At 11:09 AM 04/01/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Alex wrote:
>
>> I have to confess that for me, it is frequently inverse--the more "stuff" I
>> have the less memorable the shots sometimes. How do others feel about this?
>
>An excellent point, Alex. Some of my best photographs were taken on a
>trip to San Francisco in July 1996, where I took one Leica M6 and a 50mm
>lens, plus one Vivitar 2000 flash. If I were to do the same today, I
>might take my OM-3 and 50mm f1.2 for its more versatile metering system.
Many of the great photographs of the 1930s through early 1960s were taken
with a basic outfit of a couple of RF bodies and three lenses: 35, 50 and
90mm. Many SLR folks used 28, 50 and 135mm. Cartier-Bresson, I've read,
used primarily a 50, and occasionally a 90.
Obviously this is influenced by the subject--this set won't do for wildlife
photography. But it surely illustrates that you don't need an arsenal to
take good pictures. There is something to be said for limiting yourself to
two or three lenses, and really knowing them well, reserving the longer and
shorter lenses for special purposes. Sometimes, the more focal lengths you
have, particularly extrememe lengths, the more the focal length itself
becomes the real theme of your pictures.
Of course, if your vision requires other focal lengths as your "normal"
lens, no argument. It depends on your vision, and the worlds you wish to
record or interpret.
--- Peter
/\: ________ __ ========= , , , , , , |' , ,
/ b | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ~|' |
/ b b ,| ,| ,| ,| ,| ,| ' ,| | ,| |__|__|__| |__| | | | |
~' =========
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|