too much gear?

[frank]

Thanks Brian. I'm one of those in between. I have a collection of interesting gear, I'm passionate about traditional photography and darkroom work, and sometimes I'm such an artist that I'll make images that I'm happy with using my iPhone. (See above, which was also taken with a medium format camera, waiting to finish the roll.)

It seems as though there are some who want to divide people into just 2 groups: You are either a photographer OR a collector. These people are almost always the photographer types who only own gear they use regularly, and are dismissive of those who own more, because "they are just collectors, not real photographers". That's nonsense.

Photography is a multi-faceted activity that offers more than a single satisfaction.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

We all have different ways of operating, and there is no 'golden rule' for how many cameras one should own. It's individual.

As long as the end goal is to create photographic art, use whatever camera you want, and as many as you like. Who cares? If the cameras start to become a distraction, then there's a problem with obstruction. But only as far as creating photographic art is concerned.

There is something to be said for simply having a good time too. That's my personal goal. The moment I stop enjoying what I do I think it's time to stop.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

I'm learning, albeit slowly, not to go overboard on gear and then purge most of it within a year.

Going to consolidate on a couple Soverized F2AS bodies (one of which, I've had for three years already, the other is a relative newcomer, replacing one that I sold to an APUG member a few months ago), my F that I picked up last December and just had serviced, the two Nikomat bodies, and my FM2n. I might pick up another late model F4, now that I have another P screen waiting for one, but, I'm not in a hurry. More important for me is to get a 35mm, 180, and eventually a 300 to replace the ones that went *poof* when I both started fleshing out some other hobbies of mine and needed to buy parts for the cars around here. I also need to pick up a junker 135/3.5 with an AI ring on it, so I can AI modify my pristine looking 135/3.5 QC.

-J

 

[benjiboy]

You know you have "too much gear" when the men in white coats take you away to a rubber room on the funny farm.

 

[darkosaric]

I'm one of those in between.

+1

 

[Lanline]

I've learned my lesson, I got distracted by buying gear. That one camera or that one lens never made me any better . I've sold off a lot of gear and stopped buying gear. My focus now is making better images and prints.

 

[benjiboy]

The secret is learning to differentiate between want and need, the more "stuff" you have the more you have to worry about.

 

[ambaker]

And her number of purses = your number of camera bags.

My wife has five pairs of shoes, and one purse. I am NOT going to show her this thread.

Cameras are like chocolate, no such thing as too much... This is something upon which we can agree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The secret is learning to differentiate between want and need, the more "stuff" you have the more you have to worry about.

I agree with this, but I also think that everybody who likes photography participates for different reasons. Many do like the technical aspect of photography, and love the engineering of old cameras, and trying them out. I see nothing wrong with that.
But I also think that if the ultimate goal is to produce consistently great prints, the less 'stuff' there is between us as photographers and the final print, the better off we are. There are those who switch seamlessly from one camera system to another, but I still can't help but think that it would be better to simply use the camera we know best when it really matters. In my opinion, thinking about the gear is noise that steals attention from the picture making.

 

[benjiboy]

I find that sticking to just one S.L.R. system in which all the lenses and the majority of the accessories are completely interchangeable with all the bodies the way I prefer to work. I'm not a collector, and although I can appreciate fine engineering I don't live too far from the National Photography And Film Museum where they have a better collection of cameras than I could ever hope to own and I have no desire to spend the time effort and money filling my small house with stuff I don't really need.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I find that sticking to just one S.L.R. system in which all the lenses and the majority of the accessories are completely interchangeable with all the bodies the way I prefer to work. I'm not a collector, and although I can appreciate fine engineering I don't live too far from the National Photography And Film Museum where they have a better collection of cameras than I could ever hope to own and I have no desire to spend the time effort and money filling my small house with stuff I don't really need.

Understood, but since we are discussing habits of many photographers at once, it makes sense to look outside our own realm a little.

 

[benjiboy]

Understood, but since we are discussing habits of many photographers at once, it makes sense to look outside our own realm a little.

Agreed Thomas, perhaps I'm being a little narrow minded, thanks for reminding me.

 

[frank]

Understood, but since we are discussing habits of many photographers at once, it makes sense to look outside our own realm a little.

+ 1

 

[BrianShaw]

...the National Photography And Film Museum ...

I was there once (when it was known by it's former name... just to let you know how long ago that was). Fantastic museum. Many years later I was doing some genealogy research and found that my ancestors lived about three or four streets away from the museum back when that part of town was an Irish ghetto.

 

[benjiboy]

I was there once (when it was known by it's former name... just to let you know how long ago that was). Fantastic museum. Many years later I was doing some genealogy research and found that my ancestors lived about three or four streets away from the museum back when that part of town was an Irish ghetto.[/QUOTE

I'm out of date Brian it's now called The National Media Museum, I think it's it's third name change since it opened. I do remember the actual building was originally built as an office block that the developers were unable to rent out I haven't been for a few years although I only live a few miles away,http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/ I must plan another trip.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I recently found myself having too much gear. But, at a local church benefit rummage sale I found a nice leather camera bag (for $1) in which fits one complete RF outfit - two bodies each with a 50; 35 and 85 lenses, shades filters meter etc. Problem solved!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If it's truly the end result that counts and everything used to create that end result is simply a tool, then are painters advised that they should own and use only a single brush? Or a single tube of a single color of paint?

When a composer begins writing a symphony should he be restricted to using only a single instrument? Or only a single note?

Closer to the literal tool comparison, if you decide to build a house must you be limited to using only one hammer? Or only one screwdriver? Or only one saw?

No?

Then why should a photographer who is trying to achieve visual communication with an audience be limited to using only one camera? Or only one lens? Or only one film?

I'm sitting here right now concurrently working on three different computers. Two are real, one is virtual. One is in front of me, and two are remote. I also have five active monitor screens in front of me because that's what it takes to accomplish the task at hand.

Should I be limited to using only one computer? And only one monitor? If so limited, I couldn't successfully complete the job. And neither could the painter, the composer, or the carpenter.

And often the photographer as well...

Ken

 

[Black Dog]

Too much of anything is too much for me

If it's truly the end result that counts and everything used to create that end result is simply a tool, then are painters advised that they should own and use only a single brush? Or a single tube of a single color of paint?

When a composer begins writing a symphony should he be restricted to using only a single instrument? Or only a single note?

Closer to the literal tool comparison, if you decide to build a house must you be limited to using only one hammer? Or only one screwdriver? Or only one saw?

No?

Then why should a photographer who is trying to achieve visual communication with an audience be limited to using only one camera? Or only one lens? Or only one film?

I'm sitting here right now concurrently working on three different computers. Two are real, one is virtual. One is in front of me, and two are remote. I also have five active monitor screens in front of me because that's what it takes to accomplish the task at hand.

Should I be limited to using only one computer? And only one monitor? If so limited, I couldn't successfully complete the job. And neither could the painter, the composer, or the carpenter.

And often the photographer as well...

Ken

Absaloutely!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ken,

You sure know how to make noise.

I'm not personally saying you should restrict yourself to any particular number of cameras. You should do what works for you.

But if you want to work intuitively with your tools, the more of them you have, the less time you have to spend with each one of them to truly become one with them. Some people are extremely adept at switching gear from one shoot to another. Others, like me, get confused by all the noise it generates, and I end up making mistakes when I switch from one format to the next.
My Hasselblad I can always count on to get good results with, and it's not because it's a better camera, it's because it's the one I know best. Hand in glove situation, and I don't ever really think about what I'm doing, I just do.
When I switch cameras I have to think about it, and that takes mental capacity I would otherwise have spent on making the photograph come to fruition.

Of course it's possible to gel with more than one camera. But for me it takes a while to switch from one to another, and that is rarely worth it.

But as I said, use whatever gets you the best results. That's all that matters. That and having a good time, of course.

- T

If it's truly the end result that counts and everything used to create that end result is simply a tool, then are painters advised that they should own and use only a single brush? Or a single tube of a single color of paint?

When a composer begins writing a symphony should he be restricted to using only a single instrument? Or only a single note?

Closer to the literal tool comparison, if you decide to build a house must you be limited to using only one hammer? Or only one screwdriver? Or only one saw?

No?

Then why should a photographer who is trying to achieve visual communication with an audience be limited to using only one camera? Or only one lens? Or only one film?

I'm sitting here right now concurrently working on three different computers. Two are real, one is virtual. One is in front of me, and two are remote. I also have five active monitor screens in front of me because that's what it takes to accomplish the task at hand.

Should I be limited to using only one computer? And only one monitor? If so limited, I couldn't successfully complete the job. And neither could the painter, the composer, or the carpenter.

And often the photographer as well...

Ken

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

IMO, it's far easier to have too many cameras than too many lenses. The old saying goes that a cameras is simply a sturdy, well-aligned, light-tight box to hold the lens. Other than specific formats and movements this is basically true. Lenses, OTOH, have many individual characteristics that the "box" does not influence.

 

[OptiKen]

Fortunately, I don't suffer from too much gear.

Too little space to store and display all of it, yes.
But you can never have too much gear.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You sure know how to make noise.

Nah... Not noise. Critical thinking and analysis.

I've been thoroughly and deeply trained to always look at things from many different angles and alternative viewpoints. To look not just for the obvious, but also for the implied, the hinted at, the accidently hidden, and especially the intentionally hidden. To look in places for dots to connect where no one else would ever bother thinking to look.

You should do what works for you.

Actually that was the point of my post in a nutshell, as you weren't advocating the one-off approach at all. So I was agreeing with you.

For example, if one is trying to visually communicate fear, it might well take the presentation of images from several different cameras made over an extended period of time to effectively say about it what one wants to say. Other times, a single print from a single exposure from single camera might just do the trick perfectly.

Whatever works.



Ken

 

[E. von Hoegh]

IMO, it's far easier to have too many cameras than too many lenses. The old saying goes that a cameras is simply a sturdy, well-aligned, light-tight box to hold the lens. Other than specific formats and movements this is basically true. Lenses, OTOH, have many individual characteristics that the "box" does not influence.

I like having different types and makes of cameras to choose from.
For instance, I recently pieced together a Kiev RF outfit with 35-50-85mm lenses. My Nikon outfit will do everything it does and a good deal more - but, the Kiev is a piece of history, a relic of the Cold War, and really fun to use. It takes beautiful pictures, too.

 

[benjiboy]

"Too many cameras" the solution is simple, either sell them, pawn them, or donate them, end of story.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

"Too many cameras" the solution is simple, either sell them, pawn them, or donate them, end of story.

Or use them, at which point they become "not too many cameras". By definition...



Ken