the paradox of choice ** Mod Note Post #50 **

magicbastarder

prompted by something petenumbers mentioned in another thread, and something i've been mulling over a bit recently.

i've recently had to make a resolution to only bring one camera out with me at a time. i've found myself out with five cameras on a few occasions of late; my new pinhole camera is the first one, and i usually bring my main camera bag with me when i have that out - because the camera bag is where i usually the lightmeter, film, and other doodads, but it also has my two 35mm bodies and MF body. and then i sometimes throw the digital bag in too.

and i end up getting pissed off with having all that choice. i see a potentially good shot, and i don't know which camera would be best suited for it. or how to treat it. where one camera would leave me with one choice, and i'd get the shot and be happy with it.

the above behaviour goes against what i've always maintained, and given the advice to people who ask about how to improve their photography (not that i'd consider myself an expert, there are numerous black holes in my knowledge) that if they want to improve, the best thing they can do is to make life hard on themselves.

there's no 'cost' to taking a shot if you've got a nikon D7777MkIII with a 12-400mm lens, and a 48TB card in it; and i'm dubious about advice to newbies about going out to shoot, shoot, and shoot some more as if skill is simply a process of accumulating exposure (maybe the measure of a photographer is a sum of the exposure times of all the photos they've ever taken?); i'd be more inclined to tell them to go out with a 256MB card, disable the deletion function on their camera, an limit them to no more than one photo every 30s. you will learn more from trying hard at 20 shots than you will from rattling off 200 and then having to go through all of them and try to decide why some work and why some don't.

i'd have a similar viewpoint on primes; i suspect the success of the nifty fifty is not just aperture related; it's the fact that it isn't a zoom lens. you don't compose by moving your hand, if you're too far away, you walk in and if you're too close, you walk away. i think it's too easy to use the technology as a crutch.

the thread title comes from this video - it's not about photography, but some of the concepts apply; and it's a great lecture anyway:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6127548813950043200#

DaireQuinlan

I've written similarly here ... http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056063961

I'd agree. It's not so much that you can get a better shot (there were good shots I missed in the above quoted scenario because of my choice of lens) , but that you aren't paralysed, faffing around switching lenses or fiddling with settings or what have you. When I leave the house I leave it with one camera and typically one lens. Film wise this is even more restrictive, because I can't obviously switch from B&W to colour or change ISOs without finishing the roll of film (or switching out mid-roll, not something I like doing). There's a liberating simplicity to it when you know you actually have zero options other than working with what you have in your hand right now.

preilly79

I've made a similar resolution; one lens with me when i'm out shooting. I want to get to know the limitations and abilities of each lens as much as I can before moving onto the next. I've fallen into the trap that Edward Weston mentions below, so this is my attempt to break the cycle

The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it. - Edward Weston

magicbastarder

yeah, the funny thing is i don't ever really need the lightmeter with the pinhole camera. sunny? 10s. cloudy? 30s. dark? it'll be bright again by the time the correct exposure has finished.

sineadw

Although I love doing *exactly* what Weston warns against (I've been up to all sorts in the last few years, and thoroughly enjoying it too) I'd have to say it works so much better when you have one camera and one lens. I've restricted myself to a 28 prime for the major project i'm working on. Not only does it mean I don't faff and miss crucial shots, i've learned to frame the shots for that focal length so I can do it now without even thinking about it. I know full frame 28mm like the back of my hand.

One thing I will say though, there is a *lot* of skill needed in editing down a large number of shots to make a cohesive body. Look at Frank's The Americans (28,000 shots down to 83 :eek:) for how it *should* be done. I know no-one here meant it (or I'll assume at least ) but it's not a matter of just taking a load of shots and getting rid of the crappy ones. Editing is almost as important to work as taking the shots in the first place, and it's something I think I'm only getting confident with now.

pete4130

petenumber is me????

I get like that sometimes. The past few days I've been shooting lots with one camera and I got bored. It's got its pros and cons and you have to shoot a certain way with it, due to how it focuses etc....and I found myself getting very samey, so I switched cameras today and hey presto. everything looks a bit different.

magicbastarder

pete4130 wrote: »

petenumber is me????

the post in question:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70289043&postcount=33

DaireQuinlan

Actually there are two distinct ideas here, Once I'm out of the house that's that, I'm committed to one camera, one focal length, one film type. It's getting out of the house sometimes is the problem, so I guess I've just pushed forward the dithering a bit, to the point where it doesn't interfere with the actual shooting process, but does sometimes really really annoy my wife.

So I think I'd have to go to the back of Weston's class as well. At the moment at home I have, loaded with film, a folding 6x9 pocket kodak, an FE-2, an F100, two bronica backs, and a stereo Viewmaster camera. Although I -do- have my favourites.

AnCatDubh

A good post (might I be so bold as to suggest probably one of the best thus far this year)

Choice can be very bad.

One camera. One lens. Simple.

Occasionally, I Go back to my first DSLR which I love anyway and pop on a 50mm manual lens. Aperture set by the ring. Manual Focus. Way more enjoyment on getting a great image from that setup than something with a 10-500mm, fully auto, burst shooting 10fps - In fairness, I think they both have their place though - but it is *nice* to at least think you are a photographer with an old(ish) school setup

And on a similar vein, of recent times - the 50mm prime on the more modern DSLR body is often my weapon of choice (though admittedly i'd usually stick a short zoom in the case - a crappy 35-70, or 28-80 purely *if* i want to be up close but put a wider perspective on the shot - that said, i'd normally not vary it and the zoom will stay in the case)

Borderfox

One camera body with a 50mm or something wider is really nice to work with, for weddings I am strongly thinking of going down the 35L and 85L route on two bodies rather than the current mix of zoom/prime. It can come down to too much choice but I think with experience educated guesses can be made as to what to expect.

As a devils advocate on the nifty fifty, I think the IQ is such a jump up from the kits lens, this is where some of the attraction is along with your point.

magicbastarder

AnCatDubh wrote: »

A good post (might I be so bold as to suggest probably one of the best thus far this year)

cheers - i deliberately left out the 'i can fix that in photoshop later' option, which is another choice which can distract from the immediate task of taking a good photo, for reasons of brevity and i didn't want to be seen to be divisive.

magicbastarder

Borderfox wrote: »

As a devils advocate on the nifty fifty, I think the IQ is such a jump up from the kits lens, this is where some of the attraction is along with your point.

the thing is, people on here take fabulous portraits and other shots on old kit with probably technically inferior lenses. of course, there are areas where you want the best possible (landscape, sports), but for a lot of shots, the couple of percentage points difference doesn't really affect the 'jizz' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizz_%28birding%29 - lest anyone mistake my meaning!) of the shot.

artyeva

i'm looking at a new body at the mo and the only lens i planning on buying with it for the far, wide and distant foreseeable future is a 50mm.

when myself and husb were in the states recently i took a backpack with 6 cameras of varying degrees of competence round with me for the first week. the 2nd week i limited it to two - and i think both my eye and my husband's patience fuse were the better for it. we'd gone out there to get hitched and i didn't fancy coming home divorced :pac:

and i'm with the op on the advice to newbies. although i *do* think sometimes it's given in one way and taken up another, if that makes sense.

Borderfox

There is something liberating about leaving the house with a 5d and a 50mm to complete a job, maybe the perfect combination?

Promac

Borderfox wrote: »

There is something liberating about leaving the house with a 5d and a 50mm to complete a job, maybe the perfect combination?

I hope so! I've a 5D2 in the post and only a 50mm to put on it. Really looking forward to it though and definitely gravitating towards the prime-only idea. Zoom is nice to have for framing but I find I spend most of my time down at the wide-end so I think I might just get a 28mm prime and use that for wide angles and the 50mm for everything else. Of course - I may have to get an 85mm too... just in case

Up till now though I've always gone out with a wide/zoom on the camera and a 50mm in a pocket somewhere in case I go indoors.

Thecageyone

I often leave the house with just the one camera and lens. Well, I only have the one camera for now, but stick a lens on it and away I go. No frills. I do find I tend to take more pictures than I'll ever need, but I force myself to be very strict when I'm choosing keepers. If I take 100 shots, only 20 or so might make it to process.

The fact that high capacity cards are dirt cheap these days probably helps the whole click, click, click nature of the enthusiast. Good idea to get a much smaller capacity one, only take the one lens and make each shot count. I'll give it a go one of these days.

Nisio

I went on a long trip with one body (camera body that is) and two lenses and wished I'd only brought the one. Spent one walk wondering should I sell the lot and buy a bridge camera; would the photographs be any worse or better?

Thecageyone

I had a bridge camera for a couple of years before I got my first dslr. I loved it, and thought the images were grand [but started to notice my contact's images from dslr were always clearer/more vibrant/generally better quality all round]. And I used to hate zooming in on my images as the ugliness of blotchy pixels would then show up. If IQ is important to you, keep the dslr, maybe get an 18-200 lens and keep it on. I promise you, it's so much better than any bridge cam will give you.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

If IQ is important to you, keep the dslr, maybe get an 18-200 lens and keep it on.

Are you serious?

Thecageyone

Eh, yes ... even one of those things would kick a bridge cam's ass. And I hate those kind of lenses. Which is why i don't have one, but this is not about me.

Squidgy Black

I only have one camera body, and my only half decent lense is my 50mm prime, so I haven't got much choice my cheap 70-300's never used, although I wish I could have a wide angle for some shots the odd time, especially in more tight, cramped situations.

Thecageyone

When I had the 50mm it was on cam 90% of the time. It's possible to get some nice landscapes/wider shots with it, you just have to get yer ass back a lot further

The biggest problem with those 70-300 lenses, besides the cheap build and not-so-wonderful IQ, is the lack of OS/VR/IS. I'm thinking on the 70-300mm VR myself, that and the 17-50 and a nice prime are all I really want/need. I have a 55-200vr for sale if you check adverts :P

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

If IQ is important to you, keep the dslr, maybe get an 18-200 lens and keep it on.

Thecageyone wrote: »

And I hate those kind of lenses. Which is why i don't have one

So recommending a lens to someone and you don't have one because you hate them. Where is the logic in that? It just doesnt' make sense.

Can I ask your experience with those type of lenses? Have you ever used them? I'm just curious as to how you came to your conclusion on them.

An 18-200mm negates any real choice, other than the choice to have a lens that has lots of focal lengths and not a lot else going for it.

Thecageyone

pete4130 wrote: »

So recommending a lens to someone and you don't have one because you hate them. Where is the logic in that? It just doesnt' make sense.

Can I ask your experience with those type of lenses? Have you ever used them? I'm just curious as to how you came to your conclusion on them.

An 18-200mm negates any real choice, other than the choice to have a lens that has lots of focal lengths and not a lot else going for it.

Because it's still better than any bridge cam IMO, and the poster wants just one general purpose lens. Why not one that covers a broad range? I hate them because they're often too heavy/awkward for general use [for my liking], I much rather switch lenses if I want a little reach. I've used all sorts of lenses, I'm just fussy, many, many people seem happy with the likes of an 18-200. My personal feelings on them don't really matter.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

Because it's still better than any bridge cam IMO, and the poster wants just one general purpose lens. Why not one that covers a broad range? I hate them because they're often too heavy/awkward for general use [for my liking], I much rather switch lenses if I want a little reach. I've used all sorts of lenses, I'm just fussy, many, many people seem happy with the likes of an 18-200. My personal feelings on them don't really matter.

I think it's a little strange to recommend an 18-200mm lens in a thread about embracing constraints.

Thecageyone

Fair point. I was merely suggesting it to that one poster who said they were thinking of ditching the dslr for a bridge camera though.

Nisio

I'll take the hit here on the " ah what are ye at" and confess one lense was the 18-200 and the other was a 10-20. {runs and hides}

Edit: the point being that I had a jack of all trades lens but because there was a choice there was time/opportunity wasted deciding which to use.
Does the choice give your photography style more variety though?

DaireQuinlan

Good to see another potentially interesting thread descend into a boring morass of acronyyms, gear fetishry, VR/IS/IQ/BA/BA/BA, and the merits of bridgecameras over SLRs. I mean, do we HAVE to hear about that stupid bridge camera in practically EVERY SINGLE THREAD ?

Thecageyone

You posted just to spam? Next time we'll ignore anyone looking for advice in case we have to face the wrath of Daire. Who's first post threatened to turn it to a talk about film . . . It came nicely back on topic. Until you showed up again. And what "stupid bridge cam" are you specifically referring to? Also only time acronyms are mentioned was in response to someone mentioning other lenses, it was helpful to them. Get a grip. You didn't even read, just posted out of sheer bitterness.

Forget the 18-200. Stick a prime on and leave it just so we're on topic. There ya go. Feel free to get it back on topic instead of trying to stir maybe?

dakar

One camera, one fixed focal length lens, 3MP, autofocus, limited control over exposure, auto iso, one step post processing done in camera, no cropping.

One blog.

Promac

Cagey's clearly trying to offer the guy some advice - there's no need for the hostility lads.

eas

I see things a bit differently, I don't think having 5-6 lenses in a bag is creating a paradox of choice. I see it as having the tools to do a job. Every lens accomplishes something entirely different, and it's not only field of view. Of course it's silly to think you'll need every tool for every job, no more or less than any trade/

charybdis

eas wrote: »

I see things a bit differently, I don't think having 5-6 lenses in a bag is creating a paradox of choice. I see it as having the tools to do a job. Every lens accomplishes something entirely different, and it's not only field of view. Of course it's silly to think you'll need every tool for every job, no more or less than any trade/

I don't think you can talk about it in raw number of lenses. For those lenses, there probably isn't a lot of overlap of functions (as you've said). The point is that the choice is made by circumstances and not by the photographer.

Promac wrote: »

Cagey's clearly trying to offer the guy some advice - there's no need for the hostility lads.

Again, hostility and rational argument are not the same thing.

CabanSail

Enough of the agro here please.

Getting quite tired of discussions becoming personal attacks. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion but debate the issues while respecting their right to have them.

Thecageyone

I agree with eas. I don't think forcing yourself to carry one lens will help you take anything better than having the full range in the bag. If you don't have a good eye to begin with, 200 shots of crap or 10 won't matter.

magicbastarder

eas wrote: »

I see things a bit differently, I don't think having 5-6 lenses in a bag is creating a paradox of choice. I see it as having the tools to do a job. Every lens accomplishes something entirely different, and it's not only field of view. Of course it's silly to think you'll need every tool for every job, no more or less than any trade/

it's one thing having six lenses for particular jobs, another having a superzoom (arguments about aperture and IQ aside); i have five or six lenses available on my OM system, and it's about picking one before shooting, not about not having that choice in the first place.

maybe it's to do with getting into a particular mindset - 'seeing' the world in 24mm, i suppose you could say, and being able to focus (pun unintended) at that focal length.

eas

Thecageyone wrote: »

I agree with eas. I don't think forcing yourself to carry one lens will help you take anything better than having the full range in the bag. If you don't have a good eye to begin with, 200 shots of crap or 10 won't matter.

My post hinges on a few things though, most importantly knowing your tools and knowing why you make the choices you make.

Also, I'm not talking about walking the dog or going on a nature hike here, I'm talking about being on a job for 8-10 hours.

Thecageyone

I don't have a dog Anytime I head out to shoot, it's for that reason only. The idea of just bringing one lens is grand, a challenge. But I'd hate to be out in a field somewhere after cycling miles, with say, a 50mm ... and come across a wondrous landscape crying out for a wide angle. Or spot some beautiful birds making a nest or laying eggs or feeding their young or whatever , and not have any zoom.

You can still challenge and restrain yourself by having a few lenses, but a much smaller capacity card.

NooSixty

Thecageyone wrote: »

You posted just to spam? Next time we'll ignore anyone looking for advice in case we have to face the wrath of Daire. Who's first post threatened to turn it to a talk about film . . .

I didn't realise this thread was just in reference to ditigal, maybe I missed something??
To be fair someone who shots almost entirely on film is going to talk bout and reference film as they would know more bout film right?

But anyway of course there is a different lenses for different jobs and there is definitely nothing wrong with having more then one lens. I don't think that was the point of the thread, seems to me it has more to do with limiting yourself to learn more bout that lens instead of chopping and changing and never really getting to know the benefits and drawbacks of each one.

Personally, I have to agree that limiting yourself to one lens at a time is going to encourage you to stop and think and teach you more about that lens and how they work, what they can achieve, the shots they would be useful for in the future.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe it's to do with getting into a particular mindset - 'seeing' the world in 24mm, i suppose you could say, and being able to focus (pun unintended) at that focal length.

i just remembered that sineadw addressed this more comprehensively in post #5.

Thecageyone

NooSixty wrote: »

I didn't realise this thread was just in reference to ditigal, maybe I missed something??

It's not about dslrs specifically either? see? My reference to that was in response, nothing to do with anyone else. I got attacked for mentioning a bridge camera, which actually fits the thread more so as it is all in one and limited. Selective quoting and thanks are so old at this stage. Do you pull up a magnifying glass specifically for my posts?

It's not about any one person's opinion, we're all entitled to have one. the thread is about limiting yourself so you're not shooting all over the shop just because you can. Whatever way you decide to do it. As only you can.

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

Do you pull up a magnifying glass specifically for my posts?

Well, yeah I do. This is just an observation. You are either contradicting yourself, not making sense or copy and pasting something that someone else said without any personal experience of what you're talking about and in my opinion it doesn't seem like the advice you give is great or correct some of the time.

magicbastarder

top left of screen > boards.ie > user settings > buddy/ignore lists

Thecageyone

Why don't you just use the one account? I didn't ask you. As both of you come across the very same, it'll save you both dragging topics wayward. And the bitterness towards me!? every post? , though cute, is boring.

Where do I c&p anyone else?? I can tell you, I never do, or contradict myself? And as for the advice I give pete, that's not for you to say, I think you imagine you know it all. I don't see anyone receiving my advice complaining, usually thank me, so I guess you're well wrong.

magicbastarder wrote: »

top left of screen > boards.ie > user settings > buddy/ignore lists

Good idea, thanks.

humberklog

magicbastarder wrote: »

top left of screen > boards.ie > user settings > buddy/ignore lists

Now that is the paradox of choice.

NooSixty

Thecageyone wrote: »

It's not about dslrs specifically either? see? My reference to that was in response, nothing to do with anyone else. I got attacked for mentioning a bridge camera, which actually fits the thread more so as it is all in one and limited. Selective quoting and thanks are so old at this stage. Do you pull up a magnifying glass specifically for my posts?

It's not about any one person's opinion, we're all entitled to have one. the thread is about limiting yourself so you're not shooting all over the shop just because you can. Whatever way you decide to do it. As only you can.

Did you not just selectively quote me??

I was merely asking was this thread directly related to digital and if not wouldn't it make sense that someone who shots film would bring it up.

But you are right on one thing it isn't about any one person's opinion but you seem to take it a little personally whenever express mine.

I merely stated that I think that taking the time to limit yourself to one lens at a time will tech you the benefit and drawbacks of each lens in different situations which in turn will give you the knowledge to know which lens to pick when that situation arises again thus causing you to be less snap happy.

pete4130

Well, to be fair, there isn't much I don't know.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

top left of screen > boards.ie > user settings > buddy/ignore lists

so much for my advice, the page won't open for me.

AnCatDubh

closed until further notice.

blah

AnCatDubh

I'm reopening this for the moment.

This was a good thread but due to infighting reads like a school boys(/girls) school yard tit for tat.

Directed to squabblers - Please move on from the last posting. It wasn't being constructive to vent. Other than any personal satisfaction such posting has derailed the thread and rapidly headed towards train wreck territory. Such a shame as it was probably one of the best starts to a thread of the new year

I think people were asked previous to begin using the ignore feature of boards. If you can't do that then stop acting all defensive when someone disagrees with you. Move on from it. It does no one any good and is really starting to annoy many good and valued users of the forum. Honestly, it hasn't taken this thread for a broad spectrum of users to complain about antics from a small number of users.

Feel free to report it but don't be a pain in the ass reporting stuff - it does no additional favour if you report 5 posts in a row from the same thread. None. Zero. The moderators review it when they get a reported post and they don't stop at reading a single post.

I'm reminding users of the forum who are posting of the charter provisions with regard to dominating threads. Its in the charter. Don't do it. Simples. I don't believe it has been used in anger yet, but any users blatantly ignoring any charter provision are subject to the sanctions of being awarded yellow/red cards or outright bans if necessary. I'm presently of an opinion that the forum would be a better place if some users were awarded a week or two away from the place. Seriously.

Now if there is anything left in this thread please continue on topic. Apologies to the OP for the interruption.

Thank you.

mehfesto

This could easily lead into another 'digital photographers = idiots, film photographers = snobs' thread, but it needn't.

I suggest use whatever you want and whatever you're comfortable with and what gets the results you want. Digital, film, bridge, compact whatever. If you get the picture you have in your minds eye it wouldn't matter if you plucked individual particles of light from around you with a tweezers and hammered them onto paper.

But to assume that all digital (Dslr, bridge, even compact) users are merely taking 1000s of snapshots without knowing what they are doing is not just a lazy assumption it's one that achieves nothing.

The people who want to improve their results on these digital cameras will, and can only do so by learning more about the medium. Those that don't are obviously hobbyists and are happy with their achievements - why bother them.

With the exception of space in a bag, I cannot fathom why you wouldn't take whatever you wanted with you.