Why no digital Street-Shootin' Iron?

[bmattock]

I would like to second the use of this method. My Panasonic FZ-20 works brilliantly.
Zoom set to widest, auto-focus off, single shot focus on my feet, aperture on f/2.8,
I can hip shoot all day like this. Actually over 400 largest jpegs will fit on a 1gb SD card, but the battery only lasts for about 4 hours. It's relatively easy to aim and hold still. I usually have it set at ISO200, but outside it can run out of shutter speed (1/1000th max) so I sometimes set it back to ISO80. I have some cool shots at max zoom extension as well, but that's a different story.

I agree, that's nice shootin' - but the DOF is huge. Not what I'm thinkin' about.

What I'm hearing a lot of is - well, my camera isn't really a good street camera, but if I ignore all the things it can't do, then it's great. No insult intended, if you like what you're doing it's great - but not what I was looking for, which was:

Narrow DOF for street portrait-type and 3d effects
High ISO for available-light
Smallish for shoving in a pocket and not looking like you've got a camera on you
Low shutter lag for not missing the shot

You've got, uh, one of those. By setting the focus to manual and hyperfocal distance.

OK, so maybe what I'm working down to is that there *isn't* such a beast in digicams just yet - except maybe for the RD-1 and that's got some issues as pointed out here and I can't afford it anyway.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Kin Lau]

LOL! Great cameras, both of them - but you can't serious claim your 350D is anywhere near the size of your IIIa! You put that in your pocket, do you?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattock

No... the IIIa has the collapsible Summar, but by the time I get that out of the pocket and lense extended, the cows have come home 🙂.

What is surprising, is that the 350D is actually narrower than the IIIa. It's physically about the same size as most of my compact SLRs and full size RF's.

Everything looks big compared to the IIIa. Here's a shot I've posted before giving you an idea of how the other RF's compare.

 

[aizan]

i've got a great idea for a street shooting digicam:

28-50mm equiv., f/1.4 constant aperture. or 28-100mm, f/1.2-1.8.
8mp, 2/3'' size sensor with fuji's low noise, high dynamic range thing
.6x viewfinder with framelines masked by lcd. parallax corrected, shrinking field, and "zooms" with focal length.
autofocus lens, last focused distance saved in memory for instant recall. lcd displays DOF at current aperture and distance settings, especially useful in manual focus mode.

the controls would have to be well designed, of course. a camera like this could be the same size as a leica cl, i bet.

 

[tedwhite]

I have found that my digital camera (Kodak DX6490 - 4 megapixel) makes superb images at ISO 100, and does a reasonable job streetshooting. Its lens is the 35mm equivalent of 38-300mm, and is an optical zoom that zooms fairly fast. However, there's a 5-7 second time lag between images, which pretty much renders it rather useless for fast street action. If nothing much is going on, fine. If it's fast breaking, my Bessa R with cv 35/2.5 and my Spotmatic SP with the superb 28/3.5 are hard to beat. In low light the Yashica GSN with its very fast lens has been, for me, a real surprise.

I'd love to get my hands on the Panasonic LC1 for a few days. Looks surpsingly like a Bessa R.

 

[bmattock]

No... the IIIa has the collapsible Summar, but by the time I get that out of the pocket and lense extended, the cows have come home 🙂.

What is surprising, is that the 350D is actually narrower than the IIIa. It's physically about the same size as most of my compact SLRs and full size RF's.

Everything looks big compared to the IIIa. Here's a shot I've posted before giving you an idea of how the other RF's compare.

Winogrand could palm an M4, and history is replete with street shooters hiding away their LTM and M-series Leicas. But everybody's different. Me, I can hide a Bessa R in a jacket pocket, but not my Pentax *ist DS, which I believe is smaller than your 350D.

Your 350D may be 'narrower' whatever that means - but look at it. That's no optical illusion, it's way bigger.

But what's your point? If it works for you, more power to you. But you're not going to convince me that a 350D is a good street shootin' camera for shooting without attracting attention. I don't care how quiet the shutter is, that things a monster, compared to your III.

No offense, but I already said it's not what I had in mind.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RML]

Brett is right, the RD-1 is a splendid camera but at the end of the day it is not a Leica.

