One film camera and one lens

[Abram]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/27/2024 at 11:53 PM, 250swb said:

One camera, one lens, one life, what a waste of it.

Why do you feel that it’s a waste? There could be so many reasons one works with a single lens. Reducing the burden of choice is one, or perhaps one simply can’t afford more than one option. 

Either way I wouldn’t call it a waste of one’s life. 

[250swb]

3 hours ago, Abram said:

Why do you feel that it’s a waste? There could be so many reasons one works with a single lens. Reducing the burden of choice is one, or perhaps one simply can’t afford more than one option. 

Either way I wouldn’t call it a waste of one’s life. 

Let's get the obvious one out of the way first, everybody can afford more than one lens. If it's photography that is important you don't actually need to be using a Leica to do photography, for example buy a Nikon and use a zoom lens if utterly cash strapped. But of course that does not earn those style points. Secondly, one 'camera one lens' is a largely Leica based affectation built around the myth that Henri Cartier-Bresson only used a 50mm lens, and it caught on that some people kind of think the same discipline will also make them a clone of him. The movement has since matured into a symbol of his blessing and the guiding light shining from above (out of the enlarger).

Many photographers use one lens from time to time, to build consistency into a body of work or project where needed. And I'm not saying everybody needs to take more than one lens on a day-to-day basis. But 'one camera and one lens' is a messed up first world ascetic philosophy and shouldn't be encouraged because the last thing it's about is the photography.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hansvons]

36 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Many photographers use one lens from time to time, to build consistency into a body of work or project where needed.

That's utterly true. 

 

5 hours ago, Abram said:

Reducing the burden of choice is one, or perhaps one simply can’t afford more than one option. 

Yes. Could be. But often, limitations are, well, limiting.

Cinematographers usually use a set of primes to swap the lens according to the shot, e.g. a 28mm for a long shot and a 90mm for that close-up. 

However, there are exceptions. Jim Jarmusch’s Down By Law was entirely lensed on a 35mm prime (about 50mm on FF) by Robby Müller for concept reasons. 

In still photography, things are different as photographers often follow a certain genre of photography, eg landscape, street, portrait etc. These genres often have their preferred focal length, eg 90mm for portraiture or 35mm for street photography. But even then it makes tons of sense to experiment with unusual fields of view to get a better understanding of what you do and what to follow up and what not.

I figured a long time ago that 35mm is my preferred focal length for almost anything and I could happily follow up with the concept of one camera one lens. However, I would never limit myself to 35mm just for the sake of it. And I own a 50mm for those rare headshots (plus a set of primes for filmmaking). 

But when you begin your photographic journey, limiting you to one lens will support your development significantly better than a bag full of lenses. 

 

[rpsawin]

7 hours ago, hansvons said:

But when you begin your photographic journey, limiting you to one lens will support your development significantly better than a bag full of lenses. 

 

Yep. I stated with a 50mm and it served me well. Unfortunately I started collecting other lens too soon.

Edited February 3 by rpsawin
error

[blackdot]

Just one? M6TTL 0.58 with 35/2 cron v3

But if I could find a .58 MP I'd probably upgrade.

Edited February 4 by blackdot