I'm Done.

I have a plethora of slr cameras in my closet. Over the last several years, I've picked up bargains from garage sales and thrift shops. SLRs were the prevalent camera replaced by digital, I think, so they can be found for cheap. Since I started using RFs, my slrs have sat unused so long on my shelves that some now require CLAs. They are not worth the bother of selling, even the working ones.
 
Last year I gave 4 Spotmatics to the local high school that still has a traditional photography program. I'll do that again with the spare working SLRs. That way they go to youngsters learning photography, and it saves the hassle of shipping. There is still the possibility that I can get my own children interested in photography done the old fashioned way.
 
telenous said:
By 'same images' I take it you mean 'images that fall within the loose parameters of a specific genre'. While I understand your point of view it does not sit well with the example of many great photographers: didn't Avedon shoot with the two-three focal lenghts available to a Rolleiflex (normal, wide and tele)? Cartier-Bresson mostly with the 50mm and then the 35mm and the 90mm? Winogrand the 28mm? Friedlander?
Click to expand...

Avedon worked with the Rolleiflex, then 4x5 and 8x10. Had he been 'done' with a Rolleiflex he'd not have made a very large number of magnificent images. You bring up my point mentioning HCB- "then the 35mm and the 90mm- again had he been done with the 50, same thing. Friedlander switched formats some time ago, and works with an XPAN besides the SWC today. When his vision changed he changed his tools to get what he sees in his head on paper. I don't know enough about Winogrands equipment choices or the work of the others you mention to say. My point is that being 'done' simply rules out too many possibilities for growth.

telenous said:
All these were photographers with preference for few or even one focal lengths. Are they to be thought of as 'not thinking' because of the frugality of their photographic means throughout their careers? Is their photography not variegated enough because of the use of specific focal lengths? Are you not inspired at all by their example and practice?

More importantly, is it not possible to arrive at a solution to a photographic problem in more ways than just one?
Click to expand...

I am certainly inspired by several of the folks you mention- and do shoot with the same couple of lenses most of the time. But I would never presume that every image I might ever imagine making would be possible with those same lenses. I'd guess that few other people making images seriously would wrap such a noose around their future work either. My last lens purchase was for a specific project, now with winter here I'm not likely to touch it again for months. 'Done for now' is one thing- I'm certainly not wanting anything for the work I'm doing now (besides more darkroom time :D). But if a project comes up that is best served with a 135 lens I'm certainly not going to talk myself into believing that using a 90 would get the same thing on film. What is so hard to understand about that? I'm of a mind that using a specific lens to get a specific image on paper is better than just settling for some near approximation of that image to satisfy some notion of frugality being better than using the proper tool for the job. But I suppose there are plenty of people that would use a hammer to chop firewood too.

Yes there are workarounds sometimes. But not always. And more often than not I've learned that the workaround takes longer and is nearly always less successful. And lets face it you can't do the same thing with a 50 that you can with either a 28 or a 135.

If these folks who are 'done' didn't so often start up a thread in a few weeks or months fawning over some new lens or outfit I might give the notion more serious consideration.
 
Bob, this is just internet chatting. I didn't sign a contract or swear an oath on my mother's life to restrict/prevent any possible future purchases. I'm just saying that I've got this kit that I'm really happy with.
 
Last edited:
That's all that Frank said here; if this is what makes you happy, Frank, then you have made a major achievement in cutting down on inferior excess baggage. Maybe I will be one day where you are today, but I am not sure about it [yet].
 
An M7 and a 50 'lux is my perfect kit, sometimes complemented by a Motor M if I'm in a fast moving situation. Also carry an M6 with a 50 'cron as backup sometimes.

Can't stand changing lenses.

Cheers, Paul.
 
When I've looked back over many years and many thousands of photos, I've realized that I could have shot almost all of them with three lenses: a 35mm, a 50mm and a 105mm. Over those same years I've owned multiple versions of everything from 14mm to 800mm, and various zooms of many kinds. Had I understood that 40 years ago, I could have been "done" long ago, saved a fortune in money, and likely taken far more good photos from concentrating on those three focal lengths. But, it would have been far less fun. ;)
 
Konica Hexar RF + Summicron 50 (80's, tabbed) give me images that look exactly the way I want them to. Extremely happy. Could other gear make me even happier? I don't feel the need to ask that question right now: it's Xmas time, a Depression looms....let's take some pictures!
 
FrankS said:
Bob, this is just internet chatting. I didn't sign a contract or swear an oath on my mother's life to restrict/prevent any possible future purchases. I'm just saying that I've got this kit that I'm really happy with.
Click to expand...

Fair enough- but why 'done' why not 'set for now!'
 
My M6 has only two lenses - a 50/1.8 and a 35/2.5. I want a 28/2.0 and will no doubt soon buy one. For anything longer than 50mm, sitting inside of a beat-up kit bag behind the seat of my pickup is an equally beat-up black and brassy Pentax Spotmatic from 1971 that I send off for a CLA now and then - and an array of just plain wonderful Super Takumar lenses - 105/2.8, 135/2.5, 300/4.0. So, when I need to reach out and touch the visible beyond what my M6 and its lenses can do, I simply switch "hats" so to speak. (Believe me, the investment in the SLR kit has long ago been fully amortized).

After the acquisition of the 28mm, I'm set for most situations.

Oops, forgot to mention my Rolleiflex for portraits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom