1-Body, 1 lens: A renewed commitment

[shadowfox]

I know some of us have multiple M-bodies/lenses and for various reasons could justify doing so.

I, on the other hand, can't.

So as some of you already know, I finally sold my one and only Leica lens because it's a 50mm. I am back to having one M-body and one lens, this time an Ultron 35/1.7. (And please, mods, don't move this thread to the CV sub-forum like you did to my other one 🙂 . This is very much about Leica M)

To some, this may be a step backwards, but I know exactly what I gain from this, and it is something concrete, more so than brand, myth, or other intangible qualities

... which, to me, is a step forward.

I love my M4-P. It allows me to take better pictures within its realm of specialty. I still think that it's one of the best investment I did for my photography.

To me, having one M-body and one lens puts the right amount of constraint that helped me to improve my selection of shots to take. But it also pushes me to keep taking pictures with what I have, instead of entertaining L-GAS for yet another magic bullet.

It makes me glad that I have just enough of picture-taking equipment whose potential is way beyond my minimal skills. Something that I can grow with, and nothing more.

Anyways, if nothing else, I hope this post will serve to inform a few Leica considerers (as I was once before) to consider this probably unpopular route.


Now... if there's a HU for a cheap collapsible 35mm... 😀

 

[back alley]

i applaud your commitment to your photography and willingness to do what feels right for you.

 

[shenkerian]

There are collapsible 35s?

I'm almost with you, Will. I shot with a 50mm for about a year, then decided in October to try a 35mm for a few months. I'm now back to the 50mm, and I think I'll end up alternating them every few months or so.

 

[former member]

I'm glad that works for you. I get as much fun out of cleaning a J-8 or I-61L/D and checking them out with film as I do a Summicron.

There are inexpensive ways to "add to the arsenal". A J-8 for $30 or a 9cm F4 Elmar for $45 often go onto my Leica cameras.

 

[raid]

Using one lens would also fit with using a fixed lens RF camera. I wish you happiness in your endevor.

 

[akptc]

I so wish I had this much self-control, heck even enough to stop at 2 lenses. My attempt at one body + one lens led me to a K10D + an 18-250mm superzoom, works most of the time...

 

[gberger]

Self Flaggelation! I used a IIIc with the included 50mm 3.5 Elmar from 1945 to 1965, when I bought our M4, complete with the 50mm f/2.0.

If I had to choose one body and one lens (again), it would be the M7 with the 50mm 1.4 Summilux ASPH.

If you can't get a photo with this by moving around or other subtrefuges, I dunno' what to tell you.

Yes, I now use a 24m 2.8 due to macular degeneration; however, I believe my answer above reflects what I would tell the younger generations, viz, a body and a 50mm.

 

[JeffGreene]

I've been using a Canon 50 1.4 on my M6 recently, just because it seemed that I never took the 35 Cron off. As I continue to use it, I do find myself longing for the 35 MM. It seems a more natural fit for me. I've never been much of lens swapper. I carry a 35 and a 75 (which I rarely use). I suspect I'll be returning to my 35 in short order. 50 MM just doesn't feel right, but then again, I plan on giving it time. Who knows, maybe I'll convert! 😀

 

[erikhaugsby]

One body, one lens?

That makes having 3 lenses and only one body a problem.
The only solution?
Buy 2 more bodies!
😀

 

[Al Patterson]

I know some of us have multiple M-bodies/lenses and for various reasons could justify doing so.

I, on the other hand, can't.

So as some of you already know, I finally sold my one and only Leica lens because it's a 50mm. I am back to having one M-body and one lens, this time an Ultron 35/1.7. (And please, mods, don't move this thread to the CV sub-forum like you did to my other one 🙂 . This is very much about Leica M)

To some, this may be a step backwards, but I know exactly what I gain from this, and it is something concrete, more so than brand, myth, or other intangible qualities

... which, to me, is a step forward.

I love my M4-P. It allows me to take better pictures within its realm of specialty. I still think that it's one of the best investment I did for my photography.

To me, having one M-body and one lens puts the right amount of constraint that helped me to improve my selection of shots to take. But it also pushes me to keep taking pictures with what I have, instead of entertaining L-GAS for yet another magic bullet.

It makes me glad that I have just enough of picture-taking equipment whose potential is way beyond my minimal skills. Something that I can grow with, and nothing more.

Anyways, if nothing else, I hope this post will serve to inform a few Leica considerers (as I was once before) to consider this probably unpopular route.


Now... if there's a HU for a cheap collapsible 35mm... 😀

The nice thing about keeping the M body is you can change your one lens at some future point and not have to buy a new camera.

 

[bmattock]

What do you do at an airshow?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

One body, one lens?

That makes having 3 lenses and only one body a problem.
The only solution?
Buy 2 more bodies!
😀

There ya go! Using only one street for my car...well, that's an admirable discipline, anyway. 😀

 

[Ken Ford]

What do you do at an airshow?

Take pics of the spectators watching the show, maybe?

 

[Chris101]

Hey Will, that's exactly the one lens-camera that I have. It sure makes it easy to decide what lens to use, eh? 😉

 

[jamxo]

Good on you!

My M6 + 35mm F2 Hexanon UC when it arrives and that is all I need in life.
(although my 35mm F1.2 Nokton may make the odd appearance when the sun goes down but its still the same focal length)

J

 

[maddoc]

M4-P is all camera you need 🙂 About the lens ... one could argue 😀

 

[kshapero]

Just when I was thinking of getting another body........

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

I admire your commitment also. The minimalist approach is best for forcing you to find shots as opposed to switching lenses every time you see something to shoot. Plus my eyes seem to get used to the frame lines and I can "see" shots in that focal length before I lift the camera to my eye. Also, it seems the 35mm focal length is a natural fit on an M camera. I have a 35 Cron and sometimes it's difficult to remove it from my M6. I only use my 90 for shots that absolutely need it. It seems like you're wasting the room inside the viewfinder with higher focal length lenses.
Ara

 

[Ken Ford]

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.

 

[bmattock]

Take pics of the spectators watching the show, maybe?

Sure, because that's about all you're going to get.

I do not understand the minimalist approach if it means not taking photographs that I want to take. I like macro - so I have an SLR and a macro lens. I like airshows. So I have a dSLR and a very long lens. I like parades, so I have a nice wide lens. And etc.

If I took but one sort of photograph, then I guess I could see the point - maybe. If someone else wants to do it, I guess fine for them. I don't find it particularly 'admirable', but I'm not putting them down either - to each their own.

But if I need to haul stuff around - I get a truck. If I need better gas mileage - a small car. I don't see what is inherently wrong with using the right tool for the right job. This is photography, not a religious experience.