Agreeing with Ken!
Greenwich Village, NY – Ilford Delta 3200
I had to laugh when I saw this post title on Kirk Tuck’s blog page: A great article by Ken Rockwell. Really. And laugh, I did. You know you’ve made it when the invocation of your name seems to automatically spawn flame wars in forums and on blog sites. However, Kirk was talking about Ken’s assertion that less equipment = better photos. An assertion that I would certainly agree with.
From personal experience this year, from about March forward, I’ve been shooting, whether film or digital, with one prime lens on each camera, all equivalent to 50mm, save for the 50mm on the D300, which is equivalent to a 75mm. Truthfully, I don’t really know if my photography is any better this year than last, or the perhaps the year before, but I do know that I am enjoying it more because of this decision. Mental clutter is way down. There’s no more wondering if I should go back to the car and get the XYZ zoom lens. Sure, it’s cost me a couple of long-range shots that I would have liked to have, but I believe that it has allowed my to pay better attention to what’s right in front of me.
Though no one knows what the morrow will bring, I intend to keep shooting this way at least until I’ve been shooting film for a year, which will be some time in May. I will be selling one my zoom lenses and purchasing a 28 mm or 35 mm lens for the D300 to give it a slightly wider perspective.
Which zoom will you be selling?
I had to laugh when I read Kirk’s post as well. I happen to enjoy Rockwell (my only gripe is I wish he actually answered email — and, yes, I know he has addressed this issue in a post or two). I know I have learned something from Ken, in fact, more than a few somethings.
I really like this image, btw . Seems like maybe the D300 converted to b&w?
When are you heading back to Charleston?
[Reply]
Paul Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 7:28 am
I’ve learned a thing or two myself and I find unabashed hypocrisy rather funny. He easily plays both sides of the fence, usually separated by some amount of time.
I’ve never e-mailed him and don’t recall posts where he talks about it.
This image was actually one of my first shots with Delta 3200. I shot it using the Olympus 35 RC. For now, if I post a B&W image, you can be sure that it is film. If it’s color, digital. I’m not converting to B&W. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s just what I’m doing right now.
I’m back in Charleston right now. My wife and Tony are coming here this weekend so that I don’t have to drive home. They are bringing Hobbs, too. I promised him a romp on the beach to control those pesky seagulls, so I have to deliver!
I’ll be selling my Tamron 11-18mm zoom.
[Reply]
Ken Rockwell is not only frequently amusing, he is also frequently right. That’s the reason I read his posts. On the other hand, you have to take everything with a grain of salt. Yes, he really means that the D40 is a fine camera, and for many people it certainly is, but it’s not completely unreasonable to buy a D300 either. It depends on what you want to do.
My “classic” regarding Ken’s occasional shameless hypocrisy was his stance towards full frame cameras. They were completely overrated and practically useless until Nikon came out with FX. No, actually it was a little earlier. His stance changed when he began writing about Canon gear and acquired a 5D. Suddenly DX was for amateurs and full frame for professionals like him
His recent comparison method for lenses by downsizing results from differently resolving sensors, comparing a Zeiss, a Canon and a Nikon wide angle, the Zeiss and the Canon on a 5DMkII and the Nikon 14-24/2.8G on a D3, that was simply an example of outright stupidity. Basically he proved that 22 megapixel outresolve 12 megapixel. There was no possible conclusion about the lenses, apart from the fact that the Zeiss was better than the Canon. Doh!
Still, he is more than only a talented jester, and you certainly can find lost of insight there. The problem comes with recognizing it among the not do insightful rest.
[Reply]
Paul Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 7:35 am
“Still, he is more than only a talented jester”
I like that!
He certainly is a jester. As a matter of fact, when I was looking for a smaller DSLR, I read his post about the D40 and, after a bit of thinking, went out and bought one. He was right on every front. It was a great camera. Certainly no replacement for a D300, especially when it comes to shooting sports and shooting in inclement weather. After using it for a year, or so, I sold it because I had too many cameras. 
[Reply]
“Lost of insight”??? Well, I meant “lots”, did I?
[Reply]
I think there is a lot of truth in Ken’s post. I find the cameras of today get in my way quite a bit too, and I’m a hard-core techie! I think that’s one reason I shoot JPEG mostly and have reduced my post-processing to a minimum–it’s just too much TOO MUCH! I tend to set up whatever custom modes there are available to the “looks” that I like and then just stick to those two or three modes when picturing.
Lately I purchased a 20mm fixed less (normal FOV for m4/3) and have been shooting with it almost exclusively instead of zooms. It’s simplified things even further..
For what it’s worth, I like the work that you post from your new film gear–it’s great!
[Reply]
Paul Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Eric! Be careful about saying that you shoot JPEG. That’s heresy in some circles!
On the QT (Quiet – Secret) or the DL (Down Low – secret), I shoot JPEG, too. Shhhhhh. Don’t tell anyone!
[Reply]
I agree also and read both Ken and Kirks posts. I have shot almost exclusively with the 35mm f1.8 DX lens for several months now and find it freeing. I use a zoom or macro when shooting nature, flowers and close ups. I’ve even stopped carrying a camera bag when on the streets. I put my moleskin in my pocket and camera over my shoulder. And, even though I don’t need it nor can I afford the Leica, I’d probably buy one.
[Reply]
Paul Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 7:41 am
I’ve been using the 50mm/1.8 and the Tamron 90mm macro alternately, depending on what type of shots I want to take. Sometimes, I’m in the mood for macro and the Tamron is immensely satisfying to use. I plan on getting a 35mm/1.8 when I sell my one of my zoom lenses.
[Reply]
I believe Ken wrote a lot of that to stir the attention that he likes so much. Personally I figure the right tool for the job makes more sense. I don’t really go out looking for something to shoot, when I leave the house I pretty much have an idea of what I want to say or make in mind. Planning and having the proper gear for that voice when shooting makes the image and story stronger.
The danger is and what I believe the point is, having to much gear with you at a time may allow the equipment to drive the vision instead of what you want to say. Have a clear vision of what you are after can keep the gear at a minimum and allow you to concentrate on the vision. Know your tools and know your vision, the rest will take care of its self. I’m pretty sure they didn’t build the Taj Mahal with just a hammer.
[Reply]
It is pretty common advice to stick to one lens/ camera and use it until you really know it. I think that might actually be quite a common development arc.
Get a simple camera. Get Gear Acquisition Syndrome, always reaching for the next bit of gear to help you ‘improve’. Then after a while (or maybe never) you realise that the gear doesn’t help you improve, but you have to improve. Often there follows a period of contraction – simple gear, single lenses etc, until you maybe get the hang of that – then it all balloons out again ?
[Reply]
So I read Ken’s blog poste as well. Now I’m seriously thinking of buying a 35mm f1.8 lens and putting away the zoom….
[Reply]
…must resist….resist … will not be drawn to clicking the Rockwell link again.
Something I am sure he appreciates in his advertising revenues.
[Reply]
I agree. When I shot film I lugged around an old Nikon FTN from my Vietnam days. I carried the prime lens, a 35mm, and a 135mm.
We have a D40, D60 and a D90 and my son has my old D50 which he lugs around the Adirondacks. As far as lenses we have a 18-55mm on the D40, a 55-200 on the 60, and a 18-135 on the 90. We try to keep it simple and I would do the same if it was a Canon, Olympus, or whatever, we all know it is not the camera, so adhere to the KISS principle, it makes life so much easier.
[Reply]
Rockwell? Ken Rockwell? The signal/noise ratio is more appalling than appealing… so after some attempts I don’t read it any more. For me there is not enough balance in his arguing…
Re. the use of a single lens: Well, in the dark season I find myself going back to the fastest primes I have, a 28/1.8 Sigma (as recommended by Andreas many times on his blog) and the old Minolta 85/1.4. It is a different kind of photography, not better or worse, and the teaching factor is high. But I when the light is more, my zooms will get their share again – sometimes I really miss that flexibility.
[Reply]
Andreas Manessinger Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Yeah, yeah, those sensor-stabilized guys. How I hate it
But really, as much as I love lens stabilization on the few stabilized lenses that I have (stabilized viewfinder!), as much envy do I feel when I imagine my Sigma 28/1.8 (or any other of my lenses) being stabilized. Unfortunately Nikon will likely never support sensor stabilization. What a pity!
[Reply]