More gear or less: The Photographer's Paradox

Just a quick thought on the GRIII, on the Pentax forum some say the GRIII has a bit of a wobble on the D-pad I think.
 
My experience: when I have LESS gear with me, I think about HOW to get the photos I want/can get/need to make. When I have a LOT of gear, my thought process is different...and I think differently, in a more-complicated way. I used to take a lot of lenses on big shoots...85/105/135/70-200..and would often NOT use the three primes at all, instead using the 70-200 as a substitute.

Adding lights, reflectors, umbrellas, softboxes, metal reflectors, grids, etc. additionally complicates things.

Camping, vacationing, it's the same: take it ALL, take a moderate quantity of stuff, or a bare-bones kit.
 
Well, the online photographer thinks that as an amateur, one should only have up to four lenses.

However there is NO WAY I would be happy with only four lenses.

Right now I use five regular lenses - 20/35/58/105/180mm and five speciality lenses - Fisheye, Wide Zoom, Long Zoom, and 2 Macro lenses.

I could see myself adding a 300mm of some description in future, but those are expensive and heavy, and more importantly do I need them ? I dont really think so.

And yes I never have all these lenses on me. Right now for example I have the 35mm and the 180mm.

I also have a lot of lenses that I no longer use at all.
 
I pack just three lanes when going on holiday... only because the other half will get a trifle upset if I fill the boot with camera kit.
Only owning 3 lenses.... got to be kidding .
Can feel the withdrawal symptoms starting just thinking about it
 
20190516_101926.jpg
When I travel I take one camera, the Fuji xt100t, with a single, non-interchangeable 35mm f2 lens, and I love the experience of carrying my camera around my wrist all the time, light, unconspicuous and totally silent. I never have to worry about changing lenses, dust on the sensor, or discomfort from carrying a heavy camera bag. Yes, I am limited - no super-wide shots and no telephoto portraits. But I accept the limitation of my hyper-simple setup and shoot the best I can with this single focal length. When I went to Varanasi, India last Jan I made an exception and took another small camera with a telephoto prime. I ended up not bothering with it much and shot most images with the Fuji x100t. The 35mm focal length forces me to get close to people, to talk to them, and, at the same time, not to be intimidating because my camera/lens is tiny.
 
In the years of 2013 and 2014 I did a lot of landscape shoots, and in 2013 I used to carry a pretty large assortment of lenses, often six or seven as well as a Nikon D3X which is a large, heavy camera.

After returning from a coast shoot, I thought to myself,"Well I didn't use this lens,and I didn't use that lens, and I didn't use this lens, so why did I take those extra lenses? "

So...after many years of overburdening myself, I suddenly switched to carrying a very minimalist lens kit. I had a lot of lenses back then. In 2013, owned over 100 lenses, in Nikon F mount, Leica thread mount, Bronica mount, Canon EF mount, and in M42 thread mount, and one Olympus OM lens, all amassed over 30 years.. When the Nikon D100 hit the market, there was a huge tidal wave of used Nikon lenses that flooded the market, often at ridiculously low prices, and it was during this period that I was buying one or two lenses every month, often for $50-$75 each.after my realization in 2014, I realized that my needs could be whittled down to a pretty small lens kit. Give me a 24 and 85 and the 70 to 200, and I am set.
 
Last edited:
FWIW....... i am just a hack "Street Photographer" but i carry a 28 and a 50 and an 85.
Gear is always a trade-off in one way or another, but i find it "Liberating" to use prime lens.
I kind of laugh when i see people that lug around a 35-200 everywhere they go. Then again, they never have to change a lens. :)
 
28/50/85... very capable trio... by most standards. A reasonable lens kit, just three lenses, each moderate in its renderings...
 
It would be nice to have compact cameras like cqw suggest but funds are limited and I can’t justify the additional kit.
My one venture into compacts the canon g9 I think, did not go well.

A compact/P&S is not a replacement for a dSLR. It fills a gap between the phone camera and the dSLR. It is another tool in the tool box.
The compact/P&S has limitations, and you have to work within those limits.
  • To me, the most irritating limitation of a P&S is shutter lag. The P&S did NOT work for FAST action like shooting kids at a party. That was a frustrating experience. By the time the camera fired, the kids moved 2 feet, turned around, or did something that ruined the shot :mad:
And it has benefits
  • The ability to adjust the EC gives it a capability that a phone camera does not have, yet.
  • When I drain the battery, from shooting a LOT, I just swap batteries. I don't have to leash the phone to a power pack.
  • I would NEVER hand my phone to a person that I did not know well, to take my pic.
 
Ac12 hi. I just don’t use my phone that munchkin so I hardly ever use the camera on it But I know what you mean,
I have gone down the route of DSLR as much because in the winter months and when my joints are bad I do a lot of indoor and out of the box photography. I had forgotten about shutter lag but now that you mention it my bridge camera has awful shutter lag or so it seams after using the 600d
 
Ac12 hi. I just don’t use my phone that munchkin so I hardly ever use the camera on it But I know what you mean,
I have gone down the route of DSLR as much because in the winter months and when my joints are bad I do a lot of indoor and out of the box photography. I had forgotten about shutter lag but now that you mention it my bridge camera has awful shutter lag or so it seams after using the 600d

Hey, you should consider switching to micro 4/3.
Smaller and lighter = easier on the joints.
As senior citizen, I have pretty much switched from Nikon to Olympus m4/3, to reduce the kit weight.
The only holdout is FAST sports, where my Olympus camera is not up to the task. There I use the D7200. But once I get a camera that can do the job, the Nikon will be phased out to specialty work or out completely.
 
Fine, in theory....
But I think for the majority of photographers (myself included) acquiring gear is more about "want" and less about "need".
For the average photographer, its probably a lot of "ooooooh, that looks cool...i want to buy that"
Or simply wanting to have a newer, more sophisticated piece of equipment.
Lets face it, those extra 15 autofocus points COULD make or break someones career! Or someone might miss that winning shot because they didn't upgrade to a camera that could shoot ISO 128,000....
But I kinda doubt it.

Shooting with less is fine and all, but its all the gearheads with GAS that are really driving the market and its push for improvements.
 
View attachment 173124 When I travel I take one camera, the Fuji xt100t, with a single, non-interchangeable 35mm f2 lens, and I love the experience of carrying my camera around my wrist all the time, light, unconspicuous and totally silent. I never have to worry about changing lenses, dust on the sensor, or discomfort from carrying a heavy camera bag. Yes, I am limited - no super-wide shots and no telephoto portraits. But I accept the limitation of my hyper-simple setup and shoot the best I can with this single focal length. When I went to Varanasi, India last Jan I made an exception and took another small camera with a telephoto prime. I ended up not bothering with it much and shot most images with the Fuji x100t. The 35mm focal length forces me to get close to people, to talk to them, and, at the same time, not to be intimidating because my camera/lens is tiny.

Hey that is just like the film days and the Nikon L35AF.
It was MUCH lighter and easier to carry than my F2 kit.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top