DSLR less obvious than Rangefinder these days?

Phat said:
You should be there 100% for something and the confidence must be real. This is photography not role-playing and acting. Hi. First post.
Click to expand...
Welcome, and of course you are absolutely right. But some people have difficulty in acting naturally, even when they are there 'for something'. Others have bought into a ridiculous 'stealth' fantasy. Perhaps I might rephrase your exhortation as "Act the way you feel -- and if you don't feel confident you're there for a good reason, ask yourself why not."

Cheers,

R.
 
tom.w.bn said:
It's a matter of taste. I like the newer SLRs (>1990) because they have that nice built in handgrip. For me a big usability plus.
Click to expand...

Definitely a matter of taste. The new DSLRs are amazing cameras... but so big. I am not a big fan of how they look (Not that that is what one buys a camera for), to me they look like they were melted into shape or something.

--
Bill
 
tom.w.bn said:
Not everyone always has a DSLR + a big lens. But some people really want to attract attention.

The first time I took a photo of someone because of the cameras.
Click to expand...

lol

looks like a relaxed vacation ;)
I often times see tourists with big TTL flash guns on their DSLRs. Wonder why they think this is necessary. Most likely they never take it off, being afraid that the mess with it :)
 
PKR said:
It seems that a p+s digital or phone camera is the best tool for unaccosted photography these days.

A Leica is a known camera - "of value" - to the general public thanks to Leica's "bling" advertising. Did they ask if it was digital?
Click to expand...


Yup, wanted to know if it was an M8 or M9. Next time out I think I'll tape a mirror to the back and tell them it's not only digital but it also does video. Have a look for your self!
 
Has more to do with the lens. Many DSLR shooters use zooms - not discrete. I'd argue that the APS-C Nikon I use with a prime is as small as most RFs and less noticeable since it's not an especially unique or "antique" - blends in to the crowd. It also has a silent shutter mode and the shutter, though not as silent as a Yashica GSN, is pretty darn noiseless.
 
In my experience, this is only true of photo nerds. The general public (in the U.S., anyway) wouldn't know a Leica from any other old-fashioned camera. In fact, I've had people ask me whether 1 of my Leicas was a "Pentax" (K1000) or "old Nikon", simply because it was small & chrome & black. Even many photo enthusiasts can't tell the difference between a Leica & other rangefinders (Nikon, Canon, etc.).

PKR said:
A Leica is a known camera - "of value" - to the general public thanks to Leica's "bling" advertising. Did they ask if it was digital?
Click to expand...
 
Maybe its the camera, but I suspect that a man pointing a camera at you creates different responses than when a woman points a camera at you.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Maybe its the camera, but I suspect that a man pointing a camera at you creates different responses than when a woman points a camera at you.
Click to expand...
Probably. Frances and I shoot together a lot (for a given value of 'together' -- sometimes we're not in sight of one another). But equally, as I get more grandfatherly, the differences seem to diminish.

Frances adds that a great deal depends on the country and the culture. In Transylvania, for example, she got a MUCH better response when she wore a head-scarf, such as any respectable grandmother might wear: until then, a woman photographer was regarded with more suspicion than a man.

In paranoid societies (disproportionately many of which seem to us to be English-speaking) the reactions are much different from those in better-adjusted societies. This may just be that we don't see the warning signals in non-English-speaking societies, but other evidence leads us to suspect that this is not in fact the case.

Cheers,

R.
 
As a matter of interest, what and where is this 'bling' advertising for Leica? I'm not being dismissive: I just see very little advertising these days, living in a small village in rural France with no television and reading very few mainstream magazines or newspapers.

Cheers,

R.
 
PKR said:
Hi Roger;

I made that comment and it came from all of the posts (on many non photo forums) and some Leica web material citing famous people using Leica cameras. It seems more of these folks are sporting their Leicas in public and are photographed with them. Tom Cruse, Brad Pitt, et all. The Leica folks like this publicity as they often leverage it for sales.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Soooo... It's not exactly advertising. How do they 'leverage' it? Again, I'm not arguing: the Seal concert at the launch of the M/M10 was certainly 'celebrity endorsement'. But then, they had Nick Ut and Kim Phuc there as well.

Cheers,

R.
 
PKR said:
Hi Roger; You know I think you're a good guy, so I don't at all mind you dogging into this. Most companies have a PR machine. I've worked for many and you may have too. These folks (in the old days) had a clipping service that would clip any printed news mention of their product. Today with the web it's likely much bigger.

The only company that I have any inside knowledge of is the N camera company. That company has a wing that does anything it can to put their hardware in places where it will get positive viewing publicity. This includes feature films, TV spots (if there is a camera in the spot - they want it to be one of theirs), and they will give cameras to folks who might serve as an endorsement. They also pay to have their cameras placed in non sponsored ads and feature films. Look at what Nikon and even a bigger player, Hasselblad gained in ad value for their work with NASA.

I saw this with a photographer friend, a Leica user, who was often photographed working. He likely sold a lot of Leica camera gear to want-to-be rock music photographers.

If Nikon could get Brad Pitt to pack a Nikon rather than a Leica, they would surely give him a new one at every release.

That was my meaning.
Click to expand...
There can be very little doubt you are right; and you're also right about the PR machines. My only query would be how effective it is. For the relatively trivial cost -- a few tens of thousands a year -- I doubt it matters: it's VERY cheap advertising.

Sure, providing chapter and verse would be extremely tedious, and probably meaningless, which is why I wouldn't dream of asking you to do it. If you're involved in the business, impressions are often worth more than (strained and contrived) chapter and verse anyway. As I say, I think you're right. But I was just curious...

Cheers,

R.
 
PKR said:
Not in the business at all. I work as a photographer, but over the years I've been best friends with one of the big guys in the US end of the company. He was at times the guy who visited the "stars" with a camera in hand.
Click to expand...
Involved enough. How many who post here have ANY knowledge of the majority of subjects whereon they post? Or even hung round with people who do have any significant knowledge of said subjects?

Cheers,

R.
 
I've had my Contaflex mistaken for a Leica one time (I can't imagine why but he stopped me and asked if it was a Leica). I would think that a Leica user would definitely know another Leica when they saw one and would likely try talking to the user.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom