On The Road with Vicky Lamburn

Arguably this happened before digital came along as some of the 35mm compact cameras from the ‘80s and ‘90s were pretty boring things to look at. A lump of plastic with some cheap chrome effect trims and buttons. Nothing to write home about.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I tend to use things that get the job done above and beyond aesthetics and so forth so owning a Leica isn’t a fashion statement for me, it’s the tool that gets the job done. The fact that I still own, drive and run a pants car (a 1988 Ford Escort no less – and it looks a right heap) is a testament to the fact I couldn’t give a flying f*ck about keeping up with the Jones’ or indeed embark on a major binge of short term consumerist highs. I like nice things, I respect people who have nice things, but I’m no fashion victim myself.

In yet another conversation where I was told (no not asked, told) why I should dump my film gear I explained all the usual stuff – I like working with the aesthetic film gives, I like projecting my slides to family and friends, I enjoy developing and experimenting with processing my films and I adore working in the darkroom making prints. Then I thought of another reason.

It doesn’t apply across the board as this criticism applies to my EOS 3 and in fact most modern film SLRs too – but I increasingly don’t like the look, the feel and the actual usability of modern cameras. I like things to be simple. These days, EOS 3 included (so this isn’t an anti-digital rant, I don’t do those as they are futile) there are buttons and gizmos everywhere, it’s hard to use a camera sometimes without taking your eye off the ball. This applies less to SLRs as the viewfinder usually gives you all you need to know and a good one with good ergonomics will allow you to adjust the exposure, meter etc. all from your shooting grasp. Digital compacts less so.

 
Workmen (Leica M2, Summar f/2, Fuji Neopan 1600, Kodak Xtol 5mins 21C)

I hate all that clutter, it distracts you. A good camera can equally be one with all the buttons and menu options in the world, but also be one with a shutter speed dial, a shutter release and a rewind knob. Sure the latter is pretty basic (but also aptly describes the Leica M2!) but there’s little where you can go wrong or fumble.

The problem I have is that technologically you can’t fault the cameras. I might think that sounds a bit pap with regard to things like smile detection but if they help people who aren’t photographically adept take good photos then that’s a great thing. What I don’t like is the fact that there are heaps and heaps of options and buttons on many cameras now which really make the thing too complicated. It would be nice to also see a bit of older styling here and there. I prefer the way cameras were made to they way they are now made, although those barely 1” thick  digital compacts are pretty neat looking things.

Maybe Olympus’ Micro 4/3rds (Panasonic Lumix G1) for example will be a starting point for making cameras a bit smaller again and a little less cluttered?

There is of course the Epson (Cosina) RD1/s/x and Leica M8 but we’re not talking about a £150-200 compact camera there, we’re talking a lot of money, especially on the M8.2 at getting on for £4000 which is very questionable.

So that was my other reason, I like the feel and usability of older cameras more than the newer ones. Smile detection is great, but it isn’t necessary in the hands of someone who at least protests to know what they are doing!

Oskar Barnack, the man behind the original Leica camera designed the system to use 35mm movie film because of his asthma. A smaller lighter camera gave him the opportunity to walk and take photos which erstwhile equipment prevented due to its large size — 35mm was and is a miniature format. Yet today super-zooms and cameras including my own EOS 3 whilst undoubtedly robust, it is a big camera and does not make for long journeys on foot in my book. I have done it and for me I found the camera was not getting used because of its weight at the end of the day. You can read more about that in a previous blog post.

Having bought the M2, the plan was not so much to replace the EOS 3 but to have a smaller, lighter camera to use on occassion on walks. The reverse has happened, the M2 is fast becoming the only camera I use. From walks to pub gatherings and taking the odd silly snap down a night club, the M2 has become a a fantastic camera.
Read the rest of this entry »

Continued from Part 2

Part Three – Final thoughts on a TLR and Medium Format in a digital age

Anybody who knows anything about my photography knows that apart from a quick snap on my mobile phone, I only use film cameras. Despite holding down a job in IT working on the forefront of web technologies – I still don’t have any desire to go out and buy digital camera. But with all that considered, how does this weigh up in a digitally dominated photographic world, and even though I spent a mere £120 on this system so far (excluding film) – is it really such a good investment?

Read the rest of this entry »

Continuing from last night’s post, this is an early impression of the Olympus XA.

SLRs were in the early 90s about as fashionable as socks and sandals, only your granddad had one. Since then the SLR (and DSLR although I lump them altogether myself) has had something of a resurgence with many people who have shot point and shoots jumping on the SLR bandwagon with something like a Nikon D40 or Canon EOS 450D fitting their bill very well indeed.

The problem with SLRs only becomes apparent however when you venture into photography that needs to be a bit more discrete (street scene, gigs, museums, documentary, candid work) or where you may want something a bit lighter/smaller. Granted the D40 and EOS 450D/1000D is about as small as you could comfortably go with an SLR but they’re still a bit bulky particularly with a lens on.

I don’t own either of those SLRs but I have played with both and whilst I think they’re good cameras, I much prefer the bright and large viewfinder of my EOS 3, and for the most part its heft and size is a positive. However, it’s not discrete and when you’ve walked 120 miles with it (I recently walked the South Downs Way which is 100mi + 20mi to-from accommodation/food) you know all about its heft!

Enter the XA

When I returned from my recent trek, I was resigned to accepting that whilst I would never part with my EOS 3 and its undeniable construction quality was a very good thing, my neck was raw from carrying it. And it’s not the first time I’ve had that. I needed something smaller. I already have an Olympus Trip 35 but it’s a 40mm aspect which whilst seemingly not far off my favoured 35mm focal length, does make a difference. It’s also a bit of a guess when it comes to precise focussing.

The long-term goal is to purchase a Voigtlander Bessa R2a/R4a (made by Cosina but I’m not a label snob) with a nice 35mm f/1.4 lens but that may take a year or so to afford. So what to do?

Olympus have always made small neat and high performing cameras in many cases. There is the Trip 35 I’ve already mentioned, the Mju II (Epic) point and shoot, the OM range of SLRs, their four thirds DSLR system, not to mention their innovative half frame Pen cameras… And the XA.

The XA is not like a Bessa R or Leica which has a very distinct style, it’s a very modern looking camera (well, more modern looking than an M3!) that packs a 35mm f/2.8 F.Zuiko lens, a fully coupled rangefinder, a rugged clamshell design and sensitive shutter release to minimise camera shake.

Wide aperture and the rangefinder ‘way’ make for accurate focussing and
sharp images at slow shutter speeds in low light

Without recounting what you can find on the web: it’s an excellent rangefinder for the money and is AE ready with its built in meter, and is an aperture priority camera (Av) rather than say the Canonet QL17 GIII which is a shutter priority camera. The quality is sharp, it’s compact, quiet, easy to focus and well made. It won’t exactly run circles around a £3500 Leica system (e.g. an M7 + Summicron 35mm) but it’s far better than the price ravine would suggest. I paid £34 for a recently serviced XA with the A11 flash appendage.

In Use

Immediately I worked on focusing. A fully coupled rangefinder is so simple to focus. You have the viewfinder and in that is a bright rangefinder patch that is essentially a secondary overlay of a part of the image. All you have to do is move the focusing ring until the bright patch and underlying image are lined up with no apparent ghosting. Easy! This is a key way in which low light performance of a rangefinder can be much better than a SLR, in particular an AF SLR which can sometimes hunt around for its subject.

Having quickly mastered that (I am no manual focus stranger, with my much loved 35mm f/2 Super Takumar on my EOS 3) I loaded up some Ilford HP5 and set off to V Festival in Weston Park, Staffs.

The F.Zuiko 35mm lens takes very sharp pictures at f/8-11 much more
so than the XA’s dimensions may indicate!

Most people went with digital point and shoots. I would question seriously that apart from those buying disposable cameras, few people would have been using an esoteric 35mm film camera like me. (There again, I did see someone with an EOS 1d MkII or III with a cheapy Sigma 28-135mm lens on it…) Unlike most, I knew it was hopeless to photograph the stages so I focused on unsung things like the loo cleaners, bar staff, caterers, the decimation of the campsites etc. and it was a pure pleasure to use the XA. At mid-day I was shooting mostly at f/16 (1/500th second shutter speed — sunny f/16 rule on ISO 400 film) and focusing was easy enough though sometimes it was hard to see the markings and shutter speeds but mostly it worked great.

The camera is also dead quiet with its super sensitive shutter release which fires at the slightest of pressure. I’m used to sensitive shutter releases (a la EOS 3/1v/1D) so this is no problem to me but those with slightly spongier shutter releases (a la EOS 400D/30D etc.) or heavily mechanical shutter releases may take some time to adjust to this. What this should mean is that it should be possible to take a shot at 1/15th second shutter speed and not have much camera shake evident.

My friend reading. Sharp and accurate focussing even though the XA’s
rangefinder is not exactly of Leica, Voigtlander Bessa or Zeiss Ikon Standards!

The camera was also very light and compact. Ideal in a coat or pocket in my shorts. It also proved quite resilient to the English rain and drizzle so a big thumbs up there. This at least ticked the small and light boxes.

In terms of discreteness, the XA is probably as good as it gets. It looks to be little more than a basic point and shoot, so you can be sure to not get to much attention when you don’t want it. You could very easily sit waiting with it set to f/8-16 and at hyperfocal length waiting for the right decisive moment and fire without causing any disturbance.

To be continued….