Less gear choice = Better results

[Nescio]

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).

That's me, as I don't "own" a car, house and certainly not a wife. Just vowed to sell all my gear except for my 2 M's and 28 Elmarit & 50 cron to take with me on my next trip to Nirvana. I'll take St Michael's portrait with my cron and picture Virgil and his fellow spirits with the elm. And no film vs digital debates anymore! Eternity is there to stay; just bring me some Rodinal every time one of you guys comes up to join the party...

 

[35mmdelux]

Cartier-Bresson most certainly did not, contrary to myth, use nothing but a 50.

HCB said in the USA he used a 35mm FL because "of the wide open areas" and he liked the 90mm for landscapes. The majority of his photos were with the 50.

On a short trip <2 weeks I like to travel real light. If travelling on a particular project or with particular goal in mind, then I'd take the necessary gear. On such a job I would take 2 cameras, 3 lenses.

 

[ampguy]

depends

depends

If you're good, you should be able to select the best tools and the bigger selection may provide more optimal tools.

For travel, I like to go light, maybe a small 28 and 50, or maybe just a 35. If wide landscapes or mountaintops are anticipated, an ultrawide is nice.

Of course there are exceptions - close ups of wildlife might require 400-600mm, but again for general travel, a compact 28 or 35 or equivalent are good, or even a single 35mm lens can take great travel photos.

I've rarely felt the need for longer than 50 for general use, but if these lenses were smaller, while still fast, I'd surely give them a try. The 28 on a 1.3x crop would be my grab and go travel camera, or a 35 lux if I were planning to shoot at night or in very low light.

I've been thinking about this for a little while now - and just saw this on Ken Rockwells site (which I check every now and then for a laugh and his sometimes very valid points):
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/simplicity.htm

I find the more gear I have on me, the more lenses or cameras, the less shooting I do, the worse my pictures are. I went to Japan in november with 2 cameras, one of them with 3 lenses, the other with 1. Whenever I packed all the lenses with me on a day trip, I spent much of the time thinking about which focal length would best portray my situation, rather than adapting and reacting to important moments. As such, my photos suffered. I think the reason I still hang on to film cameras so much, is that I'm stuck with 1 ISO per film, 1 lens and the most basic of features on the camera, and I like it. I find photography an organic and near spiritual experience - I hate being rigid and technical on shoots, I love just having them flow and simply being reactive.

In short, the less I think about equipment, the more I get into the "now" of photography, and the better the results are. When I use my DSLR, I use the least automated of settings, and I use it the same way I would an m8 (in which there are no special gimmicky electronic "features"). It's a real observation, and something i'm becoming more and more aware of.

I'm interested in other's thoughts on the topic - how does this sort of thing work for you?

 

[wgerrard]

Some of my most enjoyable photographic experiences happened when i was a kid vacationing with my parents, armed with a cheap point and shoot and loaded with slide film, because my dad shot slides. I knew nothing about aperture and shutter speed, but I knew enough to be careful how I framed my shots and, likewise, knew that the light had a lot to do with the final image. Now, I was a kid, of course, but I've seen those pictures recently and some aren't half bad.

That was about as simple as it gets. To this day, I find that setting myself up to make several decisions before a shot -- lens, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc. -- interferes with the enjoyment I get from photography. When I shoot film, I almost always go out with one camera and one lens. I select an aperture for each shot, meter, and adjust the shutter speed. When I shoot digital, I almost always go completely automatic.

How people approach this notion of simplicity differs, I think, based on personality. In my case, photography isn't the only place where simplicity manifests itself in my life.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

One camera and one lens places the creative responsibility squarely on the photographer.

No it doesn't, it severely limits you. If you know what you're doing. This silliness is like telling a painter that he can only use one brush and one tube of paint. All those colors and brush sizes get in the way of his creativity and using one color puts the responsibility squarely on the artist. What a load of crap.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

HCB said in the USA he used a 35mm FL because "of the wide open areas" and he liked the 90mm for landscapes. The majority of his photos were with the 50.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

 

[wgerrard]

No it doesn't, it severely limits you. If you know what you're doing. This silliness is like telling a painter that he can only use one brush and one tube of paint. All those colors and brush sizes get in the way of his creativity and using one color puts the responsibility squarely on the artist. What a load of crap.

Hard to argue with that, especially if you are a professional. Someone who is paid to take pictures would be foolish to artificially limit himself.

But, as an amateur, I just don't want to be burdened by it all. I own several cameras and too many lenses, but the last thing I want to do is lug a lot of hardware around with me. I make my choices before I leave for the day. The only time I carry more than one camera and one lens (or even carry a bag) is when I travel. I'll put a camera and 2-3 lenses in a bag and lug it about because i'm paranoid about leaving the stuff in a hotel room. I think of that as a major annoyance.

If I miss a shot because I brought the wrong lens, c'est la vie. I don't worry about it.

Does any of this make a better photographer. Nah, of course not.

 

[35mmdelux]

No it doesn't, it severely limits you. If you know what you're doing. This silliness is like telling a painter that he can only use one brush and one tube of paint. All those colors and brush sizes get in the way of his creativity and using one color puts the responsibility squarely on the artist. What a load of crap.

If you believed in your convictions comments like "What a load of crap" would not be needed. I dont think Avedon, Haas, Dav Allen Harvey, Gilden, Winogrand, Arbus were serevely limited. Do you?

 

[carlb]

There's a couple of participants in this thread who must be right bundles of joy at a dinner party.

Some of you ought to take a chill pill and have a bit of a lie down

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

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.

Your right, I didn't answer the OP question directly. Regarding less gear yielding better results, Yes (sometimes). And I came to that conclusion by doing what I originally stated, I tried as many options as I could. In the end I found that carrying more gear slowed me down, both physically and mentally. Maybe it was because I was tired I didn't bracket a great scene, or maybe because I was weighed down I didn't try different angles.

Trial and error led me to a setup I like, which also changes depending on how I plan my time out. I know, I know, I'm being vague.

Yes. I believe less gear* gives better results.
( * amount varies person to person )

 

[Bob Michaels]

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.

 

[ferider]

What results ?

Photos ? Yes, of course, but not only; for me, as an non-pro learning is just as much or more fun as the final result. Maybe obsessive, but I rather learn to use selected equipment perfectly, than how to use a variety of lenses, cameras and media in a mediocre way.

I realize this argument might be lost on some; still here it goes:

it's like the use of language. Yes, you can know multiple languages in a limited way, and never express yourself completely. Or you learn one to perfection, then a second, then a third; the more you learn the easier it gets. Equipment is easier to "learn" than a language of course. Photography and Speaking/writing are similar.

Merry Christmas, all

Roland.

 

[BillBingham2]

After multiple cycles through less gear and MORE GEAR I have to say while it felt good to have more at times I'm a whole lot more happy with less. Like Greg a few posts back I have to say it felt really good walking around with a Bessa L and a 25/4. My digital replacement for her (GRD III) I'm having just as much fun with.

My approach to not swapping lenses as often is to put more distance between them. My last major kit was 15, 25, 40 and 105. I never liked having lenses so close as others do. Most of high school was one body and three lenses 24, 85, 200. On one S2 it was 25, 50 and 105. Perhaps keeping a greater distance between lenses might be a way to avoid swapping them all the time.

I came back to RF back in the mid 80's after carrying way too much SLR gear and realizing that I was not enjoying the travel or what I was doing worrying too much about my gear or which lens I had on.

Less is more fun and if done right it can be empowering. Not that there is anything wrong with lots of gear, provided you have a strong back.

B2 (;->

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

What results ?

Photos ? Yes, of course, but not only; for me, as an non-pro learning is just as much or more fun as the final result. Maybe obsessive, but I rather learn to use selected equipment perfectly, than how to use a variety of lenses, cameras and media in a mediocre way.

I know those sentiments exactly when it came to learning film and developers. I jumped around and tried all sorts of films, different makes and speeds. I then tried different developers, all sorts. And my results were lackluster at best. I'm glad I tried out different options but my development skills didn't improve until I found a film that I liked, and a developer that I liked. I'm still refining and improving but the most important aspect for me is I'm learning to make the most of what I have and like.

I realize this argument might be lost on some; still here it goes:

it's like the use of language. Yes, you can know multiple languages in a limited way, and never express yourself completely. Or you learn one to perfection, then a second, then a third; the more you learn the easier it gets. Equipment is easier to "learn" than a language of course. Photography and Speaking/writing are similar.

Merry Christmas, all

Roland.

Well put.

 

[BearCatCow]

I'm half through my 1 year, 2 lens project. Limiting your choices does work; doesn't mean you have to sell everything else though.

I feel it makes me learn and walk more .

Since it makes us walk more, then it at least has the merit of being good for physical health.

 

[tbarker13]

it's like the use of language. Yes, you can know multiple languages in a limited way, and never express yourself completely. Or you learn one to perfection, then a second, then a third; the more you learn the easier it gets. Equipment is easier to "learn" than a language of course. Photography and Speaking/writing are similar.

Merry Christmas, all

Roland.

Love the argument Roland.
Of course, comparing photography to a language, one could argue that only using one lens is like only using nouns - and leaving out the adjectives, adverbs, etc.
I do think that back when I was first learning photography, there was a lot of value gained by the fact that I had only a 50mm lens to go along with my Pentax K1000.

But these days, I would find it too limiting to restrict myself to a single lens. I think I do better, however, when I limit the number of options I have.
My ideal set up now is one camera with something in the 35mm-50mm FL and another with something in the 85-135mm FL.

 

[Dirk]

I have to agree with the OP. I own over a dozen different camera makes and models, a couple dozen different lenses from many different makers, often duplicating focal lenghts. While it's been fun to accumulate all these toys, it's burdensome for actual photography. I think my photography would improve if I could bring myself to get rid of most of my stuff, and only keep, say, one camera and a 28mm, a 35mm and a 50mm. 95% of my photos are shot in these focal lenghts. Just having one main camera (and maybe a little pocket camera) and a couple three lenses would enable me to get to know my camera intuitively and make me a better photographer.

 

[FrankS]

I'm happy with being in the "I own and use many different cameras and lenses and I think that is good for my photography" camp. There may be a few photographers here that are in the "I own just a camera with one lens and I think that makes me a better photographer" camp. But it seems that the majority of photographers here are in the "I own a lot of different cameras and lenses but I think that limiting my choices and using just one camera and lens would make me a better photographer" camp. These folks are obviously conflicted because their actions do not match their ideals.

Like Bob, I make my choices and then walk around with the gear that I think is best for the job, not my entire arsenal which some mistakenly argue in their "limited choice is better" stance. Also, I like Chris' analogy of a painter limiting him/herself to one brush and one colour.

 

[andredossantos]

"I always carry two bodies and two lenses. One will have black and white film, one will have color."

Been there, done that, hope never to be in that position ever again. I have color days, lately only in digital, and I have B & W days, more frequently, done with film. The two cameras I carry always carry the same film, if film and the two ditcams are always set to RAW for color and nearly always to the same ISO.

Two cameras for me means I have two different looks / lenses at hand as well as at least one camera ready to shoot, even if I am changing film in the other.

Then we agree to disagree

I absolutely must have both b&w and color when out shooting film. Instead of seeing things in terms of focal length I guess my brain sees compositions in terms of something that would look good in either color or black and white. I just cannot be bothered to futz around standing on some corner juggling lenses. Besides, 90% of the time I'm out on the street where any wide to normal focal length can be made to work. If I'm dog people shots focal length matters even less to me.

Anyway, we all do things differently and it's interesting to hear how and what works for others, at least to me.

 

[wgerrard]

...it seems that the majority of photographers here are in the "I own a lot of different cameras and lenses but I think that limiting my choices and using just one camera and lens would make me a better photographer" camp.

If you have several cameras and use each so infrequently that you never really build up any expertise in the characteristics of each camera/lens combination, then, yes, it's logical to think that owning and using a variety of cameras might constrain the development of someone's skills.

And, it also seems logical that if you minimize the camera/lens combinations available to you, then, everything else being equal, you will learn that combination's characteristics more rapidly.

However, so many variables exist -- talent, time spent taking pictures, type of hardware, etc. -- that the cause-and-effect relationship is pretty sketchy.

And, in the end, it is all subjective. No one is keeping score, or can.