The "less is more" story... What do you think?

The "less is more" story... What do you think?

  • I get the most with one camera / one lens...

    Votes: 131 60.4%

  • I have felt "more is more" and I can use well more than one camera / one lens...

    Votes: 86 39.6%
  • Total voters
    217
I prefer walking out of the front door, wherever that door may be, with an empty mind. Achieving that empty mind is the first and biggest challenge.
 
I recently travelled for two weeks with M6, ME, and five lenses. It was really nice to fit everything into a small bag. Next time I will take only three or four lenses. When I go out the door I prefer to take only one of the cameras, but did have both on some days. Often either camera with only a 50 or 35 is enough for me. If not then I pack a second lens (often 28 or 15) in my pocket, day pack, diaper bag, or wife's purse. One camera, one lens is fine for a few hours but I have yet to find a single lens that meets all of my needs all of the time, and frankly don't ever expect to find it.

Cheers,
Rob
 
robbeiflex said:
I recently travelled for two weeks with M6, ME, and five lenses. It was really nice to fit everything into a small bag. Next time I will take only three or four lenses. When I go out the door I prefer to take only one of the cameras, but did have both on some days. Often either camera with only a 50 or 35 is enough for me. If not then I pack a second lens (often 28 or 15) in my pocket, day pack, diaper bag, or wife's purse. One camera, one lens is fine for a few hours but I have yet to find a single lens that meets all of my needs all of the time, and frankly don't ever expect to find it.

Cheers,
Rob
Click to expand...
Dear Rob,

YES!

Cheers,

R.
 
75% One camera/lens
25% Two cameras/ Two Lenses... usually film and digital with 35mm lenses mounted. This weekend was A7 and FE 70-200mm and X100s... never used the X100s.
 
I enjoy going light with just one prime for exploring and expanding how I see images. With two or more lenses I usually pre-visualize how I want the image to come out, chose one of the focal lengths to match that expectation and make the photograph. But with one focal length, I am sometimes forced to find a composition which I might not think of right away.
 
I have about 25 cameras and probably more than 30 lenses.

I've just come back from a two week trip around New England and took my Hasselblad 500CM with just the 80mm Planar and two a12 backs. It was great. I didn't miss having other lenses but did find the ability to change between black and white and colour, or from 50asa to 400asa film mid-roll very useful. I used around 20 rolls of film.

I had my Fuji XF1 as a pocket camera as well but didn't take that many photos - most on things like whale watching trips or evenings when I wanted the portability and low light capability.

In many cases I find I more often head out with one camera and one lens - sometimes intentionally restrictive, such as my 135mm tele-elmar on my M3, to see how it constrains me to photograph in a different way.
 
Brian Atherton said:
Definitely, for me, less is more. My days of lugging tons of kit about are long-gone.
Click to expand...

That is the point I have reached as well, Brian. No longer working as a newspaper photog and have dropped back to a pair of Fuji X-System (X100S & X-E1) with the Fuji XF 35mm and a Nikkor 85mm. Right now I am focusing on the X100S and getting used to that single focal length.
 
My small Photorunner bag easily fits leica plus 4 lenses, and cinches tightly against my body for walking or scrambling over fences. If I had to choose one lens, it would probably be 35mm, but then I think of the way my 90mm paints color, or how my 24mm plays with angles, and I have a hard time pruning what to take.

Maybe, my smallest-yet-fexible if kit would be a Leica with 24mm & 90mm, plus a Fuji X100 for 35mm which gives me autofocus and daytime flash. (Shooting kids at close range without autofocus is pretty tricky!).
 
Ronald M said:
One should learn to exploit a 35,40, 0r 50 to the fullest.. Then keep in mind there are situations where it will not do the job, say head and shoulders portraits without cropping or needing a wide because there is simply not enough room.

Learn to walk or position yourself so as to keep in the normal range. And this goes for users of zooms also.
Click to expand...

Turtle said:
The sweet spot for me is 2-3 primes.

This bulk of this project http://www.thomasstanworth.com/album/the-disorder-of-species?p=1&s=UA-10634171-1#1 was shot with a Leica MP with 25mm and 35mm lenses. I also had a X-Pan with 45mm.

Light, nimble, simple, flexible (enough).
Click to expand...

That's a fabulous album!
 
I'd prefer to tick your one camera/one lens box, but if I'm honest I can't tick either box.

I really like the discipline of one camera and one lens.
I really wish I had the discipline to stick with one camera and one lens. :eek:

In reality, I'm culling down to 40mm (95%) and 28mm (just in case) for film. …though I might get a 90mm down the track too.
I can only shoot primes on film - a zoom lens just feels weird.

Always a second camera in the bag, in case I require instant gratification.
So it's digital and by virtue of my history, this camera is now always a zoom.
Whenever I do primes on digital I end up with no less than 4 lenses in the bag (min. -21, 28, 50, +75).
I hate the ritual of changing lenses in the field and the dust it invites back home.
 
I'm not sure one should learn to exploit a 35-50mm lens to its maximum, because you may find another focal length better for you. I would agree that if you cannot shoot decent photos without using ultra-wides, something is probably amiss.

The one body and one lens approach may serve a purpose when a photographer gets distracted by too much kit (or is learning the basics), but the vast majority of the world's best photographers do use a variety of focal lengths. Even HCB did, although he used a 50mm most of all. Perhaps the best example I can think of for a one lens photographer would be Paolo Roversi, but he is very rare.

'Moderation' is usually better than either extreme.
 
For me "less is more" does not have to mean 1 camera 1 lens.
1 camera with 2 or 3 lenses and 1 film is just as good imho. In my expirience, you use 1 lens most of the time, 1 sometimes and the other one almost never.
Problems arise as soon as you start carrying different camera systems and different types of film, just to be able to cover everything. Then you end up changing camera's and lenses all the time and miss the whole scene.
On the other hand, one Rolleiflex and one film is enough for most situations and even if it is not enough, you can take some decent pictures.
Frank
 
Well, I started to read this thread, thinking it was about the way the subject appeared in the final print but it's about boring gear, again.

Less gear for me means an SLR and a zoom lens. There's some nice 28 to 85 mm zooms out there for most makes of SLR. I prefer the Tokina on the Minolta X-300. A small outfit of just one prime would be the Leica Mini III with it beautiful lens.

But when sorting out the picture in the VF or on the screen I think less is more. Fussy cluttered pictures are only for lens testing.

Regards, David
 
As ever, I'm in the minority!! However, I've done my stint of having one body and only one or two lenses and can now (currently) afford a few options that I couldn't when I first started out in the 1970s.

Power to those who are happy with one camera, one lens but for me "variety is the spice of life".
 
So far my shoulder is OK carrying my Domke F6 (little bit smaller) with 2 M bodies and usually 3 lenses. Most of my shot I take with 35mm, next the 50mm and occasionally I use something wider or the 90 when I can get closer. If I had to go for one lens only, it would be the 50 Planar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom