The Online Photographer

Sunday Open Mike: Less Than Zero (and Other News Blips)

Winter's here!
Lovely Winter has finally (finally) arrived in Western New York. It's a crispy –9°F (–23°C) this morning, cold enough to make short-coated Lulu want to stay indoors. I'm wearing a base layer (formerly known as long underwear) and flannel-lined jeans, and I've got my HeatHolders ^TM on!

Took long enough. I enjoy a good crispy cold—it's bracing. It's that wet, chilly, hovering-around-thirty-degrees cold that feels unpleasant to me. Went outside five times yesterday. Just not for too long each time!

Bad news about the hat, though. (I asked about a warm winter hat a few weeks ago.) Based on readers' recommendations I bought six hats and have now zero-degree tested them all, and the hands-down winner is the Golightly cashmere watch cap recommended by my brother Scott, whose advice is commonly right on target. (Good thing, because he gives advice for a living—he's a Ph.D. psychologist in Rhode Island.) Sorry to recommend such a flagrantly expensive product, but it's both the most comfortable and the warmest of the hats I tried. Should last a long time at least—multiple reports (including from Scott) say they still look brand new after ten years of use. Just don't lose it.

Ah, winter.

Panasonic messes up
So you remember that looks-too-good-to-be-true deal on the Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.7 Micro 4/3 lens last Black Friday? Ninety-nine dollars, marked down from $249?

Turns out it might indeed not be true.

Panasonic apparently let retailers fill the orders from existing stocks and said it would honor rebates on backorders, but has kept shuffling its feet about filling those backorders, delaying the ship dates multiple times. B&H Photo for one finally gave up when Panasonic delayed the shipments yet again, this time till April. B&H's Henry Posner (an old friend from CompuServe) stated the company has "no confidence" either that Panasonic will ship the lenses in April or that it would ship enough of them. So they finally pulled the plug and cancelled the backorders.

This appears to be industry-wide, not specific to B&H or any other retailer.

Panasonic has historically been intermittently plagued by problems when it comes to keeping its photographic products in stock. To name two examples, I recall a loooong wait for the Panasonic LX3 when it was a hot item eight years ago, and I watched the Panasonic 12–35mm premium zoom (a great Micro 4/3 lens) go into extended periods of limbo more than once.

Happy Birthday DDD
The redoubtable David Douglas Duncan, one of the 20th century's greatest war photographers, turned 100 last January 23rd. Duncan (a.k.a. DDD)—who, when just a college student, inadvertently photographed an incognito John Dillinger entering a hotel—is revered at Nikon for his crucial early support of the then-fledgling company, and he had a long tenure as one of the top mentors and role models for photo enthusiasts. Late in life he had a falling out with his longtime friend Henri Cartier-Bresson for publishing a book of pictures he and Henri took of each other at a café—Cartier-Bresson was notoriously averse to being photographed.

David Douglas Duncan, photo courtesy LIFE.com

One of the treasures of my photo library is a copy of David's War Without Heroes, his superb book about Viet Nam (thanks to my book dealer friend Andy Moursund for helping with that acquisition). DDD is due for a new career retrospective book, too. Happy Birthday, David.

How to buy a pool table
When we were talking about the lottery several weeks ago, a couple of people asked me what kind of pool table I'd buy if I won the lottery. As you know I never write about pool, but I'd probably pick a 9-foot Blatt New Yorker, which is a modern reproduction of the old "streamline" style Brunswick Centennial. (Streamline is a later offshoot of art deco.) Costs around $30,000, I think—I haven't actually priced it, for the obvious reason that I haven't won the lottery.

But for most people furnishing a game room, for kids, teens, parties, and weekender "ball-bashing," what you want is something like a 7-foot Brunswick Glenwood. Not cheap, but the table is pretty, it can be customized to your taste, and the pockets, as on all Brunswicks save the tournament models, are buckets—they'll suck down any ball that comes near 'em. This is not good for practice or for getting better, but it's better for having occasional fun without getting frustrated.

Long the dominant brand, Brunswick tables are no longer the best—all made offshore* now—but the famous name still holds sway, and every dollar you save buying a cheaper table you'll lose twice over when you go to sell.

The Brunswick Glenwood

Now comes the hard part: for heaven's sake, get the kids a lesson or two. In golf, the tradition of instruction is very strong—only an idiot would set kids on a golf course, hand them a few clubs, and turn them loose and let them have at it on their own. Everybody takes a few lessons. In any kind of billiards, it's the opposite. Not only is there no tradition of instruction, there is a tradition against it—hustlers were always trying to hide their "speed" (how good they were) and nobody wanted to teach anybody else what they knew for fear of giving away a competitive advantage. The result is that everybody flails away on a pool table any old which way, and nobody learns the proper stance or the proper way to stroke. (Even many pros have grooved a bad stroke, including the player widely agreed to be the most talented of the last era, the Filipino Efren Reyes. He copied his stroke from an old man who happened to be the best player in the small out-of-the-way town in the Philippines where Efren grew up. It's a poor one, loosey-goosey and too quick. Efren himself has said he has no idea how good he could have been if only he'd learned a better stroke. Sadly, there was a talented kid at my pool hall in Milwaukee who had copied his stroke from Efren's! That nameless Filipino player's untutored stroke has infected pool players across generations and across continents.) Widespread ignorance of how to play properly has adversely affected the popularity of the game.

How do you find lessons? You almost can't. Your best bet is this DVD set or this book. Good in-person instructors are very few and far between.

Free online photo course from MoMA
Last news item for this Sunday—the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) has launched a free online course called "Seeing Through Photographs." Curator Sarah Meister "encourages participants to look critically at photographs through the diverse ideas, approaches, and technologies that inform their making." Haven't seen any of it yet, so this isn't necessarily an endorsement—I'm just passing the news along.

Come back tomorrow at 11 a.m. ET for a nice book offer, exclusively here on TOP! Hope you have a nice rest of your Sunday.

Mike
(Thanks to Scott Johnston, Richard Newman, Ctein, and Ken Tanaka)

"Open Mike" is the Editorial Page of TOP. It often strays off-topic and usually comes along on Sundays.

*American-made tables include Connelly in Texas; A.E. Schmidt in St. Louis, Missouri, a company I like; Golden West in Oregon; and, in Indiana, Diamond, the prevailing manufacturer of tables used at professional tournaments. (And Olhausen, but stay away from Olhausens. In my opinion they play horribly.) There's a brand of table called American Heritage. Now where do you suppose those are made? Asia, of course. With a name like that, how could they be made anywhere else?

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

R. Edelman: "In lieu of a new David Douglas Duncan career retrospective, I would suggest Photo Nomad, published in 2003. As DDD wrote, the book was 'my birthday gift to myself.' Happy birthday, Mr. Duncan!"

Mike replies: Whoops, forgot about that one. I've skimmed but not perused it.

Moose: "Yup, got my cancellation notice for the Panny 25mm ƒ/1.7 a couple of days ago, and a nice, if frustrated, reply when I asked what was going on:

We accepted your order with every intention of filling it. We could not have anticipated that Panasonic would become unable (or otherwise decline) to fill the orders we had placed with them for this lens. We share your disappointment and surprise at their decision.

"But as I live where I don't have to buy a $155 hat, I now feel better about popping for an Oly refurb. I think that the lens I wanted anyway, and was blinded by the deal. I looked at the reviews again, and at Robin Wong's practical examples that the Oly, in spite of similar specs, can get much closer/magnify more, which is a big deal to me."

Ken James: "Another good post, you are on a winning streak (usually are). I was apparently one of the lucky ones to get the Panasonic lens, I have kept it on my OM-D E-M10 since it arrived. I was surprised at how much more I like the camera with this lens on the front. I love it."

sara j: "In 1968, I skipped out of school with a friend and we went to the The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri. I came upon an exhibit of David Douglas Duncan photos and stayed there for several hours, mesmerized. The next day, I walked into the journalism room and said that I needed to learn photography."

More Details About That Book Offer...

Note: Book Offer commences Monday, Feb. 15th, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

Okay, I got a little carried away with the Book Offer post two days ago. No skulls; no cobwebs.

I just really like this kind of thing, is all. I love books—they're an essential component of my enjoyment of photography and its culture—and it's fun to be able to share such a lovely thing at a nice price.

Monday's book is a photo history reference book. And it's a beaut, a premium production in every way. It was very expensive when new. The current price at the Museum is one-third less than it was on publication, which is already very fair...and we'll be offering brand new, pristine and perfect hardcovers for half that. The Bookstore Manager told me, "I can guarantee that we will NEVER sell the book for less." The sale will go on for one month or until they run out of books, whichever comes first.

It is nearly two inches thick, weighs close to eight pounds, and runs almost 600 pages. Lavish, plentitudinous illustrations, very astutely chosen, very nicely reproduced.

I'll tell you all about it on Monday. If you're not going to be near a computer Monday, I don't think you need to worry; I don't think they can sell out in one day. I guess I can't guarantee that. But I really don't think they possibly can...can they? No, I don't think so. Maybe. Possibly. But probably not. I think you're safe. I'm pretty sure.

More anon.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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!

Does Sharpness Matter?

"Sharpness" is a contentious concept in photography. It's undyingly popular, but there are a lot of misunderstandings about it.

The essential ambivalence or contradiction (duality? dichotomy?) is that technically, sharpness is a goal, and considered a virtue; but aesthetically, it's just a property—no better or worse, inherently, than any other property.

...Even its opposite. For example, we talked about Alvin Langdon Coburn a few weeks ago. Pictorialist photographers prized unsharpness—what Coburn called "diffusion"—and preferred lenses that were unsharp. Sharp lenses were considered utilitarian, and lack of sharpness was considered a hallmark of artistic sensitivity. Nobody who was anybody wanted a sharp lens.

Pictorialism fell out of favor decisively in the 1930s and '40s when it became the prevailing mode of amateurs and hobbyists (and older people, and the hidebound). Its modes and motifs were reduced to cliché and mannerism. Group ƒ/64 (named for an aperture that, on a view camera, helped achieve "pan focus," or sharpness from front to back in the subject) was in part a reaction to that; both Ansel Adams and Edward Weston created gauzy, soft-focus pictures very early in their careers before rejecting it for the hard-edged, highly descriptive techniques of their mature years.

Curiously, though, our preferred technique tends to become part of our value system. It becomes consistent, and persistent. Even pursuing his late, far-out "Vorticist" experiments, Coburn never abandoned fuzzy focus—it was how he liked to see things. Once photographers settle on how they want, and expect, photographs to look—whether it's a contact print from a view camera (as my friend Oren prefers) or black-and-white with a blackline around it (as I love best) or an onscreen JPEG with goosed-up day-glo colors (no names here!), that sense of "rightness" persists. Once settled, technical preferences seem to become part of us.

The history of our own era can't be written for another 30 to 50 years, but, these days, many hobbyists pursue "sharpness" to fanatical excess, as if sharpness and resolution were a marker of some sort of religious or ideological purity or something.

It's gotten so excessive it's actually kind of funny, primarily because most of us look at photographs—regularly, and happily—in forms that don't even allow us to see the level of resolution we're always arguing about. Most of the JPEGs we look at online are well under a million pixels, and fine detail in such small files is mainly only implied. And yet we look at such pictures contentedly all day long. A full resolution picture on a 27" Retina display requires only about 15 megapixels of information. To me personally, a Retina iPad is the nicest way to look at pictures today...and that requires files of only a little more than three megapixels. (I wonder how many people shoot with 42- or 50-megapixel sensors "in case I ever want to print"—but who never actually do?)

Color photography used to be difficult, and the materials slow. We can now easily make sharp, clear, full-color pictures of almost anything, under almost any conditions...ergo, that's no longer enough. Now that "good" technique has become so easy that it's almost a given, people seem to be looking harder than ever for a "magic bullet," some effect which will automatically and reliably impart specialness to their pictures. The best sensor, the best lens, whatever. The sharpest this or the finest that.

Unfortunately, it never was that easy, and it never will be. It's always a judgement call. Always has been, always will be.

I've always held that fastidiousness in technique is something photographers do for themselves—for their own satisfaction—rather than either for the good of their pictures or for the benefit of their audience, their viewers. Ultimately, what makes a photograph successful is expression and meaning. Technique merely controls the properties we employ to contribute to those things. And technique merely needs to be "appropriate" to the photograph: sometimes "good" technique works best; sometimes "bad" technique works best. But, aesthetically, no specific techniques are virtues in themselves. They're just properties. Today's unrelenting sharpness and hyper-realistic detail, carried to extremes, is just a fashion. It helps some pictures succeed; it ruins others, which could be helped by not being so literal and analytical.

Sharpness absolutely doesn't matter...as an absolute. Technically, it might be fun to shoot for extremes, and be able to achieve them. But aesthetically it's just another property, which might help, but might just as easily not.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

toto: "I just want my bokeh to be sharp—corner to corner."

Hugh Smith: "A few years back, I wrote what would become a cover article for Shutterbug magazine about pinhole photography. Interestingly, the first correspondence from the editor before publication was 'the images seem a bit soft.' I refrained from my first response which was 'duh,' and answered with 'That’s the nature of pinhole photography.' The images are soft since there is no lens. And that’s what makes them so cuddly. Sharpness is ofttimes overrated. Just my two pesos."

Jim Richardson: "In recent years while teaching our National Geographic Traveler Seminars I often made the intentionally provocative statement that 'Sharpness won't get you published. Content gets you published.' I'd then go on to explain but it was a hopeless task. I could see it in their eyes: 'Blasphemy! Blasphemy!'"

Richard: "I've been shooting with an old screwmount Takumar on my Canon 6D. With one lens I can have gauzy unsharpness at ƒ/1.4 or scathing detail at ƒ/5.6 plus. Almost always like the wide open pictures better; it's my one man rebellion against the hyper-sharp HDR army!"

John Denniston: "Back in the late '60s I was in the darkroom with another photographer who was going over his negs for what seemed a very long time trying to find the perfect frame for one of the humorous setup pictures newspapers were notorious for at that time. I asked him if they were all soft. He said no, they were all sharp, maybe a bit too sharp, and didn't look real. He was looking for one slightly out of focus but that would still read OK in the paper and look less like a setup because it wasn't perfect."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Anecdotes: I have the wonderful privilege of often seeing some of the most renowned photographic prints in public and private collections, from Fox-Talbot to Burtynsky and Gursky. I doubt that half of them would pass muster as 'sharp' to an amateur photo forum crowd. A few years ago a major American museum photo collection deaccessioned a large Berenice Abbott print. To my eye it was lovely. But amidst the museum's many other Abbott prints this one, which was printed later, was a bit too good. Specifically, it was a bit too sharp and snappy to be representative of Abbott's body of work. It was clearly a later interpretation of the work."

David L.: "I have observed that when one attribute is emphasized obsessively and singularly, that is all that one ends up with. Other qualities are rejected, and lost. Thus making the end result a disappointment at best, a failure at worst."

Dennis Mook: "I achieved a proper perspective (for me) after visiting many museum exhibits and looking at original prints of some of the most iconic photographs made in the 20th century. Whether made by Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Steiglitz, or many of the Farm Security Aministration photographers, many of the images are not what we would call 'sharp' today. In fact, they look softer that what could be made from the least expensive lenses made today. It became obvious to me that the content and meaning of a photograph transcends technique and is much more important that technical excellence."

Rob: "On the subject of sharpness, I like to borrow a quote from Chico Marx: 'Enough is enough, and too much is too much.' For some images, a high level of sharpness adds a sense of realism and presence. But excessive sharpness calls attention to itself and detracts from the image. I also think that we, as photographers and viewers of photographs, are developing a new aesthetic sensibility in which hyperreality (and I don't limit this to HDR) is an accepted style. Whether it will have staying power is yet to be determined."

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Review

The Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 DG HSM Art, which Sigma calls "our true flagship," is a third-party 35mm full-frame lens that is available in Canon, Pentax, Sigma, Sony, and Nikon mount. It is intended to be a premium-quality lens competitive with the best proprietary lenses, but costs only $900, which is a bargain compared to many other makers' best 35mm ƒ/1.4 options.

I recently had the chance to try two new 35mm lenses (long my "home," or most used, focal length—I've used an embarrassing number of 35mm and 35mm-e lenses over the years, many dozens of them), thanks to a loan from Roger at LensRentals, the leading camera and lens rental site. (Thanks, Roger.) The first was the Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.8 Di VC USD, which was plenty sharp but did not excite further interest. It seemed too big for its moderate speed, and I was not liking what I saw of the way it transitioned to o-o-f; also its IS did not seem to be working right in very dark conditions with the D750, something I could well believe was operator error (or focusing glitches) rather than equipment failure. If I had cared to, I might have tracked down the source of that trouble. But seeing as we were not hitting it off and since my time with these lenses was very tight, I set that one aside and opted not to review it.

The Sigma 35mm Art was a different story. It put a smile on my face right from the start. I immediately settled into full lens-geek mode, exploring its properties, putting it through its paces, and happily admiring the results I was getting. I've developed a number of quick trials over the years that let me see quickly how a lens is behaving under a variety of conditions. Not only is there much more to a lens than "sharpness," but there are different kinds of sharpness! I look mainly at bokeh, since it's been years since I've tried a truly "unsharp" lens, but there are all sort of other properties hiding in plain sight, such as shadow contrast, curvature of field (to see about that, put a complex subject in the plane of focus and bring the focus forward—if you see different degrees of blur across the subject, chances are it's curvature of field), distortion, and several kinds of flare and veiling glare (which, really, you could "test" for months if you lived on a different planet where you had nothing else to do). And so on.

I liked the Sigma's kind of sharpness, though. It has a pleasing "look" with plenty of lens contrast [paywall] and is nicely consistent, with no detectable sharpness anomalies. I'll give you one example. I don't test for corner sharpness at the widest apertures, for the simple reason that there are usually only two reasons you use the widest apertures, namely that you don't have enough light, or you want things to be blurry; corner sharpness is just almost never an issue at open apertures in practical use. But I do take a look at corner sharpness at smaller, normal shooting apertures.

Take a look at that tenacious red apple in the upper left (this is from the A900, which has a nicer, brighter viewfinder than the Nikon D750):

You can just barely make out a little CA in the full file, but there's nothing wrong with this lens in the corners. If that isn't sharp enough for anybody, they don't need a different lens, they need their meds.

Flare
To single out one of my trials...the only real problem I encountered with the Sigma was with flare with the sun at the edge of the frame. Coatings have gotten so good these days that many lenses can handle this kind of thing with aplomb. Most often, flare trials leave me feeling a quiet wonderment for the state of technology in this regard. (Everyone should photograph with an historical uncoated lens for a while just to appreciate where we are now. It'll do for your appreciation of lens coatings what sleeping in a tent does for your appreciation of your nice mattress and box spring and a temperature-controlled environment underneath a snug roof.) And for the most part the Sigma does well enough; I didn't have problems with specular sunlight glittering off the lake or with indoor light sources. But...

...Uh-oh! Here's something I haven't seen in a while: big, obvious "drip" flare ghosts with the sun just out of the edge of the frame. A case of back to the past, a bit...with '70s lenses, playing with direct sunlight was like little kids pressing on their eyelids to see all the pretty colors (note to little kids: stop doing that). You just waited for all the strange surprises, all the fantastical and alarming blobs and streaks and pretty colors.

At the same time, note the distinct lack of veiling glare. There's nice lens contrast in those rocks at the lower left (take my word for this, I'm looking at the full file and you're not), and the lens is holding detail everywhere. Seventies lenses would be unlikely to match that.

As a side note, it's generally not large optical flaws and errors that trip up most pictures...it's small ones photographers are not quite aware of. Slight motion blur or slight misfocus can very subtly degrade image quality even when it's not easy to put your finger on what's wrong. Same with veiling glare...it can just cut contrast a bit and make a picture lose its magic, often without the photographer being aware of what's wrong. I can't say for certain—I'd have to use it for a longer time—but I would guess the Sigma Art has got your back where this is concerned.

You have to learn any lens you use, to be able to anticipate surprises and identify the situations where it might let you down. This specific kind of flare ghosting is what I'd most watch out for with the Sigma Art. Curiously, I wasn't able to find flare problems in most other situations. It passed the window test, for example (shadow contrast when there's a large area of bright light just outside of the field of view), and that's one of the trials that the beautiful old Mandler-designed Leica 35mm Summicron-R, to name one, fails. And my current all-time favorite* among 35mm (and equivalent) lenses, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, makes garish stars out of lights in the frame. With any lens, you come to know its strengths and weaknesses and can shoot accordingly.

O-o-f blur
Bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is not super-important with a 35mm lens either. Because of the wide-ish field of view, usually you're shooting to get everything in focus, perhaps excepting some inconsequential not-very-blurry far-background stuff. But bokeh bugs me, and I've got a bit of a "golden eye" problem** where it is concerned.

The news is both mixed and also good. Say what? Well, when "stressed," which you do by putting the focus relatively close and having complex, high-contrast subjects in the deep background, the Sigma Art does not look too good. It doesn't actually behave poorly, in the sense of having bright-ring highlights, but it's not attractive, either.

The saving grace is that that's not the sort of thing you commonly encounter when using 35mm lenses.

High contrast subject matter far back of the plane of focus is usually the toughest test for a wide-angle or normal lens. The Sigma is not
poor but also not pretty.

On the good side, the news is good: the sort of bokeh you will encounter a lot with 35mm lenses is near bokeh from wider apertures at closer distances, and in such cases the Sigma comports itself beautifully. I'm not sure I'd use this lens just for the bokeh (I'll break down and confess my utter dweebishness here, which is that I do own several lenses I just use when I get a hankering to wallow in beautiful bokeh), and there do exist situations that you do have to be on the lookout for. But for the most part I think this lens does very nicely with the kinds of o-o-f you're most likely to encounter with a 35mm in real shooting. Which happen to be just the sort of shots where other fast 35mms let you down. I've gotten rid of lenses for that sin. I'd keep the Sigma.

In short
Sigma's designers and engineers set out to make a world-class lens that can stand alongside the world's best without apology, and I'd say they succeeded. It doesn't feel or behave like a lens made to a price-point.

Mainly, if you like sharp, then this lens, you will like.

But that's not all. This is a very well-balanced 35mm all-purpose lens, with excellent properties and a coherent, cohesive across-the-board performance (sun-in-the-frame flare being the only glaring—pardon the pun—exception). I used the lens on two full-frame cameras, the older Sony A900 and the newer Nikon D750; and I'm quite familiar with the competition from makers such as Canon, Nikon, and Leica. This lens consistently pleases with a high degree of sharpness, just the right lens contrast, and a fine and tractable consistency across the field and up and down the aperture range. I'm hard to please, and I liked this lens a lot. It just does most of the many things I want a wide-normal to do, and does them in a way that I find good to look at.

It's not just a failure to offend which defines its goodness, though—in most cases I found it a lens that actively pleases the eye. Looking at pictures made with the Sigma Art made me happy. Given its solid but ultimately reasonable size and especially its surprisingly advantageous price, this would probably be my top pick as my main lens, if my main camera were any of the full-frame DSLR brands that Sigma makes mounts for.

It's that good. In short, maybe just shy of a total home run due to the identified shortcomings, but a good strong bases-loaded triple with three RBIs. For the price especially, it can't be beat. But even where price is no object, it's a contender. Cheers and high-fives from me.

Here's the Sigma Art from B&H Photo and here it is from Amazon.

Mike

P.S. Thanks again to LensRentals for the equipment loan.

ADDENDUM: Here's more or less the same "trial" shot taken with the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-series lens on the NEX-6. Lens hood off, sun just outside the frame area, sunlight striking the front of the lens directly.

*Although when you really love lenses, naming one favorite is like naming one favorite song...there are lots of good ones, and in many cases each can be appreciated for different reasons.

**Adapted from the term "golden ear" in audiophilia, the compulsion to obsessively identify reproduction faults inaudible to most people who are just listening to the music.

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Carsten Bockermann: "After trying this lens I immediately sold my 35mm ƒ/1.4 AF-S Nikkor and never looked back.

"At least not to the Nikkor; in situations where nice bokeh is really important, I prefer the 35mm ƒ/1.4 Zeiss ZF.2."

Mike replies: Another fine 35mm. I prefer the ƒ/2 (discontinued now) but only because of size and weight.

Shubh Mohan Singh: "Excellent piece, I too am a fan of 35mm lenses and I recently tried out the Samyang 35mm ƒ/1.4. Quite liked it other than the fact that it is difficult to get the manual focusing right on the modern DSLR viewfinders."

Kusandha Hertrich: "Thanks for this great review. You've given me some good insights in to how to test my lenses here."

Mike replies: Someday I should just do an article about how to test lenses using pictures. I've been saying that for years, though.

adamct: "Where are the test charts? You can't review a lens without test charts. It's like walking and chewing gum at the same time: it simply can't be done....  :-) 

"P.S. For what it's worth, standardized objective tests have a very important role to play in evaluating equipment. Still, it's a nice change of pace to have a review from a respected voice who is clear about his biases and evaluates a lens based on experience, rather than solely based on lab tests.

"P.P.S. I don't mean to imply that anyone who includes lab tests in their review doesn't do any real-world testing.

"P.P.P.S. What I really meant to say was: 'Thanks, Mike!'"

Robert Harshman: "The Sigma Art series 20mm ƒ1.4 and 50mm ƒ/1.4 are also great bargains and extremely good lenses. I have all three. Great value and the 20mm ƒ/1.4 is suppose to be the widest ƒ/1.4 ever."

'Masterpiece' Book Offer Coming MONDAY!

...So, to recap: a major art museum in the American Midwest discovered a rich cache of new copies of old books, lovingly packed in oaken casks in pristine excelsior, way down in the labyrinthine underground catacombs beneath the museum building where hardly anyone ever goes—you know, with all the skulls and cobwebs*. It has (exclusively!) offered the books to TOP to offer (exclusively!) to YOU.

There are a limited number of copies available.

There are, I think, seven titles in all. To start with we'll be offering one title only. But it's a showstopper, a masterpiece—a fabulous and wonderful, deeply engaging, educational and highly tasty book that, I can all but guarantee, no lover of photography will be sorry to own or want to be without. And more to the point it's going to be incredibly unbelievably unprecedentedly cheap. In the talks leading up to this, I suggested a very low price. So the museum had a meeting, discussed the matter, mulled it over at great length, and...decided on an even lower price.

I need to emphasize this: There are a limited number of copies available.

(All the details will be revealed on Monday.)

Runaway giveaway
Really, this amounts to a giveaway.

It almost is. Basically, the book was already a good success, and they don't need to make money or recoup investment from the few remaining copies. Rather, they want the last copies of the book to go to the right people...people who will appreciate and enjoy them.

That's you again; you're getting that?

I'm getting very excited about this. The more time I spend with this book, the more I've been loving it. It took the author six years to write. All I can say is that he must have a lot of energy and be a very hard worker, to get all this done in a mere six years.

There is a decent supply, so it isn't the sort of think you can blink and miss. The thing is, though, we just never know how these things are going to go.

So you want to be alert here. Come back on Monday. (I'll try to give you the exact time in advance. We're still working out the last details.) You might decide not to get this, but, take my word, you want to give yourself the chance to decide.

Mike

*Do I exaggerate? Possibly, but I like to believe that all museums have catacombs full of treasure beneath them.

Original contents copyright 2016 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!

Attention Sony Mirrorless Shooters! Read This

The small superfast Sony is now all metal.

Preorders begin at 11 a.m. Eastern Time this morning for the new Sony equipment, including two of the three new GM FE lenses, which are likely to be in short supply for a while.

A6300 body ($998)

85mm ƒ/1.4 GM FE ($1,798)

24–70mm ƒ/2.8 GM FE ($2,198)

A6300 with 16–50mm kit lens ($1,148)

Not yet available for pre-order:

70–200mm ƒ/2.8 GM FE (price TBA)

FE 2X Teleconverter for the 70–200mm, making it a 140–400mm ƒ/5.6 (price TBA)

FE 1.4X Teleconverter for the 70–200mm, making it a 98–280mm ƒ/4 (price TBA)

Note that I'm not trying to goad you to buy stuff. I'm trying to goad you to buy stuff through our links if you're going to be buying it anyway.  :-)  And thanks if you do.

Another item of good news a little later, but, first, I have to take the doggies to the groomer's, which is likely to be an adventure in canine excitability. If you're a dog person, you'll no doubt be relieved to know that yesterday both dogs, acting in coordinated fashion, successfully defended the house against the handheld vacuum cleaner. There was much barking and aggressive bravado, and victory was ultimately won when the handheld vacuum retreated to the closet. A close call, but, territory defended.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Ailsa: "Yet another reason why I believe greyhounds aren't actually dogs—they're a species apart:

Vile Rumor (Ex-NEX)

Before we begin, Micro 4/3 is the best, when you're talking about the size and graceful proportion of lenses relative to the cameras they fit on. "Stipulated," as they say in courtrooms. That means: even though we're about to get argumentative, we're willing to concede that point. So no need to argue or prove that.

But we were talking about Sony's "Ex-NEX" cameras the other day (i.e., the Sony APS-C ILCs [interchangeable-lens cameras] that used to be called NEX), and there's something that usually bugs me when that subject comes up. It's that Ex-NEX lenses are "huge" and "extremely large" and "way too big" and other expressions along those lines.

No. Not so.

But it's become an Internetism. (Internetisms are things that are repeated so often that people think they're true.)

What is true is that they're not proportionate. They don't look well balanced or graceful on the tiny Ex-NEX bodies such as the new A6300. They tend (most of them) to look too big for the bodies.

They also look awkward to handle...

...But they're not. I shot with the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 for several years, on a NEX-6. It's one of those lenses that the Internet always says is "huge." It actually handles very nicely.

Here, courtesy of the ever-useful camerasize.com, is a size comparison. Three lenses of approximately equivalent angles of view on three APS-C-sensor cameras. Left to right, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 on a Sony A6300; the AF-S Nikkor 24mm ƒ/1.8G on a D7200, and the Fujinon XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 on an X-T1 (my camera and lens).

Does the Fujinon 23mm look huge too? I don't have the Zeiss 24mm on hand to show you, but here's the Fuji 23mm:

That's just not a large lens. That's a beautifully sized lens. Just right, in my humble opinion—big enough to handle easily, light enough to be portable. (Don't get me started on how perfect the Fuji 23mm is. I can go on.)

The Zeiss is just a little longer than the Fuji (and of course not quite as fast). But they're very close to the same size.

Other Zeiss lenses for the Ex-NEX aren't really much larger. From left to right, the 24mm, the 55mm ƒ/1.8 (an 82.5mm short tele on the A6300, but it also covers FF on the A7 series cameras) and the 16–70mm ƒ/4 zoom. All three are shy of three inches long and weigh less than 12 ounces. They look big. They're not. They look ungainly. They're not that, either—at least I don't think. I always found the NEX-6 with the Zeiss 24mm to handle very nicely and naturally. It never struck me as unbalanced at all. The lens is on the large size but it's not heavy, and it never gets in the way.

In fact (continuing this line of reasoning), I might even argue that the size of the 24mm is a plus, because it allows you to hold the camera in one hand by hooking the fingers of your right hand under the grip and letting the lens rest against the back of your fingers; then, on the NEX-6 at least, you can work the controls on the camera back with your thumb, thus allowing you to change the camera settings with one hand while holding something else in you other hand.

This post will, of course, have absolutely zero effect on the associated Internetism. People will go right on repeating that Ex-NEX lenses are "huge." Sometimes I wonder if people even care what's true any more. Weighing constant repetition of a falsehood on one hand and truth on the other, the zeitgeist seems to think the scales are about equal.

But at least now you know.

Mike
(Thanks to camerasize.com)

P.S. May I just say here that I think moving away from the NEX name was, um, the wrong move on Sony's part. "NEX" was a serviceable name that functioned as a name, i.e., a label that reliably distinguished a distinct class of products from all Sony's other products. Sony had worked to establish the name and the name was established. And then it changed, to a word that does not function as a name and does not reliably distinguish that class of products from other different products. In other words, it changed from a useful name that had no drawbacks to a useless name that has several drawbacks. For no reason that I can detect.

I'm just going to go on referring to Sony's APS-C ILC mirrorless line as "Ex-NEX," so that people will know what I'm talking about.

Original contents copyright 2016 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: "Re 'It's that Ex-NEX lenses are "huge" and "extremely large" and "way too big" and other expressions along those lines.'

"'Internetism' indeed. I have a better phrase for it but you wouldn't print it. So I'll settle for equine byproduct.

"My set of Sony E-mount lenses with a Canon 24–70mm at top for comparison. The A6000 with the E-16mm is in the foreground. The largest E-mount shown here is the 18–200mm.

"Sony's E-mount lenses are the smallest, lightest, and generally sharpest lenses I own.

"Now on to photography!"

Selfies Kill, and Other Ironies

Dying for a photograph
Did you know that males who take lots of selfies are more than statistically likely to be psychopaths and/or narcissists? Learn something new every day.

Selfies are often meant to glorify, well, oneself, so the narcissism notion makes intuitive sense anyway.

As you might know, taking selfies can be dangerous, too.

An excellent, well-written (and I must say, pretty darn mature for the Internet) article at Priceonomics called "The Tragic Data Behind Selfie Fatalities" tracks fatalities associated with selfie self-glorifying.

It won't surprise you that the median dead self is 21 and male, which, as the father of a just-turned-23-year-old, I have to say does throw a bit of a scare into my heart. I don't think my son takes a lot of selfies, though, so maybe he's safe.

And I don't think he's ever been in India, where more selfie-related deaths happen than anywhere else (it appears to be connected to the danger of drowning, which is high in India.)

A 17-year-old Russian teenager identified only as Andrey R., weeks before he fell nine stories to his death while attempting a daredevil selfie.

After laying out the statistics and some examples, author Zachary Crockett adds, "Then there are the truly bizarre cases: The 21-year-old Mexican man who accidentally shot himself in the head while taking a selfie with a gun. The Cessna pilot who crashed, killing both himself and a passenger, after his cellphone selfies led him to lose control of the aircraft. The two Russian teens who blew themselves up while posing for a selfie with a live grenade in the Ural Mountains. The man who attempted a selfie at the running of the bulls festival in Spain and was fatally gored in the neck."

Really, Bill?
As regular readers know, I hate irony. And here's a big one. I think the title says it all: "With Corbis Sale, Tiananmen Protest Images Go to Chinese Media Company." Ouch. Of course everybody's jumping up and down to reassure anyone who will listen that there's nothing wrong here, that everything will be hunky-dory and keep on truckin' as normal. But I wonder how that feels to the photojournalists who risked their lives to get the Tiananmen photographs.

Corbis, which was founded by and up till recently owned by Bill Gates, also includes the Sygma Collection and the Betteman Archive.

Easier? Hold on there, hoss
And here's another irony. As we all know, photography has taken a quantum leap in convenience and easiness over the past twenty years—after decades of striving and struggling to find ways to make sharp, clear color pictures with a minimum of expense and effort, the floodgates opened and the "digital tsunami" was unleashed on an unsuspecting world, which is still more than a little unsure how to make sense of it all and sort it into a coherent culture. By the best, albeit still very rough, estimates, humans were making six billion photographs annually in the United States the year I got into photography seriously, 1980. The latest estimates of photos taken range between one and ten trillion per year.

But at the same time, the climate for photographers out in the world doing their work has become much, much worse. Suspicion and hostility are rampant; often, even the police don't know the laws; and, increasingly, photographers are being seen as a resource to exploit—a recent (2010) article from The Australian called "Not a Good Look" includes an account of a photographer being charged money to take a photograph of a sunset.

So is photographing getting easier, or harder? Easier in some ways, yes, but don't overlook the other side of the coin.

The article is a long one, but I recommend it to anyone who's interested in what it means to be a photographer today.

Mike
(Thanks to John Hogg and Carl Weese)

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Kefyn Moss: "I have to admit I was shocked to read The Australian article 'Not a Good Look' as I live in Cairns and have been taking photographs here for a long time with never a single hassle. I don't tend to  do much 'street' photography here, but mostly because it's just boring little Cairns to me. I have definitely taken quite a few pictures at or near the lagoon mentioned in the article within the last few years, sometimes with a tripod, and never had a problem (including at sunrise and sunset).

"Nevertheless, whenever I return from overseas back to Australia, I am always hit with the impression of it being excessively controlled and regulated in comparison to the places I have visited. However, those same places have complaints by the locals in the same vein which I didn't experience, so in perspective, our home environments are sometimes the most oppressive and most people just don't notice it.

"It seems all the more ridiculous for a city like Cairns to be doing something like this when tourism is the lifeblood and sole reason for its modern existence. The photographers mentioned in the piece use large cameras and would be instantly pegged as 'professional' but as I mentioned, I have used a tripod there before without anyone saying a thing. Just lucky?"

Kenneth Wajda (partial comment): "We live in times when it's tough to be male with a camera, but I'm still going out to shoot on the street. I keep the camera in plain sight, and shoot like I belong there, working on a story—which I am—and people assume I do. I also worked for years as a photojournalist for a daily newspaper, so I have that confidence from frequently shooting in public spaces. Fearfulness and hiding our camera is the thing that we must avoid. I sometimes walk with my camera to my eye for a whole city block. That tells people you're shooting and they come to accept it. Other times, I just walk with it around my neck and shoot without picking it up to my eye. Both work great.

"Own the street. We have a right to be there."

John Robison: "Ten trillion! That's mind boggling. I think about my output—more recently 4x5, and since I really can't afford film I'm shooting paper negs—is about six or eight a week. Well at least, it's cheap fun. I sometimes take a snap or two with my iPhone, after having it about six months I think I have about 100 pictures on it. Ten trillion. (Shakes head, is distracted by sudden idea for next paper negative, moves on.)"

Mike replies:  :-)

Graham Smith: "I feel I should provide some balance to the article 'Not A Good Look' that Mike has linked to in his post. It was written five and a half years ago and although some points are valid in any context the article generally is a highly exaggerated account of the position of amateur photographers then, and most certainly now.

"Some councils and authorities do impose restrictions and fees on commercial photography at various sites in their jurisdiction but I can assure all TOP readers who are contemplating a visit to Australia that you will be able to freely take pictures of The Opera House, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Bondi Beach and Uluru (and far more tourist sites than your memory cards will hold!) all without a fee.

"Members of my camera club regularly go on Urban Landscape outings around the city of Melbourne. We photograph inside and outside public buildings and except where security is an issue we are never questioned. The only rules that will apply are the ones of common sense. Don't intrude on anyone's privacy. If in doubt—ask. Don't photograph children without asking their parents permission. I have followed those guidelines in all my travels around Australia, and overseas, with little disappointment.

"And as the person in the article being charged a fee to a photograph of a sunset—did you really believe that? My parents had a wonderful old saying when people got a little excited (as the two main photographers in the article—Dupain and Duncan—seem to be): 'They should have a cup of tea, a Bex (mild sedative for headaches) and a good lie down.' If you come to Australia—you wont be disappointed. And you will go away with some wonderful photographs to remember your trip!"

Doug Thacker (partial comment): "Back when Gates was acquiring the Betteman Archive, and subsequent archives, it was presented in the press as an act of corporate or oligarchic stewardship. I remember reading an article that went into some detail about the climate controlled vault he'd had built for the purpose deep inside a mountain. Made it sound like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Saving Our Photographic Heritage For the Good of All Humanity. (I heard that when Gates made the recent deal he offered to include for a small surcharge his own mother's heart, but the Chinese didn't want to pay the freight.) Oh, well. Probably in safer hands at this point with the Chinese."

John Gordon: "Re Australia, Andrew Nemeth, photographer and lawyer, has written an excellent article summarising the law here. It is not quite as bad as the article makes it sound. Two extracts: 'As Justice Dowd put it with ruthless clarity in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204: "A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed."'  'In Australia most forms of "unauthorised" photography have in fact been authorised since the 1937 High Court decision in Victoria Park Racing v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 (at p.496). This was reaffirmed recently in ABC v Lenah (2001) HCA 63, where the Court ruled that despite the passage of decades since Victoria Park, any concept of a "Tort of invasion of privacy" still does not exist in Australia.'" 

Stuart: "While public reaction to photography and the hysteria around public photography is a problem, the increasing difficulty of taking images in a public space is also symptomatic of the larger problem of the increasing privatisation of public space. This exerts a greater level of control of action, unfettered by concerns about freedom of expression. Here is an excellent piece about this in The Guardian."

Open Mike: I Miss IBIS

I never learn.

I'm like Charlie Brown kicking Lucy's football....

I was thinking that the A6000 replacement might have IBIS. The A7 cameras have IBIS; the Olympus cameras have IBIS. It was rumored that the A6000 replacement would have IBIS. It seemed like a reasonable assumption. IBIS is one thing I miss.

Instead, Sony improved the autofocus speed and the video performance.

The new Sony A6300

You should never wait for what's coming like you know what's coming. Never assume. Until something exists, it doesn't exist.

I know, I should know! I keep telling other people not to do this, and you would think I could take my own advice.

But no.

Anyway, I'm pretty disappointed about the A6300.

How about you? Were faster autofocus and better video the two things you thought the small APS-C Sony ILC needed?

I have a few additional questions as well.

• If you have an A6000, were you frequently annoyed with the AF speed?
• Is the A6xxx the first camera you think of when you think of a need for outstanding focus tracking?
• Do we really need stills cameras to double as video cameras?
• Finally, do you ever come running up to kick this particular football only to have Lucy yank it away?

Discuss....

Mike

[UPDATE: ...And we have a name for this! "I have noticed this phenomena more generally as 'pre-release syndrome.' To wit: 'any camera that hasn't been released yet contains all the features you were looking for in your next camera, until it is released.' Or more generally: no new camera can live up to the hype that we generate for ourselves regarding it." Thanks to MarkR for this. —MJ]

[UPDATE no. 2: I went to an opening this afternoon, and hauled the "old" (Sept. 2012, i.e. back when I was young) NEX-6, to refresh my memory and see if the focus speed really needed improving. I can't speak to the A6000, but the NEX-6 is pretty slow, as least with the Sigma 60mm DN I was using on it. —MJ]

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Dori: "If it had been me there would be weathersealing...might have switched over then, but IBIS would be good too." 

Pete Mc: "Personally? Yes, this is the perfect update. I use my A6000 as part of a pair with an A7R. The A7 looks after high quality, low speed work. The A6000 looks after action—no need for IBIS, just give me better and better AF and I'm happy. I freely admit my use may be unusual, but to me the development of the A6xxx and A7x series as a pair is almost perfect."

Romano Giannetti: "I feel the same. Was waiting for the A6000-with-IBIS unicorn, to buy it with the alpha adapter to substitute my A55. But no.... And the A7 is out of the roof for me. Bummer."

Markus Spring (partial comment): "Maybe it"s due to the geographical situation (I live in Germany, with really short days in winter a.k.a half of the year), IBIS is the feature I treasure most in my cameras, and I wouldn't buy one without it. Especially when creating/taking pictures on a daily basis, additionally to the bread job, times with dwindling light are more the rule than the exception, but thanks to IBIS I really can make best use of them."

[For the full text of partial comments, please see the full Comments Section by clicking on "Comments" below. —Ed.]

JBo: "Not sure why, but I don't like stabilization. Using Nikon talk, using it doesn't feel like 'pure photography.' Seriously though, I've also succumbed to the "waiting for a perfect camera" syndrome more than once...I was almost sure things I was waiting for would happen, because it was so logical and desirable for me, and everyone surely shares my logic and desires, don't they?

"And I was waiting for:

• Small, FM-style Nikon F mount mirrorless full frame with a viewfinder optimized for MF legacy lenses—got Dƒ instead.
• Small, rangefinder style autofocusing mirrorless full frame with compact Leica AF primes—got Leica SL instead with a huge zoom.
• Longer battery life in every new mirrorless camera—seems to gets shorter instead.

"In more than one way photo equipment reminds me of modern politics—I never seem to get what I vote for. Well, Fuji seems to be the one brand that actually delivers most of the things I wish for—hence I'm a little afraid they may lose the next elections. ;-) "

Huw Morgan (partial comment): "There was also a much-needed improvement to viewfinder resolution. I'm not sure the A6300 upgrade will propel a6000 users to part with cash, but there are many NEX-7 users (like me) who will probably upgrade to get the better focus performance. The sensor hasn't been rated by DxOMark yet, but if the high ISO noise performance is significantly better than the NEX-7, then an upgrade will be a no-brainer."

[We called the NEX-7 "the most desirable camera on the planet" in 2011. —Ed.]

tex andrews: "Well, I'm not in the market for the A6300 or any other apsc camera, but with Sony I don't think the company is thinking about photographers' needs, per se. I am not saying they are indifferent, at all. But I think their main targets are Nikon and Canon. Thus it seems to me, from their every move for the past six years or so back to the A900,that they are ticking off items from a list (or two lists): 'Why is mirrorless inferior?' and 'Why is Sony inferior?'

"So, Price: box ticked in Sony's favor with both the A900 and the A850 especially, the first FF camera to break the sub $2k mark. Sensor MP number: box ticked in Sony's favor with the above two cameras, then with the A7R, and now with the A7RII (and the 645Z before it...). ISO/DR range: box ticked in Sony's favor with the sensors generally, but especially with the A7S and 645Z. And when they jumped into the mirrorless pool, they did so in such a way that they reduced their mirrorless competitors to other, lesser players, and probably quashed any hope Nikon or Canon had in making inroads there.

"But there were still a bunch of criticisms and niggles: the EVF-OVF battle, AF performance, Canon's video performance, the menus and haptics, etc. But Sony is chipping away at all of these as well, improving EVF's to the point where OVF is really only a personal preference, not one merited by any technical issues, improving low-light AF radically, improving video performance a great deal, second now only to the brand new Canon 1DS-MK-7-WXYZ-44-Q (and I'll bet not for long...remember, Sony has a long video history, broadcast quality), and 'improving' (translated: fixing) the menus and haptics as they go along. And with the new lens line, plus what they have brought out in E mount over the last several years by themselves and with Zeiss—and radically with the legacy lens abilities—chipping away at that 'no lenses' problem (or canard, depending on POV). They have some more boxes to tick off, but....

"Yes, all this pertains to us as users, but I think secondarily. Sony has two bigger fish to fry, and that is beginning to look more and more possible, as opposed to something most would have considered a fantasy six years ago. Contrast with Pentax and Fuji and to some extent Oly, niche makers whose prime targets seem to be photographers themselves, based on the way the cameras are made and perform. By the way, I had a very interesting discussion with a Pentax manager in the fall at the PhotoExpo show that really underscored this for Pentax (and me), as he discussed what he could about that company's upcoming FF camera."

Eolake: "Oh I hear you. I love my Olympus system. So big now. But occasionally my gaze strays to 'other women' who are mighty fine. Such big and beautiful eyes. Sony...Fuji...Canikon...[Skkrrrrreeeaaachtc] Oops, forgot: no IBIS.

"It's like looking at beautiful cars until you remember that these models have no steering wheels."

Andy Kochanowski: "Never even gave it a thought. Here is the funny thing about the former NEX line: for what it does, it is almost absurdly perfect. It's a mirrorless replacement of a mid-line DSLR, the type of camera that you would take on vacation, to shoot street photography, or maybe for a quick documentary project. It works unobtrusively, it gets decent battery life, its extra batteries are cheap, and you can control the basic functions you need without ever going near a menu.

"You could buy the A6000 for something like $400, which is what I paid for mine, and for another $150 get a perfectly decent image-stabilized kit lens. Is the kit lens a Zeiss? No. Is it decently, nicely sharp? Yes. Does Sony's software correct distortion in camera? Yes. Do its JPEGs look perfectly good? Yes. Does it use the best APS-C sensor in the world? Yes. What else do you need?

"I'm not immune from liking and occasionally wanting a cool, retro buttons 'n' dials, milled, black rangefindery camera. The Pen-F looks great, and I can just imagine how nice it would feel in hand with one of those Oly/Panny lenses. All the Fujis look cool as heck. Like an M6 with a Summicron made relevant for the digi age. I get it.

"Here is the thing. The AF in the A6000 is darn near instant. Unlike every other mirrorless I've used, and it's been a few, in real life it's easily on par with what was state of the art DSLR autofocus of  a couple years ago. My A6000 can track a moving, running dog. My various Leicas and Panasonics couldn't. When I go out to shoot street stuff for a few hours, I get instant focus where I want it without even thinking about it. Can I say it again? It cost $400. [They're for sale new right now for $498, and are apparently staying in the lineup. —Ed.]

"From what I can see, Sony tweaked the few things in the A6000 that would make a better experience for the shooter. The A6000 sort of clatters a bit. The shutter now has a quiet mode. The EVF on the A6000 is good enough, but apparently the new one is OLED and like the A7's. Those are great. The A6000 feels a little plasticky (unlike the original NEX-7 which felt like a tank). The new camera is supposedly all magnesium and better weather sealed. And it's all supposedly even faster and gets better battery life.

"And in about a year it will cost $600.

"So no, IBIS doesn't even cross my mind."

[Andy is a talented street shooter who has written about street photography here on TOP. —Ed.]

robert e (partial comment): "'Instead, Sony improved the autofocus speed and the video performance.' Shouldn't that sentence start with 'Kidding!'?"

Michael H: "I'm a NEX-7 owner who has been waiting for this one...I wanted improved focus (check), silent shutter (check), equivalent or better EVF (check), and IBIS (arrggh!). If the ISO performance is much improved then I won't worry about the absence of IBIS and I will buy it. If an ISO improvement doesn't allow for an extra stop or two advantage then...???"

Quick-Release Plates (and an Idea)

Luke made a comment to the "Kidding Camera" post noting the problem of tripod mounts getting in the way of the battery and card door.

Looking at the Fuji X-T1 baseplate—a piece of machined metal for which they want $100, or 1/13th the entire price of the already expensive camera it goes on, which seems a tad excessive—I'm still wondering when a mirrorless camera manufacturer is simply going to build a ridge into the base of the camera itself that allows direct mounting to a standard quick-release clamp.

Or does the first part of that sentence answer the question in the second part? But hey, then they could sell their own quick-release clamp.

It makes sense. Then they could get rid of the tripod-mounting hole altogether, and nothing would ever be in the way of the battery and card door. I don't know, too logical?

A quick-release clamp, the Kirk QRC-2 (2 inches).
It's small, fits in the palm of your hand.

If you're not aware of quick releases, they're very handy accessories to own, and can be used with all sorts of different cameras. They consist of a clamp that mounts to the top of the tripod head (shown), and a corresponding plate which you attach to the bottom of your camera. To attach your camera to the tripod, just loosen the screw on the clamp, insert the plate, and tighten. To release, reverse.

I use mine all the time, with all sorts of cameras. The Kirk QRC-2 is a good one for small to medium-sized cameras, well made and not very expensive. (They make different sizes as well. Mine is actually a 4-inch.) With it, I just use a small plain Universal mounting plate like this Desmond DS-1, or this nice Acratech that fits the QRC-2 perfectly. (Kirk's own is only a little pricier than the latter.) Of course, they want you to think that you need a mounting plate made specially for each of your cameras, and if you use a big DSLR, or long, heavy lenses, or if you use a tripod all the time, then maybe you do. (Of course in that case, you probably already know all about quick releases, and could teach me a thing or two.)

The only downside? The bits can get lost. And when you sell a camera you've got to remember to take the mounting plate off! ...Another advantage of building a QR-clamp-compatible ridge right into the base of the camera.

Mike
(Thanks to Luke)

Original contents copyright 2016 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: "I could've sworn I saw something about that recently. Then I found it—it was something I saw on Thom Hogan's site."

Mike replies: See? There you go. (I didn't get the idea from Thom's site, by the way. Just thinking along similar lines.)

cameraman: "Hasselblad had the answer more than 50 years ago...the tripod mounting plate on the bottom of the body fit perfectly into the Hasselblad quick release device that you attached to your tripod."

Sven Erikson: "There are several reasons I can think of why built-in quick release plates hasn't happened:

1. Across brands and time, not all Arca-style clamps are compatible. Most are, but sometimes you get a plate and clamp combo that have dimensions that just won't work together.
2. Everyone wants something different. Some want a small plate, some want a big wide plate that can slide around. Some want an L-bracket plate, and some want the L on the left and some on the right.
3. Not all tripod heads use Arca-style clamps. For example, fluid video heads that just have a flat platform and a bolt, so that they can accommodate all types of video equipment. These are great for using your stills camera for video, but very few use quick release plates.
4. Not everyone uses a tripod. I have a couple cameras (e.g. Fuji X100) that have never been on one. Why have the extra weight of the built-in plate if I'm never going to use it?"

Mike replies: Re 4., I doubt it would mean much more weight. The camera needs a bottom plate anyway, regardless of whether it's shaped to fit a QRC.

Herman: "I use a different sort of clamp for my rolling tripod."

Quote o' the Day: Marjorie Salvaterra

"A photographer’s job is to shoot something
no one else would see."

—Marjorie Salvaterra, quoted in the caption of "Marilyn," a portrait in LensCulture's "Making Portraits of People," curated by Andy Adams of FlakPhoto

-

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Mark Jennings: "Yup! I agree with that and add that the photographer should be so besotted as to be convinced that other peoples' love of life is incomplete without that rare find. At least that's my ideal standard for work that goes out (I'm not a pro obviously). But if it excites me so much that I just can't keep it a hidden, then it has a chance at being of general interest. All of the exceptional-for-me images that I have managed have been of subjects that I'm strongly attached to and have spent truly excessive amounts of time with. Feelings, thoughts, eye, inspiration and technique come slowly to me. But getting there is one of the most fun things there is.

"An anecdote I read a long time ago fits in here. A beloved author was asked by a young guy, 'What does it take to be a good writer?' The pro asked in return, 'Do you like sentences?' And after a lecture on the intricacies of meter, Robert Frost was asked if that really was what he thought about while writing his (unique) verse. He came back with, 'I revel in it.' Is it any different for us with line, planes, colors, tones, movement and stuff? That's what I like!"

Manuel: "Yes indeed. An interesting—and quite complementary—piece of popular culture about originality in photography is one featured in Richard Linklater's 'Boyhood.' During a scene that (fittingly) takes place in a darkroom, Mason's Photography teacher asks his pupil: 'What can you bring to photography that others can't?' Every photography enthusiast should ask themselves the same question."

Will: "I like that a lot. (But) In the spirit of the conversations I enjoy here, I offer the exact opposite assertion: 'At least one of a photographer’s jobs is to shoot what everyone can see.' I'm regularly asked to document gatherings / events / etc. because 'you're a photographer.' Without too much exaggeration, I can say that there are usually hundreds of people at these events, and many of them are using a phone-cam or a non-phone-cam to shoot as well. So why ask me? Because I capture the event in a way that allows people to people see what they saw. Without the usual problems that seem to plague so many others' photos. As far as I can tell, that job description covers many types of people who call themselves—and are called—photographers. Salvaterra shoots things I would never see, literally and figuratively, and I love her work for that reason. I also love photographers who can show me exactly what I saw. Not 'in a new way,' or 'truer than true,' but exactly as I saw it."

The Kidding Camera

Ralph Kidding, of Kidding Camera Company, yesterday held a press conference to announce Kidding's new camera. We've removed all the interesting bits of his talk and just extracted clues to the technical specs of the new camera, because that's the only thing anybody is interested in. Here are some high points from Ralph's presentation. Warning—he's a kidder.

• The new camera will have an actual name rather than a hard-to-remember designation consisting of alphanumeric hash.

Kidding! It will be called the ZRZ-01.1X Mark I. That's to distinguish it from our Z-RX 011X Mark I, which is an entirely different camera, and the competitor's XRZ-01.1Z Mark I.

• Frame rate is only four frames per second, slow enough to require users to actually pay attention to what they're shooting and anticipate the optimum moment of exposure, but fast enough to be ready for the next shot.

Kidding! It shoots at 16 frames per second. Point it and hit it, you ought to get something.

• The camera is made larger than absolutely necessary because we thoughtfully studied optimal ergonomics for adult hands. It's designed to be comfortable and secure to hold and operate.

Kidding! We made it as small as possible, because we could. It's the size of a pack of cigarettes, and there's no place to hold it. You have to operate it holding it uncomfortably with your fingertips. But don't grab it the wrong way, because you'll be sure to hit a button by mistake and change a setting.

• There's just one autofocus point so you always know where it's focused, shown by a small rectangle in the viewfinder that changes from red to green to confirm focus. Switch the lens to manual focus and focus peaking comes on; half press the shutter and all the focusing aids disappear.

Kidding! There are 59 AF points that randomly light up, come off and on in delightful patterns, and never go away. Some of the 59 rectangles don't even correspond to focusing points, but they look good. Plus, we'll decide what our camera will focus on. It's our camera. Who do you think you are?

• However, it focuses securely even in very low light and locks on extremely quickly.

Kidding! The important thing is the top spec, for marketing purposes. You won't notice it isn't consistent until after you bought it, and by then, well, to be honest, we don't care.

• We kept the controls to a functional minimum, to enable operating the camera to become second nature.

Kidding! We loaded it with as many dials and buttons as possible. All of them do many different things, all are very complicated to set, and some of the controls even change functions spontaneously to remind you of what else they can do. Several buttons don't do anything but create pleasant noises and nice lights in the viewfinder!

• We kept the features to a minimum too. We build dedicated accessories that make our equipment configurable for different kinds of work.

Kidding! It's all about the shopping checklist. Whoever has more, wins. We load up on the features even if they work so poorly they're useless.

• The controls are designed to be silky smooth and pleasant to the touch, with a beautiful feel, and solid and durable for long-term consistency.

Kidding! We didn't even think of that.

• No video. If you build a boat, it's made to either be rowed, sailed, or propelled by an engine. No boat does all three well.

Kidding! Boats!?! We build cameras. We've got eighty guys at this company who don't even care if the camera does stills.

• Menus are for restaurants. Our camera can be hard-configured when connected to a computer, but the in-camera controls are minimal. For instance, there is no JPEG processing at all because we find that 99% of our customers process using standalone software.

Kidding! This baby has eighteen layers of menus, all denoted by enigmatic symbols, and none of the layers has options that all fit on one screen—they all have to be scrolled. Plus, we've used names for every function that are proprietary to our company alone. It's all right there in the 585-page manual.

• The viewfinder is critical to the photographer's interface with the world, so it's large, clear, and bright, and never obscured by informational overlays during the act of shooting. 

Kidding! Viewfinders? [Sing-song voice] Af-ter-thought. There's all kinds of stuff you can put on there. We have nine different combinations of clutter for the viewfinder, all of them really cool and futurey-looking. As a joke, one of the viewfinder configurations makes it impossible to see anything through it at all. And one screen can't be gotten out of. You have to turn off the camera and turn it back on. No reason, we just thought that was funny.

• As a courtesy to loyal customers, we're not inflating the price on introduction so we can stimulate sales with deep discounts later, destroying the investment of early adopters. We've chosen one very fair price that we intend to stick to.

Kidding! Gouge, baby, gouge! Plus, we'll be replacing this in two years, clearing out the old model for pennies on the dollar. Our customers better be ready to live for the moment. Clock's ticking! Carpe diem, baby! It's all about the churn!

• Also as a courtesy to customers, we have designed the sensor and processor as a factory-replaceable module. Future upgrades might cost 60% of the cost of this camera, because the development cost of sensors and processors is a large part of the cost of a digital camera, but at least our customers won't have to replace bodies they're used to and expensive accessories they've collected that fit those bodies, nor get used to a whole new suite of controls. Our cameras are accordingly made not only to last, but to wear beautifully.

Kidding! That would be insane. Might as well take a hatchet to the neck of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Bodies are disposable. Want the latest sensor, you gotta pay us for the rest. Heck, half the time we change stuff just to change it, no other reason. Makes sense though, because in three years this thing will look old enough to enter college. We live in the disposable age. Get with the program.

• Because the sensor and processor is a module, it was easy to make the camera configurable out of the gate. You can choose one of three sensors based on your own needs. No more paying for more pixels than you want or having to buy different bodies for different purposes.

Kidding! One size fits all, all the toppings every time.

[And so forth.]

Thanks, Ralph. We look forward to the announcement of the ZRZ-01.1X Mark II, two years from now. In the meantime it will be great fun to speculate about all the things that might be different about it, and then argue about the speculations as if they were true, while we hugely exaggerate the very small flaws of the Mark I, half of which are only theoretical anyway. The Mark I ships as soon as you're all bored with talking about it.

Mike

Disclaimer: No commentary on any particular camera or company intended.

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

adamct (partial comment): "Oh, but Kidding Camera Company did away with 585-page manuals a long time ago. Now there is a PDF, downloadable from the Kidding Camera Support website, that is 400 pages long, with the same 25 pages of content appearing in 16 different languages. The manual was originally drafted in Mullukmulluk, then translated (poorly) into the other 15 languages.

"The manual is incredibly useful. For example, when going through the menu system, you may be confronted with the choice of whether to set Elevated ASA Smoothing (Kidding's proprietary name for High ISO Noise Reduction) to High, Low, Off, Automatic or Variable. Confused by the Automatic and Variable options, how they differ, and what it is that causes them to change the degree of Elevated ASA Smoothing applied, you may wish to consult the manual. There you will learn that in the Elevated ASA Smoothing sub-menu, you have the choice of setting the camera to High, Low, Off, Automatic or Variable."

Hugh Smith: "Back in the day (does anyone actually know what that means, Ralph? Anyway...) Pop Photo ran their annual April Fool's issue and two stand out in my mind. The first was a Smashelblad wherein a tiny hammer smashed the 8x10 mirror. Thoughtfully, it came with a small broom for cleaning after every shot. The second was a 'Dark Bulb' for those who didn't have a darkroom. Simply screw the bulb in and, when turned on, the room went instantly black. Now the upturn to this is we actually had a customer come in and ask for it. When I told her it was a joke, she left in a huff mumbling something about my not keeping up with the times. Just mi dos pesos."

Ken: "Helloooo.... Is anybody there? Bueller? You forgot to provide the links to pre-order.... Kidding!"

Luke: "You left out the way the tripod mount blocks access to the card and battery. This is an important and common feature these days. Oh, and focus-by-wire with so much wired-in hysteresis that you cannot focus by rocking the focus ring. A Pana, Oly and Fuji specialty."

Überkameras! (PhaseOne IQ3 100MP and Canon EOS 1D X Mark II)

The PhaseOne A-series IQ3 100MP medium format camera

(Is überkamera a real word in German? I have no idea.)

No lights action camera
First, the new location überkamera. (Well, one of two, the Nikon D5 being the other.)

Canon has announced the EOS 1D X Mark II, its latest professional flagship DSLR. (The 1D X came out in 2011, the 1D Mark IV in 2009, the 1D Mark III in 2007, the 1D Mark II N in 2005, the 1D Mark II in 2004, and the original EOS 1D (an APS-H [28.7x19.1mm] camera with a 4-megapixel CCD sensor) in 2001. Thanks to dpreview for being the public repository of this and similar historical information). As you might expect, "it uses a body that's the most subtle possible evolution of the classic 1D design, which makes sense, given how many of its long-standing professional users will need to find it familiar the moment they use it," writes Richard Butler at dpreview. "Inside, though,"—also as you might expect—"almost every aspect of the camera's feature set has been overhauled."

The raison d'être of a top pro camera is that it do everything, so of course an exhaustive list of the 1D X Mark II's features would seem endless, not to mention more confusing than enlightening for all but those whose livelihood demands that they master it. However, a few brief stats: 20.2 megapixel CMOS FF sensor with dual-pixel CMOS AF in Live View; 61-point AF (41 cross-type) to –3EV; ISO 100 to 51,200 expandable; 4K video up to 60 FPS; 14 FPS stills (16 in Live View), to 170 frames in raw, unlimited in JPEG; digital lens optimizer (DLO), lens aberration correction, and diffraction correction; CFast2.0 and CF dual card slots; it's huge and heavy—you can look up those numbers if you care; GPS; USB 3.0 and HDMI; and the pre-order price is $5,999 at B&H Photo in a kit with a 64GB Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 Memory Card an Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 Reader/Writer. Vincent Laforet called the 2011 1D X "the king of the night" for its exceptional low-light performance, and says Canon has pushed that envelope even further.

Do you care? The answer is that if you do care, then you care very much. A pro makes a living with his or her tools, and keeping the edge is part of how you've got to compete in the cutthroat climate of the declining professional market.

But if you've never thought of the term "depreciation" in connection with your cameras, then you probably don't.

The Corcoran School of Art in the nation's capital, now called the Corcoran College of Art and Design and run under the auspices of George Washington University (it was independent when I graduated in '85), a number of years back began offering photojournalism courses and making weak bleating noises attempting to pitch itself as offering practical career training. Nothing wrong with that, except it went against more than 100 years of institutional history, as the Corcoran had always been first, foremost, front to back and top to bottom a fine arts institution in all ways.

Similarly, TOP is mos' def a personal and amateur photo blog, not a haute art or pro photography site. The last Canon professional flagship camera I used, personally, was the EOS-1n, a film camera introduced in 1994, and I didn't use one until it was well out of date. The last top professional digital camera I even tried was the Nikon D3, which impressed me enormously in 2007. We're interested in professional photography, as we are interested in the art world—as we are interested in the photography industry and auction sales records and photo museum politics and many other related but ancillary subjects—but I would guess that even full-time pros who read this site do so because they are also passionate, devoted amateur photographers in their off hours and apart from their businesses, not primarily to find information relevant to the conduct of that business. The leading publication in the US for professional and commercial photographer is PDN (from Photo District News, founded back when there was a photo district in New York City), which features articles such as "14 Successful Promotional Pieces." I would guess that even our readers who will buy and use the 1D X Mark II will also own personal cameras that they grab first for casual use, personal artwork, family documentation, and to exercise their enthusiasm for the art of photography.

A Canon 1D X Mark II next to two cameras our readers might be more likely to choose for their personal work (Canon 5DS and Leica X).
Illustration courtesy camerasize.com.

So are we interested in the EOS 1D X Mark II? Of course. What's not to like about the latest, bestest, biggest and baddest of anything in the photo firmament? So, does 14 FPS with a 170-frame raw buffer and focus tracking to die for make your eyes cross and your knees go weak? You know who you are.

Magic numbers
On to the studio. The other recent überkamera news is that, as you might have heard, the magic number of 100 megapixels has been attained. The PhaseOne A-series IQ3 100MP joins existing Phase One A-series models (the A-series IQ3 50MP, A-series IQ3 60MP and A-series IQ3 80MP) offering integration with the ALPA platform and compatibility with the Phase One XF camera system. The Alpa version is based on the ALPA 12TC "mirrorless" (that's funny, but that's what the press release said) camera body and comes with the 35mm Rodenstock Alpar lens. Two optional lenses are available, including the ultra-wide 23mm, and the ~normal 70mm.

The ALPA 12TC body, shown here, is basically a machined frame to hold a digital back and a view camera lens together, with a handle added. There is a range of attachable accessories. The body as shown here costs approximately $2,450, depending on exchange rates. Perhaps not too surprisingly, they have a bit of a problem with counterfeiters.

Here's the XF System version. The prices of these cameras make Leicas look cheap. I'd say you need to be billing in the $500k and up range to be looking at one. Which does include a fair number of high-end studio guys. The price of the Phase One A-series IQ3 100MP Camera System (for the ALPA, with Rodenstock Alpar 35mm lens) is $56,000. Do you have to supply the 12TC body yourself? I wasn't able to find out, and it won't matter to the aforementioned $500k-and-up guy or gal, and it's academic to this former art student, so....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Wolfgang Lonien: "No, 'Überkamera' isn't an official or even widely used term, but still we 'Krauts' would understand what you mean. So to use a term like that is even somehow creative, and mirrors the 'Zeitgeist.' What we do use here sometimes is 'Überflieger,' for someone who achieves greatness without putting too much effort in something. 'Über' is quite flexible, and is used for verbs like 'überfahren' (to roll over), 'überholen' (to overtake), or 'überhaupt (nicht)' ((not) at all). Or 'Überbelegung,' for an overbooked hotel or airplane or such. And yes, sometimes we use artificial combinations to point out that 'Über-' something means 'better than any other.' So in that sense, fair use. Hope this helps...."

Mike replies: Ja tut es. Danke. Geschrieben mithilfe einer Übersetzungs-app.

Ken Bennett: "Just a few years ago I would have been salivating over the latest new super-camera from Canon, but I'm no longer shooting much in the way of actual journalism or sports, and I no longer need a 'big' camera to impress clients. I still have a pair of the 1D Mark IV bodies, which we received in April of 2010, one of the first shipments available (and which cost $11,000 for the pair).

"So they are six years old; six years of pretty hard use, at least for a while. Now, though, my primary Canon system at work is a 5Ds, which I use for landscape, architecture, and some studio portrait work, and my real primary camera is the Fuji system with which I shoot about 90% of my assignments and 100% of my personal work. I pull the 1D's out for the occasional sports assignment.

"So, this is really cool, but there is no way I can justify it."

Dan MacDonald: "I continue to be mystified why neither Canon or Nikon will sell a top spec camera like the 1Dx or D5 without the vertical grip being integrated into the body. I would be very interested in a 1D X spec-ed camera in a 5D sized body. They've done it before with the EOS-1V and F6."

Mike replies: I can't explain why Canon and Nikon do what they do, but I can explain why Canon does what it does: because Nikon does it. And I can explain why Nikon does what it does: because Canon does it.

Just kidding.

D: "I work in the commercial side of photography as a digital tech (or digital operator if you're in Europe). I typically bring cameras and computers on set and maintain file integrity and build color for images while shooting tethered for major photographers and campaigns. I recently had a chance to play with the XF + IQ3 100MP back during a demo with the local rep. While the camera wasn't as jaw dropping as I had expected it to be, the technology in the sensor was quite astounding. The sheer range of the sensor itself was brilliant. I could pull back details in the highlights that were blown out (values around 250-255) and they were completely clean. I'm talking sending to the images to print clean. Somehow Phase and Sony have found a way to keep the medium format body alive in the world of high-res 35mm bodies."

Bokeh, the Pen F, and The Maltster of Yetminster

Thud! What was that that just hit the ground like a limp sack of deflated ego?
Enter "loser dot com" in your address bar and see what comes up.

(For 21 years now, the owner of the domain, Brian Connelly, a South Carolina system analyst, has used it to imaginatively poke fun at whomever he cares to. Every now and then you can get a laugh by signing in to see who he's puncturing this week.)

How do you handle losing when you've said a bunch of really nasty things about losers? Kinda hoists you by your own comb-over, doesn't it?

Hoisted!
Speaking of hoisting one's own petard...recently Todd Vorenkamp at B&H Photo's Explora wrote an exhaustive and thoroughly researched article about "bokeh." Todd said he contacted twenty lens manufacturers for their comments. I, for my part, did not know there were twenty lens manufacturers.

He kindly name-checked me, so I made a comment and replied to a few others.

In one of the responses I wrote, responding to a particularly screechy and semi-literate outburst, I had a little mean fun. I ridiculed the writer for his poor spelling and punctuation. It reminded me that I used to be good at the art of the deftly-turned insult, a pursuit to which I may return in my retirement. Made myself laugh, anyway.

Later, though, I realized that I had made word-salad of my own first sentence, misspelling a word and getting the syntax wrong! Ouch. Hoisted.

Years and years ago, I realized that this almost never fails. Every time you get on your high horse and ridicule someone else's grammar, chances are very good you'll make a stupid grammatical mistake in your own writing. Make fun of a typo, and you'll for sure make a typo. I decided, way back then, that it was nobler to refrain from indulging. It's a practical thing. You're never safe.

Todd and I decided to delete my reply rather than just correct it. It was funny, but it wasn't kind, so I don't mind that it's gone.

I had fun answering some other comments, though. One Explora reader said, "'Bokeh' is pronounced 'bouquet,' just like a bunch of flowers. Why not just use the French word?"

To which I responded:

Their are aunts on the alter and they eight the communion waivers and got into the whine! Quick, beet them with an acts! Give them several wax!

Where words are concerned, homonymity doth not equivalency imply!

More name checks
Reading up on the Pen F, I came across myself being name-checked again. (This is apparently going to be a good day for my own, decidedly ordinary-human-scaled ego.) It was in a lovely little blog piece by the late Harold Feinstein, who died last Summer, about the original Olympus Pen.

It's a nice piece, and worth reading in the context of the new Pen F. He does a nice job of explaining in practical terms the philosophy of the original.

(By the way, I hope you bought Harold's book when I recommended it. Look at the price of it now. Wow.)

And speaking of fun with words....
I was reading Bill Bryson's Notes From a Small Island the other day and, in a wonderful set-piece about English place-names, he mentioned a village called "Rime-Intrinseca." Turns out that was a typo, or a mistake—the village name is spelled "Ryme," not "Rime." Intrinseca, which was what made me curious enough to learn more, is evidently a Spanish word that relates to philosophy, somehow. Anyway, Ryme-Intrinseca is right down the road from Yetminster, a name which for some reason struck me as hilarious. Then, as I was reading the Wikipedia page about Yetminster, I learned that medieval Yetminster was well stocked with a variety of tradesman, which included a maltster....

The Maltster of Yetminster. Would that not be the perfect title for an English historical novel? Sounds like undiscovered Hardy. Hilary Mantel, where are you?

I searched for a place in England called "Notyetminster," but in vain.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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 always wonder about those hugely inflated book prices on Amazon for some out of print titles. Are they actually moving copies? Maybe there are enough wealthy collectors out there who don't bother looking at a book until it's in the stratosphere. I still enjoy my signed copy bought during the Kickstarter campaign. Sits on the 'tall books' shelf next to my two Turnleys and my Bruce Davidson monster, Outside Inside, all TOP recommendations."

Mike replies: It really just has to do with the way books are sold. Many books sell in the "blockbuster" manner, with a huge surge of demand which quickly tails off to nothing. Photography books tend to be the opposite, with a small but steady demand. So when the book is in print, there's usually not enough demand to justify keeping it in print. But after it goes out of print, the demand for it doesn't diminish. So, relative to the demand, the supply goes from a condition of exaggerated abundance to a condition of exaggerated scarcity in a relatively short time.

In fact the demand for a photobook might even go up after it becomes unavailable, for the simple reason that lots of people are interested in many books and almost nobody buys all the books they want. When a photobook goes out of print it prompts people who wanted it into thinking, oh-oh, I'd better get a copy of that before it's too late! So there can be increased demand when there are just a few copies left here and there. That's what drives the price up so precipitously.

By the way I notice Outside Inside is still available new, which is pretty amazing. It will be interesting to track that the value of that one when it's all gone.

Alan Kett: "Mike: Your Maltster of Yetminster probably grew up in Once Brewed. Once Brewed is in the county of Northumberland, just south of the Roman Wall (a.k.a. Hadrian's Wall), about three miles from the booming metropolis of Haltwhistle. Fire up Google Maps if you think I jest....

"P.S. Oh yes, there's also Twice Brewed just a handful of miles down the road."

Kevin Purcell: "The phenomenon you write about was given the name Muphry's law (read that again, carefully) by John Bangsund. Muphry's law states: 'If you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written.'  The name is a deliberate misspelling of Murphy's law.

"I think I got away with it...this time."

Mike replies: That second link is treasurable. Thanks for that.

Peter Croft (partial comment): "A coincidence of typos: The Guardian ran an article yesterday about an Australian company that sells globes of the Earth, with country names, etc. This company made an error, naming Palestine but leaving out Israel. But the Guardian’s caption under the photo was: “Sold by Australian stationary chain Typo.” How’s that for a tautology? A typo in a sentence about a typo by a company named Typo. Must be a record."

[The typo is that "stationary" means unmoving, whereas the word for letter-writing supplies is "stationery." Missed that my own self. —Ed.]

Richard: "I too have the Feinstein book from the Kickstarter campaign, with cover letter, signed in the book, and with signed postcard 'print' too. If I did not love it so much I might consider four figures for it!"

Paul Mc Cann: "There is a town in Ireland called 'Horse and Jockey.' The story goes that an English man asked Paddy where he was from. 'Horse and Jockey, sir.' The Englishman laughed and asked him where that was, and Paddy replied, 'not far from 'Two Mile Borris.'' Both genuine town names. But then everywhere has its share of weird place names."

Mike adds: Never mind the Indian names such as Peshtigo, Oconomowoc, Poy Sippi, Tichigan, Kewaunee, and Manitowoc, and my favorite, Wauwautosa (you know you're home when you hear someone say "'Tosa" with a strong Wisconsin accent); and French ones such as Prairie du Sac and Trempealeau. My former home State of Wisconsin also boasts the towns of Blueberry, Husher, Embarrass, Chili, Fence, Disco, and Herbster. And—the laziest naming job in the State, probably—the small country town of Rural. If your name is James and you're clumsy you might want to move to Jim Falls.

Our former summer home was nearest a town in Michigan called Alanson, so my cousin Ham had a T-shirt made up. The front said 'Where the hell is Alanson, Michigan?' and the back said, 'Right between Brutus and Ponshewaing." It is, too.

Dr Tom Bell: "I live on the edge of Dartmoor in Devon...in South Zeal...but more interestingly, an old friend...a psychologist...lived nearby in Inwardleigh...which seemed appropriate for a Jungian!!"

Olympus PEN-F Reality Check

Guest post written by Gordon Lewis

When I discovered a few days ago that Olympus was introducing a digital version of its landmark PEN-F camera, I admit I was excited. It has the look of the mechanical cameras that photographers of my generation know and loved so well. (I can’t speak to the feel though, since I have yet to hold one.) There are the de rigeur tiny buttons here and there for various digital functions, but mainly there are knurled metal dials: one on the front and four on top. Plus, it’s not just any type of mechanical camera; it’s in the rangefinder style, with the eyepiece in the upper-left corner and no DSLR hump in the middle. The viewfinder is electronic rather than optical. That may not be to everyone’s taste, but it’s still an attractive alternative to similar designs that require you to use the rear display for viewing or tie up the hot shoe with a bulky accessory viewfinder. For those of you who actually like framing with the rear display, Olympus made it the type you can flip out to the side and swivel upward or downward.

The new Olympus PEN-F

Without lens the PEN-F is not much bigger than a bar of soap and would be easy to slip into a purse, messenger-style bag, or coat pocket. Add one or two of Olympus’s petite yet fast primes (the 17mm ƒ/1.8 and 45mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuikos come to mind) and you have a compact, lightweight, yet highly capable kit.

As if these weren’t enough clues to what type of photographer Olympus is targeting, consider this: The PEN-F also has a built-in feature that lets users tweak JPEGs to simulate black-and-white films, including grain simulations and adjustable color contrast filtration. It can also adjust color reproduction and saturation globally (entire image) and locally (by specific colors). If you want to be able to get that classic street or film photography look in-camera, here is where you can find it. You can do all this and more by shooting raw of course, but this will require specialized software and a level of skill you may not have. Also keep in mind that because the PEN-F is not yet available for sale, it will be a few months before you find third-party raw converters that support it. You could also use Olympus’ raw converter, if you don’t mind getting up to speed with what’s likely to be a new and unfamiliar workflow.

There’s a long list of other great features too; for example, a new 20-MP sensor, high-resolution image mode (new to the PEN-F form factor), 5-axis IBIS (in-body image stabilization), electronic shutter, and super-short shutter lag.

So is the new Olympus PEN-F the street and travel photography camera you’ve been waiting for? Do you need it NOW? It will take a few months of use and reviews by real users before there’s any market consensus. In the meantime, if you’re GAS-ing hard, here are three observations to help relieve the pressure:

• The initial street price, body only, is set at $1,199. There are a lot of equally good or even arguably better cameras you could buy for that or less, including cameras that are roughly the same size, form factor and weight. (The Sony A6000 at $550 comes to mind.) The street price is sure to drop after the PEN-F has been on the market for a while, so if you’re the type who hates to find out your camera is selling for a third less than you paid for it, be patient; the price will fall.
• The PEN-F is accompanied by a long list of “premium leather” accessories such as straps, camera bags, and even wrapping cloths. What’s next? Gloves and a houndstooth sport coat with leather elbow patches? Unless you’re into this sort of thing—and I don’t look down of those who are—you may want something where the emphasis is less on style and more on function.
• Remember that you probably felt the same way about whatever other cameras you own now before you bought them. The lust you feel today will eventually subside, only to be replaced by another. In the meantime, the camera you own now is infinitely more useful to you than the camera of your dreams.

Make no mistake: I still find the PEN-F exciting and definitely plan to rent one for a few days, once it’s available and the weather is more to my liking. I’m just under no illusion that a particular style or brand of camera will make me a better street and travel photographer than I already am. Only hard work and more travel will do that. This is not to say you have to feel the same way. If the PEN-F is exactly what you’ve been waiting for and you plan to buy one as soon as it’s available, I’d love to hear why.

Gordon

Contributing Editor and friend o' TOP Gordon Lewis is a writer who lives with his family in Philadelphia. One of his claims to fame is that he used to write television sitcoms. Most recently he is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook.

[Note: For more about the original Pen-F, see Ken Tanaka's article here. And here's more from the famous Olympus Camera designer Yoshihisa Maitani about the original Pen. Thanks to Kevin Purcell for the latter link. —Ed.]

©2016 by Gordon Lewis, 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:

Stephen Scharf: "I have to admit I was seized by GAS pangs when I first saw this little puppy. It does look really cool, and I love all the analog dials and wheels for controlling functions. And the retro silver color. From Kevin Raber's first impressions review, it's also really well-made. Then I realized these GAS pangs were driven more by the joy and feel of operating a camera rather than being driven what its really supposed to do, which is capture and produce images. The same GAS pangs drove me to buy the original OM-D E-M5 and subsequently, the E-M1. All absolutely terrific cameras with excellent image and build quality and a fine suite of lenses available. That I never actually used. Because as good as they were, and they are really good, they could never match the magic I see in Fuji X-cam files (not to mention the X-system's unerringly accurate auto white balance).

"I still really want the new little Pen F, but this time, I'm not going to cave...."

marlof: "Yes, I'll get one as soon as they're released. Why? I like using Olympus cameras. I also like using the relatively small Olympus prime lenses (12mm, 17mm and 75mm). Not so much because of their optical quality, but because of their feel in my hand. With those lenses, especially the 12mm and 17mm, I've always preferred the PEN body size over the OM-D body size (which suits the bigger zooms better). The reason for that is simple: the OM-D 'prism' hump and slightly larger size doesn't help the camera in sliding in and out of my jacket pocket (with the other lens in the other jacket pocket). That's also one of the reasons I never liked the add-on viewfinder. I passed on the E-P5 because of this. In using the E-P1 I found that I prefer shooting with a viewfinder, but in using the E-P3 I learned that add-on viewfinders don't work for me. Now they have added an integrated viewfinder to my favorite type of camera. For me, that's a no-brainer; this is a camera I've been waiting for.

"Will it make me a better photographer? No way. But that's not the only reason to buy a new camera...."

Peter Wright: "As a Micro 4/3 user since 2008 with the introduction of the G1 (which I still have), and as an owner of an E-M5 since its introduction in 2012, I am very interested in the Pen F. However I am temporarily immune to GAS: For most of 2015 I did the 'Leica as Teacher' program using my Leica MP, Delta 400, and a Zeiss 35mm lens. (That probably prevented me from upgrading to the E-M5 Mark II last spring.)

"At Christmas when the program was over, I broke out my old E-M5 for the family pictures. However, one of the many things I learned during the year, was that I really enjoyed pure B&W photography, and I missed being in that pure B&W mode, although digital has some definite advantages. Therefore I decided for this year, to embark on a OC/OL/OY program using a newly purchased M-Monochrom and a 50mm lens I already had. Consequently I don't feel the need for the Pen F right now. That gives the Pen F time to drop in price and get a useful firmware upgrade or two before I finally get around to 'needing' one. See how TOP saves you money—I think?"