1-Body, 1 lens: A renewed commitment

Ken Ford said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
 
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 😀 )

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

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. 😀
 
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 !
 
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?
 
Ralph Gibson

Ralph Gibson

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."
 
shadowfox said:
- 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? 🙂
Click to expand...
One thing I did and I am only starting not to do it is print everything full frame, never crop. That brings disapline.
 
Last edited:
having 1 lens per 1 roll helps also control freaks like me, that want to record lens specs to filename of scanned photo 😀 (not to mention date when the shot was taken, which is another story) 😀 😀
 
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 said:
Why use only one lens? Why why why?
Click to expand...

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.
 
jarski said:
1 lens per camera follows the old KISS rule ? forget about your lens options and concentrate about whats happening around you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom