[PenPusher]

I don't do street photography firstly because there are no streets, picture of the odd cow or two out on longacre is not going to make me photographer of the year, secondly I always feel it is an intrusion on people's privacy and it makes me feel uneasy.

However I noticed references to pre-seting the camera to enable fast taking in preceeding posts , in this respect the Ricoh GR, and I think some of their earlier GR small sensor models, had several built in modes for just such an eventuality so worth looking at if the street is your interest.

With regard to Leica's mentioned above as street shooter cameras, fine cameras though they are, dimension wise modern incarnations are not far off a DSLR and their weight is not negligible either, then of course they do cost a few bob more than the usual camera. The old screw film Leica's though were much tidier in size and so more discrete.

I do have a Q10 and I don't think it's an ideal camera for street shooters at the moment, the O2 zoom is a bit bulky and when equipped with it a Q is a bit big for the pocket, the 01 is probably just a bit too long and something more like a 28 or 35mm equivalent would be better, an EVF would be nice too, preferably built in.

Regards

CD

[reh321]

I don't do street photography firstly because there are no streets, picture of the odd cow or two out on longacre is not going to make me photographer of the year, secondly I always feel it is an intrusion on people's privacy and it makes me feel uneasy.

However I noticed references to pre-seting the camera to enable fast taking in preceeding posts , in this respect the Ricoh GR, and I think some of their earlier GR small sensor models, had several built in modes for just such an eventuality so worth looking at if the street is your interest.

With regard to Leica's mentioned above as street shooter cameras, fine cameras though they are, dimension wise modern incarnations are not far off a DSLR and their weight is not negligible either, then of course they do cost a few bob more than the usual camera. The old screw film Leica's though were much tidier in size and so more discrete.

I do have a Q10 and I don't think it's an ideal camera for street shooters at the moment, the O2 zoom is a bit bulky and when equipped with it a Q is a bit big for the pocket, the 01 is probably just a bit too long and something more like a 28 or 35mm equivalent would be better, an EVF would be nice too, preferably built in.

Regards

CD

The 01 lens gives roughly the same view as 40mm gave a 35mm camera, so it certainly is a reasonable length; a Q-7 with a 01 mounted is very reasonably sized, and that combination gives a good deep DoF, which is very handy with street photography. The greatest short-coming for the Q-7 as a street-shooting camera continues to be its lack of a tilting LCD, since looking down at your camera makes you somewhat less conspicuous than pointing yourself and your camera at your subject does. I have a mirror device that allows me to look down and see the reflection of the LCD, but that isn't quite the same thing since I'm still not very good at parsing upside-down images.

[pacerr]

I have a mirror device that allows me to look down and see the reflection of the LCD, but that isn't quite the same thing since I'm still not very good at parsing upside-down images.

If your fingers and the mirror mount allow, try shooting with the camera upside-down.

[PenPusher]

The 01 lens gives roughly the same view as 40mm gave a 35mm camera, so it certainly is a reasonable length; a Q-7 with a 01 mounted is very reasonably sized, and that combination gives a good deep DoF, which is very handy with street photography. The greatest short-coming for the Q-7 as a street-shooting camera continues to be its lack of a tilting LCD, since looking down at your camera makes you somewhat less conspicuous than pointing yourself and your camera at your subject does. I have a mirror device that allows me to look down and see the reflection of the LCD, but that isn't quite the same thing since I'm still not very good at parsing upside-down images.

Upside down, well you do get used to it eventually, dumpy levels which I used for surveying long ago had the image upside down but we managed all the same.

I have a Nikon P7100 with both an optical tunnel type finder and a tilting screen. The tilting screen is great, very handy especially on the odd occasion when I use a tripod. The tunnel finder which I had hoped would get over the bright sunlight viewing problem is not so good because, genius that I am, I forgot that unlike the new Fuji's viewfinder it does not show exposure settings and if you can't see the view on the screen in sunlight you can't see the data either. It's a bit bulky but otherwise a nice camera.

I also have a Samsung EX1 which has a fully articulated screen, the resolution is fine, but I find the fully articulated bit hard to use as you are pointing the camera one way and looking at the screen off to the side, I just leave it folded back like a fixed screen. Other than that I find it an excellent camera though the 24 to 72 lens range is a bit restrictive. On reflection I would not buy another camera with a fully articulated screen.

I was on holiday some years ago and took my K200D with a Sigma 18-125 and a Sigma 10-20 plus a Ricoh CX1 28 - 200 point and shoot and the Samsung EX1 as backups, many years in construction having taught me that Murphy's Law is alive and well. After a couple of days in the heat the K200D stayed in the hotel and I did all my shooting with the Ricoh and Samsung, The Samsung with its 24mm F1.8 was particularly useful in interiors. I have sort of made a mental note that I am not taking big cameras on holiday to hot countries. I did notice that the Samsung's RAW images encompassed a larger view than the in camera jpegs and felt the lens was more like a 22mm with the difference being used for lens correction. I could be wrong there I often am.

CD

[reh321]

I also have a Samsung EX1 which has a fully articulated screen, the resolution is fine, but I find the fully articulated bit hard to use as you are pointing the camera one way and looking at the screen off to the side, I just leave it folded back like a fixed screen. Other than that I find it an excellent camera though the 24 to 72 lens range is a bit restrictive. On reflection I would not buy another camera with a fully articulated screen.

Yes, my brother has a Canon with an articulated screen, and he regularly uses it to become less conspicuous, so I have to credit my awareness of that option to him. However, from observation I also feel that a tilt screen is better for several reasons, from being slightly less conspicuous to taking up less room/weight on the camera body.

[CWRailman]

I also have a Samsung EX1 which has a fully articulated screen, the resolution is fine, but I find the fully articulated bit hard to use as you are pointing the camera one way and looking at the screen off to the side, I just leave it folded back like a fixed screen. Other than that I find it an excellent camera though the 24 to 72 lens range is a bit restrictive. On reflection I would not buy another camera with a fully articulated screen.

This has been one of the hot discussions/debates on the Olympus board recently as shooters are lining up on both sides of that articulated verses folding screen debate. It seems that the articulated screen was implemented to appeal to those shooting video where it is very useful. However it is much less functional and highly conspicuous when used in street or portrait shooting and virtually useless in action shooting. Hence Panasonic cameras which are designed by engineers with a lot of experience in video where their cameras excel seem to make the most use of the articulated screen. Olympus has used the articulated screen on several models which has upset some of their dedicated shooters. It's interesting to pop a bag of popcorn, grab an adult beverage and sit and read all the arguments both ways. Personally for my style of shooting I much prefer the folding screen.

Though he is a dedicated Fuji shooter, professional photographer Damien Lovegrove demonstrates the benefits of the folding screen in some of his videos. He is one pro that uses the LCD almost exclusively when composing and shooting. By the way, while he is speaking of Fuji, around the 1 hour 16 minute mark in this podcast

You Tube

You Tube

Damien has some very interesting things to say about cameras in general as well what shooters concentrate on verses what they should be concentrating on. No matter what brand or what camera you use, his comments are relevant.

[johnmflores]

I don't shoot a lot of street, but do give the Q a try from time to time. It's ok, the small size being a help, as well as not having to bring the camera up to my eye. But the AF is a touch slower than I'd like and the lenses lacking aperture rings and DOF scales to shoot old style. Setting the AF point via a tap-tap-tap-tap-tap etc... also slows down the process too. This is one situation where the fewer AF points from a camera like the K-5 helps. Finally, the slow cycle time between shots gets in the way. But the camera is serviceable.


Recharging by John Flores, on Flickr


Pinky by John Flores, on Flickr


2 Hipsters Squared by John Flores, on Flickr


Williamsburg Gothic by John Flores, on Flickr


Tickets in Time Square by John Flores, on Flickr


One camera that's been surprising good for street is the K-01. When shooting MF, the focus peaking helps, as do the aperture rings of the FA primes help in M mode. When shooting AF, I got into the habit of shooting square, with the AF point in the upper left third. This way, I could quickly move the AF point to other parts of the square by rotating the camera. The slow cycle time between shots was a hindrance though, and that's where a camera like the K-3 can really shine.

But thinking about it now, maybe I need to give the Q another chance, although I suspect that the faster reflexes of the Panasonic GM1 will be better for this genre.

[PenPusher]

In previous posts Wouter Brandsma and Arthur Fellig were mentioned, I admit to being in ignorance of the latter but Brandsma's name struck a faint chord of memory.

I have had a chance now to look at the work of Wouter Brandsma with the Ricoh GR, his work has opened a new meaning as to what the range of street photography can comprise, his B & W work with a fixed 28mm lens is very illuminating and makes me feel rather depressed looking at my own fairly useless efforts, he obviously has the eye for a subject which I lack.

This link might be of interest https://gr.ricoh-imaging.eu/en/Wouter-Brandsma.html also at the bottom of the page there is a link to MyPentax which is quite interesting

I also looked at the work of Arthur Fellig which is more what I felt street photography was about and which is not at all to my taste.

I will admit that I was not very happy with my Q10 but after reviewing shots taken with it I am more impressed, I have the 02 and 06 lenses and am wondering will the 01 be a nice improvement on the 02 which seems to be not too popular.

CD

[Mikesul]

The 01 is probably the high point of Q lenses (with no disrespect to the 06 or 08). I almost never used the 02 when I had the 01. If you can afford it you need it.

[CWRailman]

I will admit that I was not very happy with my Q10 but after reviewing shots taken with it I am more impressed, I have the 02 and 06 lenses and am wondering will the 01 be a nice improvement on the 02 which seems to be not too popular.

Before the arrival of the Q7, when used on the original Q or the Q10 many shooters were reporting that they were less that pleased with the resulting image quality they were seeing from the 02 lens. The 02 lens seems to have been developed for the larger sensor in the Q7 and on that body it produces better images as have been adequately demonstrated in some of the threads on this forum. The 01 and 06 lenses seem a better match to the Q10 sensor then the 02 lens and on that body produce images of reasonable quality.

[paulcote]

I was using the regular Q with the 04 toy today and I was shooting from the car etc. I wanted to prefocus the lens, but guess I was not accurate enough with it plus not wanting to look at the screen and manually focus. I thought I had it but the tape evidently didn't hold--it was only scotch tape. I want to keep playing with it and find if I can get the lens taped down to a good location for all shots say over ten feet being in focus..... unfortunately it didn't happen today. I would also like to make a thread of 04 lens shots as I think it has a lot of promise.

[Tony Belding]

This has been one of the hot discussions/debates on the Olympus board recently as shooters are lining up on both sides of that articulated verses folding screen debate.

I've found the tilt screen on my OM-D E-M5 highly convenient. I've also managed to break it twice.

The swivel screen on my K-S2 is more awkward, as it has to be fiddled with and turned this way and that way, and protrudes to the side of the camera when shooting at waist level. However, it can also be turned inward to protect it, which I think is very appropriate for a rugged camera like the K-S2.

[reh321]

I don't shoot a lot of street, but do give the Q a try from time to time. It's ok, the small size being a help, as well as not having to bring the camera up to my eye. But the AF is a touch slower than I'd like and the lenses lacking aperture rings and DOF scales to shoot old style.

My understanding has been that the old-time street shooters used a smallish aperture to provide sufficient DOF that everything in a certain range would be in focus, so they sped up taking pictures by not having to focus at all. Since one of the benefits of a smaller sensor is greater DOF at a given aperture, do you really need to use AF at all to take the pictures... could you not use MF and pre-focus at some typical distance like 15 feet? {I have to admit that I haven't tried this "trick"?}

[Tony Belding]

My understanding has been that the old-time street shooters used a smallish aperture to provide sufficient DOF that everything in a certain range would be in focus, so they sped up taking pictures by not having to focus at all. Since one of the benefits of a smaller sensor is greater DOF at a given aperture, do you really need to use AF at all to take the pictures... could you not use MF and pre-focus at some typical distance like 15 feet? {I have to admit that I haven't tried this "trick"?}

This is why older lenses had a hyperfocal scale. I used it a few times on the K-01 with my wider lenses. Q lenses don't have anything like that, so it would be guesswork. On the other hand, the 01 lens's depth-of-field is so great, and my Q7's autofocus is so dependable, that I have a hard time imagining this would ever be a problem.

My main gripe is the lack of either a tilt screen or any kind of viewfinder. That's not crippling, but it's an ongoing nuisance as compared with some other camera options.

[reh321]

My main gripe is the lack of either a tilt screen or any kind of viewfinder. That's not crippling, but it's an ongoing nuisance as compared with some other camera options.

For "street shooting" situations {i.e., when I don't want my presence to change the picture} I'd rather have a tilting screen. I glued on one of those "flipbac" mirrors, but I've never gotten used to using it, and now I'm literally stuck with it; in theory, we can still see a modern LCD at such an acute angle that neither tilt nor mirror should be necessary - we should be able to see it while holding the Q a couple of feet below our eyes - but I'm not very good at that either.