. I have no trailer queens in my parking lot! I like the gear-sided part of photography as well. The careful selection of bodies, lenses, even systems as a whole, films, etc.

I don't see why one should restrict themselves in any way unless they feel it helps them concentrate and not be spinning their wheels on gear selection or something... Of course there's a lot to be said about "one camera, one lens, one film." But that's not ME. I usually choose a particular camera and a subset of lenses for a particular situation though.

One day I might decide to go shoot 35mm. Either film, or digital. Another day I might grab the Hassy. Or the Mamiya. Sometimes I grab ONE lens and specifically work it (especially when I get a new one).

I don't know. There's too much cool kit out there to put up imaginary boundaries for myself and I certainly won't tell anyone else how to shoot. Take whatever gear you think you need and have FUN.

The magic words are highlighted.

Unless of course you can't afford/don't want to buy more. My first year with a Leica was one camera, one lens (IIIa, Elmar 5cm). As soon as I could afford it, I bought a 9cm Elmar as well (halfers with my fiancée, £5:10:0d each).

Cheers,

R.

[sojournerphoto]

I suspect I fall somewhere in the middle, 2 identical but for colour rf's (after I sell the Bessa's...), a couple of dslrs and my old Canon AE-1.

I keep thinking that I'd like a GF-1 and/or an M9, but just for the next few days at least, I am staying away because I know that it would for a time distract me from what I'm currently enjoying. When I have a good reason to buy one, or the urge is just too strong (I admit) then I probably will.

No great meaning, but I do understand that I need to use something for a while to learn what I can do with it.

Mike

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by NIKON KIU

Too much gear can create confusion.
Simplicity creates a comfort zone, lets one focus on the image rather than what to use.
For you that may be moot point but for some...
I hear HCB did most of his work with a 35mm lens.

Kiu

Dear Kiu,

Often said to be 50, with a 90 as second choice; I don't think it was 35, though I could easily be wrong. My suspicion is that 'one camera, one lens' improves one's photography by removing unnecessary choices and lens-swapping time.

But I also suspect that one can come out of the other side of gear addiction, just choosing what you want for a particular trip/day/subject.

Cheers,

R.

[emraphoto]

in my humble opinion "good" photographs come from a lot of things and kit is way down on the list.

with that being said, as i progress as a photographer i find i carry less and less gear. more often than not 1 camera and 1 lens. either a m6 and 35 or a mamiya 7 and 65. even the focal length is pretty much the same.

[Al Kaplan]

I've pared down my collection of users over the past few years because they're no longer paying the bills. I still have a few antiques like an old Graflex SLR and a 5x7 E.& H.T. Anthony view camera from about 1890. The only one I miss is the Olympus Pen W.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Al Kaplan

I've pared down my collection of users over the past few years because they're no longer paying the bills. I still have a few antiques like an old Graflex SLR and a 5x7 E.& H.T. Anthony view camera from about 1890. The only one I miss is the Olympus Pen W.

Dear Al,

Same here, but most film cameras are now worth so little it's hardly worth getting rid of 'em. Also, the bills are not what they were (no mortgage, no credit cards) so I'm not so worried about paying 'em. And I still HAVE a Pen W (sticks out tongue, thumbs nose, while smiling).

Most serious photographers, I think, eventually do come out of the other side of GAS. At least to the point of seldom buying complete rubbish (though there is still the occasional irresistible bargain).

Cheers,

R.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

But I also suspect that one can come out of the other side of gear addiction, just choosing what you want for a particular trip/day/subject.

That was exactly my thought... I just couldn't get it off the tip of my tongue. This technique actually works for me. There's nothing "holy" about it... it's a simple matter of choosing the equipment that best matches the requirements, then using it.

I also agree with the notion that less equipment improves photography MOSTLY by removing unnecessary choices and lens/body/film-swapping time. The extension to this is that ridding one's reluctance to crop improves photography by removing unecessary choices of framing that can sometimes take so long as to result in total loss of image capture.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Gumby

That was exactly my thought... I just couldn't get it off the tip of my tongue. This technique actually works for me. There's nothing "holy" about it... it's a simple matter of choosing the equipment that best matches the requirements, then using it.

I also agree with the notion that less equipment improves photography MOSTLY by removing unnecessary choices and lens/body/film-swapping time. The extension to this is that ridding one's reluctance to crop improves photography by removing unecessary choices of framing that can sometimes take so long as to result in total loss of image capture.

Dear Ed,

Especially bloody zooms!

Cheers,

R.

[kshapero]

I am somewhere in the middle but I am dogged with the guilt that I should be like HCB, one body, one lens, even though HCB wasn't like "HCB".

[emraphoto]

i never really got into those zooms. even shooting press gigs when EVERYBODY HAD TO HAVE THEM i just found i left them on a single focal length?

[Ade-oh]

Hmmm. Well, after doing a quick calculation I realise I have eight 35mm film cameras, three medium format film cameras, two Minox sub-mini film cameras, a Polaroid point and shoot with thirteen frames of type 600 film left, a digital point and shoot and a DSLR. I also have a selection of lenses, flash equipment, motor drives and all the rest of the paraphernalia...

Having said which, I rarely go about with more than one camera and one lens at a time; It depends what I want to shoot. I'm not sure how 'purist' that would make me. It's fair to say that two or three of these cameras don't often get used but I hang onto them for one reason or another.

[underbyte]

After shooting a lot of pinhole photography in the last 4 years, I know well that all you need to make an image is a light tight box, a decent hole, and a vision of what you are trying to capture. Absent the vision, shoot lots and sometimes you get lucky! Seriously though, I have many cameras, too many cameras, but they each have a charm and bring an enjoyment to making different types of images. I flirt with getting rid of some, many, at least a few, but as someone already mentioned, the value of a camera more than a few years old is quite low, unless it says Leica.

I can make a great image with a box made from foamcore, or with the used Leica M6 that I had been dreaming about for years and finally purchased last month. I like the simplicity of once camera, one lens, etc. but it's just one way of doing it. There is no purity, just choices. If I could afford an M9, I would certainly buy one. I can't afford it so it is moot. Every camera is wonderful, but remember that they are just tools. It seems like it is very hard to get rid of some of my tools

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by underbyte

After shooting a lot of pinhole photography in the last 4 years, I know well that all you need to make an image is a light tight box, a decent hole, and a vision of what you are trying to capture. Absent the vision, shoot lots and sometimes you get lucky! Seriously though, I have many cameras, too many cameras, but they each have a charm and bring an enjoyment to making different types of images. I flirt with getting rid of some, many, at least a few, but as someone already mentioned, the value of a camera more than a few years old is quite low, unless it says Leica.

I can make a great image with a box made from foamcore, or with the used Leica M6 that I had been dreaming about for years and finally purchased last month. I like the simplicity of once camera, one lens, etc. but it's just one way of doing it. There is no purity, just choices. If I could afford an M9, I would certainly buy one. I can't afford it so it is moot. Every camera is wonderful, but remember that they are just tools. It seems like it is very hard to get rid of some of my tools

Elegant! I'll steal it...

Cheers,

R.

[wlewisiii]

Roger,

Right now I have a very tiny kit. OTOH, to afford it, I made a choice to sell 90% of the rest of my gear to finance it. And the reality is that for the vast majority of the shooting I do it's sufficient. Of course that doesn't stop me - sent a few bucks out for a fixer-upper FTbN & 50/1.4 Chrome Nose today ...

I guess it doesn't matter to me what someone else uses. I've got a small kit that - for the first time since I got serious about my photography - I can trust will work when I need it to. That's not likely a problem you've had in a long time, but over the past 5 years or so, I've gone through a heck of a lot of gear to get to this point. I'll be happy to stop for now and catch my breath while I fix the Canon and take pictures with the Leica.

William

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by wlewisiii

Roger,

Right now I have a very tiny kit. OTOH, to afford it, I made a choice to sell 90% of the rest of my gear to finance it. And the reality is that for the vast majority of the shooting I do it's sufficient. Of course that doesn't stop me - sent a few bucks out for a fixer-upper FTbN & 50/1.4 Chrome Nose today ...

I guess it doesn't matter to me what someone else uses. I've got a small kit that - for the first time since I got serious about my photography - I can trust will work when I need it to. That's not likely a problem you've had in a long time, but over the past 5 years or so, I've gone through a heck of a lot of gear to get to this point. I'll be happy to stop for now and catch my breath while I fix the Canon and take pictures with the Leica.

William

Dear William,

Yeah, well, for me make it 1970-2000 instead of '5 years or so'. But apart from my being slower on the uptake than you, we are of one mind on this.

Cheers,

R.

[dee]

It's a relief not being even an amateur ' Photographer ' with no pretensions ...
or pre-tensions about snapping away LOL .
I find zooms awkward , and still like just one lens - nominal 67 on the M8 , 50 on the Kiev IV etc .
I would love a 50 eqivalent on 4/3rds instead of a manual focus 28 / 56 mm . I would never judge anyone upon their collections of anything .
It's simply ridiculous to equate how many cameras owned , with the quality of per photographs ... a racing driver may have a colection of cars , but it has nothing to do with his driving ability .

I probably have more pencils / pens / paints etc that I will ever need as a designer or visualiser . My work is not judged by this . Maybe I am just curious about another set of brushes / pencils etc . Will they increase / extend my ability ? Or confirm that what I am using is right for me ? To stop experimenting and exploring is to stagnate .

Why does this become such AN ISSUE , twix cameras and Photography ?

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

...because I have LESS kit.

Not me, obviously. But I am amused by the way that having fewer cameras/lenses is regarded by some as evidence of purity of vision.

I have a lot of cameras, lenses, and accessories. However, none of it is terribly expensive - most is about as dirt-cheap as it could be. I don't know what admiration or scorn this attracts; I've never spent too much time worrying about it. I have no Leicas, with the exception of one lonely 135mm Hector LTM lens.

However, and I think this is valid; I gain a lot of insight from using these cameras, from learning about how they work (or worked), and what their strengths and weaknesses are. This knowledge may not make me a better photographer artistically, but I think it does make me a better photographer as a technician; and as often as that's derided, I think it can be as important to be able to master one's tools as to have a specific artistic vision.

Likewise, I have a small but growing library of books and (old 1900's through 1970's) magazines on cameras and photography. I am particularly interested in the history of photography, cameras, lenses, photographers, and the culture surrounding the photographic arts in general. I do not feel that this makes me a better photographer either, but I believe it makes me better in the sense that it gives me more of a sense of place and an understanding of what it is I'm doing or trying to do and where it fits within the greater scheme of the photographic genre.

I see no purity in having less equipment, more equipment, or more or less expensive equipment. I don't subscribe to theories that you can do anything with one camera and one lens, or that old saw "It's not the camera, it's the photographer." I would prefer to say that "It's not the camera, it's not the photographer, it's the photograph." What happens to bring that photograph about can be affected by all manner of things, from a better quality lens, to a better understanding of the function of that lens (leading to using it in accordance with its strengths), or a more fundamental understanding of why the photograph should be taken in a particular manner.

We are each the benefactors and the victims of circumstance, as well as the sum total of who we are as people, our experiences and our understanding and our proclivities. All of these things affect what kind of photographs we make, as does plain old-fashioned luck and random chance.

More? Less? I just do what I want to do, as I can afford to do it, and take the photographs that I want to take. Hope that's OK with everyone, but if it's not...oh well...

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by bmattock

I would prefer to say that "It's not the camera, it's not the photographer, it's the photograph."

Arithmetically speaking, you're saying that: camera + photographer = photograph, right? I find it odd when the weights in such an equation are said to be unequal.

[jackbaty]

I'm almost certain that, for me, paring down to one camera and one lens would be a good idea - but it's never going to happen. I prefer leaving my options open, even if it sometimes paralyzes me.