The Online Photographer

Just Sayin'...

...I love it when xkcd pertains.

Mike
(Thanks to James Hengst)

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:

D Evans6: "Coincidentally, someone with a Blackberry has just failed to settle the Loch Ness question. Frustratingly, I was at the same spot a month ago with a 300mm lens."

Mike replies: This is what it looks like when you take that photo and enhance it.

Peter: "There's also a generational shift in there somewhere, in that he didn't bring up Elvis."

Camera Bags and Camera Backpacks, Part III: Reviews

The Think Tank Retrospective 5 gets high marks from our bagaholic. It comes in three colors. Photo courtesy Think Tank Photo.

[Note: If you want to support TOP, you could buy your bags from Amazon or B&H Photo. The author has no interest in you buying a bag, and TOP had zero input on what he writes here. —Mike the Ed.]

Written by John Camp

My experience with some of the bags themselves:

Billingham
I only had one. It was a really, really expensive shoulder bag ($230 at Amazon, for the "small" version), nicely made, that always felt a bit awkward and 1950ish-Kodak to me, and looked sort of overcooked. Heavy, for what it was. (I think you can get a better street bag from Think Tank for about $140 from Amazon.) People talk about Billinghams on Leica forums. If Gwyneth Paltrow shoots a DSLR, I'm sure her assistant carries it in a Billingham. All right, I'm being snotty.

Blackhawk Tactical Packs
Blackhawks are basically military packs, and I don't even know if they make one specifically for camera equipment. They are very sturdy, water resistant, and are not especially comfortable to wear, possibly because you’ve got too much weight inside. They will carry everything you've got, if not on the inside, then tied on the outside. When you see one at the airport, there's a 90% chance it will include a carabiner or two on the grab straps, so they can be attached to the bulkheads of C-130s. I bought the medical pack version, which had lots of pockets for small stuff. Then I ripped out most of the guts, and replaced it with the guts I'd ripped out of a Kata pack. It worked, but it was heavy.

Case Logic
Inexpensive, crappy. I only buy the very small bags, and use these to segregate miscellaneous equipment in bigger bags—those pouches that should come with the bigger bags. I once bought a very small Case Logic bag that would carry a Panasonic GX1 and two lenses, and also fit inside my carry-on, after I pulled a couple of dividers out of the carry-on.

Crumpler
I think of my Crumpler (I don't know where it is—possibly a Goodwill store in Hudson, Wisconsin) as a high-fashion bag with some utility in carrying cameras. Mine had a top half and a bottom half, that operated like a clamshell, and neither half really quite accommodated the equipment I wanted to put the bag. Mine was sturdy, well-sewn, with a colorful silken-like interior fabric, and, when I did get the right set of gear inside, it was comfortable to wear. If you like the looks of a Crumpler, and are willing to pay the price, try it out first—make sure it'll take the gear you want to put in it. My default position on Crumplers is that they are as much about looks and fashion as practicality. I could be wrong.

Domke
Domkes were originally made by a former photojournalist named Jim Domke, but the company was bought by Tiffen, the photo supply company. Since then, the line has expanded, and I'm not familiar with most of the "Tiffen" bags. I'll speak here only of the canvas Domke shoulder bags.

Domke F2 shoulder bag

The Domkes, of course, are the classic photojournalist bag, and are pretty good if you're a photojournalist. They provide some protection, especially if you drop the bag (there was a rubber-like pad in the bottom of mine, but reviews on Amazon now refer to a "cardboard"-like bottom pad, which would not be so good.) The classic bags provide little protection against sideways blows—you wouldn't want to run through the woods with one; other, larger bags are more padded. They are somewhat water resistant, but not in any way waterproof or dust-proof. You can see all the equipment, and get it out fast, which is good. They are light—about all the weight is in equipment. You can squash these things almost flat in your luggage, so you can take a big carry-on full of gear when you travel, but then when you're walking around, use the Domke. They come in several sizes and two or three colors.

There are some downsides: They do shout "camera bag," and because they are primarily about fast access, they're not secure against theft—probably the least secure of the major brand camera bags. Another problem, if you carry quite a bit of gear (and some Domkes are large) is that they put all the weight on one shoulder. Since most people like to carry the bag either right or left, and rarely switch, I think this is probably bad for your health, in that it puts a fairly severe torque on your torso. Domke classic canvas bags usually don't have shoulder-strap pads—they have "slip-proof" straps which aren't all that slip-proof, which is why you often see photojournalists walking around with one shoulder up in the air. Some Domke advertising compares them to jeans—I think that's apt. They are like a good old pair of jeans, with all the benefits and problems that implies. Domke also makes (or made—I'm not sure if they still do) probably the best photo vest/jacket, but I hate those things. Some people treasure them, and they do carry a ton of gear and distribute the weight across both shoulders.

Kata
Good bags, well-made, but way over-padded in my experience. One of the better backpack strap systems. If you go for one, make sure it'll carry the equipment you need, because they generally carry much less than they look like they'll carry. I've had three of them, and I've pulled the guts out of two of them to use in padding in other bags. The guts are great. The padding is bright yellow, which tends to attract the eye.

Kinesis
I had their belt system, and I can't imagine that there's a better one. Everything was top quality, the attachment system is extremely secure, and they've got belt bags for very wide range of photo equipment. I felt like an idiot when I was wearing it. I felt like I should at least be in the Rangers, or have a Beretta stuffed away somewhere. If I were a sports photographer, I might have one; otherwise, no. I also suspect (and I'm semi-serious here) that if you were to wear one on the street, in the present climate of fear, that you might be stopped by the cops, checking to see if it were some kind of combat gear.

LowePro
Not much to say here. Good bags. I've had both rolling cases and packs. They work fine, in my experience, but the packs are over-padded and heavy. But then, I've mostly used their packs on car or truck-based trips. I've never had one break down on me. My basic problem with LowePro (and Tamrac and Tenba) packs is that for me, they are often (usually) impractically big. You look at all that space inside the packs, and so you put stuff in it. For the first ten minutes, it doesn't seem all that heavy—but after that, it's like you’re carrying a mule on your back. If you're going to carry that much stuff, I think it might be better to buy a bunch of inserts and put them in a real high-quality backpacker's pack; or buy a rolling case. But it'd be much better just not to carry that much stuff.

Nikon
This was a small nylon bag, that I got a long time ago. It was excavated from my attic and went to that Goodwill store. I think I got for free, as a premium. I carried a camera (an F4, I think) and two or three primes in it. Nothing special.

An Osprey Talon 22-liter backpack.

Osprey
The Osprey pack I had was for backpacking, and it was very good and comfortable, and put the weight on my hips; I just couldn't get the photo equipment out in a reasonable amount of time. I no longer have the use for one, but for anyone who backpacks, these are pretty good.

Pelican
Good, reliable hard cases. May not fit in airplane overheads or under the seat, because they don't squash. I no longer use them for cameras, because I don't have the need.

REI Dry Bags
I used a couple of different ones when I was doing a lot of canoeing. They are absolutely waterproof, and will float, and give the gear some impact protection. Access is very slow. On the other hand, if you roll the canoe, you'll get the camera back, and it'll be dry.

Tamrac
Eh. Can't think of much to say here. Mine were like the LowePros, but didn't seem as well-made. Had both packs and roller cases. Can't really think of one that broke down, though.

-

"In my opinion—just an opinion—
Think Tank is at or near the top of the heap in design and quality."

-

Tenba
Only had one, in design much like a LowePro roller case. Ten years ago or so, I took a brand new one to Israel, where I was working as the photographer on an archaeological dig. I had to roll it about thirty feet across a gravel driveway to get on a bus, and then, getting off the bus in the afternoon, roll it back across the same patch of gravel. On the third or fourth morning, a wheel broke in half, so I then had a one-wheeler. A couple of days later, the other wheel broke. Then I had a no-wheeler, and I had to carry the case by the grab strap. Then the strap ripped loose. I wound up spending almost a month carrying the case around like a huge, over-weight baby, wrapped in my arms. I may have had a bad sample, or I may have been expecting too much of it; but I won't buy another one.

Think Tank
I've had four. The first was a small black shoulder bag in which I carried an abbreviated subset of the Panasonic system, and it worked fine for that and I've still got it. That case, I think, would be terrific for people who street-shoot with Leicas or with Fujifilm rangefinder-form cameras, and only carry a few lenses. I'm not exactly sure which model it is, and it's in a different city than I'm in now, as I'm writing this, so I can't look—but I think it was an Urban Disguise 40. I recently bought the Retrospective 5, which is smaller than that first bag, also for selected walk-around use. The bag is very, very good—not too padded, but with more side padding than a Domke. There is a flap top, which pulls down over the bag, secured with Velcro. Think Tank has a clever system of Velcro silencers, which you can use when you want quick access to the contents of the bag, or if you don't want that loud "rip" sound when you open the bag. That rip sound, of course, is a decent burglar alarm, against pickpockets, when you carry it over your shoulder.

I also have the Streetwalker HardDrive pack, which is also fine for transport, if not so much for actual street-walking (too big—and it's too thick, sticking far out behind. Bags like that kill your back and shoulders.) And I had one more, a small one from the Airport series, but I think my son has that now. In my opinion—just an opinion—Think Tank is at or near the top of the heap in design and quality.

Victorinox
Not exactly a camera bag. It's a big rolling soft briefcase of heavy black nylon that will fit in the overheads of all standard jets (but not the smaller regional jets.) The thing is, I can get a GH3 and several Panasonic lenses in the main compartment (in Domke wraps) plus a Mac Air, a Verizon Jetpak, a cell phone, spare glasses and sunglasses, keys, necessary papers—passport, tickets, schedules—a couple of legal pads, all the cords, power supplies and rechargers, and a paperback or two, in the other compartments. This is really my go-to general travel pack, when I'm not taking a separate carry-on camera bag—and sometimes when I am. The Victorinox has a fairly sturdy handle, and you can pile another bag on top of it, and roll the whole thing through the airport. Tumi has an excellent bag of similar design.

And finally, I have to put in a word for Eagle Creek's Pack-It System bags and pouches. I use these all the time, and my partner has stolen several of them for her own use. They are zippered mesh-and-plastic envelopes that are almost waterproof and come in several different sizes. I use them in camera bags, briefcases and packs, and regular luggage, to organize all the small crap I carry around with me. They are most useful for segregating out things like electric cords, batteries, chargers, spare lens caps and body caps.

Michael Reichmann, he of the Luminous Landscape, has had many good things to say about Gura Gear bags, designed by a serious wildlife guy. I've never had one, but I'll probably get one sooner or later. Looking at the specs, they may be close to my perfect bag. Wonder if they have that waterproofed bottom and ring?

I could go on for a while, but I won't. I would like to hear arguments for and against what I've said so far, because I do have this conceptual interest in bags, and like to hear what other people use and what they do with them.

Now if I could only find a place to write about jackets. Or no, wait: the search for the perfect hat....

John

Part I can be found here
Part II can be found here

John Camp is a former reporter who is now a novelist. He writes thrillers under his pen name, John Sandford. And he is a bagaholic.

©2013 by John Camp, 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:

xfmj: "I hate to parrot but...I was lucky enough to look for a camera bag at a local pro photo shop that, at the moment I did look, had a Retrospective 5 in stock.  It is a beautiful bag. It has all the features, is very well-thought out, but does not have that gear-heady feel or look. It's like the camera bag version of the perfect denim jacket.

"The overdesigned pockets and straps and yellow cords and everything with a zipper and all the vecro and the rubber slide pulls that other manufacturers employ—even on the smallest bags—are a really weird form of display. Darwinian archipelagian market forces gone wild. We've all seen compact cases that triple your camera's size but hold barely anything more. What the hell? Some Crumpler brand bags I've seen, for example, house more bag material than they provide storage void, and their velcro clings stronger than superglue—eventually ripping the canvas that holds the velcro.  Bad breeding like a pug's respiratory wheeze. That kind of product design drives me crazy.

"Instead, my Think Tank bag is just right. All the details are attractive and functional-looking, tastefully just right, carefully trimmed, and work great. It is a beautiful and useful bag. Appears minimal but is instead chock-full of perfect surprises and options. I couldn't believe the velcro silencer feature; hadn't noticed it at first, but it is such a cool, simple idea that I deploy in varying situations: in a quiet cathedral or in a crowded subway.

"It even comes with its own raincoat, one that is easily stored and hidden (it can serve as an extra tethered lens pad should you want that) when you don't need it. It too is small, trimmed, and tasteful, but I do use it now and then in the rainy northwest.

"Oh, I could go on...."

Paul Richardson: "I have to say I always thought people were overly fussy about bags, but then I got a Domke and I love it. I have a Crumpler also, but it has fallen out of favor with me."

Jeff: "People talk about Billinghams on Leica forums? Yes, if they're talking about the mid-priced bags; the Fogg bags also discussed there are twice the price.

"Bags are one the most frequently discussed topics on the forum, generally with strong recommendations, typically followed by praise, disdain and laughter. Besides the bags mentioned in this article, the usual suspects also include Artisan & Artist (A&A). And many folks use only the inserts from various bags, e.g. from Billingham's Hadley series, to place inside other nondescript bags, not necessarily made for camera gear, including various messenger-type bags. Some, especially those across the pond [you don't say which side of the pond you're on, so that's not very specific... —Ed.], prefer various expensive hand crafted bags from companies such as ONA and Wotancraft."

David Bennett (partial comment): "I was tempted by the ThinkTank Retrospective 5, but how exactly do the Velcro silencers work? And with the 'silencers' working—is the bag secured in any way? I am not so much concerned about someone dipping their hand in the bag (although it is a factor) as with the contents tipping out while I am running (for a bus etc.)."

John Camp replies: The Think Tank silencers are simplicity itself—just additional pieces of material that fold back up across the Velcro patches, thus covering the hooks so they can't hook on to the closure patch. At that point, the cover is not secured—but the Retrospective 5 has a flap cover that closes down almost to the bottom of the bag, so nothing is likely to fall out unless the bag is upended. I'd give you more specific details but I'm in NYC today and the bag is back in Santa Fe, and I can't look at it.

Rob L: "I'm 38, and have been using my beloved Domke F-2 for...lordy, 23 years. Still the best working bag I've every had, and still my only must-have bag. Simple is good, although for transport the Think Tanks are amazing."

Manuel: "I'd rather spend a three-digit sum on a secondhand lens (I bought an Olympus OM 135mm ƒ/2.8 yesterday) than on a bag. I'd love to have a Think Tank Retrospective 5 as much as anyone else, but I find it too expensive for an accessory that is no more than a means to carry your gear. Especially when that money can buy you a good piece of equipment. Billinghams and Gura Gears? Don't get me started...."

Stan B. replies: "Manuel—Lowepro Exchange Messenger Camera Bag at Amazon—$30!!!" [$30.23 to be precise. It does seem quite similar to the Retrospective 5. —Ed.]

Steve P.: "I guess it all comes down to the type of travel you are doing when it comes to bag selection. For my needs: the Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home Bag is absolute perfection. I want to be able to go anywhere and not be encumbered by my bag. And I really do not want my bag to scream 'photographer here with lots of gear!' So for me, the fact that the bag actually looks a bit like a woman's purse is great!

"I can carry a Canon 5D in the middle along with an EF 16–35mm L mounted, EF 70–300mm L in the left side, and the 50mm ƒ/1.4 on the right side on top a couple of spare batteries—I have more than enough room for filters and memory cards in the flap zipper pouch. I also have room for two ColorSpace O PhotoBanks in the front pouch!

"It's an extremely versatile and accessable setup for my needs. I have traveled for a combined total of about two years with this type of setup. I can't imagine a new bag coming out that will trump this setup."

I Read the News Today Oh Boy

A selection of page ones after Andy Murray's historic cliffhanger at the All England Club. Two things I thought I'd never see—Jimmy Connors on a talk show (he was on Leno the other night—he has a new book out) and a male Ginny Wade.

Mike
(Thanks to Andrew Lamb, who thinks The Guardian's is the best)

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:

Richard Alexander: "The full-page picture on the aforementioned Guardian's front page is the work of Tom Jenkins, who might just be the best sport photographer in the world. He had his own exhibition in London last year (with an accompanying book), and it was astonishing—it turns out that almost every 'iconic' sporting image I've seen in the last decade is a Jenkins picture.

"The Guardian's online gallery of the book is here; his pictures from Murray's triumph are here. U.S. readers will obviously notice a British bias to both the sports and the individuals he covers, but it's impossible not to be impressed by his work."

Camera Bags and Camera Backpacks, Part II

Written by John Camp

The near-perfect shoulder-carry bag would be:

Light. Water-resistant. Not too heavily padded. Made of some species of nylon. Have two-closure systems: a zipper, plus a few Velcro tags, or snaps, so that you have the choice to close it securely, or to have it lightly closed, for instant access when you need it. It would have an adjustable shoulder strap, with a soft, conforming pad, and an accessory belt so that it could, if necessary, be worn as a fanny pack. It would have special plastic pockets in the cover for extra memory cards, small pockets on either end for batteries and to hold lens caps when you're not using them, and a pocket on the back for maps.

The near perfect travel pack would be:

Sturdy, protective, water resistent, and as light as is consistent with optimal protection. (In my opinion, most packs are over-padded.) The interior dividers would be easily customized.

It would have zip pockets that would contain the proliferation of wires, chargers and batteries that we carry. It would have a sturdy carry-handle both on top and down the side, and also a good fully detachable back-pack system, so you could carry the straps in another piece of luggage if you wished.

It would fit in the overhead of mainline jets.

It would have, as an accessory, a compact collapsible set of wheels that could be carried in your regular luggage when not in use.

It would have a removable pocket that would hold a 15-inch laptop, if you needed it to do that.

Billingham 225 shoulder bag

The near perfect heavy bag, for use when you're travelling by car, or when you're willing to check the bag on a plane:

Should emphasize protection. It should have light but rigid plastic reinforcements under the waterproofed nylon on all sides. It should have TSA locks. The internal dividers should be very customizable, and you should get perhaps a dozen extras when you buy the bag. It should have velcroed-in pouches, with snap tops, to organize wires, chargers, extra body and lens caps, and camera-cleaning equipment. It should have a very good set of wheels, and a solid handle that can be used as a supplemental luggage carrier when you need it (in other words, you can drop a backpack on top of it, and have it stay in place, when you’re rolling the bag.) I believe it should be black, so that it can’t readily be seen through the tinted windows in the back of a car or truck.

Kata KT PL-RPT-30 Reporter BagIT-30

Preferences and prejudices
A few of my prejudices. You may disagree:

Too many bags are over-padded. Travel bags need some padding, but padding adds bulk and weight. Shoulder-carry bags mostly need padding in the bottom, for when you put them on the floor or on a table, and very little in the sides.

Shoulder bags should hang close to your side; better to stack the lenses vertically, than horizontally away from your body. And they should have good, padded slip-proof shoulder straps. The pad on the shoulder strap is where several companies cut costs—the edges of the strap cut into your shoulder. Check it before you buy.

Most bags need, and lack, accessory pouches that are designed for the bag, that will take digital-era electronic components like wires for chargers and computers, small parts like thumb drives, memory cards, etc.

Full waterproofing adds weight, and is hard to accomplish. Most of the more expensive backpacks come with a light, packable, fully waterproof cover that you can slip over the bag. That works. But: in my opinion (as a former canoe jock and fisherman) all bags should have a fully waterproofed bottom, and a waterproofed ring around the bottom, two or three inches high, so you can put the bag down on wet rocks, sand or grass without worrying about it. You know what I’d like? If the bag had little carbon-fiber rods like you find in self-supporting tents, that you could use to stand the bag upright. That would add no weight and be extremely useful.

Too many bags are too large. If you took at the larger LowePro, Tenba and Tamrac backpacks that you see in the average camera store, they will take a lot of equipment—and will be very, very heavy, and will be squarish, and stick too far out from your body. None of them that I've found have backpack systems good enough to carry very far. If you need to carry a lot of equipment, you need transport cases, with lots of protection, and wheels. If you're going off-road, on foot, and any distance, you need to think seriously about your pack—and perhaps go for a backpacking pack, into which you build your own inserts. Or (a really good idea!), take less equipment.

Backpacks are convenient, but mostly for transport. There aren't many that are good shooting bags. Do you really want to walk about Rome in the middle of July with thirty pounds of gear on your back? People argue about whether access should be top, bifurcated top and bottom, or butterfly with a central zipper, and so on. The fact is, you have to take most packs off and set them down to open the bag, so they're not really amenable to fast action. If you have a backpack, you also need a shooting bag. (Unless, in your special circumstances, the backpack works because of your special circumstances—I worked for several years as an archaeological photographer in the Middle East, had a heavy bag, but only had to carry it as far as a bus or car.)

One of the Kata bags I currently own (not the one pictured above) has backpack straps that can be switched diagonally across the bag, so they serve as slings. It also has zippered side-openings. Using it as a sling, you can pull the bag around in front of your chest, while the strap is still on your shoulder. You hold it in place with your first hand, and then, with the second hand, unzip the side opening and remove what you need, assuming that what you need is under that flap. Then, using your second and third hands (while your first hand still holds the pack) you can safely change your lens and put the other one in the pack. Theoretically, you could be standing in a creek two feet deep, and change gear without needing to put the bag down.

That's in theory. If I were to do that, I'd drop the lens/camera in the creek.

End of Part II

Part I can be found here
Coming in Part III (tomorrow): Capsule reviews of many specific bags and backpacks

John Camp is a former reporter who is now a novelist. He writes thrillers under his pen name, John Sandford. And he is a bagaholic.

Ed. Note: The illustrations in Part II are arbitrary and don't constitute authorial recommendations. The first one is just the bag Yr. Hmbl. Ed. has owned since the '80s.

©2013 by John Camp, 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:

Bojidar: "For what it's worth, Steve McCurry uses a beat-up black Billingham 335. I guess that's a thumbs up for that bag from the ultimate travel photographer."

Bill: "When Domke first started, he had his bags made by Smith & Co., a Chicago canvas company and tentmaker. When he took his business elsewhere they started making their own bags, which were lighter and sturdier than Domkes. They did this by sewing everything in place—no adjustments! I got my three different models at Ken Hanson's store in NYC. Two of them are still with me (and used constantly), the other lost in a home burglary. They are/were the best shoulder bags I've seen. I don't know when they quit making them, but I always look for them when I'm at a camera show."

dogman: "I own almost as many bags as I do cameras and, like the collection of cameras, most of the bags are old and don't get used anymore. My preferences in bags have changed considerably over the years. I carry less stuff around with digital equipment and that's a real blessing for an old fat man with moderate to severe arthritis. A Billingham Hadley or Domke Little Bit Smaller bag is all I ever use now when I'm out shooting. Except for residual redundancy ingrained by my previous incarnation as a news photographer, I usually don't even need the bag. Premium quality zooms are so good these days, I seldom use more than one lens and I really don't need that second body except it makes me feel more secure to have one. Old habits are hard to break and, at this point, why bother trying.

"Fact is, I've been known to make use of a photo vest on occasions and just leave the bag behind. I know some people see them as an affectation but they are very convenient and much more comfortable than a shoulder bag for all day carry of equipment. I've been using them for decades and I still have my old raggedy Banana Republic vest although it's a little snugger fitting in the middle now.

"Since I haven't flown in years and I don't really intend to do much of it again, I don't use my padded bags anymore. My traveling is done by auto, so a couple of Domke F2 bags can transport a lot of equipment. If I take any long lenses, I just carry them separately in their own padded cases. Most of the time, those long lenses just stay packed away—those old habits again."

Carsten Bockermann: "Many newer bags use Velcro to help keep them closed. I hate the noise that this material makes when you open it. Immediately draws attention to the photographer. That's why I'm staying with my Billingham Hadley bags."

Jeff responds to Carsten: "Or Velcro draws the photographer's attention to the thief, if that's who's doing the opening. Perhaps why John Camp prefers having the dual option."

Chris Malcolm: "I'm a convinced user of robustly padded bags. I was carrying my camera and handful of lenses in a large Lowepro Slingshot in a carrier on the back of my bicycle when I was hit sideways by a sports car. Bicycle trashed under wheels of car. Bag and I bounced off the hood of the car. No damage to gear in bag. Last week I accidentally dropped my gear bag (camera plus four lenses) down the stairs of a double decker bus as the brakes were slammed on. It banged down all the way from top to bottom of the stairs. No damage to the gear inside. Plus several more minor drops. These experiences have made me a convinced adherent of the robustly padded gear bag."

(OT) Wow...

...Andy Murray. What's it like over there in Britain this morning? Wow.

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.

TOP's links!

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

Andrew Lamb: "It's glorious! The weather is nothing short of fabulous. It won't last. It never does. However....

"Big congrats to Murray. Never thought I'd see a Brit win Wimbledon. Still in shock. Think a lot of people are."

Dominic: "Well we've been waiting 77 years for another men's singles winner for what we like to think is the top grand slam. The media's gone wild and even non-tennis fans seem to be pleased. The public warmed to Andy's tears on losing last year and now he's come good and we've all got a warm glow that isn't just down to the unseasonably warm weather."

MinoltaSnapper: "We're quite pleased. (Does that qualify for Typical British Understatement? :-) )"

Mike Gets Mail: Ebay Scams

I received the following from a TOP reader who goes by the handle El Inglés. He had posted it on his Facebook page:

Ebay—A CAUTIONARY TALE

My friends, I have bought and sold photographic equipment on Ebay for several years, all very smoothly and without problems. Until now.

Yesterday, an Ebay member with no purchase history—always a warning sign—bought my Canon 5D II at the 'Buy it Now' price. London-based, she wanted me to post the camera as quickly as possible as it was a present for her boyfriend. I said I would be in London at the end of next week for a meeting, and could take the camera, but she said that would not be soon enough. Anxious to pay, she said she did not receive the eBay-generated link to PayPal, although I sent it three times in the course of a couple of hours. I said not to worry, and sent a payment request directly from PayPal. Lo and behold, I then received an email from 'PayPal,' advising that payment had been received but, following a 'new regulation' would not be released to me until up to 21 days afterwards. Nevertheless, the email implored, I should still send the goods! The alarm bells started to become loud. And, although, the email looked very authentic, I noticed a couple of very small spelling mistakes. Then the pièce de résistance—the buyer asked me to post the camera to her boyfriend...in Nigeria!

I told her politely that the con was far better than the usual 'help me launder $15 million' solicitations. But it was still a con.

Of course, I have reported all to Ebay.

Did you know that the "Cameras and Photo" area of Ebay is the number one category for fraud? More than any other category on the world's garage sale website. The only time I've ever been defrauded on eBay was for a camera. I came away $500 lighter, having ill-advisedly sent cash via Western Union. I've forgotten the details now; I try to put things like that out of my mind. Life's too short to cry over spilled milk. As the old saying goes.

My mistake in that case was that a succession of identical listings didn't set off alarm bells. Just so you know—in case you don't—if you see five identical listings posted in succession for the same item from the same seller, it's probably a scam.

Beware motion blur!
Another, more subtle Ebay scam: blurry pictures. Seriously. A little motion blur will cover up all manner of cosmetic irregularities, and our brains tend to supply a bit of "content-aware fill" such that we believe we know what the blurred object really looks like. Don't be fooled. A seller with 1,000 sales whose other listings show clear pictures didn't suddenly become incompetent with the digicam like some inpecunious grandma bravely making a go of selling a tchotchke or two.

I have on one or two occasions requested clearer pictures from sellers. The good ones will provide them.

Of course you should always check out a seller's feedback. My personal rule is never buy anything from anyone with less than 98% feedback. My reasoning is that a) everybody makes a mistake occasionally, and b) some people out there are crazy. So if two buyers out of 100 aren't happy, maybe there's no help for that. But I won't buy anything from anyone with less than a 98% rating.

One of the posts I keep meaning to write is called "The Photographer's Bedtime Prayer." I haven't finished writing it yet, but one of the lines in it is, "Lord, please keep me from rummaging around on Ebay late at night...."

Mike
(Thanks to Stephen Russell)

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:

Arthur: "The motion blur trick (and overexposure) is popular on dating sites too. Don't ask how I know."

Open Mike: It Costs More to be Poor

This fact broke through my thick skull slowly, and late. Mainly because of my own low aptitude for, and devil-may-care attitude toward, arithmetic.

Not long after I got out of college, I bought a new car. So, at the same time, did my then-girlfriend. She had a modest trust fund; I didn't. Because she got an extra $25k or so every year out of her trust fund, and was more frugal than me anyway, she had a lot of cash in the bank. I didn't. Unlike her, however, I liked cars, and knew a little bit about them. I was going to "help" her buy her car.

So off we went to buy our cars. The car I wanted cost $15,000 (this was back in the 1980s) and the car she thought she'd get cost $13,000. You know...I was older, I was the one who liked cars, etc., so it made sense that I'd be the one buying a somewhat nicer one.

First we went off to her dealer. The car my girlfriend wanted cost more like $14,000 once it was loaded up with some of the features she needed. It turned out that the next model up came with all the features she wanted (and more) as standard equipment. That model, normally more, was marked down to only $16,000 as a result of some sort of promotion the manufacturer was running at the time. (I'm rounding all these numbers off, of course). The salesman (no doubt after sizing her up as someone who was going to make a hard-boiled financial decision based on dollars and cents, rather than sentiment, emotion, and self-indulgence), pointed out that the better car would actually cost less than the cheaper one if she were going to keep it for four years or more, because better cars retain more of their value for longer—that is, they're worth more after you're done with them. It's called "residual value." So she eventually decided to buy the more expensive car, the one with the sticker price of $16,000.

Then the salesman asked how she was going to pay for it.

"With a check," she said. The salesman looked startled (she was quite young). "Assuming you can move a little on the price."

Well, move he could, and move he did. She ended up buying a "demo" that had all of 163 miles on it, for $15,000, give or take. Plus they didn't make her pay for the alloy wheels and the extra speakers it had, because she hadn’t wanted them and said she wouldn’t pay for them.

Okay. So, next, me.

We went to my car dealer and I looked at the $15,000 car I wanted. I could only put $1,000 down on the car, so I would have had to finance the remaining $14,000. I had already looked at my budget and decided what I could spend on a monthly payment. The salesman thought he could squeeze me in under my highest feasible monthly payment number if he could get me approved by the best finance company at the best rate.

I was a photographer at the time. Like most photographers, I tended to juggle money: clients had long billing cycles, and work went through dry times and flush times. Sometimes I paid my bills on time; other times I paid them early; and other times I paid them late. I thought "early" and "late" more or less balanced out.

Have I mentioned I knew very little about money and finance at the time? (Well, still, but let's stick to the point.) For the record, people who lend you money generally don't care about early. They do care about late. They care about that quite a lot, it turns out.

The salesman came back looking crestfallen. My credit, he said, was poor. Not only could I not get the best rate, but the best company wouldn't even loan me any money at all! I had to go with another company. The second company had standards that were more lax, but they also charged more.

That put the $15,000 car out of reach. I had to settle for the next car down—the economy model in the lineup—which cost $12,000. And the $12,000 car loan I needed (subtracting the down payment) would end up costing me another $3,000. Over time, of course; but still, that was the cost of the loan.

So are you getting what happened here? I bought a $12,000 car and a loan that cost $3,000. Both my girlfriend and I paid the same exact amount for our cars—$15,000. But because she could pay cash, she had leverage with her dealer. He cut her an especially good deal, and she basically got a bigger, nicer (and, to my annoyance, faster) car that normally sold for $17,000. A nice discount.

I, on the other hand, because I didn't have cash, and had poor credit, and needed a loan, didn’t have much leverage. For my 15 large, I had to settle for a smaller, cheaper, slower car worth only $13,000. And no discount.

Not only that, but then you have to factor in our respective residual values. By the time I'd paid my car off—five years—it was only worth about $5,000. At the end of the same amount of time, my girlfriend's car was worth nearly twice that much—almost $10,000.

So for the same actual cost, my girlfriend got to drive around in a much nicer car for five years, and ended up five grand ahead of me in the value of her owned asset. At the end of five years, she had enough residual value left in her car that it was painless for her to trade hers in on a new model. I didn't. I kept driving the old one. At least I could put one of those bumper stickers on the back that said something like "At least it's paid for."

Kept that car for nine years, it turned out, until one summer when it whacked me with large repair bills in each of two successive months and nearly bankrupted me. I sold it to a wholesaler for $500 in hundred dollar bills. Which went into the down payment for my next economy car / expensive car loan package.

I'm still in touch (occasionally) with that former girlfriend...but I don't have the heart to ask her what she's driving these days. (She's now a doctor in San Francisco.)

Like I always say, it costs more to be poor.

Mike

"Open Mike" is a series of off-topic musings that appear often, but not always, on Sundays on TOP.

CORRECTION: I had to go research, and modify, some of the numbers originally used in this post, because I wasn't remembering them correctly and several readers took me to task for it. I do remember the relationships between the numbers correctly, however, I'm reasonably certain of that. Because therein lies the story, and stories are what I remember.... —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.

TOP's links!

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

John F. Opie: "The Brits have a saying: I'm too poor to buy cheap. Had to do with shoes (i.e., buying one pair of good shoes was less expensive in the long run than a series of significantly less expensive shoes) but it's the same principle.

"The real question is why you didn't get any financial education: I know I didn't. My folks taught me, though, that if you can't pay for it cash, then you can't afford it. Depression-era generation. Sure, the banks are more than happy to earn lots and lots of money off you: the question is why you want to let them do it."

Nikojorj: "As we say in French: on ne prête qu'aux riches (only riches get a loan). Indeed."

Steve D: "I play math games with my ten-year-old daughter (who actually enjoys math puzzles and games) about concepts like 'present value' of money. What costs more when figuring in different types of interest and 'opportunity cost' of spending. Stuff like, if Jane and John both have ten dollars and they both want blah blah.... It's too late for me to do much with the idiotic mistakes I've made over the decades but by god I'll be darned if she'll go into young adulthood ignorant about such things. Gluttony, lust and desire may get her the same as it did me but she won't have the excuse of ignorance."

Craig: "Actually, I think the point here is not that 'it costs more to be poor,' but that it costs more to live beyond your means—not quite the same thing."

Mike replies: The story above came from a never-published book manuscript, which included five or six different concepts and stories to illustrate each. The principle, which holds true across a broad spectrum of cases, is that if you have bad credit you will pay more for necessary loans, and if you need loans for large purchases you will end up paying more than if you don't—and generally get lower-quality goods into the bargain. All this story really illustrates is that if you can pay for something straight up you'll pay less for it than if you need to take out a loan to buy it, which I believe is pretty close to indisputable—? But I'm open to being corrected if I'm wrong.

JG: "If it's any consolation, it's my experience that paying cash for a car does not get one much of a price break these days. This is because the dealer (and its salespersons) factor the spiffs they will receive for arranging loans for their customers into deal. Deny them their spiff by paying with a check and their bottom-line price may well go up, not down! I've even had a salesman refuse to sell me a car for cash and insist I let him arrange a loan for me, which he assured me I could pay off without penalty after the first month. Needless to say, I passed on his 'deal,' which puzzled him greatly...."

Slobodan: "There is a conceptual error in your calculation. You take into account interest on your car, but you do not take into account so-called opportunity cost of your girlfriend's cash payment. You know, she would be earning interest on that cash, had she kept it invested in that fund she had. It is generally foolish to pay cash if your good credit rating allows you to get a rate well under a commonly expected rate of return on investment (i.e., 8–10% per year, long term). Perhaps by getting a good cash discount and other promotions she ended up better off anyway, but it is important to take the opportunity cost into account for apples to apples comparison. But, other than that, I agree with the gist of your post."

Random Snaps

A few snaps from yesterday. We had a lovely day at the lake, and the weather was perfect.

Ever since I mentioned the TOPcam at the end of Wednesday's post, I've been inundated with requests from people wanting to know more, because, of course, the popularity of B&W (and the pent-up demand for B&W-only cameras) is fierce. The unique TOPcam hybrid, which was created AT GREAT EXPENSE TO ME, is called the "Sony NEX-XXX" (that last bit is pronounced "tri ex"). Unfortunately—don't mass outside my door with cudgels and firebrands, please—I cannot reveal the identity of the shop that did the stunning masterpiece of a conversion. Their identity is top secret. They have an eight- or ten-year waiting list, and they don't want anyone to know they let me skip the line.

My bro' had a permit to burn brush, but needed a windless day.

That's fire, in the top pic. Of course, as I mentioned, the TOPcam is not capable of recording colors. For you lovers of colors, the fire was orange*.

Coming home from the lake I drove through endless clouds of bugs. What with our wet Spring and (so far) Summer, the bugs are flourishing. The front of the car is covered with bug grime. For some reason I felt bad when a lightning bug would get mushed against the windshield...you see a little streak of bright phosphorescence for a few seconds that then slowly, sadly fades. Sorry, little lightning buggies. I guess it's better than dying slowly in a jar.

I think I mentioned that I'm not big on fireworks, but I managed to see a show anyway. Coming home, I followed the colored blooms in the sky and got off the freeway an exit or two early. Come to find, the service road north of the airport was lined on both sides with vans, pickups, and SUVs, all festooned with persons. (I swear, everybody in this town has their own favorite strategic location from which to watch the fireworks, which originate at the Fairgrounds.) I stopped for a while and watched with the crowd.

You may consider this an ironic fireworks shot, not a straight fireworks shot. As I mentioned I mentioned, I'm not that big on fireworks, personally. But, for you lovers of colors, the sky was really dark gray, and the firework in the picture really was just white, nothing more. The TOPcam got the colors just right! The TOPcam is awesome.

Hope you had a nice one yesterday too, if you're a Murkin.

Mike
(Thanks to m3photo)

*Okay, I'll admit it, the top picture of those two really does look better in color. Shhh.

UPDATE: A "Satire Alert" belongs with this post. My NEX-6/24mm kit is bog standard. It will only take B&W faux-35mm pics because that's the kind of pics I like best, that's all. My intent is never to mislead. Carry on.

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:

Robert Roaldi: "Someday, someone will find your B&W fireworks photo and colorize it."

Camera Bags and Camera Backpacks, Part I

Think Tank Photo StreetWalker HardDrive

Written by John Camp

Lots of bags
I'm a bagaholic.

Not just camera bags, but all kinds of luggage and packs and containers...most of which are empty, because they are, you know, not quite right.

This post is about camera bags, of which I've had perhaps...thirty?...in the last twenty years. I've had two or three Domkes; several Lowepros; one Tenba that I well remember; four Think Tanks; a Crumpler; any number of small Case Logics; Tamracs; two Pelicans; at least three Katas; one Billingham; a Nikon; a Victorinox; a Blackhawk; any number of Op/Tech pouches, which don’t count as bags, but allowed me to use non-padded, non-camera bags as camera bags, including an Osprey backpack and an expensive deerhide rucksack that might as well have had "steal me" written on the side. I also had a Kinesis belt system.

And before I go further, let me say that I'm going to mention a lot of brands over the next few days, but I don't care if you buy one or not. I have no connection to any manufacturer, and no stake in selling you a bag.

Last year, I moved out of my Minnesota house, where I'd lived for twenty years, and my partner went into the attic and started throwing out camera bags. When she got finished, she had a pile of perhaps twenty bags, some of which had been radically disassembled (in the hopes of making a new, better bag), some of which were badly worn or broken, and a few that even looked pretty new. Most of the wrecked ones went in a dumpster, and most of the others across the St. Croix River to the Hudson, Wisconsin, Goodwill Store.

The problem is that I'm convinced that somewhere out there is the perfect bag (or perfect combination of bags) for me. From reading a lot of online posts, I'm pretty sure other people have found perfect bags. So why couldn't I?

I currently have a Nikon D800 system in a StreetWalker HardDrive pack from Think Tank, and a Panasonic Micro 4/3 system (GH3 and GX1) in a Kata pack. I don't know the name of the Kata pack, but it has a tag on the back that says 3N1 30, so that might be it. [I think it must have been, but that model is discontinued now; the closest current variant seems to be the 3N1-25 PL. —Ed.] Selected pieces of either system go into a small Retrospective 5 shoulder bag from Think Tank, when I need to do that. I also have a very large and temporarily empty LowePro rolling case that I use for car travel, when I'm taking everything. All of those are good. Perhaps not quite perfect.

Because I tend to buy first, and think things out later.

Think it through
The most important consideration when looking at a bag is to know what you're going to do with it, and what equipment you're going to take. If you don't think seriously about that, you're going to be disappointed in the bag. You should not just go "bag shopping." Being a bagaholic, I once bought a Crumpler bag because it looked terrific...but after I got it home, I realized it really didn't suit any of my needs. I didn't even know why I had it.

Your bag doesn't necessarily have to be a camera bag. You can buy Domke inserts through the 'Net (B&H has them) and stick them in anything. Sometimes, this is a really good idea. I've never found a camera bag, that I can recall, that's as good for hiking, skiing or canoeing as the bags made for those activities.

If you don't travel, you can probably get along with a bag or two, one for when you're working from a car, another for when you're working on foot, or off a bike.

Travel considerations
If you do travel a lot, as I do, things get more complicated in a hurry, especially if you do different kinds of photography. If you're traveling by air, and are not interested in taking "art" photos at your destination, you might take a compact camera, for snap shots and memory aids, no bag needed. I've had a belt pouch for an RX100 that I bought at Best Buy for a few bucks, but eventually stopped using it. A pocket was just as good.

If you're more serious about your travel photography, you might take a couple bodies and several lenses, and need a full-sized carry-on bag. In that case, it's good to have a small, unpadded bag that can be folded into your suitcase to use as a walk-around shooting bag. For example, if you're traveling in England, and you take a lot of gear in a well-padded carry-on, you might want a small shoulder bag, like the Domke F-3X or Think Tank Retrospective 5 for shooting in London, and also a small Kelty daypack, with a couple of Domke inserts, for the Cotswolds. I always take one, and use it to pack socks or underwear inside the larger bag.

Domke F-3X in olive

Do note that when you travel, the plane itself may affect what kind of bag you want. I'm not so familiar with short-haul flights in Europe (I tend to fly to a destination and then move around on the ground, because Europe has great trains), but in the U.S., more and more short-haul and small-city routes use small jets, and they will not accommodate regulation carry-on bags, either in the overhead or under the seat. Before you travel, look for the names Bombardier or Embraer. If you see the names of either of those types of jets, there's a good possibility that you won't get your regulation full-sized carry-on on board.

I often travel by American Eagle in and out of Santa Fe from Los Angeles and Dallas Fort Worth, and they require you to gate check virtually any bag with wheels, and most normal carry-on bags. Gate checking isn't as bad as the regular bag-check, because you get your bag back when you get off the plane, which means it's handled by many fewer people—and always out in the open, where theft and mishandling in less likely.

If you travel by car or truck and can take everything, and want to do that, you may also wish to acquire several bags—a big solid wheeled case that can rolled into a motel room, and also a variety of "walk-around" bags to take when you're actually shooting, with only selected pieces of equipment in it.

Sometimes, you may be doing specialty photography, which may create requirements for specific kinds of bags—waterproof bags that float, full-sized backpacking bags, hard-sided equipment cases that require collapsible trolleys to move.

I've done all of that, except the big hard-sided equipment cases, so I've had a lot of bags.

End of Part I

Coming in Part II (Monday): On perfect bags and backpacks; and the author's preferences and prejudices
Coming in Part III (Tuesday): Capsule reviews of many specific bags and backpacks

John Camp is a former reporter who is now a novelist. He writes thrillers under his pen name, John Sandford. And he is a bagaholic.

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:

Roger: "Yet another bagaholic here. I recently downsized my collection via eBay and ABQ's Vietnam Vets thrift store. I've replaced them with a a couple of those dirt cheap canvas bags and a rucksack the Chinese pump out via eBay and Amazon. Time will tell regarding their build quality. But unlike their name brand counterparts they don't scream 'Camera Bag.' Still have a few name brand bags to unload. And I recently succumbed to a Crumpler 5 Million Dollar bag Amazon had for 50% off. Reform is hard."

Gene Forsythe: "Short-haul jets in the U.S. are an issue with 'gate checking,' as you describe. When I know that I will be on an Embraer jet I generally pick up the gate tag, fill it out (though I have never had it checked against my ID!) and stick it in my pocket...then beg from the flight attendant, explaining that the Think Tank International is all my overseas camera gear. There is just enough space between the last row of seats and the rear bulkhead for a couple of smaller bags like the International V2, and it is a nice snug fit. Coming and going on American Eagle from DFW I generally get an accommodation when I mention being on my way back from Canada (or Mexico) or South Africa...just be polite and don't argue the point."

Geoff Wittig: "The commandment to think about what you really want a bag to accomplish before pulling out the plastic is exactly right.

"The bag I have the fondest memories of is the original Lowe-Pro Photo Trekker, which fit my entire Pentax 35mm system with two bodies and multiple lenses like a glove. Unfortunately when I moved on to a Canon digital SLR system, the lenses and bodies were enough bigger and heavier that they simply didn't fit. The next size up was big enough, but now we're talking seriously bulky and a chore to heave onto your shoulders when fully loaded. My current Lowe-Pro Photo Trekker (AW-II, I think, from a few years back) is just big enough to carry my usual kit, and comfortable enough for an all-day hike with the 35–40 lbs. load. But the rain-tight zippers are a royal PITA to operate, and the small day-pack included with it for snacks and sundries is a lot less useful than the outer compartment older models had.

"I'd consider looking for something better, but my wife has forbidden me from spending more money in the snark-hunt for the perfect bag. Seeing as how I now have six or seven of them in the closet, I have to defer to her wisdom on this point."

L. Young: "When it comes to bag collections, David Alan Harvey must be the winner."

Happy Fourth!

Today is Independence Day in the United States, a.k.a. the Fourth of July. Traditionally, a day for parades and picnics and, after dark, of municipal fireworks displays. (This year, some places are holding off the fireworks until the weekend.)

I'm not big on fireworks, but I feel almost guilty saying that. As I cast back over the years of my life I can remember a lot of Fourths and a lot of fireworks-watching, in the company of various friends and at various places. My earliest such memory is of tormenting my "girlfriend" Elizabeth Choi, whose Korean-immigrant parents lived near our apartment block in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (I seem to recall that her mother couldn't or wouldn't speak English—Elizabeth's older brother translated for her.) That would have been about 1962 or '63, and Elizabeth (whose nickname was the Korean word for "beautiful," which I can pronounce but not spell) was an older woman...she was in second grade. I was only in first.

In D.C. I used to walk down to the Mall and worm my way up to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial from the Potomac side. The best place to watch the country's best fireworks display...nowhere else can match the spire of the Washington Monument and the glimpses of the Capitol building in the background.

My most vivid memory of Fourth of July fireworks was from the five years Zander and I lived in our loft in Chicago. We could climb up to the roof deck—our building towered over most of the two- and three-story buildings in the neighborhood. Looking out over the rooftops, you could see fireworks at every point of the compass. (Many of the larger suburbs in Chicago put on their own fireworks displays, apart from the city's main show down by the Lake.) The experience was somewhat tempered by all the small-arms fire we could also hear...I ended up not staying on the roof deck for very long, feeling that a stray bullet could have the unwanted effect of ruining our evening. But the visual effect of the 360° fireworks here and there on the horizon—some nearer, some farther off—was striking, and has stuck with me.

If you're in the U.S. and planning to enjoy parades, picnics, or fireworks, I wish you and your family an enjoyable and safe holiday today. I'm off to Lake Koshkonong for the afternoon, for the first Fourth at my brother and sister-in-law's new place there. Should be fun.

My niece Mari with her parents on the back deck at
Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin

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.

TOP's links!

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

k4kafka: "Some photos just look better in black and white. This isn't one of them."

Mike replies: It really wasn't up to me. The photo was made with the TOPcam, a Sony NEX-6 which I have had specially modified at great personal expense so that it only shoots black-and-white. The RG(2)B filters were all stripped from the photosites and the demosaicing algorithm was rewritten from scratch. Only one laboratory in the country is capable of doing this intricate modification, which takes months and costs thousands. The TOPcam is not capable of recording color—even when confronted with sunsets, single geraniums floating in a sea of green, or colorful hot air balloons.

New Mirrorless for Half Price

Just passing this along...since it qualifies as a "screaming bargain." B&H Photo is offering the Canon EOS M with the 22mm ƒ/2 lens for half price: $300 instead of the regular $600.

The kit with the zoom lens is also $300 off, although that's not quite half.

Good for the next five days or so...or whenever they run out, whichever comes first.

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.

TOP's links!

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

Kirk Tuck: "I shot [with] one and even at half price it's still not worth it."

Mike replies: I should add I've never shot with one or seen one. I'm just passing along the closeouts.

I've talked to people who like theirs, and to others who've agreed with Kirk. One friend got one with a bad 22mm lens. I should recall who that was, but I don't. Gizmodo's review asks, "Should you buy it?" and answers its own question, bluntly, with "No." Of course, that was at $800. With Canon picking up $500 of that tab, that answer might well change to "maybe."

John Driggers: "Most negative comments about the EOS-M were about slow focusing—and it was horrible using multiple focus points and the shutter release. Using a single focus point and recomposing, or using the touch screen pick-a-focus-point-and-trip-the-shutter-when-in-focus worked pretty well in reasonable light, but slowed down some in dim light.

"One other gotcha for a lot of people was the the EOS Utility was listed as supported—that's the software that lets you tether the camera to a computer and control all the camera functions (and there are Android apps that work to do the same via cable if the camera is fully supported by the EOS Utility). But it was dumbed down for the EOS-M and only lets you trip the shutter, but not control the camera.

"Canon recently introduced a wide-angle zoom in this lens mount—you often wait years to get that with other mirrorless systems (Sony I am talking to you). [I assume John is talking about the 18–55mm lens, which is the only zoom Canon appears to offer for the EOS M. It is not a WA zoom but a normal zoom with a 28.8mm-equivalent wide end. —Ed.]

"A new firmware update speeds AF for the EOS-M, but it remains to be seen how much.

"Likely, this fire sale precedes the release of a sucessor to the EOS-M that will probably have the same style sensor as the new Canon 70D (which Mike called evolutionary—but which I, along with many others, think is really revolutionary).

"This will be a major game changer for the M series. If they add an EVF option and tilt screen, it will be a killer camera. (Full) remote control by Wi-Fi would also be a killer feature.

"We'll have to wait and see about the new M. But at $300 for the current version, you're only paying $84 for the body—Amazon sells the lens alone for $216.

"Despite its shortcomings, it seems like a good value to me. I'll bite."

Ivan Muller: "I have to disagree with Kirk on this one.... I have one bought as a backup for my 5D Mark II. I shot corporate group photos yesterday and used the EOS M and 22mm lens for about half of the shots, just to see how it would perform. It just worked wonderfully with a nice and clear screen and quick and easy placements of the AF point, and with the new firmware update the AF was fast enough and the quality was impressive at 800 ISO. In fact it was easier to use than the 5D Mark II.... The point is that I felt comfortable enough using the EOS M in a group photo situation where there is already a bit of extra pressure and making a fool of oneself in front of a bunch of people is not an option. I mailed some of the EOS M images to my client and the short reply was: 'friccin love it!!'"

David Teo: "Mike, I think John Driggers was referring to the 11–22mm ƒ/4–5.6 EF-M lens made specially for the EOS M. That gives the equivalent of 18–35mm in 35mm terms."

Mike replies: Is that real? It isn't listed at Canon USA nor is it listed at B&H or Amazon.

Svein-Frode (partial comment): "Used one for a week and lost the last bit of faith I had in Canon during those uneventful seven days."

Paulo Bizarro (partial comment): "This is the best small camera that I have used in 20 years for travel and documentary photography."

Ctein Catches Up

Waaaay too much fun! DDB + Ctein + Deep-IR-converted
Olympus Pen + Full-frame Fisheye.

This week's column by Ctein

I am returned from Minneapolis, sanity restored (well, as much as it's ever going to be, which is always subject to question), but I'm still a bit disorganized, so this'll be another catch-up column. More meaty ones are in the works (see the end notes).

DDB's RAW converter investigation
So, TOP's very own indefatigable, and perhaps masochistic, DDB (David Dyer-Bennet, for the uninitiated) has decided to experiment with six different RAW converters. He'll be posting his reviews piece-by-piece online at dd-b.net. A fine service to the community, and better him than me.

No doubt as installments get posted he will provide Mike with specific links and Mike will pass them on to you all (right, guys?—Hint, hint, Mike?) [Your wish is my command, good Sirs —Mike the Ed. a.k.a. Sancho Panza.]

An 'Is it plugged in?' printer problem
Just before heading out to Minneapolis I felt an overwhelming need for a few hours of "me" photographic time, so I went to work on some new photographs. Midway through printing the second photo, my Epson 3880 developed a massive clog on the photo-black print head. My 3880's been close to perfect that way, but life happens. I ran some ordinary cleaning cycles and it got worse and worse, until almost no photo-black nozzles were laying down ink.

Damn. Probably not fixable. The printer's under warranty so Epson will send me a new one, but first they're gonna want I run a power-cleaning cycle. I hate those—they eat up lots of money and almost never work for me. Still, they'll insist.

Double damn, my maintenance cartridge is too full! So, next morning (one day before leaving for Minneapolis, now, and I so do not need unscheduled shopping trips) I drive to Calumet and pick up a cartridge, plus a couple of inks, just in case some of them are too low to premit a power clean.

I get back home, swap in the new maintenance cartridge, and decide to swap any ink cart that looks less than half full. Might as well swap out the photo black, even though it's 60% full. Maybe it'll jar something loose in the ink line. Hey, one can always hope.

The cartridge in the printer is empty. I can tell, just from the weight in my hand. It's empty? It's EMPTY?!? The printer swears it's 60% full. I put it on a scale to be really sure. It's truly bone dry. Well, now, y'know, that just might explain the near-total lack of ink droplets coming from the photo-black print head. Ya think? Just maybe?

OK, pop in a black cart that really does have ink in it, run a nozzle check, and—everything's perfect! Yay, no ink-wasting power clean, no having to call Epson for a new printer, just a waste of some of my time and temper.

Best I can figure, the cartridge must've been underfilled to begin with, as the ink consumption looked entirely normal while I'd been using it.

I've never seen anything like this before. But, if I ever see a near-total head clog again, I'll check first to see if there's really ink in the printer...no matter what the control panel readout tells me.

SuperFocus rebate note
I found out from the SuperFocus folks that there's no limit to the number of times folks can use my referral discount, which saves you 10% on the order (not sure if it's just the special frames or the entire order, but it's a savings of at least $50) and gets me a rebate, so feel free to ask me for my serial number if you might be contemplating a pair for yourself.

Another printing surprise
Back in April, on my last visit to Minneapolis, I chanced upon a remarkable scene of a bird's impact on a downtown St. Paul window, preserved by the dust of the window and the powder from the bird's wings.

The full frame, reduced to 800 pixels, doesn't give a hint of the wealth
of detail and subtlety that lies in this photograph.

DDB and I noodled around with my photograph on his computer for a while, and it looked extremely promising. It was complex and subtle and detailed and compelling and lyrical and disturbingly dark all at the same time.

This 100% section shows off the detail, although a screen JPEG still loses the subtlety. Even the barbs on the feathers are preserved in the powder image.

DDB and I both agreed that the big question would be whether it would print out decently. As I've written about in many previous columns, digital prints lose subtlety and fine gradation. I suspect the culprit is the rendering algorithms, as one sees it from all kinds of printers, and from all sorts of source material. It's why there is such widespread use of local contrast-enhancing techniques such as "clarity" sliders and wide-radius unsharp masking, and plug-ins like ContrastMaster. Without these, digital prints go unnecessarily flat.

Enhancing those delicacies so that they print as well as they look on a display is a tricky business. Occasionally it's easy; at other times it just doesn't work at all. I have a few photographs that simply failed to survive the translation from screen to print. I was most concerned about my bird photograph with its delicate visual intricacy. It might very well prove to be beyond my skills to print acceptably.

Two weeks ago, after I fixed my printer's "head clog," I decided to run out a test print of this photograph (from the file DDB and I had worked up) to see if it had possibilities or not. Might as well get it over with.

The first print out looked perfect. Actually, better than perfect; it was stunning. It eclipsed what I'd been seeing on the screen; it was so much better than that. I've never had that happen before. Always it's been as I said; printing wants to lose a little something and one works hard to make sure it doesn't get its own way.

It's not just me; several other folks have now seen both the screen and print versions, and we're all in agreement. The screen version, seen big on a high-quality monitor (not the dinky little 800 pixel JPEG you see here) is remarkable; the print is astonishing.

There's no question in my mind that it's one of my best works; I'd be thrilled if I made one photograph a year this good.

It'll be interesting to see if it sells. Not just because of the subject matter, but because although it looks pretty good on a computer screen, it doesn't look half so good as it does in a print. Time will tell.

•     •     •

So, what's coming up?
Next week should see the first column about my just-arrived IR-converted Olympus Pen. There'll be several over the next few months. I've done some good art in the past with digital IR (a medium near and dear to our 'steamed editor's heart [Note that I once wrote an essay called "Why I Hate Infrared." —Ed.]), vis:

  Infrared from a conventional Fuji S100 with a visible-light
blocking filter over the lens.

We'll see if this new camera serves me as well. In the meantime it's almost too much fun, as DDB would say! (See top illustration.)

After that, another tea column about Jon Singer's and my visit with Bill Waddington, owner of TeaSource. Also, almost too much fun for all three of us, and Jon and I learnt some fascinating new things about the dark teas and the pu ers. (Meanwhile, you can find pictures of Singer and I hosting tea tastings at Fourth Street Fantasy here.

Then, possibly, a report on some informal tests of Olympus' Micro 4/3 40–150mm zoom and 60mm macro lenses. Or maybe more about the IR Pen?

Nah, that's thinking way too far ahead.

Back to preparing and shipping dye transfer prints.

Happy 4th, and don't detonate anything I wouldn't detonate.

©2013 by Ctein, all rights reserved

We catch up with Ctein every Wednesday a.m. on TOP, and one never knows what one will find.

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:

Craig: "I've learned not to trust printers when they tell me how much toner is left. It turns out some of them don't actually have sensors to tell them how much toner is in a cartridge; they just tell you that the toner is low every few months or every few thousand pages (whichever comes first) whether it is or not. For me, this would typically mean replacing a cartridge that was more than half full, but it's interesting that you had the opposite experience."

Gijs: "That is the most stunning image forming process I've seen! It's like a fossil of a bird strike. This reminds me of a snippit from the the Jim Jarmusch film Down by Law. In one scene, Roberto Benigni's character, who is sharing a jail cell with Tom Waits and John Lorie has drawn a window on the cell wall. He asks whether in correct English one looks 'out the window' or 'at the window.' John Lorie's answer is, 'in this case, I think we'll have to say looking at the window.' I'm going to be spending a lot more time looking at windows thanks to you, Ctein!"

Refreshments

The new Canon 70D, which evolved from the 60D which evolved from the...

The Canon 70D was introduced last night. It's an APS-C DSLR with a legacy (from 35mm) EOS lensmount. It's probably the most mainstream product from the world's leading camera company. "Most mainstream" at least for more serious photography enthusiasts...the Honda Accord of DSLRs, you might say. It is the latest iteration in a very long line of antecedents.

And, in the manner of lineages that stretch back into the mists of history, I no longer quite have the entire thing clear in my head. (Chances are you can name all your grandparents. Can you name all your great-great-grandparents?) The 70D traces its heritage back to 2000 (39 years ago in digital-camera-years) to the Canon D30, a 3.1-megapixel mid-line camera that was the first "good" digital SLR to break the $3,000 barrier, if memory serves. That camera inspired all manner of serious comparisons between digital and film and a great deal of close analysis and breast-beating that remains in the hobby's DNA down to the present day even though the conditions between now and that long-ago era have changed greatly. I think the lineage went D30/ D60/ 10D/ 20D / 30D / 40D / 60D (the 50D was a sidestep, intended—in Dpreview's term—as a "sister" model for the 40D) / 70D. I'm open to being corrected.

As such, the 70D is a "refreshed" model—that is, an evolution.

Just to review, a few flavors of new camera:

1. The ever-popular abovementioned REFRESHMENT, when a common model is updated with new and up-to-the-minute technical features whether it needs it or not. One knows how to spot a refreshment because, generally, one is obliged to refer to documentation or enthusiast websites to detect the actual differences between the newest iteration and the model it is hustling off into retirement (in this case the 60D, currently on closeout for the fire-sale price of just $599). This move on the part of cameramakers is a holdover from the era just past when progress really was rapid enough to warrant frequent updatings. It is now popular for that as well as for marketing reasons, because, while a consumer will take a photograph with a smartphone instead of a camera without a second thought, that same consumer cannot see the sense of parting with good money for, say, a creaky, cruddy, outmoded and unfashionable two-year-old model of a DSLR.

The truest mark of a refreshment is a "II" or ".2"  designation modifying an already-existing camera model name. The new Sony RX100 II is a classic case in point. (We love this camera—the original one—and do not think it likely that the new "II" model's touch-ups are likely to ruin what's great about it.)

In some cases, refreshments can make perfect sense, because one or two features of a camera really are lacking, and beg for sensible modification. In another not-uncommon wrinkle, a company might be surprised to find itself with a hit on its hands, and would merely like to put a little more engineering effort into the product in keeping with its popularity—which it probably ought to have done from the start, except that who knew how many people were going to end up buying the thing?

Note that lenses can be refreshed too, often sporting one of the aforementioned "sequel" designations. (At the link is a refreshment of one of our very favorite lenses. This one's a "II" too. It, too, appears to have not been ruined by the refreshment process.)

2. The VARIANT, when a common model is given some new feature or functionality—or, in the case of the new Sony RX1R, had a feature or functionality removed. (In the new Sony's case, the anti-aliasing filter has been removed—a popular gambit of late, as most digital cameras these days are woefully unsharp and need all the help they can get to recover some small portion of all that lost and missing sharpness. Actually, this particular feature—sorry, this lack of a feature—is mainly valuable for people who buy $2,800 cameras yet who for some reason don't or can't process their own images and don't know what "sharpening" in post could possibly refer to; to them, the unfiltered "sharp" file from the camera is what they call, in the military, "PFM"—"pure [effing] magic." On the good side, the curious have only to buy one camera that has had its anti-aliasing filter removed; after that, you will know firsthand that it really doesn't matter all that much, and you then won't have to buy any more cameras with that feature—sorry, without that feature—in the future.)

Getting back to this topic heading: you know how to spot variants because they live in the line side-by-side with their progenitors. Usually, the model name contains an added alphanumeric squib. In the example, the RX1R is a variant of the RX1.

The new Fujifilm X-M1

3. The PROLIFERATION. A wise old gray head in the camera industry told me many, many moons ago that you can spot a particularly successful camera model because it sprouts a whole lineup of similar models. Fujifilm took itself very much by surprise with the sudden and enduring success of its Leica-like X100 model in 2010, which it apparently expected to be a short-lived, limited-market, low-sales boutique model for smart Japanese females desirous of a spiffy fashion accessory. It was a most auspicious development, however, because, to the delight of photo enthusiasts the world over, a revitalized Fujifilm has been churning out similarly-themed cameras ever since. (Including a classic refreshment.) The newest proliferation is the new Fuji X-M1, coming later this very month, which exploits a heretofore unsuspected niche that Fuji's marketers discovered between the X-E1 and the X100S.

Proliferation models are often intended to be answering guns to the shots fired across the bows of one grand manufacturer by another grand manufacturer. In the X-M1's case, it is said to be Fuji's answer to Sony's NEX-6. However, the X-M1 has no eye-level viewfinder, electronic or otherwise, so it's not really competition; we recommend you keep saving for that X-E1 you really want.

•     •     •

From here we might get into making distinctions between the various types of original camera product introductions...the above being a categorization of the unoriginal types. But this has maundered on a bit long already, and it's getting late in the day.

One last point though, that's worth mentioning—perhaps I should have put this right at the top and not buried it at the end of the post where only those with long attention spans will see it: only worthy camera models get refreshed. It has to be a good camera that people like and buy, or it's not worth refreshing. A refreshment, almost by definition, is the evolution of a success.

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.

TOP's links!

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

Adrian: "Given the new sensor technology with phase detection AF in every single pixel, I think it's a bit unfair to throw the 70D into the annual-meaningless-refresh-to-keep-consumers-buying bucket. Certainly an interesting piece of technology. I wonder if this could lead to Lytro-like capabilities for mainstream cameras."

David Dyer-Bennet (partial comment): "In contrast, the 70D is being widely touted as a major game changer in other venues."

Mike replies: Other venues are clearly more with the program, and are doing their jobs right. If it helps, yes, it's completely different, far better than the last one, and you should order yours right away. It's the greatest thing. Until the next greatest thing.

I'm not saying it isn't. But a sensor that, in Dpreview's words, "promises much-improved focusing in live view and movie mode," while meeting with my sympathetic approval, doesn't make the lather appear in the corners of my mouth.

Reminds me of an experience long ago: a customer was standing at a camera counter looking over the then-brand-new Contax 167MT, which had a built-in motor drive, spot metering, auto-bracketing, and several other innovative-for-the-time features. He was crowing to the salesman, "This obsoletes EVERYTHING else!"

Major game-changer, I guess is what that was. 

Then both he and the salesman turned to rest their eyes on the several-generations-old 139Q hanging from my neck. Hey, mine had quartz timing. That was a major game changer once too.

Pout.

I'm not immune. I'm so much "with the program" that when I get out my A900, sometimes I don't expect it to even work. It is, after all, 15 years old in digital-camera-years.

Jim: "This is the prelude to the 50-megapixel full-frame body to come. Upscale the sensor size and that is what you come up with: 50 MP. Now if these guys could just come up with a mechanical mirror lock feature...."

Mike replies: If you're telling me my 36-MP Nikon is not going to be the latest, greatest thing forever, I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and not looking at you.

hugh crawford (partial comment): "The Canon 70D just seems like a refresh. It's more like a giant wooden horse full of chocolate-covered jalapeno peppers."

Kevin Purcell: "For a video overview of the Canon Dual Pixel AF phase detection AF see this page. About 64% of the area of the sensor has dual photodiodes (80% of the sensor in each direction)."

Michael Ryan: "As a still photographer I tend to agree with you.The 70D is indeed just a slight upgrade, even using 'live view' as I occasionally do, it really is not a big deal.

"However, as a professional photographer, many of my clients now request video to be shot alongside still photography or even just video alone. They always request a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and not a digicam, as they like the cinematic feel of the video which instantly adds quality to their productions. At the moment (STM lenses not withstanding) you need to shoot video on manual focus, which is a huge problem when either people or the camera are moving. When I've had the budget and time I have employed a focus puller—that's an actual person whose job it is just to follow the focus where I want it while I'm filming and they usually carry more gear than me. The thought of actually being able to continuously film and have the focus follow the action I want, or perhaps even reliably do a focus pull (an effect where the focus moves from one object or person to another in the frame while filming) without employing an additional person or trying with multiple retakes is very exciting news, and no other DSLR comes close at the moment (even their own 650D was a marginal but somewhat pointless improvement).

"I won't buy the 70D myself, but if it works I would love to see the technology added to their more professional line of cameras. If, and it's a big if, it lives up up the hype, this is actually as revolutionary as the first autofocus lens, for pro photographers working with video today."

Paul Bass: "It still doesn't tell you where to point it."

Mike replies: DON'T TEMPT THEM. That'll be the next big thing several big things from now....

ray: "You recommend you keep saving for that X-E1 we really want? Not really, since I already have an X-Pro1. I'll probably end up buying the XM as a true pocket cam/P&S replacement that takes my growing XF mount lens collection. Did you see the 27mm they introduced with it? Despite the lack of aperture ring, dead sexy. I value an eye level finder pretty highly, but for wides and normals, using the tilt LCD as a WLF is pretty serviceable.

"So I kind of think you're underestimating the number of XPro and XE shooters who are thinking the same thing—they are just as much (if not more so) the target audience of this as potential NEX shooter.

"And keep in mind that at the same time, Fuji is delivering firmware that essentially updates all their ILC bodies to the latest/greatest feature set, which takes a lot of the upgrade pressure off.

"I personally love what Fuji is doing. They're a big company that's iterating like a startup, getting product out quickly, yes; but backing it up with incremental improvements without forcing you to buy new. As Henry Smith points out on his blog, the X-Pro1 is basically a different camera today than the one it was at launch."

Stephen Scharf: "In product-development speak, the Canon 70D is classified as a 'product line enhancement' in that it takes the core functionality and quality attributes and makes them better. The RX100 II is also a good example of a product line enhancement.

"The Fuji X-M1 is a 'line extension.' It takes the core platform that a product or series of product is based on, and extends that core platform of functionality and quality attributes into a broader range of products. Mike used the example of an Accord for the 70D. That analogy is appropriate. For example, a number of Hondas and Acuras are line extensions based on the Accord platform: The Accord, the TSX, the TL, and the European variants [I believe the Crosstour is also based on the Accord platform —Ed.]. The new Acura ILX, on the other hand, is basically a line extension from the Honda Civic.

"With regards to the Fuji X-cameras, the X100S is a line ehancement to the original X100, whereas the X-M1 is a line extension (as was the X-E1 from the X-Pro1).

"Regarding the Sony RX100....I have one, and have been using it when going out without my X-Pro1 or OM-D. My overall reaction is 'blah.' The LCD display is useless in bright daylight (you can't see what you're shooting at all), the lens can be prone to flare from bright side light, and the camera doesn't have the dynamic range compared to the OM-D, let alone the X-Pro1. There's no 'magic' in the RX100 files, either. They're excellent, don't get me wrong; they remind me of most DSLRs. But the OM-D has magic in its files, and the X-Pro1 has even more."

Sony RX1 Review: Bruce Haley Photographs Mato Nanji

Reviewed by Bruce Haley

I'm a film guy. Everything that you see on my website was shot on film. With manual exposure and manual focus, besides. Oh, and no cropping. However, lest one think otherwise, I am definitely not vying for any sort of "purist" badge of honor—this is simply how I have always worked, and what makes me comfortable. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, sometimes age can prompt a change in working methods—or a desire for that change, where none existed previously. I'm 56, and have been doing this for over a quarter-century. I've worked in 35mm, medium format, large format, and panoramic; I've lugged equipment all over the world, in extremely demanding conditions. I still keep in good shape, I still hike and climb, I still do rigorous photographic assignments—but did I mention that I'm 56? No matter how much I would like to think so, my body is not what it was when I was 31 and in the Hindu Kush mountains, running with the Afghan mujahideen (and believe me, it was very difficult to keep up with them even then!). Oh, and the "fuzzy 50s" are here too—my vision is no longer 20/20. And I won't even go into what it's like transporting film around the world these days.

So from the back of my Luddite cave I've seen change a-comin', and contemplated it for quite some time. In 2012 I exhibited my most recent long-term project at a museum in California and a gallery in Manhattan—and all of this work was shot with a big, boxy, clunky old metal panoramic camera that I customized, modified, drilled and hammered upon, etc., and then perched atop a huge, heavy tripod. I joked that I was going backwards, in some sort of meaningless protest against modernity. And while I love the results from that huge panoramic negative, I had to admit that I was tired of hauling that big outfit up and down a bunch of mountains, and that I could use at least a short break from it. But how could I complain when my photographic idol, Josef Sudek, lugged his big Kodak Panoram around with only one arm...?

Well, there’s only one Sudek, and I’m not him. And after years of digital avoidance, I pulled the trigger on a Sony RX1. What I had read made it sound perfect for me, like some faint beam of light finally penetrated to the back of my aforementioned Luddite cave. Then the package arrived, and I stared at the box. Then one day I opened the box, picked up the camera for a minute or so, and immediately put it back into the box. It sat in the closet for another week before I took it out and handled it again. I still didn’t shoot it, though. I didn't want to just snap a few shots around the house—I was waiting for a day when I had the time to give it a proper test run. I was sort of excited by the prospect, until one day when I took the RX1 out of the box again and really began trying to get the feel of it—and my hands just seemed to swallow the poor little thing. I have large hands and long fingers, and the teeny beastie just seemed lost in there. I didn’t like what I felt, and I seriously wondered if I had made an expensive mistake....

Mato Nanji by Bruce Haley, Sony RX1

But I wanted to like it...so I decided to damn the torpedoes and use it for an upcoming shoot with Mato Nanji, the phenomenal guitar player from the band Indigenous. A quick Google search will tell you about Mato—his name, pronounced "mah-TOE non-GEE," translates to "Standing Bear," and he was born and raised and still lives on the Yankton Sioux reservation in South Dakota. He is held in extremely high regard as a blues/rock guitarist, and besides his band and his many recordings, he has been part of the "Experience Hendrix" tour for years, and has shared the stage with other guitar wizards from Buddy Guy to Carlos Santana.

Mato was on tour in support of a newly-released record and was making a north-south run down the West Coast. Normally he plays every night, but he had one day open between his San Francisco and Los Angeles gigs, and arrangements were made for me to shoot some promo stuff with him on that day. As I am a huge blues fan, I had already been listening to him for years, so I was excited for the shoot.

Mato is very quiet, very reserved, and very humble about his incredible skills—there's no ego, no rock-star attitude, nothing of the sort. However, along those same lines, he's also not crazy about posing for photographs. Two days prior to the shoot, I had met him backstage after a gig. I had just watched him blow away the audience with his fretwork, but backstage he was quiet and a bit shy, with body language to match. I said to him, "I bet you hate getting your picture taken," and he replied, "Yeah," with a bit of a grin and a little chuckle.

Two days after that, we met for the shoot (which I dubbed the "New Record / New Camera" shoot). We loaded Mato's Stratocaster and his Fender head amp into the back of my Jeep and took off. Since much of my work is considered somewhat post-apocalyptic, and Mato's new record is titled "Vanishing Americans," I took him to some abandoned areas where there were no people (we saw no one else during the course of the shoot). It was just Mato and me and Jerry (Mato's tour booker, who helped lug that heavy amp around—thanks, Jerry!), so we could travel light and fast. Over a period of three hours we drove to four different locations and set up and shot in eight different areas. No hair, no make-up, no wardrobe, no artificial lighting, no umbrellas, no reflectors, no creatives, no managers, no publicists—just a fun, whirlwind shoot. And Mato was a real trooper—he squeezed into a derelict building past big rusty exposed nails, sat among broken glass, climbed onto a big concrete cube at a construction site and balanced on its narrow edge (the inside was hollow), climbed down into an empty swimming pool full of garbage and discarded furniture, and so on.

In describing this shoot you may have noticed that, despite this being something of a camera review, I never mentioned the RX1—and really, that's the point of this entire article: it's like the camera wasn't even there! I'm no techie, I'm no gearhead. I fully live by the famous Don McCullin saying, "I only use a camera like I use a toothbrush. It does the job." And boy, did that little Sony do the job! I went against everything I've done in the past: I set it for Aperture Priority, I let it do its autofocus thing, and then we packed as much into those three hours as possible. For the most part I forgot all about the fact that this was a new and unfamiliar camera—I just shot.

There are a lot of in-depth feature-by-feature reviews of this camera, and I don't need to add to those. I'm coming at this from a different perspective, and one that is decidedly non-tech. The bottom line is that this camera just sort of melted into me during the shoot, and I was able to concentrate entirely on getting a great deal of work done. My earlier trepidation about the way it felt in my hands went away very quickly. It was so light and unobtrusive that I left it around my neck even when we were driving between locations.

What are the downsides to the RX1...? Many people say that it is too expensive for what you get—but I think it's worth every penny. Great full-frame sensor, fabulous Zeiss glass, and so small and light you could carry and shoot with it all day and all night. The files are spectacular, and I haven't even gone into the RAW versions yet. Many people also don't like the fact that it's a fixed lens, but I love the 35mm prime, and in this format I would use it for over 90% of my shots anyway. So the fact that the camera was engineered around that amazing piece of fixed glass is just fine with me.

There are, however, a few things that I should add before I start sounding like a shill for Sony. I really would not want the RX1, and certainly would never use it in any sort of professional capacity, without the electronic viewfinder (EVF)— but perhaps that says as much about my shooting style as it does about the camera. The EVF itself is a wonderful design, it blends right into the effortless operation of this camera, but it’s also not cheap and thus adds to the initial purchase expense.

And then my biggest complaint: the location of the "Movie Button." Come on, it's on the right-hand grip, for pity's sake! In the short time I've spent using this camera, I've accidentally tripped this thing four or five times. The first time it happened I glanced at my display and wondered how and why in the hell I was shooting video of the ground. Seriously, what were they thinking? It's such a well-designed camera that the placement of this button just baffles me. I'm hoping that there will soon be a firmware update that allows me to disable that blasted button (something I believe Sony has done with other models).

So there you have it—my non-techie initial impression of using the RX1 in a real-world pro shoot situation, with almost no time under the hood of the camera prior to the shoot. As you can tell, I'm sold on this little beastie, and am singing its praises. Of course I'll still be using my film cameras and my big heavy rigs too, but for right now I'm psyched about that "light, unfettered" feeling I get while shooting the RX1. Mato and his manager were very happy with the results as well, so it was a good three hours all the way around. And I got to hear great blues stories from Mato over dinner, after the shoot.

Oh, and I'm no longer at the very back of my Luddite cave—I've now officially scooted a few yards toward the entrance....

Bruce

(P.S. For those interested in Mato's music, I would recommend these to start with: "Indigenous Featuring Mato Nanji" from 2012; "Vanishing Americans"—the new record, 2013; and "Indigenous Live at Pachyderm Studio 1998.")

Sony RX1 at Amazon

EVF

OVF

Sony RX1 at B&H Photo

EVF

OVF

[Ed. Note: A new variant of the RX1 has just been announced, the RX1R, which has no anti-aliasing filter. The two cameras are otherwise identical and are priced the same.] 

Bruce Haley by Bill Jay, 2006

In 1992, when he was at Black Star, Bruce Haley was nominated by The Baltimore Sun for a Pulitzer Prize for helping to break the story of the famine in Somalia. His clients include Time, LIFE, U.S. News and World Report, The London Sunday Times Magazine, Stern, Paris Match, GEO, Aperture, Esquire, Georgia-Pacific, and the Chevron Corporation, and his work has been profiled in American Photo, (French) Photo, B&W magazine, Artworks, and Arts & Living. He received the prestigious Robert Capa Gold Medal for his coverage of the Burmese civil war.

Text and pictures ©2013 by Bruce Haley, 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:

GH: "Hi, Bruce. Great shots and review. I wanted to mention that you can disable the movie button on the RX1, so that it only activates when the mode dial is set to movie mode. This function is there in the menus. I also wanted to mention just how great using an OVF is with this camera (I use a Voigtlander, rather than the official Zeiss.)

"I expected to primarily use the EVF, but I also got an OVF for fun, and I like using the OVF so much more that, surprisingly, I got rid of the EVF altogether. The OVF stays permanently on the camera. You'd think that a "dumb" OVF wouldn't be useful, but, since the AF and metering of the camera is so accurate, and there is no horizontal parallax, my hit rate is very good. I occasionally use the rear LCD, if it looks like a particularly difficult AF or metering situation, but it's rare. In fact, I find that I'm at least as accurate as I am with my X100's hybrid OVF, since the Fuji has to deal with more parallax."

Bruce Haley replies: Many thanks, GH, for your comment regarding the movie button.  I found what you were referring to, and disabled the button—quite easily, I might add.  And I certainly should have discovered this option on my own, but the light is rather dim in my Luddite cave, and for now I still find in-camera menus and massive 300-page user manuals to be somewhat daunting (to be honest, I don't even know how to use most of the features on my cheap cell phone). I did look through the RX1's menus and manuals, apparently (and not surprisingly) missing this entirely, and even did a quick Google search, where I found the notion that it needed a firmware update to accomplish the task. Ignorance on my part collided with ignorance on the 'Net, giving birth to misinformation. At any rate, I'm quite pleased to have been wrong in this instance, so thanks once again for leading me out of the darkness.

Rob: "I have had my RX1 for nearly six months, and I am still astonished when I see its RAW files open up on my monitor. How could such a small gadget produce such excellent images? Some users have complained about slow autofocus, but I have rarely found this to be a problem, even in low light. Furthermore, focusing in dead-on accurate. I have the EVF, which is better than I expected, but in bright sunny conditions it is no match for an OVF. At such times, I just use it to frame the image and depend on the camera to deliver the goods, which it always does."