The Obsession With Smallness

[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.

For instance, I have a 35 f/2 Biogon, a great (TINY!) lens, but I can't even count the number of times I have seen people talk about how the C-Biogon is so much better purely on the basis that it is a couple ounces lighter (I am not speaking of cost, that would be a more rational argument). 35mm rangefinders are, by their very nature, compact cameras. I guess I don't get what all the hubbub is about. Then again, I am a soldier who routinely carries 100+ pounds worth of gear so what do I know.

[Lss]

Small to me means firstly smaller dimensions. It is simply nice to be able to carry a smaller bag. Size of a lens may also affect the handling and viewfinder blockage.

[dave lackey]

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.

For instance, I have a 35 f/2 Biogon, a great (TINY!) lens, but I can't even count the number of times I have seen people talk about how the C-Biogon is so much better purely on the basis that it is a couple ounces lighter (I am not speaking of cost, that would be a more rational argument). 35mm rangefinders are, by their very nature, compact cameras. I guess I don't get what all the hubbub is about. Then again, I am a soldier who routinely carries 100+ pounds worth of gear so what do I know.

Well, there is the human nature side of ego where one gets too wrapped up about the gear and go for one-up-manship. Then, you really hurt their feelings when you show up with a Perar 28 or 35mm lens!

[BobYIL]

Good point.. Differences in millimeters usually count for psychological reasons. Have you ever heard someone returning his 50/1.4 Summilux asph. due to its size?

Use your Biogon without minding anything if you really are pleased with the IQ. Photography is like life itself; full of compromises... All of the 1.1, 1.2 Nokton and 1.0, 0.95 Noctilux owners know well that "there is no free lunch".

[ray*j*gun]

Not just photo gear.... I have seen men argue over billet parts for their motorcycles to save 6 or 7 ounces then strap on a chain belt that weighs a cpl of pounds.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by ray*j*gun

Not just photo gear.... I have seen men argue over billet parts for their motorcycles to save 6 or 7 ounces then strap on a chain belt that weighs a cpl of pounds.

A lot of people pay hundreds of dollars more to buy one-pound lighter bikes while hating to check their own weight on a bathroom scale.

[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. I used Olympus's tiny OM system SLRs for years before getting a Leica. Leica's bodies are actually BIGGER than the Olympus OM-4T bodies i have, but the rangefinder lenses are quite a bit smaller than the equivalent Olympus SLR lenses (which are a lot smaller than Canon and Nikon SLR lenses!)

[Steve M.]

Maybe it's all misplaced compensation for other size issues.

[paulfish4570]

it is the compactness more than the lightness that attracts me. i have always taken a minimalist approach to almost everything i do. the super-lightweight backpackers may take this issue the farthest ...

[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.

[Tim Gray]

I hear you. The 35/2 is a great lens. For me, the smallness or compactness of a rangefinder kit in is enough. I don't feel the need to also seek out the smallest lenses I can get. Or really look for even smaller cameras.

That being said, for me, there is a something distinctly different with regards to size between an SLR with 2 lenses and a rangefinder with 2 lenses. My other camera is a Canon EOS 1V with a 50/1.4 and a 28/1.8. Both small lenses for that system. But carrying the camera with/without the second lens makes a much less convenient burden for me. I'd much rather stick my M + 1 lens in my carry on.

I always worded it like this: While using either the RF or SLR, I don't mind the size different. It's while I'm not using them that the SLR is significantly more annoying.

[tom.w.bn]

The max. weight of a bag that I want to carry around a whole day is 2 - 2.5 kg. If I carry more I get problems with my backbone and the next day is no fun. Weight is direct propotinal to the distance I can cover per day. I optimized a lot with my smartphone. No extra maps or travel guides are necessary. Every trip I think about if I really need three lenses or if 2 are enough.

[kshapero]

I think it is a mental condition. Which I happen to have. I am obsessed with small. Small lenses, small cars, in the 70's I was a Minox freak. And I mean the tiny 16's.

[TXForester]

The Olympus digital crowd are obsessed with light weight cameras and lenses. Some of dpreview talk on the Olympus SLR forum is a hoot.

However, you can't find fault if a person's health makes it difficult to carry heavy equipment. And, if the equipment is good and does what you need, there is no reason not to carry smaller and lighter equipment. Carry what can and what you like.

The equipment size isn't the problem. People telling other people what they should carry is where things go wrong.

[jsrockit]

I'll admit, I'm obsessed with smallness. Not sure why...just am.

[dave lackey]

Heeeyyy.. let's get small!

-Steve Martin-

Seriously, there is a lot to be said about compact cameras. The best compact film camera I have is the IIIF but I need a very compact lens, the Industar 26 is a wee bit big. Maybe a collapsible lens?

The X1/X2 will be my next digital camera after a decade of Nikon DSLRs. Small size and, at 10 oz. , these fit in my pocket and produce incredibly good images.

So, yeah, I love but do not obsess about small.

[dave lackey]

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. I used Olympus's tiny OM system SLRs for years before getting a Leica. Leica's bodies are actually BIGGER than the Olympus OM-4T bodies i have, but the rangefinder lenses are quite a bit smaller than the equivalent Olympus SLR lenses (which are a lot smaller than Canon and Nikon SLR lenses!)

Ah...that reminds me, Chris...I have an OM10 sitting on my desk and it is small enough to use everyday....but, I need your recommendation for an economical fast lens.

[DRabbit]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I'll admit, I'm obsessed with smallness. Not sure why...just am.

I am too. It started when I owned Canon equipment and just got so tired of lugging it all over the place (or more correctly, NOT lugging it all over the place because the size/weight annoyed me too much)... that's what lead to my purchase of the M8 to begin with.

Since then, I've had small-itis. The smaller and lighter, the better. You're absolutely right, an ounce here and there makes little difference. I'm as comfortable with my M8 as I am with the EPM1 as I am with the K-5. But they are all relatively light/small cameras.


Conversely though, I find it hilarious that people (non-photographers) are enamored with size. The bigger the camera, the more impressed they are. I had a family member recently ask me to suggest a camera for her, and she was quite offended when it wasn't a DSLR. In her words "I really wanted something bigger."

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

[sojournerphoto]

Originally Posted by ray*j*gun

Not just photo gear.... I have seen men argue over billet parts for their motorcycles to save 6 or 7 ounces then strap on a chain belt that weighs a cpl of pounds.

I've seen thousands spent on carbon and magnesium car parts, to save a few pounds on a lotus 7, when the chap driving weighs a few 10s of pounds more than 'necessary'.

It's usually cheaper to lose your own weight.

There again, I rarely carry more than one lens with me and I weigh several dslr kits more than 'necessary'

MIke

[whitecat]

Think Minox GT.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by whitecat

Think Minox GT.

I would love to have a Minox GT...Raid has one and the images it produces are first class!

[charjohncarter]

I love small cameras I just don't like small formats. Therefore, I use folders for travel and as small a 35mm camera as I can get (Konica C35 and Olympus 35RC anyone know where to get a cap for a 35RC?). I also have some brutes; the Pentax 6x7 is not a two mile hike with lenses walking camera as isn't a Mamiya Super 23.

In fact, I'm looking at the Pentax K-01 now, which isn't the smallest mirroless DSLR (but smaller than the DSLRs) and for me it has what I want.

[thirtyfivefifty]

After carrying medium format cameras, 35mm/Full-frame cameras are awesome. Not heavy at all, especially with small lenses.

Therefore, I'm not too worried about size now-a-days. Just need my full frame. Ergonomics and useability are much more important to me

I used to want to be stealthy, but I'm really into human interaction, and working on my social skills I find that my camera slowly disappears.

If I'm concerned about weight and bulk, I just leave everything at home and just take along a body, a lens, a few business cards, and a voice recorder.

---

Originally Posted by BobYIL

A lot of people pay hundreds of dollars more to buy one-pound lighter bikes while hating to check their own weight on a bathroom scale.

^^^^^^ LOL!!!!

[zuiko85]

Compact and light weight is why I had Olympus Pen F and later OM gear. Remember this, your kit weights 4.5 lbs., then after 5 hours of lugging it around the decimal moves one space to the right.

Kidding aside, a minimal kit also reduces choice, not always a bad thing. On any trek I carry one body with lens mounted and, at most two more lenses in a cargo pocket. That kit is rounded out with with a handheld meter if necessary and film of course. Sometimes, if I want color, it's nothing more than my E-410 and the kit lens, extra battery and card.

[axiom]

When I was 23yo, I wouldn't even look into size/weight..
I changed as I grow older...