claacct
Well-known
The size of the camera must be relative to the size of the photographer. For example for a very small person even a Leica might look gigantic in his hands, but for a XXLG person even a DSLR with a battery pack will look like a small toy camera in his hands. In fact a small camera in a XLG hands and body size might look really ridiculous as if a normal person photographing with a matchbox size toy camera.
People should buy a camera according to their size and not by general standard of what is considered small or large camera. But this also leads to the question of is there an ideal body size to be a street photographer...
People should buy a camera according to their size and not by general standard of what is considered small or large camera. But this also leads to the question of is there an ideal body size to be a street photographer...
krötenblender
Well-known
I would say between 1,70 and 1,80m (5.57-5.9ft) is ideal, because then you can use a Leica or similar RF.
Apart from that, I do not see the point here, because for example I am taller than my wife, but she went with her big DSLR-Tank today and I walked next to her with a much smaller R-D1 and Minolta CLE (both together smaller compared to the DSLR)... Body size does not really matter, and what looks strange or normal... who cares as long as you get good shots?
Hmmm, I think you are onto something, but I look at it a little differently.
I bought an Oly E-P1 thinking it would be a nice small alternative to a DSLR. In practice though, to me it wan't any different than a DSLR. I didn't handle it differently, I didn't carry it differently, it is smaller, but no different for my purpose. What I wanted was a little digi P&S which my Canon S95 is.
For me, once I got away from the extreme, of tiny, everything was the same.
I bought an Oly E-P1 thinking it would be a nice small alternative to a DSLR. In practice though, to me it wan't any different than a DSLR. I didn't handle it differently, I didn't carry it differently, it is smaller, but no different for my purpose. What I wanted was a little digi P&S which my Canon S95 is.
For me, once I got away from the extreme, of tiny, everything was the same.
apodeictic
Established
It's not the size of the camera, but the smoothnes of the bokeh that matters!
emraphoto
Veteran
Is it me or is there an inordinate amount of very strange, and possibly vapid, threads popping up here as of late?
claacct
Well-known
The camera size should match the body size of the photographer, that is just commonsensical, nothing politically incorrect about it.
Secondly as far as body size and street photographers are concerned, it seems that average height and below average weight is the norm for some of the famous photographers.
Secondly as far as body size and street photographers are concerned, it seems that average height and below average weight is the norm for some of the famous photographers.
SciAggie
Well-known
You should take a peek at LUF, then. Somebody wants to send an M9 to Leica to "fix a scratch."
But hey, at least I got me some photo shoes on.
Do you have the matching bag also??
Mcary
Well-known
For me the shape and layout of the camera is much more important then the overall size. Example most DSLR, with the exception of the Nikon D3 and Canon 1d series, feel too small. Then once you've added a battery grip they start to feel too big. On the other hand old fashion 35mm SLR such as the Nikon FM/FE and the Leica my fingers just feel right in my hands.
There is no evident correlation between size of the person and optimal size of a camera. Common sense and lifetime use of cameras from Minox to 4x5 indicates that size of the person simply does not matter in the selection of most photographic instruments. People adapt easily to the size of the tools that they use.
GUI interfaces- a bit different.
GUI interfaces- a bit different.
dave lackey
Veteran
Maybe this should be in "Off Topic", because it is either an attempt at a humorous topic...or....but it has nothing to do with rangefinder photography IMO.
back alley
IMAGES
as long as mine IS BIGGER THAN YOURS...i don't care about size.
apodeictic
Established
Not that I necessarily approve of this bizarre thread, but a lot of people find the endless "should I get X or Y lens" or "what film should I use when I have sinus congestion?" threads to be tiresome and even "vapid." We're a community of shared interests, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about other things, even if it's as irrelevant as our favourite shoes or if we like old watches. It's what keeps this place from being boring Leica-talk all day. Right? :angel:
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
All this is too funny.
Is this why really large people can use ipads as cameras and tiny folks use iphones?
I'd like to see a height, width, weight vs camera type matrix if possible. I need to make sure I'm neither too big nor too small.
I'm 5'10" and switching back and forth between a Leica M9 and a Rolleiflex. As the M9 is about 10% larger than a film M body, does this mean I'm going to have to grow yet another 18lbs to make up for the difference? Do I need to add height or weight? I can pound a few pints and make up the weight but it's not going to help me in height unless I wear some platform shoes.
That brings up the TLR. Does my semi-slender 5'10" frame allow me to use a Rolleiflex (the smallest of the mainstream TLRs)? If not, please advise and I'll purchase more gear according to my body type.
One more question. Does this mean that 4x5 is completely out of the picture? I have a homemade superwide 4x5 that I really don't want to get rid of.
Phil Forrest
Is this why really large people can use ipads as cameras and tiny folks use iphones?
I'd like to see a height, width, weight vs camera type matrix if possible. I need to make sure I'm neither too big nor too small.
I'm 5'10" and switching back and forth between a Leica M9 and a Rolleiflex. As the M9 is about 10% larger than a film M body, does this mean I'm going to have to grow yet another 18lbs to make up for the difference? Do I need to add height or weight? I can pound a few pints and make up the weight but it's not going to help me in height unless I wear some platform shoes.
That brings up the TLR. Does my semi-slender 5'10" frame allow me to use a Rolleiflex (the smallest of the mainstream TLRs)? If not, please advise and I'll purchase more gear according to my body type.
One more question. Does this mean that 4x5 is completely out of the picture? I have a homemade superwide 4x5 that I really don't want to get rid of.
Phil Forrest
freeranger
Well-known
It is common knowledge that a below-average size person can offset the unbalanced look of the larger camera simply by wearing larger than average shoes.
Conversely, the above-average sized can simply wear a small pork-pie hat or (if female) a child's bonnet.
In fact, I would go further and recommend that any member of RFF should mirror his or her expenditure on cameras with a parallel purchase in headgear or footwear to create the optimum aesthetic balance:
New Pentax 67? - How about a pair of size 13 cherry doc martins?
Is that an Oly XA? - Pink manolo blahnik pumps with matching pill-box hat!
apodeictic
Established
Maybe this should be in "Off Topic", because it is either an attempt at a humorous topic...or....but it has nothing to do with rangefinder photography IMO.
I have a feeling OP might be a troll from another photo community trying to get a kick out of seeing how ridiculous a topic RFF will argue about.
Prest_400
Multiformat
"Wow dude, that's a BIG camera, it must take great pics!"
Noise can have a similar effect as well. Aside of intimidate it can impress people "Oh, that's quite a Macho KERRRR-CHUUNG" (I was told this by a relative when he heard my OM-1!)
I'm still waiting for a m43 camera that fits a pocket.
I think if any of the manufacturers want it, they can do it. Olympus did an M3 sized SLR, so why not?
I don't know why there aren't 2/3" sensors in advanced compacts.
I like a pocketable camera, and they're great for street. People may think at most that you're an eccentric tourist snapper.
Noise can have a similar effect as well. Aside of intimidate it can impress people "Oh, that's quite a Macho KERRRR-CHUUNG" (I was told this by a relative when he heard my OM-1!)
Indeed. Haven't got one of those in my hands, but they do seem to handle as you describe.
I'm still waiting for a m43 camera that fits a pocket.
I think if any of the manufacturers want it, they can do it. Olympus did an M3 sized SLR, so why not?
I don't know why there aren't 2/3" sensors in advanced compacts.
I like a pocketable camera, and they're great for street. People may think at most that you're an eccentric tourist snapper.
Nikon F2a is one-size-fits all.
Was it Julia Roberts that used a Nikon E-Series DSLR?
whatever
Established
Would the photographers size be judged from the front or rear. I know many small people that should carry a full-frame 8 X12.
claacct
Well-known
I had no idea this topic will annoy the weight sensitive people here. But then lets also be realistic, a camera is as discreet as the person using it. You give a gorilla the most beautiful camera in the world and people will run away when they see him on the street.