Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I'm finding an overwhelming need to simplify. This is affecting many areas of my life, including my approach to photography.
From a film gear aspect (what I use for candids), I'm starting to realize I can do 85% of my shooting with only two lenses - a mild wide and a mild tele. Adding a wider lens takes it up to 99%. Instead of amassing more gear, I'm looking to upgrade specific items in kind.
I still like having different systems to choose from, but I'm finding what I need in each system is pretty marginal. For the Ms, a 35/75 kit and a 40/90 kit, with a wider lens in reserve. For the OMs, 35/85 should do it with my 24 or a 21.
I'm not about to become a true gear ascetic, but acknowledging I can do what I want with a minimum of stuff is refreshing.
From a film gear aspect (what I use for candids), I'm starting to realize I can do 85% of my shooting with only two lenses - a mild wide and a mild tele. Adding a wider lens takes it up to 99%. Instead of amassing more gear, I'm looking to upgrade specific items in kind.
I still like having different systems to choose from, but I'm finding what I need in each system is pretty marginal. For the Ms, a 35/75 kit and a 40/90 kit, with a wider lens in reserve. For the OMs, 35/85 should do it with my 24 or a 21.
I'm not about to become a true gear ascetic, but acknowledging I can do what I want with a minimum of stuff is refreshing.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i find, for me, there is no winning when it comes to being truly happy or satisfied with my gear.
i go through purges where i think that less is more and that, like you, i seem to use the same lenses way more than others.
i currently have 2 kits and really, what's the difference? one is slightly longer or wider than the other (depends on how you look at it i guess).
i often think that i should sell off some lenses and keep one of the bodies as a back up, no need to switch off.
between the 15 and the 21, i use the 15 way more.
between the 28 and the 35, i use the 28 way more.
between the 50 and 85, i have not decided yet, but lean towards the 50.
i go through purges where i think that less is more and that, like you, i seem to use the same lenses way more than others.
i currently have 2 kits and really, what's the difference? one is slightly longer or wider than the other (depends on how you look at it i guess).
i often think that i should sell off some lenses and keep one of the bodies as a back up, no need to switch off.
between the 15 and the 21, i use the 15 way more.
between the 28 and the 35, i use the 28 way more.
between the 50 and 85, i have not decided yet, but lean towards the 50.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Joe, it sounds like you've settled on much the same focal lengths as I have once you take the crop into account. I know it's not an unusual combination, but it's refreshing to not worry about buying a 50 or 135 or whatever.
I'd like to replace two of my RF lenses and then look for a second M body, with the goal of having one body dedicated to each of my main lenses. Not having to fumble around with lens changes is a form of simplification, too.
I'd like to replace two of my RF lenses and then look for a second M body, with the goal of having one body dedicated to each of my main lenses. Not having to fumble around with lens changes is a form of simplification, too.
back alley
IMAGES
maybe, i should load up the new camera bag with both bodies and have the 15 on one and the 28 on the other and see how that works.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Give it a try! 28/50 might work well for you on a RD1, too.
That's how I used to work - two (or three) identical bodies loaded with Tri-X and with complementary glass, usually 24/35, 35/85, 35/105, or 24/35/85. It was hard on the back when I was using motorized F2s, but it's much more comfortable with Ms, nonmetered unmotorized F2s or OMs.
It's really nice to be able to just grab and shoot.
That's how I used to work - two (or three) identical bodies loaded with Tri-X and with complementary glass, usually 24/35, 35/85, 35/105, or 24/35/85. It was hard on the back when I was using motorized F2s, but it's much more comfortable with Ms, nonmetered unmotorized F2s or OMs.
It's really nice to be able to just grab and shoot.
bmattock
Mentor
I was planning to go out to an Audubon bird sanctuary this weekend (looks like rain now, so maybe not) to try to get some shots of sandhill cranes. I realize that I won't be able to get them with a 35mm or 50mm lens. So if I do go, I'll take my longer lenses.
If I go to a street fair or carnival, I'll take shorter lenses.
I would hate having to decide that there are things I cannot shoot just because I've decided to intentionally limit myself, nor would I play the "Well, I'll just find things to shoot with the lenses I do have" angle. I don't 'get it'. I use what I use. I do not understand the concept that having less will make me a better anything.
My current .sig line explains my point of view ("If less is more, then nothing is everything..").
If I go to a street fair or carnival, I'll take shorter lenses.
I would hate having to decide that there are things I cannot shoot just because I've decided to intentionally limit myself, nor would I play the "Well, I'll just find things to shoot with the lenses I do have" angle. I don't 'get it'. I use what I use. I do not understand the concept that having less will make me a better anything.
My current .sig line explains my point of view ("If less is more, then nothing is everything..").
back alley
IMAGES
not saying that simplifying would make me 'better' at anything.
plus, if i went to a bird sanctuary i would wind up shooting the folks taking pics of the birds...
plus, if i went to a bird sanctuary i would wind up shooting the folks taking pics of the birds...
bmattock
Mentor
Then I'm at a loss as to why anyone would do it at all.
If I change some aspect of how I normally go about doing things, it's to gain some real or imagine advantage. Like buying wrinkle-free pants so that I don't have to iron my trousers anymore.
I buy lenses that I think will give me the ability to do some sort of thing I'd like to do, like an air show or birding - or macro or etc. If it confers that advantage, then it's a win for me.
But if a situation calls for a 500mm lens and I choose to 'simplify' myself into having a 50mm lens, I do not see the advantage there. I can no longer get the shot that I want, and I am not the type of person to decide to take other shots instead and find that satisfactory.
If you have two lenses, you can do both. I'm unclear on how it's a bad thing to have another lens, unless it's down to just not being able to carry all of it around.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I should have clarified that I was talking about simplifying my candid gear, not the stuff I use for action shooting. (I hesitate to use the word "street" for candid.)
If I were trying to shoot cranes, I certainly wouldn't grab my RF kit (or any film gear for that matter.) I'd be grabbing the Nikon DSLR bag with long glass. Or my 686.
For the DSLRs I pursued a policy of simplification from the start, just optimized for how I use them.
If I were trying to shoot cranes, I certainly wouldn't grab my RF kit (or any film gear for that matter.) I'd be grabbing the Nikon DSLR bag with long glass. Or my 686.
For the DSLRs I pursued a policy of simplification from the start, just optimized for how I use them.
BillBingham2
Registered User
But the 50 in the bottom of the bag. One camera around in your hand, the other in your bag and call it d0ne.
I'm waiting for my GRD III and will do the same with a GRD in my hand, the GX100 on 70mm in the bag. Even easier on the back.
B2 (;->
bmattock
Mentor
I should have clarified that I was talking about simplifying my candid gear, not the stuff I use for action shooting. (I hesitate to use the word "street" for candid.)
If I were trying to shoot cranes, I certainly wouldn't grab my RF kit (or any film gear for that matter.) I'd be grabbing the Nikon DSLR bag with long glass. Or my 686.
For the DSLRs I pursued a policy of simplification from the start, just optimized for how I use them.
That makes much more sense. I get it now. Thanks.
mackigator
Well-known
I think simplifying does make you better.
You may lose the ability to shoot sandhill cranes, for example, but you'll gain a whole set of shots of friends or clients that are better than what you would have had if you had shot each job while thinking about a bagful of lenses. In this way many wedding photogs and field journalists are odd allies - minimum of gear, but the right gear, and spend the rest of the day thinking about the shot.
Flipside - the medium format landscape photog who isn't worried much about found moments or peopled shots is going to shoot much better landscapes than I do.
You may lose the ability to shoot sandhill cranes, for example, but you'll gain a whole set of shots of friends or clients that are better than what you would have had if you had shot each job while thinking about a bagful of lenses. In this way many wedding photogs and field journalists are odd allies - minimum of gear, but the right gear, and spend the rest of the day thinking about the shot.
Flipside - the medium format landscape photog who isn't worried much about found moments or peopled shots is going to shoot much better landscapes than I do.
Pickett Wilson
Mentor
It seems, though, that for many people (and I've followed these kind of threads over the years in various forums), the more gear they have, the less they actually shoot photos. I think that is one things that leads people to simplify their gear.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Decision paralysis?
back alley
IMAGES
i shoot the same if i have 3 lenses or six.
most of what i shoot is also the same no matter what gear i have.
if i need something really long i have the g1 with the 45-200 (90-400 eqiv.)
my rf kit could be seen as having lenses too close in fov and therefore a bit superfluous.
15/21
28/35
50/85
most of what i shoot is also the same no matter what gear i have.
if i need something really long i have the g1 with the 45-200 (90-400 eqiv.)
my rf kit could be seen as having lenses too close in fov and therefore a bit superfluous.
15/21
28/35
50/85
back alley
IMAGES
please don't go there...at least for me.
look at my flickr site and you will see that i shoot on a pretty regular basis, no matter what gear or how much of it i have.
bmattock
Mentor
Sorry, that's utter nonsense. I do what I want to do. My loss? Perhaps, but also my life. End of discussion.
bmattock
Mentor
Uh, I don't think so.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/
And that's just the shots I have put on Flickr. I am, as they say, prolific. And I have LOTS of kit. Cheap kit, admittedly, but lots of it.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Ah, I finally understand what that sig is about
I think *less* options when you are out in the field is better, but *more* options when you are gearing up at home is definitely better... at least for me.
leica M2 fan
Mentor
Ahh...Yes...Simplification... I Remember it Well.
Ahh...Yes...Simplification... I Remember it Well.
In 2008 my wife and I travelled to Barcelona and Paris and I had decided I was going to take way less gear this time than usual. Due to a mistake I packed my 60mm Micro AF lens instead of the 18-70 kit lens. My only other lens was a Sigma 10-20 so.... I was really restricted to wide angle shots and very few with the 60. My B&W camera was my OM4 with a 28, alas, also a wide! Anyway the upshot of all this rambling is that it was by far the most productive, in terms of keepers, that I have ever had! Since I essentially had only two lenses I did the best I could with what I had. Not only did I have a successful shooting trip but it opened my eyes to seeing the beautiful cities at their most splendid wide angle best.
Ahh...Yes...Simplification... I Remember it Well.
In 2008 my wife and I travelled to Barcelona and Paris and I had decided I was going to take way less gear this time than usual. Due to a mistake I packed my 60mm Micro AF lens instead of the 18-70 kit lens. My only other lens was a Sigma 10-20 so.... I was really restricted to wide angle shots and very few with the 60. My B&W camera was my OM4 with a 28, alas, also a wide! Anyway the upshot of all this rambling is that it was by far the most productive, in terms of keepers, that I have ever had! Since I essentially had only two lenses I did the best I could with what I had. Not only did I have a successful shooting trip but it opened my eyes to seeing the beautiful cities at their most splendid wide angle best.
Last edited: