why the aura that surrounds the one camera/lens idea?

[giellaleafapmu]

I think it's kind of amusing that people are upset by the idea of learning to use one system really well by using only one system.

I'm not really sure what's not plainly self explanatory here.

I don't think this was the matter discussed, it is not one system, it is one camera and one lens and it is quite simple to understand that, since from time to time cameras and lenses break down, there is also a strong point in bringing at least two cameras and two or three lenses at any photographic session...I'm not really sure what's not plainly self explanatory here!

GLF

 

[sig]

Maybe it is a more 'extreme' form of REAL photographers do not / do....

E.g. Many people here in rff does not use zoom, no af, no auto exposure, program mode etc. One lens one camera is just more real.

Also the TOP article mentioned earlier married the leica mythology with the one lens and made th aura even stronger

 

[airfrogusmc]

I don't think this was the matter discussed, it is not one system, it is one camera and one lens and it is quite simple to understand that, since from time to time cameras and lenses break down, there is also a strong point in bringing at least two cameras and two or three lenses at any photographic session...I'm not really sure what's not plainly self explanatory here!

GLF

Photographing to feed the family (my professional work) and what I photograph for me are usually two very different things. Back up for the back up when doing it for clients. But for me, this is this combo that has been working so well.

And its not due to ignorance because I have shot 8X10 and 4X5 Deadorff's, Horseman's and Calumets, RB, RZ, Mamiya 645, Bronica 645, Hasselblad 500 C/Ms Canon and Nikons Fs Leica M, so many different formats and lenses both for my personal work and my professional work.

I am shooting one camera one lens for my personal work now because it's what fits my vision at this point in time. And I would never try and say what is working for someone else isn't right for them. But this is the world wide web with all kinds of people that tell those that are doing well and have been doing it well that they do it wrong. The beautiful thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. The really bad thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. (LoL)

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Photographing to feed the family (my professional work) and what I photograph for me are usually two very different things. Back up for the back up when doing it for clients. But for me, this is this combo that has been working so well.

And its not due to ignorance because I have shot 8X10 and 4X5 Deadorff's, Horseman's and Calumets, RB, RZ, Mamiya 645, Bronica 645, Hasselblad 500 C/Ms Canon and Nikons Fs Leica M, so many different formats and lenses both for my personal work and my professional work.

I am shooting one camera one lens for my personal work now because it's what fits my vision at this point in time. And I would never try and say what is working for someone else isn't right for them. But this is the world wide web with all kinds of people that tell those that are doing well and have been doing it well that they do it wrong. The beautiful thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. The really bad thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. (LoL)

I was not criticizing any of the possible choices (I have only one camera with me right now and its lens cannot be changed) just it seemed a bit rude to me to read the "I don't see what's not self explanatory" sentence. There are as many reasons to carry one camera as there are to carry many and this is a forum made exactly to discuss these reasons (and the latest gadget of course 😀).

GLF

 

[Stuart John]

Why it is so appealing for so many? Personally, I believe that some people are simply searching for the magic bullet they have read that it will make them a better photographer so they try it out.

Others may adopt the idea to save carrying excess gear maybe they have become tired with the burden of carrying a bag of lenses and bodies. The one body and lens could be their lightweight kit.

Maybe others like the simplicity of one body one lens, they know the body and focal length well and it simply works for them.

There are likely many reasons but really the ones that have adopted the idea would only be able to say why it works for them.

I tried the idea many years ago. I just used a Canonet. I was a cruise ship photographer at the time and I wanted something light to take ashore during my time off. Later I did the same thing again with an EOS1 and a 50mm f1.8. I don't mind the idea but I do feel it is a bit overrated.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I don't mind the idea but I do feel it is a bit overrated.

Exactly. It's basically what I do. But what I can't handle is those who make a fetish of it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Why it is so appealing for so many? Personally, I believe that some people are simply searching for the magic bullet they have read that it will make them a better photographer so they try it out.

Others may adopt the idea to save carrying excess gear maybe they have become tired with the burden of carrying a bag of lenses and bodies. The one body and lens could be their lightweight kit.

Maybe others like the simplicity of one body one lens, they know the body and focal length well and it simply works for them.

There are likely many reasons but really the ones that have adopted the idea would only be able to say why it works for them.

I tried the idea many years ago. I just used a Canonet. I was a cruise ship photographer at the time and I wanted something light to take ashore during my time off. Later I did the same thing again with an EOS1 and a 50mm f1.8. I don't mind the idea but I do feel it is a bit overrated.

Again, for me it has nothing to do with magic bullets. Its totally about what fits with the way I am seeing now so how can following your vision be overrated? Proofs always in the work. Just had a show in April and I feel my personal work is as good as its ever been. Just because something didn't work/doesn't work for you its not valid to me and the way I work? It would be insane for me to try and dismiss whatever it is that works for you so why wouldn't it be just as insane for you to dismiss what is clearly working for me and has worked for many others?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I took "overrated" to mean "too many people fall in love with it for no reason" and (worse still) "too many people sing its praises without presenting any evidence that it has made them even competent photographers, let alone good ones." This is not the same as deprecating its use by any individual photographer.

