About the Photo: Each maker of digital cameras goes through a lengthy and complex design process producing the image sensor and the software that converts image signals into picture files that can be shown on a screen and/or recorded on a memory card. One consequence of this complexity is that the images produced by a particular maker’s cameras are usually distinctly and qualitatively different from those produced by other makers and even from other models by the same maker. To me, these differences are as distinct as say, the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome color slide films; same subject, same day, same light, even the same camera (with film): different result.
I made this shot with my Sony R1. The R1 was insanely slow to focus, the shutter lag was awful, the between-shot recycle time was abysmal, noise above ISO 400 was unacceptable, and it had no anti-shake. Taken together, those shortcomings caused more than one lost shot, so I migrated to a DSLR—a Nikon D300—and all those shortcomings were instantly gone.
But the R1’s image quality… gosh, I loved the R1’s image quality; colors tended to be rich and “velvety” (please forgive the lame and non-quantitative description :-)), and the R1’s built-in Zeiss lens was first-rate. It shows in this shot, “Votre gite,” and the few other R1 shots I’ve posted on Flickr. But Woman in Red illustrates something else I loved about the R1; the shot was made with the camera at waist level.
Like many of today’s DSLRs, the R1’s viewfinder could be tilted, swiveled, and yawed at various angles, but unlike any DSLR I know of, the viewfinder could be folded down flat on top of the camera – image side up, and conveniently left that way. This allowed – perhaps even encouraged – the R1 to be used like an old 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 TLR – with a waist-level viewfinder. This “waist-level” view was common long ago; eye-level shots are far more common nowadays.
Personally, I find looking at a waist-level finder (or view camera’s ground glass, or any live-view screen for that matter) very different from looking through a DSLR. With the former, I am looking at a “picture” – an image; with a DSLR, I am looking through the camera at the scene. To me, DSLRs provide a more direct engagement with the subject, while image-based viewfinders encourage more direct engagement with the picture.
I’m sure some folks will think I’m just splitting hairs; or may experience the opposite, who knows? But it occurs to me that if your DSLR offers live-view mode, and you don’t use it often, checking this out for yourself might, at the very least, be a worthwhile comfort-zone shake-up exercise to spur the creative juices.
Leave a Reply