Rapid weight loss...

Back from sunny Malta, I've been thinking...

I am struck by the recent rapid growth in the availability of "good things in small packages". Hot on the heels of Four-Thirds - itself a move in the small direction - Olympus and Panasonic have forged ahead with Micro Four-Thirds, and Sigma and Leica have gone down the large-sensor-small-body route to give big camera performance in a smaller body. Even "ordinary" high-end digital compacts with small sensors such as the G-11, D-Lux 4 et al offer a "power to weight" ratio that would have been unthinkable just 24 months ago. The photographer no longer needs to carry a large "pro-spec" camera everywhere to guarantee a decent image.

History repeats itself, of course. The digital size/quality ratio improvement is just following the same trajectory as that of film many years ago.

But why?

What drives the urge to miniaturise? Is there truly a demand, or is it a vanity development on behalf of the manufacturers? Portability is a very strong argument, of course, and something that I have written about in the past. The smaller, lighter and more compact your camera the more likely you are to have it with you when you need it. That's a simple equation. But I think that there are other forces - dark forces - at work.

Ever since 9/11, passenger air travel has become a trial of patience and a challenge to the traveller's ingenuity. Ever tighter security restrictions have not just reduced the amount of hand baggage but altered it's very composition. Changes in airline pricing structure, encouraging hand-baggage only by imposing a premium on hold baggage has squeezed from the other direction. The travelling photographer wanting to cover all eventualities on a long weekend city break has to fit everything he needs in a bag measuring 56x45x25 centimetres. Being slightly oversized is not an option, unless you want to run the risk of having your bag taken off you at the departures gate and shoved in the hold - don't even try to argue with the gate staff...

All this is old news for the Leica M and LTM user, of course. They have long enjoyed the advantages of a high quality, compact camera system. With the advent of digital, the need to pack multiple rolls of film has been largely circumvented (only to be replaced by the necessary chargers, spare batteries, spare memory cards and a backup storage device, of course...).

All you need? Not quite - yet...


I recently travelled to Malta for a long weekend. Beyond the clothes on my back, everything else, including three cameras, fitted in a Tamrac photo backpack. I recommend the type with the built-in laptop compartment, by the way - it's great for "flatpack" items such as shirts and trousers. Once "in theatre", everything "domestic" can be unpacked and left in your hotel, and your "luggage" becomes an ideal daypack while exploring. I'll do the same when I go to Budapest later this year. I couldn't have dreamed of doing that a few years ago, when I carried a big SLR with matching lenses - that WAS my hand-baggage. I might have fitted a spare pair of socks in the bag besides, but only if I used them as lens pouches. But the encouragement to travel light is powerful, and now we have the high quality compact camera equipment to match.

Compactness is no substitute for planning ahead though - don't for a moment think it is. I have never forgotten traveling all the way to Hawaii and finding myself with no more than a 135mm lens while trying to shoot a pod of whales from a catamaran. I did the best I could, but I was "outgunned" by those who had lugged something a little longer. Not a single decent shot that day, because I hadn't planned. Lesson learned. Now I think about what to take, and squeeze in a longer lens if absolutely necessary.

For the most part though, a decent kit these days takes up little more room than a pair of shoes (alright, I have large feet) and takes far better pictures.

So there we have it. Darwinian evolution is at work. The days of the bulky (D)SLR for travel snaps are numbered, thanks to the cold hand of Al Qaeda. Think of that the next time you heft your camera to your eye...

Bill

--o-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.
- More imagery at: Lightmancer

Less is more

It strikes me as I get older that I am carrying less and less by way of camera kit when I go out. Of course when I were a lad I thought nothing of swinging a dirty great LowePro Magnum from one shoulder all day, laden with a couple of bodies, half a dozen lenses, flash, film, notebook, pen, cuddly toy, decanter and glasses, etc. I would yomp over hill and dale, and return home having burned a roll or three, mostly with a single lens and a single body.

There are still occasions to this day when I will go out loaded for bear. The most recent was a Sealed Knot event to which I took:

Digital SLRs - 1
Film SLRs - 1
Digital Compacts - 1
Thumping great fast tele zoom - 1
Almost equally heavy fast standard zoom - 1
50mm lens - 1
1.4x teleconverter - 1
Monopod - 1

Total focal length covered - 24- 560mm


I used the lot, one way and another, although the long setup got the most use because the action was so far away (Did you know that a pike is 16ft long? The crowd is kept at least that far back, just in case one topples...)


For those (k)not in the know, by the way, the Sealed Knot is a bunch of English Civil War re-enactors. They take it all frighteningly seriously, and seem to have a thoroughly good time along the way.

But I digress...

These days my preference is to carry something like a D-Lux 4 or a Leica II, that fits in a pocket or small bag, and can be carried all day, even at my ever-advancing years, without feeling it. The practical aspect is obvious - and my chiropractor approves.

But there is another force at work. Because I carry less, I work harder, look harder. Because I look harder I see more. Because I see more, my hit rate has increased. Oh, not by much, but by enough to notice. The shotgun has been replaced by the target pistol, the bludgeon by the rapier.

Have you ever watched one of those chop-socky movies where the baddie whirls around like a manic Magimix for a few moments then the hero fells him with a single, languid move? That's the effect I'm aiming for.

I'd rather be old and cunning than young and random, anyday.

Bill

--o-O-o--

- All views expressed are my own, even the interesting ones
- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission
- Marmite and malt-loaf do not mix