The Online Photographer

How the Fuji X-T10 is Made

From Fujifilm. Thanks to Stephen Scharf for sending this along.

Note that the first half of the video concentrates mainly on the top plate—historically one of the most difficult parts of a camera to manufacture and one that can account for a surprisingly high percentage of the overall manufacturing cost. I don't know if that's still the case, but the video indirectly implies that it might be.

Mike

P.S. Here's the link. It's a very retro design—it channels Japanese SLRs of the 1960s.

Original contents copyright 2015 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 Krumm: "I like these assembly videos, even though the music in this one made me think I was watching a propaganda film. It would be fun to see a more human side—smoke breaks, union meetings, assembly screw-ups—still waiting for the reality TV show I guess. But I do love watching what we humans are capable of building."

Tuomas: "You really shouldn't have done that, Mike—now I want to get one! And I already have too many cameras...."

Stephen Scharf: "I found this to be a very cool video to watch. Putting my Six Sigma Black Belt hat on for a moment, I find Fuji's manufacturing prowess to be very impressive. A great deal has been done to remove variability in parts manufacturing and assembly operations. As a result, I would wager the scrap rate on top covers is actually quite low, with Fuji using SOTA manufacturing best practices. e.g. lean, precise measurement systems, and poke-yoke to maximize quality and prevent defects. It's reasons like this why I use this company's products; they actually listen to user needs and are passionate about providing maximal quality and value for their customers.

"For those interested, here is a link to a video on the manufacturing of Fuji XF lenses. I find this to be even more impressive than the camera body manufacturing because the tolerances and engineering specification required are even higher."

Bill Tyler: "In his excellent book, Camera Technology, The Dark Side of the Lens, Norman Goldberg stated that the top plate, with the prism hump, was the single most expensive component of a traditional SLR. I highly recommend the book if you're at all interested in how pre-digital cameras functioned. It's not really a photographer's book, but if mechanical stuff fascinates you, it's a great read.

Mike replies: I agree. That book is a minor classic. And it's available for Kindle, which I didn't know before right now.

Jon responds to Bill and Mike: "That Camera Technology book is the kind of thing I love to read! Too bad it is $45 which is beyond what I can pay for books at the moment. Any other great mechanical/technology books to recommend like Camera Technology? They don't have to be camera related, I won't tell!"

Mike replies: Sure, off the top of my head I can recommend Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea by Gary Kinder, about a technological genius who figured out how to first find, and then retrieve, an inaccessible sunken treasure in deep ocean; Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time, by Dava Sobel, about the race to create the maritime chronograph (there's also an illustrated edition; The Mapmakers by John Noble Wilford (he also wrote a great book about clockmaking); The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge by David McCullough; The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance by Henry Petroski (you laugh, but I'll just warn you, once you get addicted to Petroski...), and one of my favorite little books about making stuff, the classic The Nature and Art of Workmanship by David Pye. When you finish those, ask again and I'll give you six more.

Peter Croft: "Likewise, I love watching these clips, but how I wish they'd hold the shots and show me more. It's too fast, too soft focus, too hard to see properly. Only about three seconds on the Chemical Conversion Coating. How does that work? I wish....

"I've always loved watching manufacturing machines and wished there was a TV program. Yes, I know about Super Factories or whatever it's called, but they are plagued by cameraman's disease—wave the camera around, whiz pan, out of focus, jerk zoom. And edited at a frantic pace—never leave a shot to screen for longer than one second. And endlessly dip to black between shots. Cliché, cliché. I'm thinking of starting a new career as a cameraman. I could do an even worse job and get paid for it. I wish...."

Bruce Rubenstein: "The top plate of the Fuji is made in a completely different way, out of different metal than a traditional SLR top plate. A typical old school top plate was made from sheet brass and 'drawn' on a press with dies that formed the part. There are several hand finishing steps to complete the part. It was just a protective cover and not a structural part. The Canon AE-1 was, I think, the first SLR to use an engineering plastic molded cover. The Fuji top plate is similar to the AE-1 except for using metal. By using a casting, features can be made for attaching other parts and assemblies. A video of the top plate assembly is sexy, because it's a shiny part with lots of 'touch' labor. The real high precision is in the guts of the camera like making the sensor assembly and the alignment of it to the lens flange."

The Most Recommendable Camera

I ought to write a longform article, for ordinary normal regular non-enthusiast  people, about how to pick a camera. For enthusiasts, it could double as an article about how to recommend a camera purchase to ordinary normal regular friends and relatives who ask us for advice.

The only reason I'm saying this is that I'd never actually finish such a thing, so here are a few notes on the subject.

The guy at the camera store
To begin with, I'd write about how you shouldn't scorn the counterman. Yeah, there are a lot of pitfalls in just believing the guy in the camera store—you have to make sure you're at a camera store, i.e., that you've found a real camera store and aren't talking to a know-nothing teenager at Wool-mart or Best Buck. You'd like to know that the person you're talking to has some experience in the job. And you need to ascertain that he doesn't have any conflicts of interest—ask him if he's on commission. If he says yes to that last, there's no need to walk away—just be sure to stick to your guns about your chosen price range.

But good counterpeople (I've known mostly males, but some females too) can be great. Often they're real photo enthusiasts, and they are likely to know a lot more about the ins and outs of the current product lineup than other enthusiasts. I must admit I do it less now than I used to, but I've always cultivated friendships with good camera-store counterpeople—they're knowledgeable, and fun to talk to, and you'll learn something from them about current products. I've gone so far as to buy things from people who've given me a lot of their time, just to support them, even if I pay more.

Price
Next you have to interrogate your subject and find out an important preference...namely, budget.

As far as that's concerned, I'd recommend that you don't try to depart from what you're being told. Money means very different things to different people; what you might consider "barely any difference" might well mean a week's groceries to the person you're advising. Works the other way, too, of course—if someone has a budget of $2,000, well, then they want an expensive, nice, new camera, and if you tell them a $750 camera will be just as good you won't actually be doing them any favors. Maybe they're flexible; good to know. But if someone has a firm budget, well, that's what they want to spend. Assume that they know better than you do what they're comfortable with.

Three choices
(Adam Isler suggested this, the other day.)

In Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (somewhat amusingly, in our context, described by Amazon as "a social critique of our obsession with choice, and how it contributes to anxiety, dissatisfaction and regret"), he argues that people prefer choice over no choice, but that too much choice leads to paralysis and dissatisfaction—and the optimal number of choices is three. Would it therefore be doing your friend a favor to recommend three choices in his or her price range?  I'm not sure, but maybe.

[UPDATE: You've got to read Ben Rothfeld's Featured Comment below. Priceless. —Ed.]

Prestige
Don't forget that a camera is a nonessential purchase, and not a truly major purchase for most people. It's not necessarily a "luxury" item, but it leans more toward that than, say, a washer-dryer does. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of times, people don't want something that's "good enough"—even if, or perhaps especially if, they're not going to devote a decent chunk of money to the budget. This is why Canon and Nikon (still) sell a whole lot of entry-level DSLRs—not just that they're quite good cameras, which they are, but that many people would prefer to have a "real" camera (SLR) from a top name brand, for pride. (The leaders are the current Canon Rebel T5 and the Nikon D3200) I think we're sort of at the end of the era where a DSLR still retains that status, but the old impression, a legacy from 35mm days, still holds on.

So you might find that some people don't want to be sold a newfangled mirrorless camera from a worldwide electronics juggernaut.

Even so, I think I agree with a commenter the other day (I've looked, but can't find the reference) who suggested the Panasonic LX100 (Amazon U.K., B&H Photo) as the best basic all-purpose camera you could recommend to non-hobbyists for general photography. Here's what I said about it in the "The Ten Best Digital Cameras" last December (a list which is already somewhat dated): "The LX100 doesn't lead the field in any way but it's a splendidly well-judged compromise of competing factors in every which way, making it the perfect camera to have with you when you can have only one camera with you."

Panasonic LX100: Good recommendation

It's got a large sensor (compared to amateur cameras), a Leica-branded lens that zooms and that has a good range of focal lengths, and, importantly, it stands a good chance of being something that people will enjoy using once they learn how to use it. Yet it's quite compact and, at $800, comes with a good dose of pride of ownership while not breaking the bank.

Here are a few comments about the LX100 plucked from consumer reviews (I've corrected the punctuation in some cases):

"Nearest camera to a '60s Leica that I have found."

"More than I hoped it would be."

"It is so small it can fit in my handbag during the day so I am ready at all times."

"Focus is super-fast so even with action shots it will fire off singles as fast as you can push the button."

"Allows me full control over all aspects of the creative process."

"The build and image quality of this camera are both top of the line."

Beware the tele wrinkle
I've never been much of a fan of "bridge cameras," which have tiny sensors and superzoom lenses. A great one is the Panasonic FZ200, which only(!) goes to 600mm-equivalent but has a constant-aperture lens. However, I know that some people, including my brother and our cousin Ham, love 'em, because they love to be able to zoom way in on birds and wildlife. (The FZ200 was named the best camera for wildlife—for amateur snappers, I presume—by the British magazine What Digital Camera.) And consider that some people love to shoot their kids playing sports. So that would be one more wrinkle that you'd have to ask about up front.

Conclusion
I don't know, what do you think of the LX100 as a generalized recommendation? Even as I write this, I'm having creeping doubts. Perhaps the LX100 is too enthusiast-y, meant to appeal to more serious, more dedicated photographers, and maybe I like it because it's best suited for the kind of slice o' life, look-of-the-world type of shooting that I myself prefer.

What's probably most true is that one general, all-purpose, one-size-fits-all recommendation isn't possible. When people ask you for advice as to what camera they should buy, you really do have to spend some time interrogating them as to how much they want to spend, whether they want a pocket camera or not, whether they prefer a fixed lens or want to be able to buy other lenses, whether they demand a "serious" Canon or Nikon to feel comfortable, whether they are delighted by the idea of very long zooms that can zero in on a distant chipmunk from the back deck or a grazing wildebeest—or little Wandra drifting about a huge field playing soccer—whether they care about low-light ability (goes to the size of the sensor), and whether they are going to spend some time learning about their camera, or aren't likely to.

And, frankly, even if boiling everything down to one was the aim, and was agreed to be a valid aim, still there are lots of serviceable recommendations, not just one.

Mike
(Thanks to several commenters)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Ed Eubanks: "I worked in photo retail for several years in the '90s. This was never something I aspired to, career-wise; rather, it was one fraction of my overall professional photography experience, which itself has never been my full-time gig. I worked alongside a number of lifers, though, including more than a couple who had been in camera sales for more than a decade. Almost all of our staff were serious photographers, and a handful of us did a good bit of freelance work on the side (weddings, portraits, headshots, product shots, architectural work, concert photography, sports photography, event photography, working with the Associated Press—I got opportunities to do all of the above for pay through my connections at the camera stores I worked for).

"We had one colleague whose favorite camera to nudge buyers toward was always the one that paid the most in spiffs (think: commissions, but paid by manufacturers instead of the selling store). He was willing to tell people only part of the 'story' if he thought it would generate more sales. Usually his spiff checks were the highest, it's true—but he also had the highest rate of returned sales, as well, and eventually was encouraged to move along to another store by the owners (who, I assume, could do the math and see what he was up to).

"The two guys I worked with the longest—and for whom I had the most respect for as sales professionals—modeled for me what became my practice, as well: help the customer figure out what they want and need in a camera, and then sell them exactly that (and nothing more or less). This often meant a lot of sales of Canon Rebels and Nikon N50s, instead of the nicer (with higher spiffs) Elan II or N90s models—but then, our customers remembered us when they were ready for a second lens, a speedlight, or some accessory or other; they came back because they knew we would help them find what they really wanted and not try to up-sell them.

"In my experience, most guys working in camera stores are this way; they are delighted that someone is taking an interest in one of their favorite things, and want to give them the best introduction to it that they can. But buyers should be aware that the other type of salesman is still around, and always will be. (Worst case: if you have to take it back to the store, then ask to work with someone else. The odds of there being two spiff-minded salesmen in the same camera shop are slim indeed.)"

JG: "With regard to recommending the LX100, on the very rare occasion when I am asked by friends for a recommendation, their budget limit is nowhere near $800. I'm just sayin'....

"Except once, when a coworker said she was willing to spend $1,500, then actually spent $2,300 after the salesman upsold her to the camera above the one I recommended to her."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I can recall making camera recommendations four times in, say, the last five years. Thankfully, they've each turned out excellently with very happy owners. But I really, really don't feel comfortable doing it for two reasons. First, of course, a bad experience could sour a friendship. Second, and closely related to the first, I become the go-to source for follow-up support, something I really hate. So my resolution as of this year is never to recommend cameras to anyone. If asked I plan to feign some sort of neurological seizure or severe chest pains."

Mike replies: You know, that's a major point: "I become the go-to source for follow-up support," and thank you for pointing that out. That's happened to me many times, and it's...inconvenient, especially when people ask things like 'what does this button do?' and other questions that they could easily answer for themselves in a minute or two with the instruction manual.

Dennis (partial comment): "It's $800 for a fixed lens camera, so if/when it breaks, the whole thing needs to be replaced/repaired."

Mike replies: That's a good point too...you haven't invested in a lens that will go past the life of the camera.

Ben Rothfeld: "Funny story about Barry Schwartz, author of Paradox of Choice. I saw him speak about the topic and chatted with him afterwards. I don't know how cameras came up, but they did. He asked me for a recommendation. My response, by the way, was to tell him to take whatever sum he was comfortable parting with and buy the Canon compact that came closest to that number."

Bruce Mc (partial comment): "I like the LX100 as an all-around choice. I agree the knobs and buttons make it attractive to advanced users, but I think it could be accessible to new users as well."

Robert Roaldi (partial comment): "Somehow, I'd completely forgotten about the LX100. But if a non-photographer acquaintance asked me for advice, I would not recommend it. Their first objection would be, 'It doesn't zoom out far enough,' and from that it would never recover."

Steve Jacobs (partial comment): "I actually own and use the LX100 and love it as my carry around camera. It is pretty enthusiast-oriented. I'd only even consider recommending it to an older person since they'd use the viewfinder and the young won't."

Kirk in PDX (partial comment): "I just went through this exercise with my artist sister-in-law...once she learned that all the options [I suggested] were within rock-throwing distance of $1,000, her enthusiasm waned. And, none appeared simple to use. She said that she didn't want to 'get all into the settings.'"

BH (partial comment): "Fuji X30! I've got several friends/family using earlier versions of this camera, and they've always got it with them when I see them, which I take to be a good sign."

Bruce: "As a former (recently retired) salesperson at a large chain of retail stores in Australia, I can say that not many customers come in with the question you ask. They usually come in and ask, 'what's your price on the Canolynikony Fupen 1?' They've usually done their homework, and are simply after the best price. Full stop. We then have to convince them that we will match, if not exceed their best price, and tell them why we're the best people to buy from. After gaining their trust, they'll still want to shop around, proudly showing you their best price on their iPhones; a grey import, and expect you to match that, so then we have to tell them why they should not buy grey imports. And, yes, I may steer them towards the camera I get a commission on (maybe all of $5–10!!)  because in the end, they'll still get a great camera...(there are no bad cameras these days) and I'll have spent maybe half an hour qualifying and talking to them. If I'm fortunate / skilful enough to sell them the camera, I'll leave them with an incentive to come back into the store to print their first  photos, and hopefully have a client for a long time.

"What really does stick in my craw, however is when they've been to a large store which sells all electronic equipment with the question you ask originally, and are told  'go to [our shop] get their advice, come back and we'll beat their price by $25.' We live in interesting times.

"And, the best two sales people in our chain are both women. They are very good at what they do!"

Kodak News

Kodak news now sits firmly in the category of "nostalgia." Kodak—which I heard described as "the bluest of American blue chips" once when I was young—is one of the spectacular American business-failure stories of the third millennium. To put you in context, I read recently that GoPro, the California-based maker of action videocams such as the Hero3+ (GoPro was founded in 2001, is listed on NASDAQ, and is currently trading at $52.51) is now valued at eight times greater than Kodak (founded 1888, New York Stock Exchange, $16.25).

[UPDATE: It's now 10X, according to RohithT. See Featured Comment below. —Ed.]

If you think that had to be inevitable, consider Fuji.

Anyway, two items. First, Building 53 at Kodak Park, historically used for acetate film base manufacturing, will be imploded next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. It follows the demolition of many other Kodak Park buildings that began in 2007.

Second, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has designated the Eastman Collection in Rochester as an Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark.

From Eastman House: "The technology collection is one of the world's largest collections of photographic and cinematographic equipment. It contains nineteenth- and twentieth-century objects of photographic technology, including cameras, processing equipment, motion picture devices, and a broad range of early historical accessories. Many of the objects are unique, representing distinguished historical ownership and significant scientific achievement.

"This collection is the most comprehensive held by any institution in North America and equaled in overall quality by only three other major holdings worldwide."

(The website didn't say what the other three are. I'll try to find out.)

The conservatory at Eastman House, where George Eastman ate his breakfast every morning serenaded by classical organ music from a pipe organ

And if I may just venture a guess, I would say that after TOP relocates to its sprawling rural HQ in New Yawk a month from now, proximity to Eastman House is going to be a rich resource for TOP. (As will greater proximity to New York City.)

Mike
(Thanks to David Ralph and John Beal)

P.S.:

(I'll be about 10 minutes south of Penn Yan on the eastern side of that Y-shaped lake.)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

MarkR: "Funny—just returned from an outing there to read this! They currently have some very nice exhibits regarding garden photos—everything from autochromes to digital, and the main house and garden are looking as dapper as ever. The most interesting thing about the house is that after it was built, Eastman decided he didn't like the proportions. He was a huge music aficionado, and supposedly the acoustics weren't right. So he had the house cut in half, moved one side from the other, and had the interior rebuilt. The original hi-fi snob, I guess."

RohithT: "GoPro is valued at over 10 times Kodak, actually, based on market close on July 10th, $7.07B to $681M. I'm surprised Kodak is even worth that much nowadays."

R. Edelman: "Although Kodak did develop imaging sensors at one time, it seems that that part of the company has been sold off. This is an irony, as sensors are the new film. Seeing how successful Sony has been lately with its sensor division, and the growth potential with imaging sensors being used in increasingly more applications, one wonders how Kodak would have fared if its goal had been to become the imaging sensor leader."

'Grab a Hunk of Lightning'

This nice show about the wonderful Dorothea Lange, part of the "American Masters" series from PBS, can be purchased as a DVD, or watched online at PBS for no charge (U.S. only). It's also on YouTube.

And there's a book, with more than 100 plates. (U.K. link.)

Here's the Amazon U.K. link for the video, but it's still a Region 1 encoding DVD that requires a North American or multi-region DVD player and NTSC compatible TV. Here's Amazon's explanation of DVD formats.

Mike
(Thanks to Ken Tanaka, Gary, and Andrew Lamb)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Steven Major: "I've seen the video...well done and as much about life choices as it is about photography. Here in Maine, Bert of Bert's Bees product line recently passed. His eulogy included 'he lived a life of his own invention.' I believe that to be true of Dorothea Lange as well and one of the highest complements possible."

Hottest Camera Deal in the Solar System Today

from Stephen Gillette: "Come to think about it, nobody has ever heeded my advice on which camera or lens they should get either! So of course I have more advice....

"Considering bang-for-buck, the hottest deal in the solar system as of today is to be found at B&H. (I do not work for them, nor get any compensation for this 'strong buy' recommendation.) They have the Olympus OM-D E-M5 'Elite' version mirrorless camera for $499. With a lens. And expedited shipping. For $499, all in. The best übercamera? The one you can afford.

"This deal is so hot, please use oven mitts when ordering. Over-and-out."

[Just passing this along —Mike]
(Thanks to Stephen)

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

D (partial comment): "Olympus is just about to announce a new OM-D E-M10 Mark II camera most likely eclipsing the older E-M5 this deal is all about. Expect some upgrades to be made, most notably a higher resolution viewfinder and possibly fully articulated back screen. As they keep introductory price levels pretty steady this newcomer will initially sell at about $ 700 and offer very similar image quality to boot...so in this case this is all about sum of small operational 'fixes' rather than overall package upgrade.

"Advertised above, the OM-D E-M5 Elite version in itself is a later incarnation of the original product with minor tweaks already implemented...it features more solid knurled dials and revised texture of the faux-leather body skin.

"I still have the original OM-D E-M5 and even now this is a very usable camera. The price drop makes this an even more interesting proposition but keep in mind that this is an intentional move by the manufacturer to reduce excess stock of an older model before introduction of a new and improved one. So unless you need a camera 'yesterday' it could make some sense to wait and see...."

Moose: "The E-M5 II is also on sale, for $899, $200 less than I paid. Olympus is such an odd combination of real innovations, 'new' models with almost no changes, and cosmetic special editions...the E-M5 Mark II is worth the extra money to me for the much-improved IBIS, electronic shutter option, wireless remote control, and the high resolution (and high color accuracy) mode.

"On the other hand, the original is a great camera, now at a great price."

Roger: "I was going to counter with B&H's $498 deal on the Sony NEX-7 but it appears they are gone. I snagged one to replace my wife's Nikon D70s. She loves the lighter, smaller form factor. Purchased through Mike's link to further his pursuit of world domination."

Mike replies: For which many thanks. World domination is proceeding slowly, but next month I invade New York State.

Reigning Übercamera

So which do you think is the reigning übercamera of the moment, the forthcoming Sony a7R II or the Canon 5DS?

Which is awesomer? Image from camerasize.com.

Which would you want?

We must have a champion.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Ken Tanaka: "Very timely as I'm actually in the midst of this subject at the moment, Mike. In fact I'm on my final rental day with a 5DS R as I write. (By the way the camera to compare to the A7R II is actually the 5DS R, given its self-cancelled AA filter.)

"I have actually already made my choice and voted with my pre-order of the Sony A7R II.  Here's why.

"First, the 5DS R produces excellent image files very comparable in 'look' to those of the 5D III. (The Canon 'look,' slightly warm.) This sensor produces sharp, deep details the likes of which we could only have dreamed of just a few years ago. It is, however, noteworthy that I found the 5DS R images to be quite a bit noisier at low ISOs (500+) than has been remarked elsewhere.

"But although I've not yet used the A7R II the choice was easy for me based on its specs, on my long experience with the A7II and A7R, and on my few days with the 5DS R. Here are the big factors for me:

• The Sony A7R files already beat the 5DS R's. They're cleaner at much higher ISOs, their details are sharper. I cannot imagine that the A7R II files will be worse.

• The A7R II adds IBIS. I know you've been a fan of in-body image stabilization for years, Mike. I originally shrugged. But my experience with the Olympus E-M5 and, most recently, my A7 II have given me religion. Yes, Canon's in-lens optical stabilization system is still terrific. But it's limited to the lenses offering that feature, traditionally the teles and long zooms. Canon has recently begun expanding IS to wider focal lengths but it's just not nearly as good as today's state-of-the-art sensor-shaking IBIS. Being able to strap my Leica 75mm Summicron-M or 50mm Noctilux onto that Sony A7R to produce a fully stabilized image is...heaven.

• Smaller, lighter lenses. People grouse about Sony's limited FE lineup. It's mostly hot air. With the 16–35mm, 24–70mm, and 70–200mm FE lenses I have my ranges pretty well covered. And they're each excellent lenses, dramatically lighter than their Canon EF peers, albeit not quite as fast (ƒ/4's all). The FE primes are no slouches, either! But, again, I can easily use my Leica M and Canon EF lenses with the Sony A7 bodies via Metabones adapters. So I'm missing...nothing.

• Speaking of smaller and lighter...I'm simply hooked on using the small, light camera bodies of the Sony A7 series. Spending a few days schlepping that 5DS R around with the excellent but heavy EF 24–70mm and 70–200mm lenses seemed a drudge.

• I love the view. I've become a devoted fan of the Sony A7 bodies' EVFs and LCDs.  After over a year with the Sony's ultra-high-res EVF with its near-optical refresh and customizable informative overlays, the Canon's optical viewfinder seems nearly as quaint as a reverse-Galilean viewfinder. And Sony's tilting LCD has become an essential feature for me.

• The price is nice. Canon really needs to re-think its 5DS pricing. The 5DS R is priced $700 higher than the A7R II. I'm not terribly sensitive to price when it comes to high value. But I'm not a chump, either. What does that extra $700 buy me?

"So those were the big decision points for me. Others might weigh their factors differently to choose the 5DS / 5DS R over the A7R II. And that's fine. You cannot really make a 'bad' choice between these cameras. They're both miracles of our age."

John Krumm: "The Canon is a 10-year-old muscle car design that keeps getting a larger (and no more efficient) motor. This is its last hurrah, with a 50-MP big block chugging away. The Sony is all new gee-tech with no spare room under the hood. It's pretty much as fast in a straight line and handles corners way better. Neither model comes with airbags, but I'd feel safer hitting something with the Canon."

Bryan Hansel: "Nikon D810 still wins. Better dynamic range. 14-bit (vs. 11 bit for the Sony) files and less diffraction at apertures used for landscapes."

Kirk Tuck: "Yeah, I think you must have just forgotten to put the Nikon D810 on that little ole list. While the Sony might be good enough the folks at DxO have already trash-talked the new Canons (bad dynamic range) right into the scrap bin for most camera equivocators."

Adam Palmer: "I've been with Canon since 1993 but this Sony is the one to lure me over. My pre-order is in."

Christopher Lane: "Had the Sony and sent it back. No lenses. Don't know about the Canon. I vote Nikon D750."

Edward Taylor: "OK, this is really easy. I have a Sony A7R and have the A7R II on order. I already own a 5DS R.

"The Canon has a few advantages over the A7RII:

1. Resolution (50 MP vs. 44 MP—not a real advantage).
2. More OEM lenses.
3. Possibly faster (but not more accurate) focusing?
4. Some will say they prefer Canon color space and skin tones but that's just an opinion.

"The Sony A7R II has many, many advantages over the Canon 5DS R. I can't even name them all here. But start with:

1. 4K video.
2. A tiltable LCD viewfinder.
3. No need for lens calibration.
4. Ability to use lenses from almost any camera including Canon.
5. No mirror with associated problems.
6. Five-axis image stabilization

"...And on and on. Plus, Sony is an innovative company where Canon has done little to advance camera design in recent years. I think Sony wins going away."

Robert Harshman: "If you have to have a winner, it's Sony for now. Lots of very interesting tech in this camera. However, Sony will probably release a new model in six months and the price of your used camera will drop like a rock. No firmware updates, no fixes to any potential problems. That's the way Sony rolls. It's a strategy that may work for some. It certainly moves camera tech forward at a faster rate.

"Canon on the other hand is very old school. Very slow to add new tech to a camera line. Incremental improvements is the game and, like Sony, not many firmware updates, just slow major releases every 18–24 months.

"I have a 5DS; been working with it for about three weeks now. It is a great camera, the best 5D[x] yet produced. But why Canon did not add UHS 11 or CFast 2 support is simply stupid with a 50-megapixel camera. These more than year-old new card formats would have greatly enhanced this camera. But Canon is very slow to upgrade these type of features. The 5DS is the first 5D[x] to support USB 3.

"But, I don't have to have a winner like you do. As a commercial photographer I have Canons, Nikons, Sonys and now even a Samsung NX1. Of all the cameras I have now, the one brand that is currently impressing me the most is Samsung. An 8–10 month old camera that has already had three major firmware updates. This is a company that is truly supporting it users."

Jeffrey Behr: "No, in my opinion we don't have to have a champion.  :-)  After trying an a7R last year and finding it too small and much too clunky-handling (and with excellent image quality), I would not have considered an a7R II even with its larger hand-lump. I bought a 5DS and love its handling and image quality. But obviously lots of folk love the a7 cameras and will buy the newest, even-higher-res version, and I hope they love their cameras as much as I love mine. Isn't it grand that each of us can buy the camera that he/she loves?"

Mike replies: Yes, it is. I still wish I could buy something similar to a BMW 2002, though.

Jack Kurtz: "a7R II is the Tesla of cameras, the future. The 5Ds is the Packard, the past. I say that as a recovering Canon photographer. For more than 40 years I used Canon film cameras and then digital. I switched to Micro 4/3 exclusively last year and got rid of my Canons and couldn't be happier."

Cliff R.: "My vote for übercamera (that I can't afford) still goes to the Leica S2."

Mike replies: Note that the S2 is discontinued; the cheapest variant right now is the S-E which with the 70mm (56mm-e) costs $12,995.

Alan B: "The Sony clearly wins on paper. The big question for me, though, is whether or not it's wise to invest in the Sony ecosystem. Their track record in regards to customer support and follow-through is fairly dismal (not just in cameras). I guess from my perspective, Sony still seems like a consumer products company, not a camera company; I'm not confident they'll be supporting these cameras even five years from now."

Godfrey (partial comment): "Überkamera? Doesn't exist. No one camera is all that special."

Mahn England: "Beyond the technical brouhaha there is something else: Canon really does get it, and it does show in its latest cameras. Maturity should never be confused with decrepit old age. Nor should maturity be undervalued in the light of exuberant youthful energy. The images coming from the 5DS have a unique quality. I get a thrill when they resolve before me on the screen. I've never had that sensation from digital images. Maybe for the future owners of Sony's latest offering that thrill will also be there."

The Latest Buzzword

The human brain is a wondrous, capacious thing. The problem is that when you pour greed over it like syrup over waffles, it shrinks immediately to the size of a walnut.

The latest troglodytic walnut-brained idea being floated among the greed-soaked relates to something called "Freedom of Panorama," which is the current Photography-Related Buzzword o' the Moment, Summer 2015.

What it means is that too few of the world's humans own too damn much, and want more, and think no one can stop them from taking it. Here's a good book to read* on the eventual result of that human tendency.

The current fight pits reasonable people whose interests are diffuse against greedy people whose interests are acute, meaning the piggish idiots might actually win.

Here's a good primer on the issue, by Jimmy Wales at The Guardian, if you want chapter and verse. (We here in the States are still marginally protected by our First Amendment, at least for the time being.)

Huge sigh.

Mike

*Note that the linked book is a tiny hardcover, meant to fit easily in a pocket. I like 'em, some others don't.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Robert Roaldi: "Part of the on-going re-feudalization of our culture. And no wonder, feudalism was a good deal for some people, why wouldn't they want it back? All they had to do was buy all the politicians. Once they had all the money, it was easy."

Manuel: "I have good news for everyone: the European Parliament voted against the Regulation that would uniformize copyright in the European Union. Now every member state will be free to have their own statutes on the subject.

"To be fair, however, things got somewhat out of proportion. What the Regulation draft provided was that the commercial use of copyrighted buildings necessitated the architect's consent. The commercial use, mind you. Many were led to believe it was a general prohibition to photograph buildings, or an attempt to restrain 'freedom of panorama.' The matter was actually circumscribed to the commercial use of photographs of copyrighted buildings.

"Yet, even assuming an architect's work needs the same level of copyright protection as authors such as writers or composers (which seems quite bizarre to me), defining what 'commercial use' is would still raise lots of controversy. Suppose the Regulation had passed, and Peter Turnley, while shooting in Paris, included a copyrighted building in one of his pictures. It would be crass to think the architect could claim a compensation—or even get a restraining order!—in case Peter decided to add the photograph in an album and sell it.

"So, while the controversy was largely exaggerated, the European deputies were sensitive to the issues the Regulation would arise if it came into force and duly rejected the draft. You should take notice, however, that member states of the EU can still pass statutes that restrict freedom of panorama."

Chuck Albertson: "Done and dusted. Bob's yer uncle."

Why I Stopped Giving Friends and Relatives Camera-Buying Advice

Need a camera? This is what you should buy.

Statistically, any comment I make is likely to land.

I learned this long ago when I wrote an editorial for Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques and made a flippant reference to "a janitor from Dubuque" (for non-U.S. persons, Dubuque is a city in Iowa that, like Peoria in Illinois, is sometimes used as a symbol for a nondescript, typical, "anywhere" kind of place). I meant "janitor from Dubuque" in the sense of "anybody from anywhere."

But that magazine had 21,000 readers at the time, and one of them was—yup, you guessed it—a janitor from Dubuque...who sent me a hurt letter wondering why he had been singled out for scorn.

I learned that lesson.

In the same way, general recommendations land. If I say that the Sony A7R II is one of the most desirable cameras on the market right now, 400 people will go look at the link, four people will buy one, and two more will remark what a coincidence it is that I should say that right after they bought a Sony A7R II.

Anyway, this is just to say that I'm not talking here about generalized camera advice.

I used to take requests for advice super-seriously. I'd question the friend about their needs, analyze the factors that pertained, apply my deep knowledge of the options available on the market, and tell them what, in my considered judgement, they should purchase.

...Which advice they would promptly completely ignore. Later, when I saw them again, I'd be told with a little laugh that they liked my choice and appreciated my advice, but, well, they went to Best Buy and the kid behind the counter thought that the Amygdala IQ87 was the best bargain, and they liked the look of it, so they bought that instead.

But, thanks anyway.

Eventually what I realized was that no one ever took my advice. As in, never. Not once. It never happened. Nine times out of nine they'd listen to my careful, painstaking analysis that took me hours to compile, and ignore it and go buy something else on a whim.

So that's why I stopped advising friends and relatives about what camera to buy. It's not that I don't want to; it's not that I can't; it's certainly not that I don't want to do them the favor—I'd be more than happy to help; it's just that it's been my observation that they never end up taking my advice anyway.

So anyway, now I just tell everybody to buy a Sony RX10 II or RX100. (We're on Version IV already.) Neither are actually the perfect choice for everybody who asks. But since none of them will buy one anyway, I'm safe.

Mike

P.S. Jeez, all three cameras I mentioned here are Sonys. What's up with that?

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Peter Wright: "What!! Does this mean that you are no longer recommending everyone to get a Nikon D700, with 35mm ƒ/2 and 85mm ƒ/1.8 lenses as in your 'Letter to George'? That's the reason I started reading TOP! Of course, I didn't buy a D700."

Mike replies: George did not take my advice, or he'd still be happily using his D700, eating out every week, and flying first class.

Dave Rogers: "I don't give camera advice with respect to a particular model, unless someone asks a particular question. But I have appealed to my Facebook friends, and my tiny audience at my blog, to at least buy a camera! While smartphone cameras are vastly more capable than the little Kodak Instamatics my parents used to record many of our family's special moments, nearly any modern camera is more capable than a smartphone in any number of regards; and if one enjoys taking pictures, it's even more enjoyable with a dedicated camera. In the couple of years I've been making this appeal, I know I've made at least three sales. Alas."

Mike replies: Keep fighting the good fight, Dave.

Jason: "I don't like to give advice on camera purchases. Too many people think that buying a good camera is all they need to do to take good photos. If they get the camera and can't take good photos they might think I gave them bad advice."

Mike replies: Funny but probably true!

Mark: "Back in the '80s I worked at a decent-sized mom and pop camera store. All too frequently customers would simply walk in and ask me for the 'best' camera. I knew that usually what they really were asking was, what's the best camera for me? But at this point I of course have no idea of their wants or needs.

"So my frequent answer to this question was to pull out either a Hassy 500C or a Pentax 645. This usually resulted in a look of shock due to the size of the camera or an instant question of 'how expensive is that?' When I answered the cost question they would mildly freak out and insist I put the camera away.

"Playing this little game normally had the exact result I was looking for, which was to make the customer realize that we needed to ask a bunch of questions so that we could find the product that correctly met their needs.

"Of course at times they would still buy the wrong thing despite you directing them to what should be perfect based on what they had told you. At which point all you could do is throw up your hands and let them do whatever it is they want to do, just as you have done Mike. All you can do is try to help.

"As a bonus however, it also meant that I sold more Pentax 645's than anybody else.  :-)

"Nowadays, if I were still selling cameras, I too would grab the Leica S and plop it on the counter just like I did with the Hassy 30 years ago."

The New BMW 2002 (I'm Not Supposed to Be Doing This) (OT)

I'm supposed to be packing and not writing. But just a not-so-brief followup on Sunday's Open Mike post, "It Costs More to Be Poor":

First point: Wrong question! Turns out, the insurance is going to be more expensive than any of the proposed car payments. The question should have been, how do you get decent insurance for a price that won't break the bank? My agency quoted her $2,600 a year, and said they had shopped rates for an hour. Her monthly insurance payment will be higher than her monthly car payment....

...Except she won't have a monthly car payment, because she's decided to buy a car outright for less than $5k.

I think that's a mistake. Granted, some people do this successfully, and I hope she does too, but in my view it's too risky for a young person without financial reserves who will own only one car and will have to rely on it. The risk is that she'll get a car that continually presents her with unexpected bills...which she won't have any money in the bank to pay. My girlfriend's son went this route, and he is continually borrowing from his parents to pay for car repairs. Just recently it was another $800 for new brakes. Buying a cheap car for cash is something that makes sense for adults with cash reserves who will not have to absolutely depend on the car in question for transportation to work...or who have mechanic friends to vet the purchase and bail them out of troubles.

One of her choices was a demo Nissan Versa with 1,000 miles on it and more than two years left on the factory warranty, for about $3k off list. In my opinion it would have made far better sense to put a down payment of $2k on that car, keep $3k as liquid cash reserves, and pay a small monthly payment. (She's not working yet, but she will be.)

It's not my decision, of course.

Second point: Big discovery of the car shopping safaris with both Lillian and Xander: the Nissan Versa (although neither 22-year-old will be buying one).

The base sedan is the cheapest car you can buy new in America.

Driving it reminded me a lot of a car from long ago: the BMW 2002.

You might scoff, because the status/prestige coefficients (call this "s/p") of the two are so radically different. Nissan's s/p has been drifting downwards for years and was never super high to begin with, and BMW's s/p rose to the stratosphere beginning with the 2002 and only in the last four or five years has started to fall again. Japan vs. Germany, hip vs. unhip, etc.

But they drive similarly. The biggest differences are that the 2002 was rear-wheel drive whereas the Versa is front wheel drive, and the interior of the Versa, while pleasant and well designed, has poor tactility on the bits you touch and doesn't have any coolness factor, whereas the interior of the 2002, though minimalist, was considerably slicker. Other than those two differences, the two cars are very similar, and have a similar feel.

The 2002 had a 2-liter inline 4 cylinder engine with a carburetor, making 98 horsepower and 106 pounds-feet of torque. The Versa has a 1.6-liter DOHC 16-valve inline 4 cylinder with fuel injection, making 109 horsepower and 107 pounds-feet of torque. Making up for this negligible difference is the slightly heavier curb weight of the Versa, 2,363 vs. 2,072 for the 2002. On both, you had to stir the gears, keep the little engine on a boil, and pay attention to your revs.

As far as the suspensions go, both cars are sprightly and light on their feet with good road feel and not a lot of grip. Betters wheels and tires wouldn't go amiss on the Versa, but don't make economic sense.

The BMW had a 4-speed floor-mounted stick shift. The base Versa has a 5-speed floor-mounted stick shift.

Both cars have manual crank-up windows, which was dead common in 1971, and considered exotic now; one dealer told me that some of his young customers have never encountered such a thing in any car before.

The Versa is larger all around but only significantly in trunk space: it's nine inches longer, four inches wider, and four inches taller, with four inches more wheelbase. The trunk is 14.9 cubic feet vs. the BMW's 9.5.

Both cars have a high driving position with a good greenhouse.

The Versa is actually a better car in an absolute sense—of course, having benefited from 44 years of advancements in automotive technology. It gets 30 combined MPG vs. 22 for the BMW, and has better safety features and crash resistance, and will certainly be more dependable and more durable, statistically.

But of course the meaning of the two cars could not be more different, and is inverted from the above: the BMW was a hot car in its day, caused a sensation in the automotive world, looked great, and made its maker's reputation in the United States; the Nissan looks frumpy, is its maker's loss-leading econobox, and gets decidedly lost amongst its competition.

It's just that I think they feel a lot alike, if experiential memory is anything to go by. I really wish I could drive these two cars against each other directly and do a true comparo. I bet it would be interesting. Ignoring s/p factors—which I'm better able than most to do—the base Versa is the closest thing I've driven in recent years to the non-tii 2002.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

susan: "I wish I still had my dad's '71 2002 (round tail lights), in which I learned to drive, No AC, Blaupunkt AM/FM radio (no tape player), crank windows and all. A real gem. the first of many BMWs for us, but the best-loved of 'em all."

Manuel (partial comment): "Fortunately we don't have the Versa in Europe. Good thing Mr. Ghosn decided to spare us the eyesore. The car is simply grotesque. Its design is flawed and incoherent, and the interiors are dull. It may be the less expensive new car in the USA, but so was the Yugo back in the day and price didn't make it an interesting proposition."

Roger: "The more things change the more they stay the same. Back when the 2002 was for sale the Datsun/Nissan 510 was considered the 2002 for the budget minded. I owned both and preferred the 510—much less finicky and more fun to drive."

A. Dias: "The Versa is not the 'new' 2002. Not even close. Far better entry levels compacts are the manual VW Golf or any Mazda model."

Rodger Kingston: "In 2011 I bought a year-old Nissan Versa four-door sedan with the help of a close friend who's an automotive pro. It had under 20,000 miles on it and cost me about $9,000. It's a comfortable, roomy, smooth running small car (and like the Tardis in Dr. Who, it's lots bigger on the inside). In the nearly four years we've had the car, we've driven all over New England and across Eastern Canada. The only repairs I've made have been to replace a ball joint and one set of tires. Also, I use synthetic oil and change it on time. I would buy another Versa in a second."

HBernstein: "BMW 2002: no power steering. It was a car that you really had to drive, and stiff to parallel park. It was a ton of fun, especially with the handcranked sunroof."

Mike replies: I forgot about that. The BMW's steering wheel is probably bigger, too, for leverage! It's been a long time since I've driven a car without power steering but I'll bet muscle memory would kick in and it would feel all too familiar if I ever experienced it again.

Mao: "My advice, which should not be taken, is to get a real 2002. In addition to being a blast to drive, when I lend it to friends who come to town and then come across it on the street unexpectedly, I get to see it and think—'whoah, cool 2002...wait, that's mine!' That never happens with newer cars. But she needs to get to work, right?"

Gone Fishin'

...Well, not really fishing. But TOP will be taking a few days off, until Thursday or Friday, as I begin the task of getting ready for The Big Move II.

If all goes well, tomorrow I'll dig out all the darkroom items I won't be taking with me, and I'll get those listed, for those of you who are waiting for that.

Fortunately, most of the hardest work was done during the last move about a year ago. This time, I hope to double down on my ruthlessness, and give away, throw away, or sell as much as I can, and arrive in New York State traveling relatively light. The new house is small and has relatively little storage space, so happiness is going to depend on efficiency.

I don't own it yet, mind you, but here I am in front of the house I have contracted to purchase:

Photo by S.

Futbol
To address one question about my move that appears to be important to some readers, we next turn to the map:

To determine who I will root for after my move, we need to scrutinize the map carefully. As you'll note, if proximity were the ruling issue here, I would root for the Bills. But of course many people in Buffalo don't even root for the Bills, so I think I'm off the hook on that account. Further study reveals that I am no closer to New York City than I am to Pittsburgh; so as you see the pertinent question does not naturally or inevitably have to be "Giants or Jets?".

After much study and the use of a quadrant, sextant, and calipers with the map spread on a table, not to mention properly calculating the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow, I have determined that after my move I shall be rooting for...

1. Packers
2. Bears

...It stands to logic, right? Makes perfect sense to me at any rate. You know the old expression: You can take the boy out of the NFC North, but you can't take the NFC North out of the boy.

See you in a couple of days,

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Peter: "Mike, I echo the other commenters—you're moving again?? My wife and I spent two weeks relaxing on Keuka in May, so it's with no small amount of envy that I see you're headed out there for good. What a great place!"

Mike replies: Yes, moving again—I wrote about it, but not everyone caught it (and I don't blame you—there's no need to read every word on a blog, even a blog you like). Moving for love this time—I can relocate my work easily, whereas my girlfriend would have a very difficult, long road to relocate hers, so the choice is inevitable. My beautiful new-to-me TOP Secret Underground World Headquarters has been sold to a nice young family, and I have an accepted offer on the house above, so I'm off to Lake Keuka, with Zander's blessings. She and I just couldn't face another Winter of a long distance relationship, which are both painful and also expensive. Constant travel is also pretty disruptive. We're both looking forward to living near one another.

Kathy: "Nice house. Where is the truck with the snow plow? You will be rooting for the Bills because this is Bills country. All of it. Everybody. Just so you know."

Mike replies: To be honest, my current sport of choice is snooker! A minority choice for an American, given that we don't play it here, never mind that most Americans have never heard of it. Fascinating game.

Darlene Almeda: "I am very happy for you Mike (and S.). The new house has a somewhat Minor White feel to my eyes. I'll bet there is a lot of art about to happen there. Good luck with all the paperwork and moves; you have got to be ready to settle down after this whirlwind year!"

Mike replies: Whew, I'll say. Moves are extremely disruptive. My cousin Chris is also moving—moving out of three homes (a condo, a summer cottage, and a rental winter home) and into a new house—and I wrote this to her last night: "think how good you will feel to get it all sorted. You’ll have shed all your old places and spaces, and be set to start over and get everything just as you want them to be—and then you can streamline your life, conserve your finances, and make your life easy, peaceful, and calm."

I can't wait to get there myself.

jpb: "Maybe it's just me, but I looked at your map and only saw 'Leafs, Sabres, Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, Penguins, Flyers and Capitals."

Hélcio J. Tagliolatto: "It looks like a hunting lodge! I like it! You're right: a long distance relationship is painful (and expensive). I've survived one extreme, from Manaus to Tokyo, but I was young, and this kind of relationship is a 'no country for old men' (I'm not saying you're old)."

Mike replies: Yes you are.  :-)

Open Mike: It Costs More to be Poor, Part II (and a Question)

Out of college, I lived in a little "vintage" apartment building in Georgetown, a neighborhood of Washington, D.C. According to the terms of the lease, we weren’t allowed to have washing machines and clothes dryers of our own in the apartments, which was okay because there wasn’t room for them anyway. In the basement of the building there were two coin-operated washing machines and two dryers that each cost 75¢ to operate. Neither of the dryers worked well enough to get the clothes dry in one pass, so unless you had a very small load of laundry, you had to pay for two cycles.

Okay. So, 75¢ plus 75¢ plus 75¢ equals $2.25 for a load of laundry, not counting the cost of detergent. Including sheets and towels as well as clothes, I did two loads a week. So laundry cost me $4.50 per week.

No big deal, right? Well, right. It was no big deal. Paying a measly $4.50 is a lot better than having to invest in a washer and dryer. I only planned to stay in that building for a couple of years, so I didn’t even see the situation as permanent. To tell you the truth, I never even thought about it one way or the other. I just did my laundry, as one does.

Life went on. One thing led to another, and I ended up working as a freelance photographer. Georgetown is a nice central location for a working photographer who has to get all over D.C. on short notice. Long story short, I ended up staying in that apartment for seven years.

When I finally did move, I also "moved up in the world." My next apartment was a lot nicer. Just off the kitchen, it had a separate room just for a washer and dryer, complete with the water hookups and dryer vent and those special outlets for the big beefy plugs. As Homer* would say, woo-hoo! But no machines. Again, no big deal. I headed down to the local Sam’s Club and bought a plain, bargain-priced washer and dryer set for $500.

That’s when it suddenly occurred to me to sit down and do a little arithmetic. It’s when I first figured out that laundry in my old building used to cost me $4.50 a week. And I had stayed there for seven years.

Seven years x 52 weeks a year x $4.50 equals…

¡Ay caramba!

If you just did the arithmetic too, you realize I had paid $1,638 for the use of the cruddy laundry machines in the dank, smelly basement of my old apartment building—more than three times what my own new machines had cost!

True, I did have to pay for electricity in the new building, and not in the old building. But even generously allowing for a buck’s worth of electricity per load in the new building—probably more than it really cost—the most I would have paid for laundry in seven years using my own machines was $500 for the machines plus $728 for electricity, or $1,228.

Over seven years, I would have saved at least $410 on laundry.

And that’s not even taking to account that at the end of the seven years in the new building, I would still own a seven-year-old washing machine and dryer worth maybe $200 or so. So just by being wealthy enough to buy my own laundry machines up front, instead of having to pay to use someone else’s, I would come out at least $610 ahead on laundry. And probably more.

It's like I always say, the reality of having no money is that it costs more. Not "more" in any diffuse general sense, taking into account intangibles like limitations on life choices and personal satisfaction: it just costs more in plain ol' money.

Question for you
So let me ask you a car question: Let's say you have a daughter who just graduated from college. She's living in a new city and she needs a car. She's saved up $5,000 for it, and she's looking at three choices:

1. Buying a used car outright off AutoTrader or Craigslist and paying cash for it.

2. Buying a certified used car from a dealership, paying $1,500 or $2,000 down and financing the rest. (Getting financing isn't a problem because you—her parent in this exercise, remember—are willing to co-sign.)

3. Buying an inexpensive new car with money down and financing.

Some considerations:

• The advantage of Option 1 is that there are lots of used cars for sale privately in her price range, some of which are probably decently reliable transportation. The problem with Option 1 is that it's tough to know which cars are the decent ones, and she can't afford to get stuck with a lemon or a car that's going to require lots of repairs or additional expenses.

• The advantage of Option 2 is that she'll probably get a better, newer car, and she'll help her credit rating, which, as a new college graduate, is nonexistent. Plus, the dealer might offer a limited warranty. The problem with Option 2 is that most dealers don't bother with used cars cheaper than about $10k, so the car she buys is going to cost a fair amount more than $5k in the long run.

• The advantage of Option 3 is that she'll very likely get a known quantity, a new car with no reliability issues, and a full new-car warranty. The problem is that the cars in her price range are going to be among the cheapest new cars you can buy, and cheap new cars often have less residual value after the term of the loan is over.

What would you advise?

Mike

*Not the poet.

"Open Mike," which appears only but not always on Sundays, is the off-topic page of TOP. Not that I stay on topic the rest of the time, but whatever....

P.S. "It Costs More to be Poor" Part I is here.

[UPDATE: The daughter and parents in question are the ones in this post. —Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2015 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 Zivic (partial comment): "I have had good experiences buying dealer certified used cars. I would advise putting 20% down and paying for, not financing, tax and license. Then should a rainy day arrive she will not be upside down with the loan."

Ruby: "We went with Option 1 for our son; however, it took six months to find the right car, and my brother-in-law is a mechanic and looked over every car we considered at his shop at no cost to us—including a couple of used cars from dealerships. We lucked into a client of my husband's who liked to buy cars and use them for about six months, spruce them up, and then sell them. We were able to find him a nice, low-miles 2002 Mazda that continues to serve him well. We had both time and a free inspector working in our favor, which made this option more attractive.

"Option 3 will cost more for insurance, and that is part of the long-term cost analysis.

"I ran this past my husband (who is a financial consultant), and he said Option 2 is the best choice in these circumstances. We got our own car from CarMax, and he said that was the most pleasant car-buying experience he's ever had. I've been driving that car for five years now. My brother-in-law the mechanic also bought his truck this way.

"I wish this new graduate luck and a reliable car at the right price."

MarkB (partial comment): "...More debt is that last thing any recent college graduate needs, regardless of the co-signer. Personally, I think tooling around in a paid-for car feels a lot better than sending off a check every month or getting into the habit of buying things on credit or leasing."

latent_image: "I'm no financial wizard though I am cheap when it comes to cars. Best purchase so far has been a certified used car. Two year/40,000 km. warranty. I knew what I wanted and used the manufacturer's website to locate a car in my region. Managed to talk the price down, too."

Jim Hamstra: "For 55 years I have followed Option 1 and saved a lot of money in the process. Nowadays I buy from a private owner and try to find a car around three years old with around 30,000 miles which sells for half or less of new price. If you buy a well maintained dependable model you should be able to drive it for over 100,000 miles and it will still have some value when you sell it. It's great to have no debt and another benefit is cheaper insurance and registration.

"One example: Many years ago I bought a three-year-old Honda and put 100,000+ miles on it then sold it to a guy that wanted it for his wife. Ten years later I found out the rest of the story when I met a lady who asked if I remembered the car. Her husband bought it for her then divorced her. She drove it for several years then gave it to her daughter to drive while in college. After that her son wanted it for his car while in college. She then told me he had just graduated and had sold the Honda—for the same price I had sold it to her husband ten years earlier."

David: "While in graduate school, I lived in apartment without a washing machine or drier, so I used a nearby laundromat, where I deposited many coins. But, I also met my future wife there, which made me far richer than I can say! YMMV."

John Camp: "You have to make a story out of it to make the call. She's a college grad in a new city, which I would suggest means that she has some kind of a job where a college degree has some importance. In that case, I'd say Option 2, the cheapest decent car she can get with the lowest down payment (you suggest $1,500) financing the rest.

"Then take the $3,500 and make a wholesale marijuana purchase, and start dealing to the other low-level college grads at your workplace. At that scale, you should be able to double your money every week, for a month or so, assuming that the job pays you enough to live on, so you don't cut into the dope profits. If you don't try to pyramid your profits (which could attract the eye of the cops) and are content with a relatively small network of regular, well-vetted users—say 20 members, buying an ounce of high-quality bud a week—you should be able to yank down a hundred thousand a year with no taxes. And then, you know, buy a Jag, one of those electric red convertibles, and get rid of that piece of sh*t your parents co-signed for. And get some decent threads, too."

Mike replies: And you think you're going to be able to turn it off and retire. Right!

Steve Rosenblum: "I agree completely with what Jim Hamstra said. I have been through this with all three of my kids. If she can afford it, buy a three-year-old reliable car such as a Honda Accord, Camry, or similar. Find a reliable honest mechanic and insist that any car that is seriously considered gets checked over by the mechanic. Tell the mechanic the car is for your (or whoever's) daughter and that you need to know it is safe and reliable for her. These cars are capable of going 200K miles or more with good maintenance. The car will cost a third to a half less than a new car. One of my kids is still driving the 2002 Accord that was purchased in this fashion and it runs great. Resist buying a very old car because it's cheap. Safety features have steadily improved over the last decade and you want your family member to be well protected. Remember, the car may well be kept for many years and the safety features will be frozen at the year it was produced."

gary bliss: "Hmmm. Among my other professional duties, I do this sort of thing for DoD. And, as several people have said, 'it depends on the price difference among the options.' Sadly—and there is a story here to complex to go into but well documented in, among other places, The Wall Street Journal—the days when you could routinely find three- or four-year-old clean sub-compact cars discounted 33 or 45% over MSRP dried up about three years ago. That car is maybe 20% less than new, and often more. The $10k used sub-compact in the DC area (particularly a Toyota, Mazda, or Honda) is more like a seven-year-old model with 100k miles. Ouch; I would take new for that choice. So you really must factor everything in—including insurance as one poster noted.

"It really very much depends on the used car deals, but the market has finally responded to the truth: cars are far more durable than they were even 20 years ago. And dealer warranty packages are generally, as noted, poor deals due to the 'outs' in the wording."

Juan Flores (partial comment): "The warranty is of tremendous benefit when buying a used car.

"About ten years ago we purchased a car in seemingly good condition from a dealership (and our regular mechanic checked it over and found no faults), then during the course of the six-month warranty the dealer was obligated to repair the various faults that arose, which ultimately exceeded the price we had paid for the vehicle. The car then gave us five years of faultless service.

"I believe that many latent issues a second-hand car might have will be more likely to become evident early on, so a short warranty nicely offsets the premium you would pay vs. purchasing a used car via AutoTrader."

dale [all sic]: "too bad I just sold my 2008 volvo c30 t5, a very fun car, it great shape had my mechanic provide a complete pre sale inspection with the only item was plan on rear brakes in a few months ($400). only a lean 165k for volvo mileage. its old quickly for $4k."

Mike replies: I assume that last line was a typo? :-)

Knee High on the Fourth of July

It's our Independence Day today. Regular readers will remember that I've posted quite a few pictures of the soybean field behind my new yet soon-to-be-former house, so I thought you might appreciate seeing what it looks like today. The soybeans are alternated with corn, and this year's a corn year, so it's now a cornfield.

There's an old Farmer's Almanac saying that the corn should be "knee high by the Fourth of July," so (being as I'm a reviewer), tests were conducted:

And sure enough.

Anyway, just wanted to wish my fellow Americans a Happy Fourth of July! Hope you have a good day, wherever you are.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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!

Robert Frank Link

Robert Frank by Katy Grannan, from "The Man Who Saw America"

...And if you Americans are looking for something to while away the time on your holiday of leisure, I (and, believe me, many of your fellow readers) can warmly recommend "The Man Who Saw America," from the World's Best Photography Magazine (a.k.a. The New York Times, in this case literally the Magazine).

(We once did a short piece about Katy Grannan, whose portrait of Robert Frank appears above. Click the link in the caption. I'm afraid I wasn't very complimentary, but then, I was wet behind the ears as a blogger and was fey, distanced, and had a peculiar deadpan emotional milkiness at the time.)

Mike
(Thanks to Scott Johnston)

P.S. And for you Brits, I spent a thrilling hour and four minutes today watching the epic 31st frame of the 2015 World Snooker Championship. Shaun Murphy vs. Stuart Bingham. Amazing and wonderful! (Note that I never write about pool, and this P.S. is not about pool.)

Original contents copyright 2015 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!

Two Recent Deaths

The health and popularity of any human endeavor rises and falls in waves—nothing's static—and photography caught a huge swell in the 1960s to the early '80s. Many of photography's great names are from that era...it's our "Greatest Generation," to cop a term used of the WWII age cohort. Many of the greats from an earlier wave were still alive then, and many names came to the forefront that we still recognize. A few, we venerate.

If it seems like there have been a lot of obituaries lately, that might be why. We're losing that generation.

We lost Charles Harbutt on June 29th. A former President of Magnum, he was one of those names who flew low and didn't break into many photographers' radar fields. But he was an accomplished shooter and a longtime teacher. I have a signed copy of his iconic book Travelog that I treasure, although I have to admit I really didn't like his latest book, Departures and Arrivals.

Charles Harbutt in the mid-'80s by his friend and colleague Joan Liftin

There are good articles at PDNonline and The New York Times.

And to catch you up on another exceptional photographer of that generation, there's this link, from The Washington Post, about the sad decline into dementia of the fine gentleman and very accomplished artist William Christenberry. Bill taught at the Corcoran while I was there, but I never took a course from him, because he taught art, not photography. A photographer whose work was all about remembering should have had a less ironic ending.

Curiously, I don't feel quite so sad about Harold Feinstein, who died on June 20th. The reason is because it seems that certain "friends of Harold"—I don't know the backstory at all—had been assisting him in a late-life Renaissance. There was a very successful Kickstarter campaign (the we helped publicize) which resulted in the publication of his retrospective book, which was a pleasure and a treat, and his work is well-represented on his nice website, and he'd been writing a blog. It's sad to hear of his death, yes, but it's also very nice that we got to know him in the first place—and he got some deserved recognition—before that came to pass. 

Mike
(Thanks to Oren Grad and many other readers)

P.S. If you're tempted to prompt me about the wonderful Robert Frank link, I'll be posting that one later.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Richard Rodgers: "Sad times. First Mary Ellen Mark and now Charles Harbutt. While at Apeiron in the late 1960s, Mary Ellen enabled my photography skills to grow and Charles, through his teaching skills, enabled me to become a college photography teacher."

David Christensen: "Rondal Partridge also passed away recently. He wasn't well known (by his own designs), but what a link to the past—the son of Imogen Cunningham, apprenticed himself to Ansel Adams, and assisted Dorothea Lange in California during the depression. He was 97 when he died—and according to the SFGate, 'he spent his last 15 years mastering the art of hand-coated platinum printing with a focus on botanical subjects, dead animals and antique tools.' Here's the link to the very interesting SF Gate obituary."

Mike replies: Thanks David. I didn't know that. He's a photographer whose work I know better; I very much enjoy his book Quizzical Eye. It's one I return to.

Rodger Kingston: "I've known Bill Christenberry for nearly 40 years. I met him in the late '70s through a couple of photographic friends, Gus Kayafas and Gerd Sander, and over the years I visited him and his wife Sandy when I was in Washington, or saw him occasionally when he came North.

"Bill could always be counted upon for a good story—after all, his art is a story, a visual narrative of the world centered around his native Hale County, Alabama. He is one of those people who never stops talking—except with Bill, you don't want him to stop talking.

"Bill is undoubtedly a great artist. However, the key to appreciating both Bill and his art is to understand that he is a great Southern artist, steeped in the black Alabama soil, and soft spoken, with a light Southern accent tempered by his many years living in Washington, D.C.

"His studio is a veritable museum of his paintings, drawings, and photographs; his sculptures of the buildings appearing in his two-dimensional works; and the signs he rescued from the towns and countryside around his beloved Hale County.

"I'll never forget the time he showed me his legendary Klan Room, not long before it was mysteriously stolen.

"I have about a dozen of his books, many of them signed, all of them carefully handled and well read. The most recent one I have is, ironically, fittingly, William Christenberry: Working from Memory: Collected Stories. Reading the stories, I can hear him talking, speaking of his friendship with Walker Evans, or describing the circumstances surrounding one of his works.

"The last time I saw Bill, several years ago, before the onset of his Alzheimer's, he and Sandy were in Boston for a lecture, and a group of us went to dinner afterward. Bill sat at the head of the table, and, with his soft Southern accent and courtly manner, entertained and edified us all."

The Fauxliflex Chronicles

Two extremes on the camera intimidation spectrum. On the left, a recently auctioned Leica rifle camera. It's probably just as well these never caught on. On the right, a nanny with a Rolleiflex.

-

Written by John Kennerdell

It was only near the tail end of the film era, around 1998, that I finally acquired the camera I’d longed for since my student days: an old mint-condition Rollei twin-lens reflex. Just hefting its weight and touching those precise German controls made me think, oh yes, here we go. With a machine like this even I ought to be able to carve my name upon the photographic firmament.

Like so much in life, the reality fell short. Not that I really expected the firmament to take much note, but I couldn’t even reliably focus the damn thing. Fair enough, I could if I flipped up the magnifier loupe and squinted right into it, but that kind of defeated the point of waist-level framing. And so eventually off it went to KEH, where I hope it found a new owner with better eyes than mine.

That began my quest to find myself a digital equivalent: a Fauxliflex. I’ll spare you the twists and turns of the search, but suffice to say that by a couple years ago I had not one but two matching bodies that finally fit the bill. Flip-up screens, quiet shutters, good enough image quality. Apart from low light or events (I’ll get to that), they’re mostly all I’ve used since. So I thought it might be time to offer a few thoughts on shooting from the belly button á la digital.

The three-foot-high club
This is the paradoxical and wonderful thing about a waist-level finder: it helps you be more anonymous when shooting candidly, and yet more personal when working with your subject.

Raise a camera to your eye and people take notice. Point it directly at them and their reaction can escalate into concern, nervousness, even anger. Of course we learn to deal with that, and every good street photographer develops his or her own ways to keep things relaxed. Still, the gun-like aspect of an eye-level finder is always going to hold a certain subliminal threat: I’m looking at you through this machine and I’m about to...shoot.

Here's the pair of waist-level digicams I’ve been using for the past few years. The lenses stay attached, black for normal and silver for wide, so I reflexively know what view to expect when I pick them up. That “72,621” is the shutter count—hardly breaking a sweat for a real Rollei but not bad from a $500 consumer appliance.

A waist-level camera is still, clearly, a camera. People can see the lens and if they notice you they'll know perfectly well what you're doing. But there's something of a remove: your immediate attention is not on your subject but your camera. Maybe you're fiddling around with it a bit, geeky and harmless. It's all so low-key that many people don't notice at all. For fly-on-the-wall photography, that's about as non-intrusive as it gets.

Now the flip side: holding a camera halfway down your body is also pretty much ideal whenever you want to engage with a subject. As far as I know, the late Tim Hetherington didn't choose a Rolleiflex out of any special love for film or even the square format. It was a machine thoroughly unsuited to 21st-century combat zones. He used it, by all accounts, because he liked to maintain full contact with his subjects while shooting. By that I mean not just eye contact but talking, interacting, communicating with facial and body language. The camera essentially disappears.

Whether working candidly or otherwise, shooting from the waist brings one more benefit we seldom hear mentioned. You're no longer at eye level, where generally there's nothing else but heads. You're just a bit lower, down where all kinds of other things are happening. There are peoples' bodies, the way they're dressed, the things they're holding and doing, the place they're standing and everything it contains. Yes, using an eye-level finder of course you can point your camera downward, or lean forward or kneel, or do whatever else it takes to get it all in. But from the waist, more often than not, you simply aim the camera straight ahead and a balanced composition falls into place.

In the market, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. I've always liked the kind of framing that happens naturally when working from the waist. Your subjects' heads are suddenly above the horizon, or at least the clutter. You see more of their hands, their bodies, their context. It's decidedly not the perspective you normally get from your own eyes (well, unless you're a child), but photographically often it's just right.

Tips from the hip
Right then, some assorted thoughts on the whole digital waist-level approach. These are purely personal, so take or leave them as you will.

Apart from focusing, the main problem with the Rollei for me was just holding it steady. TLR users had a number of tricks, like pulling it down against a taut neck strap or holding it tight against your belly. But fundamentally, supporting a camera in your two hands is never going to be as steady as also pressing it against something nice and solid like a handy skull, typically your own. Ah ha, you say, but now we have image stabilization. We do, and it’s a big part of what helps these cameras work for me. Yet I don’t believe it’s the panacea that many people now seem to think. The steadier you can hold your camera, the sharper you can still expect your results to be. But here's the good news: the more you shoot with two-point as opposed to three-point support, the better you seem to get at it. TLR shooters used to say as much, but only with experience have I come to believe them.

Instead of arching my index finger over the shutter release, I usually find myself keeping my right thumb flat along the top of the camera and then flexing it to trip the shutter. Partly it just feels more comfortable that way when holding a camera low, partly it may be out of a subconscious recognition that it sends one less visual cue as to the moment of the shot.

Again, if it wasn't clear above, I'm not talking about sneaking photos. It's just about being minimally invasive.

Waist-level viewing might work best for those of us who like to crop square. It’s fine for horizontals too, of course. But verticals? Maybe you could try one of those "fully-articulated"* screens? (I’m just guessing here. They never seem to work for me for anything. Long live the flip-up, in-line screen.)

To me the Fauxliflex feels more natural with single focal-length lenses than zooms. Probably that’s something about knowing where you want to be even before you look at the camera and compose the photo. I treat a waist-level finder mainly as a final confirmation of what’s in the frame, not as a window to peer into while moving all about and zooming in and out. Feel free to differ.

