All the cameras are better than you are...

>>> Smaller cameras can, of course, be less threatening, and I admit that one has to consider that--

especially for street shooting.

 

Of course?

 

From making many photographs of people on the street with cameras ranging from an iPhone to a full size

dSLR with 35/1.4 lens, I've yet to encounter anyone who has felt threatened by my gear.

 

On the other hand, I have witnessed photographers on the street photographing people surreptitiously that has caused that reaction. This is due to suspicious behavior.

 

It's about behavior, not gear. Size does not matter.

<blockquote>

<p>"It's about behavior, not gear. Size does not matter."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://fortworthview.com/index.html">Brian Luenser</a>, a fellow who lives in downtown Fort Worth, has earned a large following on social media for his daily photos of downtown activities, including lots of candid snaps of people, especially at night. He uses a full sized Canon dSLR and fast primes and zooms, often toting a backpack. He even jogs with that gear and stops to take snaps of folks along the way. His style very open and obvious, accessible and jovial. Over the past year I can think of only one occasion in which he described a somewhat negative reaction to his photo, and that was of a woman jogger along the downtown riverside bike/jog trail - I think he said she scowled at him. He also photographs - with great sensitivity - the activities for a local children's group for which his wife is a volunteer.</p>

<p>I doubt he would describe himself as a "street photographer". His style is more akin to what the newspaper features and style section photographers used to do. He's satisfied to be a booster for the downtown lifestyle and his open approach obviously resonates with most folks he photographs.<br>

<br>

I mostly use smaller cameras for convenience, not discretion. If I could handle the heavy load I'd happily tote a full sized camera and lens kit again. And I may start toting my TLR again because in previous years I always got great reactions to that camera - some folks would even ask me to photograph them, with no expectation of ever seeing the photos. Maybe it's the quaintness factor.</p>

<p>I have never been challenged on the street.</p>

<p>I'm a photographer and I take photos...I do not have to justify myself to anyone....I offer photographs of humanity as it is.</p>

<p>I'm happy to use any camera I do not have to sneak and hide.</p>

<p>Scared folk, just inhabit the internet, and are constantly crying because they want other folks to be scared just like them......they then feel better.</p>

<p>Then they try justify their lack of humanity/ courage by offering some sort of twisted ethics.</p>

<p>Truly they are a sad face of humanity.</p>

<p>Freedom of information is honesty. That simple.</p>

<p>I must admit, bit scared about these dudes....</p><div></div>

<p>Alan, who are those guys--and where did you shoot them?</p>

<p>For anyone interested, here is the Luminous Landscape review of the Olympus E-5M:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml</a></p>

<p>The review is a bit dated, but overall it is quite useful, I think.</p>

<p>If I did not need a new hearing aid, I would consider buying one now as listed at Amazon a few posts above.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"Alan, who are those guys--and where did you shoot them?"</p>

<p>Hmm, who do you think they are?</p>

<p>Allen, not Alan.</p>

<p>Some stuff should never have been posted. Oh well...too late.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Anyway, toss the photo, lets talk about the cam.</p>

<p>You sad lot with your silly photos!. Get real its all about the cam.</p>

<p>Now the Nikon D800 with 36 million pixels....just eat your hearts out.....with one of those anyone can be a master of photography....hey, no drooling from you impoverished lot...go and buy a Sony or some cheapo something.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Allen, I don't think that there are any particularly fearful night-time street photographers. I do know that, with bad hearing and blood clots in both calves and thighs, I have to think before I shoot.</p>

<p>Here is one case where I did not:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml</a></p>

<p>In another instance, I was openly shooting a building at night when the owner of the building ran up and into the tripod, smashing the camera into my face. He was drunk. Since I had almost no use of my right arm because of a rotator cuff tear (and was waiting for surgery), it was a dicey situation. He then went away, saying that he was going to call the police.</p>

<p>I don't care for those situations, and the only way to avoid them is to stop shooting the street at night.</p>

<p>Nahh. . .</p>

<p>Fear? Anybody can find themselves in a threatening situation, and, yes, i have felt fear. The question is whether you control it or if it controls you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Allen, you're delirious. What happened?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Some stuff should never have been posted. Oh well...too late.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>C'mon, Allen. Who ARE those guys? Spit it out. KGB shadowing you again? Russian naval officers? (They don't exactly look like spies, after all.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> Anybody can find themselves in a threatening situation"</p>

<p>Well, I don't put myself into those situations. And I'm a anybody.</p>

<p>The magic formulae, is called common sense. Street wise, that is what it is all about.</p>

<p>Any craft/skill has to studied.....for most it is really about buying a cam and pressing a button.</p>

<p>The real wold.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I don't put myself into those situations. And I'm a anybody.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a boring life to me. Everything worth doing entails some risks.</p>

<p>Which real world are you in tonight, Allen?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Then you hear them crying about confrontations and to console themselves they fall back on some sort of ethics.</p>

<p>Allen, I was not trying to pull your chain. What's wrong? </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Okay, next time I take a street photo I'll kick them up the arse to get that risk element.</p>

<p>Hello, Landrum. Planet earth to Landrum are you still with us.</p>

<p>Jeez, I hope the poor little soul is not lost in space.</p>

<p>All in good humour.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stop being brave with a arsehole like me you are too nice a dude.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All in good humour.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hm. Well, I'm sitting here shaking my head, wondering what this has been all about. Time to go out for a bite, I suppose. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Sorry if I said something wrong, Allen. I don't know what it might have been.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>What are we having I like a Chinese.</p>

<p>Okay, Chinese it is. I'll be back in a few.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Okay.</p>

<p>I feel bad. Sorry.</p><div></div>

<p>Nice shot, Allen. It really is.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>A pleasure to know you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The bottom line for me is that those two stops you cite can be the difference between 1/15 sec and 1/60 sec (or 1/30 and 1/125). That does matter a lot to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those two stops just mean that you should look at using faster lenses on smaller formats. It's not like you would lose DOF either, because you'd keep the same - you just get true equivalence. And once you are looking at things from an equivalence point of view, MFT is not any worse than APS-C and for many scenarios it can compete with FF as well (especially if you want a MILC and not a DSLR, as I do).<br /> <br /> Bottom line is that IQ is and will always be determined by how much light you can get to the sensor. A larger sensor is one way, but a smaller sensor with a faster lens will get you there too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One wishes Olympus well as this economic downturn drags on and on. That is one company that I would hate to see fail. I do not believe that it will, but the situation is pretty bad for all manufacturers right now. I understand that Leica is in very serious trouble.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The company in the worst position is Nikon, believe it or not. That is because over 70% of their revenue comes from digital camera products. And they seem to be the only company deriving the majority of their revenue from digital cameras. Digital cameras are not the main revenue for any other company - even Canon gets more than half their revenue from printers and whatever else they got. For Olympus, digital cameras are just around 10% - the rest is all coming from their medical division. I think they'll survive, but even if they don't they'll get bought by someone else. The Pentax system has survived across two acquisitions - Hoya and Ricoh and Ricoh seems intent to keep it around for a while - I don't know why Olympus should fare worse even if they get into trouble.<br /> <br /> Let me include a few more samples.<br /> <br /> I share 800px images as a protection against copying. This small size may make some wonder how good images really are. So I occasionally upload some crops to give an idea of how good images look even close up. Note that the images I include in the thread are 500px, but you can click on them to get to the 800px version and the exposure information.<br /> <br /> This is the full frame:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6479683903/"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6479683903_3bdced419a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>And this is a 100% border crop, slightly processed (by which I mean that it is processed just like the full frame scaled down image):<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6696696569"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7160/6696696569_76070f4642.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>Let's do one of those cat shots that are maligned. Full frame:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/11230610403"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5508/11230610403_7d92822650.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></a></p>

<p>Crop:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/11230514104"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3787/11230514104_e0f165de46.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="376" /></a></p>

<p>This next one is already a crop:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/11230610913"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11230610913_e67270751e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="376" /></a></p>

<p>Followed by an even tighter crop:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/11230502145"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7342/11230502145_55ace3d965.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="376" /></a><br /> These examples also show how much detail a camera can capture when focus is spot on.</p>

<p>The Samyang MFT fisheye lens is incredibly small. It is also much better optically than the old SLR version I had. A slightly different design is available for APS-C MILCs. I posted a sample in the first post, here's the first shot I got with this lens:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8063374264"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8170/8063374264_e811307988.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>One thing I always like to see in a lens is a short focusing distance. I found the 1m minimum focusing distance of the Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 very limiting - not for portraiture, but for closeups of details. The Voigtlander lenses, the Samyang fisheye, and many of the Olympus lenses feature very close focusing distances - I really love such feature. Some samples from the 42.5/0.95 at close focusing distances, used at different apertures:<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/9866332656"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3757/9866332656_230ac94442.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/9885628646"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2845/9885628646_10cc1d2c46.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/9907701786"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2882/9907701786_9c70cbfdec.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/10236310764"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3682/10236310764_2a3223cc92.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/10281726055"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5331/10281726055_60cc3395bf.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a><br /> <br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/10320981316"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7395/10320981316_016cc1f854.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/10388229196"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5473/10388229196_722be22831.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/10388203734"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7335/10388203734_f9620e433b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>"Those two stops just mean that you should look at using faster lenses on smaller formats."</p>

<p>Laurentiu, when one comes up against the limits of one's equipment in low light, an extra stop or two can be absolutely critical. I do a LOT of night shooting, and believe me when I say that usually I am already shooting wide open before I decide to dial up the ISO--which to me is the option of last resort. I much prefer to shoot a low ISO, but in near darkness that simply is not possible, as you know.</p>

<p>If one shoots a lot at night, one will recognize the value of an extra stop or two.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"Bottom line is that IQ is and will always be determined by how much light you can get to the sensor. A larger sensor is one way, but a smaller sensor with a faster lens will get you there too."</p>

<p>Laurentiu, this is getting ridiculous.</p>

<p>You are beginning to sound like a true fanboy. If I had the E-M5, I might be out shooting it right now, but there are situations in which it would be time to lay it down and pick up the D3s or some other superb low-light camera.</p>

<p>Olympus MFT is now your cause.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>