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

[mfunnell]

I tend to ask myself "what's the point of an interchangeable lens camera if I never change lenses?" Especially when a change in angle of view, perhaps to explore different subject matter, seems desirable after shooting with one lens for a while.

...Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

I tend to ask myself "what's the point of an interchangeable lens camera if I never change lenses?" Especially when a change in angle of view, perhaps to explore different subject matter, seems desirable after shooting with one lens for a while.

...Mike

Dear Mike,

One point is that you can fit the lens you like, and leave it there: try to find a fixed-lens camera with a 35/1.4. Another is that interchangeable lens cameras are often better made and more versatile than fixed-lens, even if you never change lenses.

I'm not really arguing with you: just playing devil's advocate.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

I'm another who isn't that interested in either extreme. I always carry a digital and a film camera. The film cameras almost all have fixed primes, and the digitals, in the main, have zooms.

Sadly my interchangeable lens rangefinder has no lenses right now.

 

[kossi008]

Neither nor

Neither nor

While agree that less is more, I wouldn't go all the way to hailing the single lens approach as the ultimate solution.

So no vote from me.

 

[Rodchenko]

I'd agree that Less is better with regard to 'One Camera, One Lens' discussions.

 

[MiniMoke]

I nearly always carry my XA and XA2 (no great deal, small and light), and the 35mm seems to do it for me. The XA with Tri-X, and the XA2 with Portra.

Sometimes I add my OM2n with a 50 or 28, but I don't like changing lenses 'in the field', so I always carry it with only one lens.

One focal length seems to work for me, usually 35mm or 28.... though more than one camera for choice of film.

I thought the Fuji X20 would give my something for all occasions, and I had it in my bag for months....... and took about 20 pictures with it. So off it went to the bay....

Now thinking about my X-E1 I sold some time ago.... and the 15mm Heliar that was practically glued to it. I liked it.... and I still got that near mint Jupiter 8 lying around...and X-E1's are dirt cheap right now....

But if ever I go that way again, I'll only take one lens with me.

 

[OddE]

I really, really am a lost case gear-wise - I am a total gearhead, always looking for the next piece of kit.

What I have found over the last couple of years, though, is that I enjoy my photography a lot more when I just grab a body and a lens or two, then head out for something to shoot.

Sure, you can fill a backpack with 3-4 bodies (just in case...) and half a dozen lenses (minimum!), reflectors, filters by the bucketload, etc, etc - and be prepared for anything life may throw at you. Only problem is, when I found something to shoot, I'd ponder endlessly which kit to use before I even got around to worrying about the composition and actually getting the shot.

So, what I've found, much to my surprise, being a gearhead and all, is that I enjoy my shooting a lot more when I just take the bare essentials and go for it. If I just carry one body and a 35mm lens (say), I'll get down to composing within those constraints right away, rather than wondering whether a 28 or a 50 or something else altogether would be best.

Nowadays? Mostly I carry my ZI and 35 Summicron, putting the 90 Elmarit in my pocket just in case I'll find something which would benefit from a longer focal length.

What minimum kit I bring, though, still comes down to what I set out to shoot; if, for instance, I am on holiday with my family, I mostly use a DSLR and a normal zoom, seeing as kids run all over the place all the time and the missus really wants to be able to see today's shots today - not sometime after we've come back home and I've gotten around to developing the films and scanning them - and she definitely doesn't want anything in black and white! 🙂

 

[Soeren]

>SNIP.

Sadly my interchangeable lens rangefinder has no lenses right now.

Hmm In that case less is in fact........ less 🙂
A good argument for fixed lens rangefinders 🙂

 

[kuvvy]

Generally I think less is more. I dont carry a heavy load around, havent done for years. Just lately Ive sold some lenses and cut back to just an 18(27) & 35(50) for my Xpro.
At the weekend I thought id try even going less with just one lens, albeit a zoom. I went to an event and took a recently purchased Fuji 18-55 zoom ouit for the first time and hated it. Gonna stick with two primes and sell the zoom.

Paul

 

[Rodchenko]

Hmm In that case less is in fact........ less 🙂
A good argument for fixed lens rangefinders 🙂

Oh. Absolutely. But, y'know, if you have any idea where there are a 35/2.8 and an 80/4 for an Olympus Ace going cheaply, do give me a shout. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd agree that Less is better with regard to 'One Camera, One Lens' discussions.

Elegant!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

Thank you Roger. Elegant is not normally a word people use round me. 😉

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

This single camera and one lens thing is so overrated nowadays.

I use different camera's and lenses, even on the same day. When I know, I have to walk a lot, than I try to reduce weight, but on photographic trips I have a big bag, with a lots of gear and just pick the friend for a day for a smaller bag.

What's in the bag? by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr

What makes me think is, if a photographer considers the best possible lens is, say, a 50, and with it all his/her shots are made every day in an exclusive way, and he/she is sure about that only focal length is totally perfect and the best possible focal length/angle of view for any situation ever, (that's totally OK for me: I've done it, I've got the photographs, but I'm far from that opinion) then let's say that in his/her bag suddenly there's a 35, so, if that photographer, who yet has the beloved 50, gets less/worse photographs because of a 35 being at his/her reach, then the problem is not the gear, but the way the photographer thinks or acts...
Cheers,
Juan

 

[Ronald M]

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.

 

[Darthfeeble]

X100, extra battery attached to strap. Of course there's more, but that's one kit.

 

[oftheherd]

I started out with 50mm on my SLR. I soon got a 28mm and 135mm. I was happy. But I mostly kept the 50mm on the camera and shot with it when possible. When zooms got better in the mid-70s, I tried them and told myself how good they were. But I still took as many photos as possible with the 50mm. As I drifted more to other zooms, I began to thing how heavy they were, and somehow unsatisfying.

I still use zooms for my 167mt kit, but am getting to the point I will have the 50mm f/1.4 on it, and only switch when I have to, then without regret.

I don't believe in one camera, one lens. That really doesn't work well form me. But I like smaller zooms if I want to carry them. And I am getting more and more happy with the idea of primes rather than zooms.

Weight makes a difference, so the Super Press usually only goes if I can park it in my car until needed. Otherwise, folders.

Just me.

 

[mfunnell]

Dear Mike,

One point is that you can fit the lens you like, and leave it there: try to find a fixed-lens camera with a 35/1.4. Another is that interchangeable lens cameras are often better made and more versatile than fixed-lens, even if you never change lenses.

I'm not really arguing with you: just playing devil's advocate.

Cheers,

R.

That's fine, Roger. If someone finds one camera, one lens works for them, for those reasons or something else, then that's fine by me! I've even done it myself from time to time (for quite some time my go-everywhere camera was an M3 with Elmar-M 50) - for reasons of convenience, though, rather than any theoretical commitment to only using one camera and lens.

I don't mind - or care - if someone wants to go the one camera, one lens path because of some theory they hold to. More power to 'em is what I say. As long as I'm not expected to buy into the same theory.

...Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

That's fine, Roger. If someone finds one camera, one lens works for them, for those reasons or something else, then that's fine by me! I've even done it myself from time to time (for quite some time my go-everywhere camera was an M3 with Elmar-M 50) - for reasons of convenience, though, rather than any theoretical commitment to only using one camera and lens.

I don't mind - or care - if someone wants to go the one camera, one lens path because of some theory they hold to. More power to 'em is what I say. As long as I'm not expected to buy into the same theory.

...Mike

Dear Mike,

Sure. We agree completely. My sole point was that there CAN be a reason for buying an interchangeable-lens camera and not changing the lens once you have the one you want, in reply to your "what's the point of an interchangeable lens camera if I never change lenses?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfunnell]

...in reply to your "what's the point of an interchangeable lens camera if I never change lenses?

Dear Roger,

That's exactly how I understood you.

...Mike

 

[RichC]

I tend to shoot with one lens only - but that lens differs depending on what I'm doing, and if I'm working on a project, I know exactly what I'll be doing! I always consider my subject carefully, and take along only that which is required for it.

I dislike telephoto and (especially!) wide angle lenses because the images produced are "unnatural" to my eye, and I prefer to capture a view more akin to human vision (interesting overview here). This drastically cuts down the lenses I need as I'm left with "normal" lenses of about 50 mm! Because of my preference for a human view, "zooming" with my feet is usually sufficient - obviating the need for zoom, wide and telephoto lenses.

If I have a precise idea of my subject(s), I'll bring just my 55 mm Micro-Nikkor or 80 mm Arax tilt-shift-rotate. The former is the lens I use most of the time, the latter I use if I physically can't take a photo (can't get close enough, don't want to stand in the middle of the road, I need to be several feet taller, etc.!).

That said, there's no point in cutting one's nose off to spite one's face! So, if I specifically go out for a day's photography in, say, a city, where I may need a bit of flexibility, I'll bring both lenses.

What I never, ever do is fill my bag with assorted crap on the off chance it may be useful! I've half a dozen Nikon lenses, and have never taken out more than two at a time - and never will! Taking too many lenses in my opinion simply means that you haven't thought through what kind of photographs you want to create or haven't thought enough about your subject. Trusting overly to serendipity is a poor strategy for good photography!

Also, there's many ways to skin a cat, and a half-decent photographer should be able to take an image that suits the equipment they have to hand - even if it's just their phone!