shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Dante's point is valid.
As long as it's put within the right context (as all points should be).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking gears. The historical aspect, the mechanical aspect, the sheer enjoyment of using the gears. All good.
However, when you want to build a coherent body of work in photography, where the actual photograph is the main goal, experimenting with various gears *can* be a distraction (except when the various gears are part of the project).
Now the sensitive statement: "One body one lens"
I personally agree wholeheartedly when it comes to street-photography and RF. I don't agree with it if we're talking about SLR, or photography in general.
In street-photography + RF combination, you are up close with your subjects, you need fluid movement and minimal distraction. Reloading film is about the only time you should be taking your eyes off the scene. You need to give me a pretty convincing scenario where multiple bodies or lenses will help you.
But when it comes to SLR, for example, that's a system that is designed for extreme range of lenses. So the 'one body, one lens' concept does not apply. For example: A wildlife photographer needs to use a 400mm bazooka as well as a 20mm wide lens for landscape shots (in one shooting session). Same with wedding photographers.
Now we come to photography in general, TLR, folder, 8x10, Polaroid, you name it. I am a gearhead and proud of it.
... and of course I could be wrong.
As long as it's put within the right context (as all points should be).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking gears. The historical aspect, the mechanical aspect, the sheer enjoyment of using the gears. All good.
However, when you want to build a coherent body of work in photography, where the actual photograph is the main goal, experimenting with various gears *can* be a distraction (except when the various gears are part of the project).
Now the sensitive statement: "One body one lens"
I personally agree wholeheartedly when it comes to street-photography and RF. I don't agree with it if we're talking about SLR, or photography in general.
In street-photography + RF combination, you are up close with your subjects, you need fluid movement and minimal distraction. Reloading film is about the only time you should be taking your eyes off the scene. You need to give me a pretty convincing scenario where multiple bodies or lenses will help you.
But when it comes to SLR, for example, that's a system that is designed for extreme range of lenses. So the 'one body, one lens' concept does not apply. For example: A wildlife photographer needs to use a 400mm bazooka as well as a 20mm wide lens for landscape shots (in one shooting session). Same with wedding photographers.
Now we come to photography in general, TLR, folder, 8x10, Polaroid, you name it. I am a gearhead and proud of it.
... and of course I could be wrong.
skibeerr
Well-known
Oh pain...... for me the search for the perfect camera continues and the house is constantly littered with different cameras. This however has not contributed anything to my abilities as a Photograph. It only ruined my bank account.
For me, and I stress FOR ME, there is much fun in handling al the different camera's, admiring the ingenuity of them. But then I have to face up to selling them because funds are not unlimited.
The loss of time and the lack of any contribution to my skills as a photographer often make me long for the one camera one lens thing.
The proof that it works FOR ME is when I go trekking and limitations of weight force me to make choices in material, I seldom miss the load of gear sitting at home.
But that's just me.
Wim
For me, and I stress FOR ME, there is much fun in handling al the different camera's, admiring the ingenuity of them. But then I have to face up to selling them because funds are not unlimited.
The loss of time and the lack of any contribution to my skills as a photographer often make me long for the one camera one lens thing.
The proof that it works FOR ME is when I go trekking and limitations of weight force me to make choices in material, I seldom miss the load of gear sitting at home.
But that's just me.
Wim
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I am a one woman man - she appears in some of my posted pictures, though's she's a bit camera shy.
I have no love for my ca,eras, although I will admit to enjoying using them and liking some as objects of engineering wonder.
Mike
ampguy
Veteran
While I agree with what he's saying, it's not his best writing. Better than Chris Weeks' writing. Maybe he needs to use one computer, one keyboard
GSNfan
Well-known
The only people other than professionals who're adamant about having multiple lenses and bodies are those who photograph with a preconceived notion of how a photograph should look. This notion of how a photograph should look is passed down from one generation of amateurs (and pros) to others and it almost becomes second nature.
Wide angle lenses for landscape, long lenses for portraits, medium for walk about etc... But in fact we know that is complete nonsense. There are no rules as such. Its possible to use any sort of lens for these typical subjects and if you're creative enough, the results will be great.
Wide angle lenses for landscape, long lenses for portraits, medium for walk about etc... But in fact we know that is complete nonsense. There are no rules as such. Its possible to use any sort of lens for these typical subjects and if you're creative enough, the results will be great.
kevin m
Veteran
Orson Welles - who I trust we could all agree was a better artist than most of us chatting here - said that "The absence of limitations is the enemy of art." and I think there's a large amount of truth in that statement. Being forced by necessity to make the tools in your hand work for you focuses the mind in a way wholly opposite to wondering which Aspherical lens to buy or whether the lack of an AA filter in that new digicam will bring your photography to "another level."
Having options is good only once we develop the mental discipline necessary to use them effectively. Otherwise, like The Clash said, we're all "Lost in the Supermarket...."
Having options is good only once we develop the mental discipline necessary to use them effectively. Otherwise, like The Clash said, we're all "Lost in the Supermarket...."
Andy Kibber
Well-known
FrankS
Registered User
No one should be getting their pants in a knot over this topic. First, this is just an internet forum, and most importantly, everyone has a way of doing things that works for them. Just find what that is and do it. Don't worry about what others do. There is no rule which needs to be followed here. Some folks have written that one camera with one lens works for them. That's great. Others have written that they enjoy and benefit from using a variety of photo gear. That's also great. I happen to agree with the article but feel it is too preachy, (like some of the one camera/lens articles are)with the implication that this is how it should be done. That part is a bit silly. IMO
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
Dante qualifies the essay early pointing out that it's his opinion. Which is fine. Whatever works. Btw, I like the guy's work - lovely prints - and don't care what he uses.
Most photogs I know tend to keep gear they like and sell/store gear they don't like. There's a surprise.
I spend time noodling about gear when I can't or should be shooting. I need to shoot more, thoughtfully, that's it.
Most photogs I know tend to keep gear they like and sell/store gear they don't like. There's a surprise.
I spend time noodling about gear when I can't or should be shooting. I need to shoot more, thoughtfully, that's it.
anu L ogy
Well-known
The two sides to this argument seem so futile. Some people will produce with 10 lenses with what someone else produces with one lens. In the end the picture is taken by the person and not the camera so who cares?
On another note - I dont really do the one camera and lens thing but is it me or did he totally ignore the primary argument that those people make: less time thinking about gear and lenses = more time thinking about shooting. *Shrug*
On another note - I dont really do the one camera and lens thing but is it me or did he totally ignore the primary argument that those people make: less time thinking about gear and lenses = more time thinking about shooting. *Shrug*
Last edited:
mathomas
Well-known
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Of course it's futile.
There's no need for an argument.
There's no need to justify one's choice of gear.
And there's no need to attack the opposite camp or belittle and name-call those who work differently than one's self.
Why did Dante write the piece
Because that 's what Dante does ... he has the energy and the will to create a very interesting site with a lot of useful information mostly based on his opinions and experience of course ... which he willingly aknowledges. We're not obliged to agree with him but it's a credit to the guy that he puts it out there for us to read and enjoy IMO.
Every photo I've taken was taken with one camera and one lens ... that's near enough to puritanism for me thankyou!
Tim Gray
Well-known
I think it is a personal thing - what works best for you. That being said, I do think there is some value in constraint. I have a 5 or 6 lenses. I don't need to take them all out with me, and I don't. They are in several 'sets' as someone pointed out above, so I'm only usually taking out 1, 2, or 3 with me depending on my goals. If I took them all out with me all the time, my back would hurt a lot more and I'd doubtless miss shots because I was changing lenses all the time. For the way I shoot that is
As far as the one Leica, one lens learning bit, I kind of do agree with it. It doesn't have to be a Leica obviously, and you don't have to adopt it as a way of living. But pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone and setting some artificial constraints can be an educational experience. It's something I'd recommend that most photographers try once. Stick with one focal length for 6 months, or something along those lines.
As far as the one Leica, one lens learning bit, I kind of do agree with it. It doesn't have to be a Leica obviously, and you don't have to adopt it as a way of living. But pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone and setting some artificial constraints can be an educational experience. It's something I'd recommend that most photographers try once. Stick with one focal length for 6 months, or something along those lines.
NickTrop
Veteran
Love the site... His, Rockwell's and this site being my favorites... but his car analogy seems contradictory to the point he's trying to make...
1. If cars are easy to master, and essentially preform the same function, what is the purpose of switching them or having multiple cameras?
2. The 5 bullet points are the things that matter, not the device (camera) what is the purpose of having multiples if it's not going to improve those five "things that matter"?
3. His third example is simply a false analogy. Painting and photography differ. There, different brushes (which come in sizes) do matter, as do medium - oil, acrylic, watercolor... etc. You, in fact, could use one camera for a portrait session or any of the variety of applications. However, it would be nearly impossible to paint fine detail with an 8 flat brush, and one would struggle mightily with coverage of a large piece with a 2 round.
4. Does switching your gear "stimulate the mind", really? I just don't buy his "art-war-flux" point.
That said - I don't entirely disagree with his main point. However, I might refine it. Rather than collect RFs and lenses, I changed my "line-up":
1. Film RF - purpose, when I feel like shooting an RF loaded with film
2. digital point-n-shoot modified for infrared-only - infrared photography
3. 35mm film SLR with 19mm/f3.5 - wide angle photography, since doing this digitally requires expensive lenses and I don't do it that often.
4. DSLR with 35mm/f1.8 - my new "general purpose" camera.
5. Compact Super Zoom Digital w/ IS - my "zoom lens".
6. Fuji F20 - discrete street, "travel lite..."
Down to 2 lenses, which are portrait lenses used on DSLR... for portraits
Each camera is purposed. Does this make me a "gearhead"? I dunno, don't think so. I don't see myself lusting after gear... my bases are covered. To me, a "gearhead" acuires gear because they simply like to own photographic gear for the sake of it, in and of itself. It seems this article is bending over backwards to justify this, but there's nothing wrong with collecting or playing around with different types of photographic gear if that's what you choose to do with your money/time - your bidnez. But don't try to rationalize it by saying it "sharpens the mind" and go off the deep end talking about your Saab, wars and flux and acrylic vs oil paint...
1. If cars are easy to master, and essentially preform the same function, what is the purpose of switching them or having multiple cameras?
2. The 5 bullet points are the things that matter, not the device (camera) what is the purpose of having multiples if it's not going to improve those five "things that matter"?
3. His third example is simply a false analogy. Painting and photography differ. There, different brushes (which come in sizes) do matter, as do medium - oil, acrylic, watercolor... etc. You, in fact, could use one camera for a portrait session or any of the variety of applications. However, it would be nearly impossible to paint fine detail with an 8 flat brush, and one would struggle mightily with coverage of a large piece with a 2 round.
4. Does switching your gear "stimulate the mind", really? I just don't buy his "art-war-flux" point.
That said - I don't entirely disagree with his main point. However, I might refine it. Rather than collect RFs and lenses, I changed my "line-up":
1. Film RF - purpose, when I feel like shooting an RF loaded with film
2. digital point-n-shoot modified for infrared-only - infrared photography
3. 35mm film SLR with 19mm/f3.5 - wide angle photography, since doing this digitally requires expensive lenses and I don't do it that often.
4. DSLR with 35mm/f1.8 - my new "general purpose" camera.
5. Compact Super Zoom Digital w/ IS - my "zoom lens".
6. Fuji F20 - discrete street, "travel lite..."
Down to 2 lenses, which are portrait lenses used on DSLR... for portraits
Each camera is purposed. Does this make me a "gearhead"? I dunno, don't think so. I don't see myself lusting after gear... my bases are covered. To me, a "gearhead" acuires gear because they simply like to own photographic gear for the sake of it, in and of itself. It seems this article is bending over backwards to justify this, but there's nothing wrong with collecting or playing around with different types of photographic gear if that's what you choose to do with your money/time - your bidnez. But don't try to rationalize it by saying it "sharpens the mind" and go off the deep end talking about your Saab, wars and flux and acrylic vs oil paint...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Okay, now I'm confused.
Dante wrote an article, mabelsound clue us in on it.
Where does this assumption that anyone is trying to be a crusade to his own gear choice? Who is really arguing? All I read here are opinions. By definition, they are subjective, personal, and fun to read (some of them).
Those of you who said "don't care" are missing the point and the benefit of a forum. I learn even from the most annoying post if only to learn what not to do or write.
Dante wrote an article, mabelsound clue us in on it.
Where does this assumption that anyone is trying to be a crusade to his own gear choice? Who is really arguing? All I read here are opinions. By definition, they are subjective, personal, and fun to read (some of them).
Those of you who said "don't care" are missing the point and the benefit of a forum. I learn even from the most annoying post if only to learn what not to do or write.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
I am one of those guys who uses lots of different cameras/formats/film/digital …OO.
I can't tell ya why I do what I do, other than I have what I gots.
I know my photo heroes growing up always had several bodies hanging off them. And I just thought that was the way to go.
As far back as I can remember, I’ve liked having at least three bodies.
One with a wide, one with normal, and one with a telephoto.
To me it just seems normal.
I always wanted to be one of those Leica guys who could become invisible, but when you’re 6”3 and 240 pounds, it's hard not to stand out .
I think it's great when someone really uses one camera/one lens to its full potential.
I am still trying with every one I have.
And while I prefer to go with several bodies and a variety of lenses, I also go with the one camera, one lens quite often. Well okay, not often but I’m not scared of keeping it simple and going with one camera, and one lens.
I like hearing about what others are doing and why and how they do it.
Day to day, I hardly ever see/interact with other photographers, so for me it's nice to see where others are coming from.
I can't tell ya why I do what I do, other than I have what I gots
.I know my photo heroes growing up always had several bodies hanging off them. And I just thought that was the way to go.
As far back as I can remember, I’ve liked having at least three bodies.
One with a wide, one with normal, and one with a telephoto.
To me it just seems normal.
I always wanted to be one of those Leica guys who could become invisible
, but when you’re 6”3 and 240 pounds, it's hard not to stand out .I think it's great when someone really uses one camera/one lens to its full potential.
I am still trying with every one I have
.And while I prefer to go with several bodies and a variety of lenses, I also go with the one camera, one lens quite often. Well okay, not often but I’m not scared of keeping it simple and going with one camera, and one lens.
I like hearing about what others are doing and why and how they do it.
Day to day, I hardly ever see/interact with other photographers, so for me it's nice to see where others are coming from.
Last edited:
Yhbv24
Member
That is only correlational, so it doesn't mean that committed relationships make people happier. Could be that happier people are happier in committed relationships =].
Also, I am perfectly fine with my three lenses, and don't see a need for another camera or lens. I may get a 25mm at some point in the future, but it's more of a maybe.
Just do what you like and use which gear you like, for me it's about enjoying photography, not necessarily what I use or the outcome.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Sounds like Dante was either confronted by a minimalist or overheard one and decided to write this piece. It's certainly nothing earthbreaking. It's actually a tired old horse and his argument is equally well worn. I don't disagree but I also don't see this as a topic worth Dante's time. OTOH I'm not going to tell him how to spend his time.
Similarly I'm not going to tell "one lens/camera" people to broaden their views. Sometimes specialization produces interesting results.
Meantime I'll say that a lot of RFF members get too invested in stuff written. It's just a recreational activity around here except for some of the esteemed members who are pro.
I think I'll go sort my cameras and start minimalizing or maybe not.
Similarly I'm not going to tell "one lens/camera" people to broaden their views. Sometimes specialization produces interesting results.
Meantime I'll say that a lot of RFF members get too invested in stuff written. It's just a recreational activity around here except for some of the esteemed members who are pro.
I think I'll go sort my cameras and start minimalizing or maybe not.
Spyro
Well-known
oh dear, not the same discussion again... it was just Michael Johnston's idea of a photographic exercise ffs
davidbivins
Established
I think Mr. Stella's argument is very good, given the parameters he set up--that the one body/one lens rule is rather silly for an experienced photographer. But I do think that for someone who is just beginning in photography, or who is not yet a very good photographer, the one body/one lens setup is very good advice.
I "learned" photography by having a Minolta SR-T101 and 50mm 1.7 lens for over 10 years. I honestly didn't realize there was any other option (or ever think about it). I was someone who took photos of my life, not someone trying to create a photograph. But over the years, I think I became a better photographer, not because I kept learning stuff about the Minolta (wow--mirror lockup!) but because I learned to take good photos with that setup. Now I have a lot of equipment, and I take great joy (and hopefully a good photograph once in a while) using all of it.
I have given the one camera/one lens advice at least several times, and each time it was because I thought the subject could really learn from that constraint. For those who have an accomplished eye and/or a vision, breaking out of that constraint can be wonderful.
I'm long-winded, and I think Kevin M above said the same thing very well: "Having options is good only once we develop the mental discipline necessary to use them effectively. Otherwise, like The Clash said, we're all 'Lost in the Supermarket....'"
I "learned" photography by having a Minolta SR-T101 and 50mm 1.7 lens for over 10 years. I honestly didn't realize there was any other option (or ever think about it). I was someone who took photos of my life, not someone trying to create a photograph. But over the years, I think I became a better photographer, not because I kept learning stuff about the Minolta (wow--mirror lockup!) but because I learned to take good photos with that setup. Now I have a lot of equipment, and I take great joy (and hopefully a good photograph once in a while) using all of it.
I have given the one camera/one lens advice at least several times, and each time it was because I thought the subject could really learn from that constraint. For those who have an accomplished eye and/or a vision, breaking out of that constraint can be wonderful.
I'm long-winded, and I think Kevin M above said the same thing very well: "Having options is good only once we develop the mental discipline necessary to use them effectively. Otherwise, like The Clash said, we're all 'Lost in the Supermarket....'"