The better street camera?

[Fabian]

Hello together

Just wanted to share something I experienced lately. I don't want to upset anybody, this is just how I feel.

After shooting an M2 for over a year I recently went out with my Canon 33v (Elan7?)and a 50 1,8.
I never tried this before but it turned out that the handling is so much better in street photography than the Leica.

So here is my comparison:

- Size : Leica is a little bit smaller but I use a rigid summicron so the difference is small.

- Noise: Also advantage for Leica but unless you are in a really quite place nobody will hear the canon either (it has a mode for silent rewind)

- Beauty: That is the only thing where the Leica wins big time.

- Focusing: No chance that anybody is quicker with a Leica than canons autofocus. (Only in the dark)

- Handling in general : Here the canon is the clear winner:
- quick film changing
- changing aperture quickly
- shooting wide open (1/4000 vs. 1/1000)
- metering ( I shot aperture mode trix @200 dev. in ddx, not one frame was
exposed wrong)


I just had a great time with my Canon and took some great pictures which some of them I wouldn't have made with my Leica and there was not one picture that called out for the Leica.

So I think if you don't live in the desert or north pole and if you don't take pictures in a courtroom or a funeral all the time there is no need spending thousands of Euros in a Leica while for that money you can buy ten canons and you will have enough cameras to wreck until you die.

If somebody knows a reason why you still need a Leica I would love to hear.

I hope I didn't step on someones toes.

Have fun shooting


Fabian

 

[kully]

There's no versus - I like shooting with my D70+18-50/2.8 lens sometimes and sometimes (most times for me) I prefer the RF.

Do what you like, is the motto.

 

[furcafe]

Exactly. Contrary to what some might think, this isn't religion we're talking about, here.

Personally, I like the challenge of using a completely manual camera that's older than my father (kind of like riding a motorcycle v. driving a sedan). If you want all the modern conveniences provided by an AF SLR & that makes photography more enjoyable for you, good for you.

There's no versus - I like shooting with my D70+18-50/2.8 lens sometimes and sometimes (most times for me) I prefer the RF.

Do what you like, is the motto.

 

[shadowfox]

Fabian, to me, it's more than just the ease or quickness of handling. My main litmus question is

"Does the camera make you smile and excited everytime you lift it to your eyes and start framing for a picture?"

Right now I have a camera that does that, it's the Olympus OM-1 (the Kiev 4AM is getting there). Would a Leica or a Contax or Nikon RF do the same thing for me? I don't know, but I sure want to find out 😀

 

[RayPA]

There's no versus - I like shooting with my D70+18-50/2.8 lens sometimes and sometimes (most times for me) I prefer the RF.

Do what you like, is the motto.

I agree. I've not shot with this miracle camera, the Canon 33v, 😉 🙂 but I've shot a lot with AF cameras and Leicas. Not sure how the Canon is quicker with changing apeture, or how it's quicker at metering. I meter and set the apeture before shooting. I do the same with focus and make minor adjustments there too. AF is probably quicker in that respect, but then again I don't get the type of wild misses that AF is capable of producing. I like the high shutter speed, but I rarely go above 1/500 anyway.

to answer your question: you don't need a Leica to take photographs.

Are you looking to sell your M2 or trade it (for another 33v? 🙂 ? Got any pics of it? I might be interested.


🙂

 

[ferider]

When the genre of street-shooting was "invented" (D)SLRs did not exist.
Now all street shooters think an RF is best because this is what
was used historically. This is not so.

RFs have plenty of other applications, in particular when you
can focus slowly, in a non-intimidating way. They are great for
portraits, and they are great for documentary, travel photography,
landscapes, due to lack of mirror slap, etc.. And traditionally they
were used for this purpose.

Funny, but I believe the absolutely best 35mm landscape camera
is the Minolta CLE (or M7 for that matter, don't own it though).

Also, you would be surprised how many centerfolds were taken with
a Leica ...

You wonder what Bresson and Winogrand would use if they
started today. A decent digital point and shoot, I would guess.
Because sharpness is a Bourgeois concept....

Rheinhold Messner, however, would still take a Leica up the Everest ...

Cheers,

Roland.

PS: Aha, Ray is on the hunt for a real camera 🙂

 

[rxmd]

I guess the best street camera is the one you're most comfortable with.

 

[maddoc]

... When I use BW film (with roughly plus minus one stop exposure tolerance), shoot at daytime in the street (sunny f/16 rule) and set my camera to 1/250 (ISO 200) f/11 (DOF 2m to infinity with my Summilux 35mm) where is the need for AE/AF ? Except for wide open I can't see a big advantage for the AF/AE cameras ... I remember having missed to many chances due to AF using my D1x or D70 (low contrast motives, window in the view of sight) ...

 

[Berliner]

For me, it's seeing the action "entering the frame" and being able to snap at the precise moment...I can't do this with an slr....

 

[Borghesia]

It was a long time ago since I used my Eos 30, all I know is that it took pictures flawlessly. I have the Eos 1v also, but the results between these camera's is very close. An Eos 30/33 with a 50mm 1.8 is hard to beat (resultwise).

 

[RayPA]

...

PS: Aha, Ray is on the hunt for a real camera 🙂

Nothing with a spool! MAYBE I'd get a M3 with quick load, but I'd only do that so I can join you and Randy. I swore my Hexar RF was my last film body purchase, besides my MP suits me just fine for now (keep your hands off it 😉 ). We need to work on Randy and get him to lose the CL and get a CLE (now THAT's a real camera).

🙂

 

[Fabian]

@ shadowfox: My Canon doesn't make me smile everytime I look at her, in fact I think she is plain ugly. Probably not even a she but an it.😀
But when I come out of the darkroom holding a gorgeous print in my hand, thats when I smile.

I just figured out that for me photography is just about the picture and in the end I don't care how I got to the picture.
Took me two years of Leica fondling to get to this point.
Kinda feel free.
I am sorry but at this point I am not brave enough to sell my Leica. She is still the pretty one😀

P.S. There is a huge advantage about a camera you don't like. You don't care if she gets wet or scratched at all. If she is broke one day I will buy a new one for almost nothing.

Fabian

 

[Sisyphus]

Fabian,

I think it is more about a personal philosophy: In some ways a Zen approach to photographing.

The RF and or Leica provide this zen approach for me. I like the slowness that it requires, the thought of framing, the thought of preconcsptualizing your final image, whether or not you want to use a slow shutter speed to blur the image and capture motion and gesture, or if the image you visualize requires a shallow depth of field, or perhaps a much greater depth of field, or a combination of these ideas.

On several occasions, when I am travelling, I have been invited to people's homes, asking them if I may photograph them. The slowness in approach, the time that it takes for me to sometimes previsualize my image, to set my settings on my camera, often times, allows me to spend more time with my subject, allowing them to relax, and curious events begin to unfold, a kiss from a lover, an elderly couple allowing me to witness their affection for each other, A father tired from working all day, lays down, as his wife kisses him on his forehead, a mother breastfeeding her baby, and because of my unassuming presence, and my simple RF with one lens, they become comfortable, treat me like I am part of the family, and the privilage to photograph. often times removing my rangerfinder from my eye, and simply watching, as they see me, my facial gestures, my quiet smile of delight.

I think if had been photographing with a Nikon F5, this would have been a different experience, I think less open to me photogrpahing, and the fact that when I am photogrpahing people, they can look into my eye, and see me.

I think it is true, I have missed many moments, because I was not fast enough at focusing, or adjusting the meter correctly, but there are also many moments I would have missed if I didn't slow down at times.

Ultimately, I think it is what you are most comfortable with, and what you are happy with. everyone's approach is different, as well as intended purpose.

I hope this helps!

 

[nightfly]

Clearly if you are posting this on a rangefinder forum you are deliberatly trying to step on people's toes to get a reaction. If not you wouldn't have posted. But that being said, I'll bite:

Not sure where you are shooting but if you are close enough, the difference between a Leica and any SLR shutter is noticeable. I shoot primarily in Manhattan and even over street noise, a shutter going off near someone's ear is noticeable. However if you are shooting with a 50mm, you might not be getting close enough for this to be an issue. In the 35 and 28mm range, it does get to be an issue.

A pre-focused camera of any sort is going to be faster than an autofocus anything. This isn't a Leica advantage, it's just a fact. If I were actually trying to focus a Leica when I was shooting, I could definitely see the auto focus advantage, but 80% of the time, the camera is pre-focused and is up and down from my eye before anyone knows the difference.

Aperture changing? I'm not really sure how an SLR would be faster or why it would even make a difference. Again the technique a lot of Leica (and other RF users) use is to set the aperture before shooting. So even though the moving of the aperture is largely based on the lens, not the camera, the speed is a non-issue. The two lenses I shoot primarly a 35mm Summicron and a 28mm CV, are as fast as I'd need them to be in changing apertures.

Loading film? Not really much of hassle for me, though some might disagree. I would think the SLR has the advantage here but again it's almost a non issue. I rarely hit the end of a roll at a bad time, but perhaps I'm just lucky.

Shooting wide open with a super fast shutter speed? Again mostly a non issue in street shooting at least since you probably want as wide a depth of field as you could get. I never open up all the way and use a fast shutter speed, this would kill my depth of field. The opposite however is much more common, trying to hand hold to maintain depth of field in relatively low light, and here the rangefinder has a distinct advantage due to lack of mirror slap.

I'm happy you have a camera you like. No one "needs" any particular camera.

However it seems like you are declaring an advantage in something by using mostly irrelevant criteria.

I don't think most people start shooting street with a Leica. They gravitate toward it having tried other alternatives and finding it the best solution to a number of problems very specific to the genre. I don't think it's because Winogrand used one or Bresson or whoever but rather that everyone sorta realizes the advantages of an RF for the same reasons.

An SLR has a number of advantages in other genres: sports, macro, etc. Fast shutter speeds, long lenses, 100 different types of metering, focus screens etc. However street photography is one place where they aren't the tool of choice. Not that you can't use them successfully but it's not their best use.

To each his own.

 

[biomed]

The EOS 30/33 is a great camera. I have the US Elan 7E version. Every time I use it, the eye control fascinates me. The autofocus is fast and accurate most of the time. For a SLR it is quiet. Somtimes I pack it along with my Bessas. Whatever camera you use is your choice. I even use an EOS IX at times - at least until the last of my APS film is gone. I must admit that I enjoy using a manual RF most of the time. For me the taking of the picture is one of the most enjoyable parts of the photography experience - no deep philosophical reason about the purity of using a basic camera. If that were the case I would use a camera obscura (a little diffucult for street photography). I do photography for the fun of it. Heck, I even produce an adequate print once in a while. Enjoy yourself, Fabian!

Mike

 

[vrgard]

Nothing with a spool! MAYBE I'd get a M3 with quick load, but I'd only do that so I can join you and Randy. I swore my Hexar RF was my last film body purchase, besides my MP suits me just fine for now (keep your hands off it 😉 ). We need to work on Randy and get him to lose the CL and get a CLE (now THAT's a real camera).

🙂

You guys with your newfangled electronic trickery won't get me! 😉 Nope, I've just finished putting together my CL travel kit and I like it just fine.

-Randy

 

[ruben]

Hi Fabian and all neighbours here,

I have found this thread of real interest and value, as I have been asking myself the question of SLR vs RF, though not necessarily Leica M2 vs Elan 7. I think Fabian question deserves to be taken as it is, a real question.

It was no less than one of the most representative Leica users, HCB, who said the only thing we photographers have in common is that we all stand behind a camera. i.e. we have almost nothing in common.

Fabian is adressing street photography at this thread, from the angle of the absolute end result, and the most effective tool to achieve his purpose. Perfectly legitimate. Although in targeting the Leica brand, and then even not the most advanced sample of it, instead of choosing RFs in general, he may be touching sensible fibres, without die-hard need.

Fabian is adding to me an element deserving check, in that his Elan 7 has very low noise. How much low ?

The point is to my opinion very close to what Philip has answered ("I guess the best street camera is the one you're most comfortable with")

I just would rephrase it into "the camera that works best for you". In this small difference the whole story. Our approaches to street photography are all different according to the number of performers. Our strong and weak points are different, and this very much determines what we can or cannot do at the streets.

Besides these factors, it seems we are motivated by other factors as well. Many of us have a strong interest not only in the end result, but in the way too. The gear, the film, the bw processing. And I can assume that there are a lot of other existing factors I failed to mention.

So each of us is a unique mix, resulting in variety - a deep need of the individual.

Therefore Fabian, if you happen to find that so far your Elan works better for you than your Leica, don't be afraid of your findings, but rather follow them pityless. You are supposed to be different, you are supposed to be unique, you are supposed to claim your space here and elsewhere in life. Follow your nose and bring us its unique image results.

For Amen Chorus other professions are more suitable.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[nightfly]

I don't begrudge the OP his opinion, it's just that the criteria he is using to judge (high shutter speed, quicker film loading, faster aperture changing, fast auto focus) isn't really relevant to how street photography is commonly practiced.

What is commonly considered street photography, which itself is up for debate, is often done with a lens wider than a 50, generally, but not always utilizes a wider depth of field, and is practiced quickly at fairly close distances. Perhaps this is too orthodox a definition but within these parameters, an RF tends to offer certain advantages.

If you aren't really talking about street photography than the posting itself falls apart. There might be other advantages to an SLR that do make it more well suited to street photography, but the ones the OP cited don't seem that relevant.

A better argument could be made for a modern digital point and shoot. Small, unobtrusive, silent, when progammed correctly, fast and no changing film. I don't like them myself but I wouldn't argue with their utility. I can't say the same for an SLR in this application.

Without pictures though I guess it's all pretty academic:

 

[MartinL]

http://provoke.mediumstudios.com/images/20070507151703_2007-015-10.jpg[/IMG]

Thanks, I needed that photo.

Guess I've waited a respectable amount of time for an RF newbie to jump in. Been maybe 8 yrs since I've shot film, and my RF experience is approximately none.🙂

My current digital kit is a technological and optical marvel. More accurate than my eye can see and faster that my hand and mind can act. Exactly what I need and use well for my work. From reports, it's going to take at least an M8 MkII, M9, M-Digi-Whatever to approach my combo of usefulness and quality. It's unthinkable not to have these tools at my disposal.

That kit also weighs 25-30 lbs. Noisy. Conspicuous (a white 70-200L IS does not blend in well. Even the stubby 50mm 1.4 doesn't diminish the camera's--or photographer's profile). The good news is that the camera's brilliant functions are now second nature, and almost point-and-shoot. No gap between anticipating the shot and shooting----6-8 shots per second if I choose. That's also the bad news. It's all about function. Frame? Why bother when the subject is moving and I can pan and zoom with my finger on the trigger. Taste and judgement? That's what PS 3 is for. I'm not knocking it; I love it.

I've barely re-entered the film world--maybe a dozen rolls. A few pocketsfull of fixed-lens Yashica and Canon RFs. A non-RF Bessa L, and an ordered Voightlander 21/4 to stick on it (did I hear someone say "wider than a 50, generally" Best of all, a "beginner's mind." The opportunity to be just some guy, maybe a tourist, with a camera--if I'm noticed at all. Carrying a camera whether I need it or not.

So, to the OP on this thread, thanks. Good question.

 

[dnemoc]

I started photographing on the streets with two DSLR's and quickly realized that there was no other way but to go for a rangefinder unless I was satisfied with crap. For me the Leica is not a status symbol, it's like a perfectly oiled machine, always ready, and always reliable (I use a totally mechanical M4-P and no light meters at all). I go out with it in the rain and particularly bad snow storms (without umbrellas) more than I go out with my Fed3.

Autofocus on the streets? I've never managed to get it right, but that doesn't mean somebody else can't do it. Consider getting the following frame with an autofocus camera (not necessarily dslr), while walking on a zebra crossing, with one hand tugging a medium-sized piece of luggage---how many milliseconds does one get to capture something like this? I'm not making a case for or against a Leica. It's just a tool, and perhaps it's a tool that needs to be in perfect resonance with the mechanic (---ergonomics, speed, reliability... everything becomes important), instead of a showpiece on a bookshelf. And perhaps everybody has to find his/her own set of tools in his personally optimal way. The issue of `better' perhaps doesn't arise at all.