The Online Photographer

The Ideal Sensor

Sensor madness!
Posts on TOP have "energy." That's what I call it. I guess "interest" is just as good a word, if a bit anodyne. I can tell a topic has energy first if it draws a lot of comments, but also, if it continues to draw comments after the conversation has moved on.

Sensors are beautiful things. So are lenses, so was film, and you are talking with a man who once loved a film developer. I know, sounds kinky. But D-76 1:1...be still, my heart. I'm getting very fond of sensors, too. They're amazing devices. Just look what they can do. And the progress in their development over the last 15 years is astonishing.

So we're kicking off a new (truncated) week. We had an utterly beautiful 4th of July weekend here. This area does high-pressure systems better than anywhere I've ever lived or even seen. The overcast moved in on Monday evening just as the holiday was ending and the crowds were leaving the lakeshore. The weather changes quickly around here.

Hope yours was a good 'un too.

The topic that had the most energy last week was the one about sensor size, which I would have thought is ground that's already been burned over. People are still sending in comments about that, and that post is way down in the stack now. So this is something a lot of photographers think about. And possibly wrestle with.

So with the caveat that I have utterly no wish to argue, or advocate for anything in particular, a question to kick off the new week: if you've committed to one sensor size for most of your cameras, what do you like, and why?

Lovely camera; wish it were APS-C

I hope we can keep status-jockeying out of the conversation. I have one professional friend (Kirk Tuck of VSL) who is lately a devotee of 1" sensors. Ctein makes beautiful 17x22" prints and as far as I know has never seen the need to own anything digital larger than Micro 4/3. Another pro friend (Jack MacDonough), who makes large prints and sells them to corporate clients such as hotels and office buildings, is on his second Leica S (you remember he sold one print here on TOP). Since 2013, I've settled on APS-C, which, as John Krill said the other day, is "the 35mm of the digital age." (The camera I want most that might actually come to exist would be something like an A7II but with an APS-C sensor; that or an A6300 with IBIS.) My friend John Lehet, a master printer and landscape photographer, just invested in a Sony A7rII full-frame.

In other words, it's not a contest. Anyone who tries to turn it into one will be asked to go sit in the corner, where they will have useless old photo accessories lobbed at them and suffer forty lashes with a wet camera strap. And if you're not among the people who are interested in the topic, the weather will change tomorrow.

Sensor utopia
On another plane—rising above the clouds into the bright sunshine of thought-experiment—if you could have as many cameras as you want but all with the same kind of sensor, what would that be?

My ideal (I suppose; I haven't actually given it very much thought) would be...let's say a 20x20mm square sensor, about 9 MP, B&W only, with the tonal properties of the great classic Kodak B&W films shot with a yellow filter and developed in D-76. In other words, about the opposite of what's most popular now...on about five different levels.

That's pretty far out. If a camera with such a sensor were made, I'd buy three of them and that would be 1% of total annual sales. In all regions.  :-)  And I have to consider that even if anyone were making such a camera sensor, which they are not, they'd still get it all wrong and my verdict would be nope, nice try. So there is no chance, also on about five different levels, that such a preposterous/stupid thing would ever come about.

But then, that's what thought experiments are for.

What say ye? Just curious.

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:

tex andrews: "For me it's the current 645 'crop' Sony sensor in my Pentax 645Z. Why? Well, I have seen with my own eyes how this camera and my A7R handle certain very demanding (very! Confirmed a week or so ago by the tech rep from Moab paper—demanding to papers as well, it turns out...) tonality situations, namely a blend of harsh contrast with extremely subtle tonal gradations in very dark values, which can only be seen printed very large.

"The A7R is very good, the best I had seen until I got the 645Z. But the Z is that much better. And it's a real, obvious difference that most could see, maybe only after I pointed it out, but most could still see it plainly. Unlike certain lenses where there is maybe more faith, witchcraft, alchemy, or whatever to see their special qualities, and most could still not see them even when directed.

"If my main subject matter/content was totally different? The Z might not be the thing....

"I think what is very cool about our current gear situation in 2016, as digital has now matured pretty well for almost everyone, is that you can actually shop all this around in such an interesting way: strobe options, lens options, haptics options, sensor options, etc. It's a great time to be purchasing camera equipment.

"Using it properly to demonstrate a competent, unique vision that rises above the mass of image making going on today...well, that's quite another story, if you care about it, that is."

Dave: "To be honest, I don't really care much what sensor is in the camera. They're all capable now, and probably better than my photo skill level. Once the images are in Lightroom, I just don't think the output is so much different from one to the other that it would change whatever it is i'm trying to share or do."

Neal Elward: "I did an experiment last year: no buying of photo gear. I started and ended the year with a small but well-rounded Micro 4/3 kit and a Ricoh GR. I have no regrets. Now that my gear-buying embargo is over, I went a little crazy but settled back down where I started. The only noteworthy addition is an A7II and two primes. For 90% of my photos, the Micro 4/3 kit is sufficient or better.

"The problem I have is the remaining percentage of photos are some of my favorites. I considered some of the fancier glass, such as that 42.5mm ƒ/1.2, but I couldn't get past the pricing.

"I see a lot of interesting comments about equivalence and stops of difference between formats; my only comment there is that the D-o-F difference (but not necessarily background blur) between Micro 4/3 and 35mm is greater than two stops. For me, that's a great thing.

"Objectively, my Micro 4/3 kit is beyond perfect for me. Subjectively, you can pry my A7II and 55mm ƒ/1.8 out of my cold, dead hands."

Michael Perini: "I don't find owning a bunch of different cameras with the same sized sensor nearly as interesting as owning a bunch of cameras with different sized sensors. It's been (generally) stipulated that any modern sensor from 1" on up is capable of quite fine results. The different systems generally provide different advantages and different levels of 'completeness' as well—but an extensive system or specialty lenses will only be important to some folks, some of the time. We've never had such a wide range of good options. For me, the biggest advantages come from sensor size variation."

Mike replies: I guess I do shoot two formats, strictly speaking. One is Fuji APS-C; the other is the 1/3.0-inch (4.89 x 3.67mm) backside-illuminated 8-MP sensor in my iPhone 6+.

psu: "IMHO fixating on the sensor hardware puts the priorities in the wrong place. More important is the software around the sensor...at the firmware level in the camera (which is probably multiple pieces of software, really) and more importantly at the level of good software support for the output format in the downstream workflow. One of the main reasons the iPhone has been eating the lunch of larger sensor compact cameras is the software and workflow support. So, my favorite sensor is one that has a nice camera wrapped around it and good Lightroom support."

Looking Beyond the USP

Guest Post by John Kennerdell

Rosser Reeves (1910–1984), chess master, poet, novelist, political operative (he helped Eisenhower get elected), and father of the unique selling proposition. If that weren't enough, his name adorns one of the world's most famous rubies and he co-wrote a classic book on the game of pool.

From the late 1980s to the early 2000s I freelanced for two Japanese camera manufacturers, one large and conservative, the other smaller and less conventional. Even from my worm's-eye view at the bottom of a long ladder of subcontractors I could sense a clear difference in their philosophies. The big one exuded an almost paternal authority: they were confident they knew best what photographers truly needed. And to be fair, they usually did. By contrast the other one prided itself on its responsiveness to consumers, even if it sometimes led to chasing fads and fancies. I learned not to be too quick to judge one approach as superior to the other.

On one point, though, they agreed. Like almost every other company I know of in Japan, both passionately embraced the concept of the "unique selling proposition," or USP.

Born on Madison Avenue in the middle of the last century, USP is the idea that every product needs a distinguishing feature that sets it apart from all competing products. This is why even a toaster or a refrigerator in Japan cannot be merely a toaster or a refrigerator. It needs to offer "fuzzy logic," or "eco mode," or any of countless other contrivances ranging from brilliant to loony. And it's why you'll never see a camera introduced as simply "our new entry-level DSLR." It'll always be "our new entry-level DSLR with x," where "x" is some marquee feature designed to make you choose it over all others.

So here's my take on camera USPs, especially if you're a dedicated photographer: at best they should mostly be ignored. At worst, they misdirect both reviewers and potential buyers.

One variant of the Canon EOS 10. That red dimple on the lower right was where you pressed the reader to transfer settings. I'll bet most owners didn't use it more than a few dozen times, if at all.

This lesson first dawned on me back in 1990 with the introduction of Canon's EOS 10. It was a mid-level SLR promoted for a new gee-whiz function: it came with a barcode reader and a booklet of codes for 101 different shooting situations. You scanned in the code for your scene and then pressed the reader up against a sensor in the camera, transferring the appropriate settings. Voila, supposedly a perfect photo of fireworks or birthday cake candles or whatever else it was.

Ah, the Japanese love of gimmickry. Clearly any user over the age of 12 would have been better served by a booklet giving theory and practice for each type of shot, so you could learn for yourself. Right, and how many cameras would that sell?

While the barcode silliness might have put off some serious photographers, in fact the EOS 10 was a terrific camera, a real step up from the first generation of EOSs three years before. I bought a pair and they served me well for years. I don't remember if I even bothered to take the barcode reader and booklet out of their wrappers, yet even by then I was cynical enough to be grateful for them. This feature, lame as it was, couldn't have cost Canon more than a couple dollars to add to each camera, and was easily ignored if you so chose. Meanwhile it no doubt pulled in untold thousands of people who wouldn't have otherwise bought this model, essentially helping subsidize a piece of semi-professional gear at a mass-market price.

The Panasonic GF7 in full-on selfie configuration. But nothing says you can't push that screen down to the horizontal and use it to
take photos of, yes, other people.

Here's a more recent example. Last year Panasonic announced the GF7, a Micro 4/3 camera billed as "The one that loves a selfie" thanks to a rear screen that flips up 180 degrees. I'm sure it's a splendid selfie taker, but the marketing campaign—and apparently most of the market too—missed the point that it also makes a wonderfully compact and responsive street photography machine. The thing practically disappears in your palm (it's only a tad bigger than a Minox 35) and yet produces files every bit as good as the top Micro 4/3 bodies. Even the kit lens is better than you'd expect.

The GF7 has already been replaced by a GF8, a trivial update with, inevitably, a new USP: a "Beauty Retouch" feature that can slim your body and smooth your skin. Say what you will but I've never looked more fabulous...er, no, I haven't tried it and you probably needn't either except maybe for laughs. Still, if you're looking for a really tiny camera with serious image quality, don't underestimate these because of the dumbed-down product positioning.

The basic problem is that the aspects of cameras most appreciated by accomplished photographers tend to make for lousy USPs. Imagine pitching them to a tough client in the Sterling Cooper conference room. "Feels exactly right in your hands." I don't think so. "The controls fall just where you want them." Bor-ring. "It takes a picture the instant you press the button, focused and exposed just the way you wanted it." Seriously Draper, that's all you've got?

In short, don't trust the manufacturer to give you the best reason to buy one of their products. Their marketing priorities are elsewhere. Unfortunately sometimes that seems to be the case with their camera design priorities too. But you'll need someone higher up the food chain than I was to tell you about that.

John

Photographer and writer John Kennerdell writes two columns a year for TOP. His past contributions can be found under his name in the "Categories" in the right-hand sidebar.

©2016 by John Kennerdell, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Ned Bunnell: "Thanks for the great post John. Brought back many fond memories of meetings I had in Japan where we first had to agree on what the USP was and then develop a branding campaign that clearly focused everyone's attention on that single unique attribute. It was culturally very hard for my Japanese counterparts to not give all of their other important specs equal weight in a marketing campaign.

"As a joke one time (to get my point across), I made an ad for a new camera using PowerPoint. There was a tiny photograph of the camera in the lower right corner. The rest of the ad showed the specs set in a very large type size running top to bottom. Everyone laughed when I put this slide up and my big boss, with a smile on his face, said 'so, Ned-san, we need to focus on a single message, right?'"

Happy 4th (Blog Notes)

First: don't forget the book sale ends tomorrow! Thanks.

In keeping with the latest schedule modification, TOP will be off for the entire weekend.

Which still feels crazy-indulgent to me. (Two days off? In a row?) Plus, Monday's a holiday here in these United States. If I can keep my hands off the site for that long, I'll be taking the holiday off as well. Three days away. As if two weren't bad enough. (It stresses me out not to have a new post up on TOP continuously; it makes me feel like the whole precarious edifice will implode spontaneously and I'll have to go get a job selling household supplies door-to-door. Micro-entrepreneurship is not for the faint of heart.)

Anyway, see you on Tuesday morning! I'll be trying to relax.

We had a good week, I think. The most popular topic was sensor size, but we talked about Apple's massive social media ad campaign and pro Chris Floyd, who had his "Frecklehead" photo chosen for it; Photoart; Gallitypes; Brexit and Britain and Boris; the new Hasselblad medium-format mirrorless camera (which brought up the aforementioned issue of sensor size and also where the lenses are made); flower photography and butterfly identification; cautionary tales about assumptions of what photographs mean; firecrackers, and dogs, which is always a good subject to sneak in; simplicity in camera design; eye doctors and Chinese sunglasses; dreams; and three wonderful octogenarians the photo world lost...among other things.

Slowish week for TOP, in other words. Just kidding.  :-)

Good news to end the week, in any event. Just arrived chez TOP is the biannual contribution of our friend JK. John K. writes only two posts for TOP every year, but his contributions arrive like clockwork and are always unique and worth waiting for. I'll post the newest one, about USP (nope, not related to the Post Office or extra-sensory perception) before I knock off work for the weekend tonight. Look forward to it, or check back this weekend sometime to read it.

Don't forget the book sale. Final hours now.

And have a very nice weekend. If you're a USAan, Happy 4th to you, and your family, friends, and furry friends, or any/all applicable. Be safe and well. See you Tuesday morn.

—Mike, TOP majordomo and M.C.

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!

It Can't Be Coincidence...

...That the National Geographic magazine just out on newstands this month (July 2016) features on its first pages an editorial by Editor in Chief Susan Goldberg. Under the rubric "Images and Ethics," the editorial in the magazine is called "How We Check What You See."

It's online under an alternate title, "How We Spot Altered Pictures." Same text, though. Although very brief, it purports to "explain how we strive to keep covertly manipulated images out of our publications."

Photo by Gordon Gahan

The infamous "they moved the pyramids" cover from February 1982, which greatly harmed the magazine's vaunted reputation (and obviously still haunts them). Note that this would have been completely permissible for many uses, for instance a travel agency poster or an advertisement.

Of the pyramid cover mistake, Goldberg admits, "we deserved the firestorm that ensued."

But that's all in the past. "We learned our lesson. At National Geographic, it's never OK to alter a photo. We've made it part of our mission to ensure our photos are real."

No mention of he-who-cannot-be-named, of course, but the timing of the editorial is most likely no coincidence.

Mike
(Thanks to the reader who first told me about this, whose name I can't find)

P.S. Appearing even in advance of the editorial in the same issue is a two-page advertisement for the Huawei P9 smartphone, "Co-engineered with Leica," featuring a picture taken in "Monochrome/Pro Mode." The tagline is "Reinvent smartphone photography." It set me to wondering if that's the first time I've encountered the all-purpose sales word "pro" (roughly, a synonym for "good" in our field) associated with a cellphone.

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 gillooly: "This sentence can't be a coincidence: 'At National Geographic, where visual storytelling is part of our DNA, making sure you see real images is just as important as making sure you read true words.' Didn't Steve McCurry refer to himself now as a 'visual storyteller' as a defense against photo manipulation, implying that while this manipulation is not allowed in photojournalism, it is allowed in visual storytelling?"