The Online Photographer

Can We Declare Size a Solved Problem?

Surreptitious street photographers like quiet cameras. Certain other photographers like loud ones—I remember how surprised I was to learn that a fashion-photographer acquaintance didn't like the then-new Nikon F4 when it came out, because the shutter was too quiet! Turns out his models used the clank-whirr of his F3's motor-driven shutter to cue their movements, and photographer and his models were having trouble getting into their usual groove with the too-quiet F4.

The Leica M used to be renowned for being ultra-quiet. An urban legend held that it was the only camera allowed in certain courtrooms because it was so quiet it didn't interrupt the proceedings.

Now, you can buy digital cameras that are silent. For some, too silent—the cameras add a tiny pre-recorded digital "shutter noise" as an option for when you press the button and would prefer a little aural feedback.

And even some cameras with flipping mirrors are very quiet now. Have you heard the soft flutter of the shutter of the Canon 6D? It is, wonderfully, nearly noiseless. I'd love to pit it head-to-head with the old Leica M7 for loudness. No telling which would win.

Personal standard
Similarly, small size was for a very long time a sort of holy grail...or at least a selling point for some. The original "Barnack camera"—the Leica before there was an "M"—was designed by Oskar to be as tiny as it could be, basically barely bigger than the cassette of film it had to hold. Later emendations—the addition of a small rangefinder on top, then the transition to the classic but considerably bigger "M" in the early 1950s—were decried by some purists for making the cameras bigger.

Barnack's Leica A was miniscule for its day.
Photo from Pacific Rim Camera's Photographic Pages.

Along the way there were various attempts to create ultra-small cameras, either by using smaller kinds of film, or oversimplifying basic controls and functions. Minox spy cameras, Rollei 35's, that sort of thing.

The Olympus OM-1 of 1971 was another famous attempt at "miniaturization." The 1960s were a decade when Pentax (Asahi) ruled. Its M42 screwmount Spotmatic was the quintessential camera of the decade, and by 1971 Asahi had sold 3 million SLRs. It was late adapting to the trend of proprietary quick-change bayonet mounts, and its cameras were chunky. The OM-1 featured a number of mechanical innovations that added up to a full-function SLR of very small size. Pentax, charmed and alarmed, followed suit five years later—as did Nikon, which owned the top end of the camera market but didn't really start to compete in the consumer end until the '70s.

Perfect: The Olympus OM-4Ti (in its boudoir!).

I've personally never been very status conscious, and not very tolerant of people for whom status in an overriding concern. So I've never been particularly covetous of extremes, the "best" or "most" or "smallest" or "fastest." Much more appealing to me is the "Goldilocks principle"—"just right." Early on, I decided I liked cameras that were small but not too small. I picked the ultimate in the OM line as my personal ideal. The OM-4T was 87mm high* by 139mm wide by 50mm deep, and weighed 18.5 ounces. It seemed about perfect to me. Big enough to handle comfortably, heavy enough so the strap wouldn't slip off my shoulder, but small enough to be inconspicuous and light enough to be easily portable. Didn't want a bigger camera, didn't want a smaller camera.

Wee digis
I wrote a couple of weeks ago that the Panasonic GX1 and Sony NEX-6 are about as small as they can possibly be without being too small. The NEX-6, by contrast with the old OM-4, is 67mm high by 120mm wide by 43mm deep, and weighs 12.2 ounces. Too small by my old standards. I guess my standards have shifted.

And the thing is, neither of those cameras is unusually small by today's standards—certainly not small enough to be known for being small.

It's been a decade now since Michelle Martin of Pentax had a eureka moment during a marketing meeting and realized that the Pentax Optio S would fit inside an Altoids tin. At least since then, we've have many options among truly tiny digital cameras. But most, including the cameras now thrown into every smartphone, have had very tiny sensors, too. That goes for the Pentax Q, future collectible and the current IL descendant of the Pentax 110.

Canon Rebel SL1 next to an "average sized" DSLR with the same size sensor. Graphic courtesy of camerasize.com.

Just recently, we have a suddenly burgeoning number of choices among very small APS-C cameras, and even one extremely small full-frame camera (the Sony RX1). Many good cameras are arguably too small, at least for the hands of Western males. And I haven't yet mentioned the forthcoming Canon Rebel SL1 (100D), a smart move by Canon because it's a camera that some photographers want and need and haven't really had in Canon's line before—an SLR that's very small but still good. Why shouldn't people who want that be served too?

Know what the SL1 reminds me of most? The Nikon EM of 1979.

Recently, we've seen APS-C sensors in very small cameras, with the smaller NEX's perhaps leading the way. Recently we've seem the Nikon Coolpix A, a small point-and-shoot that is 64mm high by 111mm wide by 40mm deep, and weighs only 10.5 ounces with its lens—and yet has an APS-C sensor (which I consider the standard "full size" for digital, although the word "full" would be very confusing applied to APS-C, given that 35mm-size is often called "full-frame"). Not to be outdone, Ricoh, which now owns Pentax, has introduced a variant of its long-lived, well-respected GR line of small-sensor digicams that also has a big APS-C sensor in it. Its specs are 61mm high, 117mm wide, and 35mm deep, and 8.6 oz. with lens.

Not to be outdone in the size contest, Sony has debuted a pancake lens for the tiny-to-small NEX system cameras that is only 8/10ths of an inch long and weighs less than 2.5 ounces! And which, coincidentally or not, is within a close shave of the focal length of the fixed lenses on the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a NEX-6 with the 20mm ƒ/2.8 pancake than either a Coolpix A or a Ricoh GR.

Sony 20mm E-mount is tiny and very light

I'm sure the limits of small size will continue to be explored by the cameramakers, and options will continue to be filled in as various makers compete with each other. (Most notably, Sony has currently stolen a march on its opposition in the small FF camera category. One that isn't likely to go long unanswered unless the RX1 is a sales flop.)

Still, from my perspective—that is, as someone who likes cameras that are small but not too small—it seems like we're awfully close to being there. Just as we're past the time when "quiet" is a meaningful marker of fame for a camera, we're fast approaching the time when "small" as a similar marker of renown will no longer be available.

But maybe you have other opinions. We all have our own standards, after all.

Mike

*Note that this encompasses a "prism hump." No digital but the OM-D has one of these, and the OM-D's exists as a retro homage.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please use our links

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jamie Pillers: "Don't forget Fuji. They're making an effort to produce what are, for me, Goldilocks cameras. Smallish in size, quiet, and great line of lenses. And...real optical viewfinders! :-)"

Nicholas Condon (partial comment): "To my mind, there are two countervailang goals at work: A camera should be big enough to handle, but small enough to carry. The difficulty that I see is that the intersection between the set of all cameras small enough to carry everywhere and the set of all cameras big enough handle is empty."

Gaspar: "To me, it's not about the size of the camera, but about the size of the grip. The Pentax K-7 is about the same size of one of the Rebels, but its grip has just the right size and shape. On the other hand, no grip at all is also a great way to go: the Olympus E-420 is absolutely perfect; I wish they still made those...."

Howard Cornelsen: "Not an urban legend regarding no camera louder than a Leica M allowed in court. It was a case taken up by my colleague Steffan Kippert of E. Leitz, Inc. (now Leica Camera Inc.) in the State of Florida. Florida passed a law reading that 'no camera louder than a Leica M' be allowed in Florida courts."

Paul De Zan: "The Canon 6D is more than quiet—it's eerie quiet. After owning one for a couple of months, I'm not completely convinced it really has a mirror, or possibly its mirror is made of some secret new material that resembles butter, but doesn't melt."

Mike replies: I actually quite like the 6D, although it doesn't seem to be making many waves.

JonA: "Without cameras making noises, what would the lyrebird do?  Go to around the 1:46 mark if you want to cut to the pertinent imitations."

Mike replies: Wow. That is without a doubt the coolest shutter sound I have ever heard!! Thanks for that, made my day.  :-)

Zvonimir MW Tosic: "An interesting picture that shows the relative size of the new GR from Pentax Ricoh and all other mirrorless brethren. To say that the GR is compact is an understatement."

Tim F: "If it was big I would find myself wanting a smaller one. If it was small I would want a body with a larger sensor. If it had one focal length then I would envy a system with more flexibility, and if it had a zoom then I'd want a prime. I would get tired protecting a it from the elements and a weather-sealed system would weigh too much. I require world-class focus tracking, instantaneous JPEG effects and a super-fast built-in processor but the battery can not be too big or expensive, and it has to shoot 1000 frames without recharging. And oy, the price!"

Cameras for Nate

By Ferdinand Garrido

TOP featured a post a few days ago asking readers' advice on an inexpensive but capable used DSLR for a college student named Nate. Here's what TOP readers are recommending as a suitable workaday used DSLR for Nate (and other similarly situated aspiring pros). 

Top ten DSLRs for Nate recommended by TOP readers

Here's the breakout by brand:

 

Age: The top 10 recommended models range in age from 11 months (Pentax K30) to eight years (Canon 5D "classic"). Used examples in stock at KEH are available for as low as $245 for the Pentax K20D in "Bargain" condition up to $665 for the three-year-old and highly recommended Nikon D7000 in Ex+ condition.

All told, 54 DSLR models were recommended by 132 TOP readers who gave advice (only the first recommendation was tallied from commenters who gave multiple choices). Non-DSLRs were not tallied. DSLR models from the "Big Two" (Canons and Nikons) and Pentaxes accounted for 94% of the total. Their respective shares are shown in the following "bubble chart" of DSLRs recommended by at least two readers. The chart situates each model in terms of popularity (frequency of recommendation) on the vertical axis and age on the horizontal one:

 

All of the above charts were tabulated from data culled from this Google spreadsheet, which is a one-for-one tally of all comments to the post as of April 8th.

Sarge

Ferdinand Garrido is a TOP reader (and data mining specialist) from Manila in the Phillippines who comments using the handle "Sarge." He did a similar workup for me for the "out the door" camera responses that I'll publish soon. As for the verdict from the real Nate, I haven't heard yet, but he's read all the comments and received all the offers of free and bargain cameras. I'll let you know what he does as soon as I know.

Thanks to Sarge! —Ed.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Tim F: "Funny to think the Canon 5D is eight! That means I've averaged around 10 shots a day with it since it came out and I got one, and it is still going strong—haven't seen anything that is a compulsory upgrade yet."

Colin Work: "I find it interesting that the 'elderly' Canon 5D is still generating so much support—eight years! That's got to be 56 in film camera years. Groundbreaking camera at the time, and still going strong. But perhaps that was the last time Canon really had a 'must have' camera (for still photographers anyway). It was perhaps a wake-up call for Nikon, as they seem to have gone from strength to strength since then."

rnewman: "Sarge's analysis reinforces my opinion that there are a lot of good cameras out there, and Nate's choice isn't likely to be a drag on his development as a photographer. Different folks prefer different methods of operation, making one camera preferable to another. His first choice is unlikely to be his last, as skill and experience increase. One consideration is how he intends to use his photos. If his primary interest is in news, and his work will be seen primarily in newspapers and/or magazines, his best choice may be different than if he plans to do large gallery displays and wall installations. His cost constraints shouldn't be a factor, as good used cameras are available. Mike, please let us know what he decides."

He Shoots He SCORES!!

Hey, remember Nick Laham? We wrote about him when he was forced to turn a Tampa restroom into a studio and shoot some portraits with his Apple iPhone. Well, his picture of A-Rod (the one we featured) made Page One of The New York Times on Sunday.

There's been a lot of teeth-gnashing, hair-tearing, and garment-rending about how publications no longer care about professional-quality work from pro cameras, but you could look at it from the opposite perspective too—you could claim pro photographers aren't on the hook to keep contantly upgrading to the latest and best professional DSLRs any more. They can just use their iPhones like "everybody"* else.

Mike
(Thanks to Steve Rosenblum)

*Except us. We'll use good-quality point-and-shoots or better, thanks.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Click here, dammit Gumby.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Mark: "I haven't seen a copy of the actual newspaper myself, but I can't help but think that this is an entirely appropriate usage of a camera and technology and a testament to the skills of a professional photographer. Eyeballing the size of the photo relative to the size of the page, it can't be more than about 6x6" (or 15x15 cm). Even if it were printed at 300 DPI, that would only be a bit more than 3 MP for the image—and newsprint was almost never a medium for high-resolution photography in the first place.

"Furthermore, if any story allowed for the use of a nostalgic instagram aesthetic, I would have to see it as a story about an aging baseball star.

"Lastly, I know that I couldn't have improvised a studio in a bathroom and captured those expressions no matter what camera I was using. So doesn't that argue in favor of professional photographers rather than professional cameras? In terms of resolution, even a two-page spread in Time, National Geographic, or Elle could easily be handled by the previous generation of full-frame cameras. There's something liberating in that, if only we could remember and pay attention to it."

Henry Rogers: "I like that picture! I wouldn't like it any more if it had been taken with much more precise equipment."

The Out-the-Door Test

Those of you who own just one camera, or just one good camera, obviously don't have the following problem.

That's the way I used to be, and the way I like to think of myself still—even though it no longer applies. A one-camera kind of guy. Have axe, will chop wood.

An old fave. This one belonged to Kent Phelan when I made its portrait. One just like it was my only axe for a 14-month period in the '90s.

But now I have a number of cameras (collateral damage from running a photo website...that's my story and I'm stickin' to it). Lots of people have more than one camera—and a lot of enthusiasts have a lot more than that!

So here's the test. If you're just going out the door and you want to take a camera with you, what do you grab most often?

We all spend an awful lot of time and energy evaluating cameras, choosing what to buy, defending our choices, and worrying about the crushing opportunity cost ("I'm thinking about switching to..."). But if you have alternatives readily available, maybe the one you find yourself going for most often (assuming there is one) is a good indicator of what your needs/wants really are.

Mike
(Thanks to John Mitchell and Kent Phelan)

P.S. Funny story about the Leica in the picture, one I've told before. I eBay'd a few things for my friend Kent in my uh-oh years. Kent had gone to considerable lengths to duplicate the M4 outfit of his youth with a truly mint set—the camera and lens in the picture. I sold it to an Italian Leica dealer for what was then a good price.

But when it arrived, it appeared the buyer had found a problem. He said there was a blemish in the chrome finish on the back side of the top plate. He considered it for a while, as we exchanged emails, and finally decided he couldn't keep it. So he sent the camera and lens back to me for a refund.

But when the camera arrived back, I couldn't find the blemish he was talking about, a fact which of course I relayed back to him. "Use a magnifying glass," came the answer.

Sure enough, with a magnifying glass, I was able to locate a tiny pinpoint flaw in the chrome plating.

The buyer ruefully acknowledged that the camera had very likely come from the factory with that pinpoint flaw. But, he said, his buyers "could be picky."

Now how's that for an understatement!

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

~Alan Sailer: "Without a doubt, a Canon 5D Mark II that I bought used a year ago. And it nearly always has a 17–40mm ƒ/4 lens in front. What is disconcerting to me is that I own mostly Nikon bodies and lenses (by a factor of five to one), but there is something about that Canon that works for me. Go figure."

Ed: "Sony RX1 over the Fuji X-Pro 1 and the Oly OM-D EM-5. Love the size and portability. Love the full frame files and their flexibility."

Tommy F: "I would take the NEX-7 and the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 or the 19mm Sigma."

Rolf Schmolling: "Well, nowadays I grab my Zenza Bronica ETRSi (645) with 75mm ƒ/2.8 PE usually. I can just take the magazine with the right film for the light and I'm off. Gossen Profisix too, of course.

"Then I am still tempted to take my Nikon F2 Photomic with Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2 (AIS) or Nikkor-S.C Auto 50mm ƒ/1.4 (Non AI) most of the time loaded with Tri-X 400. And today when I went for a short (we still have winter here in Hamburg, Germany) Foto Safari with my son (age seven), I put Tri-X 400 into my Nikkormat FT-2 (with 50mm ƒ/2) to a) have a similar outfit to his Yashica FX-3 super 2000 with 50mm ƒ/2 and b) because my F2 was still full of Portra 400. Didn't finish the rolls; it was just too cold."

Dan Gorman: "Easy: Canon G10. Reasons: Good enough image quality; small/light/inconspicuous enough for pretty much any situation; a gas to use—the physical controls and instant feedback say 'Play with me!'"

Scott Price: "For me, it's my K-5 IIs with my FA* 24mm ƒ/2 attached (36mm equivalent). I haven't encountered many situations where I couldn't make this combo work well. Of course, my primary subjects are my children, and I'm generally trying to capture them and what they're doing. I've found this focal length range just about perfect for this purpose, because I don't have to take a step forward or back from a natural conversation distance to get the framing I want. That said, there are times when I need to mix things up and pick-off candid head shots with a longer lens, or really mess around by dangling an ultra-wide in front of them while they play/run/slide. Variety is the spice of life, but, for me, the meat and potatoes looks like a compact DSLR with a fast 35mm equivalent lens on it."

Howard: "Sitting on the table next to the door is a Nikon FG with a MD-14 motor drive and (believe it or not) a Tamron CF 35–70mm zoom on an Adaptall 2 lensmount. I bought it years ago from a coworker. I was embarrassed that she accepted the $25 offered and I upped it to $35 (body only. The rest was added over time). It goes with me everywhere and shoots everything; we have bonded."

Bill Langford: "There was a time when it was a Graflex XL with Polaroid back and a bucket of clearing solution for the negatives. (Did I hear someone say 'Old Timer'?) Now it's a Sigma DP2 Merrill. The fun is the same, the back is not."

David Paterson: I was once invited to a camera collector's home in Tokyo, where he opened several large walk-in cupboards to show me his collection. It consisted of boxed, unopened examples of every Leica, Hasselblad and Nikon camera, and most of the lenses, from the previous 20 years. None of the boxes had ever been opened. He never took any photographs. He didn't collect Canon or Olympus. I currently have two digital camera-bodies—a working camera and a back-up. Seems like enough."

Sherwood McLernon: "The camera's always the same, a Canon 7D. The lens is either a Canon 400mm ƒ/5.6 L if I'm shooting birds or other wildlife, or a Canon 18–200mm ƒ3.5–5.6 IS as a walk around lens. I have many other lenses, but the above combinations take care of 95% of my shooting. If I'm driving, I will take two 7D's with the above-mentioned lenses already mounted. If it's a quick walk from home it's the walkaround combination."

Gary Filkins: "Sony RX100 almost without exception. The exception would be if portraits are expected—then it's the Olympus EP-2 with the Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8 lens."

Ed Grossman: "Toward the end of last year, I realized two things: 1) I was spending too much time choosing a camera before heading out the door. 2) The results I brought back in the door weren't really any different regardless of what I chose in '1' above. Since then, there's been a culling of the herd. I'm down to two. Most days, it's me and the Panasonic GH2. If the weather's inclement, I take my Olympus E-5. I'm spending less time deciding and more time shooting. The money I made from the gear sale will go toward photo experiences, not photo gear. That may not be the right choice for everyone, but it was for me!"

Chris Nicholls: "Beautiful M4! For me at the moment it's the M9 with 35mm ASPH Summicron. It's hard for me to imagine another camera that might suit me better, but I wouldn't mind a good pocket-size camera. Any recommendations?"

Mike replies: Always. The two truly pocketable cameras I seem to hear the most good things about are the Sony RX100 and the Ricoh GRD IV, with the Panasonic LX7—which has a Leica lens—bringing home the bronze. Here's my brief experience with the Sony.

Note that in Amazon's unintentionally funny product description of the GRD IV, "1X Optical Zoom" means it's a fixed, single-focal-length lens.

Armand: "Mike, that's a beautiful camera. Most of the time, I grab either the M3 or one of my Leicaflexes :-) when I venture out in the urban wilderness. Main reason why my D800E stays in my Pelican case."

mcomfort: "I thought I'd try the smaller, carry-everywhere second camera approach for a while...but I keep coming back to the big D800. Too much IQ left on the table otherwise. My standards have crept upward to the point of no return now, which is in conflict with my usual gear lust (read: I want to find a reason to get the OM-D or something similar.)"

The two comments just above came in right next to each other. —Ed.

Claire: "My 5D Mark II replaced my worn-out Rebel XT. I used to go out everyday with that Rebel. It is not the case with the 5D. Great camera, but too heavy for my everyday walk. Two weeks ago, I bought the Fuji X-Pro. And...I think I'm in love again! :-) Right, it is not on par with the 5D. But at least, bringing it with me, I might have a chance to get one or two photos that I will be happy with one of these days...."

So Many Cameras, So Little Time

...And by the way, did I make a big mistake with the Big Dragoon? Here Canon has very considerately made a lens of ideal specification for me—35mm ƒ/2, with in-lens IS...and it apparently made it just for me, too, as nobody else seems to be buying them. And there are not one but two wider primes with IS, too. You know me, always gassing on about my finicky lens preferences. I probably should have gotten a 6D with an IS prime or two. I even have a Canon EOS-1v in the house, too. That lens could do double duty.

