480 
FOREST AND STREAM 
August, 1918 
THE USE OF THE SPORTSMAN’S CAMERA 
TO MAKE THE MOST OF PICTORIAL OPPORTUNITIES IN CAMP OR ON THE TRAIL ONE 
MUST HAVE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE SMALL CAMERA 
By EUGENE S. ANDERSON 
The perfect photographic outfit must combine wear resisting qualities, compactness and light weight 
A FEW days ago, in reading a travel 
article by a well known writer, I was 
much amused by his account of a trip 
in the wilds, taking with him a photo¬ 
graphic outfit. According to his story'— 
and there is no reason to doubt his veracity 
-—the various parts of this outfit were car¬ 
ried by a pair of coolies, for whom it 
proved no mean burden. The outcome of 
the trip, . from a photographic standpoint, 
was a dismal failure as not more than 
one negative in twenty was usable. 
In justice to this worthy gentleman it 
should be said that his experiences were 
quite common occurrences at the time 
when his trip was taken—in 1883. Today, 
somewhat more than a quarter-century 
later, what a difference there is in photo¬ 
graphic equipment and materials. And yet 
I venture to say that the average sports¬ 
man, more interested in rod and gun than 
in camera, does not make the most of his 
opportunities of a pictorial nature. 
The fact that the camera has always 
appealed to me more than the gun, and 
consequently its possibilities, have been 
studied with more interest, places me at a 
disadvantage when talking “fine points” 
with ardent huntsmen, and, by the same 
token, it is possible that I may be able to 
give them a few good pointers about the 
choice and use of a sportsman’s photo¬ 
graphic outfit, in our common meeting 
ground—these pages. 
P OSSIBLY because nearly every one 
begins his photographic efforts with 
a small box camera, there is an in¬ 
herent feeling among those who take up 
photography in a casual way, that the 
small camera is a toy and cannot make real 
live pictures. This is really unfortunate, 
as it leads many a sportsman to purchase 
a much larger camera than he needs, with 
a resulting unnecessary increase in cost of 
equipment and supplies, as well as incon¬ 
venience on the trail. The small camera 
has certain fundamental optical advant¬ 
ages, as well as obvious features in cost, 
size, weight, both of itself and supplies, 
to recommend it to the sportsman. Fur¬ 
ther, the pictures made with it are as sat¬ 
isfactory as those made with a large cam¬ 
era and, in some cases, more so. 
One of our leading manufacturers states 
the case in a nutshell in saying, “It’s all in 
the lens.” The little box camera with 
which our experience starts is a cheap cam¬ 
era, with a lens of the most limited abil¬ 
ity, and attachments that enable the user to 
try his hand only at the ABC of photog¬ 
raphy. Putting aside for the moment a 
natural antipathy for a small camera, let us 
consider the question of lenses in a non¬ 
technical way. As it is “all in the lens,” 
the sportsman wants the best he can buy, 
for pictures taken on the trail can be taken 
but once, and must be successful the first 
time, or not at all. The best photographic 
lens procurable today is the “anastigmat.” 
It is hardly necessary to consider its prop¬ 
erties, but is sufficient to say that it pro¬ 
duces an image that has needle-sharp 
detail clear to the corners of the negative. 
Further, it can be made with larger glasses 
than the inferior types, and so collects 
more light to pass to the film, thus lessen¬ 
ing the chances of failure because of 
under-exposure. Moreover, an enlarged 
picture made from a small negative pro¬ 
duced with an anastigmat lens will not 
show, within reasonable degree, any loss in 
definition, so that in comparing prints of 
equal size made with a large and small 
camera respectively, there will not be a 
great difference in the definition or detail. 
Grant that a large and small camera, both 
equipped with fine lenses, will produce pic¬ 
tures of the same size and having about 
the same definition, there is an optical ad¬ 
vantage gained by the use of a small cam¬ 
era which is an item that the sportsman 
cannot overlook. This is greater “depth 
of focus.” As this is a rather technical 
term, let us explain it in a simple fashion. 
When the lens is focused on a certain ob¬ 
ject, it also images other objects sharply, 
both in front of and back of the object in 
sharpest focus. Just how wide this belt 
of sharp focus will be depends on ’two 
things: the focal length of the lens, rough¬ 
ly, the distance from the center of the 
lens to the film; and the opening in the 
lens. As the two cameras can be fitted 
with lenses whose effective openings are 
the same, the question of the depth of 
focus—or belt of sharpness—depends on 
the focal length of the lens. The smaller 
the camera, the shorter the focal length 
of the lens, and consequently the greater 
the belt of sharpness. To clinch this argu¬ 
ment in favor of the small camera, it 
should be said that this greater belt of 
sharpness is retained if the print is an en¬ 
largement, so that the advantage is a per¬ 
manent one. To give a practical example 
of how great this difference in depth of 
focus will be when using, say, one camera 
equipped with a 3k2-inch lens, and another 
with a 6k2-inch objective the following may 
be interesting: Both focused at 25 ft., using 
an aperture of f :6.3: depth of focus of 
6j4-inch lens is 9.3 ft., from 21.1 to 30.4 
ft.; depth of focus of the 3k£-mch lens, 
49.9 ft., from 15.4 to 65.3 ft. In other 
words, the depth of focus with the small 
lens is more than five times as great as 
that of the larger, which depth is retained, 
please remember, in the enlargement which 
