I downsized

Tom,

Rather than a 5D and four primes, I came from two nikon bodies with motors, six lenses, two flashes and a BIG camera bag. Photography was much more fun. I started with one body two lenses and added a third. Got a bit out of hand again over the years between then and now, but I too have cut back. While it's financially driven, at the end I'm a lot happier and that's what counts.

Like at Scout Camp this summer. My son was being tapped (selected) for Order of the Arrow (Ubber Scouting Organization here in the states) and I got shots of the fire, would have of him too if he did not sit so far away. Nobody took out their DSLRs because of the driving rain (4th year in a row of really bad weather), but I was able to take my GX100 out and get some shots from under the poncho. I would not have taken anything else out in the weather except my Nikonos that I sold a while back, too much risk. Does it take the sharpest picture, have the best skin tones, have the highest resolution, no, but it's a fun camera.

I think there is a part of having less that causes you to think different. Not which lens should I use, but where is the picture. Perhaps the X1 will be a great option for you.

Another point to Bill is that not everyone has the focus and the ability to limit themselves to just carrying less. There was a lot of money sunk into the DSLR kit I bet, sad after the effort to build it up, but good that Tom realized that it was not fun. Three cheers for him.

B2 (;->
 
Here's a related topic: I notice if I use one lens exclusively for a period of several weeks, my images start to improve. At around two months, the lens feels like an extension of my body, there is no question about how it sees. Capturing what I pre-visualize becomes effortless.

And yet, I rarely allow this to happen, because I have 8 or 10 wonderful pieces of glass in the cabinet. And it's a shame not to be using them, so no lens stays on a camera for more than a week or two.

So I agree that what you have (even if you're not using it) effects the way you shoot.
 
bmattock said:
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?
Click to expand...

The OP was describing a ratio or correlation but he did not say that there was any causality. I think your trigger finger might be a bit itchy regarding people talking about reducing their photographic arsenal!
 
retnull said:
Here's a related topic: I notice if I use one lens exclusively for a period of several weeks, my images start to improve. At around two months, the lens feels like an extension of my body, there is no question about how it sees. Capturing what I pre-visualize becomes effortless.

And yet, I rarely allow this to happen, because I have 8 or 10 wonderful pieces of glass in the cabinet. And it's a shame not to be using them, so no lens stays on a camera for more than a week or two.

So I agree that what you have (even if you're not using it) effects the way you shoot.
Click to expand...

Ever since I've had the choice, I've varied my lenses. But the older I get, the less I vary them. Normally I carry two bodies with two lenses (35/75 for full frame, 24/50 for M8/M8.2) and it takes quite a lot to knock one of these lenses off the body and into the camera bag, even though I also have (including Frances's lenses) 15-18-21-28-90-135 with which to replace them.

These two lenses account for well over 90% of the pictures I take, and indeed become an extension of the eye in the way you describe, but equally, it's silly to limit yourself out of misplaced purism. Like you, therefore, I don't.

There's a whole module on the advantages of voluntary limits to equipment on the site, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps voluntary.html. Even though it antedates the M8 and needs updating, you (and others) may find it of interest.

Cheers,

R.
 
bmattock said:
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?
Click to expand...

What's in bold, is exactly what Tom did, no ? His feeling, his stuff, his money ...

Nice photos, Tom, more than test-shots.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
I agree with retunll. Constantly changing gear makes it hard to get really good with any of it. But, lots of folks on RFF just love playing with cameras...lots of different cameras...and that's o.k., too. Eventually, though, and perhaps in the OP's case, you just get tired of messing around with gear and want to focus on photos.
 
I have a Canon 50D and three "L" lenses. I have a Leica M8 and four Leica lenses. With either "kit" I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time messing with lens changes, digging into a camera bag and screwing around with a flash. This weekend I went to a high school reunion breakfast and and evening dinner with just the GF-1. It was a refreshing change of pace. Heck, I'm even thinking about shooting in Black & White and JPEG. That would really make things easy.

I understand that many of you are professionals and need to make a living off your skill and your equipment. I salute you . . . and your equipment. More power to you. I, on the other hand, am a rank amateur just having fun . . . and right now I am having more fun with my GF-1.

Isn't it great that we have choices.
 
I think i did start a quite interesting discussion but it was not planned. I expected discussion about the photos or mFT or M-Lenses on mFT but not a discussion about how the amount of equipment might influence someones photography.
Thank you all for your thoughts even if some of you don't exactly understand my "problem".
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Most of us are probably way "overgunned" for the kind of things we actually photograph. There are two hobbies here, "cameras," and "photography."
Click to expand...

That's true. In my case I want to shift the priorities again from cameras to photography. As a good starting point I already stopped buying photography magazines two month ago that are mainly about gear.
 
Last edited:
For a variety of reasons I just decided to slim down my equipment, too. Rather than deal with the hassle of selling it myself I packed it all up and sent it to Tony Rose at Popflash. He is an excellent and fair consignment seller. It's the best thing I ever did. Now I don't have to sort through a load of stuff looking for the equipment I want to use, and I have a fair amount of extra cash ready for other purposes.

/T
 
tom.w.bn said:
I think i did start a quite interesting discussion but it was not planned. I expected discussion about the photos or mFT or M-Lenses on mFT but not a discussion about how the amount of equipment might influence someones photography.
Thank you all for your thoughts even if some of you don't exactly understand my "problem".
Click to expand...

mFT is really interesting. I can definitely see a mFT (G1 or GF1 probably) some point in my future. mFT offers perfectly good performance at a very convenient size.
 
Found two things I don't like:
- the camera does not seem to have an orientation sensor but only the pana lenses have this sensor. So when I use M-Lenses with an adapter I have to change the orientation of the vertical photos myself
- To activate the magnification for manual focus assistance you have to press two buttons. This would be much nicer with one dedicated button.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom