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.