squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
A really excellent new piece, which I agree with completely.
http://dantestella.com/technical/gearheads.html
http://dantestella.com/technical/gearheads.html
Matus
Well-known
I get the point and mostly agree, but given the style of the article Dante probably had a hard week 
But I know at least one person who does definitely profits from changing his gear often, you know, the one shooting girls in awkward positions :angel:
But I know at least one person who does definitely profits from changing his gear often, you know, the one shooting girls in awkward positions :angel:
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Thanks for linking to this!
Rob
Rob
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Dante is amazing and still a good shooter in spite of his gearheadedness....
HAHA I do swap my gear around every few months but whatever I use is very simple, usually two cameras - one digital, one film - with one 35-50mm equivalent prime lens.
I've given up searching for the perfect camera to grow old with ;-) I like switching from RF to SLR to View Cameras... it keeps your mind sharp. And while I could probably afford to keep a few on hand, I find it better to sell them and remove the temptation -- forcing me to use what's at hand and master it rather than always be reaching for something else.
What works for me is to establish a budget, $1000 or so.... and stay with it, swapping, trading, etc.
Figure a Panasonic G1 w a 20mm or a Nikon D80 with a 35mm is only $500 -- and while a new D7000 is nicer, are you really going to make better pictures with it? I have plenty of photos in my portfolio from an old Nikon D70 or one of my $8 Olympus Stylii.
Same with the Crown Graphic 4x5, only a few hundred bucks.
I like the gear as much as anyone but it doesn't mean you have to go into hock to get set up with MPs and ASPH lenses, M9s and the like....
HAHA I do swap my gear around every few months but whatever I use is very simple, usually two cameras - one digital, one film - with one 35-50mm equivalent prime lens.
I've given up searching for the perfect camera to grow old with ;-) I like switching from RF to SLR to View Cameras... it keeps your mind sharp. And while I could probably afford to keep a few on hand, I find it better to sell them and remove the temptation -- forcing me to use what's at hand and master it rather than always be reaching for something else.
What works for me is to establish a budget, $1000 or so.... and stay with it, swapping, trading, etc.
Figure a Panasonic G1 w a 20mm or a Nikon D80 with a 35mm is only $500 -- and while a new D7000 is nicer, are you really going to make better pictures with it? I have plenty of photos in my portfolio from an old Nikon D70 or one of my $8 Olympus Stylii.
Same with the Crown Graphic 4x5, only a few hundred bucks.
I like the gear as much as anyone but it doesn't mean you have to go into hock to get set up with MPs and ASPH lenses, M9s and the like....
Last edited:
Mablo
Well-known
Not one of his best writings I'm afraid. I don't get his point and the car example is confusing.
jimrohrer
Member
Whenever I find my work starts getting stale,I find that swapping cameras or formats helps me see my subjects with "new eyes".
Good article.
Good article.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I'm not sure about this as it pertains to manual focus lenses, particularly with the use of the love-it-or-leave-it tab. The tab is designed for optimal use in situations where the shooter (pre)focuses by feel. Practice is essential, and limiting the number of lenses is very helpful.
Coincidentally, I was just plowing through Dante's site today and read that piece earlier this afternoon.
I often feel like I have too many RF lenses, but it's really three different sets: one is a 28-50 for travel, one is a 35-75 for lowlight/best image, one is a 21-50 for backpacking. Then a lens (135) that fills those occasional gaps. Another (85) I just loved the look of, and another (40) that is tiny.
The choice helps me sometimes, and hinders me others. Recently the problem is that work has been just too darn busy for me to give photography any real attention. Incidentally, I have the impression that most of the most vocal advocates of 1 lens/1 camera on RFF actually have a stash of cameras/lenses in their dry cabinet, but that doesn't take away from what they do (or preach).
It's more about finding out what grows your vision, and what is simply (expensive or distracting) fluff.
Coincidentally, I was just plowing through Dante's site today and read that piece earlier this afternoon.
I often feel like I have too many RF lenses, but it's really three different sets: one is a 28-50 for travel, one is a 35-75 for lowlight/best image, one is a 21-50 for backpacking. Then a lens (135) that fills those occasional gaps. Another (85) I just loved the look of, and another (40) that is tiny.
The choice helps me sometimes, and hinders me others. Recently the problem is that work has been just too darn busy for me to give photography any real attention. Incidentally, I have the impression that most of the most vocal advocates of 1 lens/1 camera on RFF actually have a stash of cameras/lenses in their dry cabinet, but that doesn't take away from what they do (or preach).
It's more about finding out what grows your vision, and what is simply (expensive or distracting) fluff.
GSNfan
Well-known
Using one camera, one lens and one film/developer combo is truly a liberating experience.
You seek images in that focal length, look for light that best suits your film, expose accordingly and play to the strength of your lens... If its photographs that you're after then this is the purest way to go about capturing your vision. This of course does not apply to commercial photographers.
You seek images in that focal length, look for light that best suits your film, expose accordingly and play to the strength of your lens... If its photographs that you're after then this is the purest way to go about capturing your vision. This of course does not apply to commercial photographers.
Use what works for you... who cares what anyone else uses.
Neare
Well-known
I like getting new toys to play with. He's right, I shoot 6x6 differently to 35mm, it keeps things fresh. The next camera I'm buying will be polaroid.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not for me it ain't.
If it works for you, great. But to preach it as the One True Path, as distressingly many do, is downright feeble-minded. (Note: I'm not accusing you of preaching it as the One True Path, or of being feeble-minded. But anyone who does, is, at least when it comes to that topic.)
Never trust anyone whose vocabulary does not include the phrase, "I could be wrong."
To the OP: thanks for the link.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
aad
Not so new now.
The only truth I've found is there is no relationship between gear fanaticism and artistic talent. I've seen treasure and trash in equal measure from both ends of the spectrum.
Arjay
Time Traveller
I'm undecided on this article.
On one hand, limiting oneself to a very restricted set of camera(s) and lens(es) offers the chance for the photographer to get intimately familiar with his gear. If you e.g. use just one focal length for a while, you'll learn to previsualize that FL's field of view. Also, always working with the same camera body helps you to intuitively use it like a musical instrument (which you need to master blindly, too). You then e.g. know where to set an EV correction factor for backlight or filter use, even if you're looking elsewhere. This might save a little time that you gain watching your subject to find the decisive moment.
On the other hand, I cannot see any virtue in self-imposed limitations. If I also own a DSLR with long lenses, why shouldn't I use it when shooting scenes for which the DSLR would be the better tool?
I like horses for courses, no ideology.
On one hand, limiting oneself to a very restricted set of camera(s) and lens(es) offers the chance for the photographer to get intimately familiar with his gear. If you e.g. use just one focal length for a while, you'll learn to previsualize that FL's field of view. Also, always working with the same camera body helps you to intuitively use it like a musical instrument (which you need to master blindly, too). You then e.g. know where to set an EV correction factor for backlight or filter use, even if you're looking elsewhere. This might save a little time that you gain watching your subject to find the decisive moment.
On the other hand, I cannot see any virtue in self-imposed limitations. If I also own a DSLR with long lenses, why shouldn't I use it when shooting scenes for which the DSLR would be the better tool?
I like horses for courses, no ideology.
oftheherd
Veteran
Since I have no interest in that philosophy and wouldn't join that "congregation" I won't do it for you, but I suggest a search. There have been several threads from people who sound as if that is so for them. As long as they are happy, good for them. And I have seen some that produced some nice photos.
For me it wouldn't work. There are photos I want that I can't get within those limitations.
al1966
Feed Your Head
As with a lot of things it all depends, if your work only needs one camera lens combination then that is all you need. If like most you go from say close up work to sports and then to studio, you need a multiple of options. There is no wrong or right way to one a single lens and body is perfect, to another a wide range of options is required.
Mablo
Well-known
As far as I can remember the saying: "nothing can teach you more about photography than spending one year with a Leica and one lens, one film and one developer" origins from a quite known Swedish photographer, Christer Stromholm (http://www.stromholm.com). perhaps Tom A. knows more about Stromholm and his ideas about gear.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Right, but most people are skilled enough to learn the manual handling of any new, different camera within a few days - a camera is about as far from a violin as it can get, and more like a player piano regarding the degree of manual skill their operation takes. If any, the "can't master anything more complex" argument might cut it in the case of complex digital cameras - but so far I haven't seen any proponent of D3 purism...
Last edited:
Does having sex with only one woman your whole life make you a better or worse lover? Do you enjoy it more or less?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Absolutely. But so he did in his gear whore days.
There is nothing wrong with one camera-one lens. But I strongly doubt that it has an inherent quality above other forms of reduction.
The real point about creating image series tied together by concepts extraneous to the image content is testing how much of it will transfer into the image. It is quite plausible that reduction of some key parameter is inevitable to be successful at that. But there is no real point in claiming that using one camera and lens is a better concept than one photographer and a thousand cameras or one location and a thousand photographers - except maybe that it is more reminescent of popular concepts of asceticism. But then we'd have to ask why it had to be a Leica/Rollei/Lomo and not some disposable...
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
This question is irrelevant to the issue of photo equipment use. However, numerous studies have shown that people in monogamous, committed relationships are happier than those who play the field.
Please note my avatar. That photo was made in Venice five years ago on our 40th anniversary trip to Italy and Switzerland.