Bill Pierce
Well-known
Digital rangefinders, be they the full range of Leica M’s or the brand new Pixii, have thin cover glasses to minimize the problems that the heavily angled edge rays of short focal length lenses create. When you design wide-angle lenses for cameras with a thick cover glass like Sony cameras, you want to avoid those steeply angled edge rays - and you come up with short focal length lenses that aren’t so short physically. Here’s a lens test on an excellent website that shows the problem when you mount a lens designed for a camera with a thin cover glass on a camera with a thick cover glass.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-vm-28mm-2-0-ultron-type-i/#more-31745
Take a look at the 35mm Voigtländer Apo Panther designed for the Sony. It’s only f/2 and has no focusing motor; so, it has put aside some of the features that would increase its size. Nonetheless, with its small shade in place (and you should protect a lens this good and this expensive), it is 3 1/4 inches long. That’s more like the length of a Lietz 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit than one of the many 35/2 Summicrons.
So, here’s the question. Is the smaller size of the rangefinder with wide-angle lenses a significant advantage to you? For those who think a smaller camera attracts less attention shooting in public areas - It’s your behavior, mannerisms and shooting technique much more than camera size that attracts or doesn’t attract attention - at least that’s my opinion. But always having a camera with you. It’s wonderful to have a camera you can wear under a jacket or carry in large pocket or a tiny belt pouch. The full frame mirrorless combinations like the one we are discussing are too big for that. I carry mine in a little bag along with the wallet, cell phone, face masks e.t.c.. But I also notice that when I’m out with friends, I’m the only person with the impediment of a “man purse.” Your thoughts,,, And perhaps any solutions to the problem of the little bit bigger cameras and man purses.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-vm-28mm-2-0-ultron-type-i/#more-31745
Take a look at the 35mm Voigtländer Apo Panther designed for the Sony. It’s only f/2 and has no focusing motor; so, it has put aside some of the features that would increase its size. Nonetheless, with its small shade in place (and you should protect a lens this good and this expensive), it is 3 1/4 inches long. That’s more like the length of a Lietz 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit than one of the many 35/2 Summicrons.
So, here’s the question. Is the smaller size of the rangefinder with wide-angle lenses a significant advantage to you? For those who think a smaller camera attracts less attention shooting in public areas - It’s your behavior, mannerisms and shooting technique much more than camera size that attracts or doesn’t attract attention - at least that’s my opinion. But always having a camera with you. It’s wonderful to have a camera you can wear under a jacket or carry in large pocket or a tiny belt pouch. The full frame mirrorless combinations like the one we are discussing are too big for that. I carry mine in a little bag along with the wallet, cell phone, face masks e.t.c.. But I also notice that when I’m out with friends, I’m the only person with the impediment of a “man purse.” Your thoughts,,, And perhaps any solutions to the problem of the little bit bigger cameras and man purses.
Timmyjoe
Mentor
I don't call it a man purse, but I do have a smallish camera bag that I use to carry an APS-C mirrorless and four lenses. I think the smaller camera and lenses are a bit more discreet, especially when compared to a full frame DSLR with f2.8 zooms. I like a more discreet camera set up, and I like how it is easier on my back, compared to hauling around so much DSLR equipment. Still working on finding ways to match the image quality of the big set up, but that's half the fun.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Brian Legge
Mentor
Normalize man purses. 
I prefer small lenses because it means I can carry a camera and lens or two in a small bag that doesn’t get in my way. Gets in the way less in size and weight.
I’ve found people to be less intimidated when smaller lenses are pointed their way. It comes across as either more casual photography or less ‘singled out’ than larger lenses.
I prefer small lenses because it means I can carry a camera and lens or two in a small bag that doesn’t get in my way. Gets in the way less in size and weight.
I’ve found people to be less intimidated when smaller lenses are pointed their way. It comes across as either more casual photography or less ‘singled out’ than larger lenses.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Practically speaking, no real difference for me: A film M camera with collapsed 50 Elmar was kinda-sorta workable as a jacket-pocket camera, but in terms of bulk and weight, I never really found it comfortable and mostly carried it in the same bag that I now use for my Sony outfit. OTOH, I find FED-1 / Leica II very workable as a jacket-pocket system. My "DIgital Barnack" is the Olympus Pen-F + 17/2.8 Zuiko.
peterm1
Mentor
I mostly never think about lenses being too small. For some reason I actually swim against the tide and tend to be drawn to physically larger ones. Though I must admit to finding long skinny lenses unattractive to use even if they are good optically. Big and chunky is better for me. (Call me shallow to worry about how a lens looks rather than only on how its images look. But the long and the short of it is that I always carry a man bag / camera bag. As to cameras, I do not much think at all about their size unless travelling by air to climes foreign where cabin baggage limits are a factor.
olakiril
Well-known
Yes smaller lens size is a significant advantage to me.
Smaller lenses mean I can get away from a man-bag altogether. I can let the camera hang much easier from a small strap.
Personally, smaller lenses are also much easier to handle, as well I feel they are less intrusive for other people.
I don't mind about man-purses, people are used to me carrying one anyways so it doesn't feel awkward. But when I do carry a bag, I just find one that is pleasing to me and not necessarily the best for my camera/lenses.
P.S. There are optical lens designs for non-rangefinder mirrorless cameras that are actually pretty compact.
Here are some examples:
Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8
Nikon 28mm f/2.8
Sony 50mm f/1.8
AF motors play a big part in increasing the size of modern prime lenses as well as "bigger is better" in some cases.
Smaller lenses mean I can get away from a man-bag altogether. I can let the camera hang much easier from a small strap.
Personally, smaller lenses are also much easier to handle, as well I feel they are less intrusive for other people.
I don't mind about man-purses, people are used to me carrying one anyways so it doesn't feel awkward. But when I do carry a bag, I just find one that is pleasing to me and not necessarily the best for my camera/lenses.
P.S. There are optical lens designs for non-rangefinder mirrorless cameras that are actually pretty compact.
Here are some examples:
Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8
Nikon 28mm f/2.8
Sony 50mm f/1.8
AF motors play a big part in increasing the size of modern prime lenses as well as "bigger is better" in some cases.
Attachments
nickthetasmaniac
Mentor
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure the APO-Lanthar demonstrates the point. As far as I can tell the dimensions of the M and FE mount versions are more or less identical (taking into account the slightly different flange distance). The Lanthar is larger than other 35/f2 RF lenses *because* it's APO. Hence the size difference between the VM Ultron and VM APO-Lanthar, despite both being brand new Voigtlander M-mount 35/f2's...
Yes. I like to be mobile with my gear and hate carrying around extra faff. I also use most of my gear bushwalking, so weight matters.
I had high hopes that FF mirrorless would produce smaller lenses, but most manufacturers have instead chosen to focus on ultra-high resolution sensors and very fast, ultra-corrected lenses. Which are, by necessity, huge.
I recently bought a Voigtlander 21/f4 Ultron and the thing is tiny. Like, so so tiny... I'd love to see some lenses like this for digital, emphasising *acceptable* quality and compactness over speed and absolute optical perfection.
I agree. I don't think many punters make a distinction between a rangefinder and a big SLR. Both are 'big', dedicated cameras, compared to the cell phones everyone else uses.
The only large-sensor digital or interchangeable-lens 35mm film camera I've used that I'd happily store in a pocket is the Ricoh GR. For everything else, it's a small bag (including the M2 with a small prime).
lukitas
second hand noob
My solution is a bag I made myself. It holds My Leica and three small extra lenses, the biggest being the Elmar 90.
Thing is, I rarely put anything other than a 50 on my camera. So I wonder wether it is worth the trouble of carrying all that extra gear. Then again, it is nice to have the option of fitting a 35, a 28 and a 90. Ye Compleat Camera Kit.
Thing is, I rarely put anything other than a 50 on my camera. So I wonder wether it is worth the trouble of carrying all that extra gear. Then again, it is nice to have the option of fitting a 35, a 28 and a 90. Ye Compleat Camera Kit.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Indipendently from fotography I often leave home with a messenger bag, it contains a moleskin, a couple of pencils, the iphone, tissues.
If I plan to photograph there is room for a small camera (M7 or M10 or Nikon FM2T ) and possibly a spare film.
I also like to go out with only the camera on the shoulder, bandolier style.
In any case always and only one lens per outing.
No more multiple bodies, multiple lenses...too old for that...and I feel much more free in this way. My photography does not suffer from this choice.
If I plan to photograph there is room for a small camera (M7 or M10 or Nikon FM2T ) and possibly a spare film.
I also like to go out with only the camera on the shoulder, bandolier style.
In any case always and only one lens per outing.
No more multiple bodies, multiple lenses...too old for that...and I feel much more free in this way. My photography does not suffer from this choice.
olakiril
Well-known
This looks excellent!
Dogman
Mentor
Actually, I go both ways and, although I'm not a professional, I use bigass Nikon DSLRs, some with battery grips or the heavy pro models, as well as the pseudo rangefinder Fuji X-Pro with small Fuji AF lenses or tiny manual focus lenses. Normally I only carry one camera with a single lens and it's almost always a fixed focal length. If I'm really indecisive, I'll carry two camera/lens combinations. I seldom carry a bag anymore although the little Billingham L2 is great for taking a couple extra lenses and it doesn't add much weight.
My days of walking around for hours and searching for photos are over. I have spinal stenosis (and several spinal "etceteras") and my mobility keeps declining. I now use a cane and I can only walk short distances before calling it quits. Mostly I ignore the weight of the cameras when walking. We'll see how long I can keep that up.
Partially due to the above, I'm attracted to smaller lenses. More often than not, I use the older Nikkor AF-D lenses on the Nikons because they are smaller and use the screw-driver system in the cameras for AF, thus having no motor in the lens. Fuji's "fujicron" series of AF lenses is perfect for my uses--small, light with accurate and speedy AF, fast enough ƒ/2 maximum apertures and excellent optics. I admit I do have a fondness for the heavy manual focus Carl Zeiss ZF.2 lenses for Nikon. They are real gems and worth a bit of discomfort to lug around my neck or shoulder.
I fail to see the attraction of these recent high speed, ultra-hyper sharp, optically perfect lenses for mirrorless camera systems. We have cameras capable of excellent image quality at extremely high ISOs that reduce the need for high speed lenses the size of an anti-tank weapon. Does everyone shoot at ƒ/0.95 all the time? That's kinda "challenged" don't you think? And how much sharper than tack sharp do you have to be? Is it really worth the massive size and weight to gain a tiny bit extra sharpness?
My days of walking around for hours and searching for photos are over. I have spinal stenosis (and several spinal "etceteras") and my mobility keeps declining. I now use a cane and I can only walk short distances before calling it quits. Mostly I ignore the weight of the cameras when walking. We'll see how long I can keep that up.
Partially due to the above, I'm attracted to smaller lenses. More often than not, I use the older Nikkor AF-D lenses on the Nikons because they are smaller and use the screw-driver system in the cameras for AF, thus having no motor in the lens. Fuji's "fujicron" series of AF lenses is perfect for my uses--small, light with accurate and speedy AF, fast enough ƒ/2 maximum apertures and excellent optics. I admit I do have a fondness for the heavy manual focus Carl Zeiss ZF.2 lenses for Nikon. They are real gems and worth a bit of discomfort to lug around my neck or shoulder.
I fail to see the attraction of these recent high speed, ultra-hyper sharp, optically perfect lenses for mirrorless camera systems. We have cameras capable of excellent image quality at extremely high ISOs that reduce the need for high speed lenses the size of an anti-tank weapon. Does everyone shoot at ƒ/0.95 all the time? That's kinda "challenged" don't you think? And how much sharper than tack sharp do you have to be? Is it really worth the massive size and weight to gain a tiny bit extra sharpness?
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Lightweight truly pocketable cameras are best. No bag required.
Chris
Chris
agentlossing
Well-known
It's rare for me to use a bag, but even rarer for me to use a neck strap for any length of time. Either one, I wear crossbody when I can. I have a small Olympus bag I got on closeout which is very obviously a camera bag, but unobtrusive. If I'm carrying two cameras, or a larger camera, I will stick it in there if the occasion warrants. I walked around Seattle last year with the Pentax KP and Voigtlander Bessa-T in a different bag, but didn't love it. The current one fits the Bessa and my GR, or a spare lens (if I had one). Lens-size-wise I do definitely gravitate to the smaller rangefinder lenses, and I don't like the size of bigger lenses for digital sensors. I had the KP with the Sigma 17-50/2.8 but that was much too big for me, despite how useful and complementary that combo is. I could probably stomach a heavier/bigger camera best with a small lens (maybe someday I'll try out the K-1 mk II with a pancake K-mount lens...).
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Normalize man purses.
Hear, hear. Bags are a great way to carry things around that you cannot fit in your hands or pockets. If a purse is best for your needs and fashion sensibility, so be it. If another kind of bag, so be it. Don't be a wimp who conforms to society's arbitrary standards of what a man should be. Be an individual.
boojum
Mentor
For my A7 I have a sort of knapsack/messenger bag for cameras. It holds the 24 - 240 Sony zoom easily along with the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, body and all the accessories, filters and so on. For RF's I have a cheap rectangular canvas bag that can carry one or two bodies and about four lenses. The side pockets carry filters, caps, hoods and batteries. I either/or on the mirrorless and RF's.
Does "man bag" make your skin crawl? Call it a "messenger bag" and that should do the deal.
Does "man bag" make your skin crawl? Call it a "messenger bag" and that should do the deal.
Hari
Well-known
I ride a bicycle with a bike bag.
I keep one camera in the pocket.
I keep one camera in the pocket.
cboy
Well-known
If i had to choose between a man purse or honking dslr backpack that makes one look like a stereo typical tourist squeezing through a busy city then i choose the low key messenger bag doesnt stick out like a sore thumb. One shouldnt let a mans ego to decide in a man purse choose over practicality and comfort imo. But horses for courses...
Personally id do way with the purse altogether and have the camera around ones neck/shoulder with a strap. Battery/ sd card anxiety is more of an issue for me lol.
Personally id do way with the purse altogether and have the camera around ones neck/shoulder with a strap. Battery/ sd card anxiety is more of an issue for me lol.
I'd like to see someone confuse a Nikon FB-11 with a purse.
An FB-14, yes. My wife decided it made a nice purse.
An FB-14, yes. My wife decided it made a nice purse.
willie_901
Mentor
I enjoy using an OVF which dictates my camera choice. I don't trust Leica. So, for me the X-100 and,bor X-Pro cameras are the most practical choices.
As far as man purses go, my solution is to use a FUJIFILM X-100T with a Peak Design, Field Pouch bag. The newest version is here. This bag can be equipped with almost any strap using Peak Design’s Anchor Link connection system. I don’t own X-100 lens converters which means there’s room for spare batteries, a wallet, or smart phone in a small version. This bag is small, light weight and plain so the man-purse effect is minimal.
When I want to carry my X-Pro 2 I use a CourierWare Incognito camera bag. These come in four sizes - the smallest being 9” x 10.5”x 3.5”. I usually carry one additional FUJIFILM f2 prime with ths bag. The larger versions will handle more lenses. I have a several other larger bags for those rare occasions where I want to have several FUJIFILM f2 primes available.
As far as wide-angle lenses go, I typically don’t use anything wider than 18mm (~28mm 135 format). So lens size is not an issue. I do own the FUJINON f 2/8 ,14mm prime (~2 1/4” ) long, this would never be my every-day carry.
Say what you want about the XF lenses, but they are designed to minimize the edge-ray issue.
As far as man purses go, my solution is to use a FUJIFILM X-100T with a Peak Design, Field Pouch bag. The newest version is here. This bag can be equipped with almost any strap using Peak Design’s Anchor Link connection system. I don’t own X-100 lens converters which means there’s room for spare batteries, a wallet, or smart phone in a small version. This bag is small, light weight and plain so the man-purse effect is minimal.
When I want to carry my X-Pro 2 I use a CourierWare Incognito camera bag. These come in four sizes - the smallest being 9” x 10.5”x 3.5”. I usually carry one additional FUJIFILM f2 prime with ths bag. The larger versions will handle more lenses. I have a several other larger bags for those rare occasions where I want to have several FUJIFILM f2 primes available.
As far as wide-angle lenses go, I typically don’t use anything wider than 18mm (~28mm 135 format). So lens size is not an issue. I do own the FUJINON f 2/8 ,14mm prime (~2 1/4” ) long, this would never be my every-day carry.
Say what you want about the XF lenses, but they are designed to minimize the edge-ray issue.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Since I'm not pretending to be professional, but rather have content as more important than thin glass I have no issues with GRD cameras and my digital Leica isn't big due to small lenses.
But...
Adult person has mobile phone, beefier wallet, reading glasses, soft cloth (for cameras and tears, sweat), spare battery and made in Portland Leatheman (if not a condo dweller). And in summer time, if you are into taking of pictures not posing with Leica on side of café, you need bottle of water or you'll crap out sooner or later.
This is for normal messenger camera bag, which isn't big at all. Purse ... not really practical.
About public attention and those who actually think. I'm from few of them. Think (imagination) is one thing, understanding what you actually see is differ.
From what I see and understand - DSLR sized rig is very noticeable for obvious reason. People react on it with some tension.
Leica is just as notable as DSLR, but people react on you as on total hipsta. They still asking what do you photograph.
GRD/GR - of course they see you, but since it is smaller than phone they react on you as someone slightly kookoo and totally harmful. Who could take quality picture with toy?
But...
Adult person has mobile phone, beefier wallet, reading glasses, soft cloth (for cameras and tears, sweat), spare battery and made in Portland Leatheman (if not a condo dweller). And in summer time, if you are into taking of pictures not posing with Leica on side of café, you need bottle of water or you'll crap out sooner or later.
This is for normal messenger camera bag, which isn't big at all. Purse ... not really practical.
About public attention and those who actually think. I'm from few of them. Think (imagination) is one thing, understanding what you actually see is differ.
From what I see and understand - DSLR sized rig is very noticeable for obvious reason. People react on it with some tension.
Leica is just as notable as DSLR, but people react on you as on total hipsta. They still asking what do you photograph.
GRD/GR - of course they see you, but since it is smaller than phone they react on you as someone slightly kookoo and totally harmful. Who could take quality picture with toy?