amateriat
We're all light!
Or: Pooka Explains It All For You
Okay, this gets a tad silly (blame it on the snow and ice...and on St. Pat's, no less), but I was looking at the corner of my work-in-progress workspace, and counted up the boxes that represent roughly 90% of the equipment I currently use for all my photography, as well as a few other useful tech gadgets. (The gear at the opposite end of the "Boffice" as my sig. other has christened my designated space in the household, and which resembles The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in its complexity, doesn't count in this case, vital as it is). Pooka, the cute pup from the animated feature film Anastasia (which I haven't seen...go figure) stands guard over the pile. And I remembred: once upon a time, the gear I had could fill a closet. I'm talking walk-in size here.Once I made the swing back from SLRs to RFs, the multitude of boxes shrank to what you see here. What a relief!
At least that's how it is for me. Over here, we speak of GAS attacks, both long-in-gestation and impromptu. I can grok this a little (I'd still like a non-mototrized M-mount body in addition to my pair of Hexars, preferably either a CLE or ZI), yet I always keep in mind one big reason for breaking away from the thru-lens set: More from Less. Less noise/vibration, less size/weight (well, the lenses are a hell of a lot smaller), and less gear...in my case, two bodies, three lenses, and no more decision-making about what to take and what to leave behind; the bag is always packed and ready to go.
So, this isn't about how your system sizes up as much as whether shooting with RFs has allowed you to size down in a significant way, and how, if at all, this has impacted your approach, and even your enthusiasm, toward the medium. Just a thought. (But you know what they say about idle minds...)
- Barrett
Okay, this gets a tad silly (blame it on the snow and ice...and on St. Pat's, no less), but I was looking at the corner of my work-in-progress workspace, and counted up the boxes that represent roughly 90% of the equipment I currently use for all my photography, as well as a few other useful tech gadgets. (The gear at the opposite end of the "Boffice" as my sig. other has christened my designated space in the household, and which resembles The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in its complexity, doesn't count in this case, vital as it is). Pooka, the cute pup from the animated feature film Anastasia (which I haven't seen...go figure) stands guard over the pile. And I remembred: once upon a time, the gear I had could fill a closet. I'm talking walk-in size here.Once I made the swing back from SLRs to RFs, the multitude of boxes shrank to what you see here. What a relief!
At least that's how it is for me. Over here, we speak of GAS attacks, both long-in-gestation and impromptu. I can grok this a little (I'd still like a non-mototrized M-mount body in addition to my pair of Hexars, preferably either a CLE or ZI), yet I always keep in mind one big reason for breaking away from the thru-lens set: More from Less. Less noise/vibration, less size/weight (well, the lenses are a hell of a lot smaller), and less gear...in my case, two bodies, three lenses, and no more decision-making about what to take and what to leave behind; the bag is always packed and ready to go.
So, this isn't about how your system sizes up as much as whether shooting with RFs has allowed you to size down in a significant way, and how, if at all, this has impacted your approach, and even your enthusiasm, toward the medium. Just a thought. (But you know what they say about idle minds...)
- Barrett
Attachments
wyk_penguin
Well-known
1 body(R3A), 4 lensses (15, 35, 50 ,90), loads of film. That's about it. The usual combos are 15+50 or 50+90, in fact I haven't used the 35 for quite a while.
Since I started with RF, I never got used to SLRs and I don't have a DSLR. Using a RF is really limiting in a sense. I borrowed my RF to a friend with 12-200(in the form of 3 zooms) coverage on his DSLR once, and he never asked for it again. Just like so many other things some people just can't get used to it, but when you do get used to it, it's always better than it looks.
Since I started with RF, I never got used to SLRs and I don't have a DSLR. Using a RF is really limiting in a sense. I borrowed my RF to a friend with 12-200(in the form of 3 zooms) coverage on his DSLR once, and he never asked for it again. Just like so many other things some people just can't get used to it, but when you do get used to it, it's always better than it looks.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Barrett,
I have always enjoyed your posts, but now I fear that you will be banished by the seekers of the Photographic Holy Grail.
I need to really cull my equipment, but I am lazy.
Wayne
I have always enjoyed your posts, but now I fear that you will be banished by the seekers of the Photographic Holy Grail.
I need to really cull my equipment, but I am lazy.
Wayne
Film dino
David Chong
I believe you are right that individuals who use RFs have decided that they do not need technological enhancements to the process of making pictures, including motorised film advance, autofocus, matrix metering. Maybe they have a clear idea of the strengths & limitations of rangefinders & have learnt or are learning to work well with what RFs can do well.
It would be nice to believe that RF shooters have a clear focus (pun intended) on the essentials- composition, accurate metering, experienced use of lens qualities/film/processing/post-processing; or that RF-ers are intent of acquring these skills, rather than on getting more sophisticated equipment.
It would be nice to believe that RF shooters have a clear focus (pun intended) on the essentials- composition, accurate metering, experienced use of lens qualities/film/processing/post-processing; or that RF-ers are intent of acquring these skills, rather than on getting more sophisticated equipment.
back alley
IMAGES
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'.
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'.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I switched to RFs because of size, not so much technology. I was using a Nikon FTn and a FM w/motor and five lenses. I was afraid to miss stuff. Vacations were more about carrying stuff than having fun.
I moved to a three lens, one body kit and was very happy. I found myself not missing pictures, but being involved with people and what was happening again. Carrying around a big camera bag not only got in the way, it stood out.
I have to admit I have moved back a bit. I have a 180/2.8, 2x converter and a F2AS in a small bag (same model as my M6, 15/40/105 is in) for those times when I need to reach out a bit more.
While I do like technology (internal metering, automatic flash), I'm not much of an auto-too much person. I could learn to love TTL flash, but I would hate to give up my 192/292 or T32 flashes. They are so small and very powerfull and I'm sure they would not interface with any TTL RF.
Perhaps that is why I went with a F2AS rather than an F3.
Interesting how serveral paths lead to the same new beginning.
B2 (;->
I moved to a three lens, one body kit and was very happy. I found myself not missing pictures, but being involved with people and what was happening again. Carrying around a big camera bag not only got in the way, it stood out.
I have to admit I have moved back a bit. I have a 180/2.8, 2x converter and a F2AS in a small bag (same model as my M6, 15/40/105 is in) for those times when I need to reach out a bit more.
While I do like technology (internal metering, automatic flash), I'm not much of an auto-too much person. I could learn to love TTL flash, but I would hate to give up my 192/292 or T32 flashes. They are so small and very powerfull and I'm sure they would not interface with any TTL RF.
Perhaps that is why I went with a F2AS rather than an F3.
Interesting how serveral paths lead to the same new beginning.
B2 (;->
haagen_dazs
Well-known
half my freezer (literally) is filled with rolls and rolls of film
argh
argh
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
As far as gear minimalism is concerned I centainly don't practice that in general. RF gear has added to my inventory, as I've acquired much yet disposed of none. However, for the RF photography I do I carry less gear in a smaller package. Usually I carry either one body , two lenses and some film in a small pouch or two bodies, four lenses plus film in a small bag. Sometimes its just camera and lens with film in pocket (oh, and I always have a pocket digicam).
I could do something almost-but-not-quite similar with SLR gear (film or digital) but find the process not as convenient or satisfying, and the results not as good. (YMMV; this is just me.)
My other stuff (a whole backpack++ of dSLR gear, for example) is used for other things and works fine for that. I enjoy bird and other wildlife photography and some sports photography so use what works for that. Some of that gear could be "dual use" but I find the RF gear better, at least partly due to some "minimalism" in specific application.
...Mike
I could do something almost-but-not-quite similar with SLR gear (film or digital) but find the process not as convenient or satisfying, and the results not as good. (YMMV; this is just me.)
My other stuff (a whole backpack++ of dSLR gear, for example) is used for other things and works fine for that. I enjoy bird and other wildlife photography and some sports photography so use what works for that. Some of that gear could be "dual use" but I find the RF gear better, at least partly due to some "minimalism" in specific application.
...Mike
SteveM(PA)
Poser
Hey Barrett, that's funny, I was just discussing Dr. Caligari with a co-worker this week. And hey, that iPod box is huge, mine (same model) is the size of a paperback, and it has a pic of Bono on it
What helps me is, I get all my deliveries sent to my office, so I tear into them there, and that's where the boxes stay, all piled up...no clutter (boxes, at least) at home.
What helps me is, I get all my deliveries sent to my office, so I tear into them there, and that's where the boxes stay, all piled up...no clutter (boxes, at least) at home.
darrylasher
Member
I don't think I am a minimalist, but I can say that I trust my manual focusing more than autofocusing. It's very frustrating when my autofocus cameras (digital or film) won't lock in on the subject, sometimes to the point the missing the shot! I also find it more natural to change my aperture using a ring on the lens than through a button or a menu. One reason: I can do it by feel if needed. Twist all the way to one extreme, and I can count off the f-stops to get where I want. A button or menu doesn't allow this.
Now... if I had not learned this way to start with, then maybe I wouldn't care.
Now... if I had not learned this way to start with, then maybe I wouldn't care.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Barrett,
Since I started to learn "the RF way". I have got a moderately big pile of gear, but I am sorting out my minimum. It's taken a little while and I'm not there yet. Fairly close but not quite.
For me, part of this is that this is my hobby. Which means that I don't have too many "requirements"; I can happily buy whatever takes my fancy and can afford. If, on the other hand, I buy something for my career, I have a very specific need and look for the one thing that will take care of that need.
For my photography, I do have more gear than I really need( this is my hobby, so the argument could be made that I don't need any of it, except that I think having more interests than just my job and my family is important.) but I still end up using my RF gear most of the time. Because I like the experience of using the(mostly) 1950s technology just about as much as I like the photos I make.
Before I got into the RFs, I had spent some time doing pinhole and then moved onto medium format. And had two cameras. When 120 started to be problematic for me, I looked at what 35mm had to offer. And, ended up here--meaning both RFF and RF photography. And needed to start from scratch since I had no 35mm equipment.
So initially, that meant my pile of gear increased. Dramatically. But now I have been passing along my excess gear as I get closer to what will work for me and how I shoot. Ultimately, I hope to end up with a two body/5 lens "kit". Which will be a rather smaller pile than I have now.
Don't know that it will be a relief for me, but getting there is is amazing fun!
Just my own St Pat's inspired, rambling response.
Rob
Since I started to learn "the RF way". I have got a moderately big pile of gear, but I am sorting out my minimum. It's taken a little while and I'm not there yet. Fairly close but not quite.
For me, part of this is that this is my hobby. Which means that I don't have too many "requirements"; I can happily buy whatever takes my fancy and can afford. If, on the other hand, I buy something for my career, I have a very specific need and look for the one thing that will take care of that need.
For my photography, I do have more gear than I really need( this is my hobby, so the argument could be made that I don't need any of it, except that I think having more interests than just my job and my family is important.) but I still end up using my RF gear most of the time. Because I like the experience of using the(mostly) 1950s technology just about as much as I like the photos I make.
Before I got into the RFs, I had spent some time doing pinhole and then moved onto medium format. And had two cameras. When 120 started to be problematic for me, I looked at what 35mm had to offer. And, ended up here--meaning both RFF and RF photography. And needed to start from scratch since I had no 35mm equipment.
So initially, that meant my pile of gear increased. Dramatically. But now I have been passing along my excess gear as I get closer to what will work for me and how I shoot. Ultimately, I hope to end up with a two body/5 lens "kit". Which will be a rather smaller pile than I have now.
Don't know that it will be a relief for me, but getting there is is amazing fun!
Just my own St Pat's inspired, rambling response.
Rob
Minimalism? Unfortunately, no... There’s been a serious increase in the amount and complexity of the gear, both RF and SLR. The Contax G and Fuji GA645 have corrupted me into auto-focus and motorized advance. Worse, it’s even led to AF plus motor medium-format SLR with <gasp> zoom lens. I thus confess my sins... I don’t know about repentance.
Though when out and about it’s almost always packing just one body and lens.
Though when out and about it’s almost always packing just one body and lens.
M
mad_boy
Guest
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 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
Minimalist, when shooting, but no bones about it, others may shun the thought, but, I too am a collector.
So yes, I will grab a camera and generally 2 lenses when I am heading out with a purpose, but I have some choices to make leading to that moment.
So yes, I will grab a camera and generally 2 lenses when I am heading out with a purpose, but I have some choices to make leading to that moment.
Gid
Well-known
RF and RFF did nothing to minimise the amount of gear I acquired :bang: . However, over the last few months I've been focusing on gear reduction and have cleared out a whole bunch of stuff. Now, worst case is, M8 + 35, R-D1 + 50, a 21 + VF and a 90 all in a very small bag. Most times though, its just the M8 + 35 or the R-D1 + 50 (or 35) in a Lowerpro Edit 120 bag which is tiny and very light.
For those SLR moments I have a whole bunch of other stuff. I rarely mix RF and SLR.
For those SLR moments I have a whole bunch of other stuff. I rarely mix RF and SLR.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
One camera, one lens, a pocket full of film, and no bag most days.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Incorrigible collector
Incorrigible collector
In an attempt to simplify I sold the Bessa and lenses
and returned to using fixed-lens RF cameras only.
Unfortunately I am buying scads of them...
Chris
Incorrigible collector
In an attempt to simplify I sold the Bessa and lenses
and returned to using fixed-lens RF cameras only.
Unfortunately I am buying scads of them...
Chris
alex909
Newbie
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.
R
RML
Guest
GEar minimalism?! I have more gear now than when I started out shooting rangefinders! I blame all of you!
ElrodCod
Established
My RF outfit is pretty much the same as the previous SLR outfit......2 bodies, 2 lenses, some film, lens brush & tissue, and a small bag to contain it all.