[rfortson]

My solution: 21mm f3.2 + diaper bag. Compact, non-threatening and not too many people may want to steal a bag full of crackers and diapers

Agreed. I have an Eddie Bauer diaper bag left over from when we really needed it. It's not too bad looking and no one wants to steal a bag of diapers. Plus, it's fairly well padded and has lots of room.

[mickeyobe]

Agreed. I have an Eddie Bauer diaper bag left over from when we really needed it. It's not too bad looking and no one wants to steal a bag of diapers. Plus, it's fairly well padded and has lots of room.

Why in the world would a Diaper Bag have to be padded?
Squishy stuff wont shatter.

Mickey

[drewdlephone]

This is part of the reason I got the E-P1. Very non-threatening camera for street shooting. dSLR raises more eyebrows, but with a small ltd prime on the front usually not as much. But dSLR with big zoom pointed at people? Here in LA they can get pissed off. There is a bit of a dividing line and it certainly is defined by camera/lens size along with use.

Yeah, but stick a telephoto lens on that sucker and it will still get looks. Frankly, I think it's better to be far and away from your targets when you're out grabbing candids than to risk getting up close to them with a smaller, less conspicuous camera. The distance means a bigger camera, but also gives you more excuses if you ever have to explain what you're shooting. The law varies, but generally speaking, if you're on public ground and you're not reproducing said photographs for money or for commercial interests, it's fair game. People can get pissed off all they want, it doesn't change the law. If I was ever approached, I'd certainly concede to deleting the images, but they have to understand first that I am not in the wrong by taking their photograph.

As to the OP's original question: I usually just sling the camera around my neck and wear my support bag ( a Tamrac Express 7) messenger style. Keep the lens cap on unless I'm ready to shoot, and off I go. I always make sure there's enough room in the bag for my camera should the weather turn on me (which won't be a concern with the K7, but I digress). Then again, I don't mind looking like a journalist or tourist (in fact, sometimes I function as the former).

[nostatic]

Yeah, but stick a telephoto lens on that sucker and it will still get looks. Frankly, I think it's better to be far and away from your targets when you're out grabbing candids than to risk getting up close to them with a smaller, less conspicuous camera. The distance means a bigger camera, but also gives you more excuses if you ever have to explain what you're shooting. The law varies, but generally speaking, if you're on public ground and you're not reproducing said photographs for money or for commercial interests, it's fair game. People can get pissed off all they want, it doesn't change the law. If I was ever approached, I'd certainly concede to deleting the images, but they have to understand first that I am not in the wrong by taking their photograph.

This is actually a major topic of discussion among "street" photographers. Many would argue that to shoot a long telephoto from far away can't really give you a sense of what is going on, and is somewhat disingenuous and disrespectful to the subjects. Street is all about the moment and the energy, and imho ideally you should be immersed in it, not a distant observer. It is participant vs. voyeur. There are gradations of this and everyone has to have their own comfort zone. And I will admit to shooting with my 50-135 and being a bit removed. But come to think of it I'm usually never more than about 15m away - when I use a long lens it is to get an expression on a face. But I'd much rather be 10' away and really "get" what is going on.

[CWyatt]

This is actually a major topic of discussion among "street" photographers. Many would argue that to shoot a long telephoto from far away can't really give you a sense of what is going on, and is somewhat disingenuous and disrespectful to the subjects. Street is all about the moment and the energy, and imho ideally you should be immersed in it, not a distant observer. It is participant vs. voyeur. There are gradations of this and everyone has to have their own comfort zone. And I will admit to shooting with my 50-135 and being a bit removed. But come to think of it I'm usually never more than about 15m away - when I use a long lens it is to get an expression on a face. But I'd much rather be 10' away and really "get" what is going on.

Agreed, I'm in the 'closer' camp. I reviewed lots of my street photos recently when I was choosing a new lens and found the majority of them shot at or within a few mm of 33mm - a 'normal' viewing angle, about the same as a 50mm on a 35mm camera. However, I also take a few at 100mm, but these are usually for capturing people within a particular architectural setting or something similar, where the person isn't the real subject, or at least isn't as identifiable. It's up to the photographer really. I think most photos taken closer are better. Some people like really wide angle and get in really close. I read somewhere else someone saying 'well James Nachtwey uses a 17-35mm on a full frame camera, that's very wide' - but street photography is quite different in terms of subjects knowingly allowing a camera that close. And then you might start shooting people who are acting differently because of the camera being there - which is again another debate over whether you want it. Personally, I don't.

I read that pretty much all of Cartier-Bresson's work was at 50mm, apart from in the U.S. where he often used 35mm because it was a 'big' country.

[Jonson PL]

Some people do feel threatened by cameras with large lenses. When I would carry around my film Canon SLR with the 135/2 or 85/1.2 (both 72mm filters) I could see people eyeing and avoiding me. Surprisingly I never had that happen when I chaperoned my son's high school band (150 boys and girls) about 20 times carry a camera those lenses.

When I carry around my old small barnack style bottom loader rangefinder (canon IV Sb2) with a collapsible lens slung over my shoulder, no one takes a second look or even reacts. When I take my larger Canon 7s rangefinder with a slightly larger 50/1.5 lens, a few people notice and react with curiosity! They don't fear older cameras! Maybe they don't consider older rangefinders "real " cameras!

o SLRs - People noticed and react
o small rangefinders - people don't care

-Lance

Good points.
This thread by Javier, also deals with the issues :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/43981...eet-style.html

[Marilith]

I am firmly in the small=less-threatening camp.
I use my compacts (Ricoh GRD and Fuji F60fd) for street type work as well as my Olympus e410 with the 25mm pancake lens, even using live-view to chimp it and so look less threatening.
I have thought about but not yet tried my K100D Super with the 50/1.4 FA since the fast lens gives me greater low light, shallow DOF and all that. Plus the Pentax Shutter is quieter than that on the Oly (kaklunk versus klipzzzzzzzzzzzzz).
Edit; though for the past 2 weeks I've been experimenting with my Fuji S6000. It makes NO shutter sound and with the zoom all the way back at 28mm-e makes a fast and relatively lo-profile street camera pus its live view is much faster and smoother than that on any DSLR

[snogglethorpe]

My solution: 21mm f3.2 + diaper bag. Compact, non-threatening and not too many people may want to steal a bag full of crackers and diapers

Disadvantage: Camera covered with poo

[Vylen]

i think a good response from people freaking out on you is simply to say that if you were indeed taking photos of them, they wouldnt have noticed since you'd be hiding in the bushes...

[lesmore49]

I recently purchased two things that make it easier to carry my camera around and leave my bag at home: A good walkaround lens (Sigma 17-70) and a new long strap. Always having my camera at the ready is something I've wanted for a long time, but I didn't want to lug a big bag around or have a big camera hanging off my neck.

Now that I can sling the camera across my body and slide it around to the back, it's less obvious, but it's still got that big threatening φ72 lens.

So you people that carry it everywhere, how do you do it? An inconspicuous messenger-type bag? Just carry it around and not care what people think? Opt for a K2000 with a pancake lens to be less threatening?

I carry a Lowepro Nova AW 170 bag everywhere I go. it's small and I take my carry around camera, a Pentax KM (same as the K2000) with it's 18-55 kit lens attached . It has room for my Pentax 360 flash or my 50 mm Pentax F 1.4...but I rarely carry those two pieces of equipment unless I need them.

The bag is light, has a weather protector bag that can be whipped out of the AW 170, in case it rains.

The bag is padded, to protect the camera. To me this is the best way to protect a carry around. When I take it in the car, it fits tightly in the cente console of my big Buick or I buckle it in one of the seats. I don't use the zip...to prepare it for easy access, just the clip.

[impact]

I am pretty sure this has already been mentioned, but I just want to repeat it, because it works. In a large town, if you act like a tourist, nobody bothers you. People just don't care nowadays, there is way too much people with cameras around. No need to worry about special "concealed" bag.

[lithos]

You mean my Schoolboy Loving Rapist camera? I'd say that's pretty damning right there!

"Sir/Madame: I'm sorry, but even if I was a paedophile, your kids aren't that attractive."

For those in the UK:
There is in fact legal precedent judging otherwise - it's fine taking pictures of anyone if they are in a public space, as one cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in such places. It is also fine to photograph private property if visible from a public vantage point (although here is where the expectation of privacy bit comes into play - i.e. no taking pictures of people in the shower with your 500mm lens). There are no laws protecting children from the horrors of photography, although most schools and such will have their own rules for sports events and suchlike. The more you know...

Similar to here, surprise surprise . Figured they'd changed the laws for all the convicts, but what the hey.

The best way I heard it described is that street photography is no different to CCTV security cameras. You don't mind walking down a public street and being recorded by CCTV, so why are you worried about one bloke with a camera? There's no legal difference here...in theory. It takes one pissed "concerned mother"-type with deep pockets to grab an SC and have the precedent set in court.

You can ask people to delete photos of you, I think, which I do out of courtesy and a dislike of Ipswich sedatives.

Also, if you're standing on public property, with a 1000mm lens, peering into someone's living room, it's perfectly legal. Ask Today Tonight.

Still, it's funny. A few hundred CCTV cams in the Brisbane CBD and people get pissed about the guy with the old film camera.

One way to circumvent these laws will still maintaining an illusion of photographic freedom is to have places that appear public but are very much private-run, even if the company who privately runs said place is government-owned. Southbank in Brisbane's one such place (ironically, one of Australia's biggest photography colleges is located there.)

For Aussies, it's all outlined here. It even comes as a handy PDF download, that's laid out so that when printed, it folds up into a nice neat little pamphlet you can shove in the annoyed public's faces, to prove that you're all completely above board.

And that they're wrong.