Just a quick post showing the size of the Canon S90 compared to my previous smallest (most pocketable) camera, the 35mm film Ricoh GR1:

Now, how about a quick comparison with the 5 megapixel Canon Powershot S60, which I also own:

The S90 is clearly thinner and more pocketable than its predecessor, the S60.

The S90 turns out to be *very* similar in thickness/depth to the Ricoh GR1 (35mm film camera…which fits nicely into a front jean pocket, for example); but it’s quite a bit smaller in the width and (especially) length dimension versus the GR1.

All in all, I’d say the S90 is clearly the most pocketable. Now, how “usable” is such a small digital camera? More on that later…

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I was at a friend’s house the other night for a party. They live in the city (it’s a small city, but it’s a city) and there were lots of young children in attendance. The children needed running space and so were in the backyard on a dark and chilly evening, along with a few of us adults to monitor their activities. Someone decided it would be nice to have the light and heat of a bonfire back there; so they lit a nice big fire in a metal fire pit. The kindling was especially effective because the fire quickly flamed way up and threw lots of welcome heat into the backyard.

Well, it wasn’t long before two fire trucks show up in response to a phone call by a “concerned” neighbor. It turns out you can only have small contained cooking fires (e.g., a Weber grill) in the city and the firemen and accompanying policeman informed us we had to put out the fire.

The firemen and policeman could have easily been jerks about all of this. However, they clearly felt bad about this seemingly overblown response to our reasonably contained bonfire. So, seeing all the young children around, they invited the children to come aboard the fire truck and see the inside firsthand. Of course, the children *loved* this and the adults were thrilled with this free entertainment for their kids. (I think some of the adults were themselves entertained by the spectacle of these trucks and their flashing lights in the darkness of the night as well!)

Why am I telling this story in a blog post titled “Best Compact Digital Camera to Buy for Image Quality and Pocketability”? Because I had failed to bring a camera to this party. All I had was my Blackberry, and I couldn’t get a decent picture with it to save my life! This very photographable nighttime spectacle was clearly beyond the reach of my cell phone camera.

The next day, this thought entered my brain: “I must get a good compact digital camera that I can always have with me.” And so started a rekindled effort to find a quality compact camera.

If you’ve followed my postings at Lightmanship, you’ve probably seen me talk about using compact film cameras more than once. The great thing about a compact 35mm film camera is you get the equivalent of a “full size” sensor in a compact form factor.

I have a Ricoh GR1 that fits into a front jean pocket, has a great lens (28mm f/2.8), and gives me great pics. I’m quite enamored with it. But there’s a catch.

When you’re loading a roll of film into a camera, you’re making a prediction about the types of photos you’ll be taking that day and/or in the near future. If you’ll be photographing in the middle of the day with plenty of light, you may select some 125 ISO or slower film. If you’ll be photographing late in the day or at night–or indoors with low lighting–you might select 800 ISO or faster film. If you’ve loaded slow film and find yourself in relatively dark conditions, you can use the camera’s flash to still get the photo…though, with the “flash aesthetic”…which may be good or bad.

One of the great things about a digital camera is that the ISO is adjustable from shot to shot. This provides an important degree of flexibility for a camera you want to have with you at all times in a wide range of shooting conditions.

So, I’ve decided that if the digital camera on my cell phone can’t hack it (it’s also painfully slow at saving images and being ready for another shot), then I need to find a quality compact digital camera to carry around in addition to my Blackberry–perhaps I can fit them both into a slim and compact pouch–that I won’t find burdensome.

It turns out that this compactness + high image quality combination is quite tricky! Most compact digital cameras have *very small* sensors and mediocre lenses that yield pretty awful image quality…especially for someone used to the images coming out of a full-frame DSLR camera.

Camera companies like Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, Sigma, and Canon (to name a few) are starting to come out with small cameras with relatively large sensors. (Large sensors improve things like image quality, low-light shooting, and image depth-of-field characteristics.) However, many of their offerings are not truly SPS (”Shirt Pocket Size”).

For example, I bought and owned a Panasonic DMC-LX3 for a while. I published a short review of it some months back. Once I customized my settings, I was pretty happy with the images I was getting. I ended up selling my LX3. Why?

Despite what DPReview has published at their website, the Panasonic DMC-LX3 is not a mere 1.1 inches thick. It’s actually closer to 2 inches thick where the lens barrel sticks out. In fact, it’s “thicker” than a Canon G10 which is definitely not a Shirt Pocket Size (SPS) camera! (here’s a photo showing the G10 next to the LX3)

There’s been a lot of press around the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GF1 which are like small DSLRs, in terms of having relatively large sensors and interchangeable lenses. (They’re actually not SLRs because they don’t have the flip-up mirrors of a single lens reflex camera, etcetera..but the sensors are almost as big as the APS-C size sensors you find in 1.6 crop DSLRs and you can change lenses like you can with a DSLR.)

If you look at the specs for these cameras, you’ll find that they too are not Shirt Pocket Size, *especially* with the standard 14-4Xmm zoom lens they usually come with attached. If you opt for the more expensive “pancake” lenses instead of the zoom lenses, you can definitely reduce the thickness of the camera plus lens. But by how much?

I’m going to present a table comparing the lengths, widths, and thicknesses of the compact digital cameras I’ve been considering as true competitors when it comes to the Image Quality + Pocketability market. But before I do that, I’d like to discuss some criteria for the cameras I’ve included…

Most compact digital cameras have very small sensors that yield poor image quality and lots of digital noise at all but their lowest ISO setting, regardless of how many megapixels they might have. (Actually, jamming more megapixels into these tiny sensors exacerbates these image quality problems!) It turns out that there is substantial variation in sensor size, quality, and number of megapixels; so all compact digital camera sensors are not equal.

I mentioned the Panasonic DMC-LX3 whose image quality I found to be relatively decent. It turns out its sensor is (approx) 8.8 x 6.6mm and the megapixel density is 24mp/cm². Now compare that to a typical pocketable digital camera, a Canon PowerShot SD980 IS: the sensor is 6.16 x 4.62 mm with a megapixel density of 43mp/cm². So, the LX3’s sensor is a bit bigger and the megapixel density is lower. Both of these tend to contribute to higher image quality all other factors being equal.

I have found other recent compact digital cameras with similarly slightly larger sensors and relatively low megapixel densities: the Ricoh GRD III, the Canon G11, and the Canon S90.

Of course, there are other factors to take into consideration when comparing compact digital cameras: 1) lens quality, 2) lens focal length, 3) fixed focal length vs. zoom, and what the zoom range is, 4) auto-focussing speed, 5) lens aperture range, 6) whether there’s a built-in flash and/or a hot shoe, 7) whether it has an optical viewfinder, and so on. Each person has to decide which of these factors is most important to them and how they should play out in their decision.

For me, I’d prefer a reasonably good quality lens (of course) that can go at least as wide as 28mm, has good auto-focussing speed, and a maximum aperture at least as large as f/2.8. I want a built-in flash and would prefer an optical viewfinder, but will live without the latter if necessary.

Okay, so let’s get to the table of sizes. One caveat though: it’s *really* difficult to get a depth or thickness dimension that includes the protruding lens and/or grip parts. I’ve had to estimate some of these based on various inexact indicators. But it’ll be better than going by the depth/thickness specs the camera manufacturers are providing!

The “Full Depth” below is an estimate of how deep or thick your pocket needs to be in order to contain the camera–lens and all–when the camera is turned off.

Many of the cameras above will fit into coat or jacket pockets. However, much of my photography is outdoors when the weather is nice and I *really* don’t like wearing coats or jackets when I don’t have to. (If I were willing to go up 0.5″ in thickness, the 2″ deep Leica X1 with a 36 f/2.8 [36mm in full 35mm frame terms] Leica lens and an APS-C size sensor–the biggest sensor in this group–would really be tempting. Of course, being a Leica, it’s pretty pricey!)

By the 1.5″ or less thickness criterion, only two of these cameras are shirt & pant “pocketable”: the Ricoh GR Digital III and the Canon Powershot S90. They’re both thin (actually even thinner than 1.25″),

have relatively wide lenses (28 mm on the Ricoh, 28-105 on the Canon), and both have large maximum apertures (f/1.9 on the Ricoh and f/2 on the Canon).

I suspect the quality of the lens on the Ricoh is better, mostly because of the well-known rule of thumb in photography that prime (fixed focal length) lenses tend to have better optical quality than zoom lenses. Of course, the strength of zoom lenses is that they cover more focal lengths.

What about price? The Ricoh GR Digital III retails for about $700; the Canon Powershot S90 for about $430. So the Ricoh sells for about 63% more than the Canon; that’s pretty significant.

I think I’d be pretty happy with either of these for my pocketable, relatively high image quality camera needs. But it’s a relatively clear choice for me: the Canon S90. Why?

1. I’d rather spend $430 than $700 on a walk-around camera that is not meant primarily to make money for me; my professional DSLRs and lenses are my primary camera tools for generating photography-related income. The image quality on the S90 is sufficient, though, when I get a lucky shot that I want to publish at my website for marketing purposes or to make small prints.
   
2. The zoom is more flexible than the fixed 28mm lens…and I think the quality of the lens on the S90 is good enough for my purposes. Canon usually puts good lenses on their compacts, and the Powershot S-series (I owned the 5 megapixel S60, which I was quite happy with; but it’s performance above 100 ISO was really poor) is at the high-end of their compacts.
   
3. I own a 35mm film Ricoh GR1 with a 28mm f/2.8 lens that helps to satisfy my appetite for a compact Ricoh point-and-shoot camera when I need it…;-).

So, I’m going with the Canon Powershot S90! I’ll publish some of my photos and experiences with the S90 in future posts…:-).

To see more about the S90:

• Canon’s Powershot S90 Product Tour
• Some more Canon Powershot S90 reviews
• Another useful and enlightening review of the S90 and a comparison to the Panasonic DMC-LX3 and GF1

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Canon has posted the instruction manual for the new Canon 1D Mark IV, even though the 1D Mark IV isn’t shipping yet. I guess it’s good to familiarize yourself with a piece of camera equipment before you buy it so you can be up and running as soon as you get it!…:-)

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography.His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I was just photographing a wedding over the weekend and, again, I was spending too much time “fighting” with proper exposures when using my on-camera and off-camera flashes (a 580EX II on the hotshoe and two 550EXs as slaves). The more time I spend trying to fix suboptimal flash performance, the less time I spend focusing on the actual wedding activities going on in front of me!

When I heard Canon’s official announcement about the new 1D Mark IV coming this December today, I was intrigued. When I read that the high end of the ISO range was expanding past the upper limit of 6400 that was present on the Mark III to a whopping 102400, I was more than intrigued!

Now, it has been my experience that the highest ISO available on a Canon DSLR is seldom that usable–i.e., you only want to use it when you have no other option. Now this fluctuates a little, depending on the camera. I have generally found the maximum of 3200 ISO on the 5D to be pretty usable and the maximum of 6400 ISO on the 1D Mark III too…as long as the image was properly exposed; if you underexposed it, forget it.

My experience with Canon’s 1.6 crop factor DSLRs (i.e., the Digital Rebels and the 10-50D series) was that you really wanted to stay away from the top ISO if possible, *even if* properly exposed. And the 5D Mark II is very noisy at the top ISO (25600), and I’m not even sure I could call the second highest ISO on it (12800) all that usable either.

The other thing that pains me about the 5D Mark II is that it can’t possibly focus without a flash or wireless transmitter attached to it in darkness requiring 12800 or 25600 ISO. Its 9 AF point autofocusing with one cross-hair point is very primitive and not good in low light; so, what’s the use?

Well, if Canon has ever made a camera that can focus in low light without AF assist, it’s been the 1D series; and according to the specs for the 1D Mark IV, that autofocusing has been improved. But the thing that gets me most excited is combining Canon’s most advanced autofocusing camera with an upper ISO that is 4 stops higher than the 1D Mark III! This means those shots I could barely get of the wedding couple dancing on the dark dance floor at f/1.4 with the ISO cranked to 6400 and the shutter speed down to 1/30 sec, I would now (theoretically) be able to capture with a shutter speed of 1/500 sec instead!

Now, I don’t want to be Pollyanna-ish. Until I see some image samples from the 1D Mark IV, I’m going to figure that the top ISO of 102400 and maybe the second highest ISO of 51200 aren’t going to be very usable generally. That would leave me with the next highest ISO of 25600. 25600 is two stops faster than 6400. So, in my example, instead of using a quite low shutter speed of 1/30, I’d be able to increase it to 1/125 sec…*much* more reasonable for catching a wedding couple slow dancing on a dark dance floor.

Being able to crank the ISO up two stops will also make it easier to catch those wedding processions down the center aisle in dark churches (with high ceilings and walls that are too far away to bounce your flash off of) without creating “deer in the headlight” photos with your flash.

Another feature that I’m quite interested in is the Auto ISO setting that enables automatic 100-12800 ISO coverage. Now, I’ve been a bit frustrated with the Auto ISO on the 5D Mark II because you can’t set a minimum shutter speed and in Auto ISO, the 5D Mark II will sometimes choose really low shutter speeds, like 1/15 or 1/20 sec if you’re shooting in P or Av (aperture priority) mode. The 1D Mark IV, however, lets you set an acceptable shutter speed range in the custom settings, which should eliminate those unacceptably low shutter speeds.

Here are some sample high ISO images shot with a pre-production 1D Mark IV.

You can read more about the Canon 1D Mark IV at Canon’s website. And you can pre-order it at B&H’s website!

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I’ve seen this pattern over and over…people get into photography as a new hobby, experience some initial successes, then start yearning for better and more expensive equipment in order to continue on a trajectory of better and better images.

I followed this route for a while myself. After borrowing and/or owning the best digital SLR equipment Canon makes, I experienced just how far the equipment could take me. I’ll admit the equipment helps, but there’s still a gap toward success that can only be filled by the photographer’s skill and vision…and ultimately it’s the skill and vision that yields the success.

If an equipment-related problem is blocking the ability to achieve a particular vision, then it may be quite appropriate and necessary to buy (or make) some equipment.

I get the impression, however, that photographers tend to resort to equipment purchases/upgrades as a default, rather than really thinking the problem through and coming up with a free solution that uses their existing equipment–for example, a change in technique.

Of course the photography equipment manufacturers and retailers–and top photographers enlisted by the photography equipment manufacturers–encourage this type of thinking! But if you’re just a little clever and resourceful, you can loosen their grip on your photography-related purchasing.

You don’t need the best or most expensive equipment to make great or successful photos. It’s much more important that you really get to know the equipment you have and learn how to get the results you want using that equipment. *That* is what you need to know to become a truly successful photographer.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I like the look of film. When I’ve used a film camera, it strikes me how different the photos look compared to the ones I normally get from my digital SLR.Film often has a smoother, “analog” look to it.

Well, this past weekend, I did a high school senior portrait session. Often I bring two DSLRs with two lenses: one covering the wider end of the spectrum (e.g. 24-70mm), and one covering the telephoto end (e.g., 70-200mm). At the last moment, I decided to just take one camera and use one lens: my Canon 35-350 L.

Sometimes I hesitate to use my 35-350 lens because it’s not particularly fast (max aperture is f/3.5 at the wide end and f/5.6 at the telephoto end), and it’s relatively heavy without image stabilization. (My 70-200 lens is heavier, but it’s faster–constant f/2.8 max–and has image stabilization.)

I’ve noticed, however, if I increase my ISO setting one stop over what I would use with a f/2.8 lens, the shutter speed is usually fast enough so that blur doesn’t become an issue.

So, anyway, I photographed the whole portrait session with the 35-350 attached to my full-frame 5D. (I had my 24-105 f/4 IS along in case I was having issues with the 35-350; but it stayed in my camera bag.)

Well, having the 35-350mm range available in an instance is *really* handy. No matter where my portrait subject was and where I had to stand–which was sometimes not very close due to the terrain–I could zoom out for a full body or environmental portrait; and the next minute fill the frame with a tight headshot. I love that.

Canon 5D + Canon 35-350 L

The thing I forget about is the “analog” look of the images I get when I use the 35-350. They’re smoother and more film-like than the images I get with my other lenses. If you like lots of sharp detail resolution, you probably won’t like what this lens delivers; stick to prime lenses.

But lots of sharp detail is often not very flattering for portraiture. A smoother film-like rendering is.

I’m not sure if Canon’s newer 28-300 IS L lens (which replaced the 35-350 L) gives a similar film-like performance. I suspect it doesn’t, but I may try to borrow it one of these days to compare. If you’ve used the Canon’s 28-300 IS L, please share your experiences with it in the comments area below…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Whenever I photograph a wedding, there are usually several people among the guests taking pictures…and it’s not uncommon for a few of them to have digital SLRs with flashes and even flash diffusers attached.

An increasing number of people perpetually have a digital camera with them, whether it’s attached to a neck or shoulder strap, in their pocket or purse, or built into their cell phone. Digital cameras are virtually everywhere.

When Kodak came up with the Instamatic 35mm film camera in the 1960s, many more people started carrying around cameras. But that’s nothing compared to the percentage of people walking around with cameras now in the digital camera age!

So, what does this omnipresence of digital cameras (usually with built-in video capabilities as well) mean for photographers trying to make a living from photography? This is an interesting question for me because I’m one of those people trying to make a living from photography.

It’s a dual-edged sword. It means that:

1. More and more people are interested in photography because digital cameras are so readily present and available.
2. More and more people are making and trying to sell photographic images (often as fine art prints or to stock photo agencies) or parlaying their photograph-making into income-producing services (e.g., portrait and wedding photography).

Item #1 is a good thing. I have sold a non-trivial percentage of my fine art prints to photography enthusiasts. Also, photography enthusiasts are interested in paying successful and established photographers for some of their acquired photography knowledge and/or tools and shortcuts they’ve developed.

Item #2 tends to be a bad thing, especially if you are trying to sell photographic images and/or services to the same audiences. (More about this: a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle called “Photo hobbyists snapping up more business“.)

Photographers of the “weekend warrior” type threaten to bring wedding, portrait, and other event photography prices down. However, from my experience, there will always be customers wanting to pay extra to know they’re hiring an established full-time professional who has proven him/herself over and over and who they can depend on to deliver the “goods”. I believe a very small percentage of weekend warrior photographers actually end up becoming professional photographers. (Once you turn it into a professional occupation, it’s not that fun little hobby anymore…!)

My quandary is what if it’s really from the fine art and stock photography markets that you want to make most of your income?? For some reason, this reminds me of something photographer Chuck Close said (next 3 paragraphs):

“The thing that interests me about photography, and why it’s different from all the other media, is that it’s the only medium in which there is even the possibility of an accidental masterpiece. You cannot make an accidental masterpiece if you’re a painter or sculptor.”

“This is simultaneously photography’s great advantage and its Achilles heel: it is the easiest medium in which to be competent. Anybody can be a marginally capable photographer, but it takes a lot of work to learn to become even a competent painter. Now, having said that, I think that while photography is the easiest medium in which to be competent, it is probably the hardest one in which to develop an idiosyncratic personal vision. It is the hardest medium in which to separate yourself from all those other people who are doing reasonably good stuff.”

“A recognized signature style of photography is an incredibly difficult thing to achieve.”

What Chuck Close said about photography has not changed. And if–as it seems–many more people are doing photography now with the advent of digital photography and (another important factor) photo-sharing websites, it can only be *more* difficult now to distinguish oneself and one’s photography from the mass of photos being produced and displayed on the web and elsewhere.

If fame is your goal, that’s one thing. If making a living from photography is your primary concern, it would be good to remember an important marketing principle that hasn’t changed: you must find a market for what you have to offer; this applies to photos and any other product. Photographers who are successful in fine art and stock photo markets will have found that market for their photos.

It’s easier to find a market, then produce what that market wants. Doing it in the opposite order (producing, then finding the market for the product) can be much more difficult…and could, ultimately, exhaust one’s resources (time, money) before success is achieved.

So, “where” do I think photography is going?

Having so many suppliers of photos/images–and even photography services, like portrait and wedding photography–does tend to push market prices for these products and services down (it’s a basic economic principle!). However, I don’t think this large supply is going to reduce people’s interest in photographic images or services. Quite the contrary, I think it’s expanding people’s interest in photography!

As a result, those photographers able to distinguish themselves and rise about the heap of suppliers out there, will actually benefit from the increased interest in photography! Photography enthusiasts is a great market for photography-related goods and services, like fine art prints, books, training, consulting, portraiture & weddings (yes, photography enthusiasts want the best photography for their weddings!), and so on.

Related to what Chuck Close said, the tricky part is distinguishing your work from the work of the other thousands of photographers out there jamming the Internet with digital images! This is where such principles as “branding” come into the discussion. But branding is a topic I’m just coming to terms with and which I will likely expound upon further in future blog posts…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I heard the announcement regarding the new Canon 7D today. Apparently, the name is confusing people because many think it’s the new 5D. Well, it turns out it’s closer to the new 50D, because it’s Canon’s latest APS-C sensor (1.6x crop factor) DSLR, which is like the 10D, 20D,…and 50D that preceded it.

So, why did they leave the multiple of 10s naming convention? Probably just to indicate a significant “break” with that line in terms of technology and capabilities.

It seems that most people are excited about the HD video recording capabilities the 7D has (better than the 500D, comparable to the higher-priced 5D Mark II). But I’m still steeped in still photography and don’t care that much about it’s HD video functionality.

What I’m most interested in is that they *finally* updated the 9-point AF system (has a single cross-type point in the middle of the 9-point array) that has been on *all* their APS-C sensor DSLRs and on both the 5D and 5D Mark II. It’s now a 19-point AF system where *all* the points are cross-type! (Cross-type points are able to use *both* vertical and horizontal edges to lock-in focus.)

In addition, not only are there more than twice as many focus-assist points with 18 additional cross-type points, but the autofocussing system will now have its own dedicated processor. That’s right: they’ve put in dual processors….which previously, was only available in their high-end 1D and 1DS professional series!

One other professional-level upgrade: weather-sealing. Again, only their high-end 1D and 1DS professional series used to have weather-sealing.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this new 19-point, dual-processor, AF system–as well as the weather-sealing–will be making its way to the 5Ds quite soon (the 5D Mark III?), and finally put the 5D series at a truly professional level…:-).

You can buy the 7D or get on the shipment received notification list for the 7D at B&H’s website. You can read more about the Canon 7D at Canon’s website.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

This will be a short post, but I wanted to share some potentially informative experiences with high-quality, point-and-shoot film cameras I’ve accumulated recently, especially for street photography shooters and those trying to photograph fast and oft-moving children…

Apparently, the “pre-focus” (when you push the shutter button down halfway to “pre-focus” in order to minimize the delay before the shutter is actually tripped) on many point-and-shoot film cameras doesn’t actually focus the lens; it’ll only determine whether there’s enough light to take the photo, and whether assistance from the built-in flash will be needed. Also, it allows you to fix the exposure level and recompose the shot. I guess this behavior is meant to minimize the battery drain caused by focussing the lens and then not taking a photograph.

For street and child photography, the extra amount of time needed to focus the lens upon pressing the shutter button the rest of the way down, can easily lead to missed shots…to which my experience can attest.

One of the highly-touted point-and-shoot cameras of the 1990s was and is the Yashica T4/T5. The lens quality is quite nice and it even works relatively well with the built-in flash. The only drawback I’ve experienced with it: it doesn’t actually focus the lens until you press the shutter button all the way down. Luckily, it focusses pretty fast; but it can’t compete with a camera that actually focusses the lens upon partial pressing of the shutter button.

I was surprised to find this out about the Yashica T4/T5 because the point-and-shoot cameras I had gathered before acquiring the Yashica T4 actually focussed the lens on pre-focus.

It turns out the Leica Minis (I have both the Mini II and Mini III) actually focus upon pre-focussing; I didn’t realize how lucky I was to have selected them as my first compact film cameras for my street and child photography. (Note: I’ve noticed my Mini II with a 35 f/3.5 lens focuses slightly faster than my Mini III with a 32 f/3.2 lens.)

Two others I’ve collected that don’t have the focussing delay after pre-focus:

1. The Ricoh GR1, GR1s, and GR1v. The Ricohs, in fact, have a “snap” focussing mode that even eliminates time to pre-focus.
2. The Konica Hexar AF. This isn’t a very compact point-and-shoot camera; but it’s the fastest auto-focussing film camera I own…as fast as my Canon SLR and DSLRs.

Anyway, if you’re looking for compact and/or point-and-shoot film cameras for street and/or child photography, you should be aware that many of these types of cameras are like the Yashica T4/T5 in that true focussing doesn’t occur until the shutter button is fully depressed.

As I gather and/or use other point-and-shoot film cameras, I will try to make sure to report my findings here at the blog.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.