Shoot or risk a swap ?

Shoot or risk a swap ?

  • You take the risk of no shot ... swap to 35mm

    Votes: 7 7.9%

  • You stay with 90mm and try to get most of it

    Votes: 36 40.4%

  • Take a quick shot with 90mm, risk and swap to 35mm

    Votes: 37 41.6%

  • You pass your way, don't like these cheesy shots

    Votes: 5 5.6%

  • You ask the guy if you can join in ...

    Votes: 4 4.5%
  • Total voters
    89
being a street-shooter, I always carry three cameras with wide, medium and long lenses attached, so this situation wouldn't have been a problem for me.
I had the same situation occur last summer here in Toronto, and got the shot. At the time I was carrying two Nikon rangefinders with 21 and 35, and a motorized Nikon F with a 180 2.8 for "reach". In this case the 180 was perfect.

The_kiss-Kensington-600.jpg
 
i always go for it -- regardless. the shot, i mean.

perhaps it's because i rarely step out with more than one lens, but that's me. the whole KISS principle. and i try get the best shot i can t with what i have (hough i did vote to quickly swap since another lens was, in this hypothetical situation, available....)

treat every shot as if it were a shot in a lifetime -- shoot now, obsess later.
 
If I had to make a snap judgment like that I'd probably take the shot first. That way I at least have 'a' picture of something I wanted. I've lost many moments because I was trying to focus too precisely even when I was stopped down.
As to the changing lenses question, I still use LTM lenses so the decision is already made on my behalf. Especially since I'm so slow and clumsy when it comes to changing lenses.
 
I'd photograph the kiss, then ask them to dress up as marines and put up a flag (again).

No, one camera, one lens, and make the best photo you can on the day.
 
You know, it happened to me yesterday.
I had 35 on my camera, camera in my hands, and -- I don't know why, it was not intended -- I just passed by, watching and thinking "this is photographable"...
then I regretted of course.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
I'd photograph the kiss, then ask them to dress up as marines and put up a flag (again).

No, one camera, one lens, and make the best photo you can on the day.
Click to expand...

As an occasional exercise in self-disipline, I can understand doing this, but to limit onesself as a matter of course, to carrying only one lens and one body and then basically having to make the best of it regardless of the photographic circumstances, to me, makes no sense at all.
I want to get the shot with the most appropriate focal length I can, so I'd never dream of walking around with anything less than three bodies with lenses attached.
Better to schlepp it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
 
Last edited:
rbsinto said:
I'd never dream of walking around with anything less than three bodies with lenses attached.
Click to expand...

I understand.

We clearly have very different ways of working.

If I set out to the covered market at dawn I have a fair idea of what camera, lens, and film is going to work. I do not want extra cameras just in case.

And if I have made the wrong choice of what to take this time I can go back later with something slightly different and likely see the 'same' photo.

I really do understand what you're saying, and your commitment to the photo to carry three complete cameras.
 
rbsinto said:
As an occasional exercise in self-disipline, I can understand doing this, but to limit onesself as a matter of course, to carrying only one lens and one body and then basically having to make the best of it regardless of the photoghraphic circumstances, to me, makes no sense at all.
I want to get the shot with the most appropriate focal length I can, so I'd never dream of walking around with anything less than three bodies with lenses attached.
Better to schlepp it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Click to expand...
Each to his own!.....but personaly - if I felt the need to have three bodies and lenses hanging around my person, I would consider the dreaded zoom! I hear modern ones are quite good? 🙂
Dave.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
Each to his own!.....but personaly - if I felt the need to have three bodies and lenses hanging around my person, I would consider the dreaded zoom! I hear modern ones are quite good? 🙂
Dave.
Click to expand...

Dave,
When I'm shooting with my SLRs I carry either primes ( usually 24/ 35/ 105 or 180 ) or zooms (17~28 / 35~105 / 80~200 , with the last two being quality 2.8 constant aperture lenses). In the case of the zooms, I still carry three bodies and lenses because I like the bright finder images with the fast lenses as well as the option of really shallow depth of field when I need it, features one doesn't get with those slow 28~200 or 28~300 unilenses.
And when I'm shooting with my rangefinders, I carry 21, 35 and 85 or 105 lenses, or substitute an SLR with a 180 for the last two, for more reach.
I've been doing this for the last twenty or twenty five years so for me, it's just business as usual, and I'd be uncomfortable without the options.
There is no "right answer" to this question, just what's right or best for a particular person. And these options are right for me.
 
Stick with the 90, remember you have the ability to move instead of changing lenses. Also, the 90mm will (in my opinion) frame the point of the photograph better, the kiss.

Who cares about the building? Buildings are about as passionate as a can of soup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom