Bill Pierce
Well-known
Photographers love their cameras. They are hardly the only group to love their tools, but love can blind you to the limitations of the object of your affections. Should we be taking a more heartless approach and have multiple cameras? I say yes even though In terms of this analogy, we know what this makes us.
It’s sad, but true, multiple cameras are often the only answer. The little camera that can always be with you isn’t so good with sports, concerts and wild animals. (Nor is the big camera with the motor and long lenses a great pleasure to hang around your neck.) The rangefinder isn’t so good with long lenses, macro work or accurate in camera framing. But the TTL finder isn’t very good when you need to see what is outside of the frame or in some very bright exteriors. Some cameras have image stabilization; other don’t. And we haven’t even touched on the ability to do moving images.
But, as you acquire multiple cameras for multiple purposes, you also acquire cameras whose buttons and controls are in a different physical position. With some of them you may not have the long term familiarity that lets you operate those buttons and dials without thinking. In other words, you may be paying attention to your camera rather than the subject.
I wonder how folks deal with this. I don’t think my answer is the wise one, just the working stiff one. In addition to my basic rig I have two specialty rigs. One is a minimal street and travel rig. The other is a stabilized high speed zoom lens rig for theatre (and the local wildlife). Both systems could do other work and some day they may. But for now their menus, buttons and dials never change. By limiting their use, I can use them without thinking.
Is the answer to know one system well, operate it instinctively and accept its limitations? Or is it to have a variety of gear and be a little bit inept at times? (Or is it that having to think about how your equipment works is not always a bad thing?) The answer is obviously different for different people. If you could tell me what you do and, WHY you do it, there might be some wise advice I would benefit from. Who knows, maybe you could lead us all out of the darkness.
It’s sad, but true, multiple cameras are often the only answer. The little camera that can always be with you isn’t so good with sports, concerts and wild animals. (Nor is the big camera with the motor and long lenses a great pleasure to hang around your neck.) The rangefinder isn’t so good with long lenses, macro work or accurate in camera framing. But the TTL finder isn’t very good when you need to see what is outside of the frame or in some very bright exteriors. Some cameras have image stabilization; other don’t. And we haven’t even touched on the ability to do moving images.
But, as you acquire multiple cameras for multiple purposes, you also acquire cameras whose buttons and controls are in a different physical position. With some of them you may not have the long term familiarity that lets you operate those buttons and dials without thinking. In other words, you may be paying attention to your camera rather than the subject.
I wonder how folks deal with this. I don’t think my answer is the wise one, just the working stiff one. In addition to my basic rig I have two specialty rigs. One is a minimal street and travel rig. The other is a stabilized high speed zoom lens rig for theatre (and the local wildlife). Both systems could do other work and some day they may. But for now their menus, buttons and dials never change. By limiting their use, I can use them without thinking.
Is the answer to know one system well, operate it instinctively and accept its limitations? Or is it to have a variety of gear and be a little bit inept at times? (Or is it that having to think about how your equipment works is not always a bad thing?) The answer is obviously different for different people. If you could tell me what you do and, WHY you do it, there might be some wise advice I would benefit from. Who knows, maybe you could lead us all out of the darkness.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
That's a good question Bill. I used to go with one system...or a mixed system (the old M with a 35 / Nikon with a 105). Nowadays I choose the camera for the situation or the outcome i want. Big print? I take the 4x5. Paris? The Leica. General travel to Europe (I'm not lugging a view camera kit)..... lately the smallest medium format with the biggest negative....the skinny Plaubel Makina; its small packed size overcomes the funny balance. If there was a mechanical (new) Mamiya 6... I'd be in camera heaven with a 50 & 75.
Without exception, i prefer printing from the biggest negative possible, so medium format is a best compromise for me. If I had to trim down to just one camera and lens...personally, i'd have to choose my Rolleiflex T. But I'm comfortable changing cameras and dealing with the strenghts/weaknesses issues.
Without exception, i prefer printing from the biggest negative possible, so medium format is a best compromise for me. If I had to trim down to just one camera and lens...personally, i'd have to choose my Rolleiflex T. But I'm comfortable changing cameras and dealing with the strenghts/weaknesses issues.
Dogman
Veteran
My multiple cameras are only of two brands but different models of each brand--Nikon and Fuji. There is one outlier, a Ricoh GRII.
This simplifies things when using. All the Nikons are DSLRs and all the Fujis are XPro or X100 models so operation only varies between the two brands. I admit I have to think about the GR when I pick it up to use it.
Why have so many cameras? I like redundancy.
This simplifies things when using. All the Nikons are DSLRs and all the Fujis are XPro or X100 models so operation only varies between the two brands. I admit I have to think about the GR when I pick it up to use it.
Why have so many cameras? I like redundancy.
shimokita
白黒
In the early days of personal computers (think 1980s) it was common for small or medium sized business here in Japan to set up different PCs for different applications rather than multi-tasking. Word processing vs. business applications vs. communication, etc... of course shared rather than one PC per person. The telephone was shared between multiple individuals as well...
In a similar way I tend to choose the kit that matches the task... product, macro, street, landscape, etc. Like wise implement Camera User Settings (i.e. C1, C2, C3) for different situations. Reduce the menu work to a minimum...
In a similar way I tend to choose the kit that matches the task... product, macro, street, landscape, etc. Like wise implement Camera User Settings (i.e. C1, C2, C3) for different situations. Reduce the menu work to a minimum...
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Hey Bill, I'm set up kind of like you mention. My work cameras, which are all getting long in the tooth, were set up a number of years ago for fast tracking of subjects in low light, mostly for high school sports and fast moving events. I'm not really sure what all the setting are anymore (but I do have a long list on paper of how each camera was set-up).
My other cameras are either completely manual film cameras (think 1950's thru 1970's) which I enjoy using, or a couple digital rangefinders (mostly manual) and one Nikon mirrorless (which I have set up for aperture priority and use with Nikkor legacy primes).
About four or five years ago I got so frustrated with trying to change the settings back and forth on the digital cameras that I finally quit and just set them up as Peter Read Miller taught. Simpler that way.
Best,
-Tim
My other cameras are either completely manual film cameras (think 1950's thru 1970's) which I enjoy using, or a couple digital rangefinders (mostly manual) and one Nikon mirrorless (which I have set up for aperture priority and use with Nikkor legacy primes).
About four or five years ago I got so frustrated with trying to change the settings back and forth on the digital cameras that I finally quit and just set them up as Peter Read Miller taught. Simpler that way.
Best,
-Tim
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Don't Panic. The answer is 42.
As for the camera answer, tool for the job, I think.
Phil Forrest
As for the camera answer, tool for the job, I think.
Phil Forrest
peterm1
Veteran
I hate selling favored kit as I inevitably regret it later. So unless I need to sell to finance a new purchase I tend to keep the old kit as well (I do not buy and sell cameras all that often so by the time it comes to sell, it is often so old it is not worth very much). This produces the dilemma you mention. To be truthful it does tend to limit my ability to use any camera in an assured manner since as you say they tend to differ in the matter of their firmware, not to mention capabilities.
I do think that in general it makes sense to stick to one camera or at least one system. But life is too short. :^)
I do think that in general it makes sense to stick to one camera or at least one system. But life is too short. :^)
al1966
Feed Your Head
I quite often pick up the camera and lens combo that I feel like using that day. There are points where camera choice is down to what is being done, a point and shoot when going shopping say.
I'm a digital camera user and I've come to find I really like a dedicated and clearly labelled shutter speed dial on the top of my camera. I also like APSC or larger sensors. I generally like AF lenses to be small and between 35-85mm (35mm equivalent). I like RF shaped bodies. With that in mind, there is really only Fujifilm to choose from... and I only use Fujifilm. I might get a Leica Q and/or a Fujifilm GFX-50R in the future. They will be perfectly familiar if I do.
charjohncarter
Veteran
As above I'm not like above: a very dedicated digital user. In fact I have never used a digital lenses on any of my digital cameras. Presently, I have a digital Pentax K1 and a older K-01. Neither have ever had a D lens on them. So besides that I have many SLRs that are old school. So many lenses that thankfully cross over to digital cameras, if I choose to use them, which I don't very much. So to answer your query: 35mm one system. But 120 I like to have many cameras of different makes.
I still mess around with my LTM cameras and lenses but that is a nostalgic endeavor or as Captain Cook would spell it: Endeavour.
I still mess around with my LTM cameras and lenses but that is a nostalgic endeavor or as Captain Cook would spell it: Endeavour.
John Bragg
Well-known
Definitely horses for courses here Bill. My Nikon F5 and F100 are set up as near identically as I can, but they still feel different in use. F100 for holiday travel and portraits. F5 for outdoor use and location portraits. My Zen cameras (when I want to get into the groove and just let things happen) are my pair of OM1n bodies with mainly prime lenses, but of late, I have added a couple of zooms.
shorelineae
Finder of ranges
Yesterday I went for a walk with a M5+50mm+Ilford FP4 expecting to see people in the street because it was the day before Eid-Ul-Adha and I live near the animal market. That's my usual discreet street photography setup.
Well, it went well until I followed some people into the very crowded animal market. The 50mm became too narrow to take pictures of people at close quarters. By the time I returned with a Hexar AF it was night, so I loaded it with Delta 3200 but the crowds had thinned out by then. Still, I think I got some good shots on both cameras...
Well, it went well until I followed some people into the very crowded animal market. The 50mm became too narrow to take pictures of people at close quarters. By the time I returned with a Hexar AF it was night, so I loaded it with Delta 3200 but the crowds had thinned out by then. Still, I think I got some good shots on both cameras...
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Perhaps, you should make a distinction. As an amateur photographer, there is no science to it. For many years, I have experienced total freedom in using whatever camera -analogue or digital, or lens I want, whenever and wherever. For those who make a living selling their photographs, it may be another matter. Cheers, OtL
Archiver
Veteran
I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this, apart from reducing gear to the minimum necessary, and dedicating the time to becoming proficient in its use. For the past seven or eight years, I've been shooting with Panasonic GH cameras for video, and a mix of Leica M and Panasonic m43 for stills. In the last couple of years, I've gone back to my 5D Mark II and 30D for stills, and I'm still finding the Canon system clunky. Not because it IS clunky per se, but because I'm so out of practice and I don't use them enough to regain proficiency.
Another option is to get a system that covers as many bases as possible in a modular fashion. A fairly small full frame mirrorless like the Sony A7, or an aps-c system like Fuji XT, has enough lens choice and image quality to suit most situations. If you need a walkaround camera, use a small prime. For more versatility, a 24-70 equivalent lens. For long reach, use telephoto and t-con, etc.
The m43 system has enough image quality for a lot of applications, and the lenses are much smaller than their full frame and even aps-c equivalents. Gear choice also depends on what image quality is sufficient. I'm looking at Edmund Terakopian's journalistic work, and he currently uses a kit of Panasonic S1 and G9 with appropriate lenses. It's a great kit if it's what brings home the bacon.
Another option is to get a system that covers as many bases as possible in a modular fashion. A fairly small full frame mirrorless like the Sony A7, or an aps-c system like Fuji XT, has enough lens choice and image quality to suit most situations. If you need a walkaround camera, use a small prime. For more versatility, a 24-70 equivalent lens. For long reach, use telephoto and t-con, etc.
The m43 system has enough image quality for a lot of applications, and the lenses are much smaller than their full frame and even aps-c equivalents. Gear choice also depends on what image quality is sufficient. I'm looking at Edmund Terakopian's journalistic work, and he currently uses a kit of Panasonic S1 and G9 with appropriate lenses. It's a great kit if it's what brings home the bacon.
narsuitus
Well-known
Different camera systems is the answer for me.
When I need maximum image quality, I rely on a 4x5 inch large format view camera with all its front and back shift, tilt, and swing features.
I use two medium format systems. The RB67 SLR with lenses from 50mm to 250mm for studio work and Fuji 6x7 and 6x9cm rangefinders for field work.
When I need a very flexible and very comprehensive photographic system, I rely on a Nikon 35mm SLR with a variety of view finders, view screens, film backs, accessories, and lenses that range from 14mm to 1000mm.
When I need digital, I use Fuji dSLRs that can use all my Nikon F-mount lenses and I use a Fuji mirrorless system that can use adapters to accept all my Nikon F-mount lenses. Plus, I have Fuji X-mount lenses that range from 8mm to 140mm.
When I need maximum image quality, I rely on a 4x5 inch large format view camera with all its front and back shift, tilt, and swing features.
I use two medium format systems. The RB67 SLR with lenses from 50mm to 250mm for studio work and Fuji 6x7 and 6x9cm rangefinders for field work.
When I need a very flexible and very comprehensive photographic system, I rely on a Nikon 35mm SLR with a variety of view finders, view screens, film backs, accessories, and lenses that range from 14mm to 1000mm.
When I need digital, I use Fuji dSLRs that can use all my Nikon F-mount lenses and I use a Fuji mirrorless system that can use adapters to accept all my Nikon F-mount lenses. Plus, I have Fuji X-mount lenses that range from 8mm to 140mm.