Equipment Accumulation vs. Using Equipment

keithwms · Oct 31, 2009

snegron said:
I don't really think it will make me any more productive, but I do think it will narrow down my focus to the subject matter I am photographing instead of thinking about the gear. An example of this would be if I were trying to capture a candid image during a social gathering. If my only choice is a Nikon F3HP with either a 24mm, 50mm, or 105mm lens, then I would reach for the appropriate lens and grab the shot. Now on the flip side, if I had the F3HP and an F100 plus the 24, 50, 105 lenses and a couple of zoom lenses all in the same bag, I believe I would dwell a bit more on which camera/lens to use in order to get the shot. When I'm getting the shot with whatever camera/lens combo I select, there will be a slighly nagging voice inside me telling me that I probably could have gotten better results if I had gone with the other camera/lens combo instead.

That being the case, I think the nagging voice is the issue, not the gear. Certainly I have taken shots and then thought, geez, I sure wish I had a medium format neg instead of the little one from my XA :rolleyes: But... of course that little unimposing tool in my pocket was what made it possible for me to first imagine taking a shot without feeling weighed down.

At any rate, I think it is a good idea to experiment and see how you fare with one piece. It might well be a good thing, and if not, well these are not irreversible decisions.

I suppose if I had to pick one single 35mm SLR, it'd be an fm3a.

P.S. About using one camera 'til you've mastered it... that doesn't take long at all. Cameras are tools designed to make specific tasks easier. If the tool seems hard to use... then it's probably the wrong tool.

Sirius Glass · Oct 31, 2009

snegron said:
I will believe you when I see Lance winning the Tour de France on a store-bought, off-the-shelf Shwinn instead of his $10,000.00 custom-made Trek!

chriscrawfordphoto · Nov 1, 2009

I have to admit, I don't understand posts like this. I'm a professional artist. I make my living selling my work. My cameras/lenses/etc are the tools that I use to earn my living, just as a mechanic's wrenches and socket sets are his tools. No one would expect an auto mechanic to own one ratchet and one socket for it, then tell him he's a 'gearhead' who doesn't know how to fix cars if he buys a full set of sockets and ratchets. On the contrary, that mechanic will find himself SEVERELY limited in what he can do if he doesn't have a full range of tools in his toolchest. I feel the same about my photo equipment. While I use a standard lens (50mm on 35mm cameras or 80mm on my medium format cameras) 75% of the time, the other 25% of the time I simply could not get the image I envisioned without a different lens. Same with owning a medium format SLR system, a 35mm SLR system, a Leica system, and yes even a digital SLR system. Each system has its uses and I choose based on what I intend to shoot. I wouldn't dream of limiting myself to one camera and one lens or even 3 cameras and 6 lenses. My ability to support myself and my son depends on having the right gear for the job, both for my fine art work and for the little bit of commercial work that I do. I do 75% of my work with standard lenses but my two best selling images were done with a 45mm lens on my Mamiya 645. If I'd had the silly idea that I'd be more creative with only the standard lens, I'd have lost literally thousands of dollars in sales of those images alone over the years!

Not to say that you need every lens made. I do not own a 500mm lens for any of my systems. I don't shoot anything that would need that, and buying it would be a waste of money. Know what you like to shoot, and own the equipment needed to make that possible. Owning the tools needed to do your work NEVER reduces your creativity. Ever. Not owning the tools you need severely limits you.

PVia · Nov 1, 2009

No one ever likes to hear the Lance quote... ;-(

It's too bad 'cause it's the truth...maybe the Jack Nicholson quote would be better!

tkamiya · Nov 1, 2009

I've seen this type of thread on other forum I used to frequent, and I often wondered what this type of thread is really trying to do....

True, having so many equipment and having so many duplicate, beyond having primary and backup, will perhaps not contribute to one's image creation ability. Carrying all of them will definitely hamper mobility. But... are we trying to define a standard for one's creative process? If having some extra equipment inspires the owner to try out something new and it in turn creates better image, why not? Or - if one is inclined to use few equipment in every possible way imaginable, why not?

True, on a particular setting, one can not substitute 50mm lens for a shot that would require 200mm. But, one can create equally compelling but different image using either of the equipment - most of the time.

What I try not to be is such person that owns every possible equipment and not know how to use them. But, I admit, I do like having variety of "stuff" so I can explore possibility and have some choices. In my professional field (not photography), I pride myself in doing better job and delivering excellent result with some most basic and sometimes archaic equipment, than my colleagues having the latest and the greatest. That's just how I get inspired.

I don't think, anyone can tell me I'm wrong. In professional field, I have never been proven deficient because of my choice of equipment.

Steve Smith · Nov 1, 2009

Everything I buy is bought with the intention of using it rather than putting it on display..... but I still managed to accumulate 30+ cameras!

Obviously that's too many for them all to be regular users so I am trimming it down a bit. I have given a few away already.

Steve.

lxdude · Nov 1, 2009

snegron said:
I will believe you when I see Lance winning the Tour de France on a store-bought, off-the-shelf Shwinn instead of his $10,000.00 custom-made Trek!

Lance was talking about a real situation, not some fanciful hypothetical one, so your point is irrelevant to his statement. If Lance were stuck with the Schwinn, it would be at least partly about the bike.

When all the elite riders have the best equipment, all equipment is essentially equal. So it's not about the bike. He never said the bike is not important-he just said it's not about the bike.

The race is not about which bike he rides, it's about being the rider who wins. Which requires a rider who is capable of winning, who in turn requires an excellent team, strategy, and equipment.

Good tools are important. No artist wants to use crappy, falling-apart brushes from the 99 cent store. But the artwork still is not about the brushes.

Mechanics treasure good tools because it's not about the tools. Good tools don't interfere with the ability to complete the job-lousy ones do.

Sirius Glass · Nov 1, 2009

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I have to admit, I don't understand posts like this. I'm a professional artist. I make my living selling my work. My cameras/lenses/etc are the tools that I use to earn my living, just as a mechanic's wrenches and socket sets are his tools. No one would expect an auto mechanic to own one ratchet and one socket for it, then tell him he's a 'gearhead' who doesn't know how to fix cars if he buys a full set of sockets and ratchets. On the contrary, that mechanic will find himself SEVERELY limited in what he can do if ...

I agree. I do not earn a living from photography, but I too do not want to be limited. I buy what I feel I need and do not keep what I do not use.

Steve

Sirius Glass · Nov 1, 2009

tkamiya said:
I've seen this type of thread on other forum I used to frequent, and I often wondered what this type of thread is really trying to do....

... raise the OP's post count!

Steve

Q.G. · Nov 1, 2009

lxdude said:
Good tools are important. No artist wants to use crappy, falling-apart brushes from the 99 cent store. But the artwork still is not about the brushes.

Mechanics treasure good tools because it's not about the tools. Good tools don't interfere with the ability to complete the job-lousy ones do.

What you are saying is that as long as tools are good enough, they do not matter.

There is absolutely no consistency in that.
You can't make their quality a conditional, and then go on to say that, as long as it meets certain standards, it does not matter.

Your example's artwork, the outcome of Armstrong's attack of Mont Ventoux, will be quite different when crappy tools have to be used then when the best available tools are available.

Don't discount the influence of good tools, the fact that they do not pose an additional barrier (along with other challenges, like being creative) between you and the artwork you are trying to produce, as nonexistant.
It is exactly the fact that they do not interfere, do not leave a negative mark on the end product that their importance shows.
It is very real, very much a part of the end product.

That's why craftsmen do treasure good tools. Because they know very well that it's about the tools too.

The long and short of it is that tools do matter.

snegron · Nov 1, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
... raise the OP's post count!

Steve

Great observation there proffessor! :rolleyes: Take a look at my subscription date; 2005. I have only had about 700 posts since then. There is absolutely no benifit I can obtain by raising my post count.

I will tell you why I have posted so little here on APUG over the years though. Every now and then I get unproductive responses that are little more than attacks; kind of like the villiage raising their torches and pitchforks because I dared to ask a question that made them think. I usually get bummed out and leave for awhile because of the unfriendly attitude and overall snobbery. Every now and then I return with the hopes that I can post a subject in a forum where people share my love for film and film equipment without getting flamed.

Unfortunately I seem to keep on getting flamed for whatever reason. I'm sure that the responses to follow will be "if you don't like it, then leave", or "if you want educated/respectful responses, then post something smart", or something along those lines. :rolleyes:

p.s. My apologies to Keithwms, David Brown, Ntenny,Matt King, Chris Crawford, Steve Smith, and Q.G.; I truely appreciate the time you took to provide a meaningful response. Thank you.

Fireguy2002 · Nov 1, 2009

snegron said:
I'm sure that the responses to follow will be "if you don't like it, then leave", or "if you want educated/respectful responses, then post something smart", or something along those lines.

Only because this could have been taken up in a PM or email. Now that you've presented the issue in an open forum, it's an open topic.

Sirius Glass · Nov 1, 2009

I was teasing you. I know that your post count is low.

IIRC you got burned years ago because of tornado chasing. Some people got up set because they thought that you were looking to see the damage to homes. When you made it clear that you wanted to see a tornado, the flaming died down. That was you, right??

Siriusly, as I noted I have a selection of the best equipment I can buy to do the best job I can. The location and subject influence the choice of equipment. If the composition stinks, the photograph stinks and the equipment can't be blamed. Any darkroom work will not produce a great photograph. If the composition is great, then the photograph can live up to the potential of the equipment, I can have a good negative to work with in the darkroom.

Steve

snegron · Nov 1, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I was teasing you. I know that your post count is low.

IIRC you got burned years ago because of tornado chasing. Some people got up set because they thought that you were looking to see the damage to homes. When you made it clear that you wanted to see a tornado, the flaming died down. That was you, right??

Siriusly, as I noted I have a selection of the best equipment I can buy to do the best job I can. The location and subject influence the choice of equipment. If the composition stinks, the photograph stinks and the equipment can't be blamed. Any darkroom work will not produce a great photograph. If the composition is great, then the photograph can live up to the potential of the equipment, I can have a good negative to work with in the darkroom.

Steve

Yes, that was me. However, the flaming didn't die down after I clarified my intention. I just stopped posting and stayed away for awhile.

Sirius Glass · Nov 1, 2009

The threads that you have started are interesting. For some reason, some of them seem to hit a nerve. Keep trying.

Steve

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 1, 2009

snegron said:
Yes, I believe I know a bit about your "secret". I have been shooting since the late 1970's, had my first photos published in the early 1980's. I went from shooting social events photography to wedding photography. I have also been using and collecting gear ever since.

Back in the film days (when film was the only option available to everyone) life was a bit more simple. The camera did not matter; only the lens and how good your lab skills were. Things have changed. Without delving into the fruitless "film vs. digital" debate, some things that were readily available a decade or two ago are scarce today. With DSLR's your camera is your film. Therefore, film labs are getting more scarce and developing color film in your bathroom is not a practical option. Experimenting with film is a more costly proposition today than when labs were available at every corner. The focus then becomes "what equipment can I use to nail the shot?" Buying more film is not a practical option, as devoloping the film is expensive; mistakes are more costly now. If you only shoot in B&W, then I understand your point, but imo, B&W is limiting. The world is in color, so why not capture it as such?

There is a very fine line between using creativity with your equipment than using your equipment creatively. This makes it very easy to get caught up in the marketing hype.

Film is getting to be a more expensive proposition across the board. Don't use the cost of doing something as an excuse to not do it. And while doing C-41 processing in your bathroom is not as forgiving as doing black-and-white film, it is not any more difficult. If you can get water out of your tap at 90F consistently for 10 minutes, you can do C-41 at home. Heck, the Tetenal C-41 kits will let you process C-41 at home at 68 F if you don't mind spending 20 minutes per batch at the sink. That's coming up with excuses to NOT do something, rather than finding solutions to DO something. If you only find the reasons why you CAN'T, then you're not actually making photos and improving your skillset. As previously said by others here, buying new gear will not make you a better photographer - it will just increase the odds that you can capture that 1% more you couldn't get with the gear you already have.

Mike1234 · Nov 1, 2009

Accumulating photo gear is like mastur*****. It can ruin your "vision". It's okay unless it begins to dominate your life. George Carlin had it figured out. He said he didn't do it enough to go blind... just until he had to wear eyeglasses.

Fireguy2002 · Nov 1, 2009

Mike1234 said:
It's okay unless it begins to dominate your life.

Or until your wife catches you.

Mike1234 · Nov 1, 2009

Mike1234 said:
It's okay unless it begins to dominate your life.

Fireguy2002 said:
Or until your wife catches you.

As long as you're looking at photos of her instead of porn then your okay there too. Just keep a nice pic of her handy in case of an emergency.

Q.G. · Nov 1, 2009

Mike1234 said:
As long as you're looking at photos of her instead of porn then your okay there too. Just keep a nice pic of her handy in case of an emergency.

Now what are you telling us here about yourself exactly ... ?

PVia · Nov 1, 2009

Q.G. said:
What you are saying is that as long as tools are good enough, they do not matter.

There is absolutely no consistency in that.
You can't make their quality a conditional, and then go on to say that, as long as it meets certain standards, it does not matter.

Your example's artwork, the outcome of Armstrong's attack of Mont Ventoux, will be quite different when crappy tools have to be used then when the best available tools are available.

Don't discount the influence of good tools, the fact that they do not pose an additional barrier (along with other challenges, like being creative) between you and the artwork you are trying to produce, as nonexistant.
It is exactly the fact that they do not interfere, do not leave a negative mark on the end product that their importance shows.
It is very real, very much a part of the end product.

That's why craftsmen do treasure good tools. Because they know very well that it's about the tools too.

The long and short of it is that tools do matter.

Ahhh, I knew this would follow on from the other thread about this.

The point is: If you don't have what it takes in the first place, the tools don't matter.

Mike1234 · Nov 1, 2009

Q.G. said:
Now what are you telling us here about yourself exactly ... ?

Not a thing. I'm divorced and better off for it. I do like girly pics but I keep my hands to myself.

redrockcoulee · Nov 1, 2009

Has no one noticed that in races like the Tour d France the riders use different bikes on different stages? Because certain geometries and gearings work better in some situations and not as good in others. And the bikes used in road racing are different from track racing or hill climbing or mountain bike racing or downhill racing etc?

If I wanted to do sport photography and was worried if I needed a Nikon or a Canon system in order to be a good sports photographer than it could truthfully be said that it is not about the camera but about my abilities as a photographer but if I tried shooting hockey with a Baby Brownie Special and asked if I would get better action shoots with a Nikon or Canon I am sure most of you would say that I would. There is more to winning the Tour than physical abilities, the ability to sense stategies and also to select the correct equipment for the stage as well as to fully know the equipment's capabilites as well as one's own.

Have not the great sluggers in baseball tried out different bats (and steroids) and hockey players tried out different sticks to find out if one works for them better than the others? In the end it is if you are happy with what you have in your camera bag or bags. If someone else needs a larger system and another person needs only one camera and one lens than that is good for them but perhaps not for you.

And then it is also nice to have friends whose gear you can borrow when you need something that you would not use often

Domenico Foschi · Nov 1, 2009

PVia said:
No one ever likes to hear the Lance quote... ;-(

It's too bad 'cause it's the truth...maybe the Jack Nicholson quote would be better!

Here's ...Johnny!!

Mike1234 · Nov 1, 2009

If I had millions of dollars to spend freely I'm sure I would have many elaborate/complete systems from which to choose. Thank God I'm not a multi-millionaire because I would be one perverted photo gear fetishist and I wouldn't know which tool to play with.

Equipment Accumulation vs. Using Equipment

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency