What you want and what you need: How to tell?

[noimmunity]

In another thread, it was said with some wisdom: "buying what I know I need rather than what I think I want".

How do you tell the difference? What kind of temporal process is involved? Does the need vs. want distinction correspond to the place of photography in your life, or are there other criteria?

 

[Roger Hicks]

You keep running out of light: you need a faster lens.

Your back is constantly against the wall, and you still can't get it all in. You need a wider lens.

You already have a 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. You are unlikely to need a 50/1.5 Nokton and a 50/1.4 Summilux as well, let alone a 50/1.4 Canon.

You have a 21/4.5 Biogon. If you constantly wish you had more speed, maybe you need a 21/2.8 or even 21/1.4. If you constantly want to get more in, you may need an 18mm, 15mm, 12mm or WATE. If you seldom use it, you almost certainly don't need another 21mm.

Above all, you don't need 'bargains'. I have lenses I've never used -- my 300/4, for example -- that I bought because they were 'bargains'. No they bloody weren't. Pass up a dozen 'bargains' at £50-100 each and I've enough money to buy something genuinely useful for £500-1000.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[marcust101]

Money has a great deal to do with it, I had enough money to buy as I wanted within reason, then I got engaged.....

 

[Roger Hicks]

A further thought: 'need' is (as you suggest) also related to how important photography is to you. As it accounts for a large chunk of my income, it is quite important, and I can justify almost anything I can reasonably afford (which, alas, lets out a Noctilux).

But precisely because my income depends on it, I know I can get saleable results with almost any decent lens, and I don't waste much of my time any more in faffing around with elderly and not-very-good lenses just to see what they're like. Yes, I may borrow them and try them, but I'm certainly not going to risk both money and sanity on eBay, actually buying the wretched things. I'd rather take pictures with kit that I know will work.

Cheers,

R.

 

[stefan_dinu]

Look at your pictures? Do you like them? If you don't, it's because of the camera? You could have got a better image with some other piece of equipment? If no, then go take some more pictures. Those need money too, for film and chemistry. And if you shot only digital, then go buy a real camera, not a minicomputer that produce digital image type files. 🙂 -joke-

Those questions sometimes helps you figure if you need to improve your kit.

 

[ruby.monkey]

A simple example: I have a K-mount Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 macro, which I bought to use on a Pentax K100D, and which is one of my favourite lenses. As I've moved to using film more and more, I'd like to keep using it. So...

What I wanted: £400-worth of Pentax LX currently gracing the classifieds.
What I needed: £29-worth of winder to balance up the lens on my Pentax MX.
What I ended up with: a great little combination that does exactly what I want, and is a hoot to use - oh, and an extra £370 or so to spend on film. 🙂

 

[yanidel]

The only reason to find out is to take a lot of pictures. Once you get used to your lenses and camera, you start realizing what you really need.
I am currently using a lot the 35mm Summicron but some times I just do not have enough space in the frame so I am slowly to start a 28mm could be nice. I have the 25mm CV but it is too slow for the kind of pictures I take with the 35mm, that is why in the end the 28mm Ultron M mount is slowly getting in my mind (let's say it, I tried it yesterday at a dealer .... 😉 .
But really, my point is do take many pictures with one lens before buying. Otherwise it is probably more GAS than need.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If it has the name "Leica" printed on it, I don't need it.

No.... But if it's engraved instead of printed...

Seriously, which do you mean:

1 "I already have all the Leica gear I need"

or

2 "I am so prejudiced against Leica gear that I refuse to buy it regardless of utility"

Cheers,

R.

 

[feenej]

It's a good question. The rule of thumb that I am familiar with is three lenses in each format, then 2-3 lenses to meet special needs. Two bodies to back-up your main body.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Or

3 "If it has "Leica" printed (or engraved, or whatever) on it, I don't NEED it"

Well, you can argue that you don't NEED any camera.

But assuming you're going to have one, and that it's going to be a rangefinder (a reasonable assumption on RFF), then why would you need a Leica less than any other rangefinder?

Why, for example, would you 'need' a Voigtländer or Zeiss Ikon more than a Leica? Want or be able to afford, fair enough, but I can't quite see the distinction on 'need'.

My own view here is that I need a camera (to earn a living) and that I'll earn it easiest with the best camera I can afford -- which for me is an MP or an M8 (or ideally both). 'Best' is here defined as 'the one with the ideal combination for me of versatility, durability and ergonomics.'

Cheers,

R.

 

[thomasw_]

In answer to the OP, on the need/want distinction; I understand different levels to the concepts. If by need we understand something that is important or essential to survival, then I would answer that there is nothing in photography that falls into that category; keeping my family fed, clothed, with a shelter over our heads are needs. But not my desire to record happenings in life; such a desire is secondary, and falls into the want category.

Yet there is a need that means necessary to fulfil a function. In this sense we can look at a desired activity --- like the activity of photography --- and see that certain tools are 'needed' in this sense to do the various types of image capture we desire to perform.

A want is simply that which is desired. Most humans have no limitations on their desires; there is always more to want, to desire, to have, etc.. In terms of RFF, this is manifested as GAS.

That's how I conceptually grasp the need/want distinction.

The need/want distinction does play into my acquisitions for photo gear. Generally I purchase the best lens signature that I want in the FLs I use most. But in lesser used FLs, I will buy the most reasonably priced lens signature, not necessarily the lens which I want.

I hope that makes sense...

 

[Morris]

My own view here is that I need a camera (to earn a living) and that I'll earn it easiest with the best camera I can afford -- which for me is an MP or an M8.....

Yes Mr Hicks, for YOU, for YOU, for YOU.

We're not all like YOU.

Your Leica crusade is bloody tiring.

 

[thomasw_]

Yes Mr Hicks, for YOU, for YOU, for YOU.

We're not all like YOU.

Your Leica crusade is bloody tiring.

Ah Roger is crusading tirelessly for Leica now? And you are crusading tirelessly against Roger? I sense some irony here 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes Mr Hicks, for YOU, for YOU, for YOU.

We're not all like YOU.

Your Leica crusade is bloody tiring.

Dear Morris,

And we're not all like you, either.

Many of us try to answer the questions that others pose, which often involves a degree of subjectivity. Many of us try to be civil.

You, on the other hand, seem to confine yourself to sniping at others, and indulging in what looks increasingly like a personal vendetta. I don't know about others, but I find this even more tiring.

Perhaps you could point me to (let us say) half a dozen posts where you have made any attempt whatsoever to be helpful -- such as my recent advice on how to make lens bags, or my comments (based on experience) on the relative merits of different transparency formats.

If you really find me that wearing, put me on ignore; that's where you are for me, though I have to confess that I am distressingly often weak-willed enough to click 'read post', hence my responses to your two most recent posts -- both of which, as far as I could see, added little or nothing to the conversation that was being conducted on the forum.

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Weak needs and strong needs

Weak needs and strong needs

Because (to me) most other cameras will cover the "need" bit cheaper than a Leica. This doesn't mean that I don't want Leica gear, I buy it. But I'm not even close to putting this down to a "need". Do I like my MP's better than a Voigtlander? Sure as hell. But again, there is no way I could justify the extra expense due to "need", I got them because I wanted them.

We are indeed in a grey area here between 'need' and 'want'. But let us say you need the longer base length, in order to focus fast lenses. This excludes the Voigtländers. At this point, the choice comes down to ZI or Leica. Well, when I started using Leicas, the current ZI didn't exist, and when it did come out, although it is a superb camera, I found the bottom-mounted rewind and absence of a trigger-wind (which I have for both Leicas and Voigtländers) to be significant drawbacks. My wife doesn't like trigger bases and doesn't mind the base-mounted rewind.

Of course I could earn a living with only (let us say) one of my old Nikon Fs and a Nikon D70. But if you're using the gear that really suits you, then my own belief is that you'll take better pictures: this is equally relevant whether you are shooting for a living, or for pleasure. As I say, a grey area between 'want' and 'need'.

What I certainly don't need, for example, is another M2, or a Canon P, or a IIIg. None of those would make it any easier for me to take better photographs. Chopping in my other Leica gear against a second M8 or a second MP probably would make it easier. And I'm sure that I'd get more good pictures if I had a Noctilux, having had one on loan for a couple of years.

Here, though, a useful distinction occurs to me: a 'weak need' and a 'strong need'. A 'weak need' is something that would get better pictures, or more good pictures, but is either not worth the money to me or to you (or indeed to Morris), while a 'strong need' is worth the money. 'Want' may well influence the boundary line between weak and strong.

A 'pure want', on the other hand, is something that is unlikely to affect your photography at all.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[oftheherd]

I think to really answer the question, it is as simple as what Mr. Hicks said in his first post. I have more wide angle lenses than tele because I found myself doing what he said; finding myself with my back to a wall or looking over a long fall. I also found myself using the teles less and less. I seldom take them, and almost never in SLRs take anything longer that a 135mm prime or 75-150 zoom. In 35mm RF I am watching for a 28mm or 21mm I can afford. If there was anything longer than my 135mm I wouldn't want it.

We all know we can zoom with our feet, so we need to really be honest with ourselves on the question the OP posted. However, using Mr. Hicks' test is a good way to evaluate from time to time. That was a nice simple way to state it Mr. Hicks. Thanks.

 

[rbiemer]

In another thread, it was said with some wisdom: "buying what I know I need rather than what I think I want".
How do you tell the difference? What kind of temporal process is involved? Does the need vs. want distinction correspond to the place of photography in your life, or are there other criteria?

I think, yes there is that correspondence and yes there are--or can be--other criteria.
And I try to make a distinction between what a working photographer needs and what I need for my hobby.
For example, for what and how I shoot, I don't need super fast lenses. For 50mm, I am happy with f2. I occasionally need a bit more speed and so am looking at f1.5 or 1.4 lenses.
I also truly like using my Jupiters. They fill my needs for my goals very well. The J-8 is my main 50. But I am not looking at the J-3 for my next, slightly faster 50. Rather than buy several in hopes if getting one correctly focusing one, I am looking at Voigtlander and Canon. It is a compromise but, for me, a comfortable one.
For me, photography is a part of my life that I need so I'm not merely surviving; it certainly is "only" a hobby but that doesn't mean that it isn't very important to me.
On a fairly selfish level, it is nice that my friends and family have my work hanging on their walls; food, water, air are survival. Food, water, air, and connections to our loved ones are a life.
Rob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

On the 'need' for a longer base length to focus the faster lenses ... I guess my Ikon falls into this catagory and consequently predominantly wears my 50mm 1.2 Canon for this reason. However I have shot a couple of rolls with my R3A with the Canon and my 90mm Summicron mounted and I'm damnned if I can detect any less consistency in my results compared to the Ikon.

Does this mean I don't 'need' my Ikon or maybe it doesn't become critical until f1. (Noct) in the case of a 50mm or maybe a 75mm Summilux at the shorter distances!

Cheers.

Dear Keith,

I found the R2 to be marginal with the 50/1.5 Nokton at close distances (under 2 metres), i.e. I did find shots that were not as sharp as I had expected and I don't think it was user error. It wasn't a problem most of the time, just often enough to make me suspicious -- and with the longer Summicrons (75 and 90) I found it worse, at longer distances, again only at full aperture. The R3, with the greater magnification, should of course be better.

In other words, my suspicion is that you were lucky -- though it could of course be argued that it was more down to my being sloppy. I don't think so, though, because I used the camera as I usually do.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[noimmunity]

Hadn't expected this question to generate so much heat, but the responses so far are very informative.

One thing they as a whole do confirm is that actually using the equipment is an irreplaceable step in the process of figuring out the proper need/want ratio. I suspect that is precisely where GAS creeps in, unless you are lucky enough to have a good friend with a gear collection like a camera shop who will let you try everything out.

I will say that even though I am a pitiful amateur, I am always coming up against the limits (speed, FL, size, look...any combination of any number of criteria) of my gear (not to mention my technique) in one way or another. My conclusion is that to a very real extent, photography (at least the small iceberg of it I know and have claimed as my own) is exactly the art of choosing one's limits and deploying them in interesting ways. My impression is that the advanced dSLR's nowadays tend to head in the direction of trying to give the photog a miliion ways to overcome any limit, and for that reason probably don't appeal to me so much (although I seriously pine after the high-ISO capability).

Thinking about it in terms of needs vs. wants can be helpful sometimes, but if I think that way too much it blocks the reasons that make photography important to me in the first place. After so much time hacking words, I need some mode of expression that is largely non-verbal. So just like showing is a way to balance (or perhaps subvert) telling, wants can make an important contribution to needs. Or something like that.

I would have never ever thought I would have allowed myself to buy a 75/2 summicron. And when I finally made the decision it was impulsive, becuase otherwise I would have never been able to "reason" myself into doing something so foolishly whimsical. Yet I have to say that it really is exactly the portraits-plus lens I had been looking for.

 

[Ducky]

When words like sensual, tactile, sweet and fondle are used in describing a camera, need and want go out the window. I've been reading and posting here for a while and, with the exception of a few pros, I believe that most of us here fall into the emotional buyers catagory.