Chasing the perfect kit...

[PapaTango]

<p>I just finished reading and made a post to the "Perfect Camera" thread in this forum. Whilst doing so, I glanced a couple times at an Argus C3 35mm brick that resides on my bookshelf. I bought one just like it in 1971 for the grand sum of $9 at a junk shop--a princely sum in those days for a 20 year old camera. My corner drug store had a rack of film--and the pharmacy owner suggested a roll of Panatomic-X. By my second 36 exposure roll and a beat up Gossen Pilot light meter in hand--I had found the perfect combination. Through the process this included souping in Microdol-X 1:1 and printing out on fiber based bromide papers. Ahh, the world was perfect...</p>

<p>Since then, I have been through many dozen combinations of brand and kit. Canon. Yashica. Mamiya. Miranda. Linhoff. Graflex. Busch. Minolta. Toyo. Nikon/Nikkormat. Kodak. Tachihara. Bronica. Each has their merits, each produced worthy photographs. But I chased, no obsessively pursued every component of them to find the "best" that would give me the "best" photographs. In all, I found something lacking and chased something else.</p>

<p>So it is I just found myself after a year with my Nikon D7100 kit. I have bought and own about everything--lenses, flashes, filters, accessories--so on an so forth. My "gestalt" moment came just a few days ago when complaining about something I thought was lacking in a Sigma flash--that I blamed on some flaw in the flash--that the problem was really me! Imagine that...</p>

<p>We are long gone from the days of three camera adjustments--speed, aperture, and focus--all of which the tool behind the tool was responsible for setting. Yes, we can take the most up to date body/lens combo and go full manual and see the same game. But as offerings have increased in complexity of configuration--as certain automated tasks have replaced the manual reliance on personal knowledge versus digital/silicon determinations, have we also begun chasing the "perfect kit" that delivers based upon its technical specifications?</p>

<p>Therein lies my conundrum--and my challenge. I have a 384 page manual for my D7100. Each piece of the kit has its own manual. Every piece has its strengths and weaknesses. Nearly infinite variables and configurations--understandings that must be garnered on each to make it work together as a system to deliver maximal results--yet the lure that there is a better lens, a better filter, or accessory that will improve the results. Is there really, or is is all about our impatience and reliance on technology--and an unwillingness to go 'old school' and actually learn the strengths and weaknesses of our gear and make that give us those "perfect kit" an satisfying images?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Wow - interesting analysis and great summary question! I suppose I could speculate on a meaningful answer. But in my case I think there are some areas of my brain in which a little devil tempts me with something I haven't tried, I'm sure for some good reason in the past, and like Eve I want to take a taste of he apple. Come on, just one bite....and off I go to another camera/piece of gear...to be sold down the road as I discover I didn't really need it - but it provided an additional learning experience. Sometimes it is disheartening to realize my self discipline has been breeched once more...but it being a hobby which provides much satisfaction justifies all. Enough extemporizing...but you really did get me thinking. It's great to have a lifelong hobby.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>There is an old saying -- "watch out for the man who only has one gun". Applies to camera gear as well, I think. No, I don't practice what I preach!</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p><em> "Is there really, or is is all about our impatience and reliance on technology--and an unwillingness to go 'old school' and actually learn the strengths and weaknesses of our gear and make that give us those "perfect kit" an satisfying images?" -Patrick Thrush.</em><br /> The perfect kit is in your brain, you knowledge, visualization, experience and artistic talent. The cameras and lenses is secondary.</p>

[jaydann_walker]

<p>There are some (okay, one or two) pleasures in being "older and wiser" and one of the great joys of my decades of photogaphy was the discovery, in my 60s, that less is best. Changing my approach to photo gear accordingly, buying less, making do with fewer gewgaws and toys, was a great liberation.</p>

<p>I now do my best work with one camera, one lens (medium format) or one camera, three lenses (35mm SLR/digi DSLR). A Nikkormat with a 28mm f/2.8, similarly a D700 28mm kit, suits my viewpoint perfectly. A lens hood, UV and yellow filters, a polariser, and film fit into one pocket or a small bag. For a country weekend, the Nikkormat along with a Rollei or my Perkeo II, a few accessories, and two rolls of film for each, amply provide for any opportunities I have to go forth and actually ENJOY the outing, as well as the photography. To go lightly is to travel mightily...</p>

<p>Bela has it right. Ditto Stephen with his thoughts on "a meaningful answer". To me there is no such thing. I want to let my images speak for themselves.</p>

<p>For now, the rest of you can cogitate on what is "perfect" for you, and meantimes go on being the little darlings of the camera shops, where you are greatly loved, as we older lens boys and girls did in our time. As someone or other once said, there is one born every minute. I know. My camera locker is proof that P.T. Barnum was a wise (and canny) old entrepreneur...</p>

<p>JD in Sarawak, Malaysia</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I almost never read those manuals and thus perhaps do not get the most out of my cameras, but I do understand the basics of exposure, etc., and so get passable shots. Buying a wide variety of digital cameras has given me some perspective on relative strengths of this or that brand or model, but it has not made my photography demonstrably better.</p>

<p>When it comes to lenses, on the other hand, I do think that doing my own lens tests (informal tests, I might add, but still recording aperture, etc. for comparisons) has helped me understand the limits of each brand and model that I shoot, especially at various focal lengths and apertures. Yet, yet, even there I cannot believe that my photography has improved very much for all that trouble-but more so as a result of attention to lenses than to cameras.</p>

<p>After all my buying, I am reminded belatedly of Thoreau's maxim: "Simplify. Simplify." The best kit for most persons might well be the simplest. That surely is the least expensive option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Our life is frittered away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the rest. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb nail. In the midst of this chopping sea of civilized life, such are the clouds and storms and quicksands and thousand-and-one items to be allowed for, that a man has to live, if he would not founder and go to the bottom and not make his port at all, by dead reckoning, and he must be a great calculator indeed who succeeds. Simplify, simplify. Instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion. <br />   —Thoreau, <em>Walden</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do think that smaller formats have gotten so good that I probably don't really even need full-frame cameras anymore, if I ever did. Mine stay at home more and more as I take out my Nikon 5000 and 7000 series APS-C sensor cameras, or their Sony equivalents. (I could include Pentax and Canon, about which I have absolutely no complaints.) <em><br /></em></p>

<p>Patrick, I have always thought of you as an accomplished photographer, certainly much more so than I, and so it surprises me to hear you ask these questions, unless you are just sort of thinking out loud. You know much more about kit than most of us.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I'm with Bela on this one. The "perfect kit" for me is the one I have in my hands when I want to take a picture. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>We are long gone from the days of three camera adjustments--speed, aperture, and focus--all of which the tool behind the tool was responsible for setting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed. My cameras offer me help and assistance - but I am still responsible for setting the exposure I want and get the focus where I want it. When everything was manual, I missed shots because I was still adjusting exposure or pulling focus - now the camera offers means to do this faster and more reliably - which allows me to focus on what's really important - creating the image. After all, dealing with the technicalities of getting the shot isn't all, it's not even half of it. If I can let the camera do things that I would have to attend to otherwise - and that I still control - what's the issue with that. I, for one, am not missing the "good old days" when allegedly everything was so much better. Today's tools are the best I ever had - and I fully embrace A or S mode, and AF in its various forms. They are great helpers - no more, no less.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Yeah, Bela has a point. I use my rig in manual (by choice) and I get maximum results....and without drooling over the next rig that comes out or having to spend X amount of dollars. Sure, it would be nice to have a better DR, better buffer and couple other improvements....but for my current needs this is just fine and I don't think I could see much improvement in my images even if I spend $6500. Really!!! </p>

<p>But, I see all around me folks think that the latest-greatest will help their photo taking. Anyhoo, it's their money....so who am I to point at this self deception ?</p>

<p>Les</p>

 

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>I have a 384 page manual for my D7100<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mine has a large manual, too, and I have no interest in reading it. :-) I know that there are some nice little luxuries (WB, electronic front curtain) but those are not really additions to the three controls (aperture, shutter, focus). Anyway I know where they are and that's that.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The best kit for most persons might well be the simplest. That surely is the least expensive option.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One could say that one cannot afford a complicated kit. And I, too, agree with Thoreau.<br>

<br>

I am not sure that we should even think about perfection - perhaps there is such a thing as the ideal kit, or the best possible kit, however.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."<br>

Bruce Lee</p>

</blockquote>

 

[Sanford]

<p>Someday I hope to have the skill and confidence to use my Fuji XT10 and 27mm (40mm equiv.) combination exclusively. Lightweight, silent electronic shutter, but that focal length is just hard to get used to.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I have re-read the OP's post several times - and come to the conclusion that I don't agree with any of the premises set forth in it. I fully agree with Bela - it's still the photographer first and gear second. Knowledge was required then and knowledge is required now - automation and technology isn't a means in itself and certainly not a substitute for a photographer's knowledge.</p>

<p>For each individual, a "perfect camera" or the "perfect kit" might exist - nothing wrong with the "quest for best". Where things do go wrong is when one starts equating "best gear" with "best photograph".</p>

[eric_hopp]

<p>I would say that the perfect kit is really a combination of photographic knowledge, and adaptability. You have your photographic knowledge of exposure, composition, and your camera gear. You use that knowledge to achieve the best results you can. You use your camera technology to the best advantage you have--even if that is shooting everything in full program mode, or aperture or shutter mode. If you still know the "sunny f16 mode," you can pretty much gauge the camera's metering mode, and make adjustments to your exposure. Your adaptability comes from going into a given photographic shoot, and selecting the right camera gear to give you the best photos you can in that given situation. Each photo shoot you conduct will add to your knowledge on how to adapt your gear towards future shooting situations.<br>

As for technology, do you really need to fully understand and use every feature on your Nikon D7100? I shoot with a couple of Canon 40Ds. I know the 40D has three custom exposure functions. I've toyed with them at first, but I've discovered that I can never remember the settings I've created for each custom function! So I do not use that technological feature. Maybe I will in the future. I've never used the A-DEP exposure mode. But I know it is there. My feeling on going "old school" is use the technology you know you will need, and adapt it to your advantage. Know the other technology is there in your gear, but do not worry about it until you need it. Then you adapt to it. When you feel your current technology is not up to par to your specified requirements, then you research the strengths and weaknesses of new technology. There will always be better cameras, better lenses, better filters, and better accessories. But do you really need them now? Is it worth it to constantly upgrade? </p>

[PapaTango]

<p>Dieter, I thought that I had qualified that in my opening thesis statement--the Argus with a light meter (two pieces of gear) resulted in many satisfying images--simply because I understood the relationships between the scene, the lens, and the film. After a year, my own "sunny 16" lexicon existed in which just seeing gave me the settings I needed.</p>

<p>Perfect and best are two different matters. In the hands of some and in their vision--a Holga is the perfect camera. Is it the best MF out there? I think not... In that Bela does indeed make the point. In the right hands with the right knowledge, and with a certain vision--it is the best for them in that space. Yet, I was very surprised to learn that there are a plethora of accessories for the humble Holga. And that is the sui generis of my screed. If I had a Holga (which I do not), it would possess me to buy those various gewgaws. Once acquired, I might then convince myself that I had the PERFECT KIT for that specific camera. Not that the BEST kit might be a Hassy 500C.</p>

<p>Yes, in ways this is a philosophical matter. The pragmatic end was what got me to thinking about this once more. The "trouble" concerned a Sigma EX-610 DG Super flash. One out of 5 images were black--even though I saw the flash go off. First I indicted the off camera TTL cord. Some work on the bench ruled that out--and improved the fatigue relief on the ends. Next it then HAD to be a defect in the flash. My Nikon toting friends sneered at me for not buying genuine Nikon in a speedlight. That had to be it. So I started looking at replacing it with a 700 or 910. Obviously, I did not have the PERFECT kit. At the end of the day, it was that the Sigma does not like 1/320 FP sync and wants for 1/250 and averaging metering over spot. Once those settings were made on the camera--no more problem. But the purist or pro might still (and likely will) state that going all Nikon in accessories makes for the perfect--and edging into the other rail of the track--the 'best' kit for that camera.</p>

<p>As an aside, I don't chase the latest flavor of the year--nor believe that such will make my images infinitely better. The D7100 replaced a Canon XTi that had been in my company for over a decade. I still have the Yashica TLR, the Mamiya RB67s, and so on--pushing 20 years on them. But by Jove, I think I have every accessory ever made for them... :-) And that is what I qualify as 'chasing the perfect kit...' But it is not the 'best' kit for that format genre until I understand that I understand what each piece offers, and what it can do--or whether it is simply an attractive piece of eye candy that will not actually avail me of capability that can accomplished with what I already have. Perceived convenience does not equal performance. Like the old Argus, knowing how to make the gear fit the image is infinitely more important than whether I have a Tiffen or B+W yellow filter... :-)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>And that is the sui generis of my screed. If I had a Holga (which I do not), it would possess me to buy those various gewgaws. Once acquired, I might then convince myself that I had the PERFECT KIT for that specific camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for clarifying - seems I misunderstood the essence of your post. While I probably would have to admit that I might indeed be looking for the "perfect camera" (for me - and certainly have some ideas on how that camera would look like), I can categorically deny that I am looking for the "perfect kit" by acquiring every accessory offered for a particular camera. I tend to evaluate every piece of equipment for its usefulness to me - and many that are offered I have no use for at all.</p>

<p>My photographic world became a lot more "perfect" with the transition to digital - before that, I didn't have the means to control the entire image creation process (not having a darkroom). With digital came control and the realization on how limited and limiting things had been before. Knowledge of how filters affect the final image outcome, for example, is still important - but aside from a polarizer and ND filters, I no longer carry filters for B&W photography or graduated filters since their effects can easily (and much more controlled) be reproduced in post.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>Kit? I walk around with a cellphone cam.</p>

[PapaTango]

<p>Exactly Dieter! I now live in an age that except for the artistic "essence" of true lomography, and the cachet of both using and BEING SEEN with a Holga--I no longer need one or the paraphernalia that goes with one. Nik in PSCC takes care of all of that for me--and in infinitely more expressive capacity. </p>

<p>What I am suffering "GAD" (gear aquisition disorder) from, and struggling with said addiction has, as you say--changed with my move primarily to digital. We share the same filter preference--I bit for the B+W Kaesemann polarizer and a set of Cokin P Series graduated ND filters. These fit the holders that I bought 14 years ago for the "perfect" Toyoview 45CX kit... :-) These take care of things that cannot be fixed in PS due to loss of detail in the original image.</p>

<p>"Stuff Syndrome" is nothing new--just think Spirotone! How many things did we craft with our own hands--adapters, brackets, compendiums, so on and so forth? Yes, function was the driver--but having said things led to having a perfect kit! Those early experiences still inspire me. If it is not available to achieve that sublime note of perfection--then make it. The attached photo is a case in point. Here we have a Mamiya trigger grip for an RB modified to fit the plates of a QD, and containing the guts of a sacrificed Vello wired remote to electrify the trigger. Ahhh, perfect! :-)</p>

<p>Now unfortunately (or not, depending on the cognitive vantage point) my perfection lust has turned to a Nikon MB-D15 battery grip. The things that could be done with it--or not and it just add a bit more weight to the "perfect kit" backpack that is getting heavier and harder for my arthritic arse to tote about...</p>

<p><img src="http://papatango.photography/pn1/7100.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="520" /></p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>If I were afflicted by "perfection lust" regarding the D7100 and MB-D15 battery grip, then the affliction would demand that the two be combined into one piece - i.e. an integrated battery grip like on the Nikon pro-DSLRs. Furthermore, almost nothing on the D7100 would be the way it is now. Fortunately, I am not attempting to remedy Nikon's engineering and designing shortcomings by attaching all sorts of things to the camera; I just resigned myself to using the camera as is, cursing under my breath (or not so much) about the stupid things Nikon did to turn an ergonomically excellent camera body (D300) into an abysmally handling one (D7x00).</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Yes, the perfect camera is being released next month.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Brad -- Cellphones are an affliction - hardly perfection. Never carry one.<br>

And your work is elsewhere?</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad -- Cellphones are an affliction - hardly perfection. Never carry one.</p>

<p>Perhaps an affliction for <strong><em>you</em></strong>. Perfect, for many circumstances, for me (and many others).</p>

 

 

 

<p>>>> And your work is elsewhere?</p>

<p>Elsewhere? Not sure what you're asking. If you mean my photographs, <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/">some are here</a>.</p>

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Cellphones are an affliction - hardly perfection.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Cellphones are a tool. How well they work depends, like every other tool, on how they are used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Never carry one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is there a point to that comment?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And your work is elsewhere?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe if you checked his profile instead of trying to put him down, you would see this:<a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>http://www.citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p><em>"And your work is elsewhere?"</em></p>

It's right in front of you. Lots and lots of it....

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Brad's the man with that cell phone cam.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>