ebino
Well-known
Sorry pfreddie for copying your idea, but i have a burning DSLR/SLR-related question that I wish to ask.
Why is it that no one criticizes medium format rangefinders as big and imposing while DSLRs get the the bad rap even though some of them are smaller than medium format cameras?
Why is it that no one criticizes medium format rangefinders as big and imposing while DSLRs get the the bad rap even though some of them are smaller than medium format cameras?
mto'brien
Well-known
this is not my image, but i couldn't resist:
origin and credit: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/nokianakronik/3935037788/
origin and credit: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/nokianakronik/3935037788/
B.J.Scharp
Still developing
Maybe because MF camera's haven't gotten much bigger over the years, while SLRss have (even though for most of them the format has actually gotten smaller).
Compare an OM 4 to a D3. Both are pro-level cameras, but one can fit roughly three times in the other.
Compare an OM 4 to a D3. Both are pro-level cameras, but one can fit roughly three times in the other.
Neare
Well-known
DSLR's are designed after 35mm cameras. If you use medium format you expect big. Medium format digital's are not any smaller than their film counterparts and we don't even have a full frame MF back yet.
sig
Well-known
DSLRs are what those soccer mums who never uses anything other than the green square uses.... It is for the common people, we are not commoners...
Alpacaman
keen bean
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Fraser
Well-known
Maybe so, but I bet they're happy with their photos and they don't indulge in hand wringing about bokeh, lens size, adaptors for exotic lenses, wrist straps, etc.
and I bet they get a lot more keepers than a lot of posers with Leica Ms
ebino
Well-known
please people don't turn this into a flaming match. I was asking this because its an important question.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fraser
Well-known
Maybe its because you expect to carry big cameras for a big neg, and really the size of a 35mm neg compared to the camera is quite big compared to something like a 6x7 neg to body size if you know what I mean, and you put up with it rather than having to carry around large format. I hope you like/agree?
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Well, I think there's another issue. It seems that as a technology improves, they are able to make things smaller. I.e., the monster computers of the 60's, vs. a PC of today...which often has more computing power than those 60's behemoths.
So you would think that as digital camera technology improved, that DSLRs would get smaller...the way Olympus did with the OMs. Instead, DSLRs appear to be getting more and more hypertrophied...getting farther and farther away from Barnack's idea of a 35mm camera being small, light and easy to carry...even pocketable...
Hmmm...maybe we need another Maitani?
So you would think that as digital camera technology improved, that DSLRs would get smaller...the way Olympus did with the OMs. Instead, DSLRs appear to be getting more and more hypertrophied...getting farther and farther away from Barnack's idea of a 35mm camera being small, light and easy to carry...even pocketable...
Hmmm...maybe we need another Maitani?
ebino
Well-known
Here is Jonas Bendiksen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDchwL7YTgg who's like a God to many photographers, speaking about photography and just before the end about the difference between medium format and his DSLR (5D). So, if the quality of a DSLR is on par with medium format and its good enough for Jonas Bendiksen, then I see the whole size-argument and other false notions about DSLRs as just another excuse to elevate one's own limited and out-dated equipment over what is common -DSLRs.
With this question, I just wanted to show one of the common falsities of this hobby, DSLRs are big, they scare people, they're loud and so on... But if its a big loud MF rangefinder like Mamya 7, then you're just sooo "cool".
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
At one time, 35mm was referred to as miniature format, and the cameras were accordingly small. Now you have DSLRs that are actually bigger than some 6x6 cameras, even though they still have that miniature sensor. You'd expect 35mm cameras to be smaller than MF, not the other way around! I guess that's why people complain.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Actually, I've heard that the Mamiya 7 has a quiet shutter.
ebino
Well-known
I think it has absolutely nothing to do with utilitarian aspect of photography, its simply a question of fashion, association, differentiation and just plain showing-off.
I actually feel resentful because I have been caught in that web, you know, small camera is good for street photography and so on nonsense... and then I see Trent Parke with his MF camera standing on an intersection and photographing without any care in the world... Jonas Bendeskin shooting with a MF and DSLR now... And here I'm a lowly amateur caring about camera size and so on... :bang:
ebino
Well-known
When you forward the film, it sounds like ripping a newspaper in half.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Try carrying a Mamiya RB67 all day... it weighs six pounds! If you can do that, you're definitely showing off your physical endurance!
The best camera is the one you have with you. If you choose a large heavy beast, it's unlikely you'll be bothered to lug it everywhere. That being said, if you always bring your RB67 everywhere, then it's the best camera!
antiquark
Derek Ross
Figuratively, or literally?
andredossantos
Well-known
All of the photos below, while not the greatest shots ever (Im a mediocre at best street photographer) were made with a 5D and the humongous 50mm L lens. I dont think one person noticed I took the shot, either.
Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr
Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr
Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr
Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr
Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr
ebino
Well-known
Watch the video below, and remember that the camera has no film in it, which adds to the sound of forwarding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkSMipIakFQ