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 6

post #76 of 196
Nantucket, I'm curious how much you pay for your antique glass? Hundreds or thousands? I might decide to play with a film camera one day, especially for B&W street photography. I really like some of the results you've gotten.
post #77 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
Nantucket, I'm curious how much you pay for your antique glass? Hundreds or thousands? I might decide to play with a film camera one day, especially for B&W street photography. I really like some of the results you've gotten.

First of all, the oldest lens I own, at least for my M cameras, is the 50mm Summilux (f1.4), which has 1989 serial #s. My other lenses are all current models: 35mm Summicron (f2) Asph., 50mm Summicron, and 90mm Apo(chromatic) Summicron Asph ("Asph" standing for aspherical lens elements). The 35 and 90 were each about $2000. The 50 1.4 was about $1000 and the 50 f2 was around $600 because it had cosmetic damage on the built-in lens hood. Otherwise it was optically perfect, which is what matters to me. Anyway, Leica M glass does not come cheap, but as you and others have noted, the results speak for themselves (in terms of optical quality).

Of course, the M system is the rangefinder line, which in essence has remained unchanged since 1954 with progressive refinements. It requires a learning curve to use well. Not everybody is a rangefinder person. Rangefinders have certain advantages and weaknesses compared to SLRs.

Leica SLRs and R-series lenses tend to be cheaper on the used market. If you want an entrypoint to Leica glass, the R lenses may be ideal, since they can also be used with Canon DSLRs using an adaptor. I've paid an average of $600 per lens for my R lenses. Some of them are older versions ("antiquated" if you prefer), but the optical quality is superb!

If you want to get into Leica film SLRs, I'd recommend either the Leicaflex SL for a reliable, fully manual mechanical camera, or the very underrated R3 Electronic, which has an automatic mode and can be had for a few hundred dollars (but once the auto mode goes, it can't be repaired).
For a bit more money, the R7 is excellent, and if you really want to pull out all the stops, you could drop $5k on an R8 or R9 and the discontinued DMR (Digital Module R), which people who use it claim produces better results than any other DSLR available. At some point, the full-frame R10 will become available, but I'm willing to bet it will be north of $8k. (You'll be stylish with any of these options.)

What most people don't know in the digital age is that film technology has made major advances. Sadly, I haven't been able to find any Kodachrome or I would probably never shoot anything else, but Fujichrome Velvia 50 and 100 and Provia 400 are absolutely amazing films.
I'm continually amazed at the results I get with 400 film. Just to give you some idea, the photo of the Japanese beauty I posted recently on the Asian Women thread was shot on Provia 400 using the Leica MP and 50 1.4 at full aperture. My lab then scanned the slide at 2048x3088 pixels. Other than reduction for the web, no post-processing was done.
post #78 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
First of all, the oldest lens I own, at least for my M cameras, is the 50mm Summilux (f1.4), which has 1989 serial #s. My other lenses are all current models: 35mm Summicron (f2) Asph., 50mm Summicron, and 90mm Apo(chromatic) Summicron Asph ("Asph" standing for aspherical lens elements). The 35 and 90 were each about $2000. The 50 1.4 was about $1000 and the 50 f2 was around $600 because it had cosmetic damage on the built-in lens hood. Otherwise it was optically perfect, which is what matters to me. Anyway, Leica M glass does not come cheap, but as you and others have noted, the results speak for themselves (in terms of optical quality).

Of course, the M system is the rangefinder line, which in essence has remained unchanged since 1954 with progressive refinements. It requires a learning curve to use well. Not everybody is a rangefinder person. Rangefinders have certain advantages and weaknesses compared to SLRs.

Leica SLRs and R-series lenses tend to be cheaper on the used market. If you want an entrypoint to Leica glass, the R lenses may be ideal, since they can also be used with Canon DSLRs using an adaptor. I've paid an average of $600 per lens for my R lenses. Some of them are older versions ("antiquated" if you prefer), but the optical quality is superb!