I need to stop thinking now. It just gets me in trouble. Too few cameras is definitely not my problem at the moment.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Hugh: "5D3 with the shutter set on quiet mode, 3200 ISO, 35mm ƒ/2 IS lens, and you've a street shooter to beat any Leica M. Sorry!  :-) "

Rob: "I recently shocked myself by shelling out $2600 for a new Sony RX1 with its superb Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2 lens. The camera is a blast to use, and the images it produces are jaw dropping. I can live with the RX1's obvious limitations as a fixed-lens, single-focal-length camera, but my biggest complaint is that it lacks image stabilization. I understand that Sony probably chose to omit IS because of size and/or cost considerations, but still it is something that I miss. The chief mitigating factor is that the sensor performs very well at ISOs up to 6400 (and above), so one can simply select a fast shutter speed to minimize camera shake. Still, as one who is accustomed to in-body stabilization with my Pentax DSLRs, I know how valuable IS can be. Having it in the Canon 35mm is a big plus for that lens."

Jay: "Now I have to send you some of my photos with this lens  :-)"

Mike replies: Yes you do!

Pentax Rebates (and My Memory Cards)

Starting now and for the rest of March, Pentax USA is offering a series of rebates in conjunction with the Wedding and Portrait Photographers International Expo (WPPI) taking place at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas beginning today. You don't have to be at the Expo to take advantage of the rebates.

The deal is: buy a 645D body and one or both of two lenses, and you'll receive a $500 prepaid VISA card for each lens you buy. The lenses are the D-FA 25mm superwide (19.5mm-e) and HD 90mm (71mm-e) short telephoto.

(In case you're not up to date on it, the Pentax 645D, with its 44x33mm, 40-MP sensor, now goes for $8,800 and includes the 55mm ƒ/2.8 normal (43mm-e) normal lens for free. If that sounds expensive, compare it to the $22,000 Leica S and its $5,000 normal lens that you do have to pay for.)

Or, buy a Pentax K-5 IIs body and one or more of three lenses, and receive a $250 VISA card for each lens. The lenses, among Pentax's best, are the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm Limited primes (~47mm-e, 65mm-e, and 116mm-e on the K-5 IIs).

To qualify, the lenses and body must be purchased at the same time and appear together on the same receipt.

Here's the information page. The offer is good through the end of the month.

Cards
Also current right now: B&H is offering another super deal on Sony 16GB SDHC cards: $23.95 for two. These are the cards I use now, thanks to a similar deal a while back.

There's also a deal on 32GB cards. [UPDATE: Link removed; deal has ended.]

An idle question: do you suppose the day will ever come when we'll use flash cards just once and just keep the full ones as a way to archive the files? Like we used to keep negatives. Download the card, and then, instead of erasing it and reusing it, label the card and store it. Use a new card each time we use the camera, just like we used to put a new roll of film in the camera before shooting. It's no longer an absurd idea, at least. Well, maybe it is, but not so absurd as it used to be.

Mike

Disclosure: Pentax is an advertiser on TOP.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

bill: "SDHC cards for permanent storage a la negatives is already being done. A wedding photog friend has been doing it for years. When he started I thought the cost a bit high but at current prices? Also, if you consider what film used to cost and the cost to soup it (home or sent out), an SDHC card is a bargain!

"My baseline is medium format. So number of pics on a card vs. rolls of film and it may be a no brainer. Of course we shot a bit tighter back then. But edited and put on small cards or batched.

"I think permanence of the cards deserves investigation. My HDDs have failed a few times and while I have redundant backups and all that, I think it is not a bad ideas at all. I seem to think somewhere in the back of my addled mind there are some permanence issues?? Likely no worse than film though, especially color neg and cromes. Don't shoot so much as I did, but may start this now. Great idea."

Mike replies: I was actually envisioning a purpose-made new product, non-rewritable and optimized (assuming we have the technology?) for long-term life, complete with a waterproof and label-able case. But with current cards...well, okay.

David: "Although it seemed idle conjecture, flash memory isn't a suitable archiving medium because it's not meant to be as robust as (some) optical media, older magneto-optical media (which in their own way due to obsolescence have become poor archives) hard disks, or say, Kodachrome. Digital atrophy remains real, largely because robustness isn't inherent and must be engineered and secondly it's not being funded. Cheaper to retain multiples and hope one of 'em's good later."

John Willard: "I toss my cards in a shoe box and don't label them as to who would be in the pictures or where the pictures were taken. Just carrying on the tradition."

Leica M in the Pipeline

The new Leica M is now available for preorder from B&H Photo, in black or silver.

The Panasonic GH3 (the company's top Micro 4/3 SLR-style body for video shooters) is now shipping.

Canon has introduced "center pinch" lenscaps in several sizes including the most common ones. A 43mm is $7.99; 52mm is $9.95; and caps for lenses with either 58mm and 67mm filter threads are $10.00 each. Seventy-seven millimeter and 82mm lenscaps are expected in March.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

MarkB: "So on the list of 'new product ideas,' the good folks at Canon have finally gotten waaaay down the list to: ...36. Put IS in 24mm. 37. Mirrorless camera system. 38. Center-pinch lens caps. (And number 39 is 'buy Foveon Inc.'—it's an old list anyhow!)"

Mark: "At one time I thought center pinch superior. No longer. I find them just as hard to grasp. As for the new Leica M, excuse my stupidity, but I remember they were coming out with a B&W only camera. Is this it?"

Mike replies: No, the B&W-only camera is the M Monochrom.

A Holiday Photo Puzzle

By Ctein

The evening of December 23rd found me out scouting for Christmas lights. Several days of rain had finally dissipated that afternoon, and it was the first opportunity I'd had this season to add to my portfolio. Coming down out of the hills above San Carlos, my attention was caught by pearly, low-hanging clouds over the Bay Area, and I decided a nighttime panorama had some artistic potential.

I set my Olympus OM-D on its tripod with the fabulous 45mm ƒ/1.8 M. Zuiko lens set to ƒ/4 and exposure times in the 2- to 3-second range at ISO 200. I made two sets of five exposures each, using the camera's built-in 2-second self timer to trigger the exposure. (I've found this so convenient a way to get vibration-free photographs that I don't think I've even touched the cable release I paid good money for in more than a year.)

The next day I pulled one of the photos up on my 27" iMac screen in Adobe Bridge, and right away saw a problem (figure 1). The right side appeared a lot less sharp than the left, and I wasn't even viewing at 100%. Well, Bridge can be a bit weird about rendering at non-1:1 sizes, so I pulled up a full-size view, hoping that this was just rendering cruft. Damn, there really was a problem. You can see this in figures 2 and 3, which are 100%-size crops from the right and left sides of figure 1. (I've posted full-frame, full resolution JPEGs of the photos used in this article at my website for any readers who wish to engage in further pixel-peeping.)

Fig. 1. This is the full frame, a "straight" JPEG rendered from the original camera RAW file.

Fig. 2. This is a section of the right side of figure 1. Click through to see it at 100% original scale.

Fig. 3. The left side of figure 1 is much sharper! (Click to see at 100% scale.)

Maybe it was really in the scene—turbulent air, or fog, or rain? Hoping against hope, I pulled up the photo (figure 4) that was to the right of figure 1. The right-hand part of the scene shown in figures 1 and 2 is centered in this frame and, as the 100% crop in figure 5 shows, atmospheric conditions are just fine. The details are sharp.

All 10 frames showed the same phenomenon; nicely sharp over 75% of the width of the frame and lousy over the remaining 25%. Condensation on the lens or the sensor, maybe? I don't recall any when I was photographing, but, honestly, I wasn't looking.

Fig. 4. Same subject, a few seconds later, with the camera shifted so that what was on the right side of figure 1 is in the center-left of this photograph.

Fig. 5. A 100% enlargement from figure 4. The details that were fuzzy in figure 2 are sharp here, so it's not rain or fog in the air.

Fig. 6. Another full frame photograph, adjacent to figure 1. Details on the far right of this photograph are on the left side of figure 1.

How about camera shake or vibration, either innate or due to some weirdness in the image stabilization system? Shutter recoil can cause only one part of a frame to be blurred, if most of the shaking occurs while most of the frame is blocked by the shutter blades. Seconds-long exposures exclude that possibility—even if there were anomalous vibration when only part of the sensor was exposed, that time span was only milliseconds out of the total exposure. It wouldn't produce a visible effect.

The photo in figure 6 provided another clue. There is a bit of detail in the lower right—some closer-by black tree branches silhouetted against a lit house and street lights—that's also present on the left in figure 1. Looking at a 100% crop from left side of figure 1 (figure 7) it looks to me like the more distant lights are sharper than the closer tree branches. In figure 8, cropped from the right side of figure 6, the closer tree branches appear much sharper to me, while the distant lights are fuzzier.

Fig. 7. A 100% section from the left side of figure 1 shows sharp distant lights and fuzzier closer tree branches.

Fig. 8. The same subject area, from the right side of figure 6, shows fuzzy distant lights and sharp closer tree branches.

If I'm reading the photos correctly (it's kind of hard to pick out these details), that's telling me the plane of sharpest focus is much closer to the camera on the right side of the photograph. Folks like Lloyd Chambers and Joe Holmes have reported this sort of thing in misaligned lenses. Me, I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that an alignment error can cause only one side of the photograph to go out of focus, but I'm not going to argue with those guys.

It looks like something knocked my lens out of kilter and it needs to go into the shop. Except for one puzzlement. None of the rest of the photos I made that night or since have shown this problem. Figure 9 is an example. It's not a perfect match (ƒ/5.6 instead of ƒ/4) but it's close enough. The icicle lights on the eaves look equally good on both sides of the photo (figures 10 and 11). The fine detail on the right might be even slightly crisper than on the left, although that's surely splitting hairs.

Fig. 9. A full-frame photograph made similarly to the earlier figures, but later in the evening. Tripod mount, several second exposure, but ƒ/5.6.

Fig 10. This and figure 11 show 100% sections from the left and right sides of figure 9 looking equally sharp.

Fig. 11.

I made some test photos last week, duplicating the exposure conditions in the problem photographs: Focused on a subject at infinity, made sets of exposures with the target point framed left, center, and right. I repeated this several times and pixel-peeped the results like mad. I can't see a clear pattern. I might be able to convince myself that the left side of the frame is a bit better, on average, than the right. Except when it's not. If that average difference is real, it's subtle. I'd never notice it in practice if I weren't looking terribly hard for it. It's not like the glaring, consistent problem in those panorama photos.

That's what puzzles me. Can a lens be knocked that far out of alignment and then just casually shake itself back into proper position? The camera did go back of the car and got driven around after I photographed the panorama, before I photographed any Christmas lights. Could the vibration have put everything back where it was supposed to be? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm no lens repair expert.

Obviously I haven't had time to send the lens off to a repair service to be checked out (I haven't even gotten a quote, yet). That might...or might not...give me a definitive answer. You know how that goes. In the meantime, what do you folks think? Have you ever seen anything like this, where a lens goes wonky for an entire series of photographs and then goes back to normal? It's sure a new one for me.

Ctein

Note: All the JPEGs were converted from RAW files using my default ACR settings. No massaging; this is what the camera gave me.

Ctein either presents or solves mysteries on Wednesdays on TOP.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Bruce Norikane: "I am really enjoying this thoughtful diagnostic discussion. Although it seems an unlikely cause, have you ruled out the vertical tilt of the camera? The images with the problem appear to be tilted a bit down while the Christmas light shots look like they are tilted up. I would be quite surprised, if this could cause the problem, and you would have probably spotted it in other shots with this camera and lens combination."

Frank Grygier: "Cameras are now complex computer systems. The total automation of the photographic process on a platform of this nature is bound to produce a glitch now and then. As with any computer I would simply re-boot the camera and see what happens."

Olivier: "Oh yes, it happened to me for most part of the summer of 2007 when I was traveling in Austria with my D70 and one lens, the AFS 18–70mm (a fine lens when it works). All of the sudden I got pictures very sharp on the left side, and very out of focus on the right side. Since I had no alternative I defined ths as my new style and actually started playing with it. I was finally disappointed when all went back to normal after I accidentally dropped the lens. It worked flawlessly until now...."

toto: "Perhaps the floating IBIS sensor got skewed out of proper alignment temporarily that night. Rebooting the camera (shutting it off and turning it back on) might have fixed the problem."

John Camp: "I'm thinking you bent over the camera to look at something, and a little stream of warm breath got on the lens, or got your warm hand close to part of a cold lens, and got very very thin condensation on the lens. I'm sure you've had that happen with your glasses, where you get a little condensation that you can easily see through, but can be really annoying."

Oh Yeah?

To the hoary, oft-repeated photo community cliché that "you don't see painters debating which brushes are best" (repeated by many people in many places, so I'm not picking on any one person here), reader D. Hufford submits this as evidence. (Winsor & Newton edges out Robert Simmons and Escoda in the poll, if you're interested.)

Pretty funny. And don't try to tell me guitar players don't care about their guitars....

Joe Bonamassa with his guitar and amp collection

Mike
(Thanks to D. Hufford)

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

rnewman (partial comment): "Probably the only technical subject which gets more painterly discussion is the selection of pigments for a specific use."

S. Chris (partial comment): "I can't help mentioning that as a contractor who used to build houses for a living, I've been privy to hundreds of heated discussions about which tools are best. Try asking a carpenter swinging a Vaughn hammer why he isn't using a Plumb. Just be sure you have room to dodge first."

cfw: "It's all merely a matter of preference. Why is that so hard for some people to wrap their brains around? If I had the money I'd probably have 10 or more current cameras in use, all of similar size and ilk."

Hugh Crawford: "Arguing about brands of brushes? I never hear about that, but get some painters going about Weasel vs. 'Sable' vs. Ferret vs. Ox vs. Goat vs. Boar vs. Polecat vs. Mongoose vs. Badger (neck vs. body) Just don't say 'Camel Hair.' Of course that's nothing compared to witnessing an argument about guitar strings."

Robert Howell: "That's a lot of guitars, but at least he plays them. My sister-in-law took me along to her kids' dentist years ago both to give her sprogs a chance to hobnob with their Uncle Bob and to show me their dentist's collection of rare guitars. Beautiful. All behind glass.

"I have three guitars. A 1930 Regal No. 78 with a small voice that balances well with vocals. Lends itself to old jazz, rag-time, novelty songs. A Gold Tone TG18 for playing ballads—'old chestnuts' my mother called them—has a lovely silvery, bell-like tone. Much more able, much more demanding. The latest is the Republic Highway 49 resonator I mentioned the other day. Pretty much a harp crossed with a horn, perfect for playing with a tuba and bass. Actually I'm just getting to know it. That's it. Anything more than three is a collection to my mind. Don't care to be collector. Don't like what it does to me.

"In contrast with the dentist above witness Thad Daber, 'the Tiger Woods of one-club golf, a peculiar niche of impassioned players who think 14 clubs is 13 too many.' Maybe a little oversteer there but heroic in a paladin sort of way.

"Happy New Year."

Creativity and Equipment

A friend sent me a quote:

"There's no correlation between creativity and equipment ownership. None. Zilch. Nada. Actually, as the artist gets more into his thing, and as he gets more successful, his number of tools tends to go down. He knows what works for him. Expending mental energy on stuff wastes time."

—Hugh MacLeod, from Ignore Everybody

Perhaps. December notwithstanding, I like to think that this site is more about the creativity part and only secondarily about the equipment part, and as you know I've made arguments similar to the one in his middle two sentences ("Actually, as the artist gets more into his thing, and as he gets more successful, his number of tools tends to go down. He knows what works for him") like a broken record.

But no correlation between creativity and equipment? Not so sure. Contrary to that—playing devil's advocate—I'd just note that there are artists who make great works with the wrong equipment or without sufficient craftsmanship, which can interfere with other peoples' enjoyment of their creativity, or actually endanger the creation.

The prototype of this would probably be Leonardo, whose masterpiece "The Last Supper" has been deteriorating approximately since he painted it. Albert Pinkham Ryder also comes to mind, who laid on paint so thick that it can never completely dry, making his paintings very unstable.

Quoting Wikipedia: "Ryder used his materials liberally and without care. His paintings, which he often worked on for ten years or more, were built up of layers of paint and varnish applied on top of each other. He would often paint into wet varnish, or apply a layer of fast-drying paint over a layer of slow-drying paint. The result is that paintings by Ryder remain unstable and become much darker over time; they crack readily, do not fully dry even after decades, and sometimes completely disintegrate. Because of this, and because some Ryder paintings were completed or reworked by others after his death, many Ryder paintings appear very different today than they did when first created. Many of his paintings suffered damage even during Ryder's lifetime, and he tried to restore them in his later years."

Albert Pinkham Ryder, Moonlight Marine, 1908

In photography, the Starn Twins, for one, were notorious for making creations with ephemeral materials that are causing their artworks to self-destruct. The one I remember is a large 3D photo-collage stuck together with transparent tape which was discoloring, turning brittle, and losing its stickiness. Their attitude was that this wasn't their problem, it was a future conservator's problem. (They're now making giant webs or nests of bamboo tied together with bungee cords. These, like Christo and Jeanne-Claude's artworks, might be intended to be impermanent; I don't know.)

Some artists create their works specifically to distintegrate—who's that fellow who makes sculptures with stones out in the woods expecting them to decay beautifully? But I'd say the equipment used for creativity needs to be good enough to express the creator's intent, and robust enough such that the results can last for at least long enough for some other people to enjoy them.

Craftsmanship (and equipment) doesn't "have" to be adequate, of course (and sometimes it's more appropriate when it's what other people think of as being of poor quality), but it's often better if it is. There are photographers whose creativity I have trouble enjoying because their craft or their equipment is or was too poor, or just ill-chosen for the work.

There are many other issues that pertain here, and I'm not claiming to address all the subtleties of this issue in this one little post, of course. But none, zilch, nada? I'm pretty sure that's not true. At root, the correlation between creativity and equipment ownership for photographers is at the other extreme—close to absolute—because without a camera of some sort it's pretty difficult to be called a photographer at all; a decent working definition of "photographer" might be "someone who uses a camera to create something." I've been trying to think of exceptions, but I'm not coming up with any just off the top of my head.

Mike
(Thanks to Eolake Stobblehouse)

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Len Metcalf: "Andy Goldsworthy. Interestingly enough he is often referenced to as a photographer. His work is amazing, and I highly recommend the film about him (Rivers & Tides) to study his creative processes. I show it in my photography masterclass."

Stan B.: "This post brings to mind all those fine art C prints from the '80 and '90s quietly fading into oblivion in gallery/museum drawers and high priced collections."

Dave Jenkins: "Here are two of my favorite quotes relative to this subject—one from Pablo Picasso, one from Orson Welles. 'Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention. It obliges you to make a kind of progress that you can’t even imagine in advance' (Picasso). 'The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.' (Welles)."

noam: "'The Last Supper' always reminds me of this photograph [above] by Adi Nes."

Philip Morgan: "I like Hugh MacLeod's writing, but I think he's both right and wrong when he says's there's no correlation between creativity and equipment ownership. He's right in that if you could possibly statistically sample creative work and equipment used to create that creative output, you'd probably find no correlation. But he's wrong because he uses the wrong analogy. That's because artist and equipment form a system, and the idea of one-way cause and effect is inadequate to describe what happens in a complex system.

"I think what he's trying to say is that as artists mature, their use of tools becomes more focused, or simply more informed and intentional.

"Even my interpretation is a rough fit at best for lot of cases, like Walker Evans' apparently enthusiastic adoption of Polaroid color materials later in his life, or Ansel Adams using more and more medium format because of its lighter weight even though he got higher-quality results from large format sheet film."

Dennis Ng: "It was said that Beethoven got his latest piano from England. Even though he could not hear it any more, he could feel the potential of better equipment (better dynamics, wider range, more strength and...). He wrote the last few sonatas for this future equipment he heard in his inner ear. It would be amiss if one has a principle related to equipment I think. More or less, both can be right. There is no rule here."

Gordon Lewis: "With all due respect Mike, you and Hugh MacLeod are making completely different arguments. He is arguing exactly what he states in the first sentence of your quote: 'There's no correlation between creativity and equipment ownership.' You, on other hand, are arguing that poor choice of materials (I don't know if I'd call paint and tape 'equipment') reduces longevity of artwork. Even if I agree with your argument—and why wouldn't I, given that it's based on empirical evidence?—it still irrelevant to what MacLeod is saying."

Mark Roberts: "My favorite commentary on impermanence and art: 'This sculpture is about transience. As this figure melts, it invites the viewer to contemplate the evanescence of life. This piece speaks of the horror of our own mortality!' This is of course Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes, describing a snowman."

Bernd Reinhardt: "I believe the above statement is absolutely true. There is however a significant corelation between the quality of your art and the joy you get out of your equipment as such, and this is something no review or Internet forum can tell you. Sometimes it is just the way a camera feels that makes you want to use it more. Over the years I have realized for example that I simply do not enjoy using lenses without an aperture ring. I know other lenses can be weather sealed and supposedly you will get used to the little wheel on to of the camera. Not me. I like to turn the aperture ring by feel, and know what my aperture is set at by feel or at most a little glance at my lens. Everything else makes me unhappy and takes me out if the mode of making photographs."

Pentax Lenses

...And speaking of Pentax, B&H is having a sale today of two of the more expensive Pentax lenses, the 16–50mm and 50–135mm, for ~60% off. Have a look....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ted: "Oh boy, I'm in trouble. I just ordered both lenses: the 16–55, and the 50–135. I just blew my entire 2013 budget for photography gear, and the year hasn't even started yet. But you'll get a small cut, so I feel better about it. Can you offer any tips on how to justify this to my better half?"

Mike replies: I don't know your better half, but I'd act properly concerned about the amount you did spend while emphasizing (several times if you can) the amount you saved by buying them today and both at once. Good luck man, hope you make it through in one piece. [g]

Shop Till You Drop Day

Oh boy. We're shopping today.

Thanksgiving—yesterday—is my favorite holiday of the year, not only because of my personal connection to it (as Steve R. mentioned in the comments yesterday) but because it seems like such a simple and useful holiday. You gather with friends or loved ones and have a feast, and hopefully spend at least a few minutes meditating on what you have to be thankful for. Clean. Modest. Continent. You're not required to haul a tree indoors or infect your mind with ditties that will get stuck in your head and drive you crazy. You don't have to suspend disbelief over a confusing welter of nonsensical beliefs and belief-constructs, like what in the world a giant bunny has to do with eggs. Thanksgiving is sensible. It doesn't make demands.

Well, except on the person who's doing the cooking.

The one problem with Thanksgiving is that the concept of a "feast" no longer has much meaning—we feast all the time now, eating whatever we want whenever we want. It's not like we subsist on a paltry gruel for most of the year and cut loose on Thanksgiving. Or maybe I'm just speaking for myself.

Similarly with Black Friday. A special shopping day. Yeah, like we need a special day for that: we shop constantly anyway. It's like serving a feast to people who overeat regularly.

Shut up already and post the links, Johnston
Too much preamble? Sorry. I do go on. (And don't always get with the program.)

Anyway, here are a few great Black Friday deals for photographers:

Canon's superlative S100 shirt-pocket camera for a paltry $229

Best current deal anywhere on the Canon EOS 5D Mark III (with 24–105mm lens)

Nikon D7000 Basic Kit and Deluxe Kit ($500 off or more)

B&H Photo's Six Best Black Friday Photography Bargains

One-Day Only Deals on Memory Cards (this one makes me cranky—I just bought memory cards for Y^e Dragoon, for like twice what these cost. Those high-speed Lexar Professional 800X cards are supposed to be particularly good)

Apple 15" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer (and other computers and accessories)

Hope this helps, and happy shopping! But remember what Tom Jefferson said.

Mike

 

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Suggested links from Kevin Purcell:

Sigma 19mm ƒ/2.8 at B&H Photo / at Amazon, only $149

Sigma 30mm ƒ/2.8 at B&H Photo, only $149

Olympus VF-2 electronic viewfinder, $169 at Amazon

Olympus VF-3 electronic viewfinder, only $99 at Amazon

(Note that TOP doesn't get credited for things you put in your cart and buy later. B&H reopens at sundown Saturday.)

James Sinks: "Personally, the only B&H Black Friday deal that had me reaching for my credit card were the 7200 RPM 4TB drives for $80 off (meaning only about $60–80 more than a top of the line consumer HD should be at this point in its life cycle). I've been holding off on HD purchases since the Thailand floods, and things have been getting tight, so it was a wise purchase."

Jack: "Timely article as I had just received an email from Amazon's Deal of the Day offering a Canon S100 for peanuts. I almost ordered it, but recalled that I should respond through your Amazon link so you could collect $9. Alas, your site told me I shouldn't buy something just because it is cheap. So I didn't. I saved $245, but your advice cost you. Sorry Mike, I will buy you a drink when we meet."

Mike replies: And I don't drink! A fine mess we've gotten ourselves into this time, Stanl...er, Jack. [g]

MJFerron: "I work retail (company is Fortune 500) and I am a lowly Dept. manager for said company. Today was our biggest day of the year. Not arguing about traditional statistics of who makes what and when by the way, just sayin' I was in at 4:00 a.m. and we killed it today. $70,000+ for my dept alone. Only wish I sold cameras instead of refrigerators. :-) I'd have an even better time!"

New Products: COMING SOON!

  The Sony NEX-6 begins shipping mid-week, according to B&H's website. I think this is going to be a killer camera, a less expensive and more modestly balanced version of the excellent and appealing NEX-7, but with the advantages of the lessons Sony's learned from its big brother—trickle-down technology at its most promising. I love the way the bigger NEX handles. Can't tell for sure until they're out, but I wouldn't be suprised at all if this one vaults to the very top of the list of recommendable small cameras—and that would be saying something, these days.

The small-sensor true-pocket-camera niche has been torrid for several years now, with the outstanding Canon series culminating in the current S110 leading the way, closely followed by the third-gen Panasonic, the LX7, with its Leica lens and addictive IQ. The Olympus XZ-1 wasn't as popular (possibly because it overlapped with Olympus's notorious corporate troubles?), but people who used it thought it was just as good. Olympus has moved the next-gen XZ-2 upscale a bit, without leaving the pocketable niche. No word as to when this is due; it was originally scheduled to begin shipping yesterday.

Another trickle-down model that might even improve on some ways (diopter correction, for one) on its older big brother, the Fuji E-X1 is another camera whose arrival is imminent (Nov. 10th) and intensely anticipated. Alas, the little brother lacks the signature switchable EVF/OVF of the wonderful X-Pro1, but it's complete as an alternative to the NEX-6. People love the good looks of the Fuji X cameras, but it's not just skin deep—the control layout is also among the best. Surely the E-X1, available in both silver and black, is even better looking than the other handsome recent Fujis.

Also due to ship imminently is Olympus's Pen Lite, the E-PL5, the higher-spec'd of the two pen cameras. Not only does it sport the sensor and processor from the OM-D E-M5, but it's rumored to be the only Micro 4/3 camera with no low-pass (anti-aliasing) filter. That's making heads turn.

Mentioned here just yesterday, the new Canon EF 35mm ƒ/2 IS USM joins its image-stabilized 24mm and 28mm brethren. Targeted mainly toward video users, there's a cadre of still shooters who will also like these options. It's true that the days of high value "mass market" basic primes are gone—these are high-priced lenses—but the counterbalancing advantage is that the lenses can now be made to a higher standard; cost cutting is no longer so important for market success.

Also newly available for pre-order is the 24–70mm ƒ/4 IS USM zoom. Although intended as the "kit lens" (if you can call such premium equipment "kits") for the new EOS 6D, the new lens will also likely be an excellent all-rounder for any of the 5D series cameras as well.

The forthcoming Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm ƒ/4G ED VR telephoto zoom is also a useful utilitarian lens for many full-frame shooters. According to assurances it will be a very high-quality lens, but with a useful balance of size, price, weight and maximum aperture for many shooters to whom the ƒ/2.8 pro version is overkill.

The Canon 6D is also available for pre-order. Although it's not due until a little more than a month from now, it should ship in time for Christmas. The sleek and elegant 6D just reeks of design that's been evolved and refined over multiple generations. A less expensive offering to replace the outgoing 5D Mark II, the 6D will counterbalance the rising price of the 5D series cameras for full-frame shooters. Another thing this implies is that, like many of the other cameras in this post, it will be a sensible "trickle-down" model incoporating many of the lessons learned from its more cutting-edge siblings.

Probably the quirkiest product here, the diminutive Sony RX1 is also the furthest off on the horizon, not being due to ship until mid-December. You can get in line now by pre-ordering, which might be wise if you want one—while we can't imagine these will sell by the bushel (the price is high), supply will probably also be severely limited at first. The full-frame Rx1 is tiny, but will have a premium captive lens and a very high pixel count. It will be unique in the marketplace when it gets here, and thus not easy to place in context. It looks suspiciously like a labor of love on the part of somebody in power at Sony.

We love "thinking different," however. The more variety in the marketplace, the more photographers who will be well served by something. And that's a good thing.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stephen F Faust: "I think Sony really misjudged their target audience with the RX1 by not including an integrated viewfinder—even an electronic one would have put it on my lust list and probably got me to dump my Fuji X100 just in time for Christmas. Otherwise it hits ALL the right marks for me—full frame sensor, fast, high-quality 35mm lens, compact chassis. But no viewfinder = no sale. Guess I'll stick with my well-loved X100 and save myself $2800. Maybe next time, Sony."

Mike replies: There I have to disagree with you, and pretty strongly. Surely offering the choice of the FDA-V1K optical viewfinder and the FDA-EV1MK electronic viewfinder—and the ability to either choose which one you prefer or interchange them—was an "integral" part of the design brief of the camera from the very start. I've used Zeiss optical add-on viewfinders, and they are really glorious. Also probably really pricey, because they are essentially little lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA-V1K cost $500 all by itself.

JonA: "Boy it sure is good I don't have money to spend with all these great cameras and lenses out there. On the other hand, I like things simple and there is just way too much choice out there. A glut of options but so many how would you pick one?"

Bambang Indrayoto: "The beauty of RX-1 is that I do not need to buy a single lens...."

Lensrentals Rocks

I mentioned that I "ordered" the big honker D800E and 35mm ƒ/1.4 from Lensrentals.com last night—due here on Wednesday for a five-day stay.

But in case you're not aware, Lensrentals.com is simply one of the best photography sites on the Internet—even if you never rent anything. Take a look at this recent post as an example—just fascinating, and it is information you will get nowhere else. At least nowhere else that I know of. As a former photo magazine editor, I can attest that the lack of this very class of information was always one of the real headaches of creating accurate and factual equipment reviews—even the biggest magazines didn't order multiple copies of every piece of equipment under test to take sample variation into account.

Highly recommended for your bookmarks.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rob L: "I love Lensrentals—but admittedly, I'm more spoiled than most, as I live less than five minutes from their door. Funny how renting, or just pricing a rental, of a new 'must have' camera or lens can make you reevaluate it's purchase. If you find the rental price is too much, then you likely aren't that serious about it the first place. They've cured me of my NEX fixation, justified my choice to get a then-new D7000 vs. a refurbed D90, and knowing I could always rent that tilt-shift 24mm(that I've never rented) instead of buying it makes my marriage happier."

MM: "Another great thing about the lensrentals.com blog (besides Roger's entertaining writing) is that they provide unparallelled looks at what is often the most important aspect of 'lens performance': not sharpness, but how well the lens holds up. This page on various lenses' repair data from January to July, 2012 is pretty interesting, for example, and they do a lot a lot of teardowns of expensive lenses that you won't find anywhere else (maybe it's geeky, but I found the dissection of the $2300 Canon 24–70mm II weirdly fascinating)."

Diopters for the Fuji X-Pro1

Several readers have mentioned the Fuji X-Pro1's lack of built-in diopter correction. A commenter named peter [sic—I always reproduce commenter names just as they come in] mentioned this morning that Nikon FM-style diopters fit the Fuji's eyepiece. That's fortunate, because those are the most common aftermarket diopters (well, they're not aftermarket, but they might as well be), and they're widely available.

At B&H Photo, they'll be labeled "Diopter for FM3A, FM2, FM, FE2, FE & FA" and they cost $21.95 each. Admittedly, that doesn't help if you don't know what diopter you need, but maybe your optician could help you there. Or perhaps you have another camera on which the diopter correction dial or slider is marked with actual values.

No diopters possible with the Agfa Super Isolette. Photo by alf sigaro.

I need a –2 diopter and I like to use old cameras from time to time, so I'm very sensitive to the diopter issue. The biggest problem with add-on diopters is not the need to use them while the camera's still current, but rather the headache of finding them for older, discontinued cameras that have dedicated or proprietary eyepieces. Try finding a –2 diopter for a Spotmatic, for instance. In one case, I got rid of a beautiful old camera—an Agfa Super Isolette—because I really needed a diopter for it. I could have epoxied a plastic-framed diopter over the eyepiece easily enough, but in the end I decided I just didn't want to be responsible for vandalizing such a beautiful old camera in that way. I sold it on instead.

Incidentally, the Agfa Super Isolette, also called the Ansco Super Speedex (same camera, different marketing) is an awesomely overbuilt German mechanical camera capable of wonderful results. If you have young eyes and happen to have lusted after the Fuji GF670 (also called the Voigtländer Bessa III 667—same camera, different marketing), the Super Isolette is a great alternative for one-quarter to one-eighth the price. It's an easy camera to learn to use. (I'd buy mine from Jurgen Kreckl at Certo6.com—in fact, I did.)

To bring this post full circle, I believe the Fuji GF670 also accepts Nikon FM-style diopters...although you shouldn't take my word for that.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Doug: "Some technical notes on dioptric correction lenses.

"Nikon, like Canon and maybe other manufacturers, labels their correction lenses by the total effect when mounted on a camera with the standard –1 diopter viewfinder, so a '–2' lens has an additional –1. There is no '–1' correction lens, because that'd be plain glass. There is, however, a '0' (Nikon seems to call it 'neutral') correction lens that has a +1 correction.

"Dioptric numbers for viewfinders are straightforward. They determine the apparent distance (for eye-focusing) of the viewscreen. They're numbered in –1/meters.

0/neutral: infinity
–0.5: 2 meters
–1 (standard viewfinder): 1 meter
–2: 1/2 meter
–3: 1/3 meter
+anything: Buzz Lightyear territory (infinity and beyond)

Jim Gamblin: "B&H has the Fuji diopters for $14.95. also Voigtlander diopters will worko on the Fuji X-Pro1, maybe a little higher priced. [Stephen Gandy sells those—thanks to Bill Lewis for that. —Ed.] Look for 19mm thread. Unlike the Nikon diopters, buy the others to match your perscription. After putting a +2 (just like my reading glasses) on my X-Pro1 it felt like a new camera—worth the price and effort."

JonA: "You need to keep quiet about the Agfa cameras! Keeps the prices down while most people go for the famous-named Zeiss and Voigtlaender ones and they therefore keep the prices high on those. I like square format and Tessar lenses so I've been figuring I'd buy an Agfa Super Isolette from certo6 whenever I had the money to spend. (If you wait until you have the money to spend you'll never have it or you'll have already spent it on something else)."

John Robison: "I'm surprised modern, expensive cameras don't all have built in diopter correction. Of course if you have more than a minor astigmatism correction then it probably would not work very well. I have found that as I've aged it is harder to find the exact correction for my film SLR. I still prefer manual focus but my focus error rate is increasing."

Mike replies: Me too, and mine too. I'm smack in the middle of middle age (making me middle-middle-aged), and I guess autofocus was made for folks of my (our?) vintage.

Ctein replies: If you're using a rangefinder camera with superimposed-image focusing, it's important to correct your vision for both astigmatism and focus. If you have astigmatism and you do not correct for it with glasses or a prescription eyepiece, you will get an erroneous focus. Read my column (and the comments) on this. A simple diopter correction will not solve the problem.

What Does Your Photography Cost You?

By Ctein

Last week, Ken Wajda wrote an intriguing and thoughtful comment that read, in part, "It seems people think digital is less expensive than film, when I have film cameras that rarely need to be replaced, and digital photographers are spending thousands of dollars every year or two on upgrades." It got me to thinking, because it struck me as simultaneously very right, and wrong.

Not that this should be any sort of determinant of what kind of photographs you make. The worst imaginable reason I can think of for choosing to do a certain kind of photography is because it saves you money. For God's sake, if that's your motivation go find a hobby you like better!

Just to be clear, in this column I'm talking solely about cold, hard cash. Convenience, workflow, aesthetics, and the value of your time will not enter into this discussion. It's just about the bucks. With that said, it's certainly true that photographers frequently underestimate the cost of digital photography. A fair percentage of them think the photographs are effectively free once they've bought the equipment. As I've said before, that's not the case. When all incremental and incidental expenses are taken into account, digital photographs are a lot cheaper than film, running maybe 10% of the cost, but they're definitely not free. Especially not when you consider that folks tend to make more digital photographs than film photographs under the same circumstances. So, plus one point for Ken on that perceptive observation.

But I have to take the point back off for the notion that digital photographers are spending anywhere near that much on upgrades. The implication of Ken's remark is that an expenditure of oh, say, $1500 a year is representative of what digital photographers spend on upgrades. A few are, but is it in any way representative? Not really.

Only a small fraction of serious digital photographers (which is a very small fraction of all digital photographers) are spending several thousands of dollars on a camera body. Heck, there aren't even that many camera bodies that cost that much. Of the photographers that do buy them, the majority are not upgrading them every year or so.

A casual glance at the demographics suggests that $500–$1000 would be a lot more realistic for the serious (or semi-serious) photographer. Even that's probably high, but I'm willing to err on the side of conservatism for the sake of discussion.

So, what does it cost to be a film photographer? Well, that depends awfully heavily on what kind of film photographer you are: 35mm? Medium format? Black-and-white? Color? Let's talk color, since that's what the majority of photographers do.

These days, E-6 runs about 50 cents per 35mm frame for film and processing, about twice that for medium format.

C-41's about a third cheaper, but you need a proof sheet, at a minimum. If you get 4x6-inch prints thrown in with the processing, it's not a lot different from E-6.

(I know that some of you manage to spend a lot less—or a lot more—per frame of film. I'm discussing typical numbers for film use, just as I did for digital expenditures. Fair is fair.)

Okay, then, those digital camera upgrades equate to 500–2000 frames of film a year. That's not a lot. As a medium format photographer, I averaged well under 2000 frames a year, and most people I knew thought that was a remarkably small number.

The reality of it is that, on the whole, digital photography does turn out to be less expensive than film photography, although it's not close to being free. The big difference is that film photographers fritter away their money frame by frame while digital photographers blow it all in great chunks. But when you add up the dollars, year after year, most digital shooters are indeed saving money.

You might find it educational to run a cost analysis for your own photography. The numbers above may be typical, but things are going to be a lot different if you're print vs. slide (or monitor) oriented. Also, they'll be different if you send your printing/processing out to a lab vs. doing it all yourself or if you work primarily in B&W vs. color. It's all about usage patterns.

See if you can list every single place where you spend money on photography, of whatever sort you do. You might be surprised at what you uncover. At the least, it will make you think about where your bucks are going, and frequently that results in the realization that there are changes you can make to your buying or work habits that will save you money.

And, hey, if you can have the same amount of fun for less money, that's a major win!

Ctein

Ctein's accountings of things like accounting appear on TOP on Wednesdays, at no cost to you.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Colin Work: "I think the cost factor is changing over time. My first DSLR (2002) cost £3000. I justified that as it was pretty close to what I spent on film the previous year. I figured that the camera would pay for itself in a year...unfortunately a much better model appeared within six months. That year was definitely a loss on the film-digital balance sheet. But coming up to date, the compulsion to upgrade has greatly reduced—the perceived benefit of upgrading has diminished—or, put another way, most modern DSLRs are 'good enough' for most purposes. I recently replaced an original 5D with a 5DIII after five years; and its hard to see any reason why the new camera won't do for a further five years. You could argue I've had one break even year and four free years."

Philip Storry: "A digital camera can't be cheaper if you're going to include the ~£300 to £1000 of computing hardware you're inevitably going to have. Plus the software for editing. (Does anyone actually use the manufacturer's provided software? Anybody? Firmware updates don't count, by the way—I mean to process photos!) And then there's the possibility of backup software/hardware. Or even cloud services, which might bring an annual subscription into the frame.... And lastly, most importantly, there's the issue of the cost in time, rather than money.

"I still haven't learnt to take as few photos as I should be doing. This is because I can fit ~190 photos on one memory card, and I have five cards. Sure, I'm not paying by the frame—and I'm also not limited to processing in chunks of 12/24/36.  Which feels great, because I'm free to just take photos without restrictions or repeating media costs.

"But boy, do I have some crap in my archives. I really need to get in there and weed.... Digital photography is addictive like that. It seems cheap, and it's certainly convenient. In fact, almost all the cost goes towards providing that incredible convenience. I think we just need to accept that, having paid for that convenience, we could probably concentrate on taking fewer, better photos.

"(We? Sorry. I meant 'I.' I apologise for tarring everyone with the same brush!)

"Sure, use Drive Mode to capture that all-important moment. But why not just only grab that moment when transferring to the computer for editing? Do I really need the other ones? Realising that Digital photography was very expensive was bad enough for me, but it was made much worse when I then realised I kept trying to justify the expense by taking—and therefore processing—more photos than I really needed to...."

Paulo Mendes: "I have been photographing since 1977 and I have kept very good records of expenditures, etc. Here are my results:

Body / Number Photographs / Price(camera+film) per neg(€) / life span(years)

Nikon FM - 5730 - 0.36 - 25
Nikon F801 - 7000 - 0.38 - 16
Nikon F100 - 3050 - 0.73 - 4
Toyo VX-125 - 500 - 6.52 - 9
Canon EOS 5D - 34800 - 0.10 - 7 (and counting)

"Notes: prices are current (compensated for inflation); price per neg in film is an average for B&W, slide and C-41 (too much work to separate them, but I do know how many from each type); on the Canon, 400€ were added to the price to account for backup hard drives and flash cards.

"OH! and I really regretted buying the F100 so close to my digital revolution...sigh!

"In my case digital clearly wins."

Don Risi: "I have to admit that digital photography is as, possibly more, expensive than film photography, but in my case, at least, not entirely for the reasons Ctein listed. For me, the reason has to do not with upgraded gear, but with additional gear (some of which is used gear). I have increased the amount of photo gear I own probably fivefold since going digital in 2004. I have always believed it necessary to have two bodies, and since my brain can hardly handle learning to use one, having two different bodies is impossible, so I have two identical bodies. And they are 2007 vintage. Would I like to have newer, up to date bodies? Sure. Can't afford it. Can't afford a new 400mm lens, much less a new 600mm lens, so I make do with their old, used, manual focus counterparts. I also like to add to my lighting and studio gear. And gadgets. I love gadgets.

"All in all, I've spent more on photo gear in the last eight years that I've been shooting digital than I did during the entire 40 years of shooting film that came before."

Rob (partial comment): "Just as digital photographers tend to make far more exposures than film photographers, I would imagine that they make far more large digital prints as well. It's just so easy to crank out one print after another that its sometimes hard to stop oneself from doing it. Thus, the cost of paper and ink must be taken into consideration."

Andy Kowalczyk: "Additional costs on the film side—scans and maybe a scanner. I think it is fair to say that the 'typical' film shooter still has digital somewhere in their workflow."

Softie: "The cost/benefit math is very different for black and white. Especially if you mix your own chemicals and bulk roll your film, as I used to do (for emulsions offered in bulk, anyway). I calculated that a DSLR, Photoshop, a printer, and a backup drive would only pay for themselves in four years. The main advantage of digital for me is not a cost advantage at all, but that I now dispense with a host of easily lost color filters in various sizes because I use the channel mixer after the fact."

Mark: "I was prepared to argue with you, making the point that used film gear is available for ridiculously low prices. But it turns out used DSLRs are also available at fire sale prices. You can pick up a lightly-used Nikon D40 with kit lens for just a couple hundred bucks on Craigslist. I guess it's not economics that keeps me shooting film."

Semilog: "I recently put together a portfolio, which involved review of more than 25,000 archived images going back 20+ years. Most were 135 images taken on Nikon and Leica M gear. A minor fraction was medium format. I was stunned to discover that over half of the images in the final cut were digital, and of those more than half were taken with the X-Pro1. Not one MF image made the cut. Cost per frame is not relevant. Number of portfolio images is highly relevant. The X-Pro1 is the best investment in gear I've ever made, by far. But that will not stop me from shooting the Leicas and black-and-white film, because I'm an irrational bastahd."

Photographers in the Park

Dennis A. Mook, Bison, Hayden Valley, Yellowstone
National Park (Nikon D800E)

By Dennis Mook

I shoot pictures for stock, and not long ago my wife and I went on a photographing expedition in the West.

Because it is of interest to me, I made conscious observations as to what types and brands of photo gear were being used by others in the parks. We toured the Tetons and Yellowstone for six and a half days. I wanted to see if assertions that smart phones are replacing traditional cameras would be borne out there.

Here are my observations of over a thousand individuals with whom I crossed paths in the parks. My figures are of course anecdotal and not scientific in nature.

• Many more individuals were using high quality DSLRs than I expected. I would estimate 35% of those I observed. (By the way, most of the tourists I observed were Japanese, about a 50-50 ratio of  younger to older.)
• For every seven Canon DSLRs I saw, I saw three Nikon DSLRs; I did see one Sony DSLR; I did not see any Pentax or other brands of DSLR.
• I observed only one person with a medium-format DSLR.
• Of the 65% who were using non-DSLRs, 99% were using point and shoot digital cameras; I was able to identify two film SLRs.
• I observed very few photographing with smart phones.
• Of the maybe 10 individuals who were using smart phones for photography, all but two were young (18–24) Japanese females. The others were a young Japanese male and a middle-aged white woman of unknown nationality.
• I saw one person using an iPad, a woman of about 30.
• The number of tripods in use amazed me! I would say about 35 to 40% of the DSLR users used tripods.
• There seemed to be almost as many point and shoot cameras with EVFs as there were without; however, most people were not using the EVFs but were holding the cameras out in front of them. Most of the cameras with EVFs appeared to be in the superzoom category.
• A lot of people have spent a lot of money on long lenses. There were a good number of non-tourist photographers lined up with cameras on tripods sporting big glass, looking for wildlife.

My conclusions are:

1. People who come to national parks seem to bring cameras to adequately record their travels rather than submit to the limitations of smart phones.

2. People traveling to visit national parks evidently don't hesitate to spend their money on higher quality cameras rather than bring low-end point and shoots.

3. A lot more people use tripods than I would have imagined.

Dennis

[Ed. Note: Dennis tells me that the reason why the lower half of the bison with the malevolent stare is darker is because it was wet—he'd just forded the Yellowstone river. I think he's obviously considering wading back across again in order to subtract one from the world's supply of photographers.]

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stephen Best: "I'm currently on extended holiday in Italy (posting from Otranto on my iPhone) and am amazed at the number of people with big black DSLRs and taking pictures of everything. (I've actually shot very little but have some ideas for a future project or two...but maybe am just being lazy.) Lots of iPhones being used too. I guess for many photography and travel are synonymous."

Taran: "Thanks for the article. It's great to see I am not alone in peeping at gear on vacation. I always like to ask the question: 'Is that photographer having more fun than me?' If the answer is yes, I really check out his/her kit. Sad, but true."

John Camp: "The last big story I covered as a newspaper reporter was the Yellowstone fire of 1988. I had a photographer with me. At one point, the two of us were driving between fire access points, and we saw a group of seven or eight men in a field, gathered in a circle, a bit hunched over at the head and shoulders, like a football huddle—but they were moving, slowly, this way and that, wandering across the field. It looked so odd that we stopped to see what the heck was going on, and it turned out that they all had video cameras, and had gathered around and were filming a porcupine."

Jim: "In January, I was one of about 17 people with tripods at Zambriski Point in Death Valley at dawn. I would guess there were two people without cameras or tripods. I think all cameras were high end DSLRs. I got a nice, but not very unique photo! Perhaps I should have taken photographs of them!"

Richard Sintchak: "I just went through the Tetons and Yellowstone over 5–6 days this last June with my 10-year-old son and 72-year-old father. Carried my Rolleiflex 'triple-set': a 1960s Rolleiwide, a 3.5E Planar, and a Tele-Rolleiflex (all three fit like perfect triplets in my LowePro Orion belt pack), and shot all B&W. Reading this gave me pause to think back...I do not remember seeing a single photographer. I'm sure there we people around me shooting like mad. I honestly can barely remember noticing any other cameras let alone notice what they were carrying. I'm not saying this to sound haughty, I really do not remember."

Mike replies: Obviously that's because, by your standards, there were no other photographers. [g]

Do You Think Full Frame Makes Sense for Mirrorless?

N/t.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

How to Love a Camera

All of us crusty old club members natter on around here, but every now and then I think I should write more posts for beginner and intermediate photographers (after all, being a beginner is a great advantage in photography—you have fresh ideas, and you haven't yet learned a) all the things you're supposed to not be able to do, or b) how to play the same tricks over and over. But all that's another post).

So here's my answer to the question "How do you learn to love a camera?" The answer is: Get to grips with it.

There are two main ways you do that. One is by learning it. That means understanding all the controls and settings, and practicing camera-handling. The other is by using it for real work: meaning, spending a lot of time taking a lot of pictures in situations where the camera is not the important thing, the pictures are the important thing.

It's become harder and harder to learn all of a camera's settings. When I was young, I didn't allow other people to use or even touch my camera because I was afraid somebody would twiddle the ASA (ISO) dial and I wouldn't realize it until I'd wasted some film—and missed some pictures. One of the things I liked about the Leica (I used the M6 and the M4) was that there was such a limited number of camera controls. You always knew where you stood with it. Not so these days, of course. Ctein's just gotten a new digital camera, one I know too, and for the past several days we've been having an animated private email exchange about how to set it up; there are many, many muliples of six controls on the thing. I think it's fair to say that we both have a ways to go yet.

Still, you've got to do it. A camera you can't control is one that will frustrate you, and a camera that frustrates you is one you won't love.

Camera handling is a specific set of skills that everyone needs to work on. Work out the way you personally hold the camera and work the controls. You should always hold it the same way in similar situations; your hands should be able to immediately find the controls you need most often. That takes work. I'm a big fan of "dry practice" every single day, because I believe that presenting your mind with problems helps your mind assimilate skills. Studies have proved that when learning languages, one hour a day seven days a week is far more effective than seven hours a day once a week. It's the same with camera handling: ten minutes a night in your living room is more valuable than an hour of practice on a Sunday. In these days when exposures cost nothing, just setting yourself the task of taking a certain number of exposures every day works too, but it only counts if you're doing it mindfully and working to set your camera-handling habits.

The best way to learn to love a camera is to use it for something important to you, and that usually means a project. No thoughts on what the project should be (again, that's a different post), but think flexibly. Mark Power, one of my teachers, made this crucial observation years ago, and I still think he's bang on: he said that he learned to ignore students griping and bellyaching, because they only gripe and bellyache when they're not engaged in their work. So his advice whenever anyone was complaining was to encourage them to work harder.

 

One of the cameras I loved best was a Contax 139Q. It was nothing special, but it was the only camera I had all the way through photography school, so I knew it well and used it constantly. Photo courtesy contax139.info.

So, to sum up:

• To learn to love a camera, get to grips with it.
• The way to do that is to learn it and use it.

Here are a couple of additional tips for getting a camera to love, but these are low-level tips, far below the above two points explained above.

—Try to use only one, or one model (a main camera and a backup). When you have a go-to camera that you use for everything or most things, it becomes a "friend." I realize that a lot of people like to own multiple cameras and amuse themselves by switching around from one to another, and that's fine, but it's by definition dilettantish, and will prevent you from "bonding" with any one trusty tool.

—Try to start out with what you really want and really like. This often means sacrificing when it comes to expense, and spending more than is easy. But it can mean the opposite, too—I've known guys (er, and I am one) who own big fancy hyper-researched rigs yet who, when pressed, will admit that they most love using a more modest but more comfortable camera, or an older fave, rather than their big rigs.

—Accept workarounds. No camera has every little thing you yourself would choose to include or exclude. Every camera has its foibles and shortfalls. Don't moan about this—just learn to work with what you have. Hell, workarounds can even be fun, and were a point of pride with photographers as venerated as Edward Weston and Alfred Stieglitz, both of whom used old cameras that required some accomodation to use. If Stieglitz could use a camera with saggy bellows that had to be held up during exposure with a loop of string, you can learn to deal with a button in the wrong place or the lack of a feature you liked on your previous camera.

—Ignore what other people think of your camera, or think of you for using it. It's not a contest. This is easy to forget online, in the "social" world of comparing toys. But you can do great work with a "good enough" camera.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured [partial] Comment by Carlo Santin: "I think a lot of people dump a camera before they are truly familiar with it."

Featured Comment by Craig Arnold: "It rather depends on which of two related hobbies/interests/activities one is engaged in at the time: 1. Photography as art, which is all about the images. Your advice pertains mostly to this hobby. And here in fact almost any camera will do, as becomes obvious when one looks at the cameras used by the great historical and modern photographers. 2. Cameras as gadgets; this is about collecting, measuring, analysing, etc. The fact that they can be used to make photographs is an almost irrelevant side effect, as becomes obvious when one looks at the galleries of most camera experts. There's nothing wrong with enjoying both activities of course, and it's easy to become expert in #2, whilst being devilishly hard to be anything more than average at #1."

Featured Comment by Mahn England: "I now have a Sony RX-100 in addition to my DSLR. I have until now been monolingual speaking only Canonese. I have had to learn another tongue. My brain can't cope with this. I now find that I speak a sort of pigeon point and shoot with a DSLR accent. I hope it settles down so that I can start taking photos again."

The Canon EOS-M: Mike's View

I think that as time goes by, I'm getting to be less a camera reviewer and more of a typical camera user.

When you're a typical camera user ("TCU," just so I don't have to type it out each time), you have all sorts of luxuries that a reviewer doesn't have. The one I have long envied the most is this: the TCU only has to master one camera. One and done. What a luxury!

Back when I wrote reviews for magazines as part of making a living, my self-imposed standard was pretty steep: I forced myself to use the camera under review for "real" work—the stuff I was doing for myself, and as art—for a full three months. I reasoned that that was the only way I was really going to give every camera I reviewed a truly fair shake.

I don't do that any more. And the practice had one big obvious disadvantage: it tended to fracture and fragment my work into "this camera, that camera" categories. Even now, I look back on old pictures and the first thing I remember is the camera I shot it with. When you're young and gung-ho, reviewing is a formalized species of fun. Now I'm getting to be a graybeard, and the ins and outs of digital devices don't delight me. It's merely a chore to learn a new interface and get up to speed on all the features of cameras that have way too many features.

Another luxury of the TCU is dismissiveness. And it's a luxury, make no mistake. If you invest in a Leica and get all into the lore and the history and the technical minutiae of Leicas—a hobby in and of itself—you can dismiss all other cameras entirely if you want to. Many TCUs do this, not just Leicaphiles.

A reviewer, on the other hand, has to remember that the audience consists of Canon people and Leica people and Nikon people—and Samsung and Ricoh users and film users and so on. Every camera and every brand has its owners who are on board with it, its fans who are involved with it, its aficionados who care about it. It's difficult to dismiss any brand or camera type without offending somebody, somewhere.

There are a couple of brands I actively dislike—twice burned, and all that—but I know people who love each of them. And who do good work with them. So even if, as a reviewer, I'm going to quietly ignore an odd brand or two I don't happen to like, I still have to tread carefully and be respectful about it. Not so the TCU, who can diss everything he doesn't use with a wave of the hand if he wants to.

Finally, a TCU gets to stop shopping. Another wonderful luxury. You shop a while, make your decision, buy something, and then that's it for three years, or five, or whatever. It's like the way most people buy a car: the average duration of the shopping period is eight months to a year, but once you've got the shiny car you chose in your driveway or garage, you don't keep taking test drives. A reviewer's job, by contrast, never reaches a natural end-point.

All about the glass
So here's why I'm feeling more like a TCU than a reviewer when it comes to the EOS-M: the center of the equipment side of the hobby of photography for me is lenses. I love lenses.

And, like many others, I'm very pleased and approving of Canon's decision to build a 22mm ƒ/2 lens to provide as the basic lens for its mirrorless system. I've lamented the dearth of 35mm-equivalent medium-speed lenses literally for years, and I think this was a splendid decision on Canon's part. It gives the whole system a basic lens of the perfect spec. Really, if I had to—the old desert island paradigm—I could get along OK with this lens alone. (I really need a short tele too, but I could wait. It'll be along.)

The 22mm increases my admiration of Canon, which has provided some exciting new options lately for prime lens fans: the IS WAs and especially the 40mm pancake for full frame. Big pat on the back to Canon.

But—and it's a big "but"—it's this same love of lenses that makes me feel like a TCU who's done with his shopping and is ready to dismiss the also-rans: all things considered, I have to say that Micro 4/3 has scratched the itch of my lens enthusiasm in a very satisfying way. I count 32 lenses currently available for Micro 4/3, from no fewer than four different manufacturers (Olympus, Panasonic/Leica, Sigma, and Voigtländer/Cosina). This includes some really tasty optics, including a generous selection of primes as well as some legitimately exotic optics: I have in the house at the moment both the manual-focus Voigtländer 25mm ƒ/0.95 and the Leica 25mm ƒ/1.4 DG Summilux. There are budget options and deluxe options, primes and zooms, a macro, a variety of focal lengths—just lots to play with.

Like others, I'm not excited by the EOS-M body. It's neither beautiful like the Fujis, nor retro like the Olympus OM-D, nor sleek like the Pens, nor stoutly no-nonsense like the GX1. It doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder option or IBIS or an articulated viewing screen. It recreates NEX's disadvantage in having a somewhat overly large sensor that will necessitate somewhat awkwardly large lenses (the lovely 22mm is excused from this charge of course). If I had to depart from the 4/3 sensor size, I'd rather go down to a 1" sensor than up to APS-C for my compact camera.

But I can't hold an inaugural body offering against Canon—if the system proves viable at all, there will be more bodies to come.

No, what I can't imagine is simply being without the Micro 4/3 lensmount. It would amount to intolerable deprivation. I just enjoy the lenses of that system too much.

Imagine a set of balance scales. Now place the EOS-M's two lenses on one side and the Micro 4/3 consortium's 32 lenses on the other side. Canon might catch up eventually, but for now it's as unbalanced as that.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "U.S. Camera magazine cover, May, 1962. And the beat goes on...."

Featured Comment by John Camp: "Mike J. said: 'But I can't hold an inaugural body offering against Canon—if the system proves viable at all, there will be more bodies to come.' Yeah, but...the general tenor of the complaints is that this isn't a viable body. You've really made it hard to work toward a viable system if you start with a really crippled body. It makes no sense. It starts the whole project off on the wrong foot.

"I think everybody agrees that the 22mm lens could be quite good (though there seems to be markedly less enthusiasm about the zoom.) But what is it that really attracts people to the 22mm? It's not that it's especially fast, or that it has brilliant construction (though it may.) It's that Canon showed a spark of creativity in making it—exactly what they didn't show with the body. You could not think of a more mundane, run-of-the-mill, off-the-shelf-with-spare-parts body than this one. That does not give me a lot of confidence that the next camera will be a lot better...which means that I wouldn't buy this one. IMHO, you'd really have to be a Cool-Aid sipping Canon fanboy to go for this. Aside from the 22mm, it's got nothin.' (All right, I went too far with the last two lines, but they have a certain resonance, so I'm leaving them.)"

Ken Tanaka Adds: "One more thought here, Mike. You might consider yourself a 'TCU' but I doubt that Canon, Nikon, Sony, et.al. agree. In fact I doubt that any of these companies consider any guys in the over-50 (or perhaps even over 40) check-box group to be TCUs. In fact, I suspect that they consider us already dead. Rather, their 'TCU' is a male in his mid-20s to early 30s entering the acquisitive stage of life. He has 30+ years of brand loyalty ahead of him. Perhaps he travels frequently (+++) or he's newly married and expecting his first child (++++++++).

"Us old guys who can't see the damn high-res LCD screens, who keep insisting on looking through holes in cameras, who seem to spend more time crabbing than snapping and, most importantly, who don't represent any company's future...we're in the peripheral field and fading fast. Sorry for the downer, but that's probably the way it is and probably the way it's been for a long time."

Mike replies: Far be it from me to argue with a friend in public, but I don't quite agree, Ken. That might be the conventional superficial view within marketing departments generally, but in photography the "old guys" (hobbyists/enthusiasts/pros) are a big part of the tail who help wag the dog. Who first asserted that digital could equal film in quality? Who first brought attention to the need for good high ISOs in digital? Who raised a fuss about things like noise in the shadows, and file write speed, and shutter lag, and inkjet print permanence? Who raised public awareness about digicam sensor sizes, and also eventually drove Nikon, for example, into full frame when it had already decided to stick with APS-C? Who were agitating for something like mirrorless years before it got here? Who are driving the push toward better sensor DR right now?

Furthermore, let me just ask you, what's the total value of all the cameras you own? I would be loathe to tote up that number for my own self, but I know I more than offset a heck of a lot of TCUs who own a single cheap digicam.

Granted, I'm prejudiced here, and I myself do have a bit more influence than the average hobbyist. And I'm not saying hobbyists/enthusiasts/pros are all-important or anything like that. But we have our place, and our influence, and the companies respect that, I think. Just because they also go after other promising categories of consumers doesn't mean they have contempt for us.

Featured Comment by Edwin: "My two cents opinion: I am a Sony Alpha user with quite a number of lenses—primes and zooms and reflex covering most sane focal lengths. I jumped on the NEX-5 because there was an adapter to use all Alpha lenses—what a miracle!! You had the best of both worlds! I had the 16mm prime lens kit, and I had mounted the Alpha lenses on the NEX-5. But then realized that the adapter was simply a joke. I have never taken a serious picture with any normal Alpha lens mounted to the NEX-5 via the adapter; it just doesn't make sense at all. First, I lost the IBIS; that rules out any handheld use of any lens longer than 80mm, not to mention the peculiar difficult way of holding a camera without an EVF. Even with the NEX-7, with the more stable way of handholding the camera at eye level and all the focus assistance, it is still very awkward to use any Alpha lens with the adapter. Right now, my NEX system is working as a separate system, with its own stabilized lenses. I could have jumped into any other mirrorless system and started with all the lens collection—it really didn't make any difference.

"On the other hand, I once seriously considered getting the Panasonic GH2, its size and weight the foremost considerations. I took an A55 instead. The frontal dimensions are almost exactly the same, the only difference being the depth, because of the flange distance. Now, that's a sensible way of using all the Alpha glass while enjoying the benefits of mirrorless. The A55 is really a mirrorless using regular DSLR lenses. My advice to any Canon user thinking of using the Canon M with all the big DSLR lenses: just don't."

Featured Comment by Eamon Hickey: "I think the main problem with the EOS-M body is that it's expensive for what it offers. The same camera for $200/$300 less looks perfectly viable to me. (Many others have made this same point.)

"This is pretty common. Micro 4/3 has seen some pretty uninspired bodies (Olympus E-PL1/PL2 and Panasonic GF2/GF3) that were intro'd at relatively high prices then rapidly discounted. They do fine when the price gets low enough.

"This segment (CSC's or MILC's or whatever you want to call them) is a relatively new category, and each manufacturer, in paint-by-numbers fashion, is applying classic Harvard Business School (or maybe Apple Wannabe) theory to pricing them—they are trying to extract very high profit margins from early adopters. (Samsung's pricing on its NX products appears to be an exception to this, but, ironically, the NX lineup is selling like, well, whatever the opposite of hotcakes is. Cold broccoli?)

"And Canon has plenty of time to round their game into shape (the first step will be substantial price cuts on the EOS-M sometime next year). They stumbled like drunken sailors into digital, trailing Sony and Olympus by four years and Nikon by two, but when they sobered up and got serious it was lights out. I don't think one kinda ho-hum, initially overpriced entry-level CSC is going to hurt them much in the long run."