Compactness is Overrated.

[JohnGellings]

Size is really important. There is a huge difference if the camera fits in a bag or in a pocket. If it fits in a pocket many more photos will happen. That doesnt apply to professionals where weight and size are not important.

You don't bring your 8x10" to the restaurant?

 

[DownUnder]

Interesting that you bring up TLRs. My Autocord on its own is a pretty light and compact camera for something that produces a 6x6cm negative. But I have so far been unable to reliably get a sharp picture with it without a cable release and a monopod. So for me, it really isn't that compact. Every other camera I own I do not use a monopod or tripod ever.

Ditto a Rolleiflex T with a 16 exposure kit. 17 beautiful images on a roll of 120, what more could an old duffer want?

Camera, lens hood, one or two filters, the 16 kit. A Weston Master V or a small Gossen. Film, of course.

If F&H would only give us a digital Rolleiflex T, my life, what is left of it, would be damn near perfect...

PS Evergreen, your Autocord needs its focusing system recalibrated. Not difficult work, a good repair shop can probably do it. Your camera will then last you a lifetime and likely beyond.

 

[Trix400]

Ergonomics plus lens quality beats all —
Just ask Oskar and HCB !

(Ergonomics = fit your hands + easy to operate)

Remember that Oskar Barnack set out to replace a 5x7 Camera
and Film Holders and Tripod for wandering about.

And he succeeded brilliantly !

And talent doesn’t need a pocket.

 

[Guth]

The world is ever-changing. I use to have a hard time fathoming how others can be perfectly content only ever listening to music streamed through a small portable speaker, yet plenty of people do just that. Though the way we go about things might differ, we are all still enjoying the act of listening to music — and capturing images. It's not about the how so much as the why. If people want to use very small, compact cameras to capture the images that make them happy, then more power to them.

 

[ellisson]

Some of my favorite images were from travels or commutes not conducive to larger cameras. And most were film images with the Olympus XA or a small epson film camera slipped into a jacket pocket. Unplanned, unscheduled shooting while waiting around for a train or metro or wandering around between meetings or with time off from a scheduled activity somewhere.

 

[Richard G]

I value compactness, mounting so often f2.8 lenses nowadays, or my staple on the M9, the f5.6 Summaron M 28. The whole camera and lens enclosed in one hand. I came late to a Barnack, but a IIIf and collapsed 50 Elmar can be in the outer pocket of my small shoulder bag and I can forget it’s there.

But I agree with Pan, you can slim down too much. Even the wonderful OMs are too shallow in the body for me to carry one all day comfortably. The giant Leitz nemesis, the M5, with a Zeiss C Sonnar 50 1.5, is so ergonomic that this combination was my daily camera and lens for a year in 2011. So much of big is psychological. The better it’s designed the smaller a big camera gets.

 

[JeffS7444]

Size, weight, ergonomics, and shape all matter to me.

I use and enjoy bigger cameras too, but they tend to get used less frequently. Original Canon F-1 + 58/1.2 FL lens is a lovely combo that handles well in the field (fabulous viewfinder) but it's kind of a brick.

With modern mirrorless cameras, I figured that if I found my camera body too small and lightweight, I could easily increase it's size and weight by accessorizing it with a battery grip. But adding lightness to a heavy camera is much more difficult! Had I not already been invested in other systems when it was released, Sigma's FP might have been a lot more interesting to me, but I do get the sense that it was designed as a special-purpose device, maybe more of a cinema camera to be bolted into a cage and equipped with external monitor.

 

[Pioneer]

You don't bring your 8x10" to the restaurant?

Why not? I may not use it very often but I can certainly carry it along as easy as I would carry a briefcase to a restaurant.

 

[JohnGellings]

Why not? I may not use it very often but I can certainly carry it along as easy as I would carry a briefcase to a restaurant.

Of course you can, Alec Soth, Stephen Shore, etc did it... but will you? I mean, that is the real answer. If you want to make a serious photo in there restaurant, you might. My point is that sometimes you are not on a serious photo mission...and a compact comes in handy as something that disappears and you do not need to keep track of when photography is not your #1 mission.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I use my honkin' big Mamiya TLRs just as often as I use my little Rolleiflex. Sometimes it's about nothing more than being in the mood for a particular camera.

 

[JohnGellings]

I use my honkin' big Mamiya TLRs just as often as I use my little Rolleiflex. Sometimes it's about nothing more than being in the mood for a particular camera.

That is right...being in the mood. Sometimes, a compact fits the mood.

So, basically, this thread boils down to... I don't see the need vs I see a need.

 

[Eugen Mezei]

Some years ago I was in town with 2 friends, they also passionate photographers. We took some shots here and there, than on one plaza 3 girls aproach us, asking if we could take a photo of them. We asked who should do it. They look at our cameras and choose me.
One friend had a Pentax K10D in silver, the other some tiny digital compact and myself the Fuji S5.
So it is true, black and big is better.

The obsession with compact and portable becomes ludicrous when people in Large Format forae ask for a compact large format camera. It should be light, fold to the size of a thumbnail and be portable. I never understood why a field camera is recommended every time. I find my optical bench type cameras definitively lighter. Light aluminium, a tube instead of a massive bed, etc. I have to see a wooden camera that is lighter.

You need to move on now defunct Olympus XA to realize how huge the benefit of compactness could be.

The XA is the perfect exemplification of how reduced size colides with usability. Besides the much too sensitive shutter button (that fires just by looking at it) the microscopic dimensions of the apperture setting and the focusing lever makes the camera unergonomic. And I have tiny hands. Also the body is way to tiny. And all that for what? To put that primitive shutter in it with its ugly square shape?

On the other hand I like the compactness of the Zorki-S. Rounded like an early Leica (I think much of the perceived compactness of the screw Leicas come from the shape of the housing, not so much from the real dimensions) but it is a SLR.

 

[Eugen Mezei]

Some people just like things small. Some people like things big. Some people do not care.

This also change with age. I see it on me.

 

[Mcary]

My compact carry is a M2 and Summaron 3.5 cm F 3.5 ltm.

 

[luuca]

I simply love compactness.

On medium format my most used camera is a Bessa II, with the Leica M system I usually shot with a lux 35 v4, my Olympus XA is always in my car...

Compactness is the solution that let me shot: I rarely (sob...) come around with the main purpose of photography, so if I want to shot I need a discrete camera that let me bring it everywhere, every time.
I'm also fascinated by the ergonomic studies and solutions behind small gear.

I've never gotten better and more interesting photos with bigger (and superior in quality) cameras and lenses.

On the contrary, I often missed good shots because I didn't have the equipment with me.

So, long life to compactness!

EDIT: there is also my Iphone 13pro, but still I haven't realized how to put a film roll in it...

 

[Pioneer]

I like portable, my Zeiss Ikon rangefinder is one of my favorite cameras. But size doesn't always play into that. Folding cameras are great examples where the actual camera size in use can be very different from size and portability when it is not in use. I carry a camera around with me a lot and I do carry large format cameras around with me from time to time. But I am admittedly a lot choosier about what I consider photogenic when I have to unfold the camera, insert a film carrier and find a suitable stable rest for it. Obviously if I am traveling and have to fit everything into a carry-on then size becomes an issue, but for me that is usually about the only time I worry about size.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some years ago I was in town with 2 friends, they also passionate photographers. We took some shots here and there, than on one plaza 3 girls aproach us, asking if we could take a photo of them. We asked who should do it. They look at our cameras and choose me.
One friend had a Pentax K10D in silver, the other some tiny digital compact and myself the Fuji S5.
So it is true, black and big is better.

The obsession with compact and portable becomes ludicrous when people in Large Format forae ask for a compact large format camera. It should be light, fold to the size of a thumbnail and be portable. I never understood why a field camera is recommended every time. I find my optical bench type cameras definitively lighter. Light aluminium, a tube instead of a massive bed, etc. I have to see a wooden camera that is lighter.


The XA is the perfect exemplification of how reduced size colides with usability. Besides the much too sensitive shutter button (that fires just by looking at it) the microscopic dimensions of the apperture setting and the focusing lever makes the camera unergonomic. And I have tiny hands. Also the body is way to tiny. And all that for what? To put that primitive shutter in it with its ugly square shape?

On the other hand I like the compactness of the Zorki-S. Rounded like an early Leica (I think much of the perceived compactness of the screw Leicas come from the shape of the housing, not so much from the real dimensions) but it is a SLR.

OK. Lets analyze this.

Last thing I would do is photowalk. Friends or not. To me photogaphy is to explore my inner vision, yapping is no good for it.

Most comments on camera I got was with FED-2, M8 and Nikkormat. All in silver. Most commented single camera - M-E 220 in blue.

I'm not fan of been asked to take someone picture on the street. I do it without asking.
But I was asked with black Bessa R2M, black K3 and ...
black and super compact Ricoh GRD III:

R0182579 by Kostya Fedot, on Flickr

Untitled by Kostya Fedot, on Flickr

From my years on the street with cameras ... it is not about camera look, size or color, but how you act.
Strangers asked if I'm pro regularly. Despite camera look.

LF. I did not find Graflex Anniversary to be big in terms of LF. I had it in my regular everywhere bag. In fact this is why those LF cameras were in use by WWWII reporters and later on. Handheld. No typical LF bulk a.k.a. tripod.

L1004475 by Kostya Fedot, on Flickr

For what for XA? Its lens is one of the best 35mm lenses. Shines on color film.
Looks like you have not been on the net at the time of last years XA's glory. Because everyone who was, knew what electric tape was the perfect cure for shutter button. Aperture dial was just fine. And for ergonomics via knowledge, please, read my another comment here, on page two, link->Compactness is Overrated.

Zorki-S ... with ugly top plate. It was replaced by nice looking FED-2. 🙂

Zenit-S has some attractive look, this is it, for real photography where are plenty of not too big made in Japan SLRs.

 

[Ororaro]

Strangers asked if I'm pro regularly. Despite camera look.

With me it’s the opposite. They ask me if I’m a newbie, to which I respond that I have no idea what I’m doing. Which is true.

 

[Ororaro]

So it is true, black and big is better.

They know

 

[Eugen Mezei]

OK. Lets analyze this.

So lets analyze it furher.

Last thing I would do is photowalk. Friends or not. To me photogaphy is to explore my inner vision, yapping is no good for it.

It was summer, we had our cameras with us.
A thing I could never bear is this "I explore my inner vision, I am such an artist soul, my camera is only for art." Implying "All those taking a picture just for documentation or simply to remember a moment in time are such unworty persons."

Most comments on camera I got was with FED-2, M8 and Nikkormat. All in silver. Most commented single camera - M-E 220 in blue.

I nod and go away.

I'm not fan of been asked to take someone picture on the street.

Well, how do they dare! You are an artist after all. Such an impertinence asking Mr. Picasso.

From my years on the street with cameras ... it is not about camera look, size or color, but how you act.

Ofcourse, it must be clear from a mile that there comes the artist.

LF. I did not find Graflex Anniversary to be big in terms of LF. I had it in my regular everywhere bag. In fact this is why those LF cameras were in use by WWWII reporters and later on. Handheld. No typical LF bulk a.k.a. tripod.

Must have been idiots those reporters running to buy Rolleiflexes as soon as they were avaible.
The truth is, you read a lot of recommandations for the Graflexes. Once you hold one, you understand why Rollei was such a success.

For what for XA? Its lens is one of the best 35mm lenses. Shines on color film.

Imagine your vision would blur rhombuses everywhere you dont focalise. You will go to the ophthalmologist, except you see them in shiny color.

Looks like you have not been on the net at the time of last years XA's glory.

Only since 1993.

Because everyone who was, knew what electric tape was the perfect cure for shutter button.

Why should I put a tape onto the shutter button?

Aperture dial was just fine.

Except it is not a dial.

Zorki-S ... with ugly top plate. It was replaced by nice looking FED-2.

What has the Zorki-S to do with the Zenit-S?

Zenit-S has some attractive look, this is it, for real photography where are plenty of not too big made in Japan SLRs.

No, there are not. The ones I suppose you are referring are still bigger. But the point is, while they are more evolved, the Zenit-S has just the necessary basics and it was already there in 1952 (as non-S, s 3 years later). Sure it is crude (although it is definitively more silky than later Zenits), but we are talking ergonomics here. It sits perfect in the hand, has a surprisingly good, uncluttered viewfinder (well, just like all the other cameras of that era, think early Prakticas).