I will state it up front: I'm a gearhead.

If you're reading this, you're most likely a gearhead too.

So I want to know who in this forum owns and uses the least amount of gear, and wants for nothing more.

I'm trying to keep it simple, and it's a real challenge. I've decided to streamline my kit to an M6 with a 35 Summilux ASPH and 90 TeleElmarit in a Domke 803 satchel. A minimal, yet perfect, setup for my photographic purposes. I am, after all, just a hobbyist.

I'm liquidating a black Minilux with accessories, SF20 flash, Heliar 15, and Domke F6 bag. I might consider trading the flash for a Leica table tripod and ball head.

I know that many of you will try to dissuade me, and I'll consider your arguments, but I want to lighten my gear load. This is what I had in mind when I originally bought the M6, a simple kit but of the highest quality.

Oh, but how easily one can get obsessed with having everything! Always thinking about that next lens. And that new body on which to mount it. Black or chrome M7? It can take its toll on one's mental health.

Also significant to my decision is the fact that I need to raise and save as much money as possible for moving overseas for a year. It's a matter of having things or doing things, acquisitions or experiences.

"The more stuff you own, the more it owns you."

"Less is more."

I just learned the other day (from David Douglas Duncan) that HCB is a Buddhist. His use of just one lens makes sense in this context. Is keeping it simple the path to Leica enlightenment? Maybe not, but perhaps my photographs will improve.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), May 17, 2002

Answers

I personally know I have too much camera equipment at this point-- blame it on ebay and forums like this I suppose. How do you know when you have too much camera stuff? When you get a chance to go to or do something special and you can't decide what equipment to bring!

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 17, 2002.

I couldn't agree more. As a working photojournalist I own a decent amount of gear. To say nothing of the D1 and boatload of lenses my newspaper makes me carry around. But I've found that the less equipment I have, the better the pictures.

When my paper went digital, I got rid of much of my Nikon gear in favor of a Leica m system. My system isn't quite as streamlined as yours. Among other things, as someone who takes pictures to put food on the table, I really have to build in some amount of redundancy in case something breaks or gets stolen. But often I'll travel with only two M6's and two or three lenses. I travelled to cuba a few months ago for a few weeks. I took two M6's, and a 28 'cron, 35 'lux and 75 'lux. I did some of the best work of my life, and 80% of the time I was walking around with only the 35 and some Tri-X.

It's very liberating to not be bogged down with gear, and I think that it frees you from having to make too many decisions regarding your lenses, etc. That leaves one free to make more important decisions while photographing. If you're doing street or documentary work, it also makes it easier to blend in with your surroundings.

Good luck and travel light...

-- Noah (naddis@mindspring.com), May 17, 2002.

Luke, A very interesting subject. I sold all the photographic equipment I owned in order to buy a used M6TTL and 50mm Summilux. I thought it would help me to have less stuff, and in fact it has. Like you, I wanted the simplest, but also the best. I bought the 1.25X magnifier, and I have a Vivitar flash and a Gossen light meter and that's it, nothing more. The 50mm Summilux is my only lens and the M6TTL my only camera. Of course this is also because after having bought the Leica I can't afford anything else! :) A few days ago I went to the Atlanta Botanical Gardens. Previously I would have taken lots of cliche color macro shots of the flowers. Now I don't have macro, and it turned out that this "limitation" was liberating. I had to pay more attention to composition. I had to strain my imagination to look for things to photograph. So I imposed another "limitation" on myself and loaded the M6TTL with monochrome film. Now I had to look for things that would work without color and without macro. All in all it was a good exercise for me. I once read about a photography teacher who assigned her class to make photos only within one block of their house. There were some complaints: "If only we could roam a 10 block area" they said. So she next limited them to only photos inside the house. Then only one room. I like that idea. I believe what you are saying about simplifying the photo gear offers the photographer potential for growth. -Ollie http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

Luke, I can sympathize with your concerns and the issues you have raised about much equipment/possessions and such. I think much can be said for simplicity, but it may not be beneficial to strip down to the essentials until one can determine which "essential" would fit best with one's approach or way of seeing. Perhaps however, your choices may suit you well, and you may already know instinctively what is best.

Personally, I feel it is easier to do artistic work with a few well chosen pieces of equipment. In such a context, abundance often seems to get in the way - or worse: the work becomes subservient to a quest for optical "novelty". The fact that the camera creates representational facsimilies with ease drives many to strive for a variety of signature style derived from equipment based gimmicks. I'm not denigrating the use of extreme optics, but rather the belief/ (hope!) that trying anything will somehow compensate for a poverty of vision. Yes, (once you know what you require) "less is more"!

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

M Classics "Original" Bag, Metz 34CS-2, Trinovid 8x20 BC, Soft Napa Case with Wrist Strap, Manfrotto TableTop Tripod, Domke small X-Ray pouch, Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+w KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 17, 2002.

I've never understood why people associate Zen with simplicity. Have you ever seen the Japanese tea ceremony? It is supposedly influenced by Zen, yet in its most elaborate form (there are many styles), it uses far more implements than I use in my kitchen to make tea and takes over an hour - just to serve a cup of tea and a piece of candy! I read with amusement once an article by a western scholar who called it "the elimination of all unnecessary elements." Bullshit! This may be what you desire to do with your camera kit, but it's got nothing to do with Zen. Take it from a guy who lives in the country that invented it. I might call it "Amish and the Leica" or "Shaker and the Leica."

I'm really interested in the new 40mm lens that Voigtlander is introducing. It will be out this month in Nikon SLR mount, but I've seen announcements of a 40mm shoe finder, so I assume it will appear sometime in LTM. My current minimal Leica kit is a 35mm and 50mm. I think I could live with just the 40mm. My Fuji 690 with a 90mm lens has exactly the angle of view as 40mm in 35, and I carry it around without ever wishing I had another lens to put on it. Of course, with negatives that big, I know I can crop for a zooming effect. Are there any posters out there who use the CLs or CLEs with only the 40mm lens?

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), May 17, 2002.

Interesting thread! I had only a 35 ASPH cron for 6 months when I first came to Leica (coming from a 6 lens Nikkor quiver). The one lens limitation was indeed liberating in a strange way. Now I also have a 50 cron and 90 Elmarit, and am again falling into the trap of "Oooh, I should change lenses" instead of walking closer or backing up. At least now I can check the other framelines to see if I really should change lenses (a major advantage of the M that is often overlooked, IMHO). Sometimes I think I could get away with a Glenn Travis setup, i.e., just a 50 Elmar. I find I'm often more successful if I try to go out with just one lens. If I'm mostly outdoors: the 90, if mostly indoors: the 35, if some of both: the 50.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

Luke - I'm 79, and my wife (a much better photographer) is now 76. In most cases, our "travel" lenses have been a 35 'chron and a 90 TLE. We've taken the 50 'chron every now and then, but not usually. I'm talking about trips taken in the US and overseas since the '60's. In my trips between 1945 and 1958, a IIIc with a 50 Elmar sufficied.

Unless you're a professional on a shoot, my advice is to "KISS!" (Keep It Simple, Fella'), and take loads of film! Canging prime lenses takes time, and you can lose what you'd like to record.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 17, 2002.

Masatoshi, I think that a 40 - 45mm. lens is closest to what I would consider a universal lens. If Leica introduced a camera version with 40mm. framelines along with (obviously) a new 40mm. (undoubtedly priced to compensate for losses in 50 and 35 sales!!!!) it would get my attention!!

My first 35mm. camera was an old Zeiss Contessa with a 45mm. Tessar lens - I really like the 40 - 45mm. quality of view.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

I've recently gone back to the 50mm on my m6 instead of the 35mm and it feels like I'm home, almost a relief to have a 50mm Noct in constant use.I do think though that I need the kick once in a while that a change of lenses can accomplish. I think that a simple outfit can take your mind off the gear and into the photographic integrity/construction in a more full artistic sense.Much more Zen if you will with the goal in mind to be in the moment and in oneness/wholeness with the camera and subject, as well as oneself, thus overriding anything as mundane as a beginning or end.This feeling is being in a state of complete timelessness.The creative/perceptive state I do believe, has nothing to do with any specific religion or preconcieved road to the goal,even though some paths do seem to point the way with more clarity than others.I do think Krishnamurti said it best... "that at a certain point in your evolution all beliefs and preconcieved paths drop away to make way for reality/truth." Then life gets real interesting!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpople@msn.com), May 17, 2002.

Glenn, old bean, I hope you don't mind me re-posting your image. I thought the trunk looked a little fat...

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

This is an excellent thread...Less is more ...Once in awhile I like to go out and shoot a roll of film with just one camera; one roll of film and no meter.....The minimal attitude helps unclutter the brain and get better photos... My roll film photos I took in first grade have a look..These were pre-Bokeh / pre-Summicron days with my trusty Dakon lens .....and verichrome pan & Super-xx...With only one shutter speed and aperture; who worried about exposure!....Heck our only fear was the bert the turtle; duck and cover! Conelrad and those nifty 640 1240 am radio symbols would save us maybe from the evil commies.....Jeepers why didnt our media show us Anna Kournikova types instead of the drab films while we practiced our CD drills ; only showing olga ...It is interesting today to own so many Russian Cameras; with some of them really well built...The ones of mine that are all ok are my favorites.. I admire the russian cameras total simple construction and dirt cheap prices...Winning two FED LSM cameras with Industar 26 (elmar clones)on Ebay was a risk at 29 dollars plus 10 dollars shipping....I sent the Russian girl an extra 5 dollars for a magazine or newspaper to see what is up in Russia...

Anya sends me a cool glossy magazine and a robust working Leningrad Selenium that has quite low light abilities as a bonus; and it reads within a 1/2 stop of my luna Pro....The half finished crosswork puzzle in Cyrylic is going to stump me for a long time....Remember there are mre Zorki's made out there than Leicas! Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 17, 2002.

Luke,

An historian who shares your first name recorded these words from his subject: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear...(he might have added, 'or your M6, what lenses you might need')...But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well" (Luke 12:22- 31). Which, incidentally, does not mean that Christians get a free Noctilux at conversion.

He also said: "Take nothing for the journey - no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic (no 21mm just in case...?)..." (Luke 9:3) - in other words, keep it simple.

Luke's travelling companion also wrote, "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation..." (Philippians 4:12)

So, if you've got a clutch of M lenses, enjoy them! If you've only got a 'lux, be content with it! If you can manage without that 24mm ASPH, give the cash away.

-- Paul Hart (paulhart@blueyonder.co.uk), May 17, 2002.

<< HCB is a Buddhist. His use of just one lens makes sense in this context. Is keeping it simple the path to Leica enlightenment? >>

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of Buddhism and other "Eastern" paths is that detachment to earthly things (and pleasures) is the important thing, and not trying to emulate the poor by getting rid of stuff. Oh yeah, and life is full of suffering, something we have found on this forum!

So even if you have all the Leica lenses, or just one, it only matters whether you are attached or detached to them. In short, rich people can also be Buddhists, as long as they are not attached to their money. (Richard Gere is a Buddhist too!) That said, I usually leave the house with one body and one lens, even though I have more than that (mostly 20+ year old stuff that I won't sell due to sentimental reasons). I don't have any of the more expensive Leica lenses since I can't justify (to myself) paying the extra $800-$1,000 for one f-stop.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), May 18, 2002.

I forgot to add that the path to true happiness is to be free from desire. :) [Tell that to those with lens lust!]

I don't know whether I am correct in saying this (and Luke, please don't read any ill will in my statements), but even the desire to have better photographs is not a good desire (according to Buddhism). One should instead be more concerned with the path of photography, and not be attached to the fruits of the path. Easier to do if it is a hobby. I don't know what to tell those who do it for commercial reasons, except that the ends are more important than the means.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), May 18, 2002.

Yes! Simplify to the necessary and basic elements. I have an M6 TTL and 35 and 75 luxes. Hey I need at least 2 lenses! Sometimes I think about a 24mm, but really I don't believe most of my photography would merit one that I couldn't get by with the 35. Simple effectiveness for me is what it's all about. I did buy a flash SF-20 though, but only b/c I've found I needed one a few times. Other than that, that's it for my gear collection. Maybe a polarizer for Hawaii this summer though! Now that I think about it, that 24 would be nice for vast scenics ; ). Uh-oh...

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.

The idea of "leica photography" is already pretty ridiculous, then add in Zen and you've really lost the plot.

Your photography will improve when you stop thinking about cameras and start taking pictures about stuff you care about.

As for "Leica enlightenment"?!!! Good luck...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 18, 2002.

Luke

As many of us here, I'm very attracted to trying out this and that - find the ultimate lens set up, the ultimate body... (perfecting the body with some slight addendums...;o) But when it all boils down and I look at the statistics of actual use of my equipment, I find myself using the 35 in about 70% of all cases, the 75 in 15%, the 50 in 5%, and the rest is shared among the 21, 28 and 135.

Therefore I have settled for the 35/75 combo as my quick grab set up. I sometimes feel that the 50 would have been "righter" for a shot than one of the two other lenses, but I'm never really unable to cope with its absence.

Knowing that you have just two lenses with you will keep your eyes focussed on the views that match. Rather than constantly zooming from 21 to 135, ending up with no vision at all but just confusion. I think this approach best applies to what is commonly referred to as street photography (i.e. keeping your eyes open for the unexpected - as opposed to creating an effect that you have previsualized).

Shooting a movie these days, just yesterday I had an interesting discussion with the DOP who used to shoot a lot of commercials. While discussing lenses for a shot, he suggested that if I, Lutz, had to settle for one lens only, it would probably be the 40 equivalent (even though later that day he noted that we used the 70 equivalent very often, too...) - but when I reversed the question and asked him what would be his "one lens" of choice he just couldn't make up his mind. Coming from commercials, he is just so much used to working with the most extreme focal lengths in order to catch the attention of the viewer.

Well, where are my two cents? Maybe rather than between Zen and commercials there just is a difference between observing and exposing?

Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), May 18, 2002.

Luke: I certainly appreciate the "philosophical" or rather "quasi-philosophical" argument but there is another practical reason for keeping it light: YOUR BACK. As we age, our tolerance for heavy loads decreases and this can bring on or exacerbate lower back pain/disc diseases. You are making a very smart medical choice.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), May 18, 2002.

There are cyclists who share this one camera / one lens philosophy by riding a bike with just one gear. They often mention Zen, too. I'm fond of the notion, but it's never worked for me in practice. It isn't always possible to "just move forward or back" to get a picture, for example. (So I suppose you move on and look for another shot.)

An interesting thing I've discovered after buying my Leica was a sudden fondness for 50mm. I'd never even owned a 50 before. An attractive price had something to do with it, but mostly I just liked the lens itself, never mind the focal length. (Crazy, huh?) I'm not keen on rangefinders with medium telephotos, so I decided to make the 50 my 'telephoto' to complement a 28. My only complaint is the mildly cluttered framelines...

-- Scott Munn (scott@bokeh.net), May 18, 2002.

Scott, I'm like you and your bike. I love bikes, I love Ms, and my best photo travels are always with a bike (mountain bike although I'm usually off with it through the cemeteries or forests here). Before I head off, I know where and what I'm off to. Then I know whether to take my 21 or 35 or 50mm. Thats all. I hardly ever take all lenses or all of my tripod stuff anymore. M (among other things) means "Back to the basics".

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 18, 2002.

I think most of us here are gear-heads only in the sense that we like to own/use the best (camera-wise at least). I have two current kits: 1)Domke 803, IIIg with 35mm F2 Asph, 50 Nikkor F1.4, Gossen Lunasix, Leitz table top tripod with B/S head. 75 percent of my shooting in total is with the IIIg w/35 (about 300 rolls/year). kit 2) is an R3 with 35-70 F3.5 (German version), Elpros, Metz 32Mz in a LowePro S&F bag. All fairly simple. Most of my shooting is available light in or out of doors, but my lighting kit is extensive - 5 Lowel Omnis, stands, numerous umbrellas, gels, reflectors, cookies, scrims, etc. Thinking of getting rid of all the lighting gear to use the most simple - the sun. 10 years ago (when using Olympus) I carried 2 bodies with drives, lenses from 16mm - 300 mm and I've never regretted getting rid of it. I spend far more time now thinking about the image as oppossed to thinking about what lens-body combo I'm going to use to get the image. This is one of the huge benefits of being an amateur/artist/semipro. You can pare down your equipment, shoot what you like and eventually have a recognizable style (Ralph Gibson comes to mind - for years he 90 percent of his images were with the 35 and 50 - he says that it's only been in the last few years that he's mastered them to the point where he's now using the 90 - his 'style is very recongnizable). Most pros (unfortunately in my opinion) have to be very versatile, carry a ton of equipment and give whatever style the client wants. Only the top shooters (for the most part) get to say - 'this is the way I shoot, if you hire me this is what you'll get'.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 18, 2002.

Specialy interesting is for me your post Luke, and all answers, that at the end have to do with everyone own choices.

In my case I have become a gearhead last three years, never was before, now I know it has more to do with owning the rigth (best) tool for the trade, I donīt feel confortable by owning four 50mm and four 35mm lenses, (those are my main choices), I have come to conclusions that even knowing all and every lens own caracteristics I canīt be able to use all so I have made the choice to sell most of my equipment and keep 21/28/35/50/90 only one of each, after all options are needed, may be in few more years Iīll be writing about shrink it more to 28/35/50 but not just yet, ho yes and my hasselblad stuff is for sale too. Four M bodies are keeped. To Zen or not to Zen.

-- r watson (al123123@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.

Ken, thank you for your kindness. Rob, you hit the nail on the head for me. Luke, if you research further, I think you'll find that HCB's use of one lens has more to do with his education as a find artist than anything else, or at least that's always been my interpretation. God, I love Leica photography.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.

Great Thread!

Yep, I'm a gearhead, and yep, I've got plenty of tools. With considerable effort, I could probably take my car apart with an adjustable wrench, a pair of vice grips and a length of pipe. But it would not be easy or fun.

When I've traveling light, I take only my M3 and a collapsible 50 (f/1.9 Canon Serenar). No Meter. That's it. Fist in my pocket. I get good pictures. But I get better shots in dark places with my Noctilux, or my Summilux. There are some situations where my 90mm Summicron shines. or my 21, 35, or 135.

What counts is being able to anticipate what will be best for a given subject before you're out there shooting it, and having that equipment around when you're shooting. If you take equipment that you don't use, it just gets in the way.

The idea is to get good shots, not prove that you can do it with just an M4 and a 35 Summilux, or whatever your preferance. This takes practice.

I'm still practicing. Is this zen? I dunno.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), May 18, 2002.

Excellent replies, all of you.

Masatoshi, please excuse my apparent ignorance of Zen Buddhism. I use the term Zen in the most vernacular sense of the word. Perhaps I'll pick up a volume by DT Suzuki today for a refresher.

Paul, I especially liked your reply. I intend to reread the Gospels tomorrow.

Dr. Knapp makes an excellent point, something I have also been considering. Interesting how heavy a lightweight kit can become after a long day of hiking.

And to Robert Appleby, always an excellent provider of Leica wisdom, I'm afraid that neither I, nor many people in this forum, can completely forget about this brand-name equipment we own and use. We are, after all, gearheads. Ever notice, for example, how seldom technique is discussed in here? It's almost always about owning this lens or selling that body to upgrade to an M7. I see surprisingly few photographs on this site about photography. You, however, must have achieved Leica enlightenment. It is apparent in the quality of your photographs. Excellent work in the Digital Journalist last month!

And I mention HCB as a Buddhist as a kind of interesting footnote. I know that his exclusive use of the 50 Summicron (and today, the 40 Summarit on the Minilux) really has nothing to do with any kind of Buddhist philosophy. He was a one single focal length guy long before he became a Buddhist.

Thank you all for your replies. Very thoughtful and insightful, all of them.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), May 18, 2002.

m3,m4,m6,elmar35,50,cron35.

one on each, 3 films, domke.

zen.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 18, 2002.

Rob wrote:

"Your photography will improve when you stop thinking about cameras and start taking pictures about stuff you care about."

If you use a F4.5-6 zoom lens, how will you be able to use it in handheld available light scenes?

I think the camera and lens is important here, and hence Leica per se. Unless of cos, one don't care about the quality of pics that he CARES FOR.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 18, 2002.

Nah, Rob is dead on. A photographer masters the tools. A camera owner owns the tools and thinks the tools make the difference.

Rob's pix with that F4.5-6 zoom lens would be better than 99% of the pix you see on here taken with a Leica.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 18, 2002.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt then.;)

So why is he browsing this forum? Cos the Leica shutter feels "quiet"?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 18, 2002.

For those of you who yearn for a 40mm lens why not try an inexpensive Canon G-III QL17? It's simple, it's fast and it is a great performer.

Regarding HCB's zen tendencies try Jean-Pierre Montier's "Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art." You will have to wade through a lot of French deconstructionist clap trap but there are a few gems of understanding in it. It is a big book and it has many fine reproductions of HCB's work from all eras. Dennis

-- Dennis Buss (dbuss@rider.edu), May 18, 2002.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt then.;) So why is he browsing this forum?

Because he wants to.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 18, 2002.

"Your photography will improve when you stop thinking about cameras and start taking pictures about stuff you care about."

Rob, I absolutely hate it when you say something I totally agree with.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 18, 2002.

Luke, a very graceful and chastening response to a rather grumpy and uncalled post on my part, touche'!

Yossi, I browse this forum because I do use leica M cameras and lenses and because I enjoy it.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 18, 2002.

Luke -

I mean my remarks about Zen to be in a humorous way, but that is hard to express in writing. It seems so strange how Zen in Japan, a strict discipline with a very bleak outlook on the world, has come to mean in other places happy simplicity. Much the way some people are astonished when they see the way the Japanese adopt and then change western things. If you see what looks like a church in Japan, chances are it is owned by a wedding service company and used only for weddings, it has never been used for any kind of Christian worship. Odd.

On a more serious note, D.T. Suzuki was quite famous and became almost the embodiment of Zen to the west, a kindly old man, humble and smiling. Yet what few people know of are his views that Japan's invasion of China was an act of "Buddhist compassion" to free the Chinese "heathens" from their errant ways, by killing millions of them, I guess. Hardly "Zenlike" in the way most westerners think of it.

But back to photography: I find it easy to minimize my kit if I know exactly what I want to take pictures of. My best photography comes when I have a purpose and a focus. I admire much street photography, but I don't do it well. I am better when I have a plan. I keep an actual, written list of things I want to photograph, and they are always things I have seen before, and often photographed before without much success. I include notes about lighting, weather, seasons, times, and what gear might do the job best. Then, I can take only what I need and know exactly what I want to do with it.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), May 18, 2002.

Having recently watched a documentary where it is clear to see HCB busyly changing lenses I wouldn't personally take the old fraud as a role model. Perhaps an analogy from 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance' maybe is more apt, 'use the correct sized spanner for the nut'. In other words, if you need four or five lenses, use four or five lenses, and do not force your subject to be what it isn't.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), May 18, 2002.

"If Leica introduced a camera version with 40mm. framelines along with (obviously) a new 40mm"

Art, whats wrong with a Leica CL or Minolta CLE? Offers just what you have asked for!

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.

Yep. When shooting strictly for myself, such as on vacation, it's one camera and a 35mm lens -- no flash, no tripod, no nothin' else. I don't even like to carry a camera bag. Being free from equipment decisions ("which lens should I use for this shot?") equals a greater chance of actually making good photos.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), May 18, 2002.

Luke, far be it from me to kibitz, since I've been there myself, but I gotta ask: How is moving from a Minilux to an M6 + multiple lenses a move toward simplification? Why not just stick with the mini?

>>I'm trying to keep it simple, and it's a real challenge. I've decided to streamline my kit to an M6 with a 35 Summilux ASPH and 90 TeleElmarit in a Domke 803 satchel. A minimal, yet perfect, setup for my photographic purposes. I am, after all, just a hobbyist.

>>I'm liquidating a black Minilux with accessories, SF20 flash, Heliar 15, and Domke F6 bag.

-- dave (sapasap@aol.com), May 19, 2002.

I think I liberated myself from photo gears a bit in different way.

It was only 35mm Summicron and M2 when I start to using Leica. Then I begun to collecting lenses and even another body.

Later a while, I did also have some guilty feeling finally having 28/35/50/90 all Summicrons plus M6 LHSA and M2, because it's too much for hobbyist like me and my photography was not good at all. And more than 90% of photos were taken by 35mm Summicron.

What I have done to make myself feel better was, I used only 50mm lens for two month, only 28mm for another two months and then only 90mm lens for next two months. Through this procedure, I learned a lot about these three focal lenths. Now I sold 50mm lens and still keep 3 lenses, but I carry only one mostly and max. two. If I buy a new lens again (most probably I won't) I will also repeat it; use new lens for minimum two months without touching other ones until I master the new lens.

-- Ernie Kim (jek@mac.com), May 19, 2002.

Rob, I initial response to you wasn't intended to be disrespectful, I admire your work.

But when you use Leica, you knew/know how important the bodies/lenses mean to you as far as quality and fell is concerned, or else why would you use it?

So I had to disagree when you said "the camera is not important", because it is. It is what you use that made you who you are.

Of cos, you can still get occasional great pics by using a point and shoot. But you wouldn't, would you?

That's all from me. To each his own I guess?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

"I initial"= "my initial" "quality and fell"="quality and feel"

Anyway, when someone who uses Leica and then say the camera is not important is like Michael Shumacher winning the Formula One and then say the CAR is not important.

happy shooting.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

Trained as an artist/painter, I had all kinds of different brushes.scrapers, trowles, crayons, even sandpaper and blow-torches, not to mention many sticks, cans and tubes of paint. The tools were nothing to me but a way to get something out of my head and onto a canvas. Sometimes one brush and one color was enough. Sometimes all of it came into play. Usually only one was used when I didn't have any money for more. The thought of limiting it to one on purpose is philosophical Horse Manure. Even Zen like Sumi painters using just black ink have a SET of brushes to work with. If I had the money to ignore all other priorities, I'd own every Lens Leica made, and have them special manufacture ones just for me with my name engraved on them.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 19, 2002.

Off topic. But don't take this "no desire" thing too far. What about the desire to take photographs? The desire to live? The desire to live happily? The desire to be free of suffering? The desire, above all, to learn?

It is not about not having desires. It is about not being a slave to them. There is a difference.

Now that we are clear, who would gift me an M7? I have no desire to buy it if you know what I mean... ;-)

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

Nothing gets realised without desire.A person without desire is like a lost ship at sea. Even the goal to be free of desires is still a desire in itself.I think that the only way to temporarily extinguish desire is to be whole and in a state of higher consciousness which automatically rises above desire or the urge to achieve.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 19, 2002.

It depends on the day. I think you should use the equipment you believe or trust in strongly,on a particular moment. I think the choice of camera body is less essential than the choice of focal length, with different angles, perspective.

I think limitation to one focal length limits creativity. Which doesn`t mean that you can`t produce great stuff with only one focal length at your disposal.

In my profession I see many colleagues limit their "interest" to a narrow field: "I do shoulders/knees/backs/you name it only".etc etc. These people are excellent in their area but something is missing and you know it.

If my house were on fire I`d grab whatever camera/lens is nearest-I don`t care what it is.

Larry Towell (Magnum) was in New Yprk for a meeting, not on assignment, on Sept 11; he carried a point & shoot. You should see the results.

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), May 19, 2002.

Yossi, let's not argue, but I didn't say equipment is not important. My point is that worrying about gear is going to do nothing for you if you don't have a good reason to be taking pictures, something that really motivates you, and when you do, the gear issue resolves itself very naturally.

When I first got into photography I also swapped and changed my equipment, each time thinking it would improve my photography. In the end, I completely stopped taking pictures for about ten years because I came to realise that I had no idea what I was up to. Then, when I found my subject, I found the gear decision very easy. I use largely two lenses and two M bodies, but right now i'm contemplating getting a 180 lens for one of my wife's F3's because I can see the need for it in certain situations. My equipment decisions are driven by what I do, not by some abstract criteria such as KISS or Zen. If you're limited by your one lens choice and can't take the pictures you need to because of it, then it isn't KISS at all, it's PITA. So, equipment is important, but only in relation to the subject.

BTW, Luke, all this is not in any way intended to imply that you don't have a good reason to be taking pictures ;-).

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

Orite Rob, ;)

Im sorry if I came in too strong. I guess we all have differing needs and philosophy about what we use and what we want out of it.

Happy shotting.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

"Take it from a guy who lives in the country that invented it. "

Sumimasen, but I think Zen (Cha-an?) was invented in China and imported into Japan. And didn't Bodhidarma actually bring it from India to China even before it became Zen? I don't think it made it to Japan until around the 6th Patriach or so. My copy of D.T. Suzuki's "Zen in Japanese Culture" is loaned out so I may be a little fuzzy on the facts.

And what is the sound of one shutter curtain opening? ;-)

-- Rick Campbell (rcampbell@marylhurst.edu), May 20, 2002.

Rick -

Quite right! Except that Zen has undergone so many changes and divisions since its arrival that it is different now from the time it first arrived. It is a bit like pizza: invented in Italy (maybe), but only in Japan can you get it with corn and potato toppings! I think Zen has been transmitted to the west largely from Japanese teachings, perhaps because other sources (such as China) have been relatively closed off, or under the rule of governemnts which try to stamp it out. The Japanese government pressured Zen sects into support of militaristic expansion before and during World War 2. It was at this time that D.T. Suzuki called the Chinese "unruly heathens" and maintained that one aim of Zen was support of the state. I think he perverted the idea of indifference to death into a justification for killing, which he still claimed was "compassionate." And Zen has been changed yet again in the west, so that the ideas people think of as "Zen" are hardly recognizeable to Japanese. So it is with many religions when they move from one culture to another.

The sound of one shutter curtain opening is the voice of God telling you you need a CLA immediately.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), May 20, 2002.

It is a bit like pizza: invented in Italy (maybe), but only in Japan can you get it with corn and potato toppings!

I saw it with raw fish as a topping in Yokahama when I was there ten years ago.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 20, 2002.

Yamamoto-san

So desu neh!

-- Rick Campbell (rcampbell@marylhurst.edu), May 20, 2002.

What did the photographer say to the Leica vendor?

Make me one with everything... Sorry :)

I am constantly in the process of learning that my work becomes stronger the less it is thought about and the more it is done. To this end a 35mm lens simplifies and allows one to become more unified with the subject. Lets not forget Eugen Herrigel's Book "Zen in the Art of Archery" which HCB found as a verbal and spiritual parallel to his own work.

-- Carl Socolow (csocolow@mindspring.com), June 06, 2002.

I think that the greats have shown us that less is more. The one street shooter I know personally who has prints in MOMA and elsewhere has done it with 2 lenses, a 35 and 50. Mainly the 35. If you're not using the equipment for professional tasks, what's the point in being a chameleon? What does debating over which lens to use have to do with intuition and vision?

-- Karl Knize (karlknize@ameritech.net), June 06, 2002.