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

magicbastarder

i'm a digital user myself, as i mentioned in the first post, and most of my opening paragraph concerns the problem existing with film bodies rather than digital. so no such assumption was made.
my comments are agnostic to the film vs. digital debate. my comment about the digital camera being used was somewhat tongue in cheek (as i'd hoped the specs i mentioned would imply), but i chose those specs because it's easier to lampoon digital for that.

i have the same problem to a lesser extent on digital; just the one body, and two lenses with access to another two (my GF is also a nikon DSLR user).

however, i've never made it a secret that i find shooting on film more rewarding.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I went to america for a week and all I brought was a nifty fifty (plus camera!).

I wrote a little bit about it here:

http://hughwphamill.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/chicago-and-a-love-affair-with-a-50mm/

Borderfox

Excellent!!

to be honest if anything is out of field of vision I take a couple of shots and stitch them together, I did it down in clontarf when out with the 5d and 50mm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I went to america for a week and all I brought was a nifty fifty (plus camera!).

I wrote a little bit about it here:

http://hughwphamill.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/chicago-and-a-love-affair-with-a-50mm/

theboat

magicbastarder wrote: »

t 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.

I'd agree with this, and I feel that it's one of the most important things to bear in mind. I started shooting 'properly' (i.e. with a real interest and will to learn) a little over a year ago. I had a Nikon FM2 slr, and a 50mm lens. Before picking up that camera, I knew nothing about exposure, aperture, ISO etc. I think that having no choice in focal length helped me to concentrate on my composition and on the mechanics of taking a picture. As did the fact that I knew I'd have to cough up for each roll of film I shot. It made me think much more.
Now, I have a DSLR, with the standard 18-55 kit lens. I love the camera, and for the vast majority of the type of photos I take, the range of the lens is enough. That said, as my photography (hopefully) improves, I find myself wishing I had a little bit more choice; that bit more stretch, slightly faster, a tad wider. Not too much, mind...

dave66

The start of the thread was really quiet interesting and relates to a dilemna I'm facing at the moment.

I have a number of film cameras, which get and outing very infrequently, I mostly shoot with my Sony A550 digital but have a Sony A100 body too. Now to explain, when I wanted to buy the A100 some years ago, it was expensive (about €850) so I had to sell off some my kit, which foolishly included selling my 50mm f1.7.

I'm now at a point where I'm yearning for a 50mm, in a way I really want to get back to basics, which I guess I could achieve by using my film cameras. But right now, like many people I guess every cent counts, so buying film etc when I have a digital isn't making sense to me.

I also find that when I'm shooting (and I'm shooting everyday now as I'm doing a 365) I am putting one camera in the bag, and often taking just camera, one lens, cable release and tripod (as I'm doing a fair bit in the evening). In fact as part of my 365 and using digital, the second challenge I've set myself is to try get my 365 shot of the day with the fewest number of shots possible.

So, now I looking at a perfectly good, in fact a damn good camera, the A100, sitting on the desk never being used. I've almost reached the point where I'm going to sell the A100 to fund getting a 50mm. I guess the only thing stopping me is the thought that it might be handy to have a standby body, "just in case" - but the just in case hasn't happened in about a year.

Yes, I do think opening the bag and seeing a range of bodies, mix of mediums (film/digital) and lenses can cause a paradox of choice.

I am at a point right now, where I do think my photography would benefit from reducing the choice and from a working/learning by using a single focal length. Now all I need to do is let go of the A100 and get a prime.

DutchGuy

It's an interesting point, I've been walking around with my DSLR + bits and a film camera for quite a few outings now but last weekend when I was away in Rome my DSLR broke so all I had was a Olympus XA and FP4+ film so I had to amend my shooting style quite drastically. The experience itself was quite interesting, but whether or not it has made my photography any better remains to be seen (hope to get around to developing and scanning this weekend).

Not sure where that leaves me in this debate really, I think it was a good learning experience and it did make me think about framing more than I would when using the DSLR and 17-50mm lens, with which I have a tendency to leave it at 17mm and get the same type of shots all the time. Also having just the one type of film means I'll now get to experiment with pushing film, which will be interesting (to me anyway). On the other hand though, if I hadn't had two cameras with me in the first place I wouldn't have any photos.

I am thinking I might consider keeping the equipment to a minimum when going out for the next while though. I had been getting a bit disillusioned with my photos recently so hopefully I'll be getting a bit more "illusioned" now.

gerk86

hmm, impossible for me to shoot street with a d700 & 24-70. Far too intimidating so I leave that for landscape and events.

a nice little rollei rangefinder & neopan for out and about.

magicbastarder

mehfesto wrote: »

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

just coming back to this after having given it some thought, and i'm posting this with the worry that it could turn the discussion divisive again; but the problem is that it's okay on this forum to talk about the benefits of digital, or the benefits of film, but it's not so okay to talk about the drawbacks as much.

the problem, as i see it, is that the ability to take hundreds or thousands of photos in the space of a couple of hours, is one of the great benefits, and also one of the great drawbacks, of digital. in the same way that one of the great benefits, and one of the great drawbacks, of film is that you're limited in the amount of photographs you can take in a few hours.

this thread was started to explore the issues that too much freedom - be it the ability to take loads of photos/to process those photos after the exposure in PS to correct flaws or limitations in the photos/having too many camera bodies/too many focal length options - can be a double edged sword. some of those affect film more so than digital, some the converse. it was not intended to be a film vs. digital debate.

ThOnda

Gear is only a tool. Camera, lenses, flashes and other bits and bobs. By taking pictures, I should learn what gear I want to use for a certain purpose. So far, I have sever case of GAS (say hallo to my new not so little friend), but having more gear, is giving me the opportunity to think in advance what I want to do, what pictures I want to take and how I want to take them.
For my last studio shoot, I had one body with my favorite 24-70 and Lensbaby on the second body. And even having two identical cameras, I found it very hard to switch my brain between those two ways of seeing the subject. When I was shooting with Lensbaby, I was literally afraid of not taking shot that could have been pin sharp and when taking pictures with the L lens, I was afraid fo not being able to process pictures so they will look so different like those taken with the Lensbaby.
On the other hand, I've been quite a few times in position when I was switching between 24-70 and 50/1.8, although the focal length of the zoom covered the nifty fifty.
If limited by weight, security, transport or possibility of damage, zoom lens could offer me greater flexibility, especially when I don't know the location or where I could get. Prime, on the other hand, could be smaller and provide better image quality and shallower DoF.
I haven't read all the posts above, but I will, because when moderation comes in place, it only points at thread where is something to read, although there could be posts I don't need to read. I am only typing my opinion on the topic and my response is - every situation, every idea, every intention, every financial situation, every state of mind - they all come with different requirements and possibilities. Shoot, learn, remember and use the gained knowledge and experience for the future. And maybe, next time, instead of 18-200 that will be the fantastic only one lens you could bring with you, you'll bring collection of primes literally outweighing good quality zoom and taking four times more space.
And that applies also to the choice of taking too few or too many pictures. You may take one picture that will make you famous and rich, and next time, you will be happy for every kilobyte on your memory cards, because you might not be able to take pictures of an event, person, situation or twin towers object.

DougL

Great thread.

I think it's important to shake things up from time to time. For some, that may mean using only one lens, for others, that might mean shooting different subjects. Shaking things up is good!

Having said that, I would never leave the house with only one lens.

magicbastarder

beauty from denmark? did you buy it from a dane?

magicbastarder

DougL wrote: »

Having said that, I would never leave the house with only one lens.

i have only one lens on the hasselblad. it's a joy to use.

ThOnda

magicbastarder wrote: »

beauty from denmark? did you buy it from a dane?

Nope, from this fella. A pure pleasure to deal with him. Very helpful and quick with shipment. I could not finish the roll today, so morning will be up in the mountains to catch the first rays of morning light. Then Gunnes and then Rua Red. The choice spoiled me

magicbastarder

ThOnda wrote: »

Nope, from this fella.

he *does* appear to be danish!