The Obsession With Smallness

I love small cameras I just don't like small formats. Therefore, I use folders for travel and as small a 35mm camera as I can get (Konica C35 and Olympus 35RC anyone know where to get a cap for a 35RC?). I also have some brutes; the Pentax 6x7 is not a two mile hike with lenses walking camera as isn't a Mamiya Super 23.

In fact, I'm looking at the Pentax K-01 now, which isn't the smallest mirroless DSLR (but smaller than the DSLRs) and for me it has what I want.
 
After carrying medium format cameras, 35mm/Full-frame cameras are awesome. Not heavy at all, especially with small lenses.

Therefore, I'm not too worried about size now-a-days. Just need my full frame. Ergonomics and useability are much more important to me

I used to want to be stealthy, but I'm really into human interaction, and working on my social skills I find that my camera slowly disappears.

If I'm concerned about weight and bulk, I just leave everything at home and just take along a body, a lens, a few business cards, and a voice recorder.

---

BobYIL said:
A lot of people pay hundreds of dollars more to buy one-pound lighter bikes while hating to check their own weight on a bathroom scale.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^ LOL!!!!
 
Compact and light weight is why I had Olympus Pen F and later OM gear. Remember this, your kit weights 4.5 lbs., then after 5 hours of lugging it around the decimal moves one space to the right.

Kidding aside, a minimal kit also reduces choice, not always a bad thing. On any trek I carry one body with lens mounted and, at most two more lenses in a cargo pocket. That kit is rounded out with with a handheld meter if necessary and film of course. Sometimes, if I want color, it's nothing more than my E-410 and the kit lens, extra battery and card.
 
DRabbit said:
How ironic that pro's and serious enthusiasts value smaller and lighter quite often, while Mr. Jones wishes for bigger.
Click to expand...

True. Also, Mr. Jones thinks that because it costs more it is making your photographs better. Like your skill has nothing to do with it.
 
jsrockit said:
True. Also, Mr. Jones thinks that because it costs more it is making your photographs better. Like your skill has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

So, true, the size of camera and lens is what the masses think makes one a great photographer and a serious one who can afford the huge outlay to buy into the system. Supposed to guarantee great pictures.:) It is a statement these days.

And it does produce great photographs of...whatever. But I wouldn't want to hang most of them on my wall.:p

Smallness. I like that term as, like Joe, I don't do that massive brick thing anymore, just the heavy mini-bricks like the M3 and R4.;) Like my steel Trek, just enough to make you work but the ride is oh, so smooth....
 
Years ago I thought my Nikkormat FT2 was huge. My Leica M4 went with me everywhere. Now look at the size of DSLRs!
 
I like that I can fit a meter, film rangefinder body and 2-3 lenses (or a body lens and MF folder) in a bag small enough that I carry it even when photography isn't my plan. It isn't large enough to to get in the way of other activities, etc. My SLR wouldn't fit in the bag with a single lens.

Its also why - though I'd love an ultra-fast lens - I stick with smaller rangefinder lenses. I'll probably end up with one or two special use faster lenses but those tend to be costly and I don't want to put down money for them unless I use them frequently.
 
Ι cant speak for others but to me lens size is important because I rarely use bags :)

I dont mind if a camera is a little bit wider or taller or heavier, but deep is a problem. It means I can't put it in a jacket pocket, which means it requires a bag, which means I won't have it with me as often.

everybody's different.
 
There is weight.
then there is size. bigger bag means its straps pulls farther from the body, much more difficult to haul.
In use I prefer a smaller camera, and a very flat lens, specially for wides.
I think there is a big difference when I put a big SLR point blanc in someones face, or if it's a smallish RF camera, and there is again one big step if it's with a lens that is not clearly showing directions, that is not pointing.
That is, in my view the difference between, for instance a summilux ASPH, and a pre-asph, a Biogon, or a C-Biogon. That's the reason I love the size factor of the old summicrons, the CS 2.5, and the only gripe I have against my otherwise wonderful Hexanon M.
It's not about sheer size. It's about the effect on the subject...
 
I think a lot of people are attracted to small, precision, quality equipment no matter what it is. I have ff and crop DSLRs but I often enjoy using my XA. I could kick myself for not buying a new CLE when I first saw one in a camera store. I've handled an M but I prefer the size of a Barnack. As long as the lenses deliver the results and are built like real lenses, not large computerised pieces of plastic.
I think Leica missed an opportunity by not continuing to make the CL at a lower price point than the M6/M7. They could have sold truckloads of lenses.
 
Its always puzzled me too but after reading this thread I now understand that ,for some, its part of the appeal over and above the obvious practical considerations.
 
I like small, that's why I have a C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and a C-Biogon 21/4.5...

But then I also carry around a Nokton 35/1.2, so... it's all relative I guess...
 
gavinlg said:
I'm more about proportions than actual outright size. For instance:

nikon_d3100_digital_camera.jpg

- Extremely unproportional - lens is way too big, camera is way too small, and too 'stubby', grip cramps my fingers.

FUJIFILM_X-Pro1_Presse5.jpg

- Well proportioned, grip is nonexistent meaning it fits any hand, camera is big enough to handle but not so big that it's annoying, lens sits perfectly in left hand so the aperture controls fall to the fingers, balance is slightly in favor of the body which is perfect.
Click to expand...

In fact i saw the X-pro 1 without lens and the Nikon d800 without a lens in a window beside each other and was amazed about how small the difference is size was. If you pair a Nikon or Canon DSLR with a 50mm prime lens instead of a bulky zoom the sizedifference is far more limited.
 
NaChase said:
I am constantly amazed by people, particularly in the rangefinder community, who put so much emphasis on having a small kit. Granted, if something is smaller you can take it farther and faster with less fatigue, but I often see people breaking things down to the gram or ounce in terms of what to buy. I can understand not wanting to lug a big SLR and 800mm lens all day, but c'mon, sometimes the discussion- and occasional bickering- that invariably pops up whenever people are discussing smallness/ lightness goes to such silly extremes that I can't help but laugh.
Click to expand...

Very true. I live in midtown Manhattan, so you can imagine the number of tourists i'm used to seeing. And, somehow, the thousands of 14 year old girls are able to 'lug' huge, heavy SLRs all over, all day, yet grown men who fancy themselves as 'serious photographers' whine in forums about the size and weight of equipment. It's kind of ironic - that it's sort of an inverse relationship with the RF people. Smaller and 'simpler' makes you 'better' and 'more dedicated.'

On the other hand, i pine for the day when i can get a full-frame digital with a fast lens, in a package the same size as a Contax T3....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom