Can you use a SLR for street photography?

>Can you use a SLR for street photography?
Why not?
street photography is style of shooting, any handheld camera can do this... for those who like adentures, may try it even with tripod and go for bigger formats :)
 
this is probably not "true street" photo, but I did it using tripod and Bronica SQ-A, staying openly at the center of the street, waiting till some nice galz will step into the frame:
...and people didn't pay much attention to me at all

s640x480
 
In the end of the day it comes down to... no guts no photographs!

Camera and other technical nonsense are distractions.
 
bmattock said:
Strangest things happen. People see me, then try to get 'out of my way' so I can shoot whatever it is they think I'm shooting (sometimes it is them, funny).
Click to expand...

I've had that happen, too. Pretty funny, actually, when you're waiting for someone to walk past to get the composition *just* right, and then they "politely" refuse to. :)

Cheers,
Steve
(I use Oly XA & Pentax ME Super for street photography equally poorly)
 
Better not to have any focusing aid (ala. Minox or Rollei 35's)... just seeing the double image bothers me and I have to put it right.

Most RF do not show the framing as well as any SLR... and unless you are religious about not cropping having slightly less than 100% VF is no big deal at all... at least I know that I have everything I want at the borders of my frame (after a slight crop).

nightfly said:
Not sure the garbage can analogy works I mean the garbage man isn't pointing the trash can at you.

However, I do agree that if you look like you know what you are doing and don't act sneaky no one notices you at least in New York.

For me the reason I don't really like SLRs as much as RFs on the street is that I shoot really fast only putting the camera to my eye for quick framing with it pre-focused. With an RF you don't know what's in focus when you do this and can pretty much ignore it and concentrate on the frame in that split second, however with an SLR you see things are blurry and have a tendency to want to put them in focus. Also you often only see some of the frame or at best 100% and nothing outside.

To me the edges of the frame are pretty important for street shooting so an RF lends itself to this well. However no reason not to use an SLR, RF is just a little more well suited to the type of shooting I do.
Click to expand...
 
Its funny how we see ourselves, it would be interesting to get some opinions of "normal"people who see us out and about, see what they actually do think.

We think- RF: friendly non intimidating, unobtrusive, not noticeable, arty
they think- RF: wierdo, pervert, eccentric/psyco, old fashioned geek (just speculating)
we think DSLR: obnoxious overbearing, SCreams "PRO", intimidating, pervert
they think DSLR: just another damn tourist, geek, meh, pervert (once again just speculating)

Personally I think you can look intimidating with a leica or phone camera and be non threatening with one of those big canons with hideous white lens and a flash bracket. Its all in your attitude. As someone else sort of said, do you look like you are meant to be there or do you look like you are up to something?
 
Mackinaw said:
When I feel like being wild and crazy, I take along my old Canon F-1 with a waist-level viewer mounted instead of the prism. Holding the camera at belt-level seems to make it totally invisible to most people.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I should try using one of my Exaktas for stealthy shooting. It's be a good excuse to dust off the waist-level finders. :)
 
mh2000 said:
Most RF do not show the framing as well as any SLR... and unless you are religious about not cropping having slightly less than 100% VF is no big deal at all... at least I know that I have everything I want at the borders of my frame (after a slight crop).
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure that "most RF don't show the framing as well as any SLR". I haven't done any scientific tests but I can see everything I'm shooting and then some with an RF and I generally don't crop. Things at the edge of my frame lines end up at the edge of my photo. That's pretty important to me.

This isn't possible with an SLR. Very few show 100% and none that I know of show more. I'm sure there are some SLRs that have 100% view finders and some RFs that don't show accurate frame lines but if we're talking a good quality RF this is one of their big advantages.

Not a reason to not use an SLR in itself but it is a nice thing about rangefinders. It's something that generally I don't notice until I use another type of camera and the frame lines are inaccurate.

Suppose you could get this same effect slapping an external finder in the flash shoe of an SLR.
 
Last edited:
I think >85% of RFF shooters here (myself included) aren't good enough to use an RF by looking "outside of the framelines" and using both eyes open to one's max abilities. It's something that takes years to master, and definitely used as a marketing ploy for RFs over SLRs.

I like how with an SLR I see exactly where my focus is, I can focus while framing (because I can focus anywhere in the frame not just the centre) and I can preview my DoF. I don't really care how quiet it is etc because if they see you before you take the picture then it's too late anyway, and even with an RF you might not want to keep taking pictures if they don't notice you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom