The Everyday Camera

Every functioning camera takes photographs, but it is the photographer who makes the picture. The equipment matters, but higher cost doesn't always translate to better equipment. A large format 8 x 10 camera for instance, is large, expensive, and heavy. It doesn't make a very good walk around machine. 

The camera is like a paint brush. Until I took an art class, I had no idea how important a good quality brush was. It can be very inexpensive. I also didn't know why there were different kinds or what purpose they served. The correct tool gave me proper control, and got out of the way. This applied to everything I do. I have spent a year (since April 2013) on a quest to find a film, and a digital camera that I would be happy to use everyday.

Must have features of the everyday camera (for me and maybe for you).

• Flash hot shoe (this eliminates most of the older film cameras that don't have it), built-in camera flash is sometimes nice but not necessary.
• Depth of field preview (this eliminates budget class Digital and Film SLRs) most people will never use this. I use it for close up and macro work and sometimes portraits. Rangefinder cameras such as Leica, and Canonets don't have an ability to give you dof preview. Rangefinders don't do well in close up or macro work. They are not good walk around cameras for me. When I go for a walk, I like to take pictures of everything, including flowers, insects, plants, and later learn about what they are. I want to fill my frame. A $10k Leica setup can't fill the frame or give me the control that a cheap used (d)SLR could for macro work. I admire Henri Cartier Bresson for his work. He fills the frame with a lot of interesting stuff, people, and patterns, but I have never seen a single piece of close-up or macro work from Bresson. He is a composer and has a focus on humanity and the abstracts. I'm not. If you want to spend $10k on a Leica, go ahead, don't cry to me when you realize it's only really good for journalists. If your ultimate goal is to take pictures like an abstract journalistic artist, a rangefinder camera is for you. I have a hard time making or looking at photos of people and things I don't care about.
• A wide selection of interchangeable lenses is important. If the camera is the paint brush, the lens is the paint and the film is the canvas. The characteristic of paint helps the artist express his/her idea with contrast, hue, saturation, sharpness/softness, distortions, and a certain "flare" (sometimes it really is lens flare). The paint will react to the canvas (film/sensor) differently depending on the combination.
• Film/Sensor is the canvas. The choices of film/sensors is fun and sometime frustrating. When you switch from one film to another, you get different results. Just like when you switch from one digital sensor to another. My 24mp Nikon D3200 under performs in terms of color rendition when compared to my 6mp Nikon D100. The D3200, on an overcast day, shot in RAW, no matter what white balance or saturation, adobe or sRBG was used, it turned skin tones orange. If I knocked down the orange, it turned the faces monochrome. If I wanted to turn all my photos to monochrome, I would have just shot monochrome film. The D3200 also isn't saturated enough on a sunny day, colors are flat. When I bumped up the saturation in Photoshop, the photos just looked weird. The D100 always produced the correct skin tone and saturation no matter what the situation. A Canon 50D will produce purple fringing bordering the highlights, but the 40D, 30D, and 20D, doesn't. Sony SLTs are notoriously bad with purple fringing. I regretted buying it. The Pentax Q is bad with purple fringe (no surprise since the sensor is made by Sony) I regretted buying it. An inexpensive 14mp Samsung NX100 doesn't purple fringe, but a 14mp Sony would. Shot with the same lens with an adapter I might add, so it's the freaky Sony sensor, not the lens. This should end the arguments. The Sony made back-lit sensors had not been nice to me. Somehow if you own a Sony and don't want Purple fringing, you need to buy their Zeiss magic sauce optics. I tried my real German Zeiss lenses on my Sony SLT and it produced plenty of purple fringing still. I don't want to buy their expensive Zeiss optics only to get rid of purple fringing so I resorted to boycotting Sony out of my life. My Canon S95 edits out all the color fringing areas and desaturates it to gray. This makes it somewhat livable. I'm not sure why Sony can't be bothered to even do that.

Olympus OM-1
$15 dollars used at the thrift store
50mm 1.8 Zuiko
Kodak 400
No purple fringing on the tree branches.

Pentax Q $800 dollars at Fry's electronics
 and it under performs a $15 dollar film camera.
If you like super natural purple fringing, this is the camera for you. Not for me.
Some people say it's because digital sensors are "high res" so you can see purple fringing.
You can see it even at very low resolution.
How come I never saw it in my low res 110 or 35mm  film?
I think the back-lit sensors creating it's own internal reflections or some other voodoo. What do you think?

• Auto focus isn't necessary for me. I just get enough depth of field to cover everything I want in the scene. Even when shooting sports, active children, and cars. I usually frame a scene, and wait for the subjects to fall into place. Everything is pre-focused. Most of my best work happens when I do this. When I don't, the pictures materializes into a collection of mindless, tasteless, uninteresting copies of people and things. I also find AF hunting or just plain focusing annoying no matter how fast it is. If I have AF, I ending up relying on it. Then once in a blue moon when it fails I get frustrated, and makes me miss the decisive moment. I don't care that my picture is a tinny bit out of focus, I want my composition, and I want it NOW! AF is great when you only want your camera to focus on one thing at a time in each picture. Not good for landscapes and not good for any other time you want to have some focus on foreground and some focus on the background. If my family is visiting a historical building, I'd like the picture to have my family + the building sharp. AF will generally waste the depth of field, the camera would choose f/16 to get the background sharp, but when scale focusing manually, I'd only need to be on f/8 to f/11.
• Ergonomics is very important! No body wants to carry a 10 pound dumbbell of a camera around their neck all day. The pros make their assistants carry it. If you make pro money and has a chiropractor on speed dial, go ahead, get a Canon 1DX with a gigantic L zoom. Strap it to the back of your neck and let me know how things go. I don't want to use my kid's stroller for my camera. Aside from weight, it has to be shaped right. I fat finger the button for flash when all I want to do is change my shutter speed on my Canon S95. That camera, although has excellent image quality, and light weight, doesn't work for me. My 3 year old son has a better time with it than I do. It stays home and collects dust. A view finder is an important part of ergonomics. the LCD screen on the back of the camera is horrid under any well lit situation. Holding a camera to your eye helps put down your vision, literally. Your imaginative vision, is what photography is all about. When it comes to choice, a large optical view finder is better than a large EVF(electronic view finder). A large EVF is better than the tiny optical view finder in a cheap dslr. EVF lag a concern? I couldn't knotice any with the Samsung NX range. I do knotice it in some other brands. Go play with the EVFs before the purchase. They're not all bad. 

Through this journey, I have found what worked for me. Under the 35mm format, I tried and extensively used the Canon AE-1, AT-1, EOS Rebels, EOS Elans, Nikon FG, F3, F801s, Yashica FX-D, Minolta SRT101, XD11, X370, X700 and many more. Those were all fabulous cameras in their own ways. I have tried a wide variety of lenses, from Canon, Nikkor, Yashica, Minolta, Zeiss, to some obscurely private labeled brands such as Sears, and JC Penny, Access, and Soligor. I couldn't justify a Leica due to its lack of depth of field preview for Macro work. I could zone focus a rangefinder camera just fine, however I'm no street photographer and Leicas are not for anyone who wants to explore macro work. Leicas are excellent but the wrong camera for me. I like my Minolta AL and Canonet 17 just fine under the rangefinder category. I won't use a rangefinder camera everyday due to its limitations. My top choice 35mm film everyday camera is the Olympus OM1 with 28mm, 50mm, a 35-70 macro zoom, and a 75-150mm lens. It has a large view finder, mirror lock up, light meter, self timer, depth of field preview, and very long battery life. The older Zuiko lenses are prone to flare, but I don't mind. For digital bodies, I love the image quality of my Nikon and Canon DSLRs, but can't live with the ittybitty tiny viewfinder (horrible for manual focusing). I ended up buying a used Samsung NX100 with an EVF and a whole bunch of lens adapters for my Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Zeiss lens collection. It's not a good performer in low light, but I don't walk around at night or go to concerts everyday, so I don't care about that. Why are you shooting in bad light anyways? Bad light? Use a flash. Not enough flash power? Bring a bigger flash, or get closer. This is comical. The APS-C size crop and depth of field factor is acceptable. Smaller than APS-C sensor size will cause more distortion and not enough background blur control I would care for. Yes, I'd rather shoot all day everyday with my used $100 Samsung NX100 eBay special than my thousands of dollars of Canon or Nikon DSLR bodies.

Iris
Samsung NX100
Vivitar/JCPenny 28mm f/2.8 OM mount from Knight Camera
Handheld, shot at f/8

For professional grade work. Stick with medium format!

    

(1958-?) Voigtländer Vitomatic II

The Vitomatic II is a quality Voigtländer original. Original because it is not made by Cosina of Japan. This beauty was built in West Germany. It is compact, and built to the highest standards of fit, finish and choice materials. 

It has a built in light meter. No batteries required. Don't worry about carrying additional lenses, with less weight, you can zoom with your feet.

Both hands can comfortably support the camera body while messing with the dials. Left hand operates shutter speed, aperture, and focus. Right thumb advances to the next frame. Right index finger shoots. You can change all the settings without fidgeting around half the day. This is the way a camera should be built. No guess work involved. Every thing just clicks with the right feedback.

Cold shoe for flash and other accessory. Leaf shutter flash syncs to all speeds, unlike film Leicas of its day and even DSLRs of today.

Put the needle through the loop and you will have the right exposure.

This is the largest and brightest view finder I have ever seen on a rangefinder camera. For those who wear eyeglasses, This view finder is enormous and has very generous eye relief. Something you will not find in a Leica.

The frame counter is at the bottom. The Tripod socked is offset so you can change film while on tripod. Some modern digital camera won't allow you to change battery or memory cards when locked on a tripod.

Film door lock.

The film door is a staggered machined piece. No need for gummy sticky nasty foam seals.

Film rewind knob pops up.

Here's a test shot from the park. 

Minolta AL

The Minolta AL is a heavy weight rangefinder. It weights a pound. Worn around my neck, it feels like my Canon DSLR with a big plastic zoom lens. If this thing had a faster lens, I'd need to wheel it around in a cart. My Mamiya 645 feels feather weight compared to this.

Interestingly, this tank of a camera is a delicate piece of photographic equipment, and deserves to be treated as such. With enough respect and elbow grease, this heavy weight can turn out some of the sharpest images I had ever seen. I paid 15 dollars on eBay, shipping included. I had to clean and adjust the rangefinder. The focus was off by 8 inches at 6 ft. The light seals had to be replaced and the screen mask behind the lens needed to be reattached (the adhesive they used back in 1961 came undone). Elbow grease aside, this is a totally underrated classic from 1961. If you decided to check one out, get a lens hood for it. The lens isn't sunken in far enough to avoid flare.

With a wet lens.
Taken at 3ft, f/5, 1/60 shutter Fujicolor 400
If you don't think this is sharp, edge to edge, I don't know what is.

Taken at 3ft f/2, 1/60 shutter Fujicolor 400

Film Advance Lever

The film advance lever was a much needed evolution for film cameras. Before the film advance lever was perfected, there were worst ways to advance the frames in a camera. The knobs on the Argus C3, or the dials on the twin lens reflex cameras were all very slow and sometimes stiff and very rough to use. This brings us to a point to talk about the different kinds of film advance levers. There are three distinctly different kinds of levers, multiple stroke, single stroke and the single stroke lever with the option to do multiple strokes, which I prefer.

• Multiple stroke: requires multiple full strokes to advance a single frame. i.e Mamiya 645e requires two full strokes to advance one frame on its optional film advance handle.
• Single stroke: requires one full and complete stroke to advance a single frame.
• Single stroke with the option to do multiple strokes: requires one full and complete stroke to advance a single frame, or several partial small strokes to advance a single frame.

The advantage of having a single stroke with the option to do multiple small strokes is that it allows me to advance with a single hand. It comes in very handy when my left hand is preoccupied with other tasks (like holding my three year old sons hand in public). When taking a picture, I advance the frame with my right hand,  put the camera against my face, and use a fast enough shutter speed to steadies the shot. This is why the cameras with the levers that has a single stroke with the multiple strokes option gets more sun and the others stays at home. 

What kind of lever is on a film camera should be a point to considering if you ever need to shoot one handed.

Single stroke lever with multiple stroke option on the Canon AE-1 (1980s).
I use this camera about 5 days out of the week.

Single stroke lever on the Minolta X-370 (1990s)
I use this camera twice in the last 3 months.

Between the Canon AE-1 and the Minolta X-370, the camera industry had a decade to figure out how to make cameras cheaper by reducing useful features, a process of constant cost improvement.

THE WAY I SET UP MY CAMERAS

Any respectable modern camera should have Tv (shutter speed priority), Av (aperture priority), and M (manual control) modes. I use M and Tv modes almost exclusively. I use M and Tv modes to control my aperture. I can't remember using Auto or Program or Av mode this year.

In Tv mode, I increase shutter speed to automatically decrease the DOF (depth of field), and decrease the shutter speed to increase the DOF.

In M mode, I generally want to lock in my shutter speed based on the subject, and the lens used. When I make pictures with my hyperactive kid, for example, my camera settings are, 50 mm focal length, 1/500 shutter, iso 400. I manually adjust the aperture to get a properly exposed picture.

Is there ever a need for Aperture priority while hand holding a camera? Not really. Since I never want to go below 1/(focal length) for shutter speed.


Depth of Field in Portraiture 
There are some factors that drive my decisions on what aperture to use in different situations. If I am doing a portrait of a person with a cool building in the background, I'm going to use a small aperture to create a high amount of focus depth to get everything sharp in the shot.

If I want background blur on the portrait or just instantly blur out unwanted features such as ears, I'd use a larger aperture to limit my depth of field.

When controlling depth of field, there are no magical f/number (aperture) on all lenses of all cameras. A source of confusion can be found here http://youtu.be/oobLnqpuAk4. Depth of field changes due to several factors, sensor/film size, focal length, subject distance and aperture.

How far away are you standing from the subject? What format (6x6, 645, 35, APS, micro 4/3, compact...)? How tight are you framing?

Assuming you like taking portraits at 6 ft with 35 mm format, 85 mm lens at f/5.6 which give you over 5 inches depth of field.

I shoot 645 format so, 150 mm lens at f/11 gets me a little over 5 inches depth of field 6 ft away from subject.

On a Canon S95, 22.5 mm focal length, 4 ft from subject gives you about the same 5 inches depth of field. the framing is tighter, but workable.

If 6 inches depth of field is what you think is the best for portraiture, that's cool.

I'm just throwing this in here since there are a lot of amateur format shooters out there that would get everything in focus all the time and can't seem to create what they want.

(1981-?) Canon AE-1 Program

The AE-1 Program is an evolution of the original AE-1. It was updated to a plastic base plate to save weight. Plastic battery door, and an addition of plastic palm grip. It is not programable. It is pre-programed with paired shutter speed and aperture settings.

The program settings to me is a sales gimmick. I don't use it.

Camera to Human Interface: The Eye Cup

Round rubber eye cup on the Canon AE-1

The Camera to Human Interface

I am amazed with the technology that comes out in the world of photography every minute of the day. Computerized cameras today can automate most of the work. Folks who don't want to learn photography can leave their camera setting on AUTO and get usable pictures. I have friends who are amazed at the picture quality of their new cellular phones, though I highly doubt they would be so impressed when the pictures are enlarged beyond the cellphone screen (no matter what the pixel count). With all these advancements, everything should be great, but there is something amiss, and it's rather low tech.

When I see modern compact and even SLR cameras, they lack a round eye cup. If you have never used one. You don't know what you're missing. Total immersion. To me, there is nothing more luxurious than an AE-1's large viewfinder coupled with a round eye cup (maybe the round eye cup on the Hasselblad H5D?). When the sun is behind me, LCD screens become so washed out that I couldn't compose with color in mind. All I could compose with is shapes. So what about EVFs (Electronic View Finders)? If you own an camera with EVF (I had a Sony A55V), I suggest you set the camera on 50mm (35mm film equivalent) focal length, look through the EVF with one eye and keep the other eye open. You may find the image displayed on the EVF to be surreal and unnatural.

I'm not sure why SLRs beyond the 80s and today came with square eye cups. They do nothing but cushion the user's head, and doesn't block out viewfinder flare and doesn't provide an immersive experience. If ergonomics is important to you and your camera supports a round eye cup, go get one. You won't be disappointing.