Less gear choice = Better results

Mcary said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear Mike,

Exactly.

Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord.

Cheers,

R.
 
I am most comfortable on a given day when traveling if I have with me two cameras and two lenses. I may need later on that same day to switch to another lens, depending on the situation and the available light. This way, there is no fumbling with lenses unless really necessary.

While I am scouting for photo opportunities, I like to have my 50mm lens ready for action.
 
Last edited:
In my case less is more.
Starting photography money was an issue so I had only a 28mm f2.8 and a 50mm f2 lens.
Soon the 28 became the body cap and my 'eye' was adapted for the viewing angle and drawing of this length.
There had been no problems to come close to people for making portraits with a wider field of surroundings, it became my 'style' without knowing this.
Now as an older chap distances should be a little bigger so the 35mm is perfect for me.

The last 'serious' shooting in Prague was horror show for me:
The first days I carried a MP, a Bessa R4 and lenses from 35 to 90mm. Plus Leicavit - too heavy and not so good for my style of scanning the streets and people.
Lesson learned: MP and only the 35 Cron for the rest of the visit. My back and feet felt so comfortable as my mind did. Even the cold weather in February couldn't spoil me.

So - less is more....🙂
 
Less is not more. Less is less.

Having fewer options is 'better' only if one is unable to make appropriate decisions when given more options. This is not a reflection upon the options, it is a reflection upon the person.
 
There's no right or wrong way here. It mostly boils down to what type of photography one sets out to do. If your set out on the town to shoot street scenes then it would seem foolish to bog onesself down with alot of gear. One never sees films of Winogrand or Bruce Gilden luging two cameras, several lenses out in the street. A landscape photographer naturally would carry more gear I would think. I know I do, esp. if I'm wanting to shoot nature scenes then I'll cary a few lenses. Owning alot of gear shouldn't have any effect on how you see visually. A good photographer can take whatever gear they have & make it work for them most often. This is the area that I'm concentrating own right now.
Have a great week before the New Year begins🙂
 
bmattock said:
Less is not more. Less is less.

Having fewer options is 'better' only if one is unable to make appropriate decisions when given more options. This is not a reflection upon the options, it is a reflection upon the person.
Click to expand...

And, I think, not necessarily a negative reflection. (I don't think that's your intent.) For a professional or a serious amateur who is driven to always try for the best shot, having alternatives at hand makes sense. If the lens you need is at home, you can't perform at your best.

If photography is an enjoyable hobby, and if that enjoyment is diminished by carrying a lot of hardware and the need to make choices, then it makes sense to avoid those things that make photography less fun. Sometimes you will miss the optimum shot, but that's not why you're out there.
 
bmattock said:
Less is not more. Less is less.

Having fewer options is 'better' only if one is unable to make appropriate decisions when given more options. This is not a reflection upon the options, it is a reflection upon the person.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Unless you have to carry it. Less can be more if you aren't carrying and choosing between everything you possess.

Choose the kit you're likeliest to use, pared to the minimum you're likely to use. Why would Frances and I carry ten M-fit bodies and a dozen and a half lenses, PLUS five Nikons and a similar number of lenses, PLUS two Alpas, five backs and four lenses, PLUS half a dozen 4x5 cameras, PLUS...?

Cheers,

R.
 
Street

Street

FrankS said:
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?
Click to expand...


I think you know everybody works differently. At one time I had a large DOMKE, carrying multiple cameras and lots of lenses. Thank God those days are over. The past few years Ive enjoyed collecting a host of top end gear. WHen I head out tho its 1 or 2 lenses. 2 lenses gives me enough variety for my style of shooting; easy to put one of those lenses in my pocket.

Ive entered many street situations with the wrong lens. Generally it forced me to look for a picture outside my routine composition, to think more creatively. Sometimes I headed out with just the 90mm on my MP. One such day I ran into Senator John McCain, with my 90mm/2.8. The lens was too long and slow for indoor work. Ultimately, I took some really great shots that day and the 90 Elmarit performed impressively. It forced me to work outside my comfort zone.

The other day I ran into Arnold (Swarteznneger) with my 35mm summilux. I didnt think I could get close enough to make it work for me. I pushed on within 5 feet of Arnold and got some killer shots.

Long story short, I made due with what I had. There is no right and wrong, just preferences.
 
When I go out to "shoot" I carry two bodies and use one body and lens about 75% of the time. Whenever I start working with new students I restrict them to shooting with one lens. Too much choice can certainly produce poor results...
 
wgerrard said:
And, I think, not necessarily a negative reflection. (I don't think that's your intent.) For a professional or a serious amateur who is driven to always try for the best shot, having alternatives at hand makes sense. If the lens you need is at home, you can't perform at your best.

If photography is an enjoyable hobby, and if that enjoyment is diminished by carrying a lot of hardware and the need to make choices, then it makes sense to avoid those things that make photography less fun. Sometimes you will miss the optimum shot, but that's not why you're out there.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with your statements above.

My argument is only with the occasional post RFF seems to attract by someone who has 'discovered' that they shoot better when they 'force themselves' to only use a given lens or film or camera body or whatever; the implication is that they've stumbled over some rare universal truth - that less is more. And up goes the banner "Less is More!" Less is not more, less is less. If I ride a bicycle with fewer gears than the one I own, I may find pleasure in it. I may find myself taking different routes than I might otherwise, to suit the capabilities or lack of them in the less-equipped bike. It does not mean 'less is more', however. It means 'less is different'. I could as easily taken the road less traveled by with the bike having more gears; but perhaps I did not think to do it. In this sense, having less may shake up the status quo. It does not alter the basic philosophy that less is less and more is more.

Once upon a time, I worked briefly as a salesman at a Radio Shack. My manager taught me something interesting. He told me never to put more than two items for comparison on the counter at a time. I thought it was to avoid having someone distract me and pocket one of them, but no. It was purely psychological. Many people are simply unable to make a purchasing decision if they have to choose between more than two items at the same time. They can compare TWO items, but put three on the counter and their brains lock up. I tested and found it generally to be true. This is purely anecdotal, but my thesis ever since has been that when people say they do better when given less, what it means is that they're not capable of dealing with more. I understand their problem, but it is their problem, not the fault of the equipment.

As has been noted in this thread, there are no absolutes. One may well find that certain lenses work well for certain types of work; taking other lenses would be added weight without providing any benefit. On the other hand, that does not mean that having found 'the' lens for a specific kind of work, it is the best lens for 'all' kinds of work, or that it is the 'best lens' for others doing the precise kind of work; since everyone has their own preferred methods. But that merely means that people have preferences, those preferences are based in their experience, and that's all well and good. It says nothing about whether or not 'less is more', just that carrying superfluous lenses is not terribly productive.

The core of the frequently-repeated statement is the assertion that one does better if one is 'forced' to make do with what would otherwise be an unacceptable choice. I reject this utterly. Whilst one may well have to become far more creative than one might otherwise be in terms of problem-solving when one is caught out with the 'wrong' lens for a given situation, that does not mean that they are of necessity a 'better photographer'. Instead it means that they are a 'different' photographer than they might otherwise be. As an exercise in creativity, it has much to recommend it. As a general practice, it's foolish and incorrect reasoning.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

Unless you have to carry it. Less can be more if you aren't carrying and choosing between everything you possess.

Choose the kit you're likeliest to use, pared to the minimum you're likely to use. Why would Frances and I carry ten M-fit bodies and a dozen and a half lenses, PLUS five Nikons and a similar number of lenses, PLUS two Alpas, five backs and four lenses, PLUS half a dozen 4x5 cameras, PLUS...?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I could not possibly carry everything I own, even in a small rented lorry. Not that my gear is top shelf, it's just the opposite, but there is a lot of it.

I do not disagree with you with regard to carrying superfluous kit.

I only disagree with the philosophical statement that less is more with regard to one's photographic output. Less is less. Being incapable of choosing an appropriate lens for a given situation because one has too many from which to choose reflects a personal problem. They gear did not conspire to make one a better or worse photographer or to confound and cloud the judgment of the photographer involved.

A semi-truck has dozens of gears. How on earth does a trucker choose which one to use? Thank goodness I have only five. Now, if I had only ONE gear in my vehicle, wouldn't that be dandy? Well, no, it would not.

Choice is good. If one does not have choices, one makes do with what one has. However, rejecting choices on the basis that it clouds the mind and renders one unable to select the appropriate choice? Please.
 
I think folks may be talking about different things in this thread.

If you want to master a given focal length, selecting one lens, or lens of only that focal length may make sense. In fact, since this is mainly composition, you may want to use an auto camera so you can focus on composition, like a P&S for 35mm, then a P&S for 50mm, etc.

I took Photography in college, and got an A in it, using a fixed lens on an SLR. I think I would have still gotten the A with a zoom, or 2 lenses, since the assignments dictated the composition requirements.

I think if you're returning to somewhere you've been before, you're going to know what lens to take. Especially if you took say 2 or 3 lenses on your last trip, and ended up using only one or two, and are pleased with those images.

Going somewhere new, you need to guess. But when you return, and analyze your photos, you should realize which focal length worked out best, and should make notes on what you might want to bring on your next trip.

I know of several places where I definitely want 21mm or wider. But for places I don't know, I'm willing to just take a 35 or 40, (+ 50 or 75 if I think I'll take portraits), then bring an ultrawide later on a future trip.

The CV 21/4 is so tiny, that it does make sense to keep one of these in a pocket.
 
To be pedantic, the term "less is more" was popularized by an architect in the early 1900's. It means:

"The notion that simplicity and clarity lead to good design."

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/226400.html

This philosophy was a response to Victorian architecture, in which everything was coated in a layer of useless ornamentation.

The "less or more" idea might be helpful to the photographer pictured below:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • photographer-b12e498299cc.jpg
    photographer-b12e498299cc.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 0
Interesting that nobody has mentioned cropping yet.

For example: a 28 can be cropped to 35. Easily. No need to carry both, unless, say, there is a major speed difference. A 35 to a 50. In particular when the target is 800x600 web shots. A 50 to a 75. Like HCB did in the puddle shot (better: it was done for him).

But then there is a whole different crowd that is religious about not cropping ....

To each their own,

Roland.
 
When last visiting Toronto , some while ago , I bought a budget Minolta SLR autofocus at the airport - just 'cos I wanted the compact experience rather that a load of manual Rokkors I would never use .
The 50 f 1.7 did most of what I needed , the cheap zoom filling in the rest .
Now it's one camera , one lens - most of the time !
 
2 types of cropping

2 types of cropping

1. Crop sensors, to me this "cropping" is OK if you print or display the entire image that the particular sensor captured.

2. Cropping for frames. If there is edge room, I think that cropping a 4/3 to 3/2 or 5/4 can be OK.

Cropping should not be performed in any other situations other than the above. Also, it should not be performed at all when B&H is closed for order taking.

ferider said:
Interesting that nobody has mentioned cropping yet.

For example: a 28 can be cropped to 35. Easily. No need to carry both, unless, say, there is a major speed difference. A 35 to a 50. In particular when the target is 800x600 web shots. A 50 to a 75. Like HCB did in the puddle shot (better: it was done for him).

But then there is a whole different crowd that is religious about not cropping ....

To each their own,

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
gb hill said:
There's no right or wrong way here. It mostly boils down to what type of photography one sets out to do. If your set out on the town to shoot street scenes then it would seem foolish to bog onesself down with alot of gear. One never sees films of Winogrand or Bruce Gilden luging two cameras, several lenses out in the street. A landscape photographer naturally would carry more gear I would think. I know I do, esp. if I'm wanting to shoot nature scenes then I'll cary a few lenses. Owning alot of gear shouldn't have any effect on how you see visually. A good photographer can take whatever gear they have & make it work for them most often. This is the area that I'm concentrating own right now.
Have a great week before the New Year begins🙂
Click to expand...

Actually Winogrand carried a second body with another 28 in his camera bag, usually loaded with Tri-X like the other, but occasionally color was loaded too. That aside, I tend to agree with GB Hill. Shooters like Winogrand, Jane Brown and others prove that FOR THEM a camera/lens combination worked. I, unfortunately, haven't proved that yet so I use a three lens kit. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom