The Online Photographer

Bokeh-Fest: The Famous 5D Mark II Episode

I did my best to tune into the season finale of "House, M.D." last night on Fox, famously shot entirely with Canon 5D Mark IIs. I didn't watch the whole show—"Antiques Roadshow" was on another channel, and I kept changing over to that and forgetting what I was supposed to be watching.

I also know very little about cinematography. But the episode seemed a success. What I saw seemed very atmospheric, with lots of selective focus, and a general sense of not being very sharp, vivid, or saturated—doubtless artistic choices on the part of the director and cinematographer. I did have a weird experience of having my attention shift back and forth from the dramatic action to the visual look of the cinematography; I found I couldn't concentrate on the visuals very well—I kept involuntarily switching over into "seeing" only what was happening in the story.

Anyone else catch it? I'd be interested to hear more informed opinions than mine, both from viewers and from people involved in video production. 

Meanwhile, check out this advertisement for a film called "Butterfly Crush" being screened today and yesterday at the Cannes Film Festival. It says, "Shot on a Canon 5D Mark II, the only HD camera with a 35mm sensor plate [sic], giving brilliant images, and screening in Blu-ray. See what is possible at the indie end of the new technology."

Mike
(Thanks to Andrew Golding)

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Kevin Schoenmakers: "For those—like me—who didn't see it, here is a teaser of the episode that gives an idea of the image quality. I'm impressed."

Featured Comment by Geoff Wittig: "Is it just me?

"I don't find D-SLR video even remotely interesting. I own a Canon 5D-II, and I couldn't even tell you how to use its video function. I bought it for the (still!) image quality. I love the simple beauty of a perfectly captured moment in time rendered as an excellent print. Video just leaves me cold. Sure, I can recognize the artistry some folks have in that direction. I love to watch movies. But it's a completely different art form, one that just doesn't push my buttons like photography does.

"About 20 years ago there was a witty discussion in (I think) the dearly departed Modern Photography magazine about the first generation of affordable video cams recording on VHS tape. It noted that a decent entry level video camera was just about the same price as a decent SLR with flash and two zoom lenses, and mused that the video camera was likely to siphon off SLR sales. As I recall, that is exactly what happened. I believe that (film) SLR sales peaked in the early 1980s and were then hammered by the onslaught of video, until the arrival of DSLR's revived their fortunes.

"Maybe history will repeat; my wife loves shooting little video clips with her tiny Canon digital zoom point 'n' shoot. I really do wonder if video capture will gradually gobble up much of the audience for DSLR type cameras, leaving us once more in a neglected niche with legacy hardware and a glacial rate of improvement."

Featured Comment by J Castro: "I've been a photographer all my life, a pro for a few years decades ago, and I produce film and video for a living. When I first heard about the video capabilities of the new DSLRs I thought it was an absurd idea, just another marketing gimmick, like the camera that shoots when the sitter smiles or the one that can recognize 20 faces and shoot when all of them have their eyes open. Who would use a DSLR, with that form factor, to shoot video, when you can use cameras designed just for video?

"Well, I for one...I have rented a 5D Mark II to shoot a documentary a few weeks ago, and I must say I am so impressed that I am planning to buy one straight away and just for that. The quality is so fabulous it just puts it, and what you shoot with it, in a different league. Selective focus is important, as shallow depth of field, but it's the general aspect of the images what wins me. Closer to traditional 35mm cinematography.

"I have used many different video cameras. The 5D Mark II is cheaper than the cheapest among them and does things impossible to achieve with any of them. It's a bit more difficult to operate than some low-end video cameras, but a much better tool.

"And it seems you can do the same with the  cheaper EOS 550D/Rebel T2i.

"The form factor is no longer an issue, as there are plenty of accessories developed to solve this (Zacuto, etc.) and some companies are even dismantling the mirror box and adapting the body to allow use with traditional cine lenses with Arri PL mount.

"It's just a matter of time before you'll read that some major 'Terminator' or 'Star Wars' type movie is being shot with these. And if it does not happen, it would be because pros do not like to be seen fumbling on amateur toys on a big movie set. Bad for their image!

"Too bad I am a Pentax fan with a large inventory of lenses...maybe I should try an K/Eos adapter, or, who knows, maybe an upcoming Pentax full-frame body will do also video."

Featured Comment by Andre: "Some manufacturers have announced plans to produce video cameras based on their DSLR or EVIL (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens) lens mounts. Those products may end up quashing the DSLR-as-video-camera pro market as they'll retain the same lens and sensor benefits but in a body that's better suited for video.

"That said, I expect the stills/video combo-cams are here to stay for the consumer and prosumer markets.  For people like me who would otherwise be toting around both a DSLR and an HD video camera on our travels, having both capabilities in one piece of equipment is a real boon. I've traded in my old DSLR and camcorder for a Panasonic GH1, and the reduction in weight to lug around is much appreciated. There are a few drawbacks, like having to carry around several ND filters to be able to use wide apertures in bright sunlight for video, but overall it's a big win for me."

Lens News

The new ZeissImages.com offers a lens-specific search feature. Mike likes.

• Leica Camera has revised its best lens, the 35mm ƒ/1.4 ASPH. Summilux-M. It used to be its best lens, anyway...maybe now it's one of its three or four best lenses. Spectacularly good. The new version features a floating group said to improve close-up performance (although I'd never noticed anything wrong with the now-old lens's close-focusing performance) and replaces the god-awful hood of the old lens, which was hard to attach and fell off all the time.

• Is it just me, or is the new feature offered by certain "revised" products chiefly a higher price? Consider the "New AF-S Nikkor 200–400mm ƒ/4G ED VR II." It seems suspiciously similar to the old AF-S Nikkor 200–400mm ƒ/4G ED VR, except it's going to cost a thousand dollars more. The press release explains, "continued refinements and new technologies such as Vibration Reduction (VR) II, Nano Crystal Coat, and optimized autofocus (AF) modes enhance functionality and improve performance." Didn't the old version have VR, Nano Crystal Coat, and AF? I wonder if anybody will actually shoot the now-not-as-good older model and the obviously much better new version side-by-side and try to ascertain whether the enhanced functionality and improved performance are detectable to humans. I think I'd have the "old" one, before they disappear, and keep the price difference in my pocket.

I'm probably just being cynical. I am the same guy who once said "you can never spend too much money on a good lens."

• Instant savings are back for Nikon ('kay, there are some Canon products at that link too) and Canon.

• Finally, there's a cool new forum for Zeiss lens aficionados run by our friend Jorge Torralba. It's called ZeissImages.com and it offers my favorite feature—you can search the database by lens. I know, I'm a nerd, but I like to know what lens I'm looking at when I look at pictures on a sharing site. There's absolutely no reason you need a Zeiss lens to take a good picture, but there is really something very special about a Z[x] series Zeiss on a top-grade full-frame camera. Mmm. Got it bookmarked.

Mike

UPDATE: Perhaps I was being a little too cynical when I wrote the above. Nikonians report that VRII really is superior to VR, which I can believe—my only experience with VR was on this lens, and it was indeed hopeless. I think the overarching point still holds, however—VRII is unlikely to cost $1k per lens more than the unimproved type.

Similarly, Leicaphiles report that the two main differences in the new Summilux-M both correct known problems...or, at least, known criticisms. It seems that focus shift at wide apertures and close focusing distances can be detected at pixel-peeping magnifications with digital files. I've never noticed it with film, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And as usual, the Leica expert Erwin Puts provides the best explanation of the technical issues. Thanks to Rubén Osuna Guerrero for that link. —MJ

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Good Form

To wrap up Saturday's "P*ss Me Off" post, I'll refer you to an article Royce Howland wrote about the entanglement. Royce correctly observes that

Many comments [at NO2's site] contribute to a blizzard of incorrect or inconsistent information masquerading as facts. These sorts of comments demonstrate, in part, why it is a challenge to legitimately protect intellectual property rights in the internet age.

Many (most?) people, including industry professionals such as NO2, apparently don’t understand the law. Probably a certain percentage in fact don’t care whether they understand or not, they’re just going to do whatever they want to do.

...And he goes on to discuss the balancing of the DMCA with Fair Use, which is always going to be a tricky subject.

I just have two more small points to highlight. The first is something one of our commenters said, which is that the public is coming to think that anything that's on the web is free. Don't miss a chance to educate! The fact that it's an uphill battle doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought.

The other person's shoes
But what about the issue from the other way around? As a "content provider," I use other peoples' pictures all the time. The first line of defense from this perspective is that I'm reasonably well versed about the law. That's my first responsibility.

But beyond that, I think the best defense is just to do whatever you can to avoid complaints. If nobody complains, then you don't have a problem. Give credit, ask permission, and inform people when you use their picture.

Beyond that, try to put yourself in other person's shoes: consider the rights owner's interests. Figure out why their picture is on the web and see if you can do them a favor to help further their agenda, whatever it might be. Ninety-nine times out of 100, the best way to do this is just to give a link. It doesn't hurt, and then the rights holder is grateful rather than angry.

And, of course, on the rare occasions that someone does complain, you need to respond appropriately. That's not just the law. It's also good form.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

P*ss Me Off

(Note to our U.K. readers—in the U.S., the phrase "p*ss off" doesn't mean "go away" like it does for you, it means "to make angry" or "to become angry.")

Okay, I said I was going to take the day off today, but some things just pi...er, make me angry.

Let me parse this ridiculous story for you.

Two competing local news organizations in a medium-sized metropolitan market. The first is a print newspaper with a website, the second is website-only.

Local high school is remodeled. Newspaper #1 (N1) sends one of its photographers, who also happens to be a TOP reader, to take a picture of it. He does; N1 publishes the article and picture (in August, 2008); all is well. Because it's work for hire, the rights to the photograph of the high school belong to N1.

At some point, somebody at the high school discovers the picture on the internet, nabs it, and puts it up on the high school's website. Well, it's the high school, right? Everybody likes the high school, everybody likes local kids, everybody's just being neighborly. So, N1 doesn't object. No harm, no foul.

Then, News Organization #2 (NO2) needs a picture of the high school for an unrelated story of its own (in May, 2010). Do they send their own photographer to take a picture of the high school? They do not. Instead, they just go to the high school's website and nab a picture from there, figuring the high school won't mind.

Got that so far? NO2 has unwittingly stolen a picture belonging to its direct competitor, N1, through an unrelated intermediary.

This is a bit much for N1, so its publisher sends a nice, friendly, casual email (I've seen it) to the high school and to NO2, claiming ownership of the photograph and asking both entities to take it down from their respective websites.

The high school complies, and takes the picture down right away.

But get this. Instead of taking N1's picture off its website, NO2 goes to the trouble of publishing a story ridiculing and criticizing N1 for requesting that it take the picture down. As if N1 were being petty and unreasonable.

A few choice absurdities from the comments to NO2's article: "The school website is a government entity. If the gov has it out there for public consumption, it's public domain. Anyone can use it." (What, everyone is free to make up their own internet law now?) "It's a public place and a picture that could have been taken by anyone, anytime." (Right. Good argument: it's not very valuable, therefore it's okay to steal it. If the picture is so easy to take, then why didn't NO2 just go take one?) "[N1] was actually the real OFFENDER and maybe even broke the law. They actually put their own name on the photo which is government property and claimed it as their own private property." (That's a good one: turn the issue inside out. Like the photographer doesn't know his own picture.)

At least one smart commenter figured out that the creator's name—oops, it's an N1 photographer!—is embedded in the file.

Sh...er, stuff happens
Every now and then, I take a snippet of text from one of my own articles and do a Google search on it. Occasionally, I'll turn up what's called a "spam blog"—someone who sets up their own website attempting to sell ads and affiliations and populates it with stolen content. The thing to do in that situation is to contact the offending site's internet service provider (ISP) and file a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Takedown Notice. The ISP will then request that the infringing material be taken down. If it isn't, it can pull the plug on the infringing website.

So the funny part of this story is that N1 could potentially get the plug pulled on its competitor's website—if they really wanted to get strict about it.

Occasionally, too, I'll get a request from a rights holder informing me that I've published their photograph on this site and asking me to take it down. That has only happened twice since 2005—I'm pretty careful about what I use and how—but in both cases I took down the material in dispute immediately. That's what NO2 should have done. It's what any internet content provider should do when challenged over rights, unless it is completely sure of its position.

Oh, and as every internet content provider ought to know: just because you find something on a particular internet site doesn't automatically mean that it originated there, or that the place where you found it necessarily owns the rights to it. People do publish things on the internet that don't belong to them. Imagine that. (And imagine not knowing that.)

Keeping you posted
Inadvertently publishing copyrighted material belonging to your direct competitor would be seen as a huge embarrassment by most news outfits. They'd make amends as quickly as possible and hope as few people as possible took notice of it. They certainly wouldn't want guys like me writing about it.

I'll be following this story next week. We'll see if the Publisher of N1 decides to file a formal Takedown Notice, or if NO2 wakes up, sees the error of its ways, and removes the infringing material voluntarily. If it doesn't, I'll name names. I'll call out the offending news site and its publisher. A news organization that inadvertently steals its direct competitor's property isn't so bad—mistakes happen—but one that subsequently brags about it deserves some bad publicity.

The best thing, of course, would have been for NO2 to send its own photographer to take its own picture for its own story. Then it would own the rights to its own content and nothing would be in dispute.

Mike

UPDATE: "NO2" has now removed the infringing material from its website.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Bahi: "Over here, there's also the idea of taking the p*ss (today, perhaps the most common use of the word) which is what NO2 just did—it's used to describe behaviour so ridiculous or offensive that it could only be interpreted as mockery.

"Getting p*ssed or being p*ssed is the one that causes all the confusion because it's about alcohol over here. It's quite normal to talk about going out on the p*ss, too—same thing.

"Meeting Americans in college was funny for them and for us—not only did they all have big-screen accents and look the wrong way when crossing the road but they kept talking about being 'really p*ssed' in the most unexpected situations and (funniest of all) would make casual references to a body part called the fanny. Fanny as body part is something very different over here—though it's in roughly the same area of the body, over here, a fanny is something a man doesn't have. An American asking where he could buy a fanny pack could instantly silence a room of noisy London students out on the p*ss. Good times…."

Ebay Treasures: The 7-Element Summicron

A 7-element collapsible 50mm Summicron in screwmount currently being offered by Ebay seller "enogaia" of Anzio, Italy*. To collapse the lens, simply turn to unlock and push in. There's a picture of the lens in collapsed position at the
Ebay page (on a Nicca, no less!).

In 1953, Leitz, of West Germany, makers of the Leica camera, introduced the 7-element 50mm Summicron, which went on to become one of the most famous of all camera lenses.

It's not often remembered now, but Leitz was probably responding to Japanese competition: many Korean War combat photographers, led by David Douglas Duncan, had discovered the screwmount lenses made by a resurgent Japanese company called Nippon Kogaku, and it had become all the rage among them to use the impressively sharp Nippon Kogaku lenses on their Leica camera bodies (screwmount made lenses and cameras of the era broadly cross-compatible). We know Nippon Kogaku today, of course, by its later name: Nikon.

The 7-element SOOIC, with narrow air spaces in both of the front two groups and then-state-of-the-art high-refractive-index lanthanum crown glass, was impressively difficult to manufacture and even more impressive in performance, bettering the Summars and Elmars it supplanted by no small margin. It went on to become the first "normal" lens for the M3, a new model that combined a huge viewfinder with the rangefinder patch in the same window and used a proprietary bayonet mount. Modern Photography magazine called the 50mm Summicron the sharpest lens it had ever tested, and the Summicron was the lens that Henri Cartier-Bresson was to use on various cameras for the rest of his life. Although he also carried a 35mm and a 90mm, and experimented occasionally with other lenses (hey, he was a photographer!), the overwhelming majority of his pictures were taken with the collapsible 7-element Summicron.

There were three basic flavors. There was the original collapsible model, a "rigid" model (in a non-collapsible mount), and a Dual-Range (DR) version that allowed for close focusing. (There's a page showing what the DR looks like here.) I've owned several samples of all three at various times. My second collapsible lens, since sold, had been re-coated by a collector at considerable expense (about $1,000), which, oddly enough, reduced the value of the lens, because it was no longer original. (I'm reasonable certain that Cartier-Bresson's 7-element Summicrons were also re-coated, possibly more than once.) The DR Summicrons came in special mounts that allowed close-focusing with clip-on "eyes" that people sometimes lose; a DR without eyes can be an excellent bargain as a user 50mm. The more important thing to know about the DR was that each optical head (the part with the lenses in it) was carefully hand-picked at the Leitz factory as literally the best of the best. To get the performance without the heavy mount, some photographers would take the optical heads from a DR and put them in a rigid lensmount. So when buying a DR, check that the optical head and the focusing mount have the same serial numbers.

Be careful also of fungus. Fungus is not always a creeping blot that looks like lichen—it can also look a lot like dust; if you shine a flashlight through the lens and see lots of fairly evenly distributed and similar "dust" bits that look like tiny eyelash hairs, that's fungus too. Always avoid lenses with fungus: it can be catching, and "infect" your other lenses. Some claim that lenses with fungus can be cleaned, but it's not advisable: it nearly always comes back, meaning, it's difficult to clean an infested lens well enough.

Some of these lenses are well over half a century old now, and have more sample variation than modern lenses do. How can you know if you've got a good one? Simple: buy it and try it. And that's half the fun.

Finally, beware cleaning marks. Seven-element Summicrons are better than Summarits and especially Summars, but the objectives (the outermost element) was made of fairly soft glass, and repeated rubbings with rough cloth (photographers used to clean their lenses with their neckties, back when every male wore one of those) can leave a haze of random tiny, almost microscopic scratches that often don't look too bad but can cut performance markedly. It doesn't help that Leica lenses were sometimes bought by those with OCD problems who tended to "clean" their lenses much too often.

A bonus of all three types, but especially the collapsibles and the DRs, are their delightfully fine and overbuilt metalwork. Things of beauty, to which not even modern Leica lenses can hold a candle.

In use, 7-element Summicrons can have occasional, not always predictable problems with flare, most likely  because of those "air elements," and they are not as good at the two widest apertures as the modern design (which itself dates, I believe, from 1979)—although they were quite a bit better wide open than their predecessors. However, in the "sweet spot" of the aperture range—from ƒ/4 to ƒ/11—they come as close as makes no difference to the modern 50mm Summicron in sharpness and, because of that inimitable way they have with highlight flare, they can have an absolutely lovely way with light.

So, not the easiest thing to find a top-drawer sample of, and a bit more demanding than a modern lens to use; but when they're good, they can be wondrous. 

Mike

*I found this sale via a normal search and have no connection to the seller.

I'll be taking the day off tomorrow. Hope you have a nice weekend! For more on 50mm lenses, see my article "The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt" from 2002.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured [partial] Comment by Eamon Hickey: "Just for the record: Nikon (then Nippon Kogaku—i.e. 'Japan Optical') was not a 'small shop' prior to being 'discovered' by David Douglas Duncan, as Dennis suggests in the comments, except insofar as virtually every Japanese company of any kind was small and crippled after WWII. Nikon was by far and away the biggest and most prestigious Japanese optical firm in the years leading up to the episode with Duncan. At its height in WWII, Nikon had 20 factories, employed tens of thousands of workers, and was easily the largest manufacturer of optical munitions in Japan. Nikon had been formed in 1917 at the behest of the Japanese Navy with the express purpose of providing Japan with its first world-class integrated optical manufacturer (i.e. from raw glassmaking to precision finished optics) and was the beneficiary of huge investments and procurement contracts from the Japanese government. It was easily Japan's leading optical company in all respects from 1917 on, and the first Japanese optical firm to offer advanced optical products that could compete with German, French, and British optics in the international marketplace (binoculars and microscopes, especially, early on.)

"It is definitely true, however, that the Duncan episode is what made the Nikon/Nikkor brand first widely known outside Japan."

Platinum Print Offer Update #1

Platinum/palladium really doesn't lend itself to mass production. Carl reports that the printing of the sale prints is going slowly but surely, with a production of eight or nine prints a day settling in as a workable pace. At this point, the epic first printing session is drawing to a close and Carl will take a short break from printing to begin shipping. The first orders will depart Atelier Weese via Priority Mail early next week.

It looks now that it may take eight weeks from the close of the sale (April 30th) for all the orders to ship, meaning that shipping time would need to be added to that. However, since Carl will be shipping prints as he goes along, in several batches, most prints will arrive well before then, except for orders placed at the very end of the five-day sale period.

Mike

ADDENDUM: Some stats. There were 190 orders, 120 from the U.S. and 70 international.

244 Pt/Pd prints were purchased, and 93 digital prints.

The distribution was:

Pike, 113 Pt/Pd, 41 digital
Motel, 65 Pt/Pd, 29 digital
Rock, 66 Pt/Pd, 23 digital

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Sean Penn Sentenced for Attack on Photographer

Actor Sean Penn was sentenced to three years of probation and 300 hours of community service yesterday for battery and vandalism against photographer Jordan Dawes in an incident that occurred on October 2, 2009, in Brentwood, California. Dawes was filming a story about Paparazzi when Penn "began kicking and punching" him. He says he later required knee surgery as a result of the attack. According to a civil suit filed by Dawes, Penn has threatened to kill him, saying "The next time I see you, you will be in a box."

Penn's lawyer, Richard Hirsch, stated, "Prolonging this matter in the court system would not have been in Mr. Penn's best interests and would have distracted from his charitable commitments, specifically his work in Haiti. Accordingly he has decided to accept the terms and move on."

Sean Penn's imdb.com bio says he is a "powerhouse film performer capable of intensely moving work who has gone from strength to strength during a colorful film career, and who has drawn much media attention for his stormy private life and political viewpoints."

Mike

ADDENDUM: A little more information—Penn pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor vandalism, and the battery charge was dismissed. In addition to the probation, he was assigned 36 hours of anger management therapy by the court and must stay 100 yards away from his victim. A restitution hearing for the photographer's cameras and medical bills is scheduled for July 8th. (Thanks for this to TOP's Legal Editor-at-Large, Anonymous.)

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

'Tuesday Tips' by Alex Garcia

Chicago Tribune ace Alex Garcia is promising he's launched a series of "Tuesday Tips" as of two days ago.

The inaugural effort, "10 Key Traits of Winning Photojournalists," lives up to its billing. Have a look.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

More On Print(er) Sharpness

By Ctein

In my column on January 5th, "How Sharp Is Your Printer? How Sharp Are Your Eyes?", I described a relatively easy and robust way to test how sharp your printer was and how sharp you needed your prints to be. I recommend that readers reread that column and the comments before reading the rest of this one.

One of the questions I got from a couple of readers was whether or not printing at a printer's "magic" resolutions (360 / 720 ppi for Epson printers) would make a difference in the results I got. While I suspected it wouldn't, suspicion is not the same as experimental data. So, this week it was back to generating resolution test pages and pixel peeping.

I generated four more pages to accompany the ones I made for the last article. That provided me with comparison pages at 300, 360, 450, 600, 720, 900, and 1200 ppi. I printed everything out on my Epson R800 printer on Ultra Premium Luster paper at the highest quality settings. Time to start squinting. In the set of four running from 300 through 600 ppi, the results were unequivocal and monotonic; even with the naked eye I could see that each jump in file resolution resulted in a sharper print. Comparing the 360 ppi print to the 300 and 450 ppi prints, I could see single-pixel-scale artifacts in the latter two that didn't appear in the 360 ppi print.

These two illustrations, above and below, show highly magnified sections of the test prints produced as described in the article. From left to right, they're from the 300 ppi, 360 ppi, and 450 ppi files. Observe that there's nothing "magic" about 360 ppi; it's in between the other two in sharpness. the 600, 720 and 900 ppi files show similar results.

As I mentioned last time, I have pathological test targets that can demonstrate that difference. As I also mentioned, it's not relevant to printing real-world images. The 450 ppi print definitely looked sharper than 360 ppi, which looked sharper than 300 ppi, and the improvement in sharpness with each jump in resolution seemed just about right. In the real world, gross resolution trumps single pixel artifacts any day.

(Sidenote: There's no point in looking at intermediate resolutions to these—you'd be unable to see any differences in sharpness with such small resolution changes.)

As for the test prints between 600 and 1200 ppi, the same monotonic relationship held, but now you're down to the pixel-peeping area. prints get minutely sharper with increasing resolution, but I'll never be able to notice it in real life. I'm not convinced there is any improvement, even microscopic, going from 900 to 1200 ppi.

On a purely practical level, it's clear to me that there are folks out there who've missed the (real) forest for the (ideal) trees. They argue that everything should be printed at a magic resolution, ignoring the reality that your photographs don't magically come at those magic numbers. Resampling a photograph that's going to print out it 300 ppi at the size you want up to 360 dpi is not going to make it look visibly better. Resampling a 450 ppi photograph down to 360 ppi will cost you sharpness and fine detail.

Now, all my test photographs were printed out natively through Photoshop. Start bringing third-party RIPs into the picture, and all bets are off; the difference in appearance between a "straight" print and a RIPped print has a lot more to do with the rendering engine than the ppi it is rendered at. If the RIP wants to render at some magic resolution, more power to it. Just understand that the improved quality you see is much more a consequence of how was the data is being massaged for the printer than the resolution it's being output at.

By the way, no, I am not going to compare the various third-party RIPs versus Photoshop. Doesn't interest me. Photoshop works well enough for me. Just so you know. Your mileage may differ.

I think that's it for this subject (barring more intriguing questions that I haven't thought of, of course).

Next week, I hope to be able to revisit the Snow Leopard color management issue and the week (or two) after, an interesting take on the question, "How big can I print this?"

Ctein

Ctein's regular weekly column appears every Thursday morning.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Random Excellence: Henri Huet

The body of an American paratrooper killed in action in the jungle near the Cambodian border is raised up to an evacuation helicopter in War Zone C, Vietnam, in 1966.
(AP Photo/Henri Huet)

Like a snapshot from a nightmare, this. The picture comes from a harrowing retrospective set of picture on boston.com's The Big Picture called "Vietnam, 35 years later." The photographer, Henri Huet (right), son of a French father and a Vietnamese mother, had some five years of life left himself when he took it. He was killed in the same helicopter crash that killed Englishman Larry Burrows of LIFE magazine, American Kent Potter of UPI, and Keisaburo Shimamoto, a Japanese freelancer working for Newsweek, in February of 1971. The site of that crash was rediscovered in 1996 and was excavated by a search team from the US Joint Task Force Full Accounting (JTFFA). A ceremony was held at the Newseum in Washington in April, 2008 to finally inter the scant remains of Henri Huet and the other three photographers.

The set at The Big Picture is grim but fascinating, mixing familiar pictures with unknown and alternate views, including several shots surrounding Eddie Adams's well-known photograph of the execution of Nguyen Van Lem by South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan.

Mike
(Thanks to Jeffrey Goggin)

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Adobe Photoshop Elements for $34.99

Amazon's Gold Box Deal of the Day today (in the U.S. only) is Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 for Mac or PC for $34.99 after mail-in rebate.

Elements has always been a somewhat strange product to me...it's Photoshop with some key features missing, but it's still loaded with complexity and isn't optimized strictly for photographers. It's cheap today, though. A tip: Elements is a nice, inexpensive way to get the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) if your older version of Photoshop doesn't support it.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Workshop Openings

The breathtaking Yosemite High Country. Photo by Steve Kossack.

A few "last remaining places" in workshops offered by TOP contributors or advertisers—

Steve Kossack has one place remaining in his Glacier National Park Workshop, which I hear is spectacular, and two places left in his workshop at the landscape photographers' Mecca, Yosemite National Park. If you'd like a vicarious pleasure, just go read the description of his small-group Yosemite High Country Backpack Expedition and Workshop—I think I'd go along even without a camera. Photography a bonus.

Peter Turnley has a couple of places left in his upcoming New York Street Photography Workshop at the end of this month—May 30th to June 5th. Like Steve's, a small group workshop with lots of personal attention. Peter has guest presenters, too, from his many friends and extensive contacts in the N.Y. photography community. Learn from the master.

And speaking of New York, Carl Weese will be giving a weekend workshop in July at The Center for Alternative Photography called "Platinum Printing with Carl Weese." (Go to the link then scroll down till you see it; there's no direct link.) You'll make your own prints—both traditional and Ziatype—and leave with enough knowledge to continue on your own.

Alain Briot has two upcoming workshops with limited openings: Mono Lake and Eastern Sierra Nevada, two seats left; and Route 66, four seats left. Also sounding mighty tasty is The 2010 Fine Art Digital Summit with Alain Briot, Mac Holbert and Uwe Steinmueller, for which registration opened not too long ago. 

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Humpday Free Puppies

Free puppies! Who can resist?

This is just as an experiment. I'm going to try this once and see how it works. If people like it, maybe we'll do it again.

Here we go: if you have something you don't want that you think other people might be able to use, you can use this post to offer it for giveaway.

It should be something photography-related (at least somehow) and something you think may have some sort of value to others. All items should be "free to a good home." You can ask the recipient to cover shipping if you feel you need to. Up to you.

Please don't advertise items you sell regularly. This is intended for private individuals (readers) only, not for businesses or dealers or any sort of commercial entities.

To post, please describe your item and suggest a way for any interested person to contact you. I would strongly suggest you not list your "naked" email address, which can be found and gobbled up by giant nefarious web-crawling spiderbots. Maybe try this: replace the "at" symbol with the word "valve" and the "dot" symbol (the thing we crusty ancients preposterously refer to as a "period") with the word "mullard," and introduce some random spaces. So if your email address is "topmaven@kmail.com," write "to pmave n valve kma il mullard com." Extra points if you know what a Mullard valve is.

This is just a service to readers...TOP accepts absolutely no responsibility for any resulting transactions or failure of same! Nor for breakdowns of communication nor breakage in the mails! Caveat emptor ("buyer beware") applies. "Seller beware" too, although I don't know the Latin for that.

I'll start...I have:

• a clear eyepiece for a Nikon F3;

• a –2 diopter eyepiece for a Nikon F3;

• a 49mm Tiffen Haze 1 filter;

• a Nikkor H.C. 50mm ƒ/2 lens that's been AI'd and repacked with lubricant and has no coupling prong (the lens looks like this—actually a pretty sweet lens if you have a camera for it);

• a Yashica FX-D Quartz instruction book in only fair condition; and

• a new Leica M camera strap.

If anybody wants any of these items please use the "Email me" link in the right-hand column.

I think I should probably close the comments to this at the end of Humpday (Wednesday). S0—just today.

Hope this works....

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Charges Against Graffiti Photographer Dropped

Conor Risch of pdnpulse.com is reporting that misdemeanor criminal charges against photographer Jonas Lara were dropped at his trial in Los Angeles Tuesday. Lara had been charged with aiding and abetting vandalism in a February 2, 2010 incident during which he photographed three men spraying graffiti on an abandoned building. The charges were reduced to disturbing the peace, which does not result in a criminal record, and Lara agreed to pay $200 restitution to the property owner toward the removal of the graffiti.

The LAPD refused to return Lara's camera equipment to him yesterday despite a court order issued by the trial judge instructing them to do so.

If you'd like to get the photographer's own take on these events, his blog is here (it hasn't been updated as of this writing).

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Is Photographing a Crime Aiding and Abetting?

Jonas Lara is a photographer who was arrested for photographing graffiti [artists/vandals—take your pick] in action. Re the discussion about the case in our comments section, we've heard from a TOP reader who's a California criminal lawyer (he prefers to remain anonymous in this context). He had this to say: "California has a written criminal code, and over a hundred years of appellate court opinions construing that code. Aiding and abetting a crime is one of the first subjects taught in a first year crim law class. Of course media reports of the facts of any given case are almost useless in determining what really happened, but it seems to me that it would be difficult to convict a photographer for taking pictures of a crime. Citizens have no duty to stop a crime or even to report it. Unless he did something to encourage or facilitate the crime, it seems to me that they'd be hard pressed to convict."

Penal Code section 594: 

    (a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:
   (1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.
   (2) Damages.
   (3) Destroys.
   Whenever a person violates this subdivision with respect to real property, vehicles, signs, fixtures, furnishings, or property belonging to any public entity, as defined by Section 811.2 of the Government Code, or the federal government, it shall be a permissive inference that the person neither owned the property nor had the permission of the owner to deface, damage, or destroy the property.
   (b) (1) If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or if the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Our lawyer friend again: "What follows is what one court said about whether being at the scene of an act of vandalism is enough to support a conviction for aiding and abetting. It's a juvenile case, but the reasonable doubt standard of proof is the same. (The appellate court is referring to the lower court's [the 'juvenile court'] denial of a section 701.1 motion, which asserted that the evidence was insufficient. The Court of Appeal disagreed.)"

In denying the section 701.1 motion, the juvenile court stated: 'I think that the circumstances of the setting of the fire, plus the statements of the minor before, during and after this occurred, establishes circumstantially that he was an aider and abettor.' The court cited People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 408-410, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, noting in that case one codefendant 'did not independently happen by the scene of the crime' and was with the principal and returned with him 'to the scene of the crime and together they approached the victims...and their concerted action reasonably implied a common purpose.'

In People v. Campbell, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at pages 408, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 525 to 410, the Court of Appeal upheld convictions of attempted robbery and attempted murder because the aider and abettor 'knew...and shared [the principal's] intent to rob [the victim] and that in a supportive role, he affirmatively facilitated [the principal].' ( Id. at p. 410, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 525.) The aider and abettor in Campbell was seen with the perpetrator, both before and during the crime—and assumed a position in front of the victims 'to intimidate and block them, divert suspicion, and watch out for others who might approach. Such conduct is a textbook example of aiding and abetting.' ( Id . at p. 409, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 525.) This case is clearly distinguishable from Campbell. There was no evidence-either direct or circumstantial—in the prosecution's case-in-chief that Michael instigated the arson and vandalism, facilitated or promoted the crimes or acted as a lookout. He was a bystander, nothing more. The undisputed evidence that Michael went to the playground with five friends—including the three who set the jacket on fire—and left with the same five friends did not establish—directly or inferentially—that he aided and abetted the crimes. Michael was on the basketball court, not in the area of the gym apparatus. Under these circumstances, the fact that Michael went to the school and left the school with the three perpetrators is not enough to make him more than an innocent bystander.

Seems to me that the most pertinent information here is "citizens have no duty to stop a crime or even to report it," and that arriving and leaving with the perpetrators is not enough to make someone more than an innocent bystander.

Photographer Jonas Lara's trial is scheduled for today.

Mike
(Thanks to Anonymous)

ADDENDUM: A couple more factoids. 1. Several readers have opined that they think Jonas is clearly "an accessory." He hasn't been charged as an accessory, and it's not at issue anyway: "accessory" means someone who assists a criminal after the crime, and you can't be an accessory to a misdemeanor—only to a felony. 2. Jonas is a Marine Corps veteran with a service connected disability. (Not pertinent, just thought you might be interested to know.)

ADDENDUM #2: "I keep reading wild allegations on the Internet where people fantasize about my part in the graffiti," says Lara. "For the record, I maintain neutrality in my work. I do not encourage, nor do I help plan or anything even remotely close to that. People keep asking if I knew [the taggers] would be there. Of course I knew. I don’t know how that translates into me being guilty of the crime of vandalism. Does a photojournalist with a magazine blindly drive around at night hoping that he stumbles on a story? No, he conducts research and receives tips on where a story might occur. The painting would have taken place regardless whether I was there or not." (Source.)

ADDENDUM #3: The Jonas Lara Legal Defense Fund.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

What's Nex

Sony NEX3. See cnet for more pictures.

It appears that the nex big camera introduction is Sony's entry into the digital electronic-viewfinder interchangeable-lens (DEVIL) category. cnet has a brief article about the NEX3 with some pictures of the camera, and a hands-on appraisal of the NEX5 with a video and some image samples (showing what appears to be good ISO 1600 performance. Scant evidence from which to draw conclusions, I admit, but still). cnet Senior Editor Lori Grunin's conclusion in her introductory video of the NEX5: "More than any other interchangeable-lens camera I've seen, the NEX5 seems optimized for the point-and-shoot upgrader—not necessarily because it's easier to use than any other, or that it's priced particularly low, but because it's full of constraints that will probably bother enthusiasts a lot more than snapshooters."

Meanwhile, TOP's indefatigable Official Roving Editor-At-Large, our man in Croatia, Vlatko Juric-Kokic, will be attending the Croatian launch of the Sony cameras nex week. He'll report*.

Mike

*Hopefully without Yr. Hmbl. Editor's gratuitous, lame, and obvious attempts at puns.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

When Is 'Documenting' a Crime?

Yet a further example of the current low status from which photographers suffer in U.S. society—the absurd charges against Jonas Lara are apparently not going to go away, and he has been forced to set up a legal defense fund. The L.A. police are evidently determined to make an "example" out of him.

I hope at least Banksy and Shepard Fairey will contribute to the fund....

Our advice: be sure not to photograph anyone jaywalking. You could be detained for aiding and abetting.

Mike
(Thanks to Andre Moreau)

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Olympus ZD 14-35mm and 35-100mm f/2 Zoom Lenses

Wicked Fast. Wicked Sharp. But Is That Everything You Want in a Lens?

By Kirk Tuck

You’ve got to hand it to Olympus: they get the optics right. Very few people will disagree that, almost across the board, from kit lenses to the high-priced choices, they produce lenses that make users smile. But there are several that Olympus fans believe to be legendary. I’m a pretty vanilla photographer in terms of the focal lengths I like to use on my cameras and I’m nearly always drawn to what has always been the "holy trinity" of lenses that has reigned since the 1950s: 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm. If you are strictly traditional you might favor the even more constricted 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm or 105mm trio. I’m rarely ever searching through a catalog for esoteric wide angles like 14mms, and I’ve never owned anything longer than a 400mm equivalent. So, when I bought into the Olympus Zuiko Digital system last summer I went looking for two things: 1) a conservative, two-zoom system that would handle the bulk of my event and portrait shooting assignments, and 2) extremely high quality optics that were fast and able to be shot wide open.

I quickly found two lenses that fit the parameters. The first one I bought is the Zuiko Digital 35–100mm ƒ/2 zoom (above right). It’s dust- and moisture-resistant (I’ve spilled red wine on it and washed it off under the tap). It uses four pieces of ED glass and one element described as Super ED glass. It weighs a ton and is solid as a rock. While deliberating the good sense of buying a $2600 lens, I was able to use a loaner and test it. What I saw when I shot wide open on a tripod made me open my wallet. Wide open. Optically, it's great.

Olympus ZD 35–100mm at 95mm, ƒ/2.5, ISO 800

Sunday Open Mike: Television

This post might be of interest only to readers from the U.K.

...All right then, only to a few readers from the U.K.

I believe it was an Englishman, John Berger, who pioneered the idea of "writing" criticism by simply juxtaposing pictures. Berger—who strikes me (although I might be completely wrong) as one of those rare happy people who do whatever they want through life and are somehow valued and rewarded for it—has written extensively about photography. The books of his I have, both of them entertaining and enjoyable, are Ways of Seeing and About Looking. It's Ways of Seeing in which he constructs essays made entirely out of pictures. I'm going to try the same thing here, after the break.

But on to television. I guess I'm a fairly obsessive guy. It's a useful characteristic for an artist (remember the fictional novelist played by Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets"?)...or for a blogger. With me, it counteracts my basic ennui and inertia. My compulsiveness shows up in the way I watch television, too. I really don't have many favorite television shows, but every now and then I'll get obsessive about one and blast through its entire history in short order. I never saw an episode of "Seinfeld" when it was a current show, but as soon as it went into reruns I watched all 174 episodes over the course of about eight months—one every weeknight, on local broadcast T.V.

My taste is...idiosyncratic. ("Idiosyncratic" is a polite way of saying "peculiar.") I watched every episode of "Deadliest Catch," sequentially. (Told you I'm obsessive.)

Last year I got going on a wonderful Canadian law-enforcement drama called "Da Vinci's Inquest," watching one or two episodes a night, and got weaned of it only because hulu.com, my source for that one, only offers the first three seasons. That show is nearly perfect, in my opinion. A welcome dose of realism and a wonderful weaving of storylines, as though we in the audience actually have brains. Great writing, excellent acting, and, for the main part, outstanding cinematography (although the style changes markedly from time to time. Maybe ordinary people don't notice things like that). The other six seasons are out there waiting for me. I'll track them down sooner or later.

Another favorite is the American version of "The Office," but only as long as Jim and Pam's affair is incipient: just as soon as they actually got together, the show was effectively over, and should have been ended right then and there. It's been a cadaver ever since, rote and pointless. (The wedding episode was especially horrible.) Steve Carrell, in the often overcooked part of boss Michael Scott, is thought to be the star of the show, but he's not—he's actually just the clown figure, the comic foil, like Kramer on "Seinfeld" or Ted Baxter on the old "Mary Tyler Moore Show."

I've never seen a single episode of "The Sopranos." At some point I imagine I'll catch up with that, and watch it straight through.

Well, anyway, on to the point. I mentioned last week that I've been watching the BBC car show "Top Gear" lately. My source for that one is iTunes, which has an incomplete motley of back episodes available, but I'm in full-on into-it mode, watching maybe one show a night, sometimes two.

Okay, okay—last night, until late, three. A veritable "Top Gear" marathon.

Pretty early on, something about the dynamic of the three main characters—the "presenters"—just seemed awfully familiar. Jeremy Clarkson is the boss, the ringleader, and seems to hold the other two in genial contempt. It's clear he thinks he's indisputably superior to them, even though he's one of them. The second fiddle is Jeremy's main henchman, Richard Hammond, short, intense, eager to please—he's sometimes in league with Jeremy, at other times the object of Jeremy's abuse and derision. Although Hammond stands up for himself and his own views from time to time, he's a follower. Finally there's James May, thoughtful, distracted, somewhat sweet, but decidedly bumbling. He gets the brunt of the mistreatment from the other two, until you sometimes wonder why he hangs out with them at all—it can seem like he's just tagging along. And yet, in his dry, witty way, he can be the funniest of the three. He's responsible, at any rate, for most of the laughs, one way or another.

So where have we seen that dynamic before? With apologies to John Berger, what follows is my entire critical exegesis of "Top Gear," entirely in pictures, and I'm sure I can't be the first to note the similarities....

The Most Desirable Cameras on the Planet

I thought this might be kind of fun for a Saturday, although it's taken me so long to put it together that Saturday's half over already. The other day when I was writing the "Most Overpriced Camera in the World" post, it just occurred to me (I'm not even sure quite why) that I'm always taking price and value into account when I consider cameras. But there's not really a need to do that all the time. It got me to thinking—what are the most desirable cameras, price no object? It seems to me there are five, but don't let that stop you from disagreeing.

My picks, in no particular order:

• Nikon D700. It took Nikon nine years to make a digital analog (heh—sorry) of the F100, but they sure did it. Not quite Nikon's very best image quality, but the best 12 megapixels anybody could reasonably want. Overall a highly refined and flexible camera that's right in line with Nikon's age-old reputation for providing highly practical workhorse cameras with eminently sensible ergonomics. Could be 20% smaller if you ask me, but that's just me.

• Canon 5D Mark II. That famous and inimitable Canon CMOS image quality in push-the-envelope format—full frame, lots of size*, with outstanding high ISO capabilities. And decently portable, not like carrying around a calculus textbook. One test of a camera is when people still like it after they've owned it for a while and all the glow of newness (and self-congratulation) has worn off. This one, like four of my five here, qualifies with flying colors. And as a bonus, the best digital B&W I see consistently comes from Canon 5D's, old and new.

The business end of the all-business A900.

• Sony A900. It's true, you can buy the slightly de-tuned A850 for  $700 less and be 98% as happy, and no, the slight refinements and almost imperceptibly better build of the A900 are probably not objectively worth the difference in price. (The A850 was supposed to complement an A950, which fell victim to the global economic slump.) But we're talking most desirable here, and the A900 still has that over its slightly younger brother. I love the no-nonsense, pared-down nature of this camera—it's the Porsche 911 GT3 of cameras. My favorite of the bunch, at least until I see the Pentax. If I do.

• Leica M9. Not really my cuppa—it's a replicam—but people do desire the M9, of that there can be no dispute. Photographers clamored for just this very camera, and, if you overlook a bit of a false start (*cough* M8 *cough*), Leica delivered—making users very happy. Unlike the M8, no excuses necessary; unlike the M8, no problems with familiarity breeding contempt. The vast and stellar lens possibilities is a plus, as is the fact that you can't even fit a zoom. To own an M9 is to love it, if the reports that reach me are true.

• Pentax 645D. This list originally just had four cameras on it. I had to add this one—forced to—even though it's not out yet and isn't planned be exported to Europe and America in any case. This body style and its wonderful controls have been burnished to perfection over several generations, and, assuming the sensor measures up, this thing on paper looks like the coolest camera ever made. Anyway the key word in this post is "desirable," and I want one.

A few words of explanation: I rank the various "pro" cameras as a little less desirable than the four 35mm-style DSLRs above because they're too big and heavy. Plus, if you're just carrying around a camera to take an occasional snap with, like a normal person, they can make you look like a bit of a poseur if you're not careful. The big beasts don't appeal to me quite as much as the camera-sized cameras.

And much as I like little cameras, they're still, well, little. Their littleness is their big appeal. When you get right down to it there's no little camera that does as competently what a big one will.

And you'll note that even though we're going for ultimates here, I'm still being practical in the sense that these are all eminently usable and practical cameras. Even the "most desirable" cameras are still tools to take pictures with.

An Honorable Mention
The Most Desirable Lens Line on the Planet: The Olympus Zuiko Digital Super High Grade line. There are only six of them; two are primes, but both primes are extreme telephotos. But I think they're the finest lenses for photography money can buy at this point. We'll be posting a user report on the two best Zuiko Digital Super High Grades on Monday.

So: your turn. Agree with my Five? Disagree? Or do you just desire something not mentioned more? I'm all ears**.

Mike

*Pixels.
**But we're just having fun here. Nothing we say has any real effect on anything.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by ER: "What—no Leica S2???"

Featured Comment by Kent: "The funny thing about this post is that everyone who owns one of the cameras mentioned will agree, and everyone who doesn't won't. Moi? D700 user. I agree totally! (That was easy.)"

Featured Comment by El Inglés: "I'd have to find room for the Nikon F6, the ultimate 35mm SLR in more than one sense."

Featured Comment by Isaac Crawford: "Eh, Richard Ritter's 8x10 is the only one that tempts me these days. I still don't like using cameras I have to turn on...."

Mike replies: I'd agree with that, except my Mamiya 7 has an on-off switch....

Featured Comment by hugh crawford: "The 'Most Desirable Cameras on the Planet' are the ones they don't make yet. Everybody knows that."