The Online Photographer

Photo Books Question

Paul Braverman asks: "Why do highly desired photography books remain out of print? There is an obvious demand for Winogrand's Women Are Beautiful and Heath's Dialogue With Solitude. The price for a copy can reach four figures. Why not reissue them? Seems like the estate of those photographers would make some money, collectors would still be able to brag that they have a first edition, and I would be able to buy a new copy at a reasonable price. Everybody wins. What am I missing?"

Mike replies: Many photo books are reprinted, of course, and I'll talk about that in a second. But the underlying problem is the nature of the demand. It's slow and steady. This doesn't fit the business model these days. As I understand it, the tax code was changed in the Reagan years the way inventory was accounted was changed by a 1979 Supreme Court Ruling [see JG's Featured Comment below —Ed.] such that publishers have to pay higher taxes on unsold inventory, which pushed the sales model to an all-at-once "bestseller" mode. An author friend of mine was told that if her book hadn't established good sales within seven months, the publisher would stop promoting it and it would be toast. Contrast this with the classic model, which was that publishers printed a big batch of copies and sold them out of stock for years. One legend in the book industry was that back in the '70s Oxford University Press had brand-new books on the shelves that were more than a hundred and fifty years old, and they could go whole years without selling a single copy. Yet they would stay "in print."

The new model fits books with a bestseller sales curve, but it's unsuited for any book that has low sales but consistent, continuing demand—which happens to describe most photography monographs (a monograph is a book of pictures by a single photographer). I don't generally admit ex-library books to my collection, but I have one book by Henri Cartier-Bresson that is ex-lib because I loved the irony of the "DISCARDED" stamp in the front—it says "No Longer Relevant." The irony is that while that may be true of the information in the pictures—no longer current—but of course it's not true of the photographic artistry of the pictures.

A picture book that sells 25,000 copies right away and then sees demand quickly tail off to nothing fits the way publishers need to do business now, but a book that sells 3,000 copies its first year, 2,000 the second, 1,000 annually for the next five years, and then 500 copies a year for the following twenty years just doesn't work for publishers any more...even though the eventual total sales numbers might be the same.

I might point out that this also better fits certain types of work. A romance novel that's read for entertainment and is part of an ongoing series of books fits a bestseller sales curve quite nicely. The kind of work that suffers is the "magnum opus" kind of thing whereby an expert might work for twenty years to summarize all of her knowledge in a certain field. That type of book should ideally stay in print for many years, to be readily available for the scholar or serious student who needs it. Unfortunately, many photography monographs are closer to the latter type than the former—a photographer might toil for twenty years on a body of work and then want to publish it in one grand coffee-table tome...which should sell to that photographer's fans at a slow but steady rate for many years. That kind of working model no longer fits the prevailing publishing model, unfortunately.

Reprints happen
As I mentioned, many photography books do receive reprints, because of the phenomenon you mention, Paul—the consistent, continuing demand after the book is NLA (no longer available) new puts upward pressure on the price. That often goes on until the pent-up demand justifies another reprint. An example is Walker Evans' American Photographs. First published in 1938, it received a 25th anniversary reprinting in 1962, followed by a paperback version in 1975, another reprinting for the 50th anniversary in 1988, and finally the 75th anniversary reprint (the best reprint as it tries to exactly replicate the original book, only with better paper) in 2012. This version is still available, probably because it is such a staple of Museum in-house bookshops. (Which are excellent places to go look at photobooks, incidentally.)

Reprints vary widely in quality, and you have to be careful. Some reprints are better than the originals, and some are much worse. Although I love books, I'm more interested in the photographs than the books, so I look at content first. I prefer the Pantheon reprint of Brassai's Paris After Dark (or Paris by Night), because the first edition is very expensive, very fragile and often damaged in the first edition because of its spiral binding, and the reproduction in the Pantheon reprint is so outstanding. As an example of the opposite, Eliot Porter's In Wildness is the Preservation of the World is a remarkable book in its first edition—the color printing method used was involved, difficult, beautiful, and no longer even legal because the chemicals need for the process were so toxic. But the 2012 reprint by Ammo is so atrocious that it completely misrepresents Eliot Porter in my opinion and, I would argue, actively damages his reputation. (It's still available but I refuse to link to it.)

Probably the most famous photobook that went a very long time without a reprint was Cartier-Bresson's 1952 The Decisive Moment, which finally received its first-ever reprint by Steidl in 2015 (the reprint is apparently just going out of print now). Although Steidl didn't stint, the reproduction choices have been controversial, and not everyone loves the reprint. It's well worth owning, of course. My problem with it is that although it's H.C.-B.'s most famous book, it's not the best book of his pictures—that honor would go to Henri Cartier-Bresson: Photographer, first published by New York Graphic Society in 1979 and later reprinted by Bulfinch. That one was available for years and is still plentiful on the used market—check eBay Books or Abebooks.com. (I like Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art, too, although you have to take the dense text with a grain of salt.)

One book you mentioned, Dave Heath's Dialogue With Solitude, is a special case, because the entirety of the original book is reprinted within the pages of the epic retrospective Multitude, Solitude which is a must-have in my opinion. That book is getting expensive but of course everyone reading this blog already bought it on my strenuous recommendations three years ago at the low original price.  :-)

The other book you mentioned, Garry Winogrand's Women Are Beautiful, sold extremely poorly at first issue and was remaindered for years, available for next to nothing. It's a bit pricey now but I suspect the demand for it, although ongoing, is extremely low, probably too low for a reprint to be feasible.

More recent books are reprinted too. Alec Soth's Niagara was just reprinted last month by Mack. If you're a fan of large-format color and want it but don't have it, be sure to snag it while you can.

Conclusion
The upshot is: many photography books are only printed once; many photo books are plentiful, maybe even too plentiful, while they're in print, but then get scarcer and scarcer once the book is discontinued and the supply dries up in the face of ongoing low-level demand; and, many famous old books follow a feast-to-famine-to-feast cycle as they receive periodic reprints and then those reprints, in turn, go out of print. To be a real photo book collector is a fascinating game, but anyone with a personal photobook library, however small or large, can play the game at any level. But no matter what level you play it at, it's always a game.

Mike
(Thanks to Paul)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada

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

Darrell Gray: "Disfarmer: The Heber Springs Portraits was a book I always wanted but could not afford—a good used copy was in the hundreds. Then a year or so ago it was offered 'new' at around a hundred bucks. I bought it, and comparing it to a library copy first addition I could not tell the difference. Same ISBN, same publisher, same dust cover, same everything. Did somebody find a box of them sitting in a corner somewhere? By the way, it was $22.50 in 1976."

Kenneth Tanaka: "There can be other factors in play besides those Mike mentioned. For example, many large-run photo books these days are produced in association with shows. Getting the rights clearances and production scheduled to reprint a second edition of such catalogs is rarely as easy as you might think. Works in a catalog are usually owned by various parties who must agree to a second edition. And top printers, such as Steidl, are generally booked years in advance. With respect to money, the only parties to make money from photo books are generally the printers. It’s usually a money-losing or, at best, a break-even marketing or commemorative initiative for everyone else. It’s frankly remarkable when we see a major photo book reprinted independently of another exhibition."

JG: "At the risk of being pedantic, it was not an 'inventory tax' per se that caused publishers to start carrying fewer books in inventory, but a change in the way they accounted for the inventory on their tax returns, which in turn affected their reported profits or losses for the tax year. For an interesting analysis of this—well, it was for me, anyway!—I recommend reading 'How Thor Power Hammered Publishing.'"

Mike replies: Thanks JG. I amended the post in accordance with the information at your link.

J D Ramsey: "After reading this post, I wanted to order the books mentioned. I was particularly intrigued by the Multitude, Solitude book by Dave Heath, who I was unfamiliar with. Sure enough, I found through the link to Amazon, but for $275, too rich for me. I was disappointed that I hadn't bought it earlier. Then I noticed the message in the upper right saying I ordered this book in December 2015! Say what? I immediately walked over to the shelves where my photography books are and there it was with a rather nondescript dark blue binding. Of course I immediately took it off the shelf and started to leaf through it. Thanks Mike for reminding me of this wonderful book and making me aware that I really need to smell the roses and sometimes just sit down with the books I've bought but haven't devoted some quiet time to."

Mike replies: That's the best delivery service I've ever heard of!

The Biggest (Smallest?) Reason to Go Micro 4/3

Left lens: 360g, $1,100. Right lens: 1,480g, $2,100.
Visit Camerasize

This is the argument for Micro 4/3 in one illustration if you ask me.

Both lenses have the same angle of view, within the approximations of the aspect ratio.

Plus, as if that weren't enough, the smaller lens will give you more apparent depth-of-field for the same aperture at the same angle of view! That's a huge advantage, since sufficient D-o-F is so often a headache with longer focal lengths.

The smaller lens weighs 357 grams, the larger one 1480 grams, more than four times as much.

The Panasonic 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 II costs $1,097.99.

The Canon 70–200mm ƒ/2.8L III costs $2,099.

No hate for the BBU (big bazooka users). They've got their reasons, and I'm sure they're good. Whatever leavens your loaf. Whatever shizzles your pizzazzle. Whatever shifts your stick.

But I know which I'd prefer to schlepp.

Mike

P.S. I really want this lens but I can't justify it. Warning, you could hear about this again.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Rob de Loe: "All sound arguments, except the one on the left isn't white...."

robert e: "To put it another way: for around the cost of the bigger lens, one could buy the smaller lens plus a very nice body to keep it on, which package would still weigh less and take up less volume than the full frame lens alone."

James Weekes: Yes, you really, really want it. It is the 12–35mm's big brother. Same image quality, same feel. With these two I shouldn't need another lens, in reality. Curse you GAS."

Nigel Marrington: "Youll be going all misty-eyed when you see one of those old white Canon bazookas, before you turn your toes up. Put one next to your turntable and valve amp, washing machine, toaster and all that other heavy, obsolete inferior junk you never should have got rid of."

David Runyard: "What on earth does 'schlepp' mean? Hold—carry—buy—own?"

Mike replies: I sppelled it with one too many P's—sorry. To carry, lug or drag in a tedious or awkward manner. Origin of schlep
1920–25: Yiddish shlepn to pull, drag, (intransitive) trudge < Middle High German dialect sleppen < Middle Low German, Middle Dutch slēpen (Dictionary.com).

Incidentally, for those of you who enjoy wordplay, you'll want to catch up with linguist and dialogue coach Erik Singer on WIRED. Here he is critiquing the foreign accents of famous actors doing accents in movies (including several actors trying Australian accents). He's very respectful and gentle to actors who do an accent badly (like Michael Caine's "interesting choice") so you sometimes sort of have to read between the lines to know when he thinks an actor is awful.

Wes Cosand: "I was using the Nikon D800 and 70–200ƒ/2.8 for theatrical photography and found that as I aged I simply could no longer hold the lens for a two-hour performance. I purchased exactly the Micro 4/3 outfit in your illustration. It made my continued photography possible."

Jeron: "Ah, good old depth of field. I imagine the Internets went mad over that thought that more D-o-F could possibly be a good thing, and the comment inbox is flooded with very upset messages. The old fashioned idea that a relevant part of the subject should be in focus is vigorously rejected these days."

Dave Karp: "Based on some recent experience, I am questioning whether the benefits of a larger sensor in low light conditions is somewhat overwhelmed by the weight of the larger camera and lens, which makes it harder to hold steady, even with IS. The smaller overall Micro 4/3 package is so easy to handle that I am getting the feeling that the real advantage may go to Micro 4/3. At least for Micro 4/3 vs. APS-C."

The Light's the Thing

Two pictures to illustrate a point:

Before sundown

After sundown

Same camera, same lens, same scene, same framing (or close). The Celestial Assistant suggested a setup change and kindly moved the main light a little—just 15 or 20 degrees, not a huge change. But not subtle either—in the second picture there's a planetary gobo impinging and all the light is ambient.

I've always loved watching how different light changes things. Whether I take a picture of it or not.

It begs a more subtle conceptual problem: is a photograph a picture of the thing in the picture, or the light on the thing? Mostly, I think good pictures are usually of light, whether "what the picture is of" is important or not. Learning how to pay attention to light instead of sorting everything in your field of view into its solid structure is a crucial step in photography if you ask me. In one sense, this didn't need to be a pickup truck...the pickup truck just serves to clarify what the light looked like. Light creates the composition, the mood, the structure of the picture, the color of the picture, on and on.

You can have a perfectly serviceable photograph without good light, of course. Many photographs just show things—places, objects, people, animals. Most of the important aspects of a good photograph, however, a successful photograph, are created by what the light's doing. It's at least half the battle.

You could look at it the other way around as well, of course. That the meaning of the picture is usually in the things it shows, and the light is just a means of revealing it. In the work of Bernd and Hilla Becher, for instance, they insisted on flat, overcast light for every picture, specifically to remove the light from being part of the subject and concentrate visual attention more completely on the structures they were photographing.

It fascinates me how pictures come and go. I took a picture of a farmland scene once that I put up on the blog a couple of years ago. (I didn't do a very good job of capturing it. Wrong equipment.) Since then I've passed that place perhaps as many as forty times and I've never again seen it look like anything. I look at it every time I go by. The light was just right that one time, that's all. There's never been a photograph there since then.

One of the ways to improve your photography is to give yourself an idea. Identical views in very different light would be an idea the right photographer could build a project on, I think, if they had the visual chops and sensitivity.

Back soon
As I do every Monday morning, I'm off to the Moose now to play pool with the guys—Loyle, Jerry, Lyle, Norm, and Tom. Back later to hear what you have to say. I might sneak over early to get a little practice in, too...Jerry's been coming outta nowhere lately and tearing up the joint, and I can't hit the broad side of a barn with buckshot.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Walter Glover: "This post of yours brings two axioms to mind for me, Mike: 1.) My commercial days of making photographs of things are well and truly behind me and, in my personal work the pursuit is to make photographs about things. All the qualities of varying light form a huge component in the vocabulary and grammar of conveying the spirit or essence of a motif. 2.) To achieve such ends the notion that light reveals and shadow gives form is forever emblazoned in my photo consciousness."

Mark Sampson: "Subject and lighting are inextricably linked. In the best photographs they combine to make a 'good' photograph a 'great' one. Chicken or egg?"

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "Light, and its strategic conceptual usage is the tool that hobbyists tend to overlook or misuse most in their photography. Light sculpts form. Light sculpts mood. Light manages the focus of attention. Light, not the camera, is the photographer’s tool."

Mike replies: Couldn't have said it better myself (and, in fact, I didn't).

Ernest Zarate: "John Szarkowski wrote a terrific book, The Photographer’s Eye. In it, he detailed the specific choices photographers make, consciously or accidentally, each time they press the shutter button: the frame, vantage point, time, the thing itself (i.e., raw material), and the detail. Great primer and one of my foundation books. Yet, brilliant though Szarkowski was, I’ve always felt the book missed a big one: light. It’s true most photographers can’t choose their light. It is as you say the Celestial Assistant in control. Give that, though, the photographer has the choice whether to use the light being offered. Your point about the farm lit in glory that one time, and never again (the fickle Photo Gods at their devilish best) illustrates the point exactly."

Mike replies: Excellent insight into the great Szarkowski title and one I've never heard or thought of before. But I think you're right.

Jan Kwarnmark: "Henri Cartier-Bresson: 'I go for form, much more than light. Form First. Light is like a perfume to me.'"

Arg: "Lighten up, Mike!"

Sunday Support Group: An Update about the 'TOP Visitor Center'

["Sunday Support Group" is about long-term projects, mine and yours. —Ed.]

Apparently I can't get this out of my mind. I'm not saying I've tried too hard.

Some readers might remember my initially pie-in-the-sky plan to put in a sort of "shop window" for TOP here in the Finger Lakes, in the form of a small outbuilding that would function as a sort of "visitor center" (as well as a place to set up my pool table). 

Initially I thought this was a sort of a daydream, the type of thing I'd never be able to afford.

Especially when I was engaging in pie-in-the-sky planning as well—envisioning a custom-built oversize building with a deluxe second-story office.

That is indeed out of reach, but, just for fun, recently I've once again started costing out a much more modest version of the same thing (I've done this before). I've spec'd a single-story 18x24x8' gable-end shed built on a concrete slab. It would have electric (easily accessible from my garage, which has plenty of extra capacity in the junction box) but no plumbing. I need to keep windows to a minimum to conserve interior wall space, but might need to include one window for resale appeal should I ever sell the house (I envision a future owner could use the extra building as a grandchild bunkhouse in the Summer vacation months, or convert it to an oversized garage and storage shed.)

One wall would be used for bookcases for my photo book collection (which has never been displayed/accessible in its entirety) and display cases for photo-related curios (I have some odd things, and would have fun collecting others), while the other three walls would be used for photographs. As I've mentioned before, the photos would be hung "gallery style," above and below each other and jigsaw-puzzled together, to maximize the number of photos I could display. Small size prints, not large, would be preferred! I've got some interesting things, from one of Ctein's matrices (along with the magazine cover made of the photo) to a gorgeous 1910 platinum print, to a vintage dye transfer of God and Man (Godowsky and Mannes, inventors of Kodachrome), to an original news photo of a crime scene in which a hit man was found dead in the trunk of a '40s Hudson. Of course we would display many of our print sale prints, and choose new things as well. 

Imagine the eclecticism and eccentricity of this blog, but expressed in objects, books, and original photos, and you'll have the idea. Not a museum, just a room full of cool stuff that's fun to look at, for when people come by. Of course, part of the appeal would be the fact that I'd be the docent, and could tell stories about the stuff.

I've gotten a quote for $13k for the building, including the exterior cladding and the door and windows, and $3k for the slab. The cost of baseboard heating is another thousand (radiant heat in the slab would theoretically cost about $2,500, but I haven't been able to find a contractor who can install it this far out in the country—I'm outside the service range of Rochester installers). Things I haven't gotten quotes for yet are the electrical wiring, fixtures, interior drywall, and carpet. But it looks like the whole thing could be built nicely for $22–25k maybe?

A simple gable-end shed by Woodtex, the builder in Himrod NY I got the quote
from. Picture something like this, only bigger, and with an ordinary entry door.

That's not cheap, but it's a far cry from the $70k two-story outbuilding I was originally fantasizing about. It's within the range of a few fundraising print sales, a Kickstarter, or simply me saving up for it (although me saving up should go into, well, savings). Anyway, it doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility any more. Also, it turns out I can resell the 11x20-foot shed that's already there. (It's not of high enough build quality to convert.)

The big fun, of course, would be picking the pictures and objects for display. And I've also said this before, but a nice touch would be middle-gray cloth on the pool table, for when we spread out portfolios to look at.  :-)

It was out of sight before; maybe it's actually on the horizon now.

Maybe in two or three years.

Enjoy your Sunday! I'll just be sitting here daydreaming.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Are Modern Lenses At Their Best Wide Open?

Hank wrote: "I wonder now about the idea that lenses are best stopped down two stops from wide open. That certainly is true of lenses from the film era, but I can’t help but feel that today’s (better) lens designs are made for wide open use. It’s possible this was done to appease the bokeh-fanatics, but on some systems, such as Micro 4/3, it would seem to be a requirement, no?"

Mike replies: A lens is said to be "diffraction limited" at the widest stop at which diffraction has the largest negative effect on image quality, the point at which stopping down further only increases diffraction* rather than further minimizing aberrations. That aperture is also known as the optimum aperture. A "diffraction limited lens" is diffraction limited at its widest stop. These are rare.

As an illustration, take a look at Imaging-Resource's lens test of the Nikon 24mm ƒ/1.4G. At the link, go to "Lab Test Results" in the upper right hand side of the page. Then click on "Nikon D3x." That means you're looking at their test results for the lens on a full-frame camera. Now, run the aperture slider up and down the range. The lower and flatter the colored part of the 3-D performance map, the less blur. As you go up and down the aperture range, you can see the performance gets better as it is stopped down, until ƒ/4—that's where aberrations are minimized. After that, the graph of performance begins to rise again—that's diffraction kicking in. So according to this test this lens's optimum aperture is ƒ/4, three stops down from wide open.

You'll also note that the results for ƒ/4, ƒ/5.6, and ƒ/8 are quite close to each other, which is why photographers talk about "the middle apertures" as offering best optical performance.

Note also that the middle part of the field is still pretty good with this lens even wide open. Looking at only the middle of the field is what leads some photographers to think that some of their lenses are just as good wide open as stopped down.

You're right, however, Hank, that modern lenses—especially slightly longer ones, especially ones for smaller formats—do suffer from fewer aberrations at wider apertures, and can be very good wide open. Let's turn to the Imaging-Resource test for the recent Fuji XF 50mm ƒ/2. As you run up and down the aperture range for that lens, you can see that its performance is admirably consistent from edge to edge  and through the aperture range (the graph stays pretty flat and doesn't move up and down very much throughout the range). However, even with that lens, you can clearly see that performance improves as you stop down...even if only a little. That lens, too, is diffraction limited at ƒ/5.6—three stops down, same as the Nikkor above.

You'll find that most lenses are technically at their best 2–3 stops down. Even if their performance is very consistent and the differences are slight. You can see the same thing if you have a complete family of MTF tests, for every aperture.

However, there's a bigger difference for photographers, in that some lenses are so consistent that for practical purposes the technical "sweet spot" doesn't really matter. The difference in the Fuji lens's performance at different apertures is minimal enough that you'd be likely to have trouble seeing it with general shooting, especially handheld.

You can easily use such test information when shooting. For example, with the Nikkor 24mm ƒ/1.4G on FF, I'd shoot at ƒ/1.4 and ƒ/2 only if I knew that center sharpness was all I needed. If I needed the whole frame to be critically sharp, I'd know to stop down to the middle apertures. With the Fuji 50mm ƒ/2, on the other hand, I doubt I'd avoid any of the apertures for reasons of optical performance—they're essentially all "middle apertures" in the sense that all apertures would be decently sharp for ordinary pictorial subjects. Except for perhaps those few pictures in which resolution might be critical. In practice, with that lens, you can't see the tiny measured differences between ƒ/4 and ƒ/5.6, for instance, and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot with it at ƒ/16 based on I-R's test info. (But of course the final test is our own results according to our own eyes.)

As to whether you need to stop down for best sharpness, it's seldom a bad idea, but then again with some lenses it's not particularly necessary. The best advice is simply to learn your lenses—check the tests, look at your own pictures, figure out what you might need to do and when, and then apply that knowledge as best you can! (Sometimes in the heat of the moment these things aren't that easy to remember. Having fewer lenses and keeping them longer helps your familiarity with them.)

As an aside, a quick visit to Imaging-Resource's test graph for the Panasonic 12–35mm ƒ/2.8II will show you why I like it.

Mike

*"Diffraction" in lenses refers to the way that rays of light spread out as they pass physical obstacles—in the case of a lens, the edges of the aperture blades. As the aperture gets smaller, the relative percentage of these diffused light rays relative to the area of the total light passing through the glass of the lens goes up. It's also why a pinhole image is always soft—the diffused rays comprise such a large percentage of the light rays coming through the hole. Very small apertures will always show the effects of diffraction. Large apertures actually have more diffraction, but the diffused light is such a small percentage of the overall light coming through the lens that it's not significant.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Hank: "Thanks Mike!"

Mike replies: Yer welcome.

David A Edelstein: "It's been a while since I've looked at any of those sharpness tests—mostly I shoot with what I shoot with and I don't care about what tests say. However, looking at the tests for the Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 shows exactly why I love that lens: it's very, very weird wide open, gets 'normally unsharp' stopped down to ƒ/2, and then pretty damn sharp at ƒ/2.8 and smaller. Each of those give me specific visual styles I can use for different ideas."

Mike replies: A man after my own heart. Exactly so, and just what I'm talking about—if you know your lenses you can make use of everything they offer, not just their optimal sharpness. It can both help you avoid mistakes and also use their weaknesses to pictorial advantage. A great many art photographers liked less-than-optimal lenses for specific visual properties.

SteveW: "The Nikkor 58mm ƒ/1.4G does not score well with the test chart scores online, and is a controversial lens in that regard: not sharp enough to justify the expense is the primary argument. However, the 58mm is pretty much the reason I stick with Nikon and not try a smaller sensor system.

"The 58mm has interesting characteristics. From ƒ/1.4–4 it is one kind of lens, especially in the ƒ/1.4–ƒ/2.8 range. From ƒ/5.6 and smaller it behaves more like a normal 50mm. To be sure, the 58mm has a wild blur chart on the Imaging-Resource test page: it's my most challenging and fun lens to use, and it won't win any sharpness awards to be sure. That said, I'd probably have switched to Fuji or Micro 4/3 if not for this lens.

"I imagine a lot of folks who read Mike's blog will have similar stories of lenses they are fond of for reasons other than sharpness. In this sense I like Mike's idea of the 'nested' two lens kit. A standard zoom that is nice and sharp and 'normal,' and then a favored prime within the range that does unique things, even if only a really wide aperture or a micro or tilt-shift or whatever strikes one's fancy."

A Very Special Issue of 'LensWork'

LensWork 138 arrived in the mail the other day. The cover says it all: the 25th anniversary issue, with 88 images from the publication's first 25 years.

I enjoy collections, and this one's special. So many reminders of great portfolios past. Don Kirby is here, and Huntington Witherill, Cosmin Bumbut (I own an original of Cosmin's, framed and hanging in my house), Clyde Butcher, Fay Godwin, Shelby Lee Adams, Bradford Washburn, John Sexton, Phil Borges, Wayne Levin, Merg Ross, Lois Greenfield, Ryuijie, Michael Kenna, Jay Dusard, Cheryl Medow, Bill Jay, and so many more. (And so many more than that couldn't be included.)

"Our little corner of photography uses the medium as a means of artmaking," Maureen and Brooks write in the introduction, "—of personal exploration and personal expression." Always with respect toward craft, too, one might add. You can purchase the print edition or the extended digital version here.

Twenty-five years of independent publishing! It's an amazing, amazing achievement. Admiring and sincere congratulations to Maureen Gallagher and Brooks Jensen, and all the artists they've featured and supported over their first quarter of a century.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Eric Brody: "Congratulations to Brooks and Maureen. Lenswork is a wonderful publication. It's unique in its focus (pun intended) on photography, not on cameras or lenses (despite the title) as well as its ad free content. I listen to Brooks' podcasts regularly and marvel at his ability to keep going and keep being creative in his approach.

"I knew him when he lived in Portland and were part of a group of photographers who shared work regularly. My first 'workshop' was with him, Stu Levy, Stewart Harvey, Barry Peril (now sadly deceased) and others at the Oregon Coast in the early '80s. It was the start of my own journey in photography."

Which Full Frame Mirrorless (FFM)? (Short Takes)

Three short takes:

1. Three Sensor Sizes, Same Weight: Despite my fondness for the 20-MP Micro 4/3 sensor, I still think 16 MP is enough for me.

Do you do that? I've always constructed "targets" where various aspects of cameras are concerned, based on what I know of my preferences from experience.

I don't know if that's smart or valuable, and I could understand if it doesn't enter into other peoples' thinking. I guess it's just sort of a mental habit with me. (I'm an "idealizer.")

For instance, I really feel I don't need a sensor bigger than APS-C. I've investigated. I've seen the differences. I can readily see how those differences might be a big concern, even an overriding concern, for others. (See below.) For me, not so much.

Again, I'm just talking about my own subjective choices, not choices that are somehow objectively good for everyone. (It's easy to be misunderstood when status issues are lurking.)

A decent ISO 3200...that's plenty. On and on like that.

Of course, some things you feel more strongly about. I got imprinted on IBIS by the original Konica-Minolta 7D, even though I've never had a camera since then with IBIS that was quite as good. And I'm annoyed—actively irritated, on an ongoing basis—by heavy cameras. Don't like 'em. So I probably pay more attention to weight than most people.

Fuji X-T3 with 23mm ƒ/2, Sony A7III with 35mm ƒ/1.4, Fuji X-H1 with 23mm ƒ/1.4, Canon EOS R with 35mm ƒ/1.8, and Nikon Z6 with 35mm ƒ/1.8. Ain't CameraSize fun?

A long time ago, in days of yore when smartphones were science fiction and we used grownups as politicians, I settled on 18 ounces (510 grams) as a sensible target weight for a camera body. These days, with so many small and even tiny cameras out there, it remains a reasonable target in my opinion. Of course, if I wanted to use a bigger camera for some other reason I would. But sure enough, my GX8 comes in at 487g/17.18 oz. and my X-T1 at 440g/15.52 oz. (The MHG-XT grip I use adds 3.2 ounces for a total of 18.82 oz.)

The Sony A7III felt too dense for me. (Could be I'm oversensitive, but I had neck pain for years as the result of running around with cameras hanging off me.)

How are these for stats, though (all with batteries—numbers from DPReview):

Nikon Z6: 675g/23.81 oz.
Fuji X-H1: 673g/23.74 oz.

And just for fun:

Panasonic G9: 658g/23.21 oz.

That's not a lot of difference between three different major formats, is it? Wow. Of course the lenses would tend to have greater size differences, as the illustration shows.

2. Micro 4/3 Just as Good as FF? Not Quite: A number of people have been passing along a video to me recently. I linked to it the other day. In the video, Marc Newton compares big prints from a FF and Micro 4/3 cameras and his expert printer can't tell the difference. While it seems like a good test as far as it goes, I'd just gently remind people about my old point about the middle vs. the extreme(s) of the various optimization curves. For example, lenses usually perform better at middle apertures, doing less well at the extremes...and so forth.

Years ago, I wrote a column in an English photo magazine comparing the output from an 8-MP digicam and an 8-MP DSLR. As long as you were in the middle of the optimization bell curve for most parameters, there was really not much difference between the two. But as soon as you "stressed" the equipment with adverse conditions, the differences began to be highlighted. To really tell the whole story between big prints from his two cameras, I think Marc would need to do things like shoot in very low light requiring high ISOs, shoot high-contrast subjects requiring high DR, and shoot pictures where subtle color differences were important. I'm pretty sure that adverse conditions would tease out the differences in the sensor sizes. But then, I haven't done the tests either.

It's nice to know, though, that for shots made in good light and good conditions, medium-large Micro 4/3 prints are as good as FF prints.

3. Roger Weighs In On the FFM Wars (and Mike's Pick): A lot of people are fans of various people like, well, me—people who write about or create videos about photography or cameras. Meanwhile, while knowing that I have my own fans, I myself am a fan of some of the same people. Like Thom. And Ctein, who is now a science fiction author. One of the ones I like best is Roger Cicala at Lensrentals. Roger's my favorite lens geek. I love it that his business allows him to gather statistical data, and that he can not only test lenses but strip them down.

The other day, Roger weighed in on the new FFM cameras, in "Roger's Rants."

Meanwhile, people have been asking me which way I'd go, if I were going to with with full-frame mirrorless. And as I was reading Roger's column, my brain clicked in.

Obviously, Sony is the only practical choice for now. Much more mature system with a far broader lens choice. And the Canon, oddly enough, seems the most alluring—I like the control configurations and would love to try that camera out. I'd described the EOS R as "Apple-y" in some of its design aspects. It seems...elegant.

 

Zee Zed Six

But thinking of the long haul, I'd go with Nikon if I were in that category. I'd do as Roger says and wait till the second generation, and I'd be relying on Nikon's promise to make "Other lenses" [sic] in the future that were lighter and smaller but still good enuff. Lastly, I'd choose the Z6 level because of what I was talking about at the top of this post. Why? Nikon is the only one with a large throat diameter and IBIS and a flip-up screen like I prefer. And I like what Roger said about what the first lenses point to about the differences in the companies' approaches to the lens lines.

P.S. You can't always get what you want—didn't that used to be a song? Of course, the camera I really want is the "GX8 Mark II," with tech advancements from the G9, like the bugs worked out of the IBIS and Panasonic's newer shock-free shutter. Or the X-T4 with the X-H1's IBIS, which our resident Fuji-whisperer Stephen says is impossible [UPDATE: but see his comment in the Comments Section. —Ed.]. My crystal ball says neither will ever happen, though, because, well, they're what I want, that's why. That's the way that works. You know what they say: Oh well.

Mike
(Thanks to Jeff Schimberg)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Rodolfo Canet: "Human tastes are always disconcerting and impossible to be explained by reason. I don't like weight, but I like density, as if it was a subconcious indicator of quality. My Sony A7's density is a big plus for me, and when I tried a Fujifilm X-T2 some weeks ago I felt it unsubstantial."

Mike replies: Right, but the point is that we each know our preferences. That's the important part, not what the preferences are.

Huw Morgan: "Thanks for your point on stressing cameras at the margins. As a music performance photographer, I'm frequently shooting in dimly lit situations, relying on high ISO settings to allow me to get enough depth of field and to choose a fast enough shutter speed to avoid motion blur. Full frame cameras (Sony in my case) just seem to have the low light performance needed for this type of work.I tried APS-C, but the noise levels were just too high. However, at the rate sensor technology is advancing, I'm sure that it's only a matter of a few years before smaller sensors are good enough. Sony is reputed to be just about to launch a mini A9, so maybe we are getting close. I'll gladly ditch the weight and expense of full frame as soon as I can."

David Brown: "You can’t always want what you get."

Robert Harshman: "Much ado about tools. Choose the ones that work for you. They are all good in the right hands and brain."

Steve: "I’m afraid this much variety and new tech will simple freeze me in place for a while."

Rob: "Three guiding principles: a.) buy only what I really, really need; b.) use it to the best of my ability; c.) have no truck with envy, because, after a point, photographic results very seldom come down to equipment."

s.wolters (partial comment): "What always surprises me that there are few reviewers that pay attention to colors. For me they are much more significant than for example resolution. Of course you can set a camera the way you prefer and you can endlessly change things in post processing. But the differences between the standard settings can be enormous."

Mike replies: Agreed. The wonderful color accuracy was one of the great things about the old Konica-Minolta 7D. But few seemed to care. Or notice....

Terence Morrissey: "Why not have several cameras? One compact Micro 4/3 or APS-C and one full frame high-MP camera. Different tools for different jobs."

Mike replies: The key is in your use of the word "jobs." Most pros do have multiple systems, and they can use what suits because they know what the job is going in. It can be a great strategy for amateurs too, but there are a few possible downsides. One is that it's expensive to invest in more than one system. Because I switch systems to write about different things, for instance, I've never had a full complement of lenses in any one system. Even now. Second, it might hinder your ability to get "the feel of the wheel" with cameras that have different control configurations—the ability to let muscle memory take over so you can forget about operating the camera when you're out shooting. Third, it increases the chances that you'll have the wrong camera with you at any given time (because if you just go out to shoot you what you find, don't necessarily know what the job is. There are other disadvantages, but those are three.

Of course it all depends on the individual. Maybe some people have the ability to recall the ins and outs of three different menu systems, for example. I can hardly remember one!

The Fate of the Rose of Sharon

You recall the Rose of Sharon bush outside my kitchen window, from the post "Rose of Sharon Before and After" two days ago...last pictured on July 30th. Here's what it looks like now:

Eeek!

Poor plant! Wha' happen?

These nice ladies (and their compatriot, not pictured) gave the whole place a haircut yesterday—weeded all the gardens, moved plants around hither and yon, and (pardon the expression) spruced up the entire yard. The woman who's standing is Michelle, gardener extraordinaire. You can't hire her in the Springtime; she's too much in demand. They did more work in five hours than I could do in a week.

