RF = Equipment minimalism?

[amateriat]

I noticed your box of Kodak B&W C41 film. CVS is selling that (in packages of three 24 rolls) and 400 Ultra Color (same unit quantifies) at half off for $6.00 and $7.00 a box, respectively. I already cleared out Hartsdale and Larchmont, New York but there are many more CVS' nationwide for you to hit.

Thanks for that heads-up. The closest CVS to me is some ways away, and given NYC's infamous commercial rents, I doubt I the stores here will match the prices you've found. I pick up the occasional three-pack of BW400 at the Rite-Aid a few blocks away (about $11, plus tax; a few bucks less during sales) when my stock of XP2 runs out and I can't get to B&H or Adorama for a bit – it's amazing, given that I was born in Manhattan, how much I've avoided the island since moving to Brooklyn.


- Barrett

 

[Pherdinand]

to size DOWN? you're kidding, right?

 

[wyk_penguin]

i think that most users of rf gear must have had to decide that their photography was to be of a nature that would benefit from limited gear.

huh? what i mean is...i knew that i didn't want to do bird, sports or bug shots, so no need for long lenses or macro lenses or motor drives.
i knew i liked street shooting and so needed wide lenses etc. my 90 is new and rarely used but kept 'just in case'.

IMHO 90 is becoming outdated somehow. I think we are going more and more wide-angled nowadays. With kit lens of DSLRs starting out at 18mm (27mm equiv.), 35 is the new 50! In the crowded streets of today, I don't seem to find many uses for the 90. (Maybe I should move out of the city and do some bird shots and bug shots )

 

[amateriat]

I do not relate at all with the general point of view that RF camera's are minimalistic.

Before I turned to Leica M I used a Pentax with 2 zooms (24-70 & 70-210).

The body of the Pentax is not that much larger than the M6 TTL I've got now.
As for the lenses, the two zooms are less bulky (and heavy) than my 6 fixed focus
lenses on the M6.

Hence, NO to me the RF gear is more bulky and heavy.
I like and use if for the quality of feel and the quality pics.

Mad-Boy

Before moving to a pair of Hexars, I had a two-body, five-lens AF SLR setup. In terms of size/weight, the SLRs weren't horrible (Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 9xi), but my two main lenses were Bazooka-class f/2.8 zooms (28-70 and 80-200 APO), which put the setup squarely in "maximalist" territory, and threatened to put a permanent rightward list in my upright attitude. I had a few other reasons for ditching the SLRs, but the weight and bulk of the "key" equipment in my pile forced the issue.

As others have pointed out, going "minimalist" means making trade-offs, and sometimes the fit will be wrong, depending on what you're reaching for photographically. There was a time when, dripping in motor-driven SLRs and "well-hung" in zooms, I'd spot somebody with an M3 and think "how quaint". Maybe it was old(er) age and treachery that did it, but somewhere along the line, dragging this stuff around ceased to be fun, so out they went. Now, my entire setup, including a pair of flash units, fits within the confines of a Domke F803 bag (referenced in way too many threads on bags here, whose furnaces I've guiltily stoked).

Minimalist as I am, a colleague has gone from a full-blown film setup (both 35mm and MF), to a full-blown digital setup, to...a Holga. Just one.

Guess I'm not terribly hardcore, eh?


- Barrett

 

[FrankS]

Wow, a single Holga as your only camera! You can't get much more minimal than that.