In some way, I agree with this quote (except for macro, animals and sports shots)

And you ?

I agree as well, except for what you mentioned (macro, animals and sports shots) and also of course except for landscape, portraits, abstracts, everyday, humour, night, performance, underwater mood, and perhaps documentary. Oh, and of course except conceptual, architecture, still life, street... and the list goes on and on...

;-)

Seriously, isn't that just a stupid quote?

/Johan

edit: When I read my post I realized that it might appear slightly aggressive, but I promise, I have no such intent! :-D

:-)

IMO, he talked about documentary/street photography, so it is not so stupid, distance is one of the most important thing in this kind of photography.

well, whatever helps the photographer achieve his goal is the only thing that matters. A zoom like a 24-70mm wouldn't be a great difference from having just a 50mm prime. Having a 400 to 600 mm zoon lens, well in that case I agree with him.

I think he stated stupid things like those because he was extremely arrogant (can we blame him being such a master?). Yeah I think the statement is arrogant and stupid even though I bow before him for being such revolutionary photographer. If had had a zoom lens, he would've still made out-of-this-world images that were going to revolutionize photography.

guys like this "have the right" to say whatever they please. It's like Maradona in football, he's been the best and most prodigious football player in history, that allows him to be the arrogant asshole he is.

I think that he meaned that to take goods images, it is better to have wide angle prime lenses. And in some way, he's right.
;-)

As everybody knows, he was a photojournalist. So his quote must be considered about documentary/street photography. I don't think it's a stupid quote, it may be harsh, but you know, Capa made his work very good, he is the most famous war photojournalist ever, and surely one of the most skilled too. So his words weight.
Using prime (fixed focal lengths) lenses strengthens your compositional skills. When you are on the streets you don't precisely know what is going to happen some minute,seconds or even instants later, so you've got to have a trained eye for quick composition. A prime lense forces you to find the solution of the compositional problem, because you can't zoom in or out: either you can move forward or backward or you can find the best composition at the moment.
Yes, you can miss some interesting situations, but as Capa also said "The pictures are there, you just take them" and you will train your eye to make good shots out of the those interesting situations.

hey hey, exactly ;-)

A zoom is like having several primes all-in-one.

you are right Fabio, you stated very good points but still, your eyes are something you have to train with whatever you have. A prime forces you as you very well said but that doesn't mean a zoom lens stops you from forcing you to train your eye as well, actually if you think about it, a zoom gives you so much more possibilities that your eye has to be a lot more trained so you don't hesitate when choosing the best focal length for what you have in front of you to make the best photo possible.
That's why i think he, being Capa, such a great master, he would've still made his superb images with whatever he had, being zoom or not.

You know, what he did is documentary, so you don't have the time to stand in front of something and to choose the focal length you need.
If you do so, most of the time it' will be too late.
And if you had the time, why not moving yourself ?

When you have a prime lens, you know what you will see when you will put your eye at the back of your the camera, you just have to shoot.

But my point is that just because he was a good, or perhaps more accurately a _famous_, photographer he doesn't become Einstein.

"If your pictures suck, it's because you're using a zoom.. Loser" - This is a very clear-cut quote and means that if your pictures such, you use a zoom. I strongly disagree because there are many many other reasons for pictures to suck than the use of a zoom lens. Hence, I think it's a crap quote because it doesn't teach us anything but is imho more correctly labelled a "quasi-cool one-liner".

/johan

Like many quotes, you have to think a bit about it instead of undertanding the first meaning.

What, there's a deeper meaning?

but julien, the point prevails, with any timeframe given you could either use it to zoom in in/out or move back and forth. And still a trained shooter will set the right focal length at the right time, you definitely need A LOT of training. It's like manual focusing and exposure, photogs who have done it manually all of their lives do it lighting fast, certainly a lot faster than anybody who relies mostly on AF and A priority.

But then the meaning is what you make of it. Then I think that you Julien is the clever one (NB! NO irony, I mean it!).

My point is that his quote might make you think, as many provocative statements do. But to me, his statement is not true, it's not that interesting, it's very far from the truth and in many ways quite stupid, hence I'm not that impressed by it.

Mainly because it's very easy to be provocative but a lot more difficult to say something substantial. The value of this provocation is that it was stated by somebody _famous_, which I think doesn't add much to the quote. That quote could just as well appear on a photography forum by a troll...

/Johan

i think using a zoom for street is not the best idea. i keep on zooming around too much. if you shoot on the street you have to be fast.
or maybe he messed up zoom with tele?

I am with Johan here. It's a smart arse remark that has no substance in any context I believe. He was shooting in war zones where you bet your bottom dollar there were few interested in posing for his camera he was just taking images of what was in front of him apart from those he shot of people in between combat. A prime is easy to carry around in these circumstances a zoom more cumbersome though probably more versatile. What though he did achieve by making this remark in his capacity of one of the most iconic photographers of that century was to set the benchmark for those to follow. So if you want to be considered as anything other than just a jock shooter then use a prime you know it makes sense! I am happy being a loser!

Could be. I am not sure what serious wide-angle zoom were on the market when he said that. It has to be put in perspective with the fact that for PJ purpose (for street as well, though not as much) you more than often need to include the context for documentary and/or juxtaposition purpose, you need deep DOF at a secure shutter speed. And tele of course are bad for that. So regardless of the "the closest you are the best it is" stuff there are objective technical ground on that. Could be that he was referring to tele definitely

LOL

I knew that many people wouldn't like this quote.
But, the ones who don't like this quote and who love street/documentary, have you ever tried to put a wide angle prime lens on your camera, and to leave it during several weeks or months ?
I have.

Like you, before doing that I wasn't convinced at all, I mainly used the famous nikon 18-200 VR (and other ones), I spent my time turning it to zoom and to un-zoom while staying almost at the same place. I thought that the dream would be to have something like a 10-500.

Then I met some great street/documentary photographers who told me that to do better images, prime lenses are the best...I trusted them and I bought a nikon 24mm and left it on my camera and wow.... My way of shooting changed completely, I began to dare going next to the people, I began to have the photo in mind before I took it.
I tried to put a zoom again on my camera, and it was so bad, i became to be lazy again as before.
I sold all my zooms to keep the 24mm (except a tokina 11-16 because it is hard to find something wider than 24mm on a crop sensor) and I'm happy with it, I never leave it.

Yes he was ;-)

Julien

I am not sure having a prime lens and more discrete gear help you to shoot closer. It helps for sure but not that much. It has more to do with your mood, your approach, it is not about the gear. That being said I would live to have a 20mm prime on my DSLR for street. But a good wide angle zoom has some advantages as well.


Shot with DSLR + bulky 20-40 zoom at 20mm/equiv 30mm (very slightly cropped) - And I am not the self confident type of guy...

I need to rewrite this, LOL

optically yes, even if with some quality loss. But, with the harsh expression "your pictures suck", I think Capa was talking more about the composition, the eye behind the shot.


A zoom lens tends to 'indulge' you. It usually makes you stay still on your feet trying to choose the best focal length AND composition. When using only a fixed focal length, you will learn to frame before looking into the viewfinder. You will know when you are too close or too far from your subject, this is important to visualize the shot in your mind. Never forget we're talking about street/documentary photography. I'm not saying prime-lens approach will make you shoot beautiful photo nor that a zoom lens will necessarily lead you to bad ones - what I tried to say is that it is a matter of different attitudes. A prime makes you learn how to compose faster than zoom, because you are forced to.


Einstein doesn't even know how to expose :D ...jokes aside, we have to respect our masters, Capa was certainly good, not just famous. He was amongst the Einsteins of his field. There is a lot to learn from them. Always talking about streets/documentary.

Fabio, I agree in some way.

But having a zoom doesn't mean you HAVE to zoom all the time... When I said that zoom is like having several prime all-in-one is that it brings you flexiblity when you are out there for shooting. It is not about zooming to compose, but to have the choice of more appropriate focal lengths for different subject matters. When I go out I have my zoom at the mini focal, I use it like a prime in some way. But when I see something interesting that are of interest to me (generally static stuffs, I like doing close up of things such as shop window stuffs, outdoors static stuffs etc... ) I may find out that a longer focal is better.

Now on the optical quality I agree, this must be true - though there are now amazing quality wide angle zooms ... if you have the money for it.

a street / pj photo shot with a tele is called a portrait!

I used to do the same with my 18-55mm, always on 18mm or so....then bought a 20mm prime and never changed focal length anymore ...hehehe...jokes aside, I think zooms are very good at the beginning, when you have to find out what is your preferred focal length. As soon as you find the focal length you think is good for you, for your kind of photography, then you don't need a zoom anymore. For Street and Documentary, wideangles are certainly to be preferred.

Like this ? http://www.beatstreuli.com/77.html

yes, those are street portraits, not street photographs. The subject is just a face.

I am not a fan of this work at all, it is just to take random images of people from far, easy.


It can, if you want to take images without disturbing people in what they're doing. Also a big lens (most of the zoom are big, even the wide angles ones) can scare people more than small ones.

And as I always have my camera in my hand, and not around my neck, it is lighter ;-)

Interesting point but I doubt if Robert Capa referred to Zoom lenses....

As far as I know he is supposed to have said "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough".
And that sort of sums up his approach to his type of photography not observing from a distance but being part of the action himself. Maybe the 'you' in his quote is Capa referring to himself.....

But apart from that .... an interesting discussion that is unfolding itself right here..... :-)
The pro's and cons of primes and zooms....

Anyway, my pictures aren't good enough to have passed screening here yet... ;-)

best of luck
Willem

Not sure one can say "this is not street"... I think it is street in some way, not every individual photo, but the combination of them. I say that despite the fact that I don't dig it very much, but I believe there is no strict definition of what street should be / should not be.

Yes, also ;-)

Oh yes, far from me to be the judge of what is Street and what is not. I was just talking of myself, of what I consider to be true Street Photography. To me, a portait can be a street photograph if there is some more content than just an isolated face, a relation with the environment, some little truths unvelied, something that makes you think about what is being human and so on. I consider Street the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Marc Riboud, Josef Kodelka, Garry Winogrand and so on..

Oh guys guys guys. Hold your horses.
Capa never ever said such a thing. He said: "if your photos aren't good enough, you're not going close enough" and he referred to photojournalism, especially war photography. A big big difference! Where did you get this totally wrong quote from, Julien?

Capa did use telephoto lenses (there were no "zooms" in his time ). The longest lense he had was probably the Tele-Tessar 180/6,3. What he meant is to be understood in the context of photojournalism dominated by tthe use of 35 and 50 mm lenses. If you don't get close enough, it is very hard to take impactful images with such short focal lengths.

It can sure but it is not the point. The point is your approach, how you feel comfortable or not and that depends from numerous factors, not only the bulk of your gear. And being obvious as a photographer can also have advantages. I personally prefer to be obvious than stealthy, I feel more comfortable that way, I'm having more fun and noticed I do best shot that way, more honest shots. so (hopefully for my bank account) I don't feel the need for a M9 with prime - though I'd love to have one.

There is no rules, you have to find out what works for you, that's all.

Capa didn't say only one quote in his life, lol !
The most famous is the one you give but there are many other ones. (Google is your friend.)

'And if they are still not good enough, get a 10mm fisheye and stick it up peoples noses. . .'
maybe he never said that. . .

Yes, these are the best images ! ;-)

This is a very interesting subject itself. At which distance/ level of detail a subject matter can still stand out is a basic but extremely interesting photographic question.

The "closest you are the best it is" is today more a Bruce Gilden syndrom than a Capa syndrom I guess. It can be acknowledged in certain context, especially PJ/documentary for sure... but for other things (including street) the question is more than open.

Zoom is unnatural to our eyes. That does not make pictures "suck".

The opposite applies, I think.

Zoom makes pictures unnatural but on the opposite side makes them look more interesting, just as wide angles look unnatural but more interesting than pictures by a 50mm lens.

There are a bit diference from zooms and telephoto lenses ... And about distance, if Capa have in 40´s good primes in 100-200 mm range, shure he use it.

Also i don´t like zooms if i have a prime telephoto. About distance from subjects ... it all depends. Some people don´t like be photographed with a wide over their nose ... and if with a good prime i can do a good portraiture work at 3 - 5 meters ... why put a 20mm over their nose ????

For portraiture i use allways 150mm in 645 format and 180mm in 6x7 ... most of 35mm users prefer around 80mm telephoto lenses.

But we have superb zooms now ... Capa maybe chage opinion if he have a 70-200 2.8 IS L when he shot the WWII ...

To emulate the masters (Klein, Winogrand...)... ;)

More seriously one of the big advantage of wide angle (35mm and lower) is to have more in the frame. Another one is to to gain in shutter speed and DOF. Both are important factors for lots of street stuffs. Now the aesthetical outcomes of it (including some distorsion) is questionable, of course.

I don´t know "street stuffs" :)

Like this one

;)))

The big advantage of taking photo at 35mm ? It is just that a photo at 35mm (or lower) make the viewer be in the situation, as if he was a part of it , the actions seems to happen just next to the man/woman who is looking at the image which is really great and moving.
That's why all the professional or well known documentary photographers use short lenses, and not for the easy DOF, it is obvious.

And if I am wrong, I want you to find some images of great well known documentary photographers (anyone at magnum or any other agencie) at more than 50mm.

IMO, long lens documentary shots look like paparazzi shots like the ones you can see in tabloids.

By the way, I'm not disrespecting people who use long lenses, I just give my opinion.

The only case I use 50mm for documentary is when I absolutely don't want perspective like this shot : http://1x.com/v2/#photos/member/18405/27420/

...and Julien I like your images but what I find odd is you defending your modus without there being any need to because in the end its the picture that talks not the famous or not so famous who open there mouths without engaging their brains! And worse still is making sweeping generalisations about a certain genre because you close the door (your mind) to these sorts of images simply because you have made your mind up before hand that they cannot be any good! Open your mind & then the heart opens too think about it the longest journey is from the brain to the heart if you don't even put the key in the ignition you cannot start the car!

Sure, but there is no ONE way (or tool, or recipe...) to fit with a genre. A lots of great street photo has been done in MF (even 8"x10"), with camera on a tripod, few gear mobility and the photographer doing something else than almost hitting the nose of people - check out Alexey Titarenko for example.

very well said



precisely !

I'm just basing my opinion on that short quote. I have a different understanding about this statement. The key word is "zoom". It means variable magnification. I think he is right if you compare zooms with prime lenses. Note that he didn't say "telephoto". So I guess he wasn't referring to perspective but more of quality as in sharpness and distortion.

OK. Did some search to make sure and seems that the first zooms for 35mm camera came on the market after Capa died...

Jacques does it matter!...they are just words after all.

Agree, in fact I mean that it is better to shoot with a wide angle and to be next to the action than to be farther and to use a zoom, for the reasons I give above.
I don't say that you have to be just in front of the people, it depends on what you want to shoot/show.

For example, if you want to shoot somebody, and you want his body to take one quarter of the height of your image, you have these choices :
1/ To use a 200 mm and to be at 40 meters from him.
2/ To use a 24 mm and to be at 5 meters from him.

For the same action, first choice, your image looks flat and far, second choice, the viewer "participate" in the action.

(I'm still talking about documentary/street photography)

I obviously agree with Julien. Wideangles give a more realistic look to the photograph, you're somehow into the scene, with teles it's more like you're on a sofa, watching tele-vision, it's kinda flat.
Moreover, in Street there is usually the need to include 2 or more subjects into 1 scene, to make juxtapositions, connections with the environment and so on...with wideangles you can do it, with teles you rarely can, because it tends to isolate things and has got a narrow DoF, so you usually can't "tell" more than a thing at time.

Who wants a wideangle when so many compsitions are screwed up by the "one" annoying thing in the picture. It`s as Ken Rockwell truley describes:

Ken Rockwell writes:
"Anything that isn't directly helping the composition takes away from it. It's just like editing: the fewer words you use, the better the writing. Details that don't add to the overall structure of the image make it weaker. See the annoying tree in the sky on the left? It has nothing to do with the rest of the image. I always crop that out, otherwise, viewer's eyes keep going back to it, which pulls eyes off the image. It is a distraction, which makes for a poorer image!"

I think that with a wideangle there`s a million things that can go wrong unless you`re a Pro so it`s easier for us "amateurs" to use Tele-lenses.

Look at these awesome photos from Steve Cirone made with a Tele, they don`t have to hide behind a wide-lens at all:

http://www.stevecirone.com/home.html

It`s rubbish what Robert Capa claimed - he was single-minded, that narrows his imagination and creativity but not mine.

Regards

Since the beginning of this thread we have talked about documentary or street.
The portfolio you give is about animals.

I don't know what the connection is with the wide angles.

The thread started off with the quote:

"If your pictures suck - it`s because you`re using zoom... loser!"

-Robert Capa-

I claim that instead of cropping pictures one can use a tele-view instead of wide-angles and then cropping, simply because the more detail - the more can go wrong with the composition.

I don`t think that what I write is too far away from the subject, Julien.

Regards

Sorry but yes, you're a bit far, read the topic carefully.

Julien,

You are correct in some way of course, and I am aware that most of documentary/street is done with WA (and by the way it is also what I prefer for myself) but my point - and I assume the point from others as well - is that there should be no ultimate modus-operandi. If some other people show creativity and artistry with other means, tools, approaches it is still valid, whatever Capa said.... In the end of the day it is the image that counts. You can't say it has to be that way over another...

My feeling in this thread (which is interesting) is that you tell us what works for you - which is fine, nothing wrong with that - but use a Capa quote to make it more legitimate and superior to any others (for street/documentary), which I think is unfair. After all this thread was initiated by "If your pictures suck, it's because you're using a zoom (correct: tele)" which is quite an offensive statement. So I see it as a way to close the debate by invoking some authority instead of opening it. At least it is my impression (correct me if I am wrong).

Also note that talking strictly of WA focal for street/docu and you will find out that there is no truth on the how and the why using WA. And some great photographers would use the 50mm, which is no WA (Levitt, HCB).

Ok all the people do as they want, I have no problem with that, I don't want to give lessons but to share opinions.

Last months I realize that this question of angle and distance is something very important in documentary/street photography. I have read many things about it but what convinced me the most is to see big prints in front of me. And franckly, the effect is a lot better when it is wide angle, I dive into the image whereas a big print of a photo taken from far still keeps me far, even at 1 meter in front of me, "ok beautiful but far therefore not so moving".

I sarted this thread to know what people think about it, if some people have good arguments to make me think the contrary.

50mm is not tele, it is not very wide ok, but it is not tele neither.
HCB worked with both 35mm and 50mm.

One thing that always worries me about the hype around Capa is that he became what he is now by photographing the winners of WW2. Oh boys, I discovered his Axis counterpart and if the managers of his estate allow me to do it, I'll present such a work that will blow Capa out of the water.
Not as if I disliked Capa. I have invested lots of time and money to get a memorial plaque on his house of birth (project still unfinished). But I always wonder how many great shots from WW2 rot slowly away in hidden archieves, just because they show soldiers with the wrong type of helmet. If you follow my meaning.

Anyway, if there was a party to uncover that plaque on Capa's house of birth in Budapest, how many of you would be interested in making the trip there? Just a quick opinion research... maybe we have the next 1X come-together in Hungary?

50mm in a 35mm format is equivalent to 33mm on a DSLR. 50mm on a 35mm-format is wide-angle lens. Just look at the famous HCB's photos.

Not sure about what you say.
For example, everybody have seen images of German propaganda during the war, or what happened in the camps. These images are well know and was taken by the german themselves.
The same in Russia when Stalline was the chief, in Italy when it was Mussolini etc...

What was great with Capa is that he was totally crazy, he was there, between the bullets just to take photos, IMO that's why he is so famous.

BTW - perhaps slightly off topic - but whatever happened with all the (public) discussion a while back about Capa's pic of the Falling Soldier being a setup?

I would love to. I loved Budapest when I've been there (just once). Not sure I can make it though..

let's talk in 35mm film / FF equiv. So yes, 35mm magnified by a small sensor can be say it is 50mm. And 50mm and is not considered WA. It is not tele either. It is just "normal".

One thing that I dislike in the "realm of contemporary street photography", is that it is more than often about who would shoot the closest with the widest angle. It's becoming a sort of sport, with few insight and genuine interest on the artistic outcome. Said this way is a bit of a caricature of course but that is really the feeling you have in some street photo discussion on the internet. It is more about the "in your face" outcome (in both meaning). I guess it is the "impact" thing, the wow-factor again ... so not only on 1X... That is why I talked about a Bruce Gilden syndrom (rather than Capa though he is invoked more than often for that matter). I think it does not serve well the genre (as much as I love it). Street photo was not born with wide angle lens, there is enough place for lots of different visions.

I`ve seen Capa`s photographs and I still claim that he was single-minded and blossomed with narrowed creativity. He`s overrated because of what Julien wrote:

Dodging bullets on a battlefield whilst shooting with a camera... but does that make his photos any better? No, sorry it doesn`t.

There`s so much creativity here, so much variety, Capa had little room for variety, that`s why I like this site and the photos I experience every day, they`re great.

No matter if tele or wide-angled...

;-)

I dislike it too, it's stupid. I hate the way Bruce Gilden approaches people, he is really close to a form of violence with that flash at less than 1mt away of the subject's face.

Capa was a war photojournalist, no much room for creativity and variety in that job....his work is not about 'art', it's documentary.

Well... To improve, it is nice to see what the masters did before. It seems that you disrespect Capa's works by saying that.
I challenge you to do the same as he did. Photography as art is not only technically good and very well balanced images, it is also to make some special moments live forever, with their impact.

The image of the soldier falling (and probably dying) moves me.

By the way and a bit off-topic I'll be curious to see how Martin Parr operates. He uses a flash also but I believe he is not that intrusive and is a much more low profile type of guy (I guess so). I've read funny things on how he covered the Magnum 60's birthday party... (but he would shoot his pairs..)

That's not allowed!


No such thing as a bad composition in street photography. Only a bad street phtoographer.


Surely a lot of his portraits would look the same if taken further away with a tele lens?

of course not, but what characterizes Gilden is not the use of a wideangle lens (all famous street photographers use wideangle lenses) ..it's rather the reaction that people have when a flash is fired at few centimeters from their faces...

Allied propaganda was not even a iota better better than German propaganda. The scenes we see in the hyped Capa shots are identical to what we see in photos taken on the other side of the front - only the uniform is different. War photography as Capa (or Nachtwey or McCullin) did it was about the struggle of the individual, not about ideologies. That's why they are precious.



That's my point - there were many colleagues of Capa on the other side of those bullets, documenting war just like him, and their work is as independent from Auschwitz etc as Capa's photos are from carpet bombing civilian towns and several hundred thousands of raped women and civilians dragged to the gulag by the Red Army. But it is illicit to talk about them or show their works, because any soldier wearing a German-style helmet is supposed to be a mass murdering Nazi even 70 years after the war.

Just one example how much our view of WW2 is distorted by the media. In the HBO series "Band of brothers", one pivotal scene shows a US officer shooting German POWs. It is to show how cool and tough he is. Or, in "Thin red line", you can see how a US marine plies out the golden teeth of Japanese POWs. ( I admit to be a great fan of both.) If this series and movie would be about German instead of US soldiers, everyone would cry war crimes and Nazi propaganda. But it shows the winners, so nobody objects.

Just to stick with Capa - I suppose you know his probably best shot ever, showing a mother and her daughter holding a baby born from a German soldier, being chased down and maltreated by a furious French mob. Who is "bad" there? Isn't the rage, the hate on the face of her abusers any different from what we see on the face of SS-men mistreating Jews? Isn't this the same inhumanity? Or the photo showing a group of collaborateurs before their execution - young women and old men alike? Imo that's why Capa was great - he didn't photograph what the propaganda crew and media wanted to see, but the things as they were without judgement.

In reality, there was no difference between winners and losers in battle, they all suffered the same, and I find it unjust that only the suffering - and heroism - of the winners counts. This might be a "vae victis" thing but it shouldn't deter us from finding and appreciating equally valuable photography on the other side of the trenches.

If you ask me, and if I'd dare to paraphrase the Capa quote I would rather say "If your pictures suck, it's because you're using a cropped sensor" (Ok now I dared :))... I mean for street/docu, small sensors are really the wrong thing.

If you want to have 28-35 FF-equiv you need something like 18-24 on a cropped sensor. Which is fine for magnification but you inherit the 18-24 focal characteristics, especially a fair amount of distortion (people face on the edge of a 20mm cropped frame is ugly, even with a good lens). So it is definitely not the same than real 28/35. And the 50mm ends up being a not very suitable small tele on cropped sensor whereas its balance optical characteristics make it a very good lens on 35mm/FF.

Now I am the only one guilty for that. I have a F3 lying not far, still in good order, it's a great camera that just wait to have film put on it. But I got lazy now that I am familiar with my PP workflow (which is very rudimentary and fast) that I feel kind of stuck with digital. If there is something I very value on the M9 it is its FF.

There is another side effect of smaller sensors (cropped as you call them), less DOF (or is it "more" -> more sharpness in the depth). Which is good for the consumer market, but not necessarily for photographers who use DOF as a creative tool.

"If your pictures suck, it's because you're using a zoom.. Loser" because, usually primes have better definition and image quality and you have editing software (or lab technics) to make crops and other adjustments.

There are 2 rules for success:
1st. Never tell all that you know

Maybe that's why the guy got (is) famous... people got stuck to the message as it was said lol

Street shooter macho is irritating I agree. All that talk of 'testicular fortitude' etc.

Also, way back up the line, somebody quoted Ken Rockwell. . . sigh. . . anyway, to state that the fewer words you write, the better the writing is total crap. It's the quality of the words that count. I guess he was trying to say 'less is more' in writing as in photography. My take is, that all rules, when intelligently applied can be valid, but when followed without critical thought they become pretty meaningless.

Balazs, I would love to see some of that German war photography you mention. There was a TV prog the other day called 'shooting the war' which had cine film from both sides, shot by enthusiasts who took their cameras with them to war. Fascinating stuff.
On a similar note, back in the mid/late seventies a British war comic called 'Battle' featured a strip about a German soldier. Groundbreaking stuff at the time. It was called 'Panzer G Man'. But he was never shown fighting Americans or Brits, usually Russians. . .

http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/6041/das_raetsel_des_fliegenden_auges.html

If you click on tag "Zweiter Weltkrieg", you'll find many more series.

Thanks Balazs, I shall have a look.

Incredible sharpness and informative comments! :-)

:)))