Why so many cameras?

[furbs]

While looking at my Flickr page, I noticed that my ten most "popular" photos were taken with six different cameras - digital and film Nikons, A Mamiya 7, Leica M4, even a cameraphone. In the beginning I never thought I would use as many cameras as I've used. What happened?

I've never felt like a gearhead. I recently sold off a few cameras and don't miss them. So why haven't I stuck to just one camera? Don't most people only own and use one camera?

Limitations have helped my photography, but now I believe that the experience of using different cameras gives me creative variety that I didn't have when only using one. A Rolleiflex, film M and cameraphone simply do not make the same sort of photos. In some ways I feel like using different cameras is almost a crutch, and that I could make plenty of fine photos with a single camera. It is also sometimes hard to justify the monetary investment. But I'm starting to see my photography as the happy marriage of vision and equipment, and limiting myself to only one camera would compromise my vision.

Why do you have many cameras, or only one camera? Are all the cameras really worth it? Do you want to go back to using only one?

 

[Scrambler]

I'm essentially a cheapskate gearhead, so most of mine were "its pretty cheap, I'll try it out." I.e. GAS with "justification." But like you say, there are significant differences in what sort of photos you take with different cameras. That said, I'm seriously considering retiring my film SLR - rarely use it and it does nothing I can't get elsewhere (borrow my wifes dSLR). I've sent my FED-2 on a tour for the next year or so, because I don't use it and it might as well do some good. I like having some "classic" cameras but they are a nuisance to use regularly - it's a particular "vision" if you like of HOW the photo gets taken which I enjoy, but not all the time. LOVE the classic LTM lenses though. My user cameras are now a Minolta CLE and Hexar RF - and nether of those is entirely to be trusted, so I'm told. So "justified" to have both. I do think its horses for courses. I too have an underwater camera (but fairly basic digital); MF is quite different, esp with 1930-1950's gear; and even SLR/ RF leads to different photography. One nice thing about hanging out on a forum with Leica-using gear-heads: I never feel that I've spent "silly" money on a camera or lens! "At least I didn't get the Leica M Monochrom" can justify a lot of other purchases.

 

[Spanik]

What you seem to have discovered is that each camera is unique and has its own strong and weak points. You could say that each camera is another set of limitations that forces you to be creative in another way. Limiting yourself to a single camera is limiting your creativity. Or at least not discovering possibilities.

I don't understand that whole "owning a single camera" thing. What I do have found is that I take better photos and more of them if I take only one camera at a time with me. Or at least dedicate them to very specific roles.

Now if they are worth it is another question. Maybe not but it is a lot of fun and that is something worth as well.

 

[35mmdelux]

Shooting with Leicas for many years has been rewarding in terms of quality of images captured. By analogy, would you prefer to play every instrument in an orchestra or get really good at one?

 

[Roger Hicks]

What you seem to have discovered is that each camera is unique and has its own strong and weak points. You could say that each camera is another set of limitations that forces you to be creative in another way. . . .

Or you could say that it doesn't really matter very much which camera you use. I own literally dozens of cameras, but the vast majority of my pictures (and therefore the vast majority of the good ones) are taken with just one. That's not the result of any "one camera, one lens" fantasy: it's just what works for me. And I'm glad to have to other cameras for when I feel like using something else.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jwicaksana]

I'm essentially a cheapskate gearhead, so most of mine were "its pretty cheap, I'll try it out." I.e. GAS with "justification." ...

Pretty much summed it up for me. I never get around to building a system but I'm trying to, on my Nikons. Shiny metal bodies with a simple 50 or 35 is usually too hard to resist for me. :bang:

 

[Rodchenko]

Funnily enough, a thread on another forum (non-photographic) has prompted me to count up.

I've had 33 cameras I no longer own (including a couple currently up for sale). They've been sold, given away or stolen. I have eleven I wish to keep, and three I have bought as a curiosity, which I will have some fun with, then sell on.

Of the eleven, I have one digital, one medium format folder, one autofocus 35mm compact, one APS compact, one SLR, a Trip, and the rest are 35mm rangefinders (all Olympus except the Super Paxette).

While the rangefinders have similar purposes, they shoot in different ways. I tend to see the same things whatever camera I have, and have produced the same photo at different times with different cameras. But each lends itself to slightly varying approaches, and I'm happy to continue to explore that.

If I were to be limited to one film camera and one digital, I'd have my m43 and a 35SP, and I'd be happy.

 

[FrankS]

A mechanic uses many different wrenches and screwdrivers.
A carpenter uses more than one hammer.
A cabinetmaker uses many saws.
A painter uses lots of different brushes.
A photographer ...

 

[jcb4718]

I can understand why you ask. You don't mean to end up with lots of cameras. Each purchase is perfectly logical at the time but somehow after a while you end up with more cameras than you can use! In my case there is a kind of logical progression to the purchases: I bought leaf shutter rangefinder for silent operation at weddings etc. Then I noticed that the wind on lever ratchets so I get one with a non-ratcheting lever. Then I notice that the viewfinder magnification is 0.7 vs. 0.95 for my SLR so I get interested versions with 1:1 viewfinders...and so on. It's not helped by the fact that old cameras are pretty cheap these days and if you get it serviced, it's hardly worth selling it. The benefit of a service is rarely reflected in the market price.

 

[doolittle]

I have decided to limit my cameras to match my two main lens systems (Nikon F mount and Leica M/ltm) and limiting myself within those groups to cameras and lenses I will actually use, rather than think would be nice to own. If it doesn't fit into one of those camps I am refraining from purchasing anything else.

I am also keeping a few fixed lens specials (e.g. Olympus XA, Polaroid SX70), as they get used and offer something unique. For the same reasons, but cheating slightly I am also keeping one XPan Camera and 45mm lens. I have however put the other XPan and 30mm lens up for sale.

The desire to travel light (or need to travel light - as in airline carry on allowances) is part of my rationale. That and concentrating my resources on the lenses that I desire and not ending up with overlapping camera systems.

 

[Rodchenko]

I'm imposing a rule: Olympus or German.

OK, it's a rule with a lot of wriggle room (particularly wrt Leica or Pen ranges, which I've not even started to collect), but it's a start.

 

[Photog9000]

Agreed!

Agreed!

Shooting with Leicas for many years has been rewarding in terms of quality of images captured. By analogy, would you prefer to play every instrument in an orchestra or get really good at one?

I have shot with one model of camera at a time until recently. As I entered retirement, I no longer had any need for my pair of Nikon D2H bodies that I had owned for a decade while shooting for a small newspaper. They were like an extension of my hand and mind. I had them so long that I knew without thinking how they would react in a particular situation. But now I wanted lighter weight, did not need the fantastic AF and AF tracking capabilities or 8fps so I sold most all of my Nikon gear in favor of a pair of Fujis - an X100S and X-E1 w/35mm f1.4. Now I hope to spend the next decade learning the nuances of these cameras!:bang:

 

[jsrockit]

Shooting with Leicas for many years has been rewarding in terms of quality of images captured. By analogy, would you prefer to play every instrument in an orchestra or get really good at one?

Huh? Camera all have the same controls (most anyway) ... instruments are completely different from one another.

 

[furcafe]

Why not?

Why not?

Not on the RFF! 😛

For me, cameras are just toys, so why would I limit myself to just one (assuming that more basic needs like food & shelter have already been met)? Yes, they are functional &/or creative tools, too, but they are primarily toys since the bulk of my photography is for personal enjoyment.

To quote William Eggleston, "I don’t think about what camera I should use that much. I just pick up the one that looks nicest on the day." (Related: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578481214024861412.html ).

Don't most people only own and use one camera?

 

[Spanik]

Shooting with Leicas for many years has been rewarding in terms of quality of images captured. By analogy, would you prefer to play every instrument in an orchestra or get really good at one?

Bit flawed analogy because it is the same with instruments as with cameras. I play organ and it isn't a problem playing pipe, electronic, tracker, electro-pneumatic or others. But each of those let you do different things with the music. And they are not all suited for all styles, music and periods. Likewise give a violonist a Stardivarius, an ordinary fiddle or an electric one and he will play just as good on any of them (or at least can become it with a minimum of practise). But he will do different things with them.

 

[jsrockit]

I would think that anyone who considers themselves serious about photography owns more than one camera...even if they only use one. Consumers often have only one camera.

 

[oftheherd]

I have more cameras than I can use. There was a time when I had my Fujica ST 901 with several lenses, a Welti that had belonged to my father but I no longer used, and a medium format, first a Yashica MAT 124G, then a Mamiya Super Press 23 with 100mm f/3.5 lens. I was pretty happy with that.

In the last 10 years or so, I have obtained a lot of different cameras, because I wanted one and could afford it, or because it would be different, like folding 6x6 and folding 9x12. I like what they both offer, but I have more of them than I can possible use. I also have an assortment of 35mm RF, including a Kiev kit, several older Yashica SLR, an XA, a Perfekta, and what not.

What I have found is that I don't seem to use any as much as I used to. Part of that is a house fire that destroyed several cameras I owned then, as well as my enlarger, but worse, damaged some 8 - 10 thousand slides. Somehow, that bothered me a lot. Family life and a desire for education took time away as well. But I think the exercise of having to choose a camera, when sometimes I have no idea what or if, I will photograph, puts more stress on my photography than needs be.

Even as I say that, it sounds silly. But that's how it seems to work out for me. I keep saying I am going to get rid of some, and I have given some away, and will some more. But I really need to sell of some things as well. I really think when I had less systems I was better off.

I would like to only have by Fujica, Contax, Kiev, and Super Press 23 systems, with just a few 6x6 and 9x12 folders. Just those that I consider useful or very unusual, like the Mamiya Six, or the Welta Perfekta, or a couple of RF 9x12.

Some day.

 

[Spicy]

He who dies with the most toys wins.

 

[KoNickon]

At first I thought my wife had started this thread....

 

[Sparrow]

A mechanic uses many different wrenches and screwdrivers.
A carpenter uses more than one hammer.
A cabinetmaker uses many saws.
A painter uses lots of different brushes.
A photographer ...

... uses a M2 with a rigid summicron?