confessions of an ex-gear addict

[ferider]

Perhaps being overly minimalist is, in it's own way, just as "gear obsessed" as buying too much stuff. It's just a thought.

...Mike

That's what I tried to say, Mike.

 

[mfunnell]

That's what I tried to say, Mike.

I wasn't disagreeing, nor (I hope) mistaking what you said - I just went off sideways with the cooking analogy.

...Mike

 

[sepiareverb]

I wasn't disagreeing, nor (I hope) mistaking what you said - I just went off sideways with the cooking analogy.

...Mike

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]

All is good guys, I was just confirming that I felt Mike and me are agreeing .... 🙂 And I like Mike's cooking details.

 

[sepiareverb]

Whew. Disaster averted by the skin of our teeth.

 

[mfunnell]

Disaster averted by the skin of our teeth.

Our teeth need skinning 😱 I try to get by with just brushing and flossing :angel:

...Mike

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

I like his honesty and some of his advice, especially "align yourself with your intent to achieve happiness". HCB used one Leica and one 50mm lens. Why do I need more than that?

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]

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]

I would not advocate taking that austere of an approach in terms of camera gear. That having been said, a wide angle, a normal lens and a short tele backed up by a pair of bodies (in case your primary body breaks) and film is all a person actually needs in terms of cameras and lenses.

I remember reading that Steve McCurry - the National Geograhic photographer who created one of the most famous images of all time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl ) carried just two camera bodies and four lenses (24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm if memory serves me) in a Domke F2 when he traveled the globe shooting for NGS (and a butt-load of Kodachrome 64, of course).

When I read that, it was a real eye opener. It definitely caused me to rethink this GAS thing.

+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]

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...

 

[shadowfox]

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 😀

 

[leicapixie]

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..

 

[Archiver]

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.

 

[clayne]

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.

 

[shadowfox]

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.

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.