I don't like it with longer lenses, but then I don't use them much, and anyhow wasn't the Tele Rolleiflex a bit of an odd duck too? Waist-level is also usually less than optimal for events and other jobs where everyone knows and accepts that there’s someone with a camera who’s going to be snapping like mad the whole time. When you’re really working a scene, in my opinion still nothing beats the responsiveness and immersive quality of an eye-level optical finder.

Anyhow I'm quite devoted to my Fauxliflexes, and while no doubt even better ones will come along presently, I could happily carry on with exactly what I have now. But perhaps that is where true photographic fulfillment lies: finding what works for you, and then just getting on with it.

John

*A slight misnomer, as they don't swing in the one direction that many of us most want. Sony proved with some of its DSLRs that it is possible to design a true fully-articulated screen, but a side hinge ain't it.

John Kennerdell writes two essays a year for TOP. His past contributions can be found under his name in the Categories list in the right-hand sidebar.

©2015 by John Kennerdell, 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): "I can not stand using eye level viewing. Composition is so much easier when you aren't looking 'through' the camera."

[For complete comments from which "partial comments" are taken, please see the Comments Section. —Ed.]

Peter Van Dyken: "In a day so long ago when I was thoroughly convinced that it was the camera and not the photographer that made the difference, I bought a Hasselblad with an 80mm lens. I enthusiastically support everything that John mentioned about the experience of waist-level shooting and would add a further consideration that I discovered in sporting about with the 'Blad. I came to appreciate what became to me a very significant difference between eye-level and waist-level composition, that being the difference between shooting with two eyes on the screen as opposed to one. I began to imagine that I saw three dimensions in my efforts to compose. I'm sure for many it would make no difference but for me it was the factor that brought a pleasure into photography that I had not known before."

Kodachromeguy: "One of the nice aesthetic features of portraits taken with a Rolleiflex or Fauxliflex is that the subject is often mid-body. Gents look heroic. And ladies are evenly proportioned—they do not have that absurd big head and tiny diminishing body that you see in Hollywood pictures where a six-foot paparazzi held his monster Canikonflex at eye level while photographing a petite lady."

emptyspaces: "I love using the Olympus face/eye detection feature at waist level."

Blog Note

Okay. Bit of a SNAFU today. My home inspection was scheduled for "Wednesday July 2." My agent read that as "July 2"; the inspector read it as "Wednesday."

It was today. Not tomorrow. I was not ready.

I did get to meet my home buyers—a very nice young couple with an adorable 6-month-old son (not in attendance, but I saw phone snaps). My dogs distinguished themselves by barking incessantly from the bedroom where I had them quarantined. They'd been scheduled to go to Camp Bow Wow tomorrow, all day. But everyone extemporized, everyone was friendly, and all went well.

Of course after a while we were all standing around telling stories, talking about stereos, laughing, and listening to jazz...it's really a wonder I ever get any work done, when you come to think of it.

The home inspector was an interesting guy. He explained that the floors of attached garages are designed to slope away from the house, so spilled oil and gasoline will flow away from the house rather than toward it; that all attached garages are built with a concrete step up into the house for the same reason; and that people shouldn't install screen doors between the house and the garage, because the main door is always a fire door and it should always be closed when you're not actually going through it.

The question this raised in my mind was, how often do fires actually start in attached garages? That is, are cars in attached garages really fire hazards? I can believe they might have been in 1950.

I couldn't find the relevant statistic, but the U.S. Fire Administration, an entity of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency, says that the leading cause of residential fires, at 48.7%, is cooking, with the second leading cause, heating, coming in at 12.1%.

By that measure, it would seem odd that we cordon off our automobiles in separate, walled-off, fire-retardant rooms of the house, whereas we now put our kitchens in our living rooms. Shouldn't we do the opposite?

But then it occurred to me that maybe cooking is the leading cause of residential fires because we put our kitchens in our living rooms rather than behind fire-safe walls.

But then my brain started to hurt. I'm tired. To tell you the truth, I've been exhausted ever since the house sold. The uncertainty was more of a strain than I was aware of.

Real posts soon.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Michael Perini: "If you look at colonial architecture, the kitchens were often built as almost separate rooms just for that reason. Although this link suggests otherwise. There has always been a tradition of outdoor ovens, which are popular even today."

Mike replies: I also read a theory recently that the popularity of kitchens in the living area is partly responsible for our worsening eating habits in the obesity epidemic. I believe I saw it browsing Michael Pollan's new book, Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation, although I wouldn't swear to that.

Benjamin Marks: "I am a volunteer firefighter and helped fight a garage fire this past winter. It was caused, not by the cars in the garage, but as so many fires around here are caused: by improper storage of ashes/coals from a wood stove. Garage fires are nasty; folks store all sorts of stuff in garages that you wouldn't want to breathe the smoke of (ugh...grammar...'the smoke of which you would not want to breathe?'...equally awkward).

"So garage fire = bad. Today's TOP public safety announcement: TOPpers, please store your wood stove ashes in a metal container with a lid that closes tightly, and do not store that container near a combustible surface. /rant off."

Ann: "In the 1892 house I lived in, he kitchen was attached to the back of the house, but didn't have the rest of the house around it. The idea of the day was that if the kitchen burned down, then only the kitchen would burn. The rest of the house could be saved.

"In the 1920s house I live in now, the kitchen is integrated into the house, but the garage is detached, of course. The honest truth is that with modern construction, there are very few fires of any sort anymore. but a good reason to keep the door to the garage closed is not because of fire, but because of carbon monoxide. I've heard anecdotal tales of people getting low level CO poisoning from houses that have poorly air sealed garages. An open door would negate any protection from that."

Mike replies: I agree. I would not buy a house with a bedroom built directly above the garage. Too many horror stories.

The house I did buy, though, has a very nice kitchen that takes up more of the ground floor than anything else. I have a rule with myself: never step away when the stove is on. I'm too absent-minded, and several times when I left the kitchen unattended I completely forgot what I'd been doing there. I'm just the type of person who would burn down his own house through inattention, so I have to be careful.

If anyone reading this has a bedroom above a garage, I'd encourage you to get it inspected to make sure you have the proper gas barriers in place, as well as working carbon monoxide detectors.

Tom Kwas: "I can tell you one thing about my moving to Indianapolis last year: there are fires every where and all the time compared to Wisconsin! And scary for me: apartment fires!

"I ran into a fireman last time I was in Wisconsin that told me they occasionally train in Indianapolis because the departments there 'roll out' on a fire weekly, and of the size they might get once every couple of months from where he was in Wisconsin. Reasons why? Poor Indianapolis unlicensed construction, bad code monitoring. Really 'meh' attitudes (my apartment complex was built in the late '80s and it has no insulation, as well as bottom dollar off-brand HVAC. And by the way, recycling here is just a 'suggestion').

"I used to bridle against the strict Germanic permitting and spot checks in Wisconsin, but when you see the other side of the coin, it doesn't seem so bad....

"I've been in two studio fires over my career (because they were always in run-down, questionable buildings). Luckily I was only working there, and they weren't my studios. Fire is my biggest fear...."

Mike replies: A blog post about photographers who've lost their archives in fires would be hard to research but very interesting. Starting with Carleton Watkins who lost most of his work in the San Francisco fire and ending perhaps with Jacques Lowe whose archive of the Kennedy years was lost in the basement of the World Trade Center.

Henning: "A couple of notes from an architect and building code consultant (Canada, but since the building code deals with safety, the same items apply). Carbon monoxide sinks, so building a bedroom above a garage doesn't make a difference in that regard. Here, a door connecting a garage to a house has to be fire rated, installed in a fire rated door with weatherstripping to seal it better, and has to have a closer. A 2" door sill and slope away from the door is as much for the carbon monoxide (which then flows away from the door) as for liquids.

"Real life safety with respect to fires comes only from a decent fire sprinkler system. Statistics have shown that if a fire sprinkler system is installed and functioning, lives are not lost. Yes, they can go off inadvertently and cause extensive water damage, but that is quite rare in practice and as far as I'm concerned, life safety triumphs. I'm happy that Vancouver has had mandatory sprinklering for all residential units for the last 20 years, and this is spreading across the country."

Tech. Ed. Ctein comments: Carbon DI-oxide is denser than air. Carbon MON-oxide is essentially the same density, as close as doesn't matter. Convection and thermal differences will control where CO goes, not density.

A typical garage fire is vastly more dangerous than a typical kitchen fire because the garage is unmonitored and uninhabited (not to mention gasoline, etc). By the time you are likely to become aware that your garage is on fire, it's ON FIRE! Kitchen fires are much more likely to be detected early.

Mike adds: Yeah, the idea of involvement is probably important. You don't want a fire to have a chance to get going. (We all know how hard it can be to start a fireplace fire but how hot it gets—and how easy it is to get a new log burning—once it's "all involved" and blazing.)

I once witnessed a mattress fire in an apartment across the street from my Georgetown, D.C., apartment. I could actually see flames through their window. The fire department got there fast and swarmed the place. I was amazed at how fast they all moved. Before I knew it they were inside, outside, and on the roof. One of the firemen later told me (of course I had to go ask questions) that the more quickly they catch a fire, the easier it is to put out and the less damage it does. So they move as fast as they can, even for—perhaps especially for—small fires.

Asher Miller: "My uncle's house had a fire last year. It started in the garage with the trickle charger plugged into his car. We think the hood was resting on the charger leads, and started arc-welding themselves to the hood of the car. He tried beating the flames back with a fire extinguisher, failed, and escaped seconds before the garage door cables melted and the door slammed shut behind him. I don't know what the insurance claim was, but they were lucky they were home to smell the ole and call 911, and they were lucky his ammunition didn't cook off, too. (He's a hunter, and his shop is just off the garage.) If my aunt hadn't smelled the smoke wafting up into the kitchen, they would have lost everything. As it was, it was a nasty fire, and they were out of their house for the better part of a year.

"Garage fires happen, and they are no joke."