The Obsession With Smallness

[back alley]

i used to lift weights for exercise and carried a canon f1 kit w/o a thought...

not so much these days...

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by DRabbit

How ironic that pro's and serious enthusiasts value smaller and lighter quite often, while Mr. Jones wishes for bigger.

True. Also, Mr. Jones thinks that because it costs more it is making your photographs better. Like your skill has nothing to do with it.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

True. Also, Mr. Jones thinks that because it costs more it is making your photographs better. Like your skill has nothing to do with it.

So, true, the size of camera and lens is what the masses think makes one a great photographer and a serious one who can afford the huge outlay to buy into the system. Supposed to guarantee great pictures. It is a statement these days.

And it does produce great photographs of...whatever. But I wouldn't want to hang most of them on my wall.

Smallness. I like that term as, like Joe, I don't do that massive brick thing anymore, just the heavy mini-bricks like the M3 and R4. Like my steel Trek, just enough to make you work but the ride is oh, so smooth....

[kbg32]

Years ago I thought my Nikkormat FT2 was huge. My Leica M4 went with me everywhere. Now look at the size of DSLRs!

[Brian Legge]

I like that I can fit a meter, film rangefinder body and 2-3 lenses (or a body lens and MF folder) in a bag small enough that I carry it even when photography isn't my plan. It isn't large enough to to get in the way of other activities, etc. My SLR wouldn't fit in the bag with a single lens.

Its also why - though I'd love an ultra-fast lens - I stick with smaller rangefinder lenses. I'll probably end up with one or two special use faster lenses but those tend to be costly and I don't want to put down money for them unless I use them frequently.

[Spyro]

Ι cant speak for others but to me lens size is important because I rarely use bags

I dont mind if a camera is a little bit wider or taller or heavier, but deep is a problem. It means I can't put it in a jacket pocket, which means it requires a bag, which means I won't have it with me as often.

everybody's different.

[sanmich]

There is weight.
then there is size. bigger bag means its straps pulls farther from the body, much more difficult to haul.
In use I prefer a smaller camera, and a very flat lens, specially for wides.
I think there is a big difference when I put a big SLR point blanc in someones face, or if it's a smallish RF camera, and there is again one big step if it's with a lens that is not clearly showing directions, that is not pointing.
That is, in my view the difference between, for instance a summilux ASPH, and a pre-asph, a Biogon, or a C-Biogon. That's the reason I love the size factor of the old summicrons, the CS 2.5, and the only gripe I have against my otherwise wonderful Hexanon M.
It's not about sheer size. It's about the effect on the subject...

[lynnb]

I think a lot of people are attracted to small, precision, quality equipment no matter what it is. I have ff and crop DSLRs but I often enjoy using my XA. I could kick myself for not buying a new CLE when I first saw one in a camera store. I've handled an M but I prefer the size of a Barnack. As long as the lenses deliver the results and are built like real lenses, not large computerised pieces of plastic.
I think Leica missed an opportunity by not continuing to make the CL at a lower price point than the M6/M7. They could have sold truckloads of lenses.

[Michael Markey]

Its always puzzled me too but after reading this thread I now understand that ,for some, its part of the appeal over and above the obvious practical considerations.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Well, after I got my first small Nikon (FM, FE, and later FE2), I never used my F2's again.

[santela]

I like small, that's why I have a C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and a C-Biogon 21/4.5...

But then I also carry around a Nokton 35/1.2, so... it's all relative I guess...

[J. Borger]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

I'm more about proportions than actual outright size. For instance:


- Extremely unproportional - lens is way too big, camera is way too small, and too 'stubby', grip cramps my fingers.


- Well proportioned, grip is nonexistent meaning it fits any hand, camera is big enough to handle but not so big that it's annoying, lens sits perfectly in left hand so the aperture controls fall to the fingers, balance is slightly in favor of the body which is perfect.

In fact i saw the X-pro 1 without lens and the Nikon d800 without a lens in a window beside each other and was amazed about how small the difference is size was. If you pair a Nikon or Canon DSLR with a 50mm prime lens instead of a bulky zoom the sizedifference is far more limited.

[Phil_F_NM]

Minox A takes the cake in my small book.

Phil Forrest

[coelacanth]

I like small.

[CK Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by NaChase

I am constantly amazed by people, particularly in the rangefinder community, who put so much emphasis on having a small kit. Granted, if something is smaller you can take it farther and faster with less fatigue, but I often see people breaking things down to the gram or ounce in terms of what to buy. I can understand not wanting to lug a big SLR and 800mm lens all day, but c'mon, sometimes the discussion- and occasional bickering- that invariably pops up whenever people are discussing smallness/ lightness goes to such silly extremes that I can't help but laugh.

Very true. I live in midtown Manhattan, so you can imagine the number of tourists i'm used to seeing. And, somehow, the thousands of 14 year old girls are able to 'lug' huge, heavy SLRs all over, all day, yet grown men who fancy themselves as 'serious photographers' whine in forums about the size and weight of equipment. It's kind of ironic - that it's sort of an inverse relationship with the RF people. Smaller and 'simpler' makes you 'better' and 'more dedicated.'

On the other hand, i pine for the day when i can get a full-frame digital with a fast lens, in a package the same size as a Contax T3....

[damien.murphy]

I like small cameras, but where size begins to compromise ergonomics and handling is where I draw a line. But yes, small for me is the difference between being able to bring a camera with you everywhere, as opposed to just taking it out when photography is the purpose. The former is priceless, but when going out specifically for photography then ounces hardly matter as much when you are willing to lug.

[furcafe]

Indeed, Oskar Barnack's asthma drove him to develop the Leica in the 1st place.

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I have been in poor health all of my life and have never been physically able to carry heavy things. Small cameras are a godsend to people like me.

[dave lackey]

You guys got me to thinking....

Maybe I am somewhat obsessed with smallness. I have always driven VW Beetles, small British sports cars like MGs and such, ridden and commuted on motorcycles, enjoyed smaller intimate towns, neighborhoods and spaces, owned small dogs, used the smaller cameras like Nikon FMs, Leicas and point and shoot film cameras, and these days, I spend most of my time talking about important things like the philosophy of life and enjoying beauty with my four munchkins (2 granddaughters and 2 grandsons).

We live in a small cottage-sized house, drive smallish vehicles, eat smaller meals, have smaller aspirations and I am constantly trying to keep my weight down rather than lifting weights and bulking up.

So, maybe I am obsessed with smallness.

[mrrobleyleica]

As someone with some years of experience lugging stuff I've gone small too.
The shrinking kit is related to age (and forgetfulness), and the more agressive back pain that comes from a bag of Nikon glass. We've must have all noticed mad trends in size too.

I first shrank systems in the late 70's, from lead lined Zenit to Minolta then impish Olympus OM (via a beautiful borrowed but massive Nikon F). But since then AF SLRs have got bigger and bigger, although slightly lighter now they're bigger than ever. It's crazy.
Is it a marketing thing, bigger = better?

I'm not a pro, so the heavy lugging would usually happen on holiday, maybe twice a year if lucky. Not wanting to miss a picture, the problem would start when thinking about the day ahead. Incapable of deciding what to leave behind, then testing the huge bag and thinking that's totally fine, not that heavy. I would have forgotten that the year before (and the year before that) I did the same thing and it ended with tears and pills. Back ache can lay you up for days. No more please!

Bags don't help that much either, the larger the bag the more inclined you are to fill it. No matter how light a big bag is empty it ends up weighing at least 10kg more than it should. I'm so pleased with my current M set up, with 4 small lenses in a dingy old looking and small Thinktank - I'm taking it almost everywhere I go, and isn't that the point? No need to carry the diclofenac either.

Here in London you see an lot of tourists, some with still stuff and video camera, with tripods and flash guns, who knows why, it's never that dark! We even have street lights here too, about every 20 meters!

The other noticeable minority you see here are the number of trendy younger kids carrying just one old 35mm camera, like a FM2 or K1000. Brilliant.
They've learnt - I didn't soon enough.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by mrrobleyleica

The other noticeable minority you see here are the number of trendy younger kids carrying just one old 35mm camera, like a FM2 or K1000. Brilliant.
They've learnt - I didn't soon enough.

More than likely it was their parents camera.

[dave lackey]

It's all right to be little bitty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abME1JVF18g

[NaChase]

Originally Posted by Michael Markey

Its always puzzled me too but after reading this thread I now understand that ,for some, its part of the appeal over and above the obvious practical considerations.

You have captured my initial point perfectly.

[DRabbit]

Originally Posted by mrrobleyleica

The other noticeable minority you see here are the number of trendy younger kids carrying just one old 35mm camera, like a FM2 or K1000. Brilliant.
They've learnt - I didn't soon enough.

My much younger 25-year-old brother just got a very very clean K1000 at a yard sale for $10 (including 50/2 SMC-A lens, which he gave me! LOL). We had a blast developing his first roll of film together!

[Ken Ford]

I've always liked compact gear, but we've started getting to the point where some equipment has gotten too small IMO. As an example, I briefly had a Fuji X-10 but ended up returning it because it was too small and fiddly for my hands - which was too bad because it was otherwise quite a nice camera. I feel the same way about much m4/3 gear, and my N1 V1 is right on the ragged edge of being too small.

Control density is a real factor. Small with few controls and good design = usable, small and festooned with randomly placed little buttons = unusable.

[daveleo]

I like "small" . .





That was my little joke . . . . My Nikon D60 body (APS sensor) is perfect size for me. The full frame DSLR's are way too large (probably heavy as well) for my needs. The problem for me (as was mentioned a few times above) is the size of the lens(es). My favorites are the smaller, no-motor lenses (50mm/f1.8 D is a dream).

My Panasonic LX3 is conveniently small for cafe hopping but really is too small for my hands.