A Survey

[Ko.Fe.]

Day or so ago Dmitri Markov after getting back to home from arrest due to been on the protest was sitting in sauna then local approached him and asked - you are known as photog, do you have camera to do wedding?

He used to used dedicated cameras, but then invested in on-line photography courses. One was with some Magnum photog.

His recent mobile phone picture was sold on charity auction for 20K+ USD.

And then here is this dude. He used to be entertaining street photog with GR, but now posting boring videos with Leica.

My do it all camera was Canon 500D. I have tried it all with this camera and it always delivered.
I joyed P.O.T.N. in 2009 to learn all types of photography with it. But at some point I got into crop vs FF and then digital vs film.

Looking back... crop vs FF is not to much about photography talk, it seems.
Film vs digital is only kind of valid on darkroom prints. IMO.

Starting from 2012 I went through all film formats and cameras types.
From 2015 every time I was trying new film camera after getting M4-2 I realized it was time wasting with gear testing. Always was returning to M4-2.

But this camera needs multiple repairs and they are lengthy and pricey with only one person left with ELC parts and who is next to been just one left who knows what he is doing.
I'm using IIIc more often now...

So... some people with talent and real motivation in photography do show some life even with mobile phones instead of bokeh and rendering from Leica.
While I'm just 9 to 17 dude and my outdated cameras are toys.
I used to travel for work and walk with camera for hours every day after work. But I'm at 9 to 17 same site job now. I used to go for two-three hours after visiting sites in Toronto. Now I'm just straight back to home. Exercise and walk with dog. I still wear camera if I'm outside, I even take it on 20+ km bike's rides. But it is feel good habit...

Boris Kireev had very many cameras. With 9 to 17 job. But he used them daily for years and the progress became visible after some time.

I think, cameras quantities might be not relevant. If you are constantly trying to get away from testing of bokeh and emulsion rendering it is not toy use of cameras.

 

[Bob Michaels]

......
OK, here’s the survey. 1 or 2? (1) The moderator is an ass and completely misses the point of photography. (2) You can have a lot of toys and take bad pictures. You can have a lot of toys and take good pictures. But children like toys.

3) the moderator is very good at promoting topics for discussion. However, he is quite intelligent and knows it is not as simple as 1) or 2).

 

[agentlossing]

And, to actually address the question, I do think it makes sense for me to have multiple cameras for different uses. Street photography is an example of where there are... not quite requirements, but where it's much more convenient to have specific abilities to your camera. Fast AF or zone or rangefinder focusing, inconspicuous looks, etc. But then you also want to have different abilities for a camera that gets used for different things, or for a more casual use camera, or for work, or whatever.

Also, though, different cameras have different vibes, and they make me think differently, and end up making different pictures. I think that's part of the fun of photography. BUT, you have to have your camera for a pretty long time for it to start really speaking to you. Cycling through cameras endlessly is a waste of not only time and money, but of potential as well. I've been plenty guilty of this, but I have mostly started to realize that even if I have initial objections to some part of a camera, if I use it long enough to become second nature, I may still find something valuable in it. Kind of like people - even the most annoying acquaintance has probably had some experience or insight that you can use, that adds potential value to your life.

Another thought: to do the above you can't have too many cameras, or you end up forgetting how to listen to them. Four seems close to the limit, for me, right now.

 

[farlymac]

#2, all the way!


Okay, at first it was just enough cameras to cover all the bases, but then I got interested in having the full model range of variations, and became a collector. But I have used at least once most of the cameras I own.


PF

 

[JeffS7444]

#1: I don't know about the moderator, but I may be the ass who misses the whole point of photography!

And what exactly is the point of photography? So far as I can see, it's about having toy purchases to ponder, lust after, debate, pre-order, and briefly enjoy using to take photos of cats, dogs and children, before starting the cycle anew.

 

[Doug A]

Both 1 and 2.

My first "good" camera was a Leica IIIf that I bought in 1965 or 1966. I still have it and a small collection of LTM bodies and lenses that I still use as my main camera(s).

At the same time, I have gone through a very large number of other cameras, film and digital, ranging in size from a Minolta 16 to a 4x5 Crown Graphic. I have never really bonded with any of them and keep coming back to my IIIf.

 

[Timmyjoe]

#2 - Absolutely.

 

[PKR]

3) the moderator is very good at promoting topics for discussion. However, he is quite intelligent and knows it is not as simple as 1) or 2).

yeah, more like a Complex Number.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

But, I think owning a lot of different cameras is useful not only because you can broaden the ways you work and the pictures you take, but it’s also fun to have a lot of toys.

I'm not sure how my thoughts fit in to either option #1 or #2, but...

I have a few cameras (~20 functional film bodies?). I like searching, buying and playing with them. Cameras are fun to play around with, and I try not to judge either myself or others for having a multitude of cameras 'just because'...

That said, having lots of cameras certainly doesn't make my photos better, and if I'm honest I think the opposite is probably true. I know that I do my best creative work when I simplify my tool 'palette'. As an example, I think the best photos I've taken were when I spent a few years almost exclusively using a Ricoh GR.

 

[raydm6]

#2

(...and still window shopping for more...)

 

[AndyC]

I’ve read a very good piece about this by the much-missed Roger Hicks explaining his camera choices and the reasoning behind them, ranking different types in order of usefulness to him and Frances.
Think it must have been on their website.
It was more a comparison of the merits of types of camera then any kind of justification for accumulating say, multiple SLRs or a suitcase full of 50mm primes.

 

[Wenge]

...........

 

[jsrockit]

I have 4 digital and 3 film cameras. That’s about the max I can handle before I feel like I have too much.

 

[willie_901]

I vote 2.

When I was shooting interior photography gigs I used 3 digital cameras. Two were identical bodies - one for regular use and one that went to gigs as a back up (I also had back up lenses and strobes). The other was an X-100 I used for personal work.

Now I own two cameras (X-Pro 2 with 14/2.8, 23/2, 35/2 and 70/2 mm primes and one 10-24/4 zoom and a silver X-100F). Since I have the 23mm XF lens, the X-100F is somewhat redundant. I keep the X-100F because it is a bit easier to carry, at F4 and wider the lens renders differently than the 23mm XF, it attracts a bit less attention in public and it serves as an emergency back up.

I have two 35 mm film cameras (Mamiya-Sekor 500TL and Nikon FG) I no longer use. I display them for sentimental reasons.

If had been interested in action photography gigs, then I would have also owned a Nikon FX SLR (and a back up body). Likewise, for studio work (large portraits, still life) I would have picked up large format digital body.

 

[Bill Clark]

A version of number 2.

When I first started my business, I didn’t take any loans out, borrow money from any where. Zero dollars of photography income to begin with. But that soon changed. My photography business was my second career. I really enjoyed the industry, met some wonderful people and had fantastic clients.

It would probably be considered foolish but, perhaps I lucked out, as I never had any equipment failure. No back ups in the beginning. But, over time, I did acquire other equipment, most of which I still have.

For me, it’s the classes I signed up for with Monte Zucker and Eddie Tapp that made the road to success quicker and easier.

 

[Mooshoepork]

I'm not sure how my thoughts fit in to either option #1 or #2, but...

I have a few cameras (~20 functional film bodies?). I like searching, buying and playing with them. Cameras are fun to play around with, and I try not to judge either myself or others for having a multitude of cameras 'just because'...

This explains a bit

 

[Pfreddee]

I pick Number 2. And actually, I'm about 6, so the child analogy is very appropriate.

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[brothernature]

Depends on what you want to do with photography. Sports photographers might need a varied amount of gear, from telephotos to wide angle lenses. If you're looking to connect with the world and use the camera as a device to learn more about yourself, to make art with it, I think constraints help. But again, there are no rules.

If your goal is to produce meaningful work, and you find yourself lusting over camera after camera, with the thought "once I get *this* camera, then I'll be able to start making the great photos I think I'm capable of making", that's when you get into trouble.

The internet makes that problem a lot easier, especially the way photography is discussed online, with 90% of the talk around the technical side.

Also it's much easier to read camera and lens reviews than it is to put yourself out in the world everyday and do the work.

 

[zuiko85]

2a, definitely.
And many Rube Goldberg camera contraptions made from boxes of camera bits.