I feel I am suffering from photographic "affluenza."

Often, advice is sought on what is needed next, to build up a system: "What should be my next lens?"

I seek advice on what is not needed, in order to minimize, or eliminate a system:"What should be my next lens to part with?"

I imagine many of you who have invested in Leica may have come to it by way of lots of gear, which, if you're like me, is now languishing in the closet. I was a student at the time, so I took a long time to build my SLR system painstakingly from used sources, B.E. (Before EBay). And so I have some sentimental attachment. But, I now hardly use it, as my confidence in the imaging qualities of the Leica far outshadows that of my older gear (Pentax SLR stuff). Some of you who've been shooting longer than I've been alive (>30+ yrs) may have some good perspective on this. Will I regret parting with that highly coveted 40mm Pancake lens (which at the time I got it was pricey, but now is quite common on eBay)?

Is EBay the best place to unload your gear? I find that my manual focus Pentax gear has not held its value. So rather than worrying about recouping that investment, I almost feel like giving some of it away- but to whom, I'm not sure... a school? non-profits? RAWA?

I want to think of equipment as a means to a capability, not as objects in themselves (esp. if they're just waiting to be stolen or further covered in dust...)

My goal? a nice, minimalist, zen-like state of gear. What is the path, oh wise ones? ;-)

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), November 10, 2001

Answers

Sell everything except one camera and one lens. Wrap them up in black tape and throw away all your filters and hoods. Shoot at least ten rolls of film a day.

Oh Zen! I thought you meant ZANNY!

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 10, 2001.

Amen, Sir, to your "problem."

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 10, 2001.

I would donate any extra gear here:

http://www.oneworld.org/media/gallery/guatemala/13.html

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 10, 2001.

Tse-Sung Wu :

If you are doing this for a living then you don't need my advice. If you aren't, just ask yourself what works best. I now do this for fun.

Now I really like my M3, M6 and Leica lenses. But when I travel [which is really too much], I take the camera which I am comfortable with. That would be a Nikon FE2. Now, I know that my F2 is a better built body and my Leica lenses are better; still, I take what I like [I am old enough that I no longer feel a need to justify my choices].

I have 16 Nikon primes. From experience, I find that I need more wides in a city and more telephotos in the mountains [the Sand Hills required wides]. If I am really only doing people in a city, I will use the Leicas. I also use them with color film for special nature work [what they do with color shots of isolated subjects can't be matched]. With the Nikons I usually carry 6 lenses. I can't afford that many Leica lenses. There, I use the 50 and the 35.

This is really a personal decision that only you can make.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), November 10, 2001.

A couple of weeks ago I got visited by an old friend that has took up photography for the last three years; he wanted to talk about his aproach to photography and a way to improve on his techinick; I asked him to check his work by the diferent lenses he has used, and so he could get an idea of what is he doing with each diferent focal lengths and come to some conclusions, after thinking it for a wile and without analize any photo or print, he told me, the 28-300!; of course I got tide up by his answer, and thougth in how often more is less. Hope I can explain what I felt.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 10, 2001.

In the spirit of your question, may I suggest that a million grasshoppers can devour the master's field in the blink of a shutter. One by one, however, a series of grashoppers can be taught to grow fields of their own under the amster's watchful eye by borrowing, in succession, the master's old picture plows.

Ralph www.rbarkerphoto.com

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), November 10, 2001.

Is this of the "Wax on, wax off"--school of photography?

-- David (dbulle@yahoo.com), November 10, 2001.

I shoot some music festivals and find myself carrying motorized SLRs with big, fast teles as well as smaller cameras for candid backstage shots; for almost all of my other photography, though, I just carry one camera with a 35mm lens, and get more useable pics than when I carry additional bodies and/or lenses. The "less is more" approach definitely works for me, as it allows me to focus on photography rather than on gear choices. It also makes for a more visually cohesive body of work, since there is no jarring juxtaposition of extreme wideangle shots next to tele shots.

I do still have lots of gear, though, since resale value for the Japanese SLR stuff is relatively low, and I do still use it occasionally. Think hard before selling gear, 'cause you almost certainly will need those very items the week after getting rid of them!

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), November 10, 2001.

Tse-Sung:

You have not told us what your preferred subject matter is... BUT, I'll pass along the following suggestion: Before you sell anything, give yourself a photo assignment; but only allow yourself one body, one lens and 5 rolls of one type of film to complete the assignment. Then repeat the same assignment with the same body, same lens and 5 more rolls of film of a different type. (For example, if you used Provia slide film for the first 5, you might use E100s or Delta 400 for the next five rolls.) Review your results. Next, give yourself a different assignment, this time with the same body, but a different lens and 5 rolls of one type of film. Repeat this exercise about five times with differing lens/film combinations on different subject matter. Ultimately you'll come to understand three very important things about YOUR photography - 1)what lens(es) you prefer, 2)what film you like best, and 3)what subjects give you the most pleasure to shoot. After you know this, it will be easier to decide what to get rid of, and less equipment will truly become more productive for you... and you might just find that your old Pentax Spotmatic with the pancake 40 is your favorite combination :-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 10, 2001.

I have owned a riduclous amount of gear, nice stuuf toto, over the last 6-7 years. I have pared it down to an M6 with a 35 and 50 lens. Four time last year (just four) I have had to resort to my Contax kit to get some telephoto reach. If had a 90 for the Leica, I wouldn't even have needed that.

My suggestion for getting rid of gear is to give an honest description of its condition and sell it on Ebay, use a 3 or 5 day no reserve aution and just get rid of it. Don't stress youself trying to get the maximum bucks. Just get rid of it and go on with life.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 10, 2001.

M6 + 50 & 90 Summicron.

And yes, give your cameras to RAWA. Maybe they can use them to document some of the horrors women suffer under the Taliban.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), November 10, 2001.

Just sell off what you don't use. Keep what you use or what you enjoy fond memories of. What's so hard about that?

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), November 10, 2001.

Douglas; I get impresed when watch in the news some photojournalist tring to get the Presidentīs picture runing after him with the biggest SLR and twenty pounds of equipment on his back.

Of course I understand editorsī demands.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 10, 2001.

I'm waiting for the day that I have enough money to answer your question. Then I'd buy one sample of everything. E.g. one of each vf, all three in black and in chrome, then one of all 15 lenses (all in black and the 8 in chrome too). Then the 1.25er mag. Hope I haven't forgotten anything. Then I'd in fact actually try out everything. Working backwards, I'd soon be able to say which lens I used least, so that in the end, I'd know for sure "which lens comes next". That all sounds silly but you asked what path I'd take. I think I already have my own advice on what is not needed (today I guess it's a 135mm), in order to minimize or eliminate a system, and my own advice on what lens I should part with next. But I just need the proof. Otherwise it all remains a dream.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 11, 2001.

Mike wrote: >I already have my own advice on what is not needed (today I guess it's a 135mm)<

Mike, six months ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly... Not that I felt I *needed* one mind you, but one of the last model 135 Tele-Elmars in pristine condition - the one with the built-in shade, just prior to the APO - came available to me a few months back. For a good price. So, based on the urgings from Jay on this forum about how nice he thought that focal (and that specific lens) was with the M, I succumbed to the temptation to simply "try it out". Mind you, I expected that it would be gone after a roll of film or two, simply because I never really liked that focal length much to begin with. But, worth a try nevertheless... Well, guess what I found out? Surprise! Jay was right! For some reason, the 135 on the M just works for me. It gives a very different view from the 90, and the perspectives I get remind me more of those with a 180 on my SLR. Not that I plan on carrying it in my bag all the time, or traveling with it - although it takes up almost no room in a suitcase - I will hang on to it for the few times a year I want a longer lens. And for some reason, those times are becoming more and more frequent ;-) ...and now with the magnifier for my .72 body...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 11, 2001.

Jack, my condiments! Guess why I said that anyways (and why I picked the 135mm)!! That is the best example I could think about for a word here: I've never even looked at a 135, except in a window here with a few second-hand bargains. I always thought the 135 is the lens I'll never buy, but... I now think (and that was what my answer above meant to say) I shouldn't "think" so much, I should "just do it". Of course there is the $$$ problem, but my dream is to be able to say: "I bought the sucker (maybe second-hand) and tried it out for a year or two, and now don't like it all that much". That again gives rise to a new problem, but the old problem has been solved.

PS 1: Maybe that would read instead "... and now have come to like it!" PS 2: The 135 would in any case advocate an immediate purchase of the 1.25 mag as well.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 12, 2001.

Sometimes, though, less is just... less. Although I`m a great believer in simplification, I do think to get a variety of shots you need a range of lenses, maybe two or three are enough, but just one focal length is a rather limiting. I`ve just finished a stint using the 24, 35 and 90 consistently together with two bodies and for the first time found the 90 offered me opportunities the others didn`t, partly due to the nature of the project which was rather different from my usual stuff. So I`ve finally learned to appreciate a lens I was keen to sell just a couple of months ago. I think those three wll do it for me for the foreseeable future, however.

BTW, many journos and organisations are beginning to (privately for the moment, I think) question the veracity of some of RAWA`s reports. Remember they are a political party... There are lots of other organisations which deserve attention, although they haven`t got RAWA`s flair for publicity.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 12, 2001.

Hm, I've heard the same about RAWA, from a couple of people who might well have good info. The implication is that they are "riffing" off a certain audience and image for themselves. Not that atrocities against women haven't taken place under the Taliban - but that these are not generalized and systematic and also perhaps not incrementally so against the background of general savagery and suffering.

But who knows? Its pretty murky in there.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 12, 2001.

Oops, Tony, sorry. That's a political, not a Leica related post. Feel free to erase it. A thousand pardons!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 12, 2001.

In a given location, with a given type of subject matter, one or two focal lengths will prove to be best for the job. In a different environment, with a different subject, some other gear will shine. I like wide angle lenses, but recently I found myself shooting with my 500mm mirror lens. Horses for courses. If you think you don't need all your gear, maybe you are in a rut. Go someplace fresh and shoot something new. But don't sell anything until you are sure. I mostly live to regret selling my gear.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 12, 2001.

Don't sell anything!!

1. You will be disappointed by the money you receive, especially when you contemplate it against the amount of money you bought the equipment for.

2. Money spent long ago is money sunk. What matters is the gear.

3. What ever you buy new will require the infusion of extra cash out of pocket (especially true in Leicaland). You will then be disappointed that - not only is there a hole in your pocket, but you are out of your old gear as well.

4. Selling the old gear, putting in additional money, and then buying Leica will only accentuate how little Leica you get for your shopping dollar relative to all the other stuff. You will suffer from more acute buyer's remorse.

5. If you liked using it once, you will again, if only from time to time.

6. None of the above is rational or consistent, but trust me, unless you are 1) very short of liquidity or 2) often buy and sell gear, it makes no sense to raise the relatively meager dollars that selling old, non-premium brand gear results in. Just find extra closet space, or a nice, dry, box to store the stuff in.

Better still take it out and take some pictures, for old times sake.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 12, 2001.

I have some thoughts about the RAWA, which I will address to Mani and Rob offline, since probably posting it here will give Tony the heebie- jeebies. ;-)

I agree with you Mani that I won't be able to recupe my intial investment, probably. But truly, I haven't used a lot of my SLR lenses in a while (2-3 yrs?), and I think a- either someone else, a budding photographer or someone with a really important need should use them and b- I'm not likely to feel great about their images now that I've gotten into Leica glass. I think I'm getting to the point where a well made image is more important than the perfect focal length...

It's a personal choice of course. To me, getting more storage space is not really the answer. I just want to make my life simpler. I want to have exactly what I need, and not a lens filter more. I almost like the discipline imposed by a simpler set of equipment. Which I think is an underlying philosophy of Leica M: simple, high quality offerings, very good results.

Many thanks for all the opinions.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

No advice here, but I'm just sympathizing with you. I too have an assortment of SLR's (2 Nikons) and pro-lenses (6), plus some point & shoots. When I got my M2 and 50/2 Summicron lens, I thought that I'd part with my SLR's, but no. They're left languishing in the closet lifeless (no batteries). They are remnants of those days when I thought I could shoot better pictures with the best collection of equipment.

I'm still holding on to them because I just can't bear having all those lenses without bodies. I'm hanging on to the lenses because I'm waiting for Nikon to come up with a cheap digital SLR body. I feel like a company so ripe for a hostile takeover because I have all this inventory sitting around unproductively.

Well I did go minimalist with my rangefinder and have been doing it so far. I shoot almost exclusively with the M2, but I have my GR1 as a backup. I have stopped buying lenses and I have no plans on getting anymore lenses even for my Leica. This is already an improvement from my photo gear buying binge a few years back. I have to admit though, that I could have gone minimalist with my Nikon FE and a 50/1.4 lens, but the Leica forced me in this direction--well it almost bankrupted me too.

My next plans are to concentrate on shooting, editing & printing with Photoshop, and to find out whether or not I should liquidate my depreciating assets or hang on to it waiting for a miracle in digital technology.

Good luck to you.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), November 14, 2001.