The Online Photographer

What Would They Be Using Today?

Ctein and I are working hard on the print sale launch today—Wednesday morning is coming up very fast. I'm shooting for 12 noon, going till next Monday at noon.

So here's one of those post ideas that I will never, ever finish. But still, kinda fun.

—If he were in the prime of his career today and shooting digital, what camera would Ansel Adams be using? Answer: Leica S, with a complete set of lenses and the absolute biggest, sturdiest Gitzo carbon-fiber tripod.

—If she were in the prime of her career today and shooting digital, what camera would Margaret Bourke-White be using? Answer: Canon 1D X—two of 'em, on loan from Canon, where she would be a sponsored Explorer of Light.

—If he were in the prime of his career today and shooting digital, what camera would Henri Cartier-Bresson be using? Answer: black Nikon 1 V1 with only the 18.5mm f/1.8 lens and the markings blacked out with electrical tape.

—If he were in the prime of his career today and shooting digital, what camera would Andy Warhol be using? Answer: Apple iPhone 5c with Shakeit Photo faux-Polaroid app.

—If he were in the prime of his career today and shooting digital, what camera would Galen Rowell be using? Answer: beat-up and bruised Canon Rebel T3i and no more than three mid-level lenses.

Anybody got any more? (I'm waiting with bated breath for Hugh Crawford to weigh in on this one....)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Hugh Crawford: "Oh the pressure...

Helmut Newton—Hasselblad H4D-40
Diane Arbus—Sony R1
Richard Avedon—Sinar arTec with a Phase One IQ260 Achromatic back
Irving Penn—Sony A7r with Zeiss Sonnar
Julia Margaret Cameron—Sony A7r with a magnifying glass on a paper towel tube
Bill Brandt—Sony A7r with pinhole
Tina Modotti—whatever Edward Weston is using
Lee Miller—whatever Man Ray is using , no make that Robert Capa, no Picasso
Cecil Beaton—Red
Jacques Henri Lartigue—Fujifilm FinePix Real3D
Andy Warhol—Nikon's Coolpix S1000pj, the one with a built-in projector or Polaroid Z2300 that prints instant photo stickers
Harold Edgerton—Vision Research Phantom V
Stanley Kubrick—Hubble space telescope

"(No disrespect intended to Lee Miller, go, be amazed.)"

Chris Vogl: "I thought that Mr. Rowell was a Nikon man."

Mike replies: Oops, you're right, my bad.

David Emerson: "Winogrand: Ricoh GR."

Adam Long: "Myself and my climbing photographer friends have discussed the Galen question long and hard. The reason being, there still isn't a digital equivalent to an FM2 and a couple of primes. We're a lot closer now with Fuji's recent offerings, but they don't fit into a bigger pro system in the way Galen's kit did. If he stuck with Nikon SLRs, I'd guess a D3200 with 16–85mm."

Mike Plews: "AA was shooting Hasselblad V series cameras at the end of his life. My bet would on a digital back for same."

Marcin Wuu: "Karsh would definitely use Phase One's IQ260 Achromatic."

Bob Blakley: "Galen would almost certainly still be using a Nikon; his lifetime collection of lenses would be reason enough. A D5300 would be my guess. And oh how I wish he were still here to answer the question for himself. Gone too soon."

darr: "Berenice Abbott: Alpa cameras (XY, Max and Alpa SWA; possibly Seitz Roundshot as well), with superior lenses. She would invent tools and/or techniques that would create unusual effects on her images, not HDR or other like-minded gimmicks, but effects that would promote her desire to be a 'straight shooter.'"

John Krumm: "Adams would definitely be shooting medium format at least, but from what I remember he also liked his little Contax for candids, so he might have a GX7 when out with friends. I know he looked forward to digital. Perhaps a company, seeking attention, would design an Ansel special, a large format digital. He would use it a few times and then go back to medium format because of size. Thanks to metering improvements his zone system would not exist. Also, due to legions of depressing copycats he would eventually switch to full time concert piano."

sneye: "Some of my own favorites (photographers, that is):

Andre Kertesz—an unassuming, small camera. Perhaps a GX7 or an X-E2.
Larry Burrows—a D700, no doubt.
Mario Giacomelli—hard to say. He never paid much attention to his tools. Maybe an E-P2 with the accessory viewfinder.
Edward Steichen—a 5DIII
Edouard Boubat—a Leica M
Alexander Rodchenko—something truly proletarian, maybe a Sony RX100
Bill Brandt (before the war; I'm not impressed by his later work)—a K-5
Yousuf Karsh—a Leica S
Eugene Smith—a D800E. He wouldn't have been able to resist."

Open Mike: Malcolm Gladwell

I like Malcolm Gladwell. Yes, I know all the common and usual objections to his work—he oversimplifies, he doesn't like gray areas. He overquantifies, if that's a word. His claims aren't fully supported or supportable. One friend (hi, Scott) notes that he loves ideas but thinks the ideas sometimes don't seem quite correct; another (hi, Karen) says he's a popularizer of other peoples' research—research which, in full parade dress and in the proper academic settings, is often more subtle than Mr. Gladwell portrays it to be. Okay. All duly noted.

I still like him. If you look at his growing oeuvre holistically, it seems clear that he's really just trying to get people to look at things from different angles—to turn ideas inside-out, or stand them on their heads, and look at them afresh, and see what can be seen that way. I personally love those kinds of thought experiments, and I agree with him, broadly, that, often, conventional truths and received wisdom shape our thoughts and our beliefs more than we admit they do, sometimes to society's detriment.

Malcolm Gladwell—born in the U.K., raised in Canada, works in NYC.

His latest book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants is as stuffed with unconventional ideas as any of his books. And yes, he does make some typically Gladwellian jumps to conclusions in a couple of places: he accepts the assumption that "three strikes" laws are always counterproductive, for example, on reasoning that seems a bit rushed and not quite convincing, when the truth is probably more complicated than he makes it out to be.

But he also—again typically—makes some great points. One of the most interesting thoughout the book is his fondness for the inverted-U shaped graph—the idea that many good things get better up to a point and then start to become less good again*.

"Small class size" in schools is one of his primary examples. He points to research that suggests that our conventional assumption throughout society at large is that smaller class sizes are always better, when in fact that is only true up to a point: a class that is too small makes individual students feel too vulnerable, like too much attention is being focused on them, and too-small classes don't allow for the diversity of viewpoints that contribute to good discussions.

There is an optimum class size, and, generally, the more you depart from it—in either direction—the worse things get.

I actually concluded the same thing years ago when I was a teacher. I decided that the optimum size for a class was 15 to 19 students. Turns out that's right in line with a broad spectrum of research on the topic.

One very interesting effect of this is actually not brought up—not brought up forcefully, at least—until the notes. It's that our overwhelming belief in "smaller is better" in class size leads us to make the exact wrong choices in trying to effect reforms. What we do is hire more teachers so that class sizes can be smaller. Because payroll is the #1 expense of schools, that means we can pay all teachers less. But research strongly suggests that the teaching skills of the teacher has far more of an overall effect on the quality of the education than class size does—and there are never enough gifted and talented teachers to go around. What we should be doing, instead of marginalizing the gifted and talented teachers by giving them fewer and fewer students, and demoralizing them by paying them less, would be to work at identifying the really good teachers and then pay those people more to accept the heavier workload and more demanding responsibilities of larger class sizes. By exposing more students to the best teachers (and retaining more of them with higher rewards), we'd be getting a better deal for our educational dollars.

It's a typical Gladwellian idea—turn the conventional widsom inside out, take a fresh look at it, and see what you can discover.

Gladwell, to me, is just not a good "dictator." That is, he's not a writer you have to swallow whole or wholly reject. He's an author whose ideas you turn over in your mind and take or leave. They're triggers to further inquiry and inspiration for further thought on readers' parts—perspectives to put to use in coming to our own conclusions. Whether you agree with him or not. Or both, in the case of different ideas. Nothing at all undesirable about that, if you ask me.

Oh, and who knew there was a real David and a real Goliath, and that we actually know quite a lot about them? That another nice thing about a Gladwell book—you'll always learn something you never knew before.

Mike

"Open Mike," the editorial page of TOP, is often off-topic, and appears on Sundays.

P.S. More recommended reading: If you happen to have a college-attending child who either belongs to a fraternity or parties at them, you must read this article at The Atlantic (it's free, online)—and I mean must! Especially at the part that begins:

Gentle reader, if you happen to have a son currently in a college fraternity, I would ask that you take several carbon dioxide-rich deep breaths from a paper bag before reading the next paragraph. I’ll assume you are sitting down. Ready?

Urgent need-to-know stuff. Seriously.

*I've always believed that. Water is my favorite rhetorical example—it's critical to our survival, but ingest too much in the wrong manner and we have a very negative word for what happens...it's called "drowning."

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

[Note: Several teachers responded with their thoughts about class size. I didn't want to "promote" one over another, but they're very interesting and insightful. See the Comments Section for those. —Ed.]

psu: "I find critiques like this or this or this to be kind of off-putting.

"This is more than just using writerly (if that's a word) license to make people think out of the box. It feels to me like he's walking a fine line and trying to present appealing narratives that are clothed in an aura of academic support but he really does not do the work make sure those narratives are in any way based in fact."

Patrick: "I more or less threw in the towel on Gladwell after Blink. He reads a bunch, he is somewhat smart in some sort of non-analytical way, he is a very good writer, but half of that book seemed to contradict the other half. Steven Pinker absolutely killed Outliers in a review, you could look it up sometime...."

Mike replies: I know, and as I said, okay. If you don't like him I won't argue.

Gladwell-bashing has gotten common enough to qualify as a regular olympic sport in some quarters. In truth, the bashing is almost as entertaining as the books (so thanks for the links). If I were Gladwell, or editing him, I would insist on a whole lot more qualifying, and much more elbow room for ambiguity. It's well known that he drives some academics crazy. He has a way of saying "here's a little research that supports the conclusion I like, so now we're going to accept that as completely true." The trick is just to interpret such jumps as him saying "here's what I think."

Don't discount the possibility of professional jealousy in the bash-fest, either. Most social-science types can only dream of selling (and earning) like Gladwell does. He's the superstar. 

And Patrick, have you read much of Pinker? I'll take Gladwell's faults over Pinker's—at least I can figure out what they are. I admit that of the two I'd take Pinker to the desert island, though, where I'd have ample time to figure out what the hell he's talking about and no one would mind me ranting away at the books like a guy yelling at the TV.

They're both just writing about their own ideas and beliefs, really.

John Camp: "I've been force-fed a couple courses in statistics in the context of newspaper reporting, with an emphasis on 'what's wrong with these statistics?' From that viewpoint, what bothers me about much of Gladwell's work is, first, that you don't get much hint of the other side, and second, when you look back at original sources, you find that his popularization of certain ideas mean that he has had to ignore the details, which means nothing is quite as clear cut as Gladwell makes it. I read most of Blink, and gave up; I thought the most interesting book was the one [Outliers —Ed.] that argued (essentially) that work is more important than 'talent,' whatever talent is. I found that idea so interesting that I did go back and read some of the original work, and feel some debt to Gladwell for bringing my attention to it; but to say that he oversimplified it is to oversimplify it."

Robert Roaldi: "I almost feel like telling the critics that if they wanted academic rigor, then they should join academia. You could make the argument, though, that the kind of thoughtful criticism that his works generate are useful parts of the 'thinking outside the box' that he seems to want to encourage. When I read his stuff, I often think, 'Oh yeah, that's interesting.' And then when I read a criticism, I sometimes think, 'Oh yeah, that's interesting too.' Why does there seem to be the need to have winners and losers in such discussions? Gladwell doesn't have to totally correct, and neither do his detractors. It's not a baseball game."

Random Excellence: Juan Amores

At first I didn't know how to contact this photographer, but a kindly reader, William Flowers, clued me in about how to use Flickr Mail. I haven't kept up with Flickr's changes well enough, obviously.

Photo by Juan Amores

Eventually I was able to contact the photographer, Juan Amores (his real name—he goes by "John Love" in various places) and he did give me permission to publish it. You might still want to look at it at this link, where it's bigger and easier to see.

I like the tension between the strong colors of the manmade "frames" and the subtler, more earthy colors of the natural scene, but what strikes me about this picture is the balanced eccentricity of it, "eccentric" in the sense of off-centeredness. The graphic elements have strong echoes—the natural scene split into three areas by two strong horizontals echoed by a horizontal line in the green area on the left, the two small spherical shapes (bolt heads, I suppose) echoing between left and right—all the reinforcing and yet not quite matching curves. And I like the degree of bokeh in the foreground objects—just enough to make a contrast of soft and sharp, but not too blurry, as we more often see these days.

The picture reminds me a bit, in its colors and strong design, of Harald Mante's work.

The accents probably save the picture from being just an exercise—the ship on the body of water and that improbable and odd bowed metal pole bisecting the circular "picture within the picture"—those elements give the picture of bit of life and somehow give the eye a bit more "permission" to dwell on the formal compositional aspects. You have to be careful about echoes in photographs—they can be sort of dulling somehow, metronomic, if they're too obvious. That the green and orange colors are so nicely complementary adds a nice touch—supporting the "balanced but unbalanced" feel of the picture.

Well seen.

I happened across Juan's picture (randomly, hence the post title) at fredmiranda.com, while paging my way through a massive Sigma DP2 Merrill thread.

Mike
(Thanks to Juan and William)

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Dave Levingston: "That's a wonderful photograph."

Juan Amores: "Thanks, it's an honor for me!!"

Print Sale Updates

The Next Sale (a.k.a. The "Help TOP Move" Sale): kicks off this coming Wednesday, April 2nd (because we really couldn't start it on Tuesday). It's to help fund a bigger office for TOP, and it's our first tiered sale, with, we hope, something to please everyone. I'm getting really good feedback on the prints so far.

The Last Sale (a.k.a. The Matrix Sale): All sets of matrices shipped out as of this past Wednesday. So, if anyone hasn't gotten their package or received a notification from the Post Office that it's on its way, they should email Ctein right away.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

For Women Readers

Advance notice—we're having a photo contest.

One of my ambitions for TOP at the outset was for it to be significantly female-friendly. This was at the suggestion of several female photographer friends who had limited patience with the persnickety gearheadedness and status disputation of many male-dominated forums*. It's an ambition that makes sense, because photography itself—if you define it as the act of making photographs—is remarkably non-sexist, and was that way even when that went directly against the grain of society and culture. There have been great women photographers at every level of accomplishment in virtually every era of the history of photography.

I'm happy to say we'll soon be having a "Women Readers' Photo Contest." We have some pretty nice prizes, from a copy of the new book Women of Vision to the gem-like Panasonic GX7 camera.

Just to say "you're never forgotten here." Announcement in April. Watch this space....

Mike

*Not ours of course. All readers of TOP are more enlightened, and smarter, as well as much better looking than the norm.

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Lesley: "I'm a long time reader, and female, but have commented only a couple of times during the years I've been reading TOP. I think this contest is a cool idea and, depending on the details, there is a pretty good chance that I'll make the effort to toss an entry into the contest. So thanks, I appreciate both what you are doing and your motivation for doing it; it may encourage me to comment more often."

Mike replies: I hope you will.

Jayson Merryfield: "I went and shared this with a small photography group I'm a part of, which includes more than a few female photographers. Maybe one or two will become regulars? Who's to say?  :-)  Great idea."

William Schneider: "When I started teaching in the mid-'80s, the overwhelming majority of photojournalists and commercial photographers in classes were men. There might have been one woman in an entire class back then. Times have changed. I just ran a quick count on our current students:

• Photojournalism—69% female vs. 31% male
• Commercial Photo—86% female vs. 14% male

"Men appear to write most of the posts on gear-based websites, but it's clear that the next generation of professional photographers will be predominantly female."

Chuck: "Call me a knuckle dragger if you want. This is discrimination. If you had a contest for men only it would be discrimination and a bunch of folks would be screaming about it. What is the deal. Is it because males are stronger and can carry heavier cameras so they can only shot from behind the men's tee?"

Mike replies: That doesn't even make sense.... 

Heather S: "In order to prove that some of your readers are indeed female, I am happy to post my first comment. I have been reading TOP for years; it is the only photography blog which is bookmarked at the top of my browser window. I read it because it is erudite and opinionated, yet civil and kind. I read it because it balances well the 'gearhead' topics with the concerns of photography as art. I read it because it is not ridiculously stubborn about full-frame, physically bloated DSLRs as the end-all-be-all. (I say this as a woman who often shoots with a classic 5D, but whose small, aching hands lust for an OM-D.) I hope Mr. Tanaka is wrong—I hope that I am part of more than a small percentage of your readership. But if I am not, please know that at least this woman quite likes your blog. Cheers!"

Mike replies: I am indeed cheered!  :-)  How about a GX7, would that be almost as good? 

John Craig: "How do you know if I am really female?"

Mike replies: I take your word for it. Perhaps I give greater weight to the idea of honor than is currently fashionable, but I start with the assumption that TOP readers can be taken at their word. I've been interacting with my readers in a variety of ways for a significant number of years now, and that has overwhelmingly been my experience.

gnd: "David Cobb at Photo Cascadia recently wrote about female landscape photographers who inspire him."

MargaretR: "As a female reader of this blog, and enthusiastic amateur photographer (albeit one who's never posted), I applaud your efforts to be female-friendly and non-sexist. I greatly enjoy the breadth of articles I find here, even some of the 'gear' ones (although I don't always 'get' them! It's a camera…it does what every other camera does…get over it!  :-)  )

"But a competition for women only? Really? Part of me finds that a teeny bit sexist in itself. I've had the good fortune to grow up in a era where male-female equality is taken for granted (at least it has been in my life and career), and I've never felt the need for positive discrimination such as this. In fact, I've always been against it.

"Great images are great images, no matter who or which gender they're taken by. There's no reason women can't or don't take as great images as men, as a matter of course. I grant there are probably still fewer women in the field, but as noted above, and as in many other disciplines, that's changing.

"Encourage your women readers by being as inclusive and thoughtful as you like in your posts—that's great. But segregating us out as something 'separate but equal'? I appreciate the good intent, but noooooo, thanks. Let us just be who we are, and take on the world (or not, as we choose) right alongside the male readers. We're all just photographers, after all. Good, bad and indifferent. To paraphrase Tina Turner, what's gender got to do with it….?"

Mike replies: Or, as another (female) photographer put it to me privately, "most people today, male or female, don't like the genders being split out." I get that.

I would just point out, to you and her, without meaning to be, or trying to be, contentious, that just because you're a woman reader doesn't necessarily mean this contest is for you. You can still pick and choose what you want to participate in here with perfect freedom. You can always sit it out if you don't like the parameters.

But in your comment, aren't you starting from the base assumption that all contests are supposed to be for all readers, fairly and equally?

That's not empirically my take on contests. My sense is that they're usually manipulative to some degree, and they have some (often cynical) purpose behind them.

For example, there was a contest held by a children's clothing company many years ago asking for amateur pictures of children dressed in the company's clothing. The catch was that entrants had to sign over all rights to every entry to the company in perpetuity. The company then used all the contest entries as private stock photography for several years afterwards, using the pictures in ads (including national print advertising campaigns) and all manner of corporate publications with no further compensation to the photographers.

We're not that bad, of course—I wouldn't be, as I object to exploitation of photographers—but what if I held a contest for view camera pictures because I was receiving complaints that the site is not friendly enough to large format photographers? Would people who have never shot a single picture with a view camera complain of discrimination? Maybe they would—but too bad. The purpose of the contest in that case would be to send a message to large format photographers that we're not ignoring them. And—cyncial self-interest coming up—that they shouldn't ignore us either. The contest would naturally get some attention at the LFF and other LF sites, and draw some new eyes here that might not know about TOP.

The bottom line (Cynic Dept.) is that if I put up $1k worth of prizes, more or less, it's because I want something in return. And what I'm aiming for here is to adjust the proportions, because my sense is that the proportion of women readers here has gotten too small. The problem is not "how to get good photographs as submissions" (that's easy—just ask), the problem is "how to entice more women photographers to come discover the site." To look, and maybe like what they see and stick around. Does that have a cynical and manipulative—even crass—aspect? Okay, it does; but most contests do.

Of course, a secondary motive is to send a message to existing women photographer TOP readers (such as you) that their presence is appreciated, and if the contest serves to alienate you to any significant degree, then it has backfired. Right? And I definitely do not want that....

Edie Howe: "Thanks, Mike! A fine effort to include us XX types. I'll be entering, of course. Do you have a theme in mind?"

Mike replies: I don't. I'm leaning towards making it completely open, with no limitations whatsoever, as that seems to reflect what women photographers can be into. I know people like guidance and direction generally in contests (all people, not just women), and I considered making it a requirement that all the pictures had to include at least one human being...just to give the entries as a whole a slight bit of consistency and coherence.

Then gnd's comment (above) came in, with that amazing link...! That was the end of that idea.

Thorsten: "Being male, I'm receiving here a message that my presence is being taken for granted."

alessandra: "I'm a long time reader and female. I also bought photographs at least three times during your print offers; but for several reasons I usually do not post comments. This is an exception, I just want to let you know that I really enjoy your blog."

Mike replies: Thanks!

New Leica / Panasonic Wide Angle Lens

Coming in May with a pricetag of $600 will be the new Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm (30mm-e) ƒ/1.7 ASPH. high speed prime wide-angle lens.

The extremely compact lens for the Micro 4/3 standard will be less than an inch a half (36mm) long and weigh a mere four ounces (115 g). It has an aperture ring, internal focusing, and a manual-focus to autofocus switch. Construction is nine elements in seven groups and includes three aspherical elements.

The company says "a newly developed stepping motor makes the focusing action smooth and silent for use in both photo and video recording," and claims that AF is far superior to phase-detection systems.

The lens is metal and includes a metal hood, and will initially be available in black.

The Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm ƒ/1.2 ASPH Power OIS lens (85mm angle of view equivalent) is already shipping. That lens will vie for attention with the truly spectacular Fujifilm XF 56mm ƒ/1.2 R lens (also 85mm-e) over in the Fuji system.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Andre Moreau: "With Leica's and Samyang's lastest lens offering plus what Olympus has in the pipeline, I wonder if there is a camera system that offers as much as Micro 4/3."

Stan B.: "When will someone, anyone, make some wide-angle primes for Micro 4/3 below 28mm-e (other than the pricey 24mm-e Zuiko)? In a field known for its unlimited plethora of available, adaptable lenses, short WA primes (save one) are nonexistent!"

S. Chris: "This lens marks a watershed to me in Micro 4/3. I happen to hate shooting in 4:3 ratio, and if you crop to 2:3, all those 17mm '35 equivalent' lenses are way too long. Finally, a fast, small, true 35mm equivalent to supplant the previous barely sufficient 14mm ƒ/2.5. I may well get a Micro 4/3 body just to use this lens...."

Why Didn't Nikon...?

I'm interested mainly in photographers and what they do with cameras, rather than cameras and how they're made.

Of course the two aren't mutually exclusive. What I'm saying is that I'm not an industry analyst like our friend Thom Hogan, who knows ten times as much about the industry as I do. (Is this humblebrag? No.)

Still, I'm very curious about one particular question. It came up in our recent informal survey of readers' favorite cameras that the two oldest cameras in the top dozen were the Canon 5D and the Nikon D700.

Canon beat Nikon to market with its full frame camera for advanced amateurs (or "AdAms," as Kodak used to call them). And then Nikon didn't follow up for a while, but left that valuable niche to Canon all alone for something like two long years. Isn't that right? I'm just going on memory.

The advent of the D3 so obviously begged for an amateur-sized and -spec'd camera with the same sensor that a "D700" was forecast as an obvious product move even before it came out. Even by me (I referred to the then-future camera as an "FX light" in that article).

Then, after the D700 did come out, it was hugely popular...and obviously well-loved by AdAms. It placed either first or second in our informal poll (depending on whether you choose to count the Fuji X100 and X100s as two different cameras or the same camera).

Yet whereas Canon realized what it had in the 5D and carefully cultivated a lineage for that model, first with the 5D Mark II and now with the 5D Mark III, with upticks in sensor resolution (13 MP in 2005, 21 MP in 2008, 22 MP in 2012), Nikon essentially abandoned the D700 when it was discontinued very early in 2012.

Why?

Of course, the D800 was supposed to be the successor to the D700, but it isn't. It's a very different camera. And the D700 name was history.

Then came the problem-plagued D600 and its make-do replacement, the D610, which by model number are slotted below the D700. The D610 seems positioned as detuned consumer version of the D800. A FF price leader. The D610 is a really nice camera—I like it—but it doesn't seem to channel the same vibe as the D700, which was more of a "pro sensor in an AdAm body" kind of thing.

To parallel the D700, you'd think Nikon would put the 16-MP CMOS sensor from the new D4s into an F100/D700 style body—with the same basic sensor performance and responsiveness as the big pro camera, but aimed at non-pros who don't need the rest of the big-time pro camera performance features—and call it the D710 or (better yet) the D700 II. (Another grand tradition. You get a hit, milk it.) And it would come out c. 2015, if the D3–D700 sequence were observed.

But will it? That's a question. Now with the D800/D610 pair covering AdAm FF, it seems unlikely. It would just crowd and confuse the lineup. Even though there really isn't a true D700 successor in that lineup.

The much-beloved 2008–2011 Nikon D700

Big "hits" in the camera universe are as rare, and should be as prized, as big hits anywhere else—pop music, bestselling books. They're not something that can be totally gamed—there's a mysterious element of luck and convergence involved. Fuji's X100/s was clearly a great big hit if our readers are any indication. Fuji was as surprised as the rest of the photo world, and couldn't believe its luck. Certainly the original Canon 5D was a monster hit. And Canon clearly knew it.

I guess I just don't understand why Nikon would have such a big hit with the D700 and then wander away from the model designation and the spirit of the product.

But then, as I say, maybe I don't understand the industry.

Mike

P.S. The Canon 5D Mark III just went on sale. $500 off.

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Tommy Brown: "They do, it's called a Df and it works perfectly."

Thom Hogan: "I'd say it's more curious than that. As I wrote somewhere else yesterday:

• Nikon has continued to update the D3xxx, D5xxx, and D7xxx bodies on the same regular basis and with the same expected changes.
• Nikon appears to be continuing to update the D# and now the D800 bodies (rumored D800s) with mid-term upgrades, much as we came to expect from before.
• But Nikon has completely botched the middle: no D300s upgrade, no D700 upgrade, a D600/D610 fiasco, and a Df that's not like anything they've done before.

"The whole area between US$1100 and US$3000 (body only) is highly confused for Nikon at the moment and appears to be going to continue that way. Yet I'd have said that this is exactly the price range that Nikon had been most successful at in the past; it's the core Nikon Enthusiast audience. Clearly, something changed around 2009 with Nikon's strategy in the middle. Coupled with the D600 dust/lubricant fiasco, Nikon now has a serious problem with what should be a strength in their lineup."

Ray Hunter: "As a long-time (40-year) Nikon customer, I too puzzle over Nikon's market behavior. Add to your examples the Nikon Coolpix A, a well-designed camera that came to the dance too late and with too big a price tag. However, Nikon seems determined to maintain the design and price, and sort of leave it twisting in the wind.

"I don't know anything about the camera making industry, but as we all know it is part of the 21st Century electronics industry. I imagine them trying to design a horse, with Legal telling them to eliminate the tail because it might inadvertently harm a bystander, and Finance telling them to only have three legs instead of four to keep the costs down, and Marketing introducing it six months after the first car is sold. It enters the marketplace to an indifferent public. Trying to figure out why the horse is not selling, they all go on corporate retreat to Hawaii. Unable to reach agreement on the public's response to the horse, they give each other some awards, pay themselves bonuses (the horseshit division made money even if the horse division didn't) and begin the design of 'the smaller horse,' or 'Horse II.' The designer goes along with all this because, hey, what's an out of work horse designer going to do?"

Mike replies: Made me laugh. Thanks for that.

Dennis (partial comment): "Why they haven't developed a D400 is a mystery as well. Oh well, let mysteries be mysteries; I'm happy with my D7000 and if I were to ever move up the food chain, I'd be happy with Nikon's choices."

Derek: "I too was a bit disconcerted that Nikon seemed to abandon the D700 lineage. And then I really took a closer look at the D610 and realized it is a true successor in everything but name. The great oil sensor fiasco really tarnished the camera's image (forgive me) which is a shame. But what spec would you name that doesn't put it as a D700 successor? Beast of a sensor: we're talking some serious chops at 24 MP; this sensor is the fourth highest rated sensor ever made according to DxOmark! In a sub-$2,000 body. And it scores slightly, granted unnoticeably, better than the D800 at high ISO. It's got a last-gen autofocus system, but with 39 AF points who cares? I also love the fact the AF points are tightly grouped because I always focus and recompose, I never move between individual sensor points. The 100% viewfinder is gorgeous. It got the high end treatment. It shoots 6 FPS without the extra grip. It's close in size and weight to the top-end DX bodies—huzzah! This is personal preference, but I prefer to have gear that doesn't stand out anymore than a full size SLR already stands out. I also appreciate the lighter body for dragging through the mountains as I'm wont to do.

"OK, I'll stop spouting specs, but I think the D610 is the D700 successor, Nikon just named it wrong. The D800 is great, but I don't need the extra pixels and I don't want the extra weight."

John Brewton: "Seriously missing my D700 after getting the D800 and selling the D700. The D700 is the better camera in so many ways. Listening to that siren call of megapixels will not trip me up again! (Very famous last words.)"

Rob: "I sold my D700 after the D600 came out. I was disappointed with the lack of and AF ON button, the cheaper viewfinder, and the general feel of the D600 (I thought the D700 was about as perfect as a camera could be ergonomically). However I have come to love my D600. Nikon replaced my shutter and did a clean and overhaul for free long before the recall. The files are amazing. The D600 does everything I ask it too. I'm sticking tight until there is a camera that can do everything the D600 does and weighs significantly less for half the price. Fuji is getting close, but I'm hoping that camera is a Nikon."

Chris Grover: "As a wedding shooter, I will mourn the D700 on a weekly basis—each of mine are nearing the end of their expected life and as a camera it just works and doesn't get in the way (apart from the hotshoe wobble issue). I get by with the D800 and love it for its dynamic range on a sunny day, but the files just clog everything up. I need 12 or 16 MP, a decent buffer and frame rate for the confetti moment and a reasonably solid body: I don't need the weight or intimidating bulk of the D4s! When the D700 mkII is out, I'll be first in the queue!"

Jack Foley: "I think Nikon didn't replace and upgrade the D700 because newspaper photogs like me bought it over the twice-the-price D3s. I've used them both (and just recently the D4) and still prefer the D700. The image quality is as good as the so-called professional grade bodies.

"With the battery grip, I get 8 fps for my sports assignments. And, that amateurish little built in-flash is a very useable commander for any number of slaved strobes ( including studio strobes )—as well as coming in handy when just a tiny lick of light is needed. The only drawback to this camera's design is that the shutter is not as long-lasting as the top-tier boxes. I've had my D700's shutter replaced twice by Nikon now, and very reasonably. The long awaited D800 can't reach the speeds I need for sports, probably because of having to write those enormous files. So, if I needed a camera right now, I would go on eBay, and for maybe $1,200, purchase one that's five years old, but with only as many shutter actuations as I'd put on my main camera in one month.

"The D700 is Nikon's best value ever, in my opinion."

Canon Announces B&W-Only Camera...With Nikon F-Mount

Hmm, you'd think we knew these things were coming.

Canon has announced a camera with a 15-megapixel monochrome APS-C sensor.

The camera also features a Nikon lens mount.

Huh?

Canon M15P-CL

Well, things are not quite as they seem. The Canon M15P-CL is a camera for the so-called "industrial" market, meaning it's for security and for product inspection in manufacturing processes. It's for tethered use, and it uses a Nikon F lens mount because that's what's standard in the industrial camera market and prospective buyers aren't likely to want to buy new lenses.

The interesting part of this newsy tidbit, of course, is that Canon has a 15-megapixel APS-C black and white sensor. Would it be that hard to put one in a stripper Rebel T5i body for photography students? C'mon, Canon, think outside the box!

Mike
(Thanks to Eric Rose and Hugh Crawford)

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

David: "Not sure which was better, your suggestion or the pun; assuming the pun was intentional."

Mike replies: As I might say, a little joke. And my brother Scott would reply: very little!

Mike Farley: "Canikon?"

Soeren Engelbrecht: "And let's not forget that the very first Canon cameras actually came bundled with Nikkor lenses :-) .

Here They Are, Your Favorite Digital Cameras

The other day, we asked our readers to name their favorite digital cameras, past or present. The request garnered 701 comments, which is (by a multiple of about three) the most comments ever on a TOP post. Although I did grease the skids a time or two with reminders.

Of those, 650 comments, or 93%, were responsive.

Then I asked our friend Sarge, a reader from the Philippines who has a talent for tabulating data, to compile the results. (I'm paying him, as it was a lot of work. He's still done us a huge favor in doing this, though, so grateful thanks and props to Sarge.) He's working on several more interesting presentations of the data, including one that incorporates the film camera responses. Those we will present at a later date.

Where people named several cameras without indicating order of preference (many people did the latter), Sarge counted only the first one named.

Note that this was an informal, casual, friendly, non-rigorous—and non-binding!—poll. Fun anyway.

Here are the initial results, first the top 13 individual models mentioned by the most readers (note that the top 13 models only accounted for 223 mentions out of the total 650) and then overall by brand (note that "D3/" includes the D3, D3s, and D3X but that the different generations of Canon 5D and the Fuji X100 and X100s are separated).

TOP readers' all-time favorite digital cameras by model

Favorites by brand share

More data soon!

Mike
(Thanks to Sarge)

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Jim: "Wow, I would think one would treat the Fuji X100 and X100s the same as the Nikon D3/3s/3xs. If you did that the Fujis would total 43% which is a wooki-wee bit more than the Nikon D700 now shown as the favorite model. Recount! There's chads in the pockets of his Nikon coat...wait is that a U.S. Olympic Scoring Committee Member on that coat?"

Mike replies: I hear you, but it's not a contest, it's just information. You can do with it what you will. If you prefer to lump the X100/s together, that's easy to do.

I do think the showing of the X100/s is remarkable given the great variety and competition in the marketplace.

Bron: "I'm devastated, lost, anguished, bereft; my camera isn't even a...a...a blip, oh.... Woe is me. Just more indisputable evidence that, gasp, I'm not really a photographer, woe!"

Mike replies: Nope, still just information...not a directive!

JohnMFlores: "It's confirmed—TOP readers live in an alternate universe!"

Mike replies: That might be just me.

David Dyer-Bennet: "Oh dear. I own both the first and second-ranking camera from this list. Am I becoming mainstream in my old age? Yaaarrrrghhhh!"

Mike replies: You're becoming mainstream—but only in an alternate universe.

Clayton: "This exercise will wind up costing me $1,300. It got me thinking about the wonderful lens of the Minolta 7Hi. Closest thing today is the Sony RX10. Of the old cameras mentioned in the comments to the original post, several were different versions of the Minolta bridge series using the same lens."

Jerome Liebling's Color and Black and White

May Day, Union Square Park, New York City, 1948

The Steven Kasher Gallery has announced its representation of the estate of Jerome Liebling (1924–2011) with the exhibition 'Jerome Liebling: Matter of Life and Death.' Curated by Liebling's daughter, filmmaker Rachel Liebling, the show includes both early vintage photographs and later large-scale prints in black and white and color. Spanning six decades, the 75 photographs in the show comprise a retrospective of selected works that explore the themes of youth, maturity, and death.

"My sympathies have always been with the everyday people; they are the center of my photography," Liebling said. "There is a sublime and special respect that is ordinary, but which I think I sometimes push to heights of importance." Former student Ken Burns called Liebling "a fierce warrior, insisting on a kind of justice, a kind of truth, and an utterly American vitality. He saw in every individual his or her own worth."

Men's Hat Shop, Jerusalem, 1979

In light of our recent conversation, Jerome Liebling was a accomplished black-and-white photographer who really understood color. Steven Kasher Gallery has put up an  extended slideshow of Liebling's work from the new exhibit. Or if you can get there in person, "Jerome Liebling: Matter of Life and Death" will be on view from March 13th to April 19th, 2014. Steven Kasher Gallery is located at 521 W. 23rd St., New York, NY 10011. Gallery hours are Tuesday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Mike
(Thanks to Dave Sailer)

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Kenneth Tanaka: "Looks like a terrific show, typical of the energy and effort Mr. Kasher puts behind representing his artists. His is among the best photo galleries in the world today. When I die I would like Steve Kasher to haul my work photos away. Thank you for the heads-up, Mike! I do not know much of Jerome Liebling's work but now must remedy that deficit."

JK: "'Men's hat shop' to me is about as lovely a color photograph as can be. I get an immediate, visceral sensation from a shot like this that I'm not sure B&W ever quite delivers. The problem is that you can look a long, long time before finding a shot that works that well in color. I have to admit that the main reason I shoot mainly in B&W is that for every really good color shot I see, I find about a hundred in monochrome."

David Miller: "This wonderful series of Liebling's photographs quite neatly spans my lifetime. Perhaps because of that, but more likely because of the nature of Liebling's artistry, I don't see the photography, I see the people and the times he photographed.

They are familiar people, particularly in the '40's and '50s—working class and rural, from a time when the people I knew were not so damned clean as they are now. Like my farm family they probably washed off the day's dirt in a basin and had a bath once a week before church or—for non-churchgoers like us—before driving into town on Saturday afternoon. Two sets of clothes (usually hand-me-downs) were sufficient: one on and one in the wash. (Plus one for Sundays or school concerts.)

"Perhaps that familiarity lies behind my preference for black-and-white photographs: those are the photographs in my family album, the photographs of the people and houses of my childhood—the time when I was most myself and least influenced by the alien world beyond the borders of my own."

What a Great Comment!

An outstanding brief comment from yesterday, continuing the topic of B&W tonality, from "sneye":

I once tried to illustrate the "emotional gamut" of monochrome. Having allocated one axis to brightness and the other to contrast and then describing the "feel" of different areas of the field obtained, I was impressed with the richness of expression allowed by this seemingly primitive medium. It goes from murky and industrial (low tone, low contrast) to airy and dreamy (high tone, low contrast), to mention only two "moods" (I got to about a dozen). Adding tint and graininess as variables would widen the creative space even further. The possibilities are almost endless. My point is, some colour photographers tend to regard black and white as a monolithic modus operandi. However, being surrealistic to start with monochrome is a vast field of expression. Unlike colour, it can't really go "wrong."

Great comment. Not much I can add to that, but as an aside, doesn't everyone take it for granted that black and white is far richer, more communicative, and more nuanced as a medium for expressive photography than color is? I don't know—not fair to make that assumption any more? Others don't think so? We do almost exclusively use cameras that shoot color c. 2014, and it quite naturally follows that color is the lingua franca of photography today. (This, I think, is a huge change from the 1980s when I got started in photography seriously.)

Another vein of commentary I've been hearing over the past two days during our discussion of B&W is from several people, both in the comments and privately, who point out that only a small percentage of photographers really know how to be creative with B&W and "print" it well (in the broad sense of "print" that Ctein used, meaning presenting it in any fashion, whether post-processed digital for display on the web or a paper print for the wall.)

In other words, not many photographers are very good with digital B&W, but then, not many people could print B&W well in the film era, either. Generally speaking I agree. Whenever any experienced photo-dawg says they like B&W, it has to be tempered with the assumption that what they mean is that they like the 10% of B&W out there that's purposeful, skilled, and deliberate. We're not talking about just any old digisnap that's been desaturated because the colors happened to clash.

Gordon Lewis pitched in on a similar note:

Many if not most of us have an appreciation only for what we have learned or been taught to appreciate. So some people simply have no appreciation for any type of B&W image. Others like only one type of B&W rendering. For those of use who do like to use B&W as a way to show the world, you really hit the nail on the head when you said that the trick is to "develop...a look that you really like and that not only suits but enhances your own work." That can be very difficult. It can also be very rewarding, and in more ways than one.

And finally, James Eaton asked:

I was interested in your comment about the learning curve on conversion to B&W. I have the same issue. So I wondered about this possibility: could you post a straight from-the-camera color photo and invite readers to do a conversion, documenting their process? It might be interesting to crowd-source this issue.

In February 2012 we asked readers to interpret the same file in B&W.

Interesting it indeed would be, but we've already done it. (I guess that's one of the problems with a "mature" blog like this one—we don't cover what we've covered before, but maybe lots of people haven't been following along religiously and quite naturally missed the topic the first time around. Anyway, here is the link:

Interpreting Black and White Part I

If you don't care to take the time to read that earlier post, you can get the gist of it just by looking at the pictures.

I see to my consternation that I never finished writing "Interpreting Black and White Part II"! Uh-oh. That was a mistake. I have a half-finished Part II in the stack but never followed through.

Sorry. Bad...

...Mike!-
(Thanks to sneye, Gordon, and James)

Original contents copyright 2014 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 Camp: "Painters since the Renaissance have had a reasonably complete color palette to work with, but some significant painters, from Rembrandt to Picasso, have spent time working in near-monochrome. (And drawing and printing is often simply black and white.) So B&W has always had a dramatic appeal. I think, though, that B&W only works (in an artistic sense) with really good photos. Color adds punch to photos that otherwise might be unremarkable."

Don: "'Doesn't everyone take it for granted that black and white is far richer, more communicative, and more nuanced as a medium for expressive photography than color is?' That's an out of character, unusually sweeping statement. The problems with colour are what makes it more expressive but harder to do well. If you take that 2D graph example, that B&W has a range on two axes for brightness and contrast, for colour you can add a third dimension—a rainbow of possibilities. Colours can be associated with emotion (psychology) and an era, and like it or not with computers we have phenomenal control over how we express those colours. If B&W were really so special, how come the art galleries are hung with colorful oil paintings and not charcoal sketches? Ditto man's earliest art—cave paintings filled with colour? I think you may have allowed your passion for B&W to colour your vision!"

Mike replies: Nicely argued and nicely written, yet you misunderstand me pretty thoroughly. 1. It's not a contest, and one doesn't win nor the other lose. 2. It has nothing to do with me; I wasn't expressing my opinion. I'm a color photographer now, like most, and I'm not anybody's arbiter of anything.

The view I expressed and that you quoted was simply the prevailing view throughout the history of photography up until at least the 1990s. It was taken for granted. Color was considered vulgar, commercial, decorative, literal, workmanlike, and unartistic, the poor stepchild of "real" photography. Photographers who committed to color before then were being bold and making a departure from convention; they were taking a risk, a stand. I was merely trying to make a point about how much that old view has changed. Sorry my meaning wasn't clear! I have appointments all day today and I was writing in a rush.

Dave Karp: "Regarding the idea of various interpretations and styles, it is good to point out that even within one photographer's set of work, interpretation or style may change. Ansel Adams' work demonstrates this phenomenon. People generally associate his work with dramatic vast landscapes, but he started with a very different approach. Even after his embrace of 'straight' photography his work changed and progressed to that dramatic style many remember. Even within my own work, I have made adjustments that impact the look and feel of my photographs. Changes in brands or types of papers, developers, and toning processes impact the look and feel of your work and these choices change over time and interact with 'artistic' choices to impact a photographer's prints."

Mike replies: The late David Vestal used to argue against "vintage prints" for this reason. He felt that later prints made by the same photographer were usually both better prints and also embodied the photographer's most evolved vision and style; whereas the market preferred (and prefers) prints made closest to the time the exposure was made, feeling that they are more authentic and more of the moment. I've personally always felt that as long as the photographer makes the prints or is working with the printer-person of his or her choice, then the print is valid—sometimes earlier ones are better, sometimes later ones are. But certainly every photographer should have the artistic right to revisit, re-evaluate, and remake his or her own work.

(Awkward that "printer" means both "printing machine" and "person who makes prints." Another unfortunate accident of arbitrary terminology.)

Important Clarification

So there's that old joke. Man says to his wife, "Honey, you look nice today." Wife answers, "Are you saying I don't look nice every other day?"

In the Sigma DP2M post on Friday, I didn't mean to imply that the Foveon Merrill sensor is the only one that can create natural-looking B&W. It looks to me like it does, but it's not the only one. I also wrote, "I'm seeing excellent digital B&W much more often now, and from different cameras, for example from the E-M5 and the latest Fujis."

Which is like the husband in the joke saying "honey, you look nice today," and then adding, "...of course, you usually do." But I meant it.

I also said, of the rendering of highlights in digital B&W, "...this has been getting better and better over the years, as equipment improves and as digital photographers improve (both of which are happening, I think)." That was meant to imply that, yes, it's partially a matter of individual technique, as Ctein and others asserted at greater length.

There's also the issue, which I did not explore, of peoples' tastes in B&W tonality being different. That's one of the nice things about B&W; it admits of lots of different interpretations and styles. Maybe some of the harsh gradation I see was done on purpose.

It's impossible to fully develop every aspect of every argument or assertion or contention in every post. But saying I like the tonality I was seeing from the Foveon sensor doesn't imply that nothing else looks nice.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

Richard Newman: "I'm curious, did you try your D800e in B&W? Its supposed to have excellent dynamic range, especially at lower ISO settings, so it should be able to handle the highlights well. And of course resolution is good, so it seems a good candidate for B&W imaging."

Mike replies: Yes, I've done a lot of B&W with Ye Big Dragoon (the D800—I tested the D800e but bought the cooking version). It's capable, and yet I don't get results I'm quite 100% happy with. As you know there are a thousand ways to convert to B&W in digital imaging, though, so it may well be that I'm just not far enough up the learning curve with it yet, or haven't found the best conversion method/workflow for me. More recently I've been doing the most B&W with the NEX-6.

Lars S.: "Coincidentally I just came across an interview with Michael Ernest Sweet, in which he says: 'I could care less about having 50 shades of gray in a photograph. It's not interesting. I'm not Ansel Adams. I don't care about the tones. You could photocopy my photographs and they would look the way I would like them to—gritty and rough, edgy.'"

Mike replies: That falls under the heading of what I said about B&W admitting of lots of different interpretations and styles. And also by coincidence, I was just looking at Michael Ernest Sweet's work.

I've always said that you have to take mature artists at their word—meaning, you have to assume that the way their work looks is the way they want it to look.

Bernie: "It looks like Gianni Galassi has read your monochrome musings and answered. He has posted his monochrome workflow on his website."

Mike replies: That could be very helpful—to those who want their conversions to look like Gianni's. Like Michael Ernest Sweet's, his is a very distinctive style. It works very well for his photographs. If you look at Gianni's B&W style and then look at Michael's, the big difference between them becomes readily obvious.

This is part of the fun and challenge of black and white, without question—developing a look that you really like and that not only suits but enhances your own work.

Open Mike: Moving TOP to a New Home

Coming up soon—plans are firming quickly but don't include a start date yet—we're having our own little "kickstarter"-style campaign. 

Real Kickstarter campaigns, capital K, are only for specific projects, not to fund your "lifestyle." So TOP will throw its own in-house fundraiser print sale bash, then. A grand total of seven of my own photographs, all signed. Ctein is going to administrate the sale and make the prints. He'll be paid, but most of the proceeds will go into making the website into a better business.

The old college try*
Why a fundraiser? TOP's #1 problem is no office space. It's just very clear to me that this site could, and should, be better. I know how to improve it. But it just can't grow until I can somehow find more room.

There's a somewhat unusual house for sale right down the street from me that is somewhat of an ugly duckling but by coincidence would be almost tailor-made for TOP. The exchange of living spaces would be a wash—I live in a modest house now and the living space in the prospective house would not be any larger or more luxurious. But the exchange of office spaces would be huge. If we moved, TOP's current cramped 11x11' office would be exchanged for an entire floor of that house. I don't know the square footage exactly, but it would increase my office space by at least 8X.

In my mind's eye it could be beautiful. It would have a separate garden entrance (that means "from the back yard," but people wouldn't have to tromp through the house to get to it), a couch and some chairs to welcome visitors, an exhibition space (well, we'll call this "a wall") for my small but interesting collection of framed photographs (including all the past print sale prints, and a number of portraits of photographers), desk space for a temp or assistant and a second computer, all the books in one place, a small but permanent portrait studio,  a proper printer...all airy, windowlit, nicely finished, and pleasant. A daydream....

So there's one slight impediment. Actually a rather large impediment. I would need to raise some money. A lot of money. Maybe more than is possible. It's not like picking a perfect bracket, but it's a long shot.

But you can't succeed if you don't try, right? So we're holding a "Help TOP Move" Print Sale. Could work. 'Spossible.

Moving is the best option, by quite a bit, but there are several less drastic (if also less optimal) possibilities for making a bit more room. If we reach a certain threshold, then it will fund a new house. If not, I'll use the profits I manage to raise to improve the situation as best I can.

Rewards
Here are the "tiers" (I'm using the language of Kickstarter somewhat tongue in cheek; I mean the print prices):

Any one of three prints on 8x10" size paper for a $39 donation to the cause. For a contribution of $99, you can get all three.

Then there are two options of bigger 11x17" prints for $170 each. Two of my most-popular-ever pictures, one color, one black-and-white. (Have to keep the B&W people happy. What can I say? I love it in my heart.)

Top tier is a gorgeous (well, if I do say so myself) 64-megapixel panoramic landscape. Ctein and I have been working hard on the print in the last week, and I'm pretty amazed by it. He has done a fantastic job. Two versions of this same photograph will be available, one 36" wide for $495, the other 52" inches wide for $1,000.

The difference in size is not trivial. The smaller one is generous enough to look at comfortably without taking up too much of the wall. The larger one is really imposing, not to mention quite possibly the most beautiful print that's ever been made of a photograph of mine. And certainly the biggest.

The 52" print is only available in this sale. The picture will never be printed wider than 36". And we will number all the 52"-wide panoramas, although the edition will be determined by how many people choose to buy one.

Why 52 inches wide? Something I learned from my friend Jack McD., who works with big prints all the time: the largest size mat board that's readily available to framing establishments is 60" wide. Larger sizes have to be special ordered and require special handling, and are very expensive. Fifty-two inches wide leaves you four inches of mat on either side using 40x60" mat board. (If it were me, I'd frame it with a mat of 4" on the sides and the top and 5" on the bottom. But you can do whatever you like.)

So that's six. The seventh print is a full-sized 17x22" free premium for anyone who buys all the others (either of the panoramas will count). It's a picture taken with the Nikon D800 and 58mm ƒ/1.4G lens. The premium print will be signed and numbered and never printed again at any size.

This is all coming up very soon—within the next two ten days or two weeks, when I'll be able to show thumbnails of the seven prints. I hope you'll like. Please watch this space....

Mike

"Open Mike" is the Sunday editorial page of The Online Photographer (TOP). 

*An old 1920s expression that means "a zealous all-out effort."

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

Roger Bradbury: "This is in line with your general practise of promoting photography, in this case the appreciation of photography. Something that's missing from many websites, and one reason I'm here nearly every day.

How many square feet would the TOP office be in the new house?

Mike replies: I added this to the post after your comment came in. I'm not sure exactly, but it's the whole walk-out basement minus a laundry/utility room. The house is about as big as my current house, which is a single-story house of 1,000 sq. ft. (It's listed on the town assessment as 1,120 sq. ft., but the outside dimensions of the house are 25x40', so I don't know where they found the extra 120 sq. feet inside that rectangle!) So I'm guessing the finished basement of the other house, which would be the office, is something like 800 or 900 sq. ft. of usable space.

It would be a big change and solve a lot of problems. Everything is cramped here...to give you an idea, when Ctein sent the proofs of the 60"-wide panorama (that's the paper width), literally the only place in the house where I could lay it out comfortably was on the pool table in the basement! I don't have that much free tabletop anywhere else. In my current office, I can't fit a flatbed scanner. I don't mean a huge scanner, just a normal flat scanner to scan letter-sized pages. There just isn't room unless something else goes.

Karel Kravik: "Hope the international postage won't be excessive. I'm happy to be kickstarting TOP, but not the couriers.  :-) "

Ctein replies: Regarding shipping costs, it will be the same flat charge for everybody no matter where they are. Each tier will incur its own separate shipping and handling charges. I'm still refining the numbers, but for the Tier 1 prints, I think I may be able to hold it down to a fixed $10 (won't matter if you buy one, two, or all three prints). The international orders for those prints will ship by regular international mail rather than my usual Priority Mail. It takes somewhat longer and doesn't provide tracking, but these small prints are easy enough to make and ship that if we need to replace some orders that go missing it won't be a big deal. It's a way of keeping the cost down, because, you know, it's ridiculous to have to pay $25 shipping on a $39 print.

The larger prints and the panoramics will ship by Priority Mail regardless of the destination. A single, flat $25 shipping and handling fee will do it for the Tier 2 prints (again, it won't matter how many you buy). The Tier 3 panoramics will ship rolled in a tube for $30–$35 per print.

Michael Bearman: "Brass tacks—how much is a lot?"

Ctein replies to Michael (and to Bob and Sylvain): Mike and I have been arguing about this money thing. He has the common American (and especially Midwestern) reluctance to discuss personal finances. Me, I don't. There is much debating behind the curtain. I can't disrespect his wishes (I mean, I really CAN'T—he has total editorial control [smile]), but I think it's okay to say that the minimum sum he needs to make this move feasible requires this to be one of TOP's more successful sales. Not impossibly successful; there have been a few that have brought in more money than this. But not very many.

And, of course, since we're talking about buying a house, more money is always better. At the very least, there are unexpected expenses that crop up when you move into a new house. Also, the more money there is for a down payment, the smaller the mortgage, thereby improving Mike's financial security for the future. In other words, every single dollar this sale can bring in will directly and materially improve Mike's immediate life and future economic stability. Even buying a single $39 print matters. Heck, if every one of TOP's readers did that (there is no possibility of that) Mike would be able to buy the house outright! Do not underestimate the value of your contribution.

Links I Refuse to Click

"Topless Photographer Countersues Empire State Building for $5 Million." Oh, Lawd, what now?

Not gonna click. Don't wanna know. Whatever it is, do not tell me!  :-)

Mike

[UPDATE: Okay, here's the story. It's a guy whose schtick is photographing a topless woman or women in public at various locations in New York City. He did so on the observation deck of the Empire State Building and got sued by the building management, which claimed the photographer "intentionally violated rules of the Observatory, [and] intentionally engaged in unauthorized, objectionable, and inappropriate conduct in full view of ESB's customers, tenants, visitors, including families with children, and employees, and caused ESB to suffer economic losses and damage to its reputation." He's countersuing, claiming that people attempting to jump to their deaths from the observation deck already cause more damage to the building's reputation than he could.

So it's not as bad as I thought, and it's a real story, such as it is. You've got to admit that that headline looks like a tabloid come-on, though, doesn't it? —Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Ben Rosengart: "I feel bad for any photographer so unfortunate as to be TOPless."

Mike replies: Isn't that funny—I didn't even get that double meaning when I posted this.

The Sigma DP2 Merrill and B&W

After grinding ye olde axe, thanks to several readers' comments I spent an entertaining afternoon yesterday checking out the Sigma DP2 Merrill (DP2M) online...reading reviews and looking at all sorts of online samples. You do that sort of thing too, right? I'm not the only one?

I was specifically looking at the camera's black-and-white ability, and I must say I'm impressed.

I'm not going to take the time to collect permissions to reproduce a lot of examples directly here. For one thing, TOP's blog software limits illustrations to 800 pixels wide, which is not very satisfying. But take a look at this picture by Gianni Galassi, this one by "arcaswissi" (an Arca-Swiss is a fine precision view camera, if the name doesn't bring that up in your head), and this one by "junior learner." Certainly looks promising.

It's all in the highlights
Traditionally the big weakness of digital in my opinion is highlight gradation. In far too many pictures I see, photographers are insensitive to letting highlights blast out to saturated pixels—although I will say this has been getting better and better over the years, as equipment improves and as digital photographers improve (both of which are happening, I think). Sometimes this is done on purpose as a valid artistic choice, for instance in this shot by Gwenaël Piaser. In black-and-white printing this was sometimes referred to as "letting the highlights go to paper white," and it was one of those effects or artistic choices that had to be handled carefully because of its, er, often close resemblance to error and incompetence  :-) .

This is exacerbated by all inexperienced photographers' tendency (in all eras) to make pictures too light.

Even when digital highlights aren't blown, digital highlights have a disconcerting (to my eye) tendency to look dead or empty. There's just not as much going on in them, tonally speaking, as there should be. The Foveon sensor seems to remedy this. Here's an example, by "Zanckr," in which the highlights are just on the edge of being too bright but nevertheless retain that sense of "aliveness" I'm talking about. Tonally, this looks much more like what I could have achieved on film than something I'd expect from digital. To me the lower part of the bust is right on the razor edge of blowing out too much (on my calibrated monitor—your mileage may vary), yet it has just barely enough detail that it just reads as "bright" and not "oops."

Unspectacular specularity
There are also sometimes problems going from specular highlights (areas that should be blown out, such as reflected sunlight, light sources, or bright reflections) to adjacent areas of tone; this also seems to be a strength of Sigma's Merrill sensor, as far as I can tell. For example in this picture by Annie Mallégol or this one by "Tom Hh." Unspectacularly natural.

Here's a picture of selective exposure, where a darker area has been exposed properly and a brighter area has been allowed to go light in the background—this is by Elaine Dudzinski. The tones on the band members are all fine, without letting the shadows drop out, but the overexposed background looks very much like what film could do if properly handled—it looks natural, with good tonal transitions, so it doesn't distract or draw the eye away from the subjects. (I would expect this to look a bit better printed, as ink would banish the slight flatness in the shadows and add a bit more richness.)

In all respects relating to the critical highlights the DP2M looks particularly nice. Looking at random pictures from a variety of photographers you're of course likely to see tonality that's all over the place, but even so, the default with the DP2M looks awfully good tonally. The relationships and transitions seem right.

Here's one last example of a scene in which I might expect ordinary everyday digital to let us down. The picture is by 肖蒙 孙—I hope that name appears right on your computer; I don't know what language it is. I might open up the trouser leg and shoe a bit, although the way it appears is one choice. But we're talking about the highlights. Tonally, the light areas here are great—filmlike in the best sense. There's just no trace of digital ugliness.

Foveons to come
Of course, I'm seeing excellent digital B&W much more often now, and from different cameras, for example from the E-M5 and the latest Fujis. One would expect the Foveon sensors to be particularly good at B&W, of course, just because of the way they work. That seems borne out in the examples I looked at yesterday. Very nice.

The DP2M is on the way out (which may mean discounts), soon to be supplanted by the recently announced DP2 Quattro, which has a new sensor with a completely new architecture. Theoretically, the Quattro should do even better with B&W than the Merrill. It'll be interesting to see if that is borne out in results.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Jim Kofron: "I did promise I'd check—and setting the DP3M to monochrome WB does sync the back LCD to grayscale. I've always found it amusing that the camera that was meant to shine with color (which it does under many circumstances, in my opinion) puts out fantastic B&W images as well. The files hold up very well to B&W, and print exceptionally well. Although there aren't many samples out from the Quattro (Sigma USA is trotting around giant prints from prototypes), one will expect it to be a bit higher resolution, a stop better with noise, and another generation advance in terms of speed (which will only put them a couple generations behind...  :-) ). In seeing the quattro being handled, they appear to be bringing two top wheel controllers to their very nice ergonomics (the Quick Menu system is great for dealing with setting you care about, custom modes are highly flexible, and manual focusing is surprisingly good). I expect it to be a friendly camera for most photographers to operate.

"I'm loving my DP3M, although I still occasionally jam the camera up to my face in hopes that a viewfinder has magically sprouted. Old habits die hard.

"Also, a shout out to the new SPP software. The monochrome mode they've added into the software is a lot of fun to use, and does a great job. The caveat is that this is not Lightroom, where you're blasting through 1000 wedding photos. Think of it as your chemical darkroom, but much faster—and you'll be happy. Perspective is everything."

[Jim is a longtime Sigma/Foveon maven who showed me a lot of very impressive big prints made with this sensor when it was new. I wrote about that experience in a post called "The Sigma Bigprint Unofficial National Tour" in March of '12. —Ed.]

Steve Pritchard: "I find this sort of article very helpful in furthering my understanding of what makes a good B&W photograph. When I look at my own conversions I can tell there's something not quite right at times, but I occasionally find myself at a loss to identify what it is specifically, and therefore how to go about rectifying it. Information like this really helps. I should have spent less time in the snooker hall and more in the darkroom, I guess. Anyway, thanks Mike. A good read, much appreciated."

Mike replies: One of the great advantages of art school was that we (a class or group) frequently discussed the aesthetic effects of the technical aspects of prints, both B&W and color.  That helps both to help you see what is happening in a print—right or wrong—and to help guide you to a personal aesthetic preference. It also becomes easier to learn to match technique to subject matter and to appreciate printing (and post-processing) styles that diverge from your own chosen style.

At the Corcoran, such discussions were deliberately led by two teachers who often had divergent opinions themselves. That helped to defuse students' tendency to accept a single authority as being an arbiter. On more than one occasion I can recall the two teachers arguing. That really made it clear to us that we had to make up our own minds.

The danger of doing it online is that we're possibly not seeing the same thing as we try to discuss it, but I suppose the benefits outweigh the potential pitfalls!

Jim Woodard: "Don't start this! I just bought a Fuji X-T1."

Mike replies: Don't worry, it's not like other sensors can't do B&W. There's already a Fujifilm X-T1 B&W group on Flickr, although there's not much posted there yet.

Oh, and congratulations!

Ian Christie: "Thanks for an interesting piece on Merrill monochrome. After owning a DP2s for a couple of years, I am a Foveon fan and just bought a DP2M—the price reduction makes it unbeatable value now. The results are spectacular and to my eye they match what I used to get from my Mamiya 6. As for the camera body, it is fine—and the menu system is neat and unfussy. ISO 800 and maybe just above are fine with monochrome. I use it with a Voigtlander 40mm OVF and that works perfectly well."

Peter: "It might be simpler (not to mention more fun) to get the results people want in B&W to shoot B&W film. It addresses the technical limitations and mindset issues. Just sayin'. Like a few other commenters, I'm a big fan of a hybrid workflow—shoot on film, develop, scan, tweak and clean up in Photoshop, print the digital file (I like inkjet for B&W and digital C-prints for color). It's not that hard or expensive...."

Mike replies: Actually it kind of is. That's not a reason not to do it, but I don't think it's deniable that it's both more difficult and more expensive.

Zanckr: "Thank you for featuring my photo. This is a first time to be chosen by someone, so I don't know what to say but it's an honor. If you have time and interest, could you edit my photo as you like, please? I've never learned from someone and now I'm feeling that I really have to study to improve my skill. I had been losing the motivation of taking a photo since the loss of my beloved cat, but it's getting back and this post boosts the motivation."

Hugh (partial comment): "I had no intention of buying a new camera. Looked at the examples, ordered a DP2M. There is a quality to the B&W that I really love."

Robin: "The first two photos especially are very nice illustrations of what can be achieved by a good photographer who knows digital development. But they don't seem to be of significantly better quality than what can be obtained in other digital systems, Micro 4/3 for example. Anyone who manages the tonal range of their image can escape without blown highlights, and can massage the actual tone curve exactly as they might like it for the given image. This to me is an ideal result, since otherwise I might be tempted to buy into the most masochistic digital camera system since the days of hooking up an RS-232 cable to transfer images."

A later comment from Robin: "OK, that didn't take me long. I will need to retract my previous doubts. I have now found images that truly demonstrate the potential of this sensor. Quite unbelievable."

robert e: "There's an interesting technical analysis of saturation behavior of Foveon vs. Bayer sensors here. If I understand correctly, the author proposes that highlights in Foveon images look better because the transition to saturation is more color accurate; the accuracy being due to there being much more color crossover in the Foveon, and thus less chance of one channel blowing out much ahead of the others. I should think that in many cases, this more graceful transition (or lack thereof) would translate in monochrome conversion."

Matrix Sale Update

On the subject of Ctein's recent dye transfer matrix and workprint sale, he reports that he has finished matching up people's requests with the available sets. He is happy to report that there were only two unresolvable conflicts out of some 160 set requests. He emailed those two readers and let them choose whatever they wanted from the unsold sets. So, everyone is going to come out happy.

If you haven't received yours by then, or gotten an email from the US Postal Service notifying you that your shipment is on the way, please contact him on or after April 1. (Please, he requests no April Fool's joke emails.)

Incidentally, if you missed the sale or you want to order a particular workprint and set of matrices from the ones remaining, they are available for viewing at Ctein's website. The price, of course, is considerably higher than it was during the sale, but you get your pick.

Our next TOP print sale should begin within a few weeks. As promised, it will have some very inexpensive options (along with some very expensive ones. And some in the middle).

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Our Changing Language

"An elderly American woman approached a gentleman she didn't know and, holding out a cell phone, asked: 'Would you please take a selfie of my friend and I in front of this window?'"

Little did she know the gentleman was a distinguished linguist...but, fortunately, a kindly one.

Read the story at the Language Log. It might make you smile....

Mike
(Thanks to Keith Barkley)

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Ian P: "Wow! My favourite blog linking to my other favourite blog...."

Grind the Axe

So you probably noticed (you didn't have to look too hard) that yesterday was "grind the axe" day, where I played cranky irascible middle-aged set-in-his-ways guy and picked at a few of the existential scabs that mar the smooth surface of my photographic psyche.

(Wow, that sentence just came out like that.)

To wit: 1.) the way nobody will build an affordable B&W digital camera; subset, the way those who don't want one would like to deny the rest of us the choice; 2.) the way Canikon only very begrudgingly gives the barest of nods to mirrorless, at the same time blithely ignoring the numberless smartphones massing at the edges of the Empire and threatening all of our futures; subset, the annoying way that the public is slow to get behind anything the industry behemoths don't tell them to get behind; and 3.) the way film and everything surrounding it is withering even though it's perfectly viable as a pleasing and rewarding niche in our hobby.

I didn't call yesterday "beat the dead horse" day, but I might as well have. Nobody's ever going to make a B&W digital camera, the bigs aren't going to help mirrorless, and the mindless mass of consumers are going to continue to slaughter film like hunters finishing off the last of the dodos. C'est la vie.

They ignore this at their peril
There's one other thing I didn't mention, which is that the cameramakers need to wake up and make some high-quality but super-simple-to-operate small cameras. And I mean super-simple. They have all this technology to make picturetaking easy yet still effective, but they refuse to offer it without forcing numberless choices and a bewilderingly tortuous path to mastery down the throats of anyone who buys their products. Any of their products. We like that, yes, and in fact demand it, but we're hobbyists. (And an ugly little secret: even many hobbyists haven't completely mastered everything their cameras can do, any more than I've mastered everything Photoshop can do.) The super-simplicity of smartphones is part of what's herding the public toward using them as cameras.

I really want a camera company to hire me to "design" (specify) a consumer product that would fill this niche. I could create something that would sell. And sell and sell. (That wish falls under the heading of "jousting at windmills" day.)

Work is the cure
But as for my psychological health, Photographic Division, I'm going to take the best advice I ever got: when things are picking at your brain, get out and do something real.

So, for instance, all along I've been saying that some of us (me included) "see the way the camera sees," which is what makes it easy to "see" in B&W when out and about with a camera that shoots only B&W, and difficult to ignore color with cameras that record color.

But is that really so?

I'm about to find out...or at least do a little experiment toward learning more about it. I have a Nikon DSLR, but no Nikon film camera except a couple of very old ones. But I found an old but still working Canon EOS-1v in the camera closet—for which I have no lens. So I rented a Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2 ZE lens from LensRentals. It should be here today. [UPDATE: I missed the truck! So, Friday, then.] So what I plan to do is get out a few times with the EOS loaded with B&W film, then get out with the DSLR intent on taking only B&W pictures—and see if I think there's really any difference in the way my brain works and my eyes see.

I can't promise it will be interesting, but gathering actual experience is usually a lot more constructive that sitting and fretting.

Since I'm going to shoot some B&W film, I'm next going to shoot some of the same film in a medium-format camera, and see if I can't revisit that old argument and draw a little new data there. The reason is that during my film years (essentially 1980–2000), I shot 35mm for convenience. Digital is now far more convenient that any kind of film, so it stands to reason that if one is going to shoot a little film in addition to shooting digitally, it doesn't hurt too much to deal with just a little more inconvenience. I plan to shoot the Canon against a Pentax 645N (SLR vs. SLR), and a Mamiya 7II with its 80mm normal lens against a Leica M7 with a 35mm ƒ/1.4 Summicron-ASPH (rangefinder vs. rangefinder).

At the very least, all this should make me happier, which is to say, less cranky. Whenever we get cranky about photography it's a sure sign that we need to go get out behind the camera and shoot. It cures a lot of ills.

Mike

ADDENDUM: I've made the B&W-only argument many, many times in varying levels of detail and depth. If you'd like chapter and verse, you can get it at this link. (Really only the first part is relevant, up to the header "Meta level.") If you don't agree, I understand. If it's not true for you, I understand. If you fail to understand because you refuse to understand, I can't help it.

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Hugh Crawford (partial comment): "The problem is not 'getting rid of color' because that's easy. The problem is 'looking like someone's favorite film and developer combo.' Reasonably acceptable color is easy compared to satisfying both a T-Max fan and a thick emulsion fan. My feeling is that emulating the non-linear response of B&W film is more of a difficult problem than getting rid of the color information."

MartinP: "Why would anyone buy a small, super-simple camera when they can buy a small, super-simple camera including a smartphone and computer, for pretty much the same price??"

Mike replies: Why, for the same reason you bought a better camera, of course. For better high-ISO capability, better enlargeability, interchangeable lens choice, better handling, better viewfinding, etc.

Will the Bigs Ever Join Micro 4/3?

As long as we're writing open letters and all, cf. the previous post I'd just like to put it out there that I think at least one of the bigs should join the Micro 4/3 consortium. Canon or Nikon. (Sony's already out.)

Think they ever will?

I don't. But I think they should.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Kalli: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I respect Nikon and Canon for making good cameras. But mostly they just bore me to tears. And what would us Micro 4/3 users get out of this, considering the mirrorless cameras and lenses Canon and Nikon have made and then considering the Micro 4/3 cameras and lenses Olympus and Panasonic have made? Sure, if one or the other giant would go all in and not just build mirrorless system cameras with the primary goal of avoiding cannibalizing their DSLR markets. But why worry, this is never going to happen. And as long as Micro 4/3 thrives…meh."

A second comment from Kalli: "And then the thought struck me: what if Ricoh/Pentax were to join Micro 4/3? Now that does get the old ticker beating a bit more enthusiastically."

Doug: "I'd be surprised if either Nikon or Canon were allowed to participate in Micro 4/3. I'm pretty sure there's a reason why membership in the 'club' is restricted."

ginsbu: "It's Samsung that really should have joined Micro 4/3. They've done some nice things with their NX system (including making some nice lenses), but it's never gained any traction, and their new NX mini (1" sensor) system doesn't hold much size advantage over the Panasonic GM1. Joining Micro 4/3 would have allowed them to build their credibility with photographers and to use the same mount for their more compact line."

JohnMFlores: "Joining Micro 4/3 would legitimize a format that is a long-term threat to their APS-C DSLR business."

Jim: "Is that hearty laugh I hear coming from Thom Hogan?"

Mike replies: Let's see....

Thom Hogan: "[The answer to your question is] no. Doing so would be an admission of making a mistake and would ratify Olympus. First, neither Canon nor Nikon is going to admit a mistake. Second, I'm not sure it was a mistake not to do Micro 4/3.

"Then there's the aspect ratio. Moving from their established one of 3:2 to 4:3 would cause a lot of complaint. Personally, I don't like the squarer aspect ratio and tend to shoot in a wider one (I prefer 16:9 over 4:3 if I'm going to change). I know I'm not alone on this.

"Next, we have lenses. If you thought that legacy lenses were your stability point, why would you enter into an area with no lenses to compete with someone who has plenty? This is Sony's perpetual problem, by the way: they keep changing lens mounts and starting over. Doesn't give you traction.

"Finally, we have one simple truth: if they hadn't screwed up DX and EF-S, no one would be asking this question. A simpler answer is 'just fix DX and EF-S.'"   

Edwin (partial comment): "Fujifilm proved that starting off with a completely new proprietary mount is feasible (profitable?) with their X-mount. They could have joined Micro 4/3 and lost their identity. They chose to have their own line of X-mount lenses and, in a couple of years, grew it into quite a complete line. The X-mount lenses are quite different, and is good enough to entice new customers to lock in to the brand. Whether there are enough customers to be profitable, time will tell. The mount is a camera maker's most treasured asset."

Open Letter to Olympus

Joseph Kashi submitted the following comment to the "Question for Now" post:

As many enthusiasts are returning to monochrome photography as an adjunct to the ubiquitous digital color, I'd like to gently suggest that Olympus put a monochrome-optimized version of the E-M10 on the market at a rational price point. This seems to have worked OK for Leica, although those are different demographics. It might not be that expensive a project, and would attract at least some attention in the right marketing demographics as well as complementary sales among serious photographers who already own Micro 4/3 gear.

I'd like to second that (but please be gentle and try to mimic the tonality* of Plus-X with a medium yellow filter, instead of tonality that's been relentlessly anseladamized).

Mike
(Thanks to Joseph)

*Relatively few people understood that post. It was my attempt to do impressions of various styles of B&W photography. Yes, it's all the same file, manipulated in Photoshop. Like someone doing an impression of Jack Nicholson is not actually Jack Nicholson....

Technical Editor Ctein adds: It's not going to happen, but that's about market economics, not image quality. Saying there's no point to monochrome digital camera, as at least one commenter implied, would be a little like saying there's no point to black-and-white film so long as you've got a paper like Panalure to print on.

An anti-aliased Bayer array camera discards about three quarters of the light hitting each pixel and has about 60% of the resolution of a dedicated monochrome camera. In other words, the quality of detail you'd get out of a 12-megapixel monochrome camera is comparable to what you'd see in a 30-megapixel color camera. Plus, the bigger, more efficient pixels make a real difference in how clean the tonality is and how well-rendered subtle gradations are.

I know a local photographer with a Leica monochrome. The image quality really is extraordinarily beautiful. No, it doesn't look like black and white film. Personally, I think it looks a hell of a lot better than any black and white film I've ever seen. Which, I know, is entirely a matter of individual taste but, damn, that camera's good.

But…. Black-and-white photography has been about 1% of the market for decades. It is truly a niche market. Maybe a company like Fuji, which has been known to make rather brilliant niche cameras when the mood strikes them, might tackle it. I would sure not count on it.

As an aside, you folks hoping for a convertible or interchangeable-sensor camera, it's just not going to happen, not at any price point you will like. Those are technically much more difficult to accomplish than you imagine. And, it would likely be a marketplace failure. You'd gain a very minor increase in potential market for a substantial increase in camera cost. Look at how many people whine about video being included in their still camera, where the added cost of that truly is small-to-non-existent. Now apply that mentality to the extra-costly convertible/interchangeable. —Ctein

Original contents copyright 2014 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:

Mani: "If anyone does this it will be Fuji rather than Olympus, and I predict the camera will be called the X100M (for Monochrome, naturally....)"

Rex Lechat: "There is a difference between a black and white image created by converting a colour digital image and one that is a result of using a monochrome sensor. With a monochrome sensor, every single pixel on the sensor becomes a single pixel in the image. Each pixel only has one job: record the brightness of the light that falls on it. With a colour sensor, some pixels capture red, some capture green, some capture blue light. The ensuing colour image is the result of a mathematic calculation that mushes together the results from multiple pixels to create the (illusion of) the full visible colour spectrum. When you convert the colour picture to black and white, you are stripping the colour from the mush. This produces a different image from the one that started off as purely monochrome. (Please don't jump all over me for oversimplifying the underlying technology for the purpose of this discussion.)

"Beyond the technobabble, I suspect that when you know that your only option is black and white, you approach your photography differently.

"At a reasonable price, I would probably buy a B&W-only camera. It wouldn't be my only camera, but I'd certainly have fun with it."

Godfrey: "I can understand the desire for a monochrome-only digital camera if it offers something not achievable using a color camera. The Leica MM offers more acutance, sensitivity, and dynamic range compared to an M9. Of course, you're locked into one spectral response curve...only manipulable via filters at capture time. Which knocks some of the edge off the sensitivity gained. But B&W photographers with film cameras seemed to deal with that OK. Would I buy one? Maybe, but not one derivative of an E-M10. E-M1, more likely."

Keith I: "I would have a very difficult time passing up a monochrome Fuji X100s, and it would be worth the very hard time explaining the purchase to my wife."

Norm Nicholson: "Actually, there is an inexpensive monochrome camera with superb resolution already on the market. My Sigma DP2 Merrill has a monochrome mode. You then sample only the blue channel to reduce the signal to noise level from using the bottom two pixel layers. All tonal adjustments are then done in post. Sadly, for me, I see and dream in color, so i have not been too pleased with my work. But I've seen some very nice photos done by others."

Mike replies: Hmm, interesting.