Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In the street I have found that pointing a long lens at someone sets them off way more than if you have a more snub nose normal looking lens on your camera which they seem to know is recording the whole scene and not just them. If its a fast wide fat one I don't know as I've never used one. There are disadvantages and advantages both of being high profile vs. low profile in doing photographic work. Sometimes looking like a photographer can work for you. This is why people wear those vests. Do you really need all those pockets? They are empty for the most part. No you feel you need a uniform. And other times its best to blend in. Use a point and shoot like most the rest of the tourists and don't let them know this is not just for show and tell. I'm ok in the past with a body with no motor drive with a simple fixed lens on the front. A Leica M is not recognizable as the preferred camera of Magnum to the average person on the sidewalk. They think of it as a more benign mom and pop camera of days gone by. They're not going perhaps to ask to see your press card when you shoot with one. In a war you want to look very much like a photographer and not a soldier which is why they do that. Though in some wars they pick off the guys with the cameras first I've heard.. Also look like a photographer instead of a rioter I should think. In a wedding or event you want to look like the photographer as its a specific role your playing and people really do have to play into it. They'll send people after the photographer to get them when something big is going down. They don't have to give out your description its obvious to the messenger who you are. I've chosen the blend in path for most things. I did get a Domke jacket not vest and it more than I thought strongly identifies me as a photographer. I'm off and on as how much I like wearing it. I don't like 2.8 zooms for the 35mm format because I don't like the weight and bulk of carrying them around. Cost too perhaps. Typical for me are shoots in front of the white backdrop which last several hours, three or four hours. I found it hard to a heavy hold lens camera combination for that period of time even though I get to put them down a lot. So I go with an f4 zoom 80-200 not an f2.8. And a fixed 105 or 80. The 105 macro I found hard to hold for that period I went back to shooting a non macro. The macro version of that lens I found was way heavy at least in Nikon. I sure liked using my M6 with motor on the white backdrop with a 90mm f/2.8 ELMARIT-M and then a 90 Apo asph Summicron. And watching the flash go off in the frame lines. And getting way better images. On 1/28/13 8:51 PM, "Ken Carney" <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: > Right. I will sometimes ask if I can take a photo, and almost always it is > a yes. If I have one of the honking big lenses on sometimes a person will > ask what paper it will be in, and then I have to make something up. I > guess > that may be wrong on some level. > > Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Jayanand > Govindaraj > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:25 PM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120 > > I do street shooting all the time (at least once a week nowadays), both > with > honking big DSLRs with their equally big zooms/primes, and more recently > with the much more compact Fuji X system. IMHO, it makes no difference > whatsoever - I personally think that the big camera/small camera, loud > camera/quiet camera debate is a lot of hogwash for street photography. My > advice is to just use what one is comfortable with psychologically, so that > street photography does not feel intrusive, and the relaxed demeanor that > follows will result in all the photographs that one could want. > Cheers > Jayanand > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: >> As I mentioned, I think one just needs to analyze his needs. For most >> of the photography I do, the big zooms are the only thing that will >> work (fast lens, constant aperture). A slower and lighter zoom would >> work some of the time but not all of the time. For other occasions, I >> have a set of primes >> (28-50-85) that work well. The needs of other photographers may well >> be different. I know some are concerned that large lenses may draw >> attention or be intimidating, but I have not found that to be the >> case. OTOH, if I did street shooting the Leica M (and MM also if I >> ever get a decent lottery >> ticket) would be indicated if not coveted. >> >> Ken >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of >> Mark Rabiner >> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:44 AM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120 >> Importance: High >> >> - no law that says that DSLR shooting must involve lugging around 3 >> 2.8 zooms the size of one pound Yuban coffee cans and weighing as much >> as two Speed Graphics. >> People just hate to ruin their image by not walking around with one of >> those monsters transforming their camera into a metal munching >> monster. They want to look like big time pros. >> Then they want to be a gentleman photographer and trade systems. >> Why not just leave the hulking glass at home? >> >> Leica M glass by the way even if they are amazingly non bulky are >> amazingly heavy. A person who wants to be a lean and mean photographer >> and work more elegantly with a smaller camera bag filled with more >> than three compact Leica nuggets each one feeling like that were made >> of lead or uranium can end up with their back in a sling just as quick. >> >> By the way I go out shooting I almost never any more have a second >> lens with me. A lens which weighs into the pounds I can leave at >> home. I'm more happy with ounces and even more with grams. Ok here it >> is the 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G which weights 194.1 grams. .4 of a pound. >> I often use a lightweight 5omm 1.8 or that cheap normal zoom I was >> just writing about which weights about the same. Or a 24 2.8 which >> looks the same but is a bit heavier. >> - a D700 which is quite heavy but I'm not turning it into a monster >> with a hulking chunk of ridiculous glass they are just not necessary. >> >> The D600 out now is 760 G, vs., 1,074 G. of the D700 which is about >> the same as the D800. >> The Leica M vs. Nikon D600: >> 680 vs. 760. >> That's 2.8 ounces >> >> Put a cute fixed lens on a D600 walk out the door and you're a >> gentleman photographer and no one knows you're not a millionaire. >> Me I'm a thousandaire. I buy my pants at Kmart. They look just like >> Dockers if your not staring at the label. >> >> On 1/28/13 4:00 AM, "Mark William Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Welcome to the LUG John Owlett I'm kind of with you on the use two >>> lens not one idiot lens working scenario. >>> For some reason most of the top people spurn normal zooms altogether >>> conservative 35 - 70mm a bit hard to find now to the idiot ones from >>> ultra wide to 300 or whatever. >>> >>> Its the wide to ultra wide zooms which seem to have captured the top >>> photographers practical imagination. The one which almost never comes >>> off the camera. >>> And the traditional tele zoom - some variation of the long time 80-200. >>> I read and see that they use wide and tele zooms and leave their >>> normal zooms at home if they even own one. >>> >>> Me I never met normal zoom I didn't like. Mainly the cheap light ones >>> which are miraculously against all common sense; sharp. I don't own a >>> bulky fast or idiot version yet.... >>> Zooming a great thing to do. >>> I have a 60 macro on my camera right now and its too cold to take it off. >>> As much as I love to be able to zoom when I used a fixed lens I >>> forget all about it. >>> >>> >>> On 1/27/13 6:36 PM, "John Owlett" <owl at postmaster.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> May I use this thread, on which I do have a little knowledge, to >>>> emerge from lurking and introduce myself? >>> >>> I am a dinosaur amateur photographer, having >>>> neither digital camera nor cellphone. First love was a Rolleiflex >>>> TLR; more recently manual-focus Nikon has been the main medium. >>> >>> But the World turns, >>>> and digital cannot be avoided forever. Which brings me here. >>> >>> Mindful of the >>>> 40 lp/mm limit on amateur photography (with a prime lens, a >>>> lightweight tripod, and 160 ASA colour print film) only a full-frame >>>> sensor will do. And full-frame DSLRs are heavy: I want something as >>>> light as the 25 oz of my F3/T; but from Nikon, even the D800 weighs >>>> 35 oz with battery and memory card. >>> >>> Hence the attraction of a 21 oz digital Leica M rangefinder. >>> >>> Needless >>>> to say, if anyone has any information or opinion they think will be >>>> useful, I?d be most grateful. >>> >>> On Wednesday 23 January 2013, at 01:18 EST, Mark >>>> Rabiner wrote: >>> >>>> To me it really would not make sense for a company I have to say I >>>> certainly respect, Nikon to have their step up lens (from a basic >>>> kit >>>> lens) be a >>>> looser. If they can make a bottom of the line lens be a solid >>>> performer then why would the totally blow it for people who want to >>>> spend some real extra money and get some glass with more >>>> functionality.? >>> >>> I?m not >>>> sure that the 24-120 really is a step up lens. Granted, you can use >>>> it as one, but I see it as being a specialist lens for people who >>>> want to use just one lens from wide-angle to portrait length. (For >>>> which it is a far better choice than the 28-300.) >>> >>> If someone wants to step up from a 24-85 kit lens, I >>>> would hope they would consider using two zooms: adding the new >>>> 70-200 >>>> f/4 to a >>>> 24-85 kit lens would be a huge improvement. >>> >>> If they decide they want a better >>>> standard zoom, then the 24-70 f/2.8 is far better than a 24-85 kit >>>> lens, and only 50% more expensive than the 24-120. >>> >>> If 50% more is too much, then using >>>> prime lenses would also be far better than a 24-85 kit lens; a set >>>> of three f/1.8s -- 35m, 50mm, and 85mm -- would cost significantly >>>> less than a 24-120. >>> >>> If, after all that, they decide that their needs are best met by a >>>> 24-120, then fair enough. It?s a specialist lens aimed at >>>> specialists like them. >>> >>> Mark also wrote: >>> >>>> If you cant shoot Leica than Nikon is not such a terrible way to fly. >>> >>> Quite so. Though I am considering the converse: if you >>>> cannot lift a Nikon DSLR system, then Leica might be the best way to >>>> fly. >>> >>> Later, >>> >>> Dr Owl >>> >>> ---------------------------- >>> John Owlett, Southampton, >>>> UK >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See >>>> http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark William Rabiner >> Photography >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/