ferider
Veteran
That's what I tried to say, Mike.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I wasn't disagreeing, nor (I hope) mistaking what you said - I just went off sideways with the cooking analogy.
...Mike
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Has it come to this? Having to apologize for posts which might be taken in the wrong way? Can't one say "I was just standing my ground."??
ferider
Veteran
All is good guys, I was just confirming that I felt Mike and me are agreeing .... And I like Mike's cooking details.
And I like Mike's cooking details.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Whew. Disaster averted by the skin of our teeth.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Our teeth need skinning
I try to get by with just brushing and flossing :angel:...Mike
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
While known for his use of a 50mm, he used other lenses, didn't he? I think he said that America was too wide for a 50mm and had to use a 35mm, he probably had a 90mm as well.
kiss-o-matic
Well-known
I buy a lot of stuff, but I generally tend to sell it on (to finance more) if I feel it is not very useful to me (or not worth it's value to me). I find my moods (and modes) change a lot, so having a few different bodies and a few different lenses is beneficial. There's probably a lot to be said about learning from using different gear. Obviously there's a tipping point where you just have more than you'll likely use.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
+1
95% of pros could get along 95% of the time with two bodies and those three lenses you mention. When I'm not shooting for profit, I typically take a single body, a 35mm f/1.2 and a 75mm f/2. Except for long-tele work, there's not much you can't cover with those two lenses. It makes for a nice, compact kit. When I take three lenses, the third is either the 28 or 90, depending on where I'm heading.
doolittle
Well-known
HCB is like the Chuck Norris of this forum
I'm pretty sure he had more than one camera and one lens. I am also pretty sure he wasn't a gear head.
Eggleston on the other hand...
I'm pretty sure he had more than one camera and one lens. I am also pretty sure he wasn't a gear head.
Eggleston on the other hand...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Nothing wrong with liking gears.
It's lacking the will or motivation to improve your standard and appreciation that will kill your "photography" even before it got started.
Camera GAS is the easiest part of the equation to deal with.
Learn how to sell and have the guts to do it when the time comes. It's really *not* that hard.
Now try to deal with darkroom GAS and camera GAS at the same time
It's lacking the will or motivation to improve your standard and appreciation that will kill your "photography" even before it got started.
Camera GAS is the easiest part of the equation to deal with.
Learn how to sell and have the guts to do it when the time comes. It's really *not* that hard.
Now try to deal with darkroom GAS and camera GAS at the same time
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134711
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134711
HCB did use other lenses.The 50mm was the basic.
The 35mm and 90mm, as designed by Leica-Barnack, were
all in ratio.Look at the lengths of the sides of each of the lenses,
that have a basic ratio. Using these lenses allows your images to have a cohesive look. Something missing in many portfolios.
It jars the senses. A wide angle shot that encompasses the Golden Gate to Maine. Then a telephoto that finds a single eye of a sea gull
on the bridge. The 28mm does not match the 35mm. The 105mm is close to the 90mm and does pass..
Going with only the 28mm is more than OK. The Ricoh as used by Daido Moriyama proves that! There are no other viewpoints or angles, in his photos..
A friend of mine shoots an M, a 50mm and B/W film only.
He is very successful. Many photos in LFI Masters and magazine.
i am a gear head. i love lots of equipment. i would achieve more as i slowly shed stuff..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134711
HCB did use other lenses.The 50mm was the basic.
The 35mm and 90mm, as designed by Leica-Barnack, were
all in ratio.Look at the lengths of the sides of each of the lenses,
that have a basic ratio. Using these lenses allows your images to have a cohesive look. Something missing in many portfolios.
It jars the senses. A wide angle shot that encompasses the Golden Gate to Maine. Then a telephoto that finds a single eye of a sea gull
on the bridge. The 28mm does not match the 35mm. The 105mm is close to the 90mm and does pass..
Going with only the 28mm is more than OK. The Ricoh as used by Daido Moriyama proves that! There are no other viewpoints or angles, in his photos..
A friend of mine shoots an M, a 50mm and B/W film only.
He is very successful. Many photos in LFI Masters and magazine.
i am a gear head. i love lots of equipment. i would achieve more as i slowly shed stuff..
Archiver
Veteran
Wow, and I thought I was bad! The whole thing about lighting and rigging hasn't got to me. I only own one flash, and a single LED floodlight for interviews. I've got a fairly extensive set of lenses for Canon, Leica and Micro Four Thirds, and a swag of compacts, but I've never bothered with medium or large format.
Something that keeps my GAS in check is asking myself how any given purchase will fit into the system. I use Canon for work, Leica for personal projects, and m43 is starting to straddle both areas, but I always ask myself how another lens or body is going to help me take better photographs, or produce better video. I love new gear, but I know that it has to contribute to either my enjoyment of photography, my income, but preferably both.
We often think that photography is an expensive occupation, and that a pro body and lenses like the 1Dx and various sub-$5k L-lenses are mucho dinero. Spare a thought for the video industry, a group that spends $70k on an Arri Alexa cinema camera for high end commercial, TV and film work. And lenses. My god. Leica cine primes go for $20-25k each. A Canon cine zoom is about $30k. Zeiss Master primes? Similar cash. These lenses are manufactured to have none of the 'defects' of photographic lenses that detract from cinema. Most productions would just rent this gear as needed, rather than buy it outright, but many people own the $40k Red Epic, the camera used to shoot movies major Hollywood movies like Pirates of the Carribean.
At the lower end of the scale, a Canon C300 cinema camera goes for $14k. Zeiss CP primes are $4-7k each. Then there is the morass of monitors; EVF's; rigging like steadicams, dollies and tripods; audio gear like recorders and microphones.
Where was I?
Oh, yes, talking about gear.
But that's the rub. Do we shoot because we love photography, gear, or both? The professional can justify the purchase of gear, especially when it fits for certain purposes. But the hobbyist does this for FUN, so does the hobbyist really need to justify a gear purchase?
If it becomes pathological, like Olivier's article was saying, then that is not a photography problem, it's a MENTAL problem. He admits to having every PDA under the sun, too, which indicates that his obsessive thinking reached further than just cameras.
Something that keeps my GAS in check is asking myself how any given purchase will fit into the system. I use Canon for work, Leica for personal projects, and m43 is starting to straddle both areas, but I always ask myself how another lens or body is going to help me take better photographs, or produce better video. I love new gear, but I know that it has to contribute to either my enjoyment of photography, my income, but preferably both.
We often think that photography is an expensive occupation, and that a pro body and lenses like the 1Dx and various sub-$5k L-lenses are mucho dinero. Spare a thought for the video industry, a group that spends $70k on an Arri Alexa cinema camera for high end commercial, TV and film work. And lenses. My god. Leica cine primes go for $20-25k each. A Canon cine zoom is about $30k. Zeiss Master primes? Similar cash. These lenses are manufactured to have none of the 'defects' of photographic lenses that detract from cinema. Most productions would just rent this gear as needed, rather than buy it outright, but many people own the $40k Red Epic, the camera used to shoot movies major Hollywood movies like Pirates of the Carribean.
At the lower end of the scale, a Canon C300 cinema camera goes for $14k. Zeiss CP primes are $4-7k each. Then there is the morass of monitors; EVF's; rigging like steadicams, dollies and tripods; audio gear like recorders and microphones.
Where was I?
Oh, yes, talking about gear.
But that's the rub. Do we shoot because we love photography, gear, or both? The professional can justify the purchase of gear, especially when it fits for certain purposes. But the hobbyist does this for FUN, so does the hobbyist really need to justify a gear purchase?
If it becomes pathological, like Olivier's article was saying, then that is not a photography problem, it's a MENTAL problem. He admits to having every PDA under the sun, too, which indicates that his obsessive thinking reached further than just cameras.
clayne
shoot film or die
I'm somewhat of the opinion that he got so involved with all the different photographic pursuits, particularly things that are entirely unrelated like large format landscape and flash-driven artificial-lighting photography, in addition to all the other stuff, because he is obsessed with being a *photographer*.
A lot of people just find their niche or two and stick to that - quickly getting better because they challenge themselves and try to maintain some level of focus. I think his words are good, generally valid, and I appreciate him putting them out there - but I question the overall intent and what really drives the photography. I also don't like the "look" he goes for as it grows tiring quickly.
A lot of people just find their niche or two and stick to that - quickly getting better because they challenge themselves and try to maintain some level of focus. I think his words are good, generally valid, and I appreciate him putting them out there - but I question the overall intent and what really drives the photography. I also don't like the "look" he goes for as it grows tiring quickly.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Well, trying stuff out is part of getting to know what your niche is. So that is not necessarily wrong.
As I said above, and you emphasize it here also, it's the challenging of oneself to be better in the niche that you like is the key to advancements.