Not a DSLR or Medium Format Forum

Hunting for images

Hunting for images

Most of my pictures are made within 20 feet of someone and that person usually knows I'm taking their picture. Sometimes it is a stranger; often it is a friend or family.

If they react, I want them to react to me, not the camera. That's the advantage of a small camera - it can be like having a knife while walking amongst the unarmed. In that situation you don't need a rifle.

Please excuse the aggressive metaphor - my hunts are peaceful.

So here's my list:
  1. Small cameras let the subject focus on the photographer, not the camera.
  2. Small cameras invite playfulness; they lend well to the idea of pictures as sketchbook.
  3. They are easy to carry and thus more likely to be carried and used.
  4. They are still dedicated tools and can thus be mastered in a craftsman-like way. Cell phones usually fail on this point.
 
I've been almost exclusively using my Panasonic GF1 rather than my Fuji GL690, though I usually have both when going on trips. One main advantage is cost, since I already paid for the digital body at a reasonable price, I didn't mind taking a more liberal approach and just shoot. Whereas with the Texas Leica, I have to be more judicious due to both film and development/scanning costs. I don't develop due to my use of chrome.

Another major advantage of the GF1 is its small size and light weight, which is sorely welcomed on hiking trips. Although I have to say, when I get the shot right using the Texas Leica, it's just amazing... (though the same can be said of any camera, any format, really)
 
Many great responses here.

"What are the real advantages of the small digital camera?"

1. high performance in a form factor that can be carried daily

2. I can raise the bring to my eye.

3. Sensor surface area (APS-C) is large enough to perform well with practical lenses. By practical I mean fast enough to compensate for the reduced surface are compared to a 24x36 mm sensor. (f 1.4 @ APS-C = f 2.0 @ FF when perspective is held constant). This means the compromise between dynamic range and S/N performance and size and weight is balanced for my work. For instance the 14/2.8 Fuji XF lens performs at the same level as a ~20/4 lens @ FF. Smaller sensor areas require much faster lenses for ~equivalent performance. For m4/3 f 1.0 = f 2.0 @ FF and this ratio is not worth the size/cost savings for my photographic goals.

4. As several others have mentioned, smaller cameras (which also tend to be quieter) draw less attention and concern. This is also important.

5. I don't really care much about cost, but they can be less expensive.
 
Bill Pierce said:
As we make the transition from film to digital, the Rangefinder Forum has sort of become the Not a DSLR or Digital Medium Format Forum. We talk about a lot of small cameras, many of them without a rangefinder. If you’re not shooting football or having an art director crop your picture, what are the advantages of these smaller cameras? If it was just that they are smaller, then cameras would disappear and smartphones would rule. Could that happen? What are the real advantages of the small digital camera? I thought it would be fun, and maybe even important, to come up with a list of advantages these smaller cameras have over their big brothers. I’ll start the list and hope you will add to it.

(1) They cost less!!!
Click to expand...


I dont see any practical advantages of one group over other at all, when it comes to final image.
If I was hard pressed to choose and final image mattered more than process, i would choose DSLR.
Just that rangefinders are "cooler".
Just like MAC vs. PC :)
 
MIkhail said:
I dont see any practical advantages of one group over other at all, when it comes to final image. If I was hard pressed to choose and final image mattered more than process, i would choose DSLR. Just that rangefinders are "cooler". Just like MAC vs. PC :)
Click to expand...

Good point. There seems to be two camps. One thinks ergonomics matter and another doesn't. Neither is wrong.

I'm in the camp that if I really like the way the camera feels, and I enjoy using it, I will make better photos because I'll want to use it more. However, I don't do this for a living, so I'm able to be finicky. :)
 
Each system works for me. I use an SLR or DSLR when I need to get out to 200mm or more, or want to use Graduated ND filters etc. I use my Leica M4-P for street and landscapes when I am hiking.

Akitadog
 
My subject matter is exactly the same.

That's what I call the "human distance" thing about rangefinders. Not too close, and not too far away. Human relational distance.

I want a camera that fits within that range and doesn't get in the way for either me or the people in the frame.



mackigator said:
Most of my pictures are made within 20 feet of someone and that person usually knows I'm taking their picture. Sometimes it is a stranger; often it is a friend or family.

If they react, I want them to react to me, not the camera. That's the advantage of a small camera - it can be like having a knife while walking amongst the unarmed. In that situation you don't need a rifle.

Please excuse the aggressive metaphor - my hunts are peaceful.

So here's my list:
  1. Small cameras let the subject focus on the photographer, not the camera.
  2. Small cameras invite playfulness; they lend well to the idea of pictures as sketchbook.
  3. They are easy to carry and thus more likely to be carried and used.
  4. They are still dedicated tools and can thus be mastered in a craftsman-like way. Cell phones usually fail on this point.
Click to expand...
 
As always, inconspicuousness and easy carry.

Do need to consider changing the forum name to 'phasedetectforum.com', though.

.
 
"As we make the transition" ? Surely you should be speaking from your experience only I'd imagine? The day RFF turns into a bunch of digital goons having megapixel battles is the day ill be done entirely with it. I look back just even 3-4 years ago and the forum was a different place. It was about photography in general and the digital crap was kept to a low level of discussion. Since then its elevated into ridiculous arguments over CCD vs CMOS sensors and if the latest M-240 is worth buying compared to the M9. Meanwhile the actual real discussion on photography in general has taken a back seat.

There's no coincidence there either.
 
I prefer rangefinders over any other cameras for the size and the way they focus.
I can focus faster in daylight and at night with rf and can handhold firmly slow speeds. It suits my style better and I get maximum pleasure of photography shooting RF. As a film shooter I appreciate everything my M2s can do - no batteries, no distracting lights in the viewfinder, size, durability, ability to see outside the frame lines (I am left eye shooter and it is big thing for me) and great glass.

Why change?

Regards,

Boris
 
In the last two decades I worked as a photojournalist, I essentially shot nothing but color. Much of it was done out of the country, film shot and shipped, often without seeing the pictures until I returned to New York. So, when back home, for my personal work, I shot black and white so I could process myself and get that immediate feedback. And because Gene Smith, not only an exceptional photographer, but an exceptional printer, had beaten into my head that the print was as much a part of your vision as pushing the shutter, I made a lot of silver prints.

Some folks on this thread have asked why go beyond film, why go digital. For a journalist, the answer is obvious - speed of delivery, even from remote locations. But, for me, the ability to quickly see and evaluate my work is an immense pleasure and advantage. I take better pictures because of it. An added bonus that has come with the passage of time and the improvement of digital gear is that the technical excellence and tonal control of prints from the small digital camera now exceeds what I can get from 35mm film.

Does this mean I think film is dead? Well it’s certainly harder to get a variety of films and even harder to get a good selection of silver printing papers. But it’s hardly dead. And it’s a very, very pleasurable way of working. I think as the materials become more limited, it’s going to be more difficult to produce really beautiful silver prints, and that is a regrettable reason for turning to digital as compared to other more positive reasons.

However, does that excuse Clayne writing, “The day RFF turns into a bunch of digital goons having megapixel battles is day ill be done entirely with it. I look back just even 3-4 years ago and the forum was a different place. It was about photography in general and the digital crap was kept to a low level of discussion. Since then its elevated into ridiculous arguments over CCD vs CMSO sensors and if the latest M-240 is worth buying compared to the M9.” ?

Not in my book. Not only is the forum changing, but photography is changing. However, the rules of common courtesy and relative accuracy are not.
 
Touche` Bill...well stated
Have to Agree though I am still a Film Junkie
but will soooon come round to the Joys of Digi.
 
thegman said:
It's a personal thing, but I see mirrorless as the logical progression of the SLR. It's functionality is the same, it's just achieved with electronics and not a mirror.
Click to expand...

But these cameras have also some features following rather the rangefinder camera tradition. It has similar flange distance (= can use similar lens designs) and the manual focus is based rather on focusing tools (focus peaking) than (only) visual control. The form factor is simply RF-like. IMHO it combines both traditions.
 
I joined RFF when I bought my first (and so far only) Leica. I had it for four years, and miss it still. In that time, I made some posts here, and enjoyed the conversations and the people. I still use cameras, but for the most part, they do not include an optical rangefinder, like the Leica did. Most of the threads here involve something other than the focusing method of the camera, although it is mentioned in many posts.

I have posted about DSLR and medium format cameras as well. Digital and film too.

Perhaps RFF should have been called the Camera Forum, but then it would not have filtered out the way it has.

Bill, enjoy your foray into digital cameras. I have a lot of fun with them.
 
Vobluda said:
Definitely not all!

For example both Sony NEX 7 or 6 or Olympus OMD costs a fortune when compared to similar output APSC DSLR.

Also Sony NEX lens are huuuge and cost a fortune again when compared with similar APSC DSLR lens - 50mm f1.8 is the largest of its kind among DSLR, 35mm f1.8 costs more than 2x than Nikon of the same kind..

So I guess it is body size/weight in NEX case and both body and lenses size/weight in m43 case?

Though it is fun paying more or same for less weight? :)
Click to expand...

I will argue that the NEX7's output is unmatched by ANY APS-C DSLR on the market, with the possible exception of Sigma's Foveons and the Pentax K5II. The NEX6 easily holds its own against cameras such as the Canon 7d or Nikon D7000, which as about as expensive. I own a 7d and its high ISO performance lags behind the NEX6, but of course is much, much faster.

Also, you can put any lens made in the last century onto a NEX body. I can build up a stock of M lenses while saving up for a digital rangefinder or simply take the best glass of older, discontinued systems. Sony's E mount lenses are also slightly better made than cheap Canon and Nikon primes, which just feel like plasticky cylinders.
 
Well I haven't plunged into the mirrorless, HDSLR, DSLR, Hybrid-Viewfinder, Sans-viewfinder, minicamera band wagon, except for my former iPhone3G and my current iPhone 5, which has a superb camera.

I still shoot film, I wonder if a water proof/dust proof Olympus will be next, I long for a Fujifilm X-Pro-1, however, I still shoot film and I am currently fond of my Yaschica Electro 35 GX. Call me a Filmosaurus Costarricensis.

I currently long for Ektar film and have recently bought Kodak Gold 200, 400, Fuji Superia Xtra 800. I need to send Aerochrome for development in the USA, and Ektachrome. I wonder if the new owners of Kodak film and paper will relaunch Kodachrome again just like Fuji relaunched their famed Velvia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom