venchka
Mentor
Deep down I know that she is right.
How to choose? Too many choices. The root of my problem for sure.
One idea makes perfect sense.
Either the camera I have had the longest, or the most recent addition. A coin toss could decide.
How to choose? Too many choices. The root of my problem for sure.
One idea makes perfect sense.
Either the camera I have had the longest, or the most recent addition. A coin toss could decide.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
You're right!
You're right!
My current .sig line explains my point of view ("If less is more, then nothing is everything..").[/quote]
The Buddhists would agree with you.
You're right!
My current .sig line explains my point of view ("If less is more, then nothing is everything..").[/quote]
The Buddhists would agree with you.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
venchka
Mentor
Right! Grinning. Nice thought, but I like breathing.
MatthewThompson
Well-known
I'm striving toward paring down my work bag to a 5D and three L primes. I'm thinking 35, 85 and 135. Fewer choices, fewer compromises.
The M6, 35, 75 sounds like a great walkaround kit.
The M6, 35, 75 sounds like a great walkaround kit.
FrankS
Registered User
To each their own and I wouldn't force my views on others, but this makes no sense to me. I like having choices and being able to select the best tool to the job results in fewer compromises, no?
MatthewThompson
Well-known
I figure if I have a 35 on, I'm going to make the best shot I can with the 35 mindset, not fudge around with a Zoom. I get far more keepers on jobs with a single focal length than I did with zooms.
A prime makes the camera more transparent to me, if that makes any sense. Keeps me in the situation, I guess. Maybe it makes no sense, but it makes money.
bmattock
Mentor
I agree, Frank. I wasn't going to say anything, but you said what I was thinking. In what way does having fewer choices result in fewer compromises? That doesn't even make sense.
bmattock
Mentor
I figure if I have a 35 on, I'm going to make the best shot I can with the 35 mindset, not fudge around with a Zoom. I get far more keepers on jobs with a single focal length than I did with zooms.
A prime makes the camera more transparent to me, if that makes any sense. Keeps me in the situation, I guess. Maybe it makes no sense, but it makes money.
That's reasonable. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the word 'compromise' as it is commonly used.
"I did not have enough money for the model I really wanted, so I compromised and bought the next model down, which had less features but was more affordable."
"I probably should have used a 90mm lens for this shot, but all I had with me was a 75mm and a 135mm, so I compromised and used the 75mm and cropped."
Not trying to be an English teacher here, but what you said was the opposite of what you apparently meant.
FrankS
Registered User
Just to be clear, I do not favour the use of zoom lenses over primes.
Bill, I was thinking of your quote: If less is more, then nothing is everything. (Which may actually be true in a philosophical sense, but I'm not ready to give up photography and all my worldly possessions quite yet.)
Bill, I was thinking of your quote: If less is more, then nothing is everything. (Which may actually be true in a philosophical sense, but I'm not ready to give up photography and all my worldly possessions quite yet.)
MatthewThompson
Well-known
Granted! Few coffee make bad grammars. Apologies all round.
My point is that Zoom lenses make me a lazy photographer and I notice diminished returns when it comes time to deliver.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Mentor
the reason that matt's point of view makes no sense to frank or bill is because frank and bill have a different point of view on a question that is entirely subjective and dependent only on matt's style of shooting and working. critique isn't appropriate. matt's shooting style doesn't have to make sense to anyone but him, and vice versa of course. apparently (and he sure doesn't need me to reiterate it so i'll shut up now), matt prefers to work that way. he gets results that please him and his clients/customers. what's left to debate?
back to topic: anyone have the feeling that "simplification" urges are just one's way of responding to the quietly nagging realization that gear acquisition can get in the way of photography in practice? it's almost like the soul says "too much gear, num-nut" and the mind says "time to simplify" in response.
back to topic: anyone have the feeling that "simplification" urges are just one's way of responding to the quietly nagging realization that gear acquisition can get in the way of photography in practice? it's almost like the soul says "too much gear, num-nut" and the mind says "time to simplify" in response.
bmattock
Mentor
Eh, they have their uses. I collect and use primes when the image seems to require it, but I bolt on a zoom and sally forth when I am not sure what I will be facing, I don't want to carry a parcel of lenses, and I am willing to give up a little speed and perhaps some sharpness in exchange for that convenience. My own compromise.
To me, the quote is a reminder of the basic illogic of the concept that less = more. Less = less. While it may be true that some people cannot handle having many choices available to them, in real terms, becoming an ascetic (the extreme end of minimalism) does one no favors, despite what people think of the benefits of such behavior.
Anyone who says they reduce their kit because 'it forces me to become...' or words to that effect are actually saying that they are incapable of doing so without outside mandates. They are saying that they are weak and incapable of taking decisions on their own, or making choices as they see fit, and instead seek situations where their preferred outcome is pressed down upon them.
Yes, having a small income forces one to eat bologna and perhaps to learn to appreciate the many subtle qualities thereof, but one could as easily choose to eat bologna with a larger budget. 'Oh, but then I wouldn't do it,' is a frank admission of complete lack of self-control.
In short, if one chooses to enhance their skills with a 35mm lens over a 50 or a 75, I can understand that well enough. If they choose a 35mm lens over any other for a period of time to engage new ways of thinking about the shots they want to take for creative purposes, I get that, too. When they announce they're selling off their kit because they wish to be forced to use a 35mm lens only, I think they're stark raving mad, or the weakest individuals I can conceive of.
How do they get through the day if they have both bologna and peanut butter & jelly in their cupboards? They must be absolutely paralyzed with their inability to make a decision on their own.
Less is less. More is more. If one wishes to become more proficient with a particular lens or film or camera body or style of photography by doing it exclusively, then do that. Selling off everything else and wearing the hair shirt of purity is not required, and it makes one look the complete prat.
bmattock
Mentor
I quite understood his point once he explained it. I simply did not understand his use of the word 'compromise' because used it incorrectly and I was trying to grasp the concept he seemed to be presenting. I suggested he might have misused the term, he agreed, all good.
No, that never happens to me. I am quite capable of choosing an item off my shelf and not being overwhelmed by having more choices available to me. In fact, I am generally benefited by having such choices available. When going to the air show, I was glad that I had a 500mm lens. If I had not had one, I would have taken a 90-300 zoom, but it would have been a compromise. If I had only had a 28mm wide angle prime, I would not have gone because there would have been no point.
To the people who counter that by saying "Well, then take pictures of something else," or "I go to air shows all the time and get great photos with my 28mm lens," I say shut the soup suck, please. I go to the air show to take photos of planes in the air. If I wanted to take photos of the crowd instead, I'd do that - but I don't. In what way would it make me a better photographer to take photos of things I do not want to photograph and to forgo photographing things I do? Morons!
The only 'num-nuts' feeling I get is about people who intentionally choose less thinking it is somehow more. Less is less. Anything else is rather twisted thinking.
MCTuomey
Mentor
I don't get the impression the folks thinking of gear simplification are interested in hair shirts. At least they didn't say so. Nice leap to metaphor, Bill, for a logico-terrorist. Maybe specializing in just a few lenses "makes one look the complete prat" to you, but that's a subjective impression and says more about your values than those of the alleged "prat." For my part, when I see a skilled photographer practicing his craft with a few well-selected tools, I tend to feel I'm in the presence of an expert craftsman, rather than a prat. Unlike myself, a guy who clearly has more gear and fewer excellent photos than most.
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
I use rangefinder cameras too. Does that amaze you?
By they way, since you know so much about me, but this is your first post ever, why is it I think you are a frequent RFF member, but only using an alias because you're afraid to say what you think using your normal name on RFF? Coward.
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
Ooh, now I'm a terrorist! OK then.
Some of the folks thinking of gear simplification have indeed put on the hair shirt. In this thread and others. It is also part of the 'binge and purge' mentality that some seem to have. First they announce all the things they've bought, then announce they feel the need to simplify so that they can concentrate on being better photographers, yadda yadda, then after awhile they're buying again.
In the meantime, I just take photographs. Using whatever I think I want to use.
You don't read very well. I didn't say that. I said that specializing in a few lenses is all well and good, but the belief that having more than a few lenses renders one incapable of using just those few lenses is that of a complete prat.
I have two cars. I drive one most of the time, reserving the other for winter and FWD situations. Somehow, I do not feel the need to sell one off every time the season changes - I am capable of exercising restraint. The people who have many lenses and cannot manage to limit themselves without selling off everything else? Please. Weak-minded sissy boys, IMHO.
Your mistake is assuming that your more gear makes you less of a photographer. There is no causal link, you just want there to be one. 'Well, maybe if I got rid of a bunch of stuff, I'd be a better photographer like Joe Schmoe over here who has only one camera and lens.' If I buy only one baseball glove, will I be Willy Mays?
I have yet to meet a carpenter with only one hammer, or a painter with only one brush. Tools are specialized instruments meant to be used for specific purposes. However, in that, I say to each their own. If you think having only one lens or a couple of them is what you need, yay for you. If you can't handle owning more than one lens because you won't be able to force yourself to do what you say you want to do...
If one wishes to be the carpenter who uses only one hammer, and uses it exquisitely, then I have no problem with that, good luck to him, have a nice life, etc. If one is a carpenter who uses only one hammer and sells the rest because he feels he is incapable of only using one hammer when he owns more than one, then he's a prat.
FrankS
Registered User
If there is nothing left to debate, then let's all turn off our computers and let RFF die. We are here to chat and share ideas.
If you read my post, I said "to each their own". I also said that the statement: "Fewer choices means fewer compromises." does not make sense to me. I did not say that the way Matt chooses to shoot does not make sense to me. Let's at least try to understand another person's post before responding.
Complexity to simplicity is a continuum. Each one of us should try to find the point where we are comfortable. I just don't understand how less choice equates or leads to fewer compromises. Sheesh!
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
he was afraid of getting banned...again.
gns
Well-known
We all work within self-imposed limitations.
Where one draws the line, only needs to make sense to oneself.
Cheers,
Gary
Where one draws the line, only needs to make sense to oneself.
Cheers,
Gary