Any ideas how to heal from GAS?

[Jorgen Udvang]

I look upon my gear as a luxury buffet dinner. Every day before I leave my home, I ask myself: What do I want to shoot with today? Choice is great

 

[4season]

Overall however I often wonder if these minor differences in "character" of certain lenses are not really overrated. If it would be more important to just focus on the subject/photography thing and less on the gear.

I think you've already answered your own question.

But how can one get rid of this "gear" lust?

Don't expect answers to such questions on a Leica forum?

Although not photo-related per se, perhaps you'll find your own reasons for downsizing with some inspiration from blogs such as this:

Nothing to Steal « miss minimalist

 

[Paratom]

Many helpful answers here, thank you.

I will enjoy and keep "choices" and more than what I will need as an everyday-base-kit. However I will indeed continue to try to sell at least some stuff.
And even if it is in small steps - the overall direction shall be to slowly reduce gear.
By the way in my case it is a "lust for less" which is not only happening for my photography. However I have to admit that I have had a tendency to want to do too many things for many years.
I stay with my theory that up from a certain quality level the differences between lenses are minor. Just yesterday I took some images with different 50mm Leica lenses, and I really wonder who could tell which image is from which lenses. There are differences if you view them side by side. But they are all very good.

 

[Jeff S]

Just yesterday I took some images with different 50mm Leica lenses, and I really wonder who could tell which image is from which lenses.

If you conduct a controlled blind test using prints (of 'reasonable' size) of multiple subjects by multiple photographers, under random lighting conditions, nobody will be able to tell, beyond luck, the camera or the lens. There are far too many variables in the entire chain from camera to print. [And if one doesn't print, and merely looks at screen shots, buying expensive gear is already a waste of time and money.]

The only one you need to satisfy is yourself.

Jeff

 

[glenerrolrd]

If you conduct a controlled blind test using prints (of 'reasonable' size) of multiple subjects by multiple photographers, under random lighting conditions, nobody will be able to tell, beyond luck, the camera or the lens. There are far too many variables in the entire chain from camera to print. [And if one doesn't print, and merely looks at screen shots, buying expensive gear is already a waste of time and money.]

The only one you need to satisfy is yourself.

Jeff

Jeff

I can t agree that printing is the only way to see and appreciate the IQ. I know that printing is an important part of photography and nothing surpassing a large print . I was printing 16x20 black and white prints when I was 15 (thats a really long time ago)and large negative always won .

With Kodachrome you could easily see the difference between a hasselblad slide , a leica M and a Nikon F ..even easier when projected . You can see those differences on a screen or in a book with digital . Agree completely that you can create stunning IQ from equipment less expensive than leica . But if you mix images from a Leica and say a Nikon ..you can for sure see the differences if they are viewed together . Now consider a bride looking at jpegs of her wedding ..she can describe it but she can pick out the Leica images .

I ve worked as hard as I can to create a common aesthetic that can be used across different platforms ..I can get there in daylight but not across the light spectrum . I know it can be done ...the NYT routinely mixes Canon files with Leica for example . But they process the images one at a time .

Keep in mind I am not speaking to resolution or the ability to scale up to large prints but rather the aesthetic ...micro contrast and color tone separation .

 

[Jeff S]

But if you mix images from a Leica and say a Nikon ..you can for sure see the differences if they are viewed together .

Nice theory, but wrong. Jono's informal experiment here, which was already directed to you, shows what really happens when real life intervenes and nothing is known in advance. And, as he said, he didn't even begin to mix in work from different photographers, of different subjects in different lighting conditions, with different lenses, etc, etc.

Jeff

 

[dude163]

Make less money, GAS cured for good

 

[glenerrolrd]

Nice theory, but wrong. Jono's informal experiment here, which was already directed to you, shows what really happens when real life intervenes and nothing is known in advance. And, as he said, he didn't even begin to mix in work from different photographers, of different subjects in different lighting conditions, with different lenses, etc, etc.

Jeff

Ok we are going back to the experiment that was never shown to us as the standard of proof? I let that one go then but not this one .

Let consider how images might be used in say a collection ..like Jono s faces . If he had taken a few hundred images with the M9 and then tried to merge in the M files ..they would stand out like a sore thumb . So if I was using one M9 and one M the files would look different . I could tell the differences between the M8 and the M9 and they were close .

I just did this with 50K images most taken with the m8 and M9 but some with the Nikon s . The Nikon images have a different aesthetic and it was obvious . I ve done this hundreds of times when using Nikon s and the Ms at the same venue . I work my *** off to get them as close as I can using calibration profiles etc . They are as different as different film stocks were with film .

Jono s test provides no frame of reference and you can always fool some photographers . I know a dozen M9/S2 owners that share information thru emails and across the board the comments are ...the M files are different from our m9/S2 . I asked the question about WB and camera calibration and Jono said no ..these were files straight out of the camera . Pure nonsense ..facebook M240 users group is full of examples that show the M is substantially different from the M9 .


Don t think I can t tell....ask Jono if I didn t write him before he revealed that his vacation shots on facebook were the new M not his M9 .

Further ..go read the M tests .....Putts ,Ming ,Huff etc each points to a distinctive difference in the files .

Keep in mind I am not trying to prove one is better than the other . I am not trying to slam the M9 brilliance on anyone . Thats worth a different debate . I am pointing out the aesthetic is different ..which it absolutely is . My interest is in bring the aesthetic of the new M as close to the M9 as I can get it . Thats why I was trying to better understand the perceived differences .

Yeh so I guess I was proven wrong by Jono s blind test ? Seriously :clap:

 

[fotografz]

I'm in camp that thinks the aesthetic has changed with the M240, and that it is obviously different from that of the M9.

I'm also on record that the change isn't for the better, but instead has moved closer to the look and feel of other CMOS cameras and has diminished the M signature look when CCD was combined with M lenses ... at least as it stands now with what samples and information is currently available.

However, being a brand new camera with a brand new custom sensor, it may be as simple as the imaging chain is immature, and as users dig into it, profiles are developed, and Leica issues firmware etc., it will distinguish itself from the pack just as the M9 did, only in its own way.

Frankly, the S2 imaging chain was also immature when it was first launched, and it took awhile to get to where it is at now.

There are those like Keith L who argue that just give me a data rich flat file and I'll make my own aesthetic. Valid argument, but a difficult one for those who shoot a lot of images like street shooters, wedding photographers, reportage, heavy travel/location coverage ... even just vacations ... where a body of work collects, and it is incredibly labor intensive to go at it one at a time to pull it altogether into a cohesive oneness representing photographer's intent, approach and signature style.

I experienced this first hand when shooting with a Nikon D3x with files that were data rich and flat ... excruciating post process. Switched to a Sony A900 using the same sensor as the D3X, but different output, and the final images looked better with far less work.

-Marc

 

[Jeff S]

Ok we are going back to the experiment that was never shown to us as the standard of proof? I let that one go then but not this one .

Don't need Jono's test.

Your examples are based on a few cameras, known in advance by like minded folks. If you had no advance info on anything... format, camera, lens, paper, processing methods, etc...I could show you a dozen varied 8x10 prints, from a dozen different photographers, and you would have no idea about the camera used, other than a lucky guess here or there.

Seriously.

Jeff

 

[Jeff S]

(snip)...just give me a data rich flat file and I'll make my own aesthetic.

I've read comments regarding the MM, remarking on roughly this same file characteristic, i.e., robust and infinitely malleable files, as one of its key virtues.

Jeff