In other words, the "overrating" is statistical: too many people are persuaded of its virtues on too little evidence -- often, because they're looking for a magic bullet, or for one of the other reasons Stuart John gave.

Coming to "one camera, one lens" naturally is one thing, and even then, I can't see the sense of making a doctrine or fetish of it. Setting out on "one camera, one lens" because you don't understand the point that Chris made -- that you need hard work and practice, whether you use one camera or a dozen -- is another matter. This is why I (and many others) would say that it is grossly oversold.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

Two main reasons why I often stick with OCOL.

Firstly, money. I'm pretty poor, by most peoples standards, and can't afford tons of gear. I tend to carry two cameras, as it happens, with me most days - a digital and a film camera. Most of my cameras are very similar sizes, and two fit neatly into my bag.

Secondly, bag size. I take most of my photos not when I'm going out to take photos, but when I'm doing something else. That may include carrying a baby, walking, cycling, shopping, commuting or whatever, so I'm often carrying a fair degree of stuff in a backpack. I don't have the room to carry (nor the time to use) a couple of bodies and a selection of lenses.

Doesn't matter, though. There was a day last week when I realised that I had six cameras on me, including my phone. And just occasionally, I like being able to take the cameras and kit out for a wander and have the luxury of the time to spend looking at things and maybe even waiting for light.

Different approaches for different times. I'd feel naked without a camera, though, and I can only use one lens at a time.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I took "overrated" to mean "too many people fall in love with it for no reason" and (worse still) "too many people sing its praises without presenting any evidence that it has made them even competent photographers, let alone good ones." This is not the same as deprecating its use by any individual photographer.

In other words, the "overrating" is statistical: too many people are persuaded of its virtues on too little evidence -- often, because they're looking for a magic bullet, or for one of the other reasons Stuart John gave.

Coming to "one camera, one lens" naturally is one thing, and even then, I can't see the sense of making a doctrine or fetish of it. Setting out on "one camera, one lens" because you don't understand the point that Chris made -- that you need hard work and practice, whether you use one camera or a dozen -- is another matter. This is why I (and many others) would say that it is grossly oversold.

Cheers,

R.

And thats fine for you but again this is where I am at now and for anyone to that would make a statement that for me its a fetish would be a pretty arrogant statement. There are many other great photographers that followed a similar path because it fit their way of seeing. Gibson being one of those.

There are always those out there that follow anything for any reason but if their work shows that what they are doing is right for them then it could never be over rated for them. Try it for a while and try everything for a while and see what is working best for you.

This is where I am at after decades of working full time in advertising/commercial and also having success with my personal work and no one can tell me this isn't the right path for me know because I know it is. And to kind of imply that learning to see with a certain F/L isn't hard work to become good at even if it does fit your vision naturally, doesn't understand.

It would be an arrogant statement for me to say whatever was working for you was a fetish or that what you were doing was wrong for you and nobody that serious would follow what you were doing or that they were doing it because they were lazy or fill in the blank whatever it is. If its working for you then its right for you and who I'm I to say its anything but just that. The bottom line is unless you try something for yourself you'll never really know. So keep the mind open., especially when you are starting out. You have the rest of your life to become closed and narrow.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And thats fine for you but again this is where I am at now and for anyone to that would make a statement that for me its a fetish would be a pretty arrogant statement. There are many other great photographers that followed a similar path because it fit their way of seeing. Gibson being one of those.

There are always those out there that follow anything for any reason but if their work shows that what they are doing is right for them then it could never be over rated for them. Try it for a while and try everything for a while and see what is working best for you.

This is where I am at after decades of working full time in advertising/commercial and also having success with my personal work and no one can tell me this isn't the right path for me know because I know it is. And to kind of imply that learning to see with a certain F/L isn't hard work to become good at even if it does fit your vision naturally doesn't understand.

It would be an arrogant statement for me to say whatever was working for you was a fetish or that what you were doing was wrong for you and nobody that serious would follow what you were doing or that they were doing it because they were lazy or fill in the blank whatever it is. If its working for you then its right for you and who I'm I to say its anything but just that. The bottom line is unless you try something for yourself you'll never really know. So keep the mind open., especially when you are starting out. You have the rest of your life to become closed and narrow.

It's a fetish when you can't get the pictures you want because you have arbitrarily restricted yourself to one camera and one lens. This is magical thinking, not rational thinking.

If you can get the pictures you want, it ain't a fetish: it's a rational choice.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

It's a fetish when you can't get the pictures you want because you have arbitrarily restricted yourself to one camera and one lens. This is magical thinking, not rational thinking.

If you can get the pictures you want, it ain't a fetish: it's a rational choice.

No matter who you are and how you approach photography, there are going to be some photos you just can't get...

 

[airfrogusmc]

It's a fetish when you can't get the pictures you want because you have arbitrarily restricted yourself to one camera and one lens. This is magical thinking, not rational thinking.

If you can get the pictures you want, it ain't a fetish: it's a rational choice.

Cheers,

R.

Like I said earlier I don't miss photographs I see different photographs that are appropriate for that F/L. And in my case has taken my work to a different level. For years I was growing horizontally which happens to most when they do something for a long, long time. . I have been growing more vertically the past year than I have in years and what best is my work is showing this.

When I first bought my Blads in the mid 1980s it took me a good six months to start seeing square. I stayed with it and it paid off. Learning to see at a particular F/L is not that much different I have found. It takes time to learn to see this way and its not for everybody and that cool because we all have choices but its just wrong to say what is clearly working for someone is less because its not the way the one criticizing would do it or its not the norm or its not what the statistics show or blah, blah, blah.

Since when is creativity logical or support by statistics. In fact its usually just the opposite of all that. Find what works for you. I would never say whats working for you is wrong because if its working its clearly right for you.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No matter who you are and how you approach photography, there are going to be some photos you just can't get...

Very true. I should perhaps redefine it to say that if you are seeing pictures you could get with another lens, and aren't getting them because of a doctrinaire refusal to use any other lens, it's a fetish.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Very true. I should perhaps redefine it to say that if you are seeing pictures you could get with another lens, and aren't getting them because of a doctrinaire refusal to use any other lens, it's a fetish.

Cheers,

R.

I've learned to see differently just like learning to see square with the Blads. For me it was about expanding my vision so instead of doing the same ole, same ole, it was finding a different way to say it or finding something completely different to say.

But in your posts you seem to have trouble with people that see and have different approaches than you. How sad, because I would never criticize what is working for you because in the end its only the work that matters.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Like I said earlier I don't miss photographs I see different photographs that are appropriate for that F/L. And in my case has taken my work to a different level. For years I was growing horizontally which happens to most when they do something for a long, long time. . I have been growing more vertically the past year than I have in years and what best is my work is showing this.

When I first bought my Blads in the mid 1980s it took me a good six months to start seeing square. I stayed with it and it paid off. Learning to see at a particular F/L is not that much different I have found. It takes time to learn to see this way and its not for everybody and that cool because we all have choices but its just wrong to say what is clearly working for someone is less because its not the way the one criticizing would do it or its not the norm or its not what the statistics show or blah, blah, blah.

Since when is creativity logical or support by statistics. In fact its usually just the opposite of all that. Find what works for you. I would never say whats working for you is wrong because if its working its clearly right for you.

You are still missing my point. I am not saying it's a bad idea for you. I'm just saying it's a bad idea (and stupid, and woolly thinking) to adopt ANY approach, be it one lens/one camera, LF, MF, camera phone, unless you accept that no matter what you choose, it's still going to be hard work. And it's downright irresponsible to advocate one camera/one lens for other people as a general, desirable principle, especially for a fixed, long period of time rather than as an option that they may care to try.

Yes, it works for some people. As I say, it's pretty much what I do. Used to be a 35mm; now is 50mm. But this is NOT a doctrinaire decision or a prescription: it's just what works. And sometimes, too, for different kinds of pictures I will use a different lens: long focus for mountain landscapes, for example.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've learned to see differently just like learning to see square with the Blads. For me it was about expanding my vision so instead of doing the same ole, same ole, it was finding a different way to say it or finding something completely different to say.

But in your posts you seem to have trouble with people that see and have different approaches than you. How sad, because I would never criticize what is working for you because in the end its only the work that matters.

Please do not call me sad, especially when you do not understand what I am saying. Yes, I understand perfectly well that different people see in different ways. You are reading what you think I am saying, rather than what I am saying. Read my post above.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Very true. I should perhaps redefine it to say that if you are seeing pictures you could get with another lens, and aren't getting them because of a doctrinaire refusal to use any other lens, it's a fetish.

Cheers,

R.

Oh, I see... my fetishes don't involve photography. 😱 I see photos I could have gotten all the time if I had a different lens with me... but I also see a lot of them I can make with what I have. 🙂 I'm the type that doesn't stress about missed opportunities when I'm without a camera though too...

 

[airfrogusmc]

You are still missing my point. I am not saying it's a bad idea for you. I'm just saying it's a bad idea (and stupid, and woolly thinking) to adopt ANY approach, be it one lens/one camera, LF, MF, camera phone, unless you accept that no matter what you choose, it's still going to be hard work. And it's downright irresponsible to advocate one camera/one lens for other people as a general, desirable principle, especially for a fixed, long period of time rather than as an option that they may care to try.

Yes, it works for some people. As I say, it's pretty much what I do. Used to be a 35mm; now is 50mm. But this is NOT a doctrinaire decision or a prescription: it's just what works. And sometimes, too, for different kinds of pictures I will use a different lens: long focus for mountain landscapes, for example.

Cheers,

R.

What I'm saying is ya never know until you try something and I said earlier that this was where I was at this point in time. Its not foolish, a doctrine or stupid if it works. I would argue that adopting an approach can help one discover a style because with some it can help develop a personal way of seeing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh, I see... my fetishes don't involve photography. 😱 I see photos I could have gotten all the time if I had a different lens with me... but I also see a lot of them I can make with what I have. 🙂 I'm the type that doesn't stress about missed opportunities when I'm without a camera though too...

The key words are DOCTRINAIRE REFUSAL.

Cheers,

R.