Decisive Moments for the Small Sensor

[gromitspapa]

That is such a cool shot! You should print it and give it to her.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

i second Sean's opinion on this. the original one is too big and bulky for that, but the new mini-finder is glorious!

I've been using the GR-D with the original GV-1 finder for quite a while now. It fits in most but not all of my shirt pockets with the finder attached, and it is a really bright finder, easier to use with glasses than either the mini or the GV-2. Working without having to fumble around to uncase the finder and slip it into its slot (saving the plastic filler tab, of course) is great, and you can do it with either one.

scott

 

[jonoslack]

Oh Contraire....<G>

Take a look at the GR2 with the GV2 finder - its still very pocket sized and I carry that combination in my pocket all the time. The finder stays on the camera and both fit into a wonderful little leather pocket case that Ricoh makes for this exact purpose.

Take a look at my GR2 review again. I still love the M8 too but it isn't a pocket camera.

Cheers,

Sean

Oh!Sean, Scott, Maggie
get behind me - the temptation is terrible.
and then, I'll be copying my hero Scott completely:
E3 - M8 - Gr2

 

[Sean_Reid]

Why not copy Scott, he's got good instincts.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Lili]

I've been using the GR-D with the original GV-1 finder for quite a while now. It fits in most but not all of my shirt pockets with the finder attached, and it is a really bright finder, easier to use with glasses than either the mini or the GV-2. Working without having to fumble around to uncase the finder and slip it into its slot (saving the plastic filler tab, of course) is great, and you can do it with either one.

scott

Scott,
Does the GV-1 have more eye relief than the CV-28 Brightline finder?
I keep marking the eyepiece of mine with mascara
I am attacted being able to use it for both 28 and 21mm efl's.
BTW the GW-1 is my favorite GRD accessory :clap:

 

[Arch]

A small step back towards the original topic:

I haven’t had a look at Casio’s latest (not quite yet, though) “pro” model, the EX-F1, until now, but it seems to sport the kind of qualities (and beyond) that have been discussed earlier in this thread. Up to 60 frames per second, each of them 6 megapixels, and dng Raw. Plus, of course, HD movie.

Casio, naturally, use the term “decisive moment” in their marketing prose. Better yet, they claim that “Users can record images not just at the instant they press the shutter button, but before!” Wow, talk about decisive.

The future seems to be here before we press the shutter. This is not really a pocket camera, but a small sensor one, all the same. I don’t need it, but maybe those of you more in the multimedia work might be interested. I am, even if I don't need it.

 

[Lili]

Sorry Arch, I will try to stay OT
Besides I see that my question was answered here
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=584

 

[Sean_Reid]

Arch,

Thank you, that's fascinating. Its as if a designer read this thread and immediately produced a camera that was expressively designed for two-stage photography. I can't think of a camera that is more relevant to exactly what we've just been talking about. I want to test this Casio, if only to consider the possibilities inherent in the idea.

http://www.exilim.com/intl/ex_f1/

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Arch]

... And now we know that the technology exists for truly effective buffering. Please, engineers at Casio and Ricoh, unite, and put that nice buffer chip in the GRD3/GX100+ as well. Everybody seems to want to get rid of their five second lag.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Like Jono, I'm happy to wait back in the line a bit on this one. The specs for the Casio super HDTV consumer cam are pretty impressive. The TBD lines suggest that it hasn't quite happened yet. Does anyone know when they claim it will be available? I wouldn't touch it until I have my home network and my 2TB mirrored backup storage working. That thing could blow out my laptop in a few minutes of shooting. But Sean, think what this could offer for your wedding standard shots -- bouquet tossing, first dance, little faces smeared with cake -- I know that's not what you promise, but don't they insist on it anyway?

A few caveats from just reading the specs -- the 1200 fps, 600 fps and 300 fps results are for very small frame readouts, and the 60 "fields per sec" for full 1080 line HDTV resolution (16:9 framing) seems to be interlaced rather than full frame, which is odd, since I thought 1080P was a full frame spec. For the Edgertons among us, this will be essential.

scott

 

[Sean_Reid]

Like Jono, I'm happy to wait back in the line a bit on this one. The specs for the Casio super HDTV consumer cam are pretty impressive. The TBD lines suggest that it hasn't quite happened yet. Does anyone know when they claim it will be available? I wouldn't touch it until I have my home network and my 2TB mirrored backup storage working. That thing could blow out my laptop in a few minutes of shooting. But Sean, think what this could offer for your wedding standard shots -- bouquet tossing, first dance, little faces smeared with cake -- I know that's not what you promise, but don't they insist on it anyway?
scott

Hi Scott,

No, they don't hire me to shoot cliches at all. In fact, they hire me specifically because my pictures made at weddings often don't much look like "wedding pictures" (http://www.still-photo.net). They hire me to photograph what really happens. Otherwise, I'd never shoot weddings. I don't really like "wedding photography" per se. But if one approaches the subject purely as a subject (without preconceived ideas about what the pictures should look like), it can be quite rich.

The only pictures we usually shoot that are standards are 5 - 10 formal pictures of various groups. Although some clients don't even want those. There are a number of clients out there who really do want pictures made of their wedding, not "wedding pictures".

I would not use a camera like that Casio at a wedding. As I said earlier in this thread, I'm of the "pay attention and make one exposure per chosen picture" school. I never owned a motor drive and never wanted one. I may make several pictures in a short space of time but, if I do, each one is different and made at an intentional time. To be clear, I'm not saying that such is the rule for everyone. Rather, its just how I work.

Also, between Melissa and I, we often have 2000 + frames from a day's shoot. Editing those is already a huge task. Having multiple exposures for each intended picture would be a nightmare.

I'm not very interested in the Casio for myself. I'm interested in it for my readers because it may mark an interesting development in the history of cameras. And *someone* may put it to good use.

In another thread, you asked me how many exposures it took me to get a certain picture you were discussing. And I told you one, but it had to be the right one. Given your questions, I suspect we may approach photographing quite a bit differently. With a couple of commercial exceptions, I only press the shutter when I believe that the visual elements of the picture are coming together in a way that I like. And that's why I always need a first rate finder - I really need to see exactly what's happening just before I press the shutter. It's why I'll never be very happy with SLRs - the viewing DOF is too shallow for what I need to see. I'd rather learn the edges with an RF camera than look through an SLR lens at F/2.0.

Again, this is me. I'm not trying to suggest universals.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Lili]

It's why I'll never be very happy with SLRs - the viewing DOF is too shallow for what I need to see. I'd rather learn the edges with an RF camera than look through an SLR lens at F/2.0.

Again, this is me. I'm not trying to suggest universals.

Cheers,

Sean

I agree completely.
To elaborate, the increased DOF in either the OVF or the LCD of a small sensor camera lets me take in the entire frame and all its contents and context. For my way of seeing this is important.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

.... I don't really like "wedding photography" per se. But if one approaches the subject purely as a subject (without preconceived ideas about what the pictures should look like), it can be quite rich.[\QUOTE]

I feel that way about family events, of which we seem to have quite a few.

Also, between Melissa and I, we often have 2000 + frames from a day's shoot. Editing those is already a huge task. Having multiple exposures for each intended picture would be a nightmare.
[\QUOTE]

Certainly. I think of the Casio in a different way. It makes short slow-motion movies, allowing you to explore movement and gesture. Exploring the frames to find the best one seems like optimizing the wrong thing to me. However, the Casio offers a capability which in a technical camera can cost $100K to $1M down to what will probably be under $1K, and that is an event which will certainly have some consequences.

In another thread, you asked me how many exposures it took me to get a certain picture you were discussing. And I told you one, but it had to be the right one. Given your questions, I suspect we may approach photographing quite a bit differently. With a couple of commercial exceptions, I only press the shutter when I believe that the visual elements of the picture are coming together in a way that I like.

I try to work that way, but fail often. Sometimes the failures are also interesting, so I keep trying even when things aren't quite what I thought would happen.

regards,

scott

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Scott,

Yes, I feel the same way about family events, etc. (as you already know and as I've written about before).

I agree that the Casio could be important because of what it may be introducing.

Most of my pictures fail too.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[jonoslack]

Certainly. I think of the Casio in a different way. It makes short slow-motion movies, allowing you to explore movement and gesture. Exploring the frames to find the best one seems like optimizing the wrong thing to me. However, the Casio offers a capability which in a technical camera can cost $100K to $1M down to what will probably be under $1K, and that is an event which will certainly have some consequences.

Hi Scott
I agree - an important event with consequences; it's been coming for some time, and I think it's a really important step. It rather frightens me - it indicates a different way of working which sounds time consuming and which negates what small skills I have in catching 'the decisive moment'.

I suspect that my suspicions and antagonisms are very much like many photographers apprehension towards digital (that has never worried me).

Most of my pictures fail as well, but I'm not sure that I want a new device which will allow success, but does it a completely different way.

incidentally, apologies for the rather silly post with respect to the GRDII - do you feel it gives you better results than the D-lux2?

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Hi Scott
I agree - an important event with consequences; it's been coming for some time, and I think it's a really important step. It rather frightens me - it indicates a different way of working which sounds time consuming and which negates what small skills I have in catching 'the decisive moment'.

... with respect to the GRDII - do you feel it gives you better results than the D-lux2?

I bought a GL-2 and a smaller fist-sized video camera for my lab a few years back. Shot and edited a lot that year (using Adobe Premiere, as this was before Final Cut had taken off), and enjoyed it, but I haven't wanted to return to that workload. It seems my students are much better at this than I am. And my children both are excited by the moments they capture in short videos. They hardly edit beyond what they can review immediately on the LCD of a little handheld.

When you look at what video vs still photography contributes to day to day news, such as coverage of the US presidential primaries, I think the selected still frames are actually more distorted in their emphasis than the "sound bites." E.g. the "Hillary looks exhausted and OLD" image that was widely discussed and ended up helping her get some sympathy vote in the New Hampshire primary. Perhaps paparazzi images and sound bites are so far from the perceptions we want to capture and share that they both should be irrelevant. But they are not; they strongly influence the self-image that the millions of camera purchasers carry around with them. And thus also the cameras that are available.

scott

Oh -- I haven't tried the D-Lux 2.

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Scott
I agree - an important event with consequences; it's been coming for some time, and I think it's a really important step. It rather frightens me - it indicates a different way of working which sounds time consuming and which negates what small skills I have in catching 'the decisive moment'.

I suspect that my suspicions and antagonisms are very much like many photographers apprehension towards digital (that has never worried me).

Most of my pictures fail as well, but I'm not sure that I want a new device which will allow success, but does it a completely different way.

incidentally, apologies for the rather silly post with respect to the GRDII - do you feel it gives you better results than the D-lux2?

I doubt that new way of recording pictures will make for fewer failed pictures. Rather, the failed pictures will have many similar variations. <G>

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Maggie O]

I doubt that new way of recording pictures will make for fewer failed pictures. Rather, the failed pictures will have many similar variations. <G>

Cheers,

Sean

Sturgeon's Law continues to apply.

 

[jonoslack]

When you look at what video vs still photography contributes to day to day news, such as coverage of the US presidential primaries, I think the selected still frames are actually more distorted in their emphasis than the "sound bites." E.g. the "Hillary looks exhausted and OLD" image that was widely discussed and ended up helping her get some sympathy vote in the New Hampshire primary. Perhaps paparazzi images and sound bites are so far from the perceptions we want to capture and share that they both should be irrelevant. But they are not; they strongly influence the self-image that the millions of camera purchasers carry around with them. And thus also the cameras that are available.

scott

Oh -- I haven't tried the D-Lux 2.

Of course they aren't irrelevant - you've certainly clarified my concern though, in that it means that photography is reduced from 'catching the moment' to a process of 'selection' from all possible moments. Reducing the act from 'intention' to 'selection'. I am, however, suspicious of my misgivings!

As for the small sensor camera I'll be buying, I'm still somewhat at a loss, but considering that I almost always carry around a bag with an M8 (and a backup) in it, I think that a lens with more focal length range is in order . . . which brings me back again to the GX100 / Dlux-3 / G9.

Decisions decisions . . . maybe I should just go for the Leica because it comes in a nicer bag!

 

[asabet]

Jono, the D-LUX 3 has no hot shoe, so adding an OVF is not easily done. The G9 is a step towards your M8 in size and weight. Regarding the GX100, if you plan to shoot it mainly at 28mm in 4:3 format, the GV-1 is a great accessory. If you like 28mm and 35mm, especially in 3:2 format, then the CV 28/35 Minifinder is excellent.