With which camera do you have the best 'flow'?

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 28, 2005

My left hand is strong from playing the guitar, but weak from a cycling accident. It may just do strange things.

modafoto · Jun 28, 2005

EOS Elan 7E

A great SLR with nice usable features and great manual and semi-automatic programs. It just works!

jd callow · Jun 28, 2005

I find that most any 35mm slr is second nature to use -- like an eye/hand appendage. I have used one for most of my life. The sadness for me is that I just don't like the size of the format.

For the last 10+ years I have been shooting with a Mamiya 6. For what I use it most for (street photography, portraiture) it is the equivalent in flow to a 35mm. This flow begins to fall apart when I use it for other things.

Although my first MF was an SLR, I never felt fluid with one. The weight is a problem the shutter/mirrors too heavy and the ergonomics are nothing like the Mamiya 6 or 35mm slr. Later after I got a LF I realized that the MF SLR was only slightly easier to use and lacked the benefits of LF.

Studio, composed or non-spontaneous shooting I find the Sinar is a joy. It neatly fills the gaps created by the RF. I am not in love with the 4x5 proportions. Composing in 4x5 is not as intuitive as the sq or 35mm's 3 by 2 proportions. I find myself often switching to a 6x9 rfh. The rfh has one big benefit and that is it basically doubles my lf lens inventory (a 75mm goes from a very wide to a moderate wide, normals become long etc..) The downside is that I have far more camera than what is needed for the formate.

I suspect that with time any well thought out camera will give you flow if used appropriately.

medform-norm · Jun 28, 2005

FrankB said:
(Top tip - If you're shopping for a 35mm and don't want a Nikon, do check the camera body for its aerodynamic properties, just in case...!)

Perhaps that's why these guys are wearing helmets? I sure wouldn't want a Speed Graphic hurled at my head.

Dan Fromm · Jun 28, 2005

Norm, which camera works most easily depends on what I'm doing.

When shooting flowers and the like, a Nikon, for preference my FM2n with B2 screen, with 105/2.8 MicroNikkor, Spiratone MacroDapter, and two little flashes is as easy to use as anything I can imagine. Dial magnification, set aperture according to the calibration table taped to the flashes, focus/compose, shoot. Quick, easy, gives good results.

For general "walking around" photography, which I hardly do anymore, a Nikkormat FTN with 105/2.5 Nikkor. Love having the shutter speed control concentric with the lens mount, that seems the right place.

All I use that's larger is a pair of 2x3 Graphics. I'd rather shoot scenics with them than with a Nikon, still use a Nikon for that for economy. The Graphics give quick and easy shooting from tripod when I've put the tripod in the right place. When I haven't picked a good viewpoint, not too heavy ... But since I have little else to compare them with, they're favorite by default. I do feel much more secure with a Graphic and a normal lens, even using the RF and composing through the VF, than with my Selfix 820. Not sure why this is, the Selfix is solid enough.

bjorke · Jun 28, 2005

I like my Contax G2and continue using it for this reason. It works well in the hand.

My 30-yr-old TLR is surprisingly fluid even after long periods of dis-use -- there's not much tweaking! Simple is always good.

I've come to realize that on some days as little as 30% of the pictures I take get made with my eye to the finder -- so hand operation is ABSOLUTELY key.

JohnArs · Jun 28, 2005

Hi

My favorites are Nikon F5/F100 with these two I'm a speedy consales in shooting , Bronica GS1 in MF like it for quality portraits easy of use, Horseman HF for outside shooting in the pampas because it is only 1.8 kg, Sinar F1 for outside Architecturals is a light monorail can handle all my lenses down to my 47 XL its very easy to extend the rail, and in my tiny studio the black Sinar P can handle any old and heavy lens I can it extend with the F1 for really small macro work or really long lenses.I love it also for the Sinar/Copal behind the lens shutter for all my old and graphic lenses wich do not have a shutter.
I worked with the Arca F-Line for years but was always dreaming of a Sinar. The Arca was very intuitive to setup, but I had many times troubles with the back on the camera wich I really hated at the end. Got many times little unsharpness somewhere in the pictures maybe to some shifting during tighten the knobs or the holder was not fully inserted etc. If I put a holder in my Sinar it will always be fully down and just sits a the right place without any additional check!

bobfowler · Jun 28, 2005

I'd have to say the most intuitive camera for me is a Bronica SQ-A with Speed grip and prism. The square format eliminates turning the camera for vertical compositions, the viewfinder is big and bright, and the advance lever on the speed grip makes it feel like a 35mm with a thyroid condition.

medform-norm · Jun 28, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
Norm, which camera works most easily depends on what I'm doing.

Don't we know the truth of those words. The surprisingly hard part of the learning curve in photography is figuring out what gear will fit your needs (and your wallet). You think you know what you want to do, and you think this or that camera is gonna fullfil all your wants, needs and desires. So far, so good. Then you get one of those 'dream' cameras and it turns out that what is a dream for others, is a nightmare for you. Next step is dumping the camera and going through the whole process of choosing and fidgeting again. Then, after a while, you discover you really wanna do something else, which requires another sort of camera, and voila, you find yourself back at the beginning.

"Evolving needs", this could be called, and a lot of people here on this forum seem to suffer from this affliction....shifting from 4x5" to 5x7" to 8x10" to 7x17"...and who knows, after than back again to their first love, an old 35mm SLR?

What makes this whole process all the more difficult with todays dropping prices on gear, is that has become affordable and effortless for a lot of us to switch between cameras. We're less prone to make do with what we've got. Don't know if this is a bad thing or not, it's just an observation of what happens. If one would ask oneself, "which camera could I take with me to heaven, if I only could take one", it will be surprisingly hard to make a choice. (this of course also depending on what you're going to shoot in heaven: weddings, documentaries, funerals, cloudscapes )

All this being said, it probably takes a number of years of experience before you figure out which camera(s) you really like instead of which camera(s) you ought to like according to consumer tests, advertising & peer pressure combined.

But it's real nice to hear why some people like or dislike certain cameras. Plus we should start a new thread about 'bad flow' cameras (Davids word). Could be interesting too.

Tom Duffy · Jun 28, 2005

I've answered this question at length in other threads. but...
I've gotten rid of every camera that I had to fight with, including a Canham wood 5x7 and a Mamiya RZ Pro II, even though I've taken some of my best shots with both of them.
I've kept the cameras I "flow" with.

Slightly less good then they should be, but still great:
My Leica M6 has gotten a little less good since I started to wear glasses. (they don't make trifocal contact lenses.)
A Canon 7NE. the eye control focus works very well most of the time, putting this camera in a class by itself. but in situations when it doesn't work, it really doesn't work.

My two favorite "flow" cameras:
the Contax 645 - great analogue controls, helpful autofocus and very sharp lenses.
the Leica R8 - except for the weight, this camera is absolutely perfect. Automation never gets in the way of what you're doing and the viewfinder, and ease of focusing are the best I've ever used. Very cheap on the used market.

Charles Webb · Jun 28, 2005

A most informative thread, I have really enjoyed reading everyones input.

I feel most comfortable I believe with the Hasselblad c's, cant remember all the numbers, but the camera just sits in my hands like it was made to fit there. Though I feel very comfortable with it I am seldom satisfied with the hated (my opinion) square format. I loved the RB for studio work, but in the field, it fought me. The Pentax 6x7 gives me a negative/ Trans. that I love, but the weight of the camera and lenses beats me to death. Any more all of the Large format boxes are completely out of the question for schlepping around the mountains for me, but still enjoyable in a still life/flower type of setting.

Again, I thank everyone for their input in the thread, it's a good one!

Magnus W · Jun 28, 2005

I'm currently shooting Pentax LX and Hasselblad 500c/m. I also have previous experience with Pentax 6x7 and Canon A-1 / AE-1. For me the real flow is with the Hasselblad. I had a Hassy 1984 - 1995, but had to sell it in a fit of money-less-ness and lack of darkroom facilities. This winter I bought me a new equipment, and it just moulded itself to my hands and it felt right at home.
I understand that some people don't like the handling of the H'blad, but for me it is just so right.

-- MW

BradS · Jun 28, 2005

If you had asked me last year, my answer would have been easy: the Pentax KX that I have had since 1977. This year I have spent a lot of time with the Nikon FM3a and an FA and they have quickly displaced my old friend on the front line.

Funny. I still remember the first time I picked up a Nikon..."this is all backwards"...I think, I actually said it out loud.

Lee Shively · Jun 29, 2005

I can identify, Brad. I used Nikons for over 20 years, then switched to Canon EOS. Then started using Leicas. Now the Nikons are all backwards to me.

Humans are very adaptable creatures. We will use all kinds of tools for other than their intended purpose and get along just fine. Sometimes the tool and the user harmonize better than others. Overall, I seem to harmonize better with Pentax 645 cameras--but that doesn't stop me from using others.

mark · Jun 29, 2005

My kodak 5x7 2d. I rebuilt it but never refinished it. It looks like hell, kind of like me. It just feels right. Second in line is the nikon N50, Sinar, Prinzdorff and Hartblei all interchangable. I can leave either of those at home and not miss them. but have not left the 5x7 at home since I finished it. When we travel I usually have two cameras with me. Or should I say the 5x7 and one other.

MurrayMinchin · Jun 29, 2005

Wista 4x5 field camera.

Waaaay back in high school I started using a 35mm camera on a tripod while hiking. After high school I got a Pentax 6x7 and used that on a tripod as well. When I went South for art school I discovered Ansel, Edward, Imogen, Minor, Brett, and others who's work affected more than photographers working in smaller formats. It was a no-brainer to sell off everything else and get a 4x5, even though I'd never seen a real live one in the flesh before. Since 1982 I've used it for about 98% of my images.

It's the best compromise for me; the image, exposure, and development control of large format while still being light enough to drag around in the bush for days. Of course 8x10 and larger would give better detail...but it would limit me to how far and how long I can go, compared to 4x5.

I love the whole process; finding compelling subject matter - moving slowly around it to find the strongest composition - setting up the gear while thinking about what development I may give it or if any filters may be used - seeing the image on the ground glass for the first time - moving the tripod to tighten things up and make sure there's nothing annoying on the edges - using the swings and tilts to manipulate depth of field and image shape - metering things and wallowing in the many potential combinations until THE ONE presents itself - applying all the factors - exposure. !!

Murray

medform-norm · Jun 29, 2005

Murray,

that was a pleasure to read. Thanks for your contribution to this thread. It nearly convinced me to give up medium format and go a little larger - were it not that I dread this fidgeting with loading the film sheets in the film holder, not to mention the prize of them these days. Now if they would/could make 4x5 roll film (again), I'd go for it!

MurrayMinchin · Jun 29, 2005

medform-norm said:
...were it not that I dread this fidgeting with loading the film sheets in the film holder...

I understand! When I first got it I didn't have a clue what I was doing, so I bracketed my exposures. This meant I had to keep re-loading my six holders in a changing bag, out in the bush, getting eaten by mosquitoes, in the rain, in the snow...

Murray

medform-norm · Jun 29, 2005

MurrayMinchin said:
I understand! When I first got it I didn't have a clue what I was doing, so I bracketed my exposures. This meant I had to keep re-loading my six holders in a changing bag, out in the bush, getting eaten by mosquitoes, in the rain, in the snow...

Murray

Okay, I get it - back to the roll film club for us...We have a friend who only does 4x5" like you and after years, that the one thing he's still complaining about.

With which camera do you have the best 'flow'?

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

modafoto

jd callow

Moderator

medform-norm

Attachments

Dan Fromm

bjorke

JohnArs

bobfowler

medform-norm

Tom Duffy

Charles Webb

Magnus W

BradS

Lee Shively

mark

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

medform-norm

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

medform-norm

With which camera do you have the best 'flow'?

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency