back alley
IMAGES
rbsinto
Well-known
I do have a lot of gear, amassed over the last 33 years, but I never give the other things mentioned a second thought. I'm too busy taking photos to worry about such nonsense.
And yes, I have taken some very nice images, based on both what others have told me as well as in my own estimation. So I guess I'd say I'm getting my moneys worth.
barnwulf
Well-known
I voted for Images, but if listed here all of the cameras and lenses that I have purchased over the last year and a half, no one would believe me. I have been a photographer for a lot of years but I just started shooting with rangefinder cameras not quite two years ago. I always like to have at least 2 bodies because I like to use standard film like Tri-X and I like to have a fine grain film. I also like to have several lenses even though I usually only work with one or two. It’s been a revelation for me and I love it but, I have to say I don’t worship cameras or lenses and I think almost all the time about my images. I like having excellent tools to work with and I have them. I don’t plan to buy anything for quite awhile and I think I can stick to it but, don’t hold a gun to my head. It’s really dangerous to look at Stephen Gandy’s website.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I have to accept that I am now collecting inexpensive rangefinders. I enjoy using them and some have different roles for me, but in the end, I don't need both an Olympus 35RD and Canonet 17 GIII for example.
I do appreciate the ability to pick different gear based on the situation - and I take different shots with them. I use the SQ-A for series, more studio like work. The F4s is an all around 'I'm shooting right now' camera. I use the FG is an aperture priority street camera. The TLRs and rangefinders are primary/compact carry anywhere cameras. The smaller rangefinders are also snapshot cameras. I use the Lynx as a low light camera.
Now, could I cut back on gear? Absolutely. I could consolidate several of these items down to an R3A and a couple lenses. At the same time, the 5 cameras I use to replace it only cost me about $120 in total relative to the several thousand a nice kit would cost.
As someone who shot only SLRs until this year, I'm having a great time exploring other types of cameras, variations, etc, seeing what I can do with them, when they make sense to use, etc.
And aside from a little bit of late generation fixed lens rangefinder collecting, everything else serves a role or I don't hold on to it.
I do appreciate the ability to pick different gear based on the situation - and I take different shots with them. I use the SQ-A for series, more studio like work. The F4s is an all around 'I'm shooting right now' camera. I use the FG is an aperture priority street camera. The TLRs and rangefinders are primary/compact carry anywhere cameras. The smaller rangefinders are also snapshot cameras. I use the Lynx as a low light camera.
Now, could I cut back on gear? Absolutely. I could consolidate several of these items down to an R3A and a couple lenses. At the same time, the 5 cameras I use to replace it only cost me about $120 in total relative to the several thousand a nice kit would cost.
As someone who shot only SLRs until this year, I'm having a great time exploring other types of cameras, variations, etc, seeing what I can do with them, when they make sense to use, etc.
And aside from a little bit of late generation fixed lens rangefinder collecting, everything else serves a role or I don't hold on to it.
paulfish4570
Veteran
All of my cameras and lens put together might be worth as much as one good Elmar 50/2.8. I like to think my photos are much better than my gear ... 
Lovely work.
Cutly
Established
thank you !
And I just bought a contax G1..
And I just bought a contax G1..
parsec1
parsec1
" Get it on the front page ..BIG ! ", Sir John Junor ,no longer with us, Editor of 'The Sunday Express ' to the chief sub about one of my pictures of a female singer of the 'Squadronaires' W11 band showing her stocking tops whilst climbing up the crew ladder of a B17 ( US 8th Airforce UK ) on VE day 1986,"And I don't care what lens he took it with !".
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I have plenty of gear. I have a Leica. I have a Yashica Minister D. Is there a relation between the better gear to an better image? no. Is the a relation of the lesser gear to a lesser image? no. As long as the gear is able to take a reasonably good photo, you can do just fine. So I guess I'll go back to the poll and vote "Huh?" since there is no selection for "no effect" - If you can't take a decent photo, better gear will not help you. If you can take a decent photo, lesser gear will not hinder you. Can a poet write a better poem with a $300 fountain pen than he can with a #2 pencil?
That said, I STILL love switching gear, buying new lenses, trying out different cameras.
That said, I STILL love switching gear, buying new lenses, trying out different cameras.
parsec1
parsec1
andredossantos
Well-known
Me three. Right now I have a Rolleiflex and a FF DLSR with a 50mm lens.
Sure, Id like more lenses but I cant afford to buy anything more at this time. Im sure Im missing photos but Im happy and making due just fine (obv. im not a pro).
froyd
Veteran
My photographs have never been in a contest or sold, so it's hard to assign a value to them. Of course, many of them are priceless to me, either because of the subject, or the artistic merit I see in them.
So...images > gear
On the other hand, having owned professional level equipment, I can't say I have always produced professional level images. Nor that I have pushed each camera and lens to their limits. If anything I found that in a few occasions an otherwise so-so shot turned out to be much better than that because of the technical attributes of the lens and the camera.
So...gear > images
End result...HUH?
So...images > gear
On the other hand, having owned professional level equipment, I can't say I have always produced professional level images. Nor that I have pushed each camera and lens to their limits. If anything I found that in a few occasions an otherwise so-so shot turned out to be much better than that because of the technical attributes of the lens and the camera.
So...gear > images
End result...HUH?
chrismoret
RF-addict
it's contagious
it's contagious
Afther I was bitten by the Leica-bug and that turned out to be a RF-bug, now my girlfriend has symptoms of a comparable virus. She suddenly bought an old Rolleiflex on E-bay. So the number of camera's is silently growing overhere.
But to be honest, I think it's great!!
But the images/gear ratio is still the right one; images>gear. (50:1)
it's contagious
Afther I was bitten by the Leica-bug and that turned out to be a RF-bug, now my girlfriend has symptoms of a comparable virus. She suddenly bought an old Rolleiflex on E-bay. So the number of camera's is silently growing overhere.
But to be honest, I think it's great!!
But the images/gear ratio is still the right one; images>gear. (50:1)
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Why oh why do all my girlfriends like fiber, paint, glass - anything by photography? I feel ripped off!
Actually Chris, that's cool that your GF is also into old cams. Hopefully y'all can share.
Actually Chris, that's cool that your GF is also into old cams. Hopefully y'all can share.
parsec1
parsec1
"I have a space on the wall for that .
Can I have a file, I'll pay for the print."
" I'm going to get it framed.
I'm going to put it there. "
"What do you think ?."
mmm doesn't look bad does it ?
"No I think its lovely.
Suppers Ready....shall we eat."
Yes Please.
Can I have a file, I'll pay for the print."
" I'm going to get it framed.
I'm going to put it there. "
"What do you think ?."
mmm doesn't look bad does it ?
"No I think its lovely.
Suppers Ready....shall we eat."
Yes Please.
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Well, if assigning a value of photo on gallery display or sold, then my latest proves gear-value has nothing to do with photograph sold. A 40 year old portrait I took with my first camera, aYashica Minister D, just sold at our local Art League Gallery. It was the second photograph I ever sold. The previous sale was a photo taken with my Bessa R and a Jupiter 8. My Leica? No, not yet. (fingers crossed for more sales)
Of the 9 photos that juried into photo competitions, none of the cameras used were modern, digital, or cost me more than $250.
Of the 9 photos that juried into photo competitions, none of the cameras used were modern, digital, or cost me more than $250.
chrismoret
RF-addict
She was the one that pulled me back into photography. So I'm sort of a lucky guy I think.
DNG
Film Friendly
I had to read a few posts to make up my mind what this poll is about..
I may still be wrong though..
My Take...
I=G means your images are equal in quality to your gear..
I<G means your images are improving, but, the gear has more potential it can bring out as you get better.
I>G Means your talent is off the chart and it doesn't mater what gear you use.
I voted #2, With my interpretation.
I may still be wrong though..
My Take...
I=G means your images are equal in quality to your gear..
I<G means your images are improving, but, the gear has more potential it can bring out as you get better.
I>G Means your talent is off the chart and it doesn't mater what gear you use.
I voted #2, With my interpretation.
DNG
Film Friendly
Same reason some of have 5 50mm lenses made at different times and with different signatures. But, you knew that already
back alley
IMAGES
excellent interpretation.
my original thought sprang forth from reading so many times the line about 'my gear is better than i am'...or something along those lines. and seeing so many mediocre (my opinion) shooters arguing about lens qualities and camera build.
now, i love a good gear discussion about as much as the next guy (around here anyways) but sometimes the art gets lost in the details and it can be annoying.