One RF camera and one lens?

[Richard G]

i’m also out with only one lens nearly always. With the IIIf I never use anything but the 50, and always with the SBOOI external finder. That is such a get out of your way combination. The 35 finder is too big and too heavy and spoils the show. My Dad took great shots of us kids with a Zeiss 45mm lens on a fixed lens Contina II. Most families just had their camera, one lens and that was it.

I was introduced to the 21mm focal length by that striking shot of Buckminster Fuller ultra close up by Elliott Erwitt. When I eventually bought the ZM 21 f4.5 I just put that on the camera and used it all the time. That taught me a lot, more about taming that focal length than the deeper aspects here maybe, except it did make me work more on making an effective shot. When I looked again at Jean Loup Sieff‘s work, looking past those legs, I saw how he tamed the 21 to the point where picking it as a 21 from the shot was a lot less obvious.

My photography improved a leap on a single walk one morning by the ocean in January 2008. I took my Leica M6 and 35 Summicron, an almost constant combination while my children were young and lightning quick. But the two key ingredients, a broken rib and my first roll of Fuji Velvia at a dollar a frame (Australian), extracted the third ingredient: I just tried a whole lot harder with each shot. I rejected unhappy compositions, framing more critically. I waited for waves. I altered the exposures. I didn’t want to get back a set of slides mostly duds and one happy accident.

The thing about writing for a living is you’ve got to pitch something whole. I think Mike Johnston is terrific. But a whole year? Not necessary. Do it for as long as you’re deriving a benefit from the exercise. You’d be rejecting other worthwhile inspirations during that long year otherwise. Certainly most of us now don’t print enough. A photograph has already failed as the first half is out of the printer on some occasions, but on others half the shot reveals already there was even more magic than you’d hoped for.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

i’m also out with only one lens nearly always. With the IIIf I never use anything but the 50, and always with the SBOOI external finder. That is such a get out of your way combination. The 35 finder is too big and too heavy and spoils the show. My Dad took great shots of us kids with a Zeiss 45mm lens on a fixed lens Contina II. Most families just had their camera, one lens and that was it.

I was introduced to the 21mm focal length by that striking shot of Buckminster Fuller ultra close up by Elliott Erwitt. When I eventually bought the ZM 21 f4.5 I just put that on the camera and used it all the time. That taught me a lot, more about taming that focal length than the deeper aspects here maybe, except it did make me work more on making an effective shot. When I looked again at Jean Loup Sieff‘s work, looking past those legs, I saw how he tamed the 21 to the point where picking it as a 21 from the shot was a lot less obvious.

My photography improved a leap on a single walk one morning by the ocean in January 2008. I took my Leica M6 and 35 Summicron, an almost constant combination while my children were young and lightning quick. But the two key ingredients, a broken rib and my first roll of Fuji Velvia at a dollar a frame (Australian), extracted the third ingredient: I just tried a whole lot harder with each shot. I rejected unhappy compositions, framing more critically. I waited for waves. I altered the exposures. I didn’t want to get back a set of slides mostly duds and one happy accident.

The thing about writing for a living is you’ve got to pitch something whole. I think Mike Johnston is terrific. But a whole year? Not necessary. Do it for as long as you’re deriving a benefit from the exercise. You’d be rejecting other worthwhile inspirations during that long year otherwise. Certainly most of us now don’t print enough. A photograph has already failed as the first half is out of the printer on some occasions, but on others half the shot reveals already there was even more magic than you’d hoped for.

I agree with you on the size of the SBLOO. I sold mine and tried the tiny Voigtlander 28/35...which i found too squinty. Ultimately i settled on the Voigtlander metal 35mm finder. I'm a left eye shooter & use accessory finders a lot.

 

[santino]

i'm not so sensitive with respect to seeing outside the framelines, perhaps because I nearly always keep both eyes open when I'm shooting.

G

I‘m a left eyed shooter so the body blocks my right eye.

 

[agentlossing]

The thing about writing for a living is you’ve got to pitch something whole. I think Mike Johnston is terrific. But a whole year? Not necessary. Do it for as long as you’re deriving a benefit from the exercise. You’d be rejecting other worthwhile inspirations during that long year otherwise. Certainly most of us now don’t print enough. A photograph has already failed as the first half is out of the printer on some occasions, but on others half the shot reveals already there was even more magic than you’d hoped for.

Sound advice here!

 

[mrtoml]

Some great replies here. Thank you.

I think I will try and restrict myself to taking out one lens for a while, but as Richard G says do it for as long as you think you are deriving a benefit from it, not necessarily a whole year. I think this will help avoid the distractions of having several focal lengths in the bag to choose from and may or may not improve my pictures or change my perspective.

I also print a lot which I think is the real end point for me. So looking, reviewing, and living with my prints more at the same time will be key.

I don't think my photographs are bad by the way, but I do think I am beginning to repeat myself, and Ted Forbes's idea of how do you get to 'the next level' drew me into this idea of the enforced restriction of one camera, one lens.

 

[CMur12]

I find this easier to do with a camera that has a fixed focal length, such as a compact, fixed-lens RF camera or a fixed-lens TLR.

I have used such RF cameras, shooting color slide film, on a trip that lasted 6 months and when living abroad. As long as I didn't have the option of changing lenses, I never thought about it. I just visualized everything in 40mm. When I shoot with a fixed-lens TLR, I'm also perfectly happy with the included lens. When there is no other option, I don't give it another thought.

When I got my first 35mm SLR, I couldn't afford to add lenses to the 50mm f/1.7 that came with it. That was over 50 years ago and I don't remember exactly how long I had that camera, but it was always with that one lens. Nevertheless, part of the novelty of that camera was that it could take other lenses, so I often thought about how a shot would look better with a different focal length.

More recently, I've done at least 90% of my work with a 35mm SLR in two focal lengths: 85mm (which became my "normal") and 28mm, though I have a complete selection of primes from 28mm to 200mm. So, I could easily choose an SLR and use it indefinitely with those two primes. I could easily do the same with a Canonet RF or a fixed-lens TLR.

- Murray

Edit: I just had another thought. The Canonet RF and a fixed-lens TLR would make a great fixed-lens duo. I would shoot the TLR on a tripod (as I normally do) and I would shoot the Canonet handheld. I would be using roughly equivalent focal lengths with complementary approaches.

 

[luuca]

despite the amount of cameras and lenses I own, 90% of my shot are done with one camera and one lens (MP - summicron 35), so it wouldn't be a problem to use one focal lenght and one camera for a year.
But if I had to choose another focal far from "mine" and my comfort zone (ie 75mm, or 24mm), that would be a problem and a real challenge.