I downsized

[user237428934]

At the moment I have the photography blues. I am thinking all the time that the ratio between my equipment and the photographic output is not good at all. So I downsized by selling my 5D.1 and four prime lenses to a friend and bought a Panasonic G1 kit and a Leica M lens adapter. My M8 will stay in the cupboard for some time because on my last city trip I was again not so content with the colour output.
Now I am experimenting with the G1 + CV 35/1.4 Especially the (calculated) focal length of 70mm is new for me because normally I don’t shoot that long.
The CV 35mm behaves nice because of the crop factor a lot of corner unsharpness is not visible here.
Here are some of the test shots from the first day with the camera.

 

[bmattock]

I am thinking all the time that the ratio between my equipment and the photographic output is not good at all.

Why do you feel that your actions are predicated by how much equipment you own?

Since you were able to leave one camera 'in the cuboard', in what way would be impossible to leave more than one there? Just curious.

I have lots of stuff. Somehow, I do not feel that my actions are controlled by owning it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Tom,

I have to agree with Bill on this. I cannot see a ratio between the amount of kit I own, and the number or quality of pictures I take. Every single camera I own is likely to increase the range of pictures (whether number or quality) that I take -- though I have to admit that there are a few cameras I almost never use, and even some I have never used. A few weeks ago I was given a Contaflex Super BC, for example, and I haven't put a film through it yet. But my M8.2 does things my MP doesn't, and my Pentax SV and 135/1.8 Porst do things my De Vere 8x10 doesn't and my 'baby' Linhof does things my (inherited) KowaSix doesn't, and so forth.

Like many others, I often feel that I have far too many cameras -- I lost count years ago -- but for the most part, the ones I don't use much are not worth the effort of selling, or they're worth slightly more to me in the cupboard than the money they'd bring.

Sure, I use some cameras far more than others, with the M8.2 the easy leader when it comes to the number of pics I take, but I like the options of (for example) 5x7 inch contact prints or half-frame happy-snaps.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

We've addressed this many times before...for some of us, esp. with a limited income, it is just not worth owning something you don't use. This is also the case if you simply have a utilitarian cast of mind, or think that a thing that can be used, SHOULD be used, by somebody--somebody else, if not you. It's a totally reasonable relationship to have with your equipment, I think.

 

[user237428934]

Why do you feel that your actions are predicated by how much equipment you own?

Since you were able to leave one camera 'in the cuboard', in what way would be impossible to leave more than one there? Just curious.

I have lots of stuff. Somehow, I do not feel that my actions are controlled by owning it.

Perhaps it's hard to understand but I can't stand it when I am surrounded by things I don't need or I lost the relation to. At least once a year I look through all my stuff and I always find something that's superfluous. Every year I give books to the local library when I don't want to keep them. Things come and go. I am not a keeper.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We've addressed this many times before...for some of us, esp. with a limited income, it is just not worth owning something you don't use. This is also the case if you simply have a utilitarian cast of mind, or think that a thing that can be used, SHOULD be used, by somebody--somebody else, if not you. It's a totally reasonable relationship to have with your equipment, I think.

But surely we all have limited incomes. All I'm thinking is that the hassle of getting rid of e.g. the Contaflex is greater than the hassle of keeping it. What's it worth? $50 at the outside? (Given that it has the interchangeable magazine back?) It would take time to advertise (or let it be known that it is available); to pack; to ship. None of that seems remotely enjoyable to me.

The last couple of cameras I got rid of, I gave away (a Werra 3 and a Rollei 35 AF-M) to people who really wanted them -- but unless the person is there on your doorstep, even giving something away involves the effiort and expense of bagging it up and mailing it.

Also, there's always that ten-years-down-the-road experience: "Oh, yes, the so-and-so would have been perfect for that."

So they're both rational approaches to take to your kit. For me, of course, there's the further point that something like the Contaflex might come in handy for illustrating a magazine article...

Cheers,

R.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Fair enough. Another thing though Roger, you have the advantage of already having tried everything under the sun. For somebody like me who's newer to photography, it's nice to be able to cycle through stuff, seeing what it's like, and only keeping those things that really give pleasure (in my case, Leica M, R-D1, Pentax LX).

 

[bmattock]

We've addressed this many times before...for some of us, esp. with a limited income, it is just not worth owning something you don't use. This is also the case if you simply have a utilitarian cast of mind, or think that a thing that can be used, SHOULD be used, by somebody--somebody else, if not you. It's a totally reasonable relationship to have with your equipment, I think.

I agree that is a reasonable and entirely understandable position.

Note that it does not create a dependency relationship on one's photography. The operating statement being "I cannot shoot well because I own too much stuff."

Your statement, while truthful, does not address this logical fallacy.

 

[bmattock]

Perhaps it's hard to understand but I can't stand it when I am surrounded by things I don't need or I lost the relation to. At least once a year I look through all my stuff and I always find something that's superfluous. Every year I give books to the local library when I don't want to keep them. Things come and go. I am not a keeper.

Quite reasonable. I'm not that way, but I understand that some people are.

Still do not understand the dependency relationship of how much you own being influential on the quality or quantity of your photography.

It would be like saying "I cannot drive today, I own too many cars." One would think you could pick one and drive. Sell them if you feel you have too many, but in what way does owning them stop you from driving?

 

[Keith]

I think limiting choices by culling can be helpful in regard to making yourself as adept as possible with a particular piece of gear or whatever gear you choose to retain.

Bill's analogy about owning multiple cars not stopping one from driving doesn't really fit with me ... if you have one car you will learn to drive it very well ... you will understand and maximise it's potential. Hop from car to car constantly if you have such a choice and you are unlikely to know any of them this completely!

 

[bmattock]

Bill's analogy about owning multiple cars not stopping one from driving doesn't really fit with me ... if you have one car you will learn to drive it very well ... you will understand and maximise it's potential. Hop from car to car constantly if you have such a choice and you are unlikely to know any of them this completely!

Having multiple cars gives one the ability to do many things. I have an SUV which is great when I go offroad, but it does not get great mileage. I have an economy car that saves me money on long flat roads.

Seems I benefit from having choices.

But again, the point being not that having more or less is good or bad. The statement (which others make all the time too) is that having more of whatever somehow forces one to be unable to do what one wants to do. "I cannot take photographs because I have too many cameras." I ask in what way that can be true - and the answer, it would appear, is that it is not true. So why do we keep saying it?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Note that it does not create a dependency relationship on one's photography. The operating statement being "I cannot shoot well because I own too much stuff."

Your statement, while truthful, does not address this logical fallacy.

Yeah but...nobody said that. The OP was just saying he gets bummed out when he has what he considers to be too much stuff, and I'm sympathetic to that feeling.

I fear that your response here is a symptom of that internet malaise that takes people's casual expressions of their feelings and analyzes them as if they're manifestos. I mean, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the guy just wanted to say he wasn't into his big canon stuff anymore and is now digging m4/3.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

"I cannot take photographs because I have too many cameras." I ask in what way that can be true - and the answer, it would appear, is that it is not true. So why do we keep saying it?

Nobody has ever said that here! They always are just saying they think they'd be happier with less, or with a different setup.

 

[Pablito]

Still do not understand the dependency relationship of how much you own being influential on the quality or quantity of your photography.

Neither do I. Seems a very strange concept to me.
The equipment doesn't care if it's used or not and it feels no guilt.
My photo equipment is no different to me than that big bin of assorted hardware I have in my basement; hinges, hooks, nails, screws, fasteners, etc. I hold on to anything that might be useful in the future even if I can't see the specific use for it in the present. I don't sell much because it would be such a nuisance to re-acquire the same thing in the future. I have a limited income but this is not a hobby for me. Maybe it's different for those for whom photography is a hobby.

 

[Pablito]

Nobody has ever said that here! They always are just saying they think they'd be happier with less, or with a different setup.

I'm all for whatever makes people happy. But let's not confuse the syndrome by which people continually buy and sell photo equipment in search of happiness (a decidedly male phenomenon, by the way) with being any good, or improving, as a photographer.

 

[user237428934]

Quite reasonable. I'm not that way, but I understand that some people are.

Still do not understand the dependency relationship of how much you own being influential on the quality or quantity of your photography.

It would be like saying "I cannot drive today, I own too many cars." One would think you could pick one and drive. Sell them if you feel you have too many, but in what way does owning them stop you from driving?

It's not "how much I own" but "how much I spent on photography", especially for the dslr equipment. I suppose the limited fun factor is limiting my output. I recognized that spending more does not mean more fun for my hobby. So I am going back one step and focus on having fun again.

I think it's similar with wine. I taste a difference between a 5 EUR bottle of Bordeaux and a 15 EUR bottle. But I don't taste a difference between a 15 EUR and a 30 EUR bottle. After a 15 EUR bottle I think about how good the wine was. After a 30 EUR bottle I think about if it was worth the extra money. That is the difference.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fair enough. Another thing though Roger, you have the advantage of already having tried everything under the sun. For somebody like me who's newer to photography, it's nice to be able to cycle through stuff, seeing what it's like, and only keeping those things that really give pleasure (in my case, Leica M, R-D1, Pentax LX).

Well, yes, that's certainly true. In my 20s and even 30s I had a much higher turnover of gear, and buying and selling it was indeed something I enjoyed. But somehow, for me, e-bay has destroyed all that.

Although in another thread I extol the advantages of trusting people in general, I confess that I do not extend this trust to e-bay sellers and (even more) to e-bay buyers: it would be all too easy for someone to accuse me of all sorts of things, whether I'd made an honest mistake in describing something, or out of sheer malice, and I don't need the hassle.

I fully take your point about keeping what gives you real pleasure (I've been using Ms for 35 years or so, and Frances really fancied an LX) and getting rid of the rest, but again, as you say, because I have the advantage of being to try pretty much whatever I like, my standards for 'real pleasure' grow ever more stratospheric as compared with what I already have.

Actually, I've never tried a top-flight DSLR, but then again, I don't want to. I don't like big, heavy, small-format cameras; I don't like small-format SLRs very much for most types of shooting, though they can be very useful for a few applications; I don't like wild surfeits of buttons, LCDs, dials, knobs, ports and sliders; and I lent someone my last on-camera flash (Metz 45) 15 years ago and have never felt the need to ask for it back.

More and more, I advise people to try a different kind of camera: RF instead of SLR, view camera instead of either, panoramic, sub-miniature... Then, when you've found the kind you like, try to get the best version of it that you can, even if it's frighteingly expensive. Over the years I've wasted so much money on cameras I 'could afford' that often, I then couldn't afford the cameras I really wanted (but would have been able to afford if I hadn't bought all the other cameras...)

Cheers,

R.

 

[user237428934]

.
"I cannot take photographs because I have too many cameras." I ask in what way that can be true - and the answer, it would appear, is that it is not true. So why do we keep saying it?

Sorry. That's your interpretation of what I said. But I didn't mean to say that.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

More and more, I advise people to try a different kind of camera: RF instead of SLR, view camera instead of either, panoramic, sub-miniature...

Yes, I would definitely like to go that route eventually! I've watched people use view cameras, and have tried one or two medium format cameras...but for now it's just one more thing I don't have time for. I enjoy 35mm a great deal, and to start exploring other formats at this time in my life would be a huge distraction from shooting pictures...but someday, definitely!

 

[wgerrard]

I'm sympathetic to Tom, and go through similar spasms of downsizing every so often. I do tend to rid myself of things I don't use. Frankly, guilt and remorse is a big part of it: Why did I waste money buying Thing A when I always use Thing B? It isn't logical that my remorse and guilt are assuaged by dumping Thing A, but there you go.

It is frustrating, too, to be unhappy about your efforts to fully exploit a capable tool. Sometimes the best thing to do is to use a different tool for a while.

In the interests of accuracy, Tom downsized by 4 lenses while swapping the big DSLR for the G1; 3 lenses if he got a kit with a zoom.