Less gear choice = Better results

[gavinlg]

what do you think it is that makes us have this same conversation over and over?

My bad, I was actually thinking about it and saw that Rockwell post on his site - spurred me to see what other people thought. I think that a lot of different topics sort of melt into this one eventually. A lot of people have something to say about it though!

People feel their shortcomings and look for reasons that don't involve "I guess I just suck" to explain them. Looking for excuses. I have shortcomings too; I just don't blame them on my kit.

Not blaming kit at all - I don't even really have a large kit, and the stuff I do have is all brilliant quality. I'm merely coming to realise that I tend to get better results when I'm not focusing on technical choices. Not implying that everyone should do this, or it's the right thing to do at all. What I did realise though is that when I was in Japan I spent a lot of time fumbling equipment choices. It's not that I can't use certain lenses - I can. Give me any focal length and I can use it just fine, but the problem for me is that in most situations I can see more than 1 way to make a good photo out of the situation. Say I've got a portrait scene - subject sitting by the window in an old bookshop. Give me a 50mm lens, and I can make a good portrait, give me a 24mm lens and I can make a good portrait. The thing I do (which is hardly blaming my gear) is fuss too much about which to use. I know I can get good results from both, but it's always in the back of mind - "maybe I should grab a few shots with the other focal length - it might come out better".

There have definitely been times that I have wished I had more than the one lens I've had on me. Of course it also entirely depends on what I'm shooting! My post was just a passing observation on myself, not an instruction to anyone else. From your posts you imply that you like having the choice of a few lenses and you work well that way - that's cool, and thats the kind of opinion I was wanting to hear - the more I can hear other peoples views the more I can expand.

That really wasn't the point of the O/P's statement. He claimed that having less gear makes one a better photographer, not that carrying less gear is not as heavy. Granted that carrying things that weigh a lot are heavier than things which do not.

No, that's what Ken Rockwell is claiming (in his usual "about as subtle as a Mack truck" way), I was just saying that I think this works for me in a lot of situations, and was wondering what works for other people.

Actually Fdigital's original post closed with "I'm interested in other's thoughts on the topic - how does this sort of thing work for you?" To be fair, he did say that less gear worked for him. But I cannot read where he implied it was for everyone.

Thanks 🙂

I agree with you on this Bill. A lot of guys here seem bewildered if they own too much stuff because they don't know how to use it. The slution is to practice with different lenses till you get the feel for what each can do.

I also think some guys push the one lens/one body mantra because that's all they have and they are unwilling to spend the money or cannot afford to buy more gear (understandable, this stuff costs a lot and some of you guys have big mortgages and car payments and wives to support).

Again, not saying anyone should be limited indefinitely to anything in particular, it's possible that I'm not a good enough photographer to be able to choose, without doubt, which lens to use for a certain situation - but I'd be comfortable saying that I can make good pictures with just about any lens. It's the freedom of technical choice that seems to distract me a little in some situations. Not sure if this is a transitional stage in the art for me, or if this is how I best work - but there are others out there that share the idea and practise it.

 

[FrankS]

A fallacy in the "limited gear choice results in better pictures" argument is that it assumes that the incorrect lens will be on the camera (of the "pro choice" photographer) and therefore the shot will be missed while changing lenses. I anticipate the lens I will need to use as I enter a situation and have that lens attached. What do the "limited choicers" do when they enter a situation and find that they do not have the lens necessary to realize their vision in a particular situation? They must pass it by or take a comprimized shot with sub-optimal gear. How does this make them better photographers or result in better images?

 

[gavinlg]

Kirk Tuck, commercial photographer on the topic:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2009/12/when-in-rome.html

To quote:

"Using one simple camera and one or two lenses, along with the formalist discipline of locking into one kind of monochrome film, focused me in a way that digital doesn't. It limited choice so that my brain could process the emotion instead of running mental sub routines concerning color balance or contrast. It freed me up to respond in a less encumbered way.

If I limit choice I expand reaction. My brain might work differently from yours. That's what makes my vision mine and yours yours."

 

[gavinlg]

A fallacy in the "limited gear choice results in better pictures" argument is that it assumes that the incorrect lens will be on the camera (of the "pro choice" photographer/ and therefore the shot will be missed while changing lenses. I anticipate the lens I will need to use as I enter a situation and have that lens attached. What do the "limited choicers" do when they enter a situation and realize that they do not have the lens necessary to realize their vision in a particular situation? They must pass it by or take a comprimized shot. How does this make them better photographers or result in better images?

Well, you're right and I agree - this is why I wanted to see what people say about it. To make a hypothetical rebuttal to this, I could say that most of the time, I can make good use of a 17mm lens, just as I can make good use of a 50mm lens with the same photographic scene. There are certainly exceptions to this of course.

I'm not looking for a definitive answer as I realise there isn't one, just wondering what worked for other people.

 

[FrankS]

Kirk Tuck, commercial photographer on the topic:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2009/12/when-in-rome.html

To quote:

I agree completely with his last paragraph. Everyone is different. What works for one may not work for another. Do your own thing. Live and let live. Don't try to tell me that limited gear choice will result in better pictures for me. If you think that it does for you, knock yourself out and good luck with that. Sell all that surplus gear.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think one lens+one body is something one matures into (unless they are confined to such a setup due to economics, of course.) I don't say this to be a snob as I only recently became a one lens+one body person. At some point, getting what you can with what you have is all that matters. Possibilities are endless. Actualities are much more limited.

If actualities are limited, so are possibilities. Getting what you want is all that matters, period. If what you have doesn't allow that, well you didn't get what you wanted, now did you? I know for most people here, this is just a hobby and for many it isn't an all consuming passion, but I am a perfectionist of the most extreme and obsessive kind. I cannot conceive of placing artificial limitations on myself when I am working on my creative photography.

 

[back alley]

i like owning multiples of the same camera, i have had at least 2 of every camera that i have ever owned.
i seem to like the same lenses too as i sell and buy them over again.

when walking, i like a light kit but am willing to haul everything i own if i think it might come in handy.

as for the rest of you...enjoy you hobby.

 

[gavinlg]

Don't try to tell me that limited gear choice will result in better pictures for me. If you think that it does for you, knock yourself out and good luck with that. Sell all that surplus gear.

I'm not sure if this was directed to me, but everything I've written in this entire thread has been written very carefully with special care not to come off as if I'm trying to convince or enforce an opinion on anyone else, it was merely an attempt to discuss something photographically relevant to me at this point in time, not with the intent to change peoples opinion on it, but to broaden my own ideas.

I'm not advocating "1 camera, 1 lens" or anything like it, in fact I'm not really advocating anything directly to anyone - hardly offensive.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm amazed that in 92 posts before mine, nobody has mentioned money, which is a significant variable that drives the gear minimalism mindset.

Sometimes people need validation on the choices they are about to make. They read something and latch on to the idea. The concept is called herding. There are a few polarized herds on this forum. All enjoyable!

I recommend reading "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely.

I've had more gear, had less gear, I still suck. The two are mutually exclusive. I now settle for what is financially comfortable. Wisdom of the pocket. It's more to the point to have an uncluttered mind.

I'm sure you could be right about that, however I can afford nice gear. In fact I have very nice gear. In my context I can assure you it's just a question of the creative processes, not a self-justification thing.

 

[DougFord]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t wanta be thinking about what lens I should have while out and about. I know what’s on the camera before I set out. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’ll position myself to fill the fov of the lens with something that I see. It’s a simple process that restricts the image capture to a fixed fov. Change the perspective, dof, exposure etc but the fov stays constant. Work with the focal length long enough and you’ll start to guess the frame/fov projected out from the lens. You’ll become very familiar, intuitive with the fov, this may or may not help your photography, buy it has certainly helped mine.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But again, all in context. A hobbyist out and about is entirely different then a working photog with clients and projects and what not. I would say that this whole one lens one camera schtick is strictly the domain of the dilettante/hobbyist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Who would even suggest such a thing? [/FONT]

 

[gavinlg]

Artificially expanding one's possibilities by simply carrying more lenses can lead to more of a quagmire if one is operating in an uncontrolled, active environment such as street photography. Perhaps there are those with the intuition to know what they want to photograph before it even presents itself in such an environ but I am not such a person and do not know anyone who is. In a more controlled environ--landscapes, portraits, etc.--I naturally assume that the more gear the better. For the *kind* of photographs that I hope to personally capture--mainly street stuff, "moments," etc.--I find it more productive to be ready with what I have than to fumble around with lenses or become mentally bogged down by choices that may or may not lead to a greater *control* over the environment that I face.

Well said, I could have written that myself.

 

[emraphoto]

If actualities are limited, so are possibilities. Getting what you want is all that matters, period. If what you have doesn't allow that, well you didn't get what you wanted, now did you? I know for most people here, this is just a hobby and for many it isn't an all consuming passion, but I am a perfectionist of the most extreme and obsessive kind. I cannot conceive of placing artificial limitations on myself when I am working on my creative photography.

i find in my ventures limitations lead to better photographs.

 

[Turtle]

I think we have established that the 'decisive moment' street shooter and the architectural shooter are at opposite poles with other disciplines somewhere in between. To try the former with 6 lenses and two formats would be silly, while attempting the latter with one body and a 50mm would be equally insane.

I totally agree with the idea that by experimentation you find your own balance and working methods. This is why I have often said that kit selection, carriage and management (on the hoof) is so important. no two shooters are the same and that goes down as far as how you like your bags to fasten... or if you even use bags. You have to find your won seamless way of being able to handle the kit you think you need.... and it changes over time. I have periods where I work with 50mm more than normal, or 28mm, but overall 35mm is my 'middle.'

When I am carrying two bodies and 3-4 M lenses, I normally default to one body with a 35mm. if I am walking between shooting areas, unsure of what will happen, I will have the 35mm ready. If things happen quickly I work with this, but if the pace slows and I want to achieve something else, I switch bodies/lenses accordingly. Hey presto, the best of both worlds. i have one camera and one lens 'to work', but have the flexibility of other lenses I know intimately a few inches away. I only pull them when I think the benefit of changing FL, either on the same body or by switching bodies, outweighs the interruption. Sometimes I get it wrong - sods law always applies - but overall I do better as a result of not being stuck with one FL. Thats just me, however.

I am happiest with 3 FL available 28-35-50, but may carry my 21mm as well. Hey, its only 140g if I take the CV, so why not 😀 This kit weighs next to nothing in a light minimally padded Domke. My M and 35mm are round my neck ready anyway.

Walking a city, I would be much more inclined to shoot one body and lens with perhaps a spare FL in a pocket.

 

[Turtle]

...perhaps also lok at Salgado. Whether one likes his work or not, nobody can deny his compositions are often remarkable and compelling. He used to shoot R & M Leicas with plenty of lenses. Now Canon DSLR. I dont see anything in his work that makes me think he should shed kit, but were he more of a wraith of the street, it is likely he would choose to do so!

 

[Vince Lupo]

i find in my ventures limitations lead to better photographs.

I would tend to agree - though I could see a justification made for the opposite as well.

When I go on a commercial assignment, I like to have every piece of professionally-related equipment I own at my disposal - even a ladder, or a large piece of black cloth. I've had occasions where I've been heading out the door to do a job and I've thought 'Oh, I won't need the such-and-such today', and I get to the job and realize that I could have used the such-and-such. When someone else is paying for me to be there, I need to have all equipment accessible, even if it ends up ultimately staying in my car.

However, when I'm shooting for myself with my vintage equipment, I like the freedom of carrying as little equipment as possible. I just came back from a working holiday in Vienna, Austria, and found that I didn't shoot nearly as much film (not job related) as I thought I was going to shoot. Part of that was probably due to carrying too much stuff -- in addition to the digital camera used for the paying job, I had my Contaflex TLR with two spare lenses, and a Hasselblad Super Wide C with a spare back. Carrying around the Contaflex and the Hasselblad was too much, and after the 4th day I left the Hasselblad in the hotel room safe -- became much better for my neck and shoulder! So, I probably could have done without the Hasselblad and would have gotten more use out of the Contaflex. Even after 32 years in photography, I still have a lot to learn....

So, I think it can work both ways, depending upon the situation and (maybe) whether someone else is paying for you to be there. The wisdom may come from knowing the difference beforehand, and preparing accordingly.

 

[wgerrard]

A number of people here seem to be saying that they feel more comfortable going out with either a full kit or a minimal kit. That is, the kit they carry has a significant impact on their enjoyment of photography. Some find that the choices presented by a large kit are annoying and obtrusive. Others find the choices presented by a minimal kit are restrictive.

However, neither of those preferences lead to a cause-and-effect relationship between the complexity of your kit and your skill as a photographer.

It's obvious that carrying more cameras and more lenses gives you increased flexibility that could lead to photos that you could not otherwise capture. Having the flexibility is important to some people. Other people see it as an unwelcome requirement and a burden.

Others, like me, just don't enjoy carrying around any more than is absolutely necessary. If the only way I could take pictures was to haul around a big DSLR and three or four lenses, I wouldn't take pictures.

So, perhaps the discussion should focus on what makes for a happy photographer, since that's where several comments are going.

 

[Mcary]

I say I shoot with one camera, one lens, one film. But let us review the decision matrix I go through to get to that point of actually photographing.

1) I decide if : 6x7 rangefinder, 6x6 SLR, digital, or 35mm rangefinder will work best for the intended subject matter of the day. Let us assume 35mm RF.

2) Since the choice is 35mm RF, will it be: Contax G, CLE, Zeiss Ikon? I am leaving out the special purpose cameras like the Nikonos, Stylus Epic, Canonette. Let's say the choice is the ZI.

3) What lenses shall I pack? always either the 35mm or the 28mm, frequently both. Shall I also take the 50mm?, the 25mm? Or, maybe the 21mm?

4) What film? While 99% of my shooting is with Neopan 400, I do have a stock of 120 & 35mm slide and color neg in the refrigerator.

Only then, am I leaving the house.

5) What lens do I put on the camera when I arrive at where I am leaving the car to photograph? I make that decision from what is in the bag thinking of what I will probably encounter.

Now I am on foot ready to photograph. One camera, one lens in hand. Film in pocket. But I made a lot of decisions that day to get where I am. But those decisions are history and I can focus 100% of my mental energies on capitalizing on the opportunities I find. It is just what works for me. YMMV.

All of the above is in response to the OP's question: "I'm interested in other's thoughts on the topic - how does this sort of thing work for you?" Of course you should carry what ever works for you. I am not an apostle.

Bob's post reminds me of the simple fact that no matter which camera and len(s) or cameras and len(s) one choose to use photography is about making choices and compromises . Example choosing to use a Leica or any 35mm system rather then a medium format or Large format system mean compromising the quality of ones photographs, on the other hand there are issues with MF and LF systems that simple make them impractical for a lot of situations and in those situations something small and compact like a Leica or a 35mm is the best choice. Example if I'm going to be walking around all day or have a long hike to a location then yes my M4-2+50mm+35mm is the best choice, but if the locations are easy to reach/access then my Bronica SQ is a better choice and a LF might be an even better choice, again all depending on the situation and/or location.

 

[Keith]

I think there is no correct answer to the op's original question. If you take crap photos with one camera you'll take the same crap photos with a wheelbarrow full ... and vice versa IMHO!

If you think otherwise then that's good because it means at least you're happy with your choices.

 

[Livesteamer]

Less usually works for me. I'm usually out with just a 50mm or 35mm on my M6. Alternately, when I go on a trip I usually take lots of gear and end up only using one camera and lens. I am also an advocate of the keep it simple philosophy. I do not like zooms. With just a 50mm or 35mm I know where to position myself to get the photo. Joe

 

[FrankS]

A number of people here seem to be saying that they feel more comfortable going out with either a full kit or a minimal kit. That is, the kit they carry has a significant impact on their enjoyment of photography. Some find that the choices presented by a large kit are annoying and obtrusive. Others find the choices presented by a minimal kit are restrictive.

However, neither of those preferences lead to a cause-and-effect relationship between the complexity of your kit and your skill as a photographer.

It's obvious that carrying more cameras and more lenses gives you increased flexibility that could lead to photos that you could not otherwise capture. Having the flexibility is important to some people. Other people see it as an unwelcome requirement and a burden.

Others, like me, just don't enjoy carrying around any more than is absolutely necessary. If the only way I could take pictures was to haul around a big DSLR and three or four lenses, I wouldn't take pictures.

So, perhaps the discussion should focus on what makes for a happy photographer, since that's where several comments are going.

That sounds right to me. This is what I wrote in post #2: I think that there are some photographers who may do better with less gear choice AND there are other photographers who do better with more. Why not let everyone decide for themselves. Personally I like choice and variety. Not to carry it all with me every day, but to select from.
__________________
Hi Gavin, no I was not targeting anyone specifically. Peace.