IMO Leicas are waaaay overrated. I have an M2 and it has seen the least action of all of my cameras. The build quality is nice but I find it not convenient to work with. My Bessa R and Leitz Minolta CL are much better workhorses.

It has all the advantages of most digitals plus the advantages of an RF thats very good. Bottom line is that the overall quality from either negative or positive film the rederred image using arguabley finest glass is much better.

I'm not gonna get into this discussion. Point is that the difference isn't as big as some would like to believe, on both sides of the divide.

Combime this with the more involved feel of film (load, develop, wet print etc) the average RF film user feels much more of the part of the overall process, not just the taking.

I've shot film for years and I've always found that the limits of film were getting in my way. Constantly having to remember the film is only 36 shots long made me hesitant to shoot full out when I had the opportunities, always fearing the roll would be at an end juuust when a great opp present itself. Buying and developing was getting richer and richer; at 3 euro per film and 3 euro for development per film, I couldn't sustain the expense. Scanning the negatives was tedious, boring and wasting my time. I still have nearly 200 rolls of film that need to be scanned. Involved, yes, but I did not see it as an advantage or a pre.

Well I do anyway and like Brett have two digital cameras, one Olympus with manual overide and Nikon D70. Since I got the M7 they are both resting.

Quite the opposite of my experience. Since I got the R-D1, I'm shooting more and more with my Eos 300D that had been gathering dust almost since I got it last X-mas. The Bessas, the CL, the M2, the Russians, the Noblex, the Lubitels, etc, they don't get to shoot film anymore at all! Too bad, really, and I'm not deliberately doing so but the R-D1 and 300D together cover all my needs.

There are many very good advantages of using digital but for me it is not quite the panacea.

Admittedly, there are many intangibles and emotions involved in one's shooting experience. I'm glad you found the camera that's right for you. Whether it's digital or film, as long as you enjoy the shooting (whichever part/parts of the process) you've made the right choice.

 

[RML]

Your 350D may be 'narrower' whatever that means - but look at it. That's no optical illusion, it's way bigger.

It is, and the 300D is even a bit bigger.

But what's your point? If it works for you, more power to you. But you're not going to convince me that a 350D is a good street shootin' camera for shooting without attracting attention. I don't care how quiet the shutter is, that things a monster, compared to your III.

Ah, but didn't we just have a thread in which not inconspiciousness was the be-all-and-end-all of street shooting but mental attitude? IMO one could do perfect street shooting with a Leica, a 300D or a Graflex. It just boils down to how you, the shooter feel about it....

No offense, but I already said it's not what I had in mind.

...and it seems you don't feel the same way as some of us. 🙂 And that's just fine by me.

BTW, Bill, the R-D1 is reeeally a nice camera to work with. Save up that money and by the time you have it all (if your dogs don't eat the whole kitchen or destroy the whole backyard, and your car doesn't break down like Joe's, you might actually be able to save a penny or two. I know I had too, but I don't have dogs or a car. 😛 ), the price might have come down a dollar or two.

 

[aizan]

an observation. memory cards = limited shooting capacity, just like film. and similarly, one shouldn't put all of their eggs in one basket, so a handful of cards is best.

no new technology has to be invented to make a camera i'd replace/complement my film rangefinders with. i think we're very close, as the market moves primarily toward phonecams and dslrs, putting pressure on the digicam market.

 

[Kin Lau]

Winogrand could palm an M4, and history is replete with street shooters hiding away their LTM and M-series Leicas. But everybody's different. Me, I can hide a Bessa R in a jacket pocket, but not my Pentax *ist DS, which I believe is smaller than your 350D.

Your 350D may be 'narrower' whatever that means - but look at it. That's no optical illusion, it's way bigger.

But what's your point? If it works for you, more power to you. But you're not going to convince me that a 350D is a good street shootin' camera for shooting without attracting attention. I don't care how quiet the shutter is, that things a monster, compared to your III.

No offense, but I already said it's not what I had in mind.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

No big deal... If Winogrand could palm an M4, then he must have hands a lot larger than mine, no surprise here 🙂

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just adding to the discussion.

BTW, 350D/XT is 127 x 94 x 64 (from Dpreview), *istDS is 125 x 93 x 66. In all practical terms, they're the same size.

I don't consider the 350D/XT to be pocketable (jacket) nor the Canonet, nor even the IIIa or Bessa unless a collapsible lense or the Elmar 35/3.5 is attached. While it _fits_, getting it out quickly and not looking "frumpy" with the camera in my pocket is also a consideration. Realistically, I only consider my Oly XA & Retina IIa to be "pocketable" among the RF's I have... of course, these are my pockets, not yours 😀

Like RML says, it's all in our minds. After walking around with a 170-500mm + 300D (about 3ft long w/ hood), The 350D/XT + 35/2 is nothing... for just general streetshooting in diigtal, I'm carrying the 350D/XT + 28-70/2.8, not a small package. Generally speaking though, I'm trying to get film (B&W) thru all of my RF's anyhow, so I usually leave the 350D/XT till light gets low, or I want colour.

I've just picked up 20 rolls of APX100 in 120 format, so I want to try some street shooting with the TLR and the baby graphics (likely just hyperfocal & go), so I'm heading in the other direction 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Kin,

I agree with your points. Let me say something I find interesting, then I'll leave it alone and see if there are any responses. I mean no criticism of your choices or anyone else's, really.

In my industry, we sometimes have to write software. Before we write software, we write a set of requirements. Requirements basically state what we want the software to do, how we want it to react, and so on. You can write requirements for hardware too.

An example of a requirement for a pencil:

1) Writes on paper.
2) Weighs less than an ounce.
3) Does not require an electrical power source.

Now, if someone comes up to me with a power drill that has a pencil lead stuck in the end of it, I would say it met only ONE of my requirements, and I would reject it. If that person told me how great it was, and how much he enjoyed writing on paper with it, that's fine for him - but it still does not meet my requirements.

To me, a serious street-shootin' digital camera is:

1) Capable of being pocketed (at least in a coat pocket)
2) Fast startup from power-off (less than one second, preferably)
3) No appreciable shutter lag (can be acheived through pre-focusing if necessary)
3) Has manual focus as an option
4) Manual focus easy to access (not via a menu, preferably mechanically)
5) Wide enough lens to allow DOF portrait and 3D effects as desired
6) Quiet (relative term, but can be defined in db if necessary)
7) High ISO for available light shooting

Now, what I have been hearing is how people are using their XYZ camera which does not any of the requirements I stated - or meets just one or two - and how great they think it is. And that's fine, I have full respect for their choices. But that's not the requirement, is it?

It appears, as I stated earlier, that apparently no digital camera on the market today meets all of those requirements, with the possible exception of the uber-expensive Epson RD-1. And if that's the case, then so be it. It is possible to write requirements that cannot be met (with the funds available).

But forgive me - I'm used to thinking in a B&W world of 'that's in spec' or 'that's out of spec' and not "well, this is way not what you were thinking, but it works great for me!"

If it were a car and not a camera - you'd object if you asked the car salesman for an SUV and he brought a sports car and then told you how great it is. Yes, it has four wheels, but otherwise...

I guess I think funny!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Kin Lau]

Hey Bill,

I understand your choices and reasoning... I work on a Helpdesk supporting a vertical market software package, so I support the user end, and do some bug fixing and data corrections. The joke around here is "specs... what specs 🙂".... you've probably seen the comic strip of the swing set illustrating what the client ordered, what sales described, what dev thought, what q&a said etc... and in the end, what the client got.

I hope you find/get what you're looking for... I always find your postings great fun to read.

ps. OT, amongst tech heads here, I know yourself, socke & myself are Linux users.. anyone else?

 

[GeneW]

ps. OT, amongst tech heads here, I know yourself, socke & myself are Linux users.. anyone else?

I've been a Linux user for years -- I once wrote a monthly column on Linux in the now-defunct Computer Paper: http://www.northernjourney.com/opensource/newbies/

Just finished doing a Postfix/Spamassassin/ClamAV Linux gateway for a corporate client.

I use Windows for my main workstation mainly for Photoshop (don't talk to me about Gimp, pls) and for software when I need to match my corporate clients.

My next machine will be a Mac -- Photoshop AND BSD under the hood.

Gene

 

[jaapv]

My best, cheapest, quietest, fastest digital solution to this problem: the Canon Digital Rebel. No, not the XT, although the XT does great at ISO ratings of 800 and 1600, the Digital Rebel (aka 300D) has exactly the same sensor as the 10D, is much quieter, although not as quiet of course as a Leica M, or a Rolleiflex or some P&S that won't go "beep!" when you shoot it (and won't have the abominable shutter lag).

It is so quiet that I've been able to use it without anybody noticing the shutter, and even those that are close enough to me are either not bothered by it or do not care.

.

I must confess I got rid of my Canon 300D after shooting about 750 pics with it, I had it as a backup to a 10D, but I didn't like it at all, plasticy, poor balance with any decent zoom-lens Canon offers and poor ergonomics... 😡 Kept the 10D though, a far better camera, but not a replacement for a RF at all.

That Leica/Panasonic 5mp with the Summicron design zoom lens that looks sorta like an "M" Leica would be a good choice, as it has good pixels. The pixel quality of it is better than most 5 mp cameras. And, the controls are most like a standard 35mm RFDR like camera. But, if you wish you can have auto focus, and auto exposure.

Well said and this is a camera that is difficult to put down. My only complaint is that I hardly ever get to use it, as it is so light that my wife is always saying "Can I have it for a second, dear?" The pixels are very good, as it has about the largest sensor in its class.And the lens is probably the best zoomlens around- and it shows!.Jus some recent shots, not really very inspired or very good light, but check the sharpness and smoothness.

 

[AndersG]

ps. OT, amongst tech heads here, I know yourself, socke & myself are Linux users.. anyone else?

I've used Linux ever since I switched from Amiga to PC in '97. (Before that it was AmigOS and NetBSD.. 🙂

And back to the main topic:
Personally I feel that my FED-2 attract way more attention than my D30 when I photograph among people.

Are there any really small SLR lenses out there that could be used on a DSLR to make it close to pocketable?
Or why not rebuild an Industar 10 or 22 to a really small EOS lens, i.e. M39 to M42 + M42 to EOS adapters and saw of part of the lens barrel to preserve infinity focus... 😀

/Anders

 

[bmattock]

Are there any really small SLR lenses out there that could be used on a DSLR to make it close to pocketable?

Ooh, interesting. I sort of have a small DSLR with my Pentax SMC Tak M42 50mm f1.4, but it is not that small. Hmmm. Pancake lens?

Also,

http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS05/1109546726.html

I have to admit, I didn't think of that. Interesting!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[einolu]

What I want is a digital Olympus RC. Feature for feature, just add a 5mp sensor in the back. Also slap a small LCD for informational purposes on the back (WB, remaining shots, other junk that doesnt already have an analog control on the RC).

I dont even need a real LCD. I can compose through the viewfinder and I dont like to review my shots (I do that on my real monitor anyway since I can never tell if something is sharp or not on a 1.5" lcd).

Who wants to get the produciton rights for the RC from olympus, and build one using the now standard CMOS sensors?

PS: the 40 mm lens might have to be changed to something like a 28 because of the crop factor...

PPS: am I allowed to dream?

PPPS: I had a dream last night about a digital M! It was golden colored, all plastic, and looked kind of like those fake japanese SLRS (NIKKPO, or whatever they are called, link: http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/ar4392fh/index.htm).

 

[Kin Lau]

Any pancake style m42's around? Maybe we can rip the 17mm lense out of a Konica Superwide disposable.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

For me, a street camera would need to have a full size sensor (wides and ultrawides), interchangable lenses, excellent color rendition in low light situations (incandescent light especially) and use a lens mount that has plenty of available choices. When this camera comes out I will probably start scrimping and saving for digital as I could finally get a digital camera that would suit my needs.

That being the case, I'll be sticking to film for a while. I better start stockpiling the Tri-X now.

 

[aizan]

well, at least 28mm. the utility of wider lenses just plummets, unless you've got the wit of friedlander or compositional genius of koudelka.

 

[einolu]

what color film has excellent color rendition in low light situations?