One All Around Camera, Light and Professional: Does it exist?

[Julian Thomas]

If you rescan your 35mm stuff you are giving up years of your life, or big buck. To get good quality scans, if you are doing it yourself, takes skill and time, and that isn't including the dust spotting. If you are using velvia, the contrast range is limited compared to colour neg or full frame digi. IMO leica are not good backpacking cameras, the rangefinder is fragile. I used to shoot with 4 leica bodies, and I never had more than 2 working for any length of time together, mainly due top focus misalignement(2 M6s, M4 and M4-P) I'm also not convinced that rf focussing is accurate enough for digi, but I'm unsure of the science behind that. I DO know that the advantage rf cameras had with film was that you didn't need a retrofocus design for w/a lenses. This is a definite disadvantage with digi sensors as the light coming from acute angles causes problems needing all sort of microlenses on the senosr to compensate

[Rog Tallbloke]

I used to have a Ricoh XR10 SLR with a standard 50mm lens and a sigma 80-210 zoom which gave pretty good results. Heavy though. Then I used a Ricoh compact 35mm with 28mm fixed lens and got great photos for the weight. I had to tape up the back of the camera to prevent light leakage though, it had been around.

These days I'm happy enough with a compact digicam. It's the composition in the photo that wins the prize or makes your day, not the camera or the pixel count.

My answer to Jen's original quest for a 'do it all' lightweight is the canon superzoom range. The big 12x zoom is a real bonus for sports action and snapping birds on the wing, and the image stabilisation really works too. And they run on AA batteries, no more power downs at crucial moments on long hikes.

I have an S2IS which is a bit long in the tooth now. I'm thinking of upgrading to the SX1 with the new CMOS big sensor. Mind you, it's around 21oz, and I may just go for the 9oz SX110s and learn to live without a viewfinder. The other advantage is I won't have to find pack room for it. It'll just live in my pocket.

[James Lee]

They're not so light, but anything less than a DSLR is going to be a frustrating compromise. I'm a pro photographer that often carries a Canon G10, depending on my needs, but would be horrified at the idea of shooting a wedding with it. However, I would feel comfortable doing 90% of my work with a Nikon D700, 24 2.8 & 85 1.4, or the same with Canon 5D. Used a Leica M6 for many years, it was my favorite all time camera. I loved shooting with it, but it was still not as versatile as a DSLR and the jury is still out on the M9.

[Tohru Ohnuki]

We'll have to see what w/a lenses they develop for the micro 4/3 system. It did away with the mirrorbox to make the body smaller and allow for more optimal lens designs…

[Julian Thomas]

agreed. Shooting weddings you need a dslr and a zoom, I know people who have added a leica to that, but youn eed speed and accuracy and the ability to get proofs up fast

[Roger Homrich]

To Jen…

Having made a living behind many different camera types, I can attest that a camera is simply a hammer… a tool. No one type is perfect for every situation. Even for landscape images, I may choose a view camera for control, a rangefinder for portability or a reflex camera for its versatility. Notice how none of this relates to film/digital, resolution, make/model, or ‘image quality’.

Personal note: I have not found a use for a compact in my kit. Those who take photos along a walk/ride may find themselves very happy. Publishers have also found images from some compacts acceptable for print. Personally, I walk in order to create images… I’m a photographer first. When a view camera is always a possible companion, I find that a compact is rarely a consideration. This, I know, is not the norm on this forum.

Either way, one should not choose to build a birdhouse with a sledgehammer or expect a ball-peen to suit their every need. This is just not realistic. Know what you are building, and choose the right hammer. Understand what each camera type is best suited for, and where it forces compromise. You then can make a choice as to what camera type best suits your needs and what limitations you are willing to live with.

If I, like you state, were traveling on a motorcycle shooting landscapes, weddings and modeling images (a life I don’t see ahead of me), I would use a two-camera setup to give me flexibility and a margin of safety in case of equipment failure. The exact two cameras and lenses I’d use is based on years of my own personal experience, and understanding what I am willing to live with/without on a given project.

That stated, if I were recommending a traveling setup to one of my students, I would lean towards a DSLR. A rangefinder would be a close second, but an increased level of skill is needed to produce successful (i.e. sharp) images consistently, especially with longer lenses.

The auto-focus SLR is probably the most popular choice of traveling pros because of both its versatility and its combination of being ‘good enough’ and ‘portable enough’ for most situations. I would suggest a digital SLR purely for convenience and economic reasons, given your intended commercial application and traveling nature.

An example (not an endorsement) of your request; a professional, single camera/lens traveling setup: Canon 5D MkII W/ EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Not a good choice for an architectural or wildlife shooter, but people and places could be documented adequately with this simple kit. A 24-70mm/70-200mm combo would be even better. Many journalists & fashion shooters use this kit.

Like many techniques on this site… going lightweight (one body/lens) forces compromise. You must have the proper skills and be willing to live with the consequences of a minimalist approach. I, personally, would never work commercially without a backup. My clients and I would never accept equipment failure as an acceptable reason for assignment failure.

Most importantly, I would never take a stranger’s recommendation without thoroughly testing multiple systems myself. Find out for yourself what the right balance of cost, usability, control, ‘image quality’ and compromise works best for your primary applications.

Nothing beats experience… never find yourself framing a house with ball-peen hammer because someone said it was a fantastic brand/model. It may truly be… but it doesn’t make it the right tool for the job.

I admire your spirit. Best of luck.

[Roger Caffin]

> They're not so light, but anything less than a DSLR is going to be a frustrating compromise.

You may be right, but not in the sense you were thinking. For many WALKERS, a DSLR will be frustrating because of its size and weight and the probability that it is always in the pack when they want to take a photo.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that most of the argument here has been created by trying to fit one camera into two markets?

* There are those who want 'pro' results, whatever that may mean, and won't be satisfied with anything less than a couple of (D)SLRs and a collection of lenses. Big bikkies, and big weights and bulky gear, but worth it to them as a tool for a living.

* And there are those who are primarily walkers, who want a camera which is inexpensive, light, easy to use and which can be carried in a pocket or on a shoulder strap and which will give them 'good quality' pics for showing friends on a screen.

I can't see anything which would span both markets today (or for some time to come), but I can certainly see many cameras which would satisfy just one of these two markets.

Hum?

Cheers

[Chris Townsend]

"For many WALKERS, a DSLR will be frustrating because of its size and weight and the probability that it is always in the pack when they want to take a photo."

But this doesn't have to be so with the smaller, lighter DSLRs. They are easy to carry comfortably so they are at hand.

"There are those who want 'pro' results, whatever that may mean, and won't be satisfied with anything less than a couple of (D)SLRs and a collection of lenses. Big bikkies, and big weights and bulky gear, but worth it to them as a tool for a living."

Big pro Nikons and Canons certainly fit into that category but there are also much smaller and lighter DSLRs and there's no need to carry a couple of them and a collection of lenses. On my last two week walk I carried a light DSLR with one zoom lens.

"And there are those who are primarily walkers, who want a camera which is inexpensive, light, easy to use and which can be carried in a pocket or on a shoulder strap and which will give them 'good quality' pics for showing friends on a screen."

I think there's plenty of room inbetween these two positions.

"I can't see anything which would span both markets today (or for some time to come), but I can certainly see many cameras which would satisfy just one of these two markets."

I think micro four thirds can span both markets along with the best quality compacts such as Ricoh GRD and GXs, Canon G10s and others. And of course there's the Leica M9…….

[Chris Townsend]

The nearest to this would be a lightweight DSLR with a zoom lens. I use a Canon 450D with the 18-55 kit lens and, occasionally, 11-18 and 55-250 lenses. I've had pictures from this camera (and previously a 300D and 350D) published in magazines and books and am currently working on a large format book of photographs. The publishers are all happy with the images from the 450D.

I would like a lighter camera though!

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Chris

> I think there's plenty of room in between these two positions.
You would complicate things! :-)

> And of course there's the Leica M9.
Fixed lens …
and incompatible with my bank balance …

Cheers
PS: but I AM looking at the G11.

[Mark Verber]

> I AM looking at the G11.

I am likely going to swap my LX3 + G1 for a GF1… but first I need to get my hands on one to get a better sense of it. Alas, supplies seem limited.

If you like the G11, you might like the PowerShot S90 even more for backpacking. I got to play with one a couple of days ago… and first glance it looks quite nice. Smaller and lighter than the G11. In fact smaller than the fixed lens GRDIII. Same sensor as G11. Reasonable controls though it's not a GRD. Has bad barrel distortion at the wide end, but the wonders of digital processing can mostly compensate for this.

>> And of course there's the Leica M9.
>Fixed lens …
>and incompatible with my bank balance …

Not fixed, interchangeable primes. Unless you are thinking about the soon to be released Leica X1 which looks to be aimed at the Sigma DP-2.

I haven't found a few well chosen primes to be too restrictive. I understand the price issue though. I didn't realize how much the M4 system I had inherited years ago was worth. It was the system I used. It wasn't one of those cool SLRs that everyone was getting in the 1970s. When I had to replace it I couldn't bring myself to spend the money. I made a switch to a Nikon SLR system for something like 1/2 the price of the leica gear for a more versatile system. Funny thing though was that when I was shooting with zoom lens, I was often framing nearly all my shots at the equiv of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm which were the fixed lens I used most of the time. I did picked up a used Minolta (Leica) CL for times the SLR was too heavy… but I sold it off when I found a pocket camera that had "good enough" versatility and image quality in a smaller and easier to carry package.

–Mark

[Chris Townsend]

Hi Roger,

>> I think there's plenty of room in between these two positions.
>You would complicate things! :-)
Sorry! :-)

>> And of course there's the Leica M9.
>Fixed lens …
No. Interchangeable. Supposed to work with almost every Leica M mount lens made since 1954.

>and incompatible with my bank balance …
And mine! :-)

Cheers,

>PS: but I AM looking at the G11.
And I am looking at the GF-1.

[James Lee]

I think Roger nailed it (pun intended.) Most of my work has been photojournalism in "hot zones" where I worked out of a backpack for 3 months at a time. So, I spent a lot of energy trying to determine the lightest set-up for those particular needs. For me, that was the two lightest but still rugged DSLRs with a 17-35 2.8 & 80-200 2.8 lenses. I knew some guys shooting very specific styles of magazine work with Leica rangefinders or high end P&Ss like the Ricoh GRII. But again, these were for a very specific style and need and they worked within their limitations.
I did a trip to Kenya recently where still photography, while important was NOT my primary concern so I only took the Canon G10. I had to limit myself to certain types of images, but I judged it a worthwhile compromise.
There are almost always compromises to be made in photography. It's a matter of determining the your priorities and finding a balance.

[Rog Tallbloke]

Some great advice here from the photo pros which goes well beyond my strictly amateur-snapper ramblings. However I do know a thing or two about travelling long distance on motorcycles, and I think Jen needs to consider the effects of dust and vibration and moisture on expensive camera kit.

There are great protective cases out there. They are bulky and heavy. Bear this in mind when accumulating kit. Also remember bike luggage is more vulnerable to theft than from car trunks. You will want to carry your kit when you get off the bike, so keep it as small volume as possible.

[Roger Homrich]

Since the Leica M9 has come up multiple times, I believe it is worth exploring the reality of this digital rangefinder as being a contender for the best ‘all around’ pick, and as a walking camera.

It appears that the M9, from initial testing, is capable of producing images on par with the well-known +20MP DSLRs. This is nothing spectacular, but nothing to scoff at either. Having beat up a few Leica’s over the years, I can attest to the quality of the lenses as being on par with anything offered by any glassmaker. But, it takes more than great glass to make a great digital camera.

For those who don’t know, a rangefinder is lighter and smaller than a DSLR because it lacks a reflex prism and mirror, which also means that you don’t look through the lens. You see no optical effects of focal length (compression, distortion, etc.) or have the ability to optically preview depth of field via the viewfinder. In addition, compositions are only approximate due to parallax and focusing can also be troublesome for the person new to a rangefinder or during fast motion, or in low contrast situations.

But, with a digital RF, you do have the ability look at the display after an exposure to check these things. This seems like a decent compromise, assuming you have more than one chance to get the shot. And although I prefer the large negative (yes, negative) and aspect ratio of the Mamiya 7 rangefinder (my main walking camera), a digital Leica may be a perfectly fine option. But, this convenience comes at a price. $7,000 to be exact. And another $3,000-$4,000 for some glass.

Quite nice, yes. But, before more drooling or depression from the price ensues… Lets compare it to a more versatile DSLR of a similar sensor-size. The heavier, bulkier, full-frame Canon 5DmkII will produce a comparable image at less than half the price of the Leica M9. The Canon lenses will be a fraction of the cost as well and will have world-class auto-focus. It will shoot HD video and be compatible with an immense lens set. One would also find the high ISO quality better in the Canon… quite useful when traveling without a tripod, shooting action or in low light.

Just like UL backpacking, it’s always about compromise… weight, cost, function, durability, etc. Is a camera that is less versatile worth over twice as much because it’s lighter, smaller (may I say, sexier?) and sports a red dot? That’s up to you. Personally, it’s not on my wish list. Though, it would have been impressive a few years ago… or maybe now, if it were half the price.

Keep in mind… both of these cameras will produce images that will far exceed the needs of 99% of the readers of both this, and even photo-specific forums.

As has already been mentioned, the lighter DSLRs, high-end compacts and micro four thirds seem to be the most appropriate for the discerning walker looking to preserve memories, the aspiring amateur on a budget or the professional/semi-pro choosing an inexpensive lightweight kit that will still satisfy many editorial clients.

Fortunately, if you fit into the above categories, your options are both lighter and cheaper than the average ‘pro’ kits. Lucky you! You should be able to achieve great results.

So, while there is no best 'all around' for everyone and every subject… there probably is a camera that's best for you… in most circumstances in which you will wish to use it. The only way to know what's best for you is to test, test, test. Just like a tarp, a stove or a pack.

For those few, like myself, who are often unwilling to compromise exactitude for weight and price, we willingly pay for it with our backs and our bank accounts. We consider it simply part of the job to carry the right tools… whatever they may be, given the subject and circumstances.

It would though, be very convenient for me not to carry my view cameras, my Hasselblads or even my Mamiya 7s in the field, but great images are rarely born from convenience. They are more often born through hard work and sacrifice.

And sorry, even Leica can’t build a perfect camera for all seasons.

-Roger

[Aaron Lastname]

Roger said:

"As has already been mentioned, the lighter DSLRs, high-end compacts and micro four thirds seem to be the most appropriate for the discerning walker looking to preserve memories, the aspiring amateur on a budget or the professional/semi-pro choosing an inexpensive lightweight kit that will still satisfy many editorial clients. "

Would Micro Four Thirds images be suitable for publishing purposes? (Print, magazines, etc) Do we know yet?

[Ali e]

Aaron, I regularly get photos published with my G9 and G11. Its has more to do with the photographer than the equiptment. If you want top of the line pictures step up to a pro systme. If you want to capture nice memory's any $100 camera will do including a cell phone. I would bet a hunred bucks that the above average editor could not tell the difference between images from my g11 or my 5DII. Ali

[Aaron Lastname]

Thanks Ali,
I am on a continual quest to find and a smaller lighter alternative to my Nikon D80. The D80 takes awesome pictures and is a joy to use. I aspire to produce memories but also more…Enlargements, the posibility of publishing the odd great photo that might get taken, etc. Recently I tried a Panasonic ZS3 compact zoom and after checking out the photos after the trip they just look terrible. And I can't tell you how many shots I missed due to the thing taking forever to focus, lack of manual controls, no viewfinder…Etc. Of course this is all after using the D80 for 2 years straight so maybe the ZS3 takes good pictures it's just that the D80 takes excellent pictures.

Anyway, I am trying to bridge the gap…Find something that will take pictures respectable enough to enlarge and hang on the wall or even possibly send to an editor someday. Micro four thirds might solve this (Been looking at the Panasonic GH1 and GF1) but then again maybe not and maybe I am destined to haul a DSLR everywhere.

[Tohru Ohnuki]

"It has more to do with the photographer than the equipment. If you want top of the line pictures step up to a pro system."

Agreed. More people are limited by their ability to visualize the image they want to create than by their equipment. Certainly, the pictures will be of higher image quality if the gear is better, but what was the camera pointed at and why?

Long ago, I read Ansel Adam's autobiography and he talked of when he 'got it' and understood how the whole photographic process was in the service of the scene _as he imagined it to be_. Choosing the lens, filters, film, exposure, film development, modifications while printing, print development, the Zone System, all of it, was subservient to the image as he saw it in his mind and composed it on the groundglass.

[Greg Mihalik]

Ali e,
You mentioned that you are using a G11. I have a couple of questions.

Do you use the viewfinder or the LCD screen more?

Do you find the coverage of the viewfinder up to the task, or short on accuracy and area compared to the LCD?

Any other comments on the viewfinder greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[Rick Dreher]

Hi Aaron,

m4/3 will certainly output high enough quality for print publishing. There are enough tests and reviews extant to show the output is even cleaner than the 4/3 dslrs (due to reduced strength AA filters and the latest processors). The lens selection is lagging of course, but there are two or three very sharp system lenses with many more to come. Shooting high-end M-mount rangefinder lenses via the available adapter gives spectacular output, with acknowledgment that it's strictly manual focus. You can shoot 4/3 dlsr lenses and retain AF, at least with the EP1, but the size factor comes to play. It could be that the sharpest 4/3 AF rig possible is the EP1 and the ZD 50 macro.

No small chip compact can match m4/3, but a few are at least in the ballpark (remembering that the 4/3 imager is at a minimum four times the area). At the end of the day, it's the publisher's guidelines that count. What is new for us, is that we have these very small and light big chip alternatives to the small-chip compacts. Our world is changing for good, and for the better.

Cheers,

Rick

[Aaron Lastname]

Rick,
Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it.

[Ali e]

Greg, I use the view finder 95% of the time. My g series camera's had a huge learning curve. With my dslr I have no issues. With my g series you have to take a bit more time and learn the systme. My G9 died a tragic and untimely death. I liked it better than my g11 because it was 35mm so I just turned it on and shot. My G11 is preprogramed so it switches to 35 when I turn it on. I dont like the zoom and rarly use it. My days of lugging big glass are over but I still use pro dslr's with short lense's Once you learn how the viewfinder reacts you can shoot anything without using the screen. It took me a thousand images to get the hang of it but honestly I think I get better images with my g11 than I do with my 50D. I still have a love hate relationship with the slowness and lack of real manual focus but Its so small and light it goes eveywhere I go. Its sitting on my desk right now. The G11 also has a real water proof housing so I can mount it on my boat and get great sailing video. It might not be HD but in the last 12 months I have had two offers to have documenatrys done on my life basically based off images and videos from my G9 and 11. As far as quality is concerned beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One of my all time favorite images is from my crappy cell phone and the best image I have ever created was form a film point n shoot. My biggest limitation in life is me, my equipment is just an extension. Ali

[Greg Mihalik]

Thanks Ali.
If it took you 1000 images I guess it will take me a bit more, but once it settles in I think I'll be OK.

I appreciate your input.

g.

[John Frederick Anderson]

In a word- no.
Here's some free advice from a professional of twenty plus years and a Professor of photography at several American Universities.
There's no such thing as a professional camera.
There's a guy who shoots for Vogue France with disposable point and shoot film cameras. He turns up on set with about 400. It's his 'look' and the magazine love it.
David Burnett, top magazine photographer sometimes shoots with a Holga for TIME magazine. Look at his work about Obama's election campaign.
The point is you need to decide what kind of 'look' or quality you want, and then get the camera that is the most comfortable fit. Someone once asked Walker Evans what camera he had used to take a particular shot. He replied that it was like asking a writer what typewriter they used to write a book- a nonesense question.
Cameras are just tools, you use the one you get used to, and hope the manufacturer doesn't stop making the combination of camera/ film/ sensor etc you like (come back Kodachrome!! I miss you)
I use cameras that give me the result I desire for the particular market I work in (large, high quality, limited edition fine art prints for galleries and institutional collections.)
If you haven't got the point yet, it's the about the image, not the camera. You will need certain cameras to get specialized images, but for everyday use, work back from your target market if you are a professional, find out what they want (usually they have no idea) and find a tool that you can pick up and use as second nature. That will be the camera for you, no matter the brand etc.
I hope this helps, and didn't sound like a lecture too much.
cheers,
fred

[Author]

Posts