your images vs your gear...a poll

your images vs your gear...a poll

  • huh?

    Votes: 42 25.9%

  • images = gear

    Votes: 7 4.3%

  • images < gear

    Votes: 35 21.6%

  • images > gear

    Votes: 78 48.1%
  • Total voters
    162
  • Poll closed .
back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
12:47 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
so, you have a boatload of lenses and a few bodies all tucked away in a harem of camera bags...

you worry about aberrations, coma, distortion...

lens weight and size are always considered before making a purchase and bokeh keeps you awake at night...

upgrading your 'glass' is a constant thought and your wife wonders if there is another woman...

so, tell me, do your images make up for all this cost and concern?

or do they pale against the glint of glass and brass?
 
Ok. Let's do some math. We have to fill the variables in this calculation.

3 bodies. 6 lenses. So gear is 9
Around 900 images so far this year.

900 > 9

:)
 
Perhaps the THOUGHT of LESS GEAR
brings Out the 'POET' in YOU....:D



back alley said:
so, you have a boatload of lenses and a few bodies all tucked away in a harem of camera bags...

you worry about aberrations, coma, distortion...

lens weight and size are always considered before making a purchase and bokeh keeps you awake at night...

upgrading your 'glass' is a constant thought and your wife wonders if there is another woman...

so, tell me, do your images make up for all this cost and concern?

or do they pale against the glint of glass and brass?
Click to expand...
 
Had to vote huh, cause I do not relate to the syndrome you describe. I never even think about bokey at night!
 
I'm one of those delusional less gear=better images blokes (sorry Bill). Not sure how that fits into the poll but hey, represent!
 
I only have two lenses that I really studied up on before buying...
1. Bausch & Lomb Tessar 190mm (Large Format)
2. Takumar 50mm 1.4

The others...I have found their strong points by using them...
I don't lose sleep worrying about what I have or don't have...(not any more)
My images are getting better as I continue shooting and that's good enough for me...
 
I think my gear is prettier/more impressive than my shots... but I can live with that, as long as others think I'm pretty good with a camera. :)
 
OK let me think here for a second, each of my better images is worth about a nickle and the last two lens I purchased cost $200, that's $200 total not each for a 65mm and 150mm for my Bronica SQ. So that means I'm about $195.95 short of getting my money's worth out of those two lens.
 
emraphoto said:
I'm one of those delusional less gear=better images blokes (sorry Bill). Not sure how that fits into the poll but hey, represent!
Click to expand...

Not me. I can see an image in my mind and I know what lens I want to use, and it upsets me if I don't have the right thing for the job (and for commercial work it basically makes the client go bye-bye!). I have a lot of gear I rarely use, but when I need it, its there. I personally don't get the guys constantly obsessing over having too much stuff and thinking they have to sell one thing to get another (I'm not talking about those who cannot afford to buy something so they sell a rarely used item, I mean guys who don't care about money, they just get upset about HAVING too much equipment).
 
As Picasso so wisely said, “Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention.”
 
Why does Eric Clapton have more than one guitar on stage if he sounds great with any of them?

Because they're his tools. He uses them for different things.. Even if with just one of them he could do most of his songs in public and keep everybody happy... But he prefers to get all he knows he can get, instead of getting a bit less and having a simpler set...

It makes more sense to me owning and carrying several cameras and lenses.

The perfect camera for everything doesn't exist. Personally I've found I can get more and better photographs (both) with more than one body and one lens.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I guess i'm more of a collecter than photographer so I suppose I'd even belong to the "images << gear" category. There might be nice lenses in my collection that I have never used for "real" photography.
 
so, you guys know that i'm not talking about the amount of gear versus the amount of fine images here, eh?

it's more about the quality of each...like owning a 25k leica s2 and shooting pics of your cat...

some obsess over gear's little idiosyncrasies and all their pics are fuzzy or dull...
 
Dave Jenkins said:
As Picasso so wisely said, “Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention.”
Click to expand...

But he owned and used lots of different brushes and paintings apart from different kinds materials and even creating in several different arts... All that didn't kill his invention...

The problem isn't owning gear, but getting bad or empty shots from what you use... Having lots of gear doesn't mean great images. Less gear either.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Picasso owned a lot of brushes but he was Picasso. He could make better art than me if he had a rock and stick and I had all the equipment in the world

I compensate for lack of talent and vision with more equipment.
And I still take woeful photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom