One camera and lens

[igord]

<p>You get rid of all of your equipment and buy just one camera (film or digital, new or used) with one lens, what would it be?</p>

[SCL]

<p>That's simple....depending on my mood, but I think it would be my Leica M4, which I've had since 1968, and as for the lens, probably a 50mm Summicron. But honestly...I rotate thru almost all my cameras during the year, and actually use my digital ones the most.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I always wonder about these questions, since they don't generally have any connection with reality. Just the other day, I heard two jokers talking about which supermodel they'd settle on if they could only choose one as a companion while shipwrecked on a desert island. Who was it here in an earlier thread that referred to these sorts of worries as a "first world sort of problem?" I still laugh at that one!</p>

[michael_josefsson]

<p>I'm quite happy with my 5DII and Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40/2. In fact, it is on most of the time. I'd probably get that same setup again.</p>

[Brad_]

iPhone 4s with 3.85mm lens. That's what I shoot with.

[Rick Helmke]

Nikon F2, 28/2.8 and Tri-X. And I wouldn't take a supermodel, too much maintenance.

 

Rick H.

[sarah_fox]

<p>No camera, no lens. I'd just have a roll of film I would unfurl, re-roll, and develop. Photography in its purest state, as God intended.</p>

[igord]

<p>Matt, they do! I think about it ;) And supermodels are cool these days ;)</p>

[rossb]

<p>I don't know. I cannot get past the part where you get rid of your gear.</p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>Nikon F3HP, 35/2.0 (assuming, of course, the supermodel comes with a bag of silver cells) - otherwise an F2/DE-1 with the aforementioned 35/2.0. And Tri-X.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>This thing -- If I am gonna throw everything away I use and value, then <em>reductio ad absurdum</em> is the new principal for an absurd OP.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>In my case, Igor, that would be very simple and different from what has been said above. While I am currently selling off lesser used equipment, those items that I still use are still varied and notable for their differences than for any likeness. Each has its own utlity, so the answer is not so much whether I might keep the simple scale focussing 1950s Vito b, or the recent top end digital system camera and one lens, but rather the question becomes instead:</p>

<p>Given that I will sacrifice various presently acquired photographic approaches or capabilities by reducing my equipment to one camera, what is it that I would most like to photograph in future with a more restricted system?</p>

<p>If I did mainly macro photography, that would narrow the list. If I sought to do landscapes, or if I prefered to restrict myself to street/event photography, different other choices would prevail. Same thing for abstract, birding, wild game, low light, night, or sports photography. If I liked invoking a lot of out of focus effects in my images, I might choose a lens with a large number of diaphragm blades, or with specific spherical aberration effects, in order to enhance good "bo ke". If I gave up my B&W darkroom, I might choose a digital camera, unless I had a scanner.</p>

<p>For me it would not be what camera and lens I might be satisfied with, but which more restricted photographic approach I would priorize as a consequence, the needs for which would then dictate a more specific simpler system. </p>

<p>I wouldn't care much for minute differences between camera A versus camera B or lens C versus lens D, that ad nauseum and somewhat senseless dabate. Reducing a system to the basic minimum is more a question for me of reducing one's photographic approach or scope - to what?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm easy. And cheap. I'll take a simple <a href="http://azurebumble.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/abelardo-morell-camera-obscura-photography/">camera obscura room</a> with a couple of chairs. With a really good view. Let's say... NYC. Or a nice sea coast.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>You didn't mention budget, so, if you are a serious photographer and a Nikon shooter, I am thinking Nikon D700/D300s + Nikkor 28-300mm.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Nikkormat FTN w/ 50F2. They were all I needed for my first 5 years of photography. So I'm sure I could manage with only this kit again.</p>

[pge]

<p>Nikon D700 with 50mm f1.8g</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>D800 and 17-35mm f2.8 for me...</p>

[igord]

<p>There were/are famous photographers using (or at least trying to use) just one camera and lens, so it makes sens to me. Looking through your posts I see film is still very popular. I talked at my local kodak lab today and was told that many young people come to process film again, as I was afraid the lab will eventually quit film processing.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Minolta XE-5 with Minolta 35-135 f3.5-4.5 MD</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>If I lost everything in a fire (the only way I would part with any of my current kit, by the way) I would pick up either a Hasselblad SWC or a Fuji GSW690 III.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Okay, your basic nightmare scenario. . . . Still, I'll play: my Canon 5D II with my 24-70 would get me a lot of shots. Or maybe I would drop back to a crop sensor camera with an 18-200 something or other so that I could go wide and pretty long.</p>

<p>Let's talk about something else. This is depressing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I have tons of cameras and there is a time I had to choose to keep only one camera and only one lens with me (not throwing the rest, just store them somewhere) and my choice was a Pentax *istD with a Sigma 28-60mm 2.8<br>

Your choice of course depends on your available cameras and available money sources and your need (last but not least).<br>

I made that decision because the *istD is:<br>

- a DSLR with pentaprism<br>

- among the lightest and smallest DSLR<br>

- enough control wheels for me<br>

- doesn't have a big LCD in the back which made many ppl believed it was a film SLR<br>

- with Pentax, there was greatest chance for me to pick up another lens somewhere from some one for a low price<br>

- 28-60mm with APSC size sensor is most commonly used for me, 2.8 is all (and a little more than) I need. Sigma is also cheap, especially that one<br>

- I don't need (and don't like) high ISO</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>5DII with the 24-105L. Supermodel needs to be 36C++.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Given that Kodachrome is dead and Ektachrome is in hospice, I'd tuck my Retina IIa under my pillow and wait for Sigma DP1m to hit the market.

[mark_drutz]

<p>I like small lightweight cameras and lenses so it would be a D3100 or D5100 and Tamron 18-270 VC PZD.</p>