ampguy
Veteran
Well it's Sept. and I haven't been able to do the 2 lens, b/w thing I was considering back in May/June, but I applaud those sticking with it. I think there is a lot of great experience that using that kind of minimalist approach can bring.
In order to get to know my lens characteristics better, for general purpose shooting days, I've randomized my cameras in excel, and lenses, so every day or week, or trip, I will use the randomizer which will select 1 of 5 camera bodies (3 digital, 2 film, 2 with fixed lenses), and 1 of 9 lenses.
There will be exceptions, if I know it will be dark, I'll limit the pool to luxes + nokton. If I know I need the wides - I'll use the wide(s), If I know I want to do IR, I'll select lenses that will fit the R72 filter, etc.
Any comments or feedback?
In order to get to know my lens characteristics better, for general purpose shooting days, I've randomized my cameras in excel, and lenses, so every day or week, or trip, I will use the randomizer which will select 1 of 5 camera bodies (3 digital, 2 film, 2 with fixed lenses), and 1 of 9 lenses.
There will be exceptions, if I know it will be dark, I'll limit the pool to luxes + nokton. If I know I need the wides - I'll use the wide(s), If I know I want to do IR, I'll select lenses that will fit the R72 filter, etc.
Any comments or feedback?
FrozenInTime
Well-known
'My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." '
ampguy
Veteran
kxl
Social Documentary
Aren't you overthinking this a bit? Not to be flip, but if you have to go through the effort of randomizing your cameras and lenses, then you just aren't shooting enough. You need to find your "worldview."
As for my own worldview, I have ended up with 6 lenses, 2 of which are 21mm, 2 are 35mm and 2 are 50mm.
As for my own worldview, I have ended up with 6 lenses, 2 of which are 21mm, 2 are 35mm and 2 are 50mm.
ampguy
Veteran
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
This sounds like a moderately complicated way to state that you have so much gear that you get confused by it.
I don't see how randomizing things is going to help you learn something about its characteristics. If you want to make sure that everything gets used at some point, fine, but the solution seems kind of backwards.
I'm currently getting rid of everything I'm not using. There's one category of gear that I apparently collect, which is fine because it's low-cost stuff that won't ruin me. As or everything else, either I need it for some real-world purpose, or I don't keep it. How about just doing the same?
And this sounds like a triviality: if you need a specific piece of gear to do something, you use that. Why don't you take the same approach to all your gear? Because you have too much general-purpose stuff?
ampguy
Veteran
Those are some good points
Those are some good points
I don't want to get rid of gear that I might want again. But yes, there is some gear that I should get rid of, and if it does sell, it will come out of the pool.
Secondly, the randomization is a way to prove to myself that it's not the gear, it's the photographer. So if I just perused a magazine with great b/w film images, I won't be tempted to go load the film body with Tri-X but will use what the randomizer(tm) selects and go away focusing on photographing, not gear.
Of course specific gear is needed at times - dslr with long lens for wildlife, wides for travel, fast lenses for low light, so I will over-ride as needed.
Those are some good points
I don't want to get rid of gear that I might want again. But yes, there is some gear that I should get rid of, and if it does sell, it will come out of the pool.
Secondly, the randomization is a way to prove to myself that it's not the gear, it's the photographer. So if I just perused a magazine with great b/w film images, I won't be tempted to go load the film body with Tri-X but will use what the randomizer(tm) selects and go away focusing on photographing, not gear.
Of course specific gear is needed at times - dslr with long lens for wildlife, wides for travel, fast lenses for low light, so I will over-ride as needed.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well but it's also the photographer who makes choices. If I read an book with great b/w wideangle portraits that inspires me I want to try out wideangle portraits, not be forced to take colour images and a tele lens just because I'm outsourcing my photographic decisions to some stupid Excel sheet.
I find a conscious approach to photography better. You should try to find out what you want and what you are comfortable with. Here is a little personal story. For example, I notice that over the last year or so I've gotten a lot better with wideangles:
21mm on the M5. Not the best picture of the year but I scanned it just now and had it lying around.
This is because I felt like running around with a wideangle a lot. It just felt comfortable, so I did it. In particular, I thought that a rangefinder was the perfect thing for photography in general and wideangles in particular. So I took a lot of pictures with the Leica and began to identify the Leica with good pictures in general and wideangle shots in particular.
Then at some point it happened that I was sitting in the kitchen chatting with a photographer friend and his wife, and he gave me his Nikon F2 and a 24 to play around with. As we chatted, at some point he asked whether I'd like a roll of film, so I shot a roll in his kitchen as we were talking. Here's one shot off that roll:
At that point I understood three things. The first is that this was a camera with amazing ergonomics - if it allows me to feel comfortable with it when drunk even though I'm completely unfamiliar with it, it can't be bad. (Note that the vodka bottle on the left was our second and this is the beginning of the roll.) The second thing was that with the Leica the picture would have been worse and that consequently I should think about using SLRs more often. And the third thing was that all things considered, it still was not the camera, but me, who had taken the picture, and that I had really got better with wideangles by running around a lot of time with something I felt comfortable with.
In that sense reading too much RFF has been bad, for example. I even began to feel locked into this rangefinder thing. I took portraits with 85mm lenses. The portraits were extremely bad, so I found out the hard way that as far as I'm concerned, rangefinders suck already for short telephotos. Eventually I went back to taking an SLR for everything over 50 just because it was so bad. And all the time I had a nagging feeling that I was using my gear that I had bought partly out of GAS because I felt like I should be using it. Then I found out by chance that I can work a medium to strong wideangle on an SLR as well. Now as I begin to think about it more consciously, the main context where I am sure that I feel comfortable with the Leica is the real ultrawideangles with an external viewfinder. Apart from that niche, everything considered, rangefinders were just a fad. And as far as the Leica is concerned, given that on the other hand, I can have more or less the same comfort and mode of operation with a FED-2 with less risk of breakage, maybe at some point the Leica will find its way into the classifieds here. It's a great camera and it has enormously brought me forward in any ways, but if I eventually find out that it doesn't bring me forward and isn't utilised, or that I only keep it because it's a Leica and I hang around on a forum with lots of Leicas, I won't be too attached to it.
Just don't feel hesitant to run around and form an opinion by yourself. Don't tell yourself what you should do, instead try to find out what you actually want to do. Forming a consistent opinion about that is surprisingly difficult, but it's worth it. An Excel sheet, however, is not the way.
kxl
Social Documentary
For lack of a better explanation and at the risk of over-simplifying the term, in this context, worldview is how you see the world around you and your relation to it, at least from a photographic perspective (pun somewhat intended).
Everything else being equal, the fact that you have duplicate FL's probably means that the compositions (whether they be your images or others) using those FL's are the ones you find aesthetically the most pleasing.
I used to have a ZM 25mm -- probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, but for some reason, try as I might, anything I shot with it just left me wanting. So I traded it for a ZM 21 even though I already had another 21mm lens.
Everything else being equal, the fact that you have duplicate FL's probably means that the compositions (whether they be your images or others) using those FL's are the ones you find aesthetically the most pleasing.
I used to have a ZM 25mm -- probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, but for some reason, try as I might, anything I shot with it just left me wanting. So I traded it for a ZM 21 even though I already had another 21mm lens.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I dunno, seems to me if you're going to do this, you might as well just grab whatever lens you want to use on a given day and use it. The point of the 2 lens project was as a limiting exercise...if you're not going to do it, just use your stuff the way you please. I'm not sure of the point of randomizing.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
ampguy
Veteran
There aren't any fl's I dislike between 15 and 90, though I sometimes choose a 28 or 35 for the compact size.
ampguy
Veteran
yeah, maybe
yeah, maybe
Today, I knew I wanted to use the M8 with IR, and happen to have an R72 filter that fits on only a few lenses right now.
However, if I had thought about what fl, I probably would have gone wider than the 50 my randomizer chose, and I wouldn't have taken the same shots I did, and that I like (they're on my blog).
variety, randomness, and serendipity can lead to interesting photography.
yeah, maybe
Today, I knew I wanted to use the M8 with IR, and happen to have an R72 filter that fits on only a few lenses right now.
However, if I had thought about what fl, I probably would have gone wider than the 50 my randomizer chose, and I wouldn't have taken the same shots I did, and that I like (they're on my blog).
variety, randomness, and serendipity can lead to interesting photography.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Your randomization project is just another type of equipment restriction. And you've already found out that those don't work for you. The randomisation seems like just an attempt to work around the consequences of feeling restricted.
From a look at your blog I'd say take the M8, the 15 and the Summilux. Leave everything else in the cupboard. If you ask yourself why you have it, say it's because you are a collector. But that's again just restricting yourself. You already tried that and it didn't work. Why did it not work? Because you didn't like feeling restricted? Because you have all this other stuff and felt it should get used?
Ultimately the question is what do you actually want to achieve. Why did you start the other project, and why do you start this one? Become a better photographer? Getting to know better some of the stuff you have? I don't get to know people better by meeting them at random and looking at an Excel sheet whom I'm supposed to meet today.
From a look at your blog I'd say take the M8, the 15 and the Summilux. Leave everything else in the cupboard. If you ask yourself why you have it, say it's because you are a collector. But that's again just restricting yourself. You already tried that and it didn't work. Why did it not work? Because you didn't like feeling restricted? Because you have all this other stuff and felt it should get used?
Ultimately the question is what do you actually want to achieve. Why did you start the other project, and why do you start this one? Become a better photographer? Getting to know better some of the stuff you have? I don't get to know people better by meeting them at random and looking at an Excel sheet whom I'm supposed to meet today.
ampguy
Veteran
I don't see it that way
I don't see it that way
Consider this analogy - every day I make a custom smoothie. I have smoothie bloggers following me on twitter trying to get the latest recipes.
If I don't use tools to find nutritious and tasty combinations, I can still make some good basic smoothies, but won't have tried certain combinations that research tools can suggest.
So with lens/body combinations, I have 50 or so potential combinations, and have only used about 30, and some of those very briefly. The tool I am going to use is going to cycle me through combinations I might not have picked (and you may have overlooked in recommending).
But I do appreciate your reviewing my blog and making the 2 lens recommendation. The 35/1.4 lux (is that the lux you were referring to)? is always in my multi-lens bag (domke fx5b), but the 15/4.5, because of the finder hassle, is more for dedicated uwa use, for me.
I don't see it that way
Consider this analogy - every day I make a custom smoothie. I have smoothie bloggers following me on twitter trying to get the latest recipes.
If I don't use tools to find nutritious and tasty combinations, I can still make some good basic smoothies, but won't have tried certain combinations that research tools can suggest.
So with lens/body combinations, I have 50 or so potential combinations, and have only used about 30, and some of those very briefly. The tool I am going to use is going to cycle me through combinations I might not have picked (and you may have overlooked in recommending).
But I do appreciate your reviewing my blog and making the 2 lens recommendation. The 35/1.4 lux (is that the lux you were referring to)? is always in my multi-lens bag (domke fx5b), but the 15/4.5, because of the finder hassle, is more for dedicated uwa use, for me.