If you want to get into Leica film SLRs, I'd recommend either the Leicaflex SL for a reliable, fully manual mechanical camera, or the very underrated R3 Electronic, which has an automatic mode and can be had for a few hundred dollars (but once the auto mode goes, it can't be repaired).
For a bit more money, the R7 is excellent, and if you really want to pull out all the stops, you could drop $5k on an R8 or R9 and the discontinued DMR (Digital Module R), which people who use it claim produces better results than any other DSLR available. At some point, the full-frame R10 will become available, but I'm willing to bet it will be north of $8k. (You'll be stylish with any of these options.)

What most people don't know in the digital age is that film technology has made major advances. Sadly, I haven't been able to find any Kodachrome or I would probably never shoot anything else, but Fujichrome Velvia 50 and 100 and Provia 400 are absolutely amazing films.
I'm continually amazed at the results I get with 400 film. Just to give you some idea, the photo of the Japanese beauty I posted recently on the Asian Women thread was shot on Provia 400 using the Leica MP and 50 1.4 at full aperture. My lab then scanned the slide at 2048x3088 pixels. Other than reduction for the web, no post-processing was done.

Thanks for the info. And I kid re: antique glass.
post #79 of 196
You may be joking about antique glass, but with the Leica M rangefinders, you can get an adapter for Leica thread mount (LTM) lenses dating back to the 1930s. Quite a few people like to shoot with the collapsible 50mm 3.5 Elmar and some specifically seek out uncoated lenses.

I know, I know . . . Leica nerds!
post #80 of 196
One other film camera suggestion that will allow you to use Leica M lenses on a relative budget is the Leica CL, which is a very highly regarded compact rangefinder built in collaboration with Minolta during the '70s.
post #81 of 196
I don't use my SLRs or DSLRs any more as I've gone back to shooting film, primarily with Leica M rangefinders, but I've been searching for a stylish way to carry cameras as well.

I have several camera bags that I interchange:

1. A vintage leather briefcase with a Billingham insert to nest the camera in. This is also my work bag so I use this when I want to have my camera with me when I'm 'on duty'.

2. A Domke F803 Satchel when I want to carry two cameras and three lenses. I use this when I am going on a dedicated shoot and want to have enough gear with me. I have one in Olive Drab which I like because it doesn't look like the typical camera bag.

3. A Porter messenger bag in black nylon with a Billingham insert. I use this when I am traveling and need more room for other things such as books, magazines, etc.

4. Sometimes, I just sling a Leica M over my shoulder. It's a beautiful object and makes for a great accessory.

5. Another stylish camera is a Leica IIIc. It's compact, beautiful and takes wonderful photos. Paired with a leather neckstrap and carried on one's chest, it can look very stylish. Gordy's makes some nice straps. It's fully manual though, so you'll need some skills to go with the style to actually pull it off.

post #82 of 196
I learned to do photography on a Leica IIIf and I now use a black-bodied Leica IIIa.
post #83 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
I learned to do photography on a Leica IIIf and I now use a black-bodied Leica IIIa.

Ah yes, but how do you carry them??
In an antique bag some of some description, suitably patinated?
post #84 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Heh, Its not that I have a problem with your opinion, its that I have a problem with your attitude. If you had said "I don't believe that there are any camera bags in the world that look stylish" or "SLR's are inherently unstylish and ugly" that would have been your opinion. Of course, it would have been an opinion that was very well covered in this thread already.

That isn't what you said. Of course.

You didn't even address the OP's question originally. You went on about how much gear you carry, and how unrealistic (for most people) a scenario you claim to be in where its impossible for YOU to be stylish. That wasn't an opinion, that was a diversion.

Hell, even the weight issue is kind of ridiculous. It sort of makes me wonder what you all are carrying in your bags if a camera, a couple of lenses, a flash, and some peripherals are weighing 20lbs.

Even the beefiest Canon DSLR like the 1DS Mk III, and a pro series telephoto lens in a "normal use" range like the Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM (combo pictured below) weigh around seven pounds together. With a flash, and even two more non-telephoto IS lenses, an extra battery, some filters, and the bag, you'd still be short of 20lbs.



And yes, this thing is a monstrosity. If you are trying to carry that setup around, it will be nearly impossible to do so stylishly.



Well, if you have a problem with my attitude, I have no problem with that; that's on you. I think what I was trying to convey in my original post was that at some point, one gives up on looking stylish -- you're either going out to look stylish, or you're going out to take photos. If you're going out to take photos, pro or not, you know that sometimes you need to stand, kneel, climb, or lie prone to get an angle you like, and I wouldn't want to be in "stylish" clothing if I had to do that. As for what makes things heavy, it varies... 2 bodies, 1 with a battery grip, 1 with the Canon battery brick, either a 100-400mm or 70-200mm, 24-105mm, 16-35mm, a 2x extender, 580EX II flash with battery pack, a monopod (sometimes a tripod), and a small Vaio laptop with an EVDO card to upload photos.

Also, notice that Olympus is being tucked into a jacket pocket.
post #85 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by visionology View Post
Don't know if it's stylish or not but there is this guy on Leicatime that does custom cases for cameras.

Most of his are form fitting but he does have some like those below and says they are customizable.


Now that's a nice looking, compact camera case.
post #86 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roikins View Post
Also, notice that Olympus is being tucked into a jacket pocket.
That is sort of the point... but it has a pancake lens on it. When you change the lens, you can't do that anymore. And it will leave a bulge in your pocket that most members of SF would hesitate to walk around with. As for the weight - nobody was asking how to look stylish while carrying an entire camera store and darkroom. One body, one extra battery, two lenses... maaaaybe a flash. some CF or SD cards. That is typically what people carry around when "walking around taking pictures".As I said earlier - the like extreme case you mention - sure... you have to carry a lot of weight. But its like the OP was asking a question about a fairly general topic - and you assume that he is one of the top percentile of photographers in the world as far as carrying gear around with him. People have been walking around and taking pictures since the development of the portable camera. Not everyone wants or needs to be equipped like a professional photographer to do so. An SLR camera is not a professional photographer only camera. It is just a type of camera. If someone wants to walk around with a body, a couple of lenses, and an extra battery - there is no reason why they cannot get a nice looking bag.
post #87 of 196
If you want a great rangefinder package on a budget, look for a used Voigtlander R2A (~$350ish - functionally the same as an M7, with easier metering for most people, though a bit louder) and a Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f/2. It compares well to the recent Leica 50 Summicrons, for ~$300 used.

Voigtlander and Zeiss are both producing a lot of great rangefinder glass (and SLR glass now, actually) at relatively affordable prices if you want to build a full rangefinder package.

I think about selling my M7/35 'lux and keeping the Voigtlander/Konica kit since I shoot so little film... but I can never make myself do it.
post #88 of 196
If you want to be extra stylish, Blue in Green has a Baracuta Hadley for three bills.
post #89 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by chut View Post
...

2. A Domke F803 Satchel when I want to carry two cameras and three lenses. I use this when I am going on a dedicated shoot and want to have enough gear with me. I have one in Olive Drab which I like because it doesn't look like the typical camera bag.
...

+1 on the Domke. It doesn't look like a typical camera bag. Small and light. With one metal hook you can get the camera in and out fast!

If you go light with only 1 or 2 lenses, the extra padding/compartment of the typical bag can be a bit of a hassle when you need to act fast.

This guy has a couple pics of it:
http://web.telia.com/~u32008343/domke.htm
post #90 of 196
I have an F100 I use a neoprene neck strap to carry. I swing it out over my right shoulder when not taking pictures. It's hard not to look like a Japanese tourist when taking pics but probably the best solution is to wear a compact work of art like a Leica. I use a Lowepro Street & Field bag in olive and it looks pretty nice.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Stylish way to carry an SLR?