Miss Thrifty

Readers who had been worrying that I was, despite some reservations, secretly committed to spending £5.000-odd on a new camera - to wit, the desirable Leica Q2 plus a spare battery, a handgrip, a posh wrist strap, a posh carrying case, new processing software such as Photolab DxO 3, and extra external SSD storage - can breathe a sigh of relief. That camera has been popped in my mental Beyond My Means box.  

Oh, I'd love to pose around with the Q2, and see other photographers' eyes popping out, knowing that I have a gorgeous conversation-piece slung from my shoulder. And I'd really enjoy getting those appraising looks, as people work out what I must have spent on my dream image-machine, and what that may say about me. I'd expect to notice many wistful and envious glances, if I took the plunge and spent my money. Who wouldn't want that kind of social reward, in their heart of hearts? It's the photographic equivalent of roaring up in a brand-new swanky bright red Ferrari, and emerging gracefully from it like an exotic creature who clearly belongs to a richer, more opulent world. Walking casually around with the Q2 would say that I can afford the entrance fee to Club Leica: I must therefore be Someone of Consequence! Fall on your knees.

The Q2 wouldn't of course be the last word in fantasy posing. Not by any means. There are more expensive Leicas still, just as even the flashiest Ferrari isn't the most expensive supercar. But the Q2 would have more than enough magic to get me into any imaginary Exclusive Beach Club and rub shoulders with the celebrities and secret agents who dwell therein, sipping their iced drinks, and making love. 'Can I introduce myself? It's Bond, James Bond'. 'Oh, hello, Mr Bond! My name's Lucy Melford! But you can call me Lucy! I say, James, can I take a snap of you in that rather superb tailored dinner jacket?'

Let's return to planet Earth. Readers who know me personally fully understand that I'm definitely not one for the glittering life, and that I need no fancy toys to help me live well. Let the Q2 be a distant aspiration, for when I truly have a big surplus of funds. Until then, I'll be thrifty. 

And now, two examples of my being thrifty! 

In default of buying the Q2 - or indeed any newer camera - I've been using my venerable Leica D-Lux 4 as if it were my latest acquisition, instead of eleven years old. Rediscovering it. You know: playing with settings, seeing what else it can do, and getting out accessories that I've never bothered using much before. One such accessory is the 24mm optical viewfinder I bought with the camera back in 2009, for use in very bright conditions when the rear screen goes dark and indistinct. It cost me £215 back then, which was an awful lot for a small accessory, however well-made. Well, I now thought. Why not pop it into the hotshoe, and start composing pictures through this viewfinder, whenever having a clear view is important? So I did just that. Here are some shots of the thing itself, and in position on the camera. 

It greatly altered the appearance of the camera. Modern cameras didn't use slide-in optical viewfinders. This would rather catch the eye. But then, wasn't I just a little bit willing to attract attention? And it certainly had the Leica logo on it - anyone peering closely would see that. Would I mind? Probably not. 

So much for enhancing my trusty camera's appearance! Would it offer any advantage? To my surprise, it did. I'd been dissatisfied with camera viewfinders in the past, finding them difficult to use with glasses on, and not nearly as good as a decent-sized electronic screen. But this one was really bright and clear, and the rubber surrounding the rear lens was easy on my glasses. Hmm! I quickly got into the habit of using it for medium- and long-distance shots, where the parallax error wouldn't matter. It was no good for precise framing in close-up shots, as the camera lens and the viewfinder lens saw things differently and that dissimilar viewpoint might spoil the picture. But then I could revert to the rear screen on the camera for such shots. 

There was no doubt about it. Using a viewfinder, with the camera braced against the face, seemed a better way of taking many kinds of picture. It was a quite different technique, compared to composing with the screen, where one generally held the camera away from the body in a 'praying to the sun' position. As you would with a phone. Phones have their virtues for photography - I happily and successfully used mine for three years running - but the standard picture-taking method you have to employ isn't great for getting level horizons, or a shake-free shot in low light, and it seems amateurish and casual, even if serious work is intended. But I could now put my little Leica up to my face for a really steady shot. And amazingly no part of the greasy Melford visage touched the screen and smudged it. It got better and better. 

Of course, I had to use the rear screen if I zoomed in, or if I changed the framing format from 4:3 to something else. (I could do 3:2, 16:9 and 1:1 as alternatives) This couldn't be dodged. But when shooting something at least six feet away, with the focal length at 24mm, in a 4:3 format, then using the viewfinder was now my go-to composing method - and fast becoming my preferred and favourite technique. 

I soon found that using the viewfinder was particularly good for quick shots of people, shooting them before they knew I had done it. I could get a good shot in a second, just by raising the viewfinder to my eye and pressing the shutter button. I found it was also true that for street photography one could 'hide' behind the camera when it was raised to the face. This was a definite aid to boldness. 

So, I now had a new and fresh boost to my picture-taking capability, by simply digging out an accessory I already had, and making use of it. At absolutely no extra cost!

The second thrify thing I did was to buy a better camera bag. This involved spending money! But only £8.95. And if you know anything about the cost of camera bags, you'll see at once that I got a bargain. 

It wasn't actually a 'proper' camera bag. Having decided to mount the viewfinder permanently, I now needed a bag that wouldn't force me to take the viewfinder off the camera every time I wanted to put it away. That meant a slightly larger bag. The one I had been using till then fitted the little Leica very snugly, and I had to carefully push the camera in, removing the viewfinder first - an inconvenience which had been the prime reason for hardly using the said viewfinder at all during the previous eleven years, despite spending that outrageous £215 on it. 

So, another bag. Still a proper camera bag? Or should I think about another kind of bag, that wasn't actually intended for cameras? Aha! What might a fashion bag shop offer me? I found one in the streets of Falmouth - Bow Fashion Accessories. Inside, all kinds of leather and fabric goods, much of it very nice indeed. If I were in the market for a really nice new handbag (excepting only the ultra-posh brands), then this would certainly be a place to go to. I wasn't too concerned about the price: whatever I bought, even if it cost £50, would be cheaper than a 'proper camera bag' from a photography shop. Leather or fabic? Fabric would have less style, but be lighter to wear. It just had to swallow the camera with the viewfinder attached, and have a cross-body strap. Plus at least one handy pocket for the spare battery.

Well, I made a very careful and methodical examination of the likely contenders. And eventually, rejecting with reluctance a lovely soft leather bag that could have done the trick, I decided on this quite ordinary but very suitable black fabric bag with an adjustable soft woven cross-body strap, and two extra pocketa either side of the main compartment, all with smooth-running zips (always a good sign). I'd spent half an hour in that shop, ending up chatting to the owner and congratulating him on his stock. He must have had high hopes of me! I hope he wasn't disappointed that in the end I bought something for only £8.95. (On the other hand, any sale must be welcome)   

Here are some shots of the new camera bag, back at the caravan. 

As you can see, it looks just like any small bag a woman might carry, and surely an onlooker will think this is just a second bag I tote around for cosmetics or medications or something like that. Good! It's an advantage for discreet street or event photography if one can conceal the camera inside a bag like this, instantly if need be, and not be recognised as a working photographer. My new bag is large enough to literally drop the camera in after a shot, with nothing snagging; and it's just as easy to whip it out for a quick picture. The bag isn't padded, as a regular camera bag would be, but then if I want to I can easily put some cut-to-size foam inside, to cushion the precious contents against accidental knocks. It's lightweight and very easy to wear. Whether it'll prove durable remains to be seen, but so far, so good. 

So there you are. Two important kit enhancements, at minimum extra expense. And together they are adding something good to my photography. At the moment, and for two weeks more, I'm talking about my holiday photography - some posts on that are going to come, though it's hard to find time just now for writing! Meanwhile, here's a picture to ponder, taken yesterday at St Merryn near Padstow.