or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Stylish way to carry an SLR?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stylish way to carry an SLR? - Page 8

post #106 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
My complaint is that the DSLR doesn't fit my way of photographing. I prefer manual, mechanical cameras, manual focus, and film by an overwhelming margin. I don't want a camera that presumes to think for me because the autofocus and auto-exposure nearly always get it wrong for me. The actually end up getting in my way.

In my opinion, people who use auto settings (like "portrait" "landscape" "night shot" and etc) on DSLR's are wasting their camera. They might as well have a point and shoot. I also prefer to use all manual controls. But that has little to nothing to do with DSLR's. Many non-DSLR cameras have both manual and auto controls. Most DSLR's have both manual and automatic controls. The difference really lies only in the manual control of the lens. Most point and shoots don't have any option for manual focus. Some super zooms (like mine) do, whether mechanical or focus by wire. I use it frequently, although its not as precise, fast, or versatile as it would be on a DSLR. That is one of the main reasons I have been looking to upgrade. Also, while extremely versatile in the majority of situations I shoot in, I wish my fixed lens had a wider low angle.
post #107 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post
Ah yes, but how do you carry them??
In an antique bag some of some description, suitably patinated?

I usually sling it on my shoulder as I only use one lens, usually a 50mm Summitar.

My photography is done furtively as I don't like people to be aware I am photographing them.
post #108 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
In my opinion, people who use auto settings (like "portrait" "landscape" "night shot" and etc) on DSLR's are wasting their camera. They might as well have a point and shoot. I also prefer to use all manual controls. But that has little to nothing to do with DSLR's. Many non-DSLR cameras have both manual and auto controls. Most DSLR's have both manual and automatic controls. The difference really lies only in the manual control of the lens. Most point and shoots don't have any option for manual focus. Some super zooms (like mine) do, whether mechanical or focus by wire. I use it frequently, although its not as precise, fast, or versatile as it would be on a DSLR. That is one of the main reasons I have been looking to upgrade. Also, while extremely versatile in the majority of situations I shoot in, I wish my fixed lens had a wider low angle.

My mother always complained that she could never see anything through a camera viewfinder except her eyelashes. When the first generation of autofocus Nikons came out, she started taking amazing photos. While I was back in the US over the summer, I tried the N90 she had offered to give me before her untimely passing. Nice little kit too, but I found the auto-everything just robbed me of control and satisfaction. My brother in law was elated when I told him I didn't want it. The point being, they work a charm for some people but not for me.

When I started photographing, automatic meant either aperture priority or shutter speed priority. Then came the Canon A-1 with both as well as program mode and changed the whole game. Now, instead of auto being an option, manual is an option and several modes of auto-everything are standard. The only SLR I ever owned with an auto mode was a Nikkormat ELW. I'd still love to stomp all over the fucker who stole that, given half the chance.

My point & shoot digital gives amazing results mounted on a tripod and used in "night scenery" mode. But you're right about the limitations of the fixed, autofocus lens. This is one of the things that inspired me to get back into film shooting with manual focus.
post #109 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
That seems a little unreasonable Brian. Just saying. If Macchu Picchu isn't worth trying to take pictures of, I don't know what is. Sometimes it's a matter of working people into the picture. But then again, I completely understand the desire to have the APPEARANCE that you were the only person there - even though in many cases that isn't feasible.

My point isn't that sites overwhelmed by tourists are not viable places to take pictures of - my point is that if you're taking pictures of these places, you're not original. And thus, you have to deal with the fact that there are a ten (a hundred? a thousand?) other people doing the same thing. Taking a picture of Asakusa during golden week should reflect what Asakusa looks like during golden week. If you're taking pictures just for the memories, then you're cheating your memories by taking people/tourists out of the pictures. If you find a perfect morning moment and no one else is there, then your picture should reflect that pleasant moment.

My point is that if you don't want people in your pictures, you need to go to places where there aren't people. Photography is a reflection of truth. Always has been, always will be.

Quote:
Saying that its not "worth it" to take pictures of something that many other people have taken pictures of is sort of bogus in my opinion too, on the basis that because it may be a ubiquitous or common thing to photograph, you are wasting your time. Do you wear chucks? You know how many other people wear chucks? Taking a picture of something that other people have taken a picture of is a way of making it "yours". It also doesn't necessarily mean that you are copying, or imitating anything either. With the nearly infinite possibilities presented by conditions both outside and inside the camera, its unlikely that any pictures are going to be exactly the same.



This shot has been taken millions of times, by millions of people. Does that stop it from being any less gorgeous? Does it mean that I should not have taken it and just been satisfied with the pictures that other people took?

You tell me. I don't see it that way.

I never said anything bad about the aesthetic quality of ubiquitous photos. It may still be beautiful, but it's also boring. I only have so much time in my life to spend taking pictures, and I'd rather make something unique. You may not want to. That's fine.

One may wish they had a chance to see Times Square (or whatever crowded locale) with just one lonesome man wandering the streets, but wishing doesn't make it reality.

My only beef with the pro-film anti-digital argument is that the pro-film people always come off as elitist and have some sense that their medium is the only "real photography." Otherwise I couldn't give a shit. I learned on film. I like digital better, so that's where I'm sticking.
post #110 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
No, in fact, I have not. I started in film photography over 30 years ago and it's simply the way I prefer to work. Trying the digital workflow is what made me want to get back into film photography. As for elitism, I don't deny the charge, but in truth I got into Leica because of the optics and feel very lucky to be able to afford the equipment.

An interesting anecdote, for what it's worth. One afternoon several months back, a friend and I traded cameras. He took my M6 out and I used his Nikon D40 (?). He had much more trouble adapting than I did (then again, the rangefinder requires a steeper learning curve than an SLR) and ended up with only about 2 or 3 acceptable shots (once the film was developed nearly a week later).
I found the DSLR rather unsatisfying to work with. It felt to me rather insubstantial and seemed to cheapen the process (I did no chimping and instead acted like I was shooting film, saving the culling of duds till I was finished shooting). The worst thing was the autofocus, which completely failed to work at all on an alarming number of occasions. I ended up with about a dozen good pics, though I can't say they interested me much. He said he would put them on CD for me but never did and I soon forgot about it, but I did notice that he put one of my shots up on his Flickr account without credit.

He later admitted to me that he had no idea what depth-of-field was, which rather disappointed me because I think he has an excellent eye for composition and color. Many of his photos are excellent, but after our little experiment I realized that he'd been cheating himself out of gaining essential skills by letting his camera do everything for him. He tells me that since our little experiment, he's been shooting mostly in manual mode.

The moral of this little epic is that the equipment we use colors our expectations about what the photographic experience should be. Ultimately, it's great to have so many choices. You prefer what you prefer and nobody is right or wrong.


I wonder how my first reel of photos is going to turn out, however, I dont think I had too many "difficulities" in using an all manual camera as I used my slr completely manually...
post #111 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
My mother always complained that she could never see anything through a camera viewfinder except her eyelashes. When the first generation of autofocus Nikons came out, she started taking amazing photos. While I was back in the US over the summer, I tried the N90 she had offered to give me before her untimely passing. Nice little kit too, but I found the auto-everything just robbed me of control and satisfaction. My brother in law was elated when I told him I didn't want it. The point being, they work a charm for some people but not for me. When I started photographing, automatic meant either aperture priority or shutter speed priority. Then came the Canon A-1 with both as well as program mode and changed the whole game. Now, instead of auto being an option, manual is an option and several modes of auto-everything are standard. The only SLR I ever owned with an auto mode was a Nikkormat ELW. I'd still love to stomp all over the fucker who stole that, given half the chance. My point & shoot digital gives amazing results mounted on a tripod and used in "night scenery" mode. But you're right about the limitations of the fixed, autofocus lens. This is one of the things that inspired me to get back into film shooting with manual focus.
It is not DSLR's that you have a problem with, it is modern photography and its "pandering" to those who wish to have convenience. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that manual is an option and program modes are standard. Point and shoot cameras have always been more automatic. The advent of the tweener camera/super or megazoom fixed lenses/etc is what brought manual controls down to "the masses" I think there are more cameras, and more TYPES of cameras throughout the entire range of availability and pricing with manual controls than ever before... not LESS, as you seem to think. Where is the manual control on a pre-2000's era point and shoot camera? Doesn't really exist as far as I know. Did Polaroid or Kodak P&S ever have any decent manual controls? I don't think I've ever seen one. The fact that most people are familiar with and have grown up with cameras with little to no manual controls is what dictates automatic settings throughout the entire spectrum of cameras today, and the fact that there are just MORE types of cameras than there used to be, the fact that automation has gotten to the point where its smart enough to produce halfway decent pictures if set up properly. Manual controls are not an "option" on DSLR's in the respect that they are secondary to the automatic controls. Program mode, or letting the camera choose your Aperture or Shutter priority is not the primary function of the camera. The entire camera is purposefully built to give you the full compliment of manual control over your camera that someone who doesn't use automatic controls is used to while also allowing someone who is comfortable with auto control, or just wants to take a quick photo os something where they don't want to have to manually adjust everything in order to get a decent picture.. Taking full control of your camera is as easy as setting the control dial to "M" instead of "A/S/P" or whatever. Auto/Manual focus is usually as easy as pushing a switch. I mean, this is one of those arguments that just baffle me. Do you grumble about ABS breaks, airbags, A/C, Radios, and seat belts too? Just because cars didn't used to come with them included? Nobody is forcing anyone to use automatic settings, except in the cheapest of point and shoot cameras. (where its always been that way since I can recall) Maybe you just don't like technological progress and accessibility? I know people who feel like people shouldn't be able to take photos unless they "earn the right" by going to art school and learning everything there is to know about cameras and film. Snobbery. Then again, I can't drive a stickshift car to save my ass either. So maybe I'm just over-reliant on technology and convenience.
post #112 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
My only beef with the pro-film anti-digital argument is that the pro-film people always come off as elitist and have some sense that their medium is the only "real photography." Otherwise I couldn't give a shit. I learned on film. I like digital better, so that's where I'm sticking.

I never claimed not to be elitist, but I also didn't claim film is inherently superior. For me, it's just a more satisfying experience and gives results I like better. I've tried digital, and the gain in convenience was not worth the tradeoff in terms of experience and image quality -- not better or worse, just different image quality. Film just hits that sweet spot for me.
post #113 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Maybe you just don't like technological progress and accessibility? I know people who feel like people shouldn't be able to take photos unless they "earn the right" by going to art school and learning everything there is to know about cameras and film. Snobbery.

Then again, I can't drive a stickshift car to save my ass either. So maybe I'm just over-reliant on technology and convenience.

Slim, you're overanalyzing this.

First of all, point & shoot cameras have never particularly been on my radar screen and I wasn't addressing that segment. I'm talking about SLRs or what is now called the "prosumer" segment.

I don't want a camera cluttered with features I'll never use. It's that simple. I'm not making judgments about people who prefer them. Obviously, that's a very large chunk of the population. I prefer simplicity that doesn't get in my way. There's no more to it that tnat.
post #114 of 196
Quote:
I don't want a camera cluttered with features I'll never use. It's that simple. I'm not making judgments about people who prefer them. Obviously, that's a very large chunk of the population. I prefer simplicity that doesn't get in my way. There's no more to it that tnat.

This is the line of reasoning that I agree with. I would love to have a camera with a great sensor and good image quality, but that operated completely manually with a minimal set of extra features. The problem is that it'll never happen - the camera manufacturers need to tack on tons of extra features to justify the high price tags of the quality camera bodies, sensors, etc.

The one single most important factor to me in digital shooting is the fact that I can see a histogram, right here, right now. All I need is my body, one lens and a grey card and I'm set for the day. And I know immediately if the look is what I'm going for, and thats why I'll never go back to film.
post #115 of 196
For simplicity, you might try the Epson RD-1.
post #116 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
My point isn't that sites overwhelmed by tourists are not viable places to take pictures of - my point is that if you're taking pictures of these places, you're not original. And thus, you have to deal with the fact that there are a ten (a hundred? a thousand?) other people doing the same thing. Taking a picture of Asakusa during golden week should reflect what Asakusa looks like during golden week. If you're taking pictures just for the memories, then you're cheating your memories by taking people/tourists out of the pictures. If you find a perfect morning moment and no one else is there, then your picture should reflect that pleasant moment.

My point is that if you don't want people in your pictures, you need to go to places where there aren't people. Photography is a reflection of truth. Always has been, always will be.

Here's one guy's way of handling people in his photos. He turns them into GHOSTS.


Photo by Cole Thompson
http://www.colethompsonphotography.com/Ghosts.htm

Of course you might not want all your vacation photos to have creepy ghosts in them, but using a tripod and blurring people by using their movement is one way to create interesting shots.
post #117 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
My mother always complained that she could never see anything through a camera viewfinder except her eyelashes. When the first generation of autofocus Nikons came out, she started taking amazing photos. While I was back in the US over the summer, I tried the N90 she had offered to give me before her untimely passing. Nice little kit too, but I found the auto-everything just robbed me of control and satisfaction. My brother in law was elated when I told him I didn't want it. The point being, they work a charm for some people but not for me.

When I started photographing, automatic meant either aperture priority or shutter speed priority. Then came the Canon A-1 with both as well as program mode and changed the whole game. Now, instead of auto being an option, manual is an option and several modes of auto-everything are standard. The only SLR I ever owned with an auto mode was a Nikkormat ELW. I'd still love to stomp all over the fucker who stole that, given half the chance.

My point & shoot digital gives amazing results mounted on a tripod and used in "night scenery" mode. But you're right about the limitations of the fixed, autofocus lens. This is one of the things that inspired me to get back into film shooting with manual focus.

There are dSLRs and there are dSLRs. :P I have yet to look through a leica viewfinder, but the viewfinder on my e-3 is quite large (1.15x magnification) and covers the entire frame. I'm sure the pro canons and nikons have something similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
My point isn't that sites overwhelmed by tourists are not viable places to take pictures of - my point is that if you're taking pictures of these places, you're not original. And thus, you have to deal with the fact that there are a ten (a hundred? a thousand?) other people doing the same thing. Taking a picture of Asakusa during golden week should reflect what Asakusa looks like during golden week. If you're taking pictures just for the memories, then you're cheating your memories by taking people/tourists out of the pictures. If you find a perfect morning moment and no one else is there, then your picture should reflect that pleasant moment.

My point is that if you don't want people in your pictures, you need to go to places where there aren't people. Photography is a reflection of truth. Always has been, always will be.

I never said anything bad about the aesthetic quality of ubiquitous photos. It may still be beautiful, but it's also boring. I only have so much time in my life to spend taking pictures, and I'd rather make something unique. You may not want to. That's fine.

One may wish they had a chance to see Times Square (or whatever crowded locale) with just one lonesome man wandering the streets, but wishing doesn't make it reality.

My only beef with the pro-film anti-digital argument is that the pro-film people always come off as elitist and have some sense that their medium is the only "real photography." Otherwise I couldn't give a shit. I learned on film. I like digital better, so that's where I'm sticking.

Brian, that's a silly attitude to take for such a beautiful and unique place in this world. Like TS said, sometimes you just want to take a picture and make it your own. I don't care that 400,000 people take a similar picture every year. I spent a lot of money to stay overnight and see it without all the crowds, however, I still had people popping into my frames. Despite that, it was very peaceful up there at 6am (tourist train arrives at 10-11am). And comparing a serene place like Machu Picchu to Times Square isn't quite honest. Times Square has always been a place of motion, life, people, and distractions. MP is supposed to be a retreat and a place of calm and worship. There's nothing wrong with wanting to capture it without all the tourists, how it used to be. The site is actually pretty empty in the ealy morning, but it's such a huge site that it's impossible not ot have any people in it. So Im' not distorting the reality of my experience there too much either (not that I care).
post #118 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by chut View Post
Here's one guy's way of handling people in his photos. He turns them into GHOSTS.


Photo by Cole Thompson
http://www.colethompsonphotography.com/Ghosts.htm

Of course you might not want all your vacation photos to have creepy ghosts in them, but using a tripod and blurring people by using their movement is one way to create interesting shots.

That's pretty cool, actually. It wouldn't have worked too well for me in MP because it was also raining. Anyway, I'm going back next year so i'll get what I didn't get last time, despite Brian's objections heh. ^_^
post #119 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
There are dSLRs and there are dSLRs. :P I have yet to look through a leica viewfinder, but the viewfinder on my e-3 is quite large (1.15x magnification) and covers the entire frame. I'm sure the pro canons and nikons have something similar.

Entire frame meaning what, once you account for crop factor?

Find some place that's got a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and take a good long look through it. Famously bright and easy-to-focus viewfinder. An R8 or 9 would be just as good and probably easier to find, being the current series. The point is that Leica's first generation SLR series from the early- to mid-'70s is still unrivaled for viewfinder brightness.
post #120 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
Entire frame meaning what, once you account for crop factor?

Find some place that's got a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and take a good long look through it. Famously bright and easy-to-focus viewfinder. An R8 or 9 would be just as good and probably easier to find, being the current series. The point is that Leica's first generation SLR series from the early- to mid-'70s is still unrivaled for viewfinder brightness.

meaning that what you see through the viewfinder is exactly what you see in the final image. entry-level SLRs don't have that and would be missing the area around the edges of the frame, so their coverage might only be 90 or 95% of the frame. The viewfinder on my last camera was terrible, but the e-3 is a huge improvement.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Stylish way to carry an SLR?