Maybe not all hype? :)

[gary_ferguson1]

"That's exactly how I use my dRebel. I don't get why people think you can't use a modern SLR that way?"

 

The biggest area I struggled with was auto focus. Using both a 1v and a 1Ds I hit the same problem, if set it to continuous auto focus for moving people/dynamic shots then I'd have to nominate an off-centre focus point to get the composition I wanted, which was just too slow. Furthermore the selected auto focus point isn't visible on the top LCD, so I'd have to put the camera to my eye to pick a focus point which gives the game away.

 

If I set the camera to single auto-focus and just used the centre focus spot then I'd have to half depress the shutter and re-compose, which never works properly with moving subjects.

 

If I set it completely for auto focus then I'd invariably try and shoot someone with an obstruction closer to the camera, and the auto-focus would select the closest object rather than the true subject.

 

And if I said to hell with it and focused manually, then I'd hit the problem that the viewfinder and focus screen aren't designed for manual focusing with a 35mm lens, even the f1.4 35mm that I use, and the results were hit and miss.

 

Finally, when all else failed and I tried to zone focus directly on the lens I ran into the main failing of auto-focus lenses. The depth of field scale is non existant and the focus throw is too short for accurate estimation.

[lee_shively]

Jeff says, "I find people notice a big camera and then pay no attention." My experience is the opposite. Many times.

 

Even when others have the "big camera".

 

When we take trips, I've given my wife my EOS Rebel and a 28-105 zoom to take the pictures she wants so I can be left alone to take the pictures I want. Last year, while standing side-by-side taking pictures my wife was told to stop taking pictures by one of the vendors at a crafts sale. She was using the Rebel with a medium size zoom, I was using a Leica M6 with 35mm Summicron. Since I'm 6 inches taller than her, I outweigh her by almost 100 pounds and I have considerably more facial hair than she does, I'm not hard to spot in a crowd.

 

It's happened several times. The guy with the little camera is just playing around and is not serious. The guy (or girl) with the "big" camera is serious and intrusive.

[dean_g]

I use a Canon 28mm f/2.8 with my 10D. It has DOF scale and distance scale. I don't usually equate accuracy with zone focussing, maybe I'm missing something?

 

Nevertheless, I don't use my 10D as much as I thought I would because it is big and bulky, and lately find I prefer my Ricoh GX compact digicam (that I can set to manual and zone focus) that will fit in my pocket, or my film FED2 or OLY P&S. The image quality of the 10D still rules though, IMO.

[kevin m.]

"When I see someone fiddling with their camera or acting

uncertain, I see people paying attention."

 

That's a good point, Jeff. If you act like you belong there, people

will assume you belong there, and that you're no threat. But I

think people instinctively get anxious if they see you acting

'twitchy,' whether you're fiddling with a camera or just have your

hands stuffed in your pockets. It's probably part of the whole

"fight or flight" mechanism. ;-)

[david_carson]

One side says, "The camera matters the most," and the other side (Spirer,

Grant, et al) says, "The camera does not matter." I think a possible answer

to this rather tired discussion is that both matter. Maybe not equally in

every situation, but they both matter.

 

For example, if only the camera matters, then everyone with a Leica would

take tremendous photos. This is clearly not the case.

 

If the camera does not matter, then Avedon could have used a one-time use

camera (or better, a disc camera...remember those!) for his "In the American

West" series (with its wall size photos) and the photos would have had the

same impact on viewers. Or imagine Winogrand with a 600 lbs. Polaroid 20x24

view camera trying achieve his street photography vision.

 

Furthermore, if the camera absolutely does not matter, let's create a

fluorescent orange EOS body, that reeks of dead cats, with a 5 foot pole on

which a large Southern Flag is draped, and when the photographer takes a

picture, the phrase, "Jesus sweet Lord of Mary!!" emits at screeching volume

from a speaker on the body. This camera would be good to take photos of

confused or perhaps smiling people, but not so hot for quiet and sensitive

documentary photos.

 

I would have missed shots with my M that I got with my EOS (running, turning

backwards, firing), and I got shots with the M that would have been harder

with my EOS.

 

I think some people confuse the statement, "The camera matters," with "The

camera only matters," or worse, they respond to the former with, "It

doesn't matter what camera you use to achieve a desired result." It would

behoove the anti-camera side to come to terms with the fact that one can't

paint like Caravaggio with a brick, and one can't paint like Rothko with a

1mm brush. Most camera fondlers admit that the camera alone does not an

artist make; it's time for the other side to make a similar concession.

 

The argument, "The artist will make art no matter what the tool," however,

is completely valid, but is not the same thing I often hear bantering about

on the anti-camera side. Tools (technology) create impact, it is not vision alone that

makes art. Can you imagine what would happen to the power of the cinema if you had to

watch it as a 2 inch massively compressed Quicktime mpg?

[Spearhead]

<i>If the camera does not matter, then Avedon could have used a one-time use camera (or better, a disc camera...remember those!) for his "In the American West" series (with its wall size photos) and the photos would have had the same impact on viewers. Or imagine Winogrand with a 600 lbs. Polaroid 20x24 view camera trying achieve his street photography vision. </i>

<p>

 

Actually, Avedon's 35mm work is wonderful. It can't print as big, but it's wonderful.

[david_carson]

>> <i>Actually, Avedon's 35mm work is wonderful. It can't print as big, but it's

wonderful.</i><<

 

<p>Jeff, you are unwittingly proving my point here. Andreas Gursky, with his 5x7 view

camera (<a href="http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2001/gursky/">link</a>) creates

wall sized images that create a profoundly different presence than an album of 4x6 prints

taken with a one-time use camera (or a Leica, for that matter) of the exact same subject. If

Avedon, an anti-camera person if there ever was one, thought he could get the same type

of "American West" photo with a 35mm camera I have no doubt he would have done so. He

himself said that his transition to a 8x10 view camera had something to do with the

camera's "presence" on the subject.

 

<p>I quote from "In the American West": "As I work I must imagine the pictures I am

taking because, since I do not look through the lens, I never see precisely what the film

records until the print is made. I am close enough to touch the subject and there is

nothing between us except what happens as we observe one another during the making of

the portrait. This exchange involves manipulations, submissions."

 

<p>Imagine the difference in photos with a 300mm lens on an SLR.

 

<p>However, I do sympathize with your viewpoint, as many over-emphasize the

differences between brands of cameras (or say, brushes). But differences in format or type

of camera (RF vs SLR) are a much more valid a distinction.

 

<p>This argument has nothing to do with the fact that an artist can make 'good' art with

such and such a camera or not. It has to do with the <b>type</b> of art that can be

made, and the ease at which it is created.

[Spearhead]

Print size is different than what people are talking about here, however. You've introduced something which has nothing to do with the question or the majority of the responses. I made the stupid mistake of responding to a comment that had nothing to do with subject at hand.

 

It's too bad Alan Gibson isn't here anymore, he had some street photos taken with a 4x5 without anyone paying any attention. The fact is, regardless of final print size, it's how the photographer acts. If it wasn't, we'd all be shooting with a Minox. I've done street shooting with a Leica, Hexar RF, Hexar AF, Rollei, Mamiya 7, Canon G5, Canon 10D. I've never received a different reaction from any camera. It might be noticed more if it's bigger, but then it's not an issue. It's what I do with it. As Tony can attest, and anyone else that's shot with me, I can stick a large camera (Mamiya 7 with 43mm lens or 10D with a 17-40) in someone's face without getting noticed. If I do, it's after the fact. Oddly, the photos I have of people noticing the camera are all taken with the smallest cameras.

 

The one big difference is how I feel after carrying a camera after four hours.

[travis1]

David, good points.

Russ, I have come to realised that as long as I hold something up to eye level, people will notice anyway. So in a sense, the camera don't matter as far as attracting attention is concerned. So, it's a matter of how you manage that attention. The camera is only there to help you.

But I admit the M is very accurate for low light focussing, and fast...and of course rather sharp(sweet).

[________1]

"Finally, when all else failed and I tried to zone focus directly on the lens I ran into the main failing of auto-focus lenses. The depth of field scale is non existant and the focus throw is too short for accurate estimation."

 

Fair enough. I'm shooting 24mm EF on a 1.6 sensor camera. Basicly, everything's in focus once the lens is stopped down a bit.

[david_carson]

<p>Jeff, </p>

<p>Really read what I wrote. People's abilities differ, environments differ. <b>The

reactions you get from people prove your virtuosity in your situation, not

that the camera doesn't matter.</b> Some Sherpas climb Mount Everst in

sneakers; this doesn't

prove shoes don't matter, it proves that Sherpas are <i>tough as hell.</i></p>

<p>The technology

itself has a vibe, a sheer physicality, outside your reaction to it. Imagine

the way Avedon could more easily manipulate his subjects in "American West" with

that very large camera

bearing down upon them, unable to move much due to very small DOF. Think

<i>beyond</i> just

street

photography,

which

perhaps is the great equalizer.

<p>Another person, shooting environmental portraits,

 

with half his face sticking out behind his M and smiling the whole time may

have a slightly easier time getting

the reaction he wants vs the same person hiding his face behind a Canon.

[jason]

Having live for 4 years(one endless summer) in Southern California,

i used buses!! Yes everybody there are lots of buses and trains.There was almost no smog!(Read that T.O people!)and my girlfriend received all the medical treatment she required under a California Help plan.

So i beleive you with no car.The Leica is totally opposite to an EOS.

I sometimes think of my M with more in relationship to an 8x10 view camera.You have to plan!I find people notice the Canons as "Pro" even or esp the "Rebel"!!!People line up to be "shot" with a large format camera.Usually folks say "wow! i really like that antique camera!"

My M6 in black with chrome 50mm.

[david_carson]

And Jeff, if you notice, my last post contains a compliment :-)

[david_carson]

After some further thinking, a Zen way of thinking about this question could be, "The

camera matters. The camera not-matters."

[travis1]

The camera only matters as much as the photographer thinks it matters.I.E the cameras won't tell you if they are up for the job or not.

 

Everything else is a comparison of personal experience, which is why such topics can never conclude with a single outcome.

[tim_gruber]

Interesting discussion here. For me it's not so much the camera that matters, but what I'm comfortable working with. For the past few weeks I've been working on a Get Out The Vote project by doing enviromental portraits of people from all walks of life. Am I using my m6? No, instead I'm shooting everything with a chubby little 1d. Is that right or wrong? I don't know, but what I'm certain of is I'm much more comfortable working with the 1d than I am my newly aquired m6.

[xcapekey.com]

david...those are great points and i very much love the zen meditation...photography is tricky because it functions through an apparatus (camera) and the apparatus can/will affect the outcome...i'm very of the belief that it is the photographer that makes the image...but my experience also tells me that the camera makes a difference as well...

 

avedon is a great example, he truly utilizes unique qualities of the 8x10...he emphasizes the presence and how it affects the dynamic between subject and photographer...

 

similiarly, diane arbus was the same with her c330...sometimes she would feign fumbling with the camera, all the while observing the person in the waist-level finder...and i can tell you, this does work...i've taken pictures with TLR's that were definitely aided by the fact that it didn't seem as if i was "shooting" (aggressive) the person...rather the act of looking down (passive), something which is dicated by the design of the apparatus, was less threatening and i could capture certain expressions more easily...i've been approached many times by complete strangers who WANT to have their picture taken with a TLR...i can't think of one instance when I've had an SLR and someone runs up to me asking to have their picture taken....and it's not as if my demeanor changes drastically...i don't become a slinking lurking predator with an SLR with in my hand nor do i transform into a clueless damsel in distress with a TLR....my gait is the same, my movements remain the same, but there is something about certain camera forms that illicit certain reactions in situations....

 

i feel it myself...i have a friend i meet with every few weeks and we talk shop...we both always have a camera and sometimes we take turns taking shots at each other...whenever he pulls his mamiya 6 to his face, i become more aware than when he does it with his canonet...

 

or you can even compare it to guns (pushing the "shooting" metaphor)...here in Los Angeles the police typically have the standard issue hand guns...no biggie...it makes you aware of its presence...in mexico, the mexican police, carry rifles...still a gun (has a trigger, shoots bullets, designed for the similar purpose, functions largely the same) but when I go down there i do feel more intimidated...i am more aware of their presence...

 

with all that said...a camera does not a photographer make...i could buy an 8x10 tommorrow and not get the same results that avedon gets...we don't have the same vision and i haven't learned how to fully utilize the presence/gravitas of the 8x10.

 

it's hard to argue this point because it sounds like gibberish but both statements are true...the camera makes a difference...the camera doesn't make a difference.

[david_carson]

Russ,

 

<p>If you like Zen, read this post here:<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=0096en">link</a>

 

<p>My contribution is at/near the bottom, at least at the time I post this.

[randy_skopar]

Russ, I can also attest that a TLR is useful for stealth shots. Even more useful is a box camera: it registers on people as a box, not a camera. I've also had a lot of luck with Voigtlander Vito and Vitomatic cameras: they are small, so they mostly go unnoticed. When they are noticed, they are seen as amateurish and obsolete, if not eccentric. Also, they focus quickly and easily, and the shutter is mucho quiet.

[noscreenname]

If we have time to read this thread, we could all go out and shoot.

[jim_simmons]

As for cameras that nobody takes seriously, but takes seriously good pictures, a Leica CL looks like the most benign P&S out there. And if you've got a gee-whillikers tourist look on your face and smile at people as though you're happy and you like them, they'll smile back and then just leave you alone (usually). Also important, as has been stated, intimately knowing your camera and lens is a great aid to fluid shooting. A little game that fellow art school students and I used to play was to challenge each other at a moment's notice on what exposure, distance setting, and framing parameters (for a particular lens) were correct for the setting we were in. We'd each toss up a guess at all of the parameters (using a fixed top and side edge as a base) and see who got the closest. I was usually the least accurate on exposure but was deadly accurate in focussing and framing a 35mm Summicron without looking through the viewfinder. Then slipping the camera to eye and snapping off a very fast shot was easy and quite surreptitious. This is how Winogrand got lots of his best shots.

[dean_g]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I have time to read this, and other threads precisely because I can't go out and shoot, being locked into this particular cube at this given time. It's nice to be able to take a break from the daily tedium and read some discussion of interest to me.

 

I was just thinking about the other side of the "camera effect" (or lack of same) coin. One place where I think the camera makes a very tangible impression on the subjects is in the realm of professional or semi-professional wedding or portrait work. Right or wrong, I think most customers want to see a camera that, to them at least, says I'm a "PRO", and that generally means it needs to be big, and black, and have a formidable flash attachment. Regardless of your portfolio or the actual capability of a given camera, most folks want to pay to have their picture taken with something they perceive as "special", not something they might own.

 

 

Back to personal photography, of the many good points here, the one I'm picking up on most is that it's not the attention, but the _type_ of attention a certain camera may elicit that matters. Curiosity is good, aggression or paranoia bad. So however the photographer can mediate that is the thing. An SLR might tend to appear more aggressive than a TLR etc, or a view camera, so one needs perhaps to offset that with even more of a reassuring manner. It's perhaps the public's perception of the news media vs privacy that can be factored in, and news people use those big black SLRs, at least in the minds of many folks who don't give a rip about photography in the first place.

 

But I suppose if your weapon of choice looks like a spy camera and you look sneaky, you're in trouble too.

 

Honest, enthusiastic, open, "ain't hurtin' nobody", just messin' with this dang funny looking camera..

 

I was standing on a street at night a couple years ago about to take some rainy street with lights type of thing with a digital, and 2 guys drove up, looked over and said, is THAT a DIGITAl camera? I said yes, and they replied, "you didn't take OUR picture did you?" , I said why would I want to to take your picture, you're too ugly. They laughed and drove off. I still don't know what digital had to do with it, if anything. Maybe people are worried about ending up on the web these days?

[xcapekey.com]

well..i have been able to read this and have also managed to shoot 8 rolls of film...i've had similar experiences with the "is that a digital?" crowd...a couple times people have come up to me and have asked if i was shooting digital when i've shot in their general direction, as if to say "if it is digital you better erase it right now before you somehow make me look naked and post me on the internet." serious. the state of photography is changing. it is being perceived as weapon. we hear all the stories of incriminating photographs and people have internalized that to mean anyone taking a picture of them is trying to make them look bad in some way. also, photography is in everything...at streetlights, in phones...it will be interesting to see how photography as a whole will be generally perceived...my guess is that people will be more and more wary of it, afraid that we're living in a surveilance society...

[randy_skopar]

It may be the Internet that causes the nervous atmosphere. People worry that someone may be making money from photographs of them or presenting them in a false light for thousands to see. When I was street-shooting thirty years ago, people were much less jumpy. If only they had known there would someday be an Internet for me to put their pictures on! :-)