This Rose of Sharon was a big healthy beauty, but I have several Rose of Sharons (or would that be Roses of Sharon?!) on the property, and the magnificent tree right in back of it is the only magnolia tree hereabouts. The big R.o.S. bush right in front of it was blocking its sunlight, and it didn't bloom very strongly last Spring. So this R.o.S. had to get a severe pruning in order to let the magnolia have more sunlight in the coming year. Don't worry about it, though. R.o.S.'s bounce right back, usually stronger and fuller as a result of pruning. 

But notice...you can see it in the top picture too...

Still one bloom, just like in the first picture the other day, from July 18th.

These are Fuji pictures, by the way—from the X-T1. The 35mm ƒ/2 Fujicron (sweet, sweet lens) in the middle picture, the 14mm ƒ/2.8 (my favorite-ever ultrawide) in the other two.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Yoram Nevo: "It would be 'Roses of Sharon.' Sharon is a region of Israel. Originating from an Akkadian word meaning 'forest' since historically this region was densely forested. The expression Rose of Sharon, in Hebrew havatzelet ha'sharon, is from the Bible Song of Songs book, chapter 2. Greetings from Israel, from your regular—Yoram."

Mike replies: Toda Yoram!

That Addictive Little Sensor

Detail. It just has a "painterly" look somehow.

A while back (April 2017) I wrote of my budding infatuation for the Sony IMX 269. The huh?

That's the 20.4 MP Micro 4/3 sensor so far found in only in five six cameras: the discontinued Panasonic GX8 (in which it debuted), as well as the Panasonic G9 and GX9, and the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and Pen-F.

(Let me know if I'm overlooked any.) [UPDATE: Forgot the GH5! —Ed.]

Entire frame. Note that the blogging platform we use softens images somewhat.

I don't know what it is about this sensor, but it's addictive. Does it somehow mimic film (if it can be said to, it would have to be some sort of "super" film), and I subliminally recognize and respond to that? I don't think so, but I don't know. I do like the "grain" of the way it renders at higher ISOs.

Apropos of the "Best Comment Ever" post, I once heard something that has stuck in my mind: that the craft we put in to our pictures mostly serves to make craft invisible to people who look at our pictures—and that the geeky gear enthusiasms we gush about and fight over, on the other hand, are something photographers indulge in for their own pleasure. (Such things "nourish our enthusiasm," was the way Ansel Adams rather gingerly put it.)

If you like full frame, for example, I wouldn't argue with that for a millisecond. I get it. I've owned FF cameras and I recently caught up with the state of the art compliments of B&H Photo, which sent me a Sony A7III (currently back-ordered) to try out. Lovely camera, beautiful files. Honestly, if that's what "sends" you, I have zero objections. Not veiled, not backhanded. No argument from me whatsoever.

GX8s with Pana/Leica 45mm Macro (left)
and 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 zoom (right)

But I love the way the 20-MP Micro 4/3 sensor renders. My current GX8 might be the only digital camera that's ever given me that "indulging myself in geekery" feeling...that sense that I'm photographing things to enjoy how pretty the camera is going to make them look. It has a look of edge sharpness, a distinctive crispness.

Scrumptious. Lovely. I really like the "look."

D'ye ken?
Do you shoot with one of the five six cameras? If you do, let me know if you know what I'm going on about. I'd be interested to know if I'm not crazy. (Actually I'd also be interested to know if I am crazy.)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Paul Richardson: "I have the Pen-F, and no, you’re not crazy. Or we both are, as I know exactly what you mean. I’ve gone back to certain images I’ve taken with the Pen-F, and I’m baffled by the look of them—in a good way. Painterly is an apt word to describe it, but it’s something more, which I can’t quite put my finger on. And that’s with the 'cheap' 14–42mm lens."

Tom Hassler: "Well Mike, I can't speak to the state of your sanity, but I will second your opinion of this sensor. It does have a lovely, long-scale look that really benefits the format. I'm currently shooting an Olympus E-M1 Mark II and it rarely disappoints. Sony is on a tear lately with state-of-the-art sensors in several formats...."

Cecelia: "Based on my experiences with multiple Micro 4/3 cameras and my current OM-D E-M1, I completely agree with you. It is much better than the 16-MP and 12-MP Micro 4/3 sensors I have used. Lower noise at low ISO and more pleasing noise at higher ISO. The dynamic range and colors are generous. I also like the Nikon 24-MP full frame sensors—they are even nicer, but come with the good and bad of full frame."

Omer: "Yep, I see that in the pics from my GX9, though I thought it was a Panasonic thing."

Matt: "I shoot with two of those cameras. The E-M1 Mark II, which I bought the day it came out, and the GX8, which I just bought used last month. While I'm a sucker for larger formats (which I have indulged to the extreme with an old 8x10 view camera), there is definitely something to be said for the 20MP Micro 4/3 sensor. I find that I'm really enjoying using it at ISOs that really are 'too high for it' (6400 and even 12800). For the right subject the desaturated colours and visible noise/grain of 6400/12800 add something to the image. This is in stark contrast to every other digital camera I've had where strong noise was something I could never come to terms with in my images."

John Camp: "I have two GX8's, and if it weren't for GAS, I could happily shoot with them forever. In lots of ways, they're perfect cameras—they're small but not too small, as are the lenses; the sensors are large enough to capture all the quality I need; they have IBIS; and I do like the files. I shoot with a D800E as well, and it's hard to explain the difference in 'look,' but it's there. I think of the GX8 files as looking 'dusty,' but that sounds bad, and it's not bad. It's more that the pixels seem to contain more than one color, though that can't be true. Another thing. I know that you (Mike) are a wide shooter, but the Olympus 75mm ƒ/1.8 is something else. I've not seen the new Z lenses, obviously, but I really think I've never had a lens as good as the 75mm. And I've had a bunch of Summiluxes."

Dennis Mook: "As a Fujifilm X-T2 and Olympus E-M1 Mark II user and really loving the Fujifilm colors, I created a series of presets in Lightroom mimicking the Fujifilm film simulations so I could apply them to the Olympus raw files. As good as they look in the X-T2 images, they seem to look better applied to the Olympus files. They seem to have a different, even more film-like quality."

Rose of Sharon Before and After

The Rose of Sharon bush outside my kitchen window on July
18th. Hard to see at this size, but note single flower.

I don't think I hallucinated this—is there a large photo-centric or photo-heavy social media site that has banned "before and after" pictures? I think it's Instagram. Maybe Facebook? I think to prevent before-and-after weight-loss come-ons. But that might be wrong. Sorry...I can't remember. (Told you my brain is shrinking.)

Same bush 12 days later, July 30th

Anyway, I like before-and-after pictures. One of my favorites was taken in the '90s with a then-antique Spotmatic—two B&W pictures of a pan of cookies before and after baking. Simple pictures. But...tasty.  :-)

As with many photographic ideas, once you start thinking about it and looking for them, more and more possibilities pop up.

As far as weight-loss before-and-afters are concerned, all I can say is that I am all prepared with the "befores"!

And while we are on the subject of things that grow, may I just say how sorry I am that blueberry season is over* and that green bean season soon will be. We've had a wet Summer and it's been a banner year for green beans. I think I've eaten fresh-picked green beans close to every day for the past month and a half. But broccoli season just got going and will be going strong until the first hard frost, so that's consolation! I'm trying to get the Mennonite farmer up the road to let me go out into his broccoli field (two acres) and cut my own. I suspect he thinks I've got a bit of a screw loose, but broccoli oxidizes fast. It's better for you if it's eaten right after it's picked**.

Enjoy your Sunday. I'm off to work on my book about photography, which is going splendidly if I do say so myself. I'm writing it all off the top of my head and just telling stories. Which, it turns out, I have a lot of. And it even includes quite a bit of sensible practical advice, even. Lots of fun to write. I'll enjoy it even if no one else does. Because when you get right down to it, photography should be fun, right?

Mike

*But don't cry for me. A farmer near me fresh-freezes them and sells them out of his freezer all Winter.

**Source: Eating on the Wild Side by Jo Robinson, a must-have for anyone who eats fruits and veggies. Recommended to me by a TOP reader, and thanks again for that. It's in the form of an encyclopedia, with entries for every major edible fruit and vegetable, telling you about their history, the various cultivars, how to shop for them and how to cook them for maximal health benefit. Big surprise—there's no rule that covers everything, like "always eat raw" or "always eat fresh" or "always eat organic" or any of the other popular ideologies. Everything's different and you have to take each one individually and case by case.

P.S. Someday soon I will do a post about the organic heirloom apple orchard near me. Tomorrow I plan to get some fresh-squeezed 100% pure Concord grape juice from the vineyard across the main road. Life is good in the Finger Lakes.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK

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

Gordon Lewis: "Please do write a post about the organic heirloom apple orchard. I remember when you and I visited that orchard for the first time and hearing all about the owner's background (not what one might expect) while trying to decide among all of the exotic varieties he had. I can't remember which one we decided on, but I know for sure it was amazingly crisp, delicious, and bargain priced."

Blog Note: The Commentariat Rocks

Lots of people had things to say about the post yesterday—and just like that, I'm 180 comments behind in the moderating tasks. I was all caught up halfway through yesterday.

I'm guessing probably the worst problem with TOP these days is the lengthening amount of time it takes for comments to appear, the gap between the appearance of a post and the appearance of the comments about it. It allows the energy around a topic to dissipate. The longer it takes, the greater the number of readers who miss the comment.

I apologize for this. Back in the day, when the digital boom was going on (camera sales peaked in 2012), I used to work on comments morning, noon, and night—sometimes in the middle of the night—sometimes putting in six hours a day just on comments, seven days a week. Which left only four to eight hours a day for all the other tasks.

But I'm getting older, and I just don't work as much as I used to. And I'm slower, too. Did you know your brain physically shrinks as you age? No fooling. Look at what happens to bodies as they age—something similar is happening inside your head. An alarming thought! Of course, the fat, pink, glistening brains of young people in the primes of their lives are mostly empty, even though they're healthier and quicker. The average 60-year-old knows four times as much as an average 20-year-old of the same basic intelligence level. I'll take the tradeoff, meself.

My doctor, c. 2012: How long do you sit at the computer at one stretch? Without getting up?

Me: It depends how long I or the dog can go with out needing to go to the bathroom. Six hours maybe?

Doctor: You just can't do that. You just absolutely can't. You have to get up and get some exercise. It's just not good for you to sit hunched over in the same position for that amount of time. You need to get up every half an hour at least. What do you do when you get up from your desk, besides going to the bathroom?

Me: I'll wander into the kitchen and get a snack.

Doctor: That's not what I want you doing for a break. What can you do that would get you moving your body around? Something not having to do with cheese sticks.

Me: How about a pool table?

Doctor: That is not what I had in mind!

Me: No, seriously, think about it. Every half hour I'd get up, walk downstairs to the basement, throw the balls out on the table, and knock 'em down. You're moving around the table, bending over and getting back up again, stretching, moving around, getting into different body positions. Do that for five minutes and then back up the stairs again.

Doctor (laughing): Well, now that I picture it, that's not a bad idea at all. Okay, I prescribe five minutes of pool in the basement every half hour! As long as there's no stopping in the kitchen on the way there and back.

Me: Would you write me a prescription for a pool table?

Doctor (laughing again): Sure. (Grabs his prescription pad, begins writing. Then pauses.) No, I shouldn't do this. I know it's just a joke, but it could be used for insurance fraud. (Rips up the half-written prescription.) But I want you to get up and walk downstairs and clear off a table of balls every half hour. Doctor's orders. 

Me: Yessir.

Too bad. All I would have done with the prescription would have been to frame it and hang it by the pool table!

My long lost pool table, back in Wisconsin. Can't be replicated here.

The doctor was right. Not only did I feel much better getting up from the desk every half hour, but I found that my brain still worked on work when I was in the basement shooting pool. I'd walk downstairs thinking over some issue or problem and walk back up again knowing what I wanted to say. In fact sometimes when I was wondering how to handle something, I'd go hit some balls and think about it, and the answer would come to me. Worked every time. If I had no ideas for a post, two hours at the pool table and I'd have a post worked out in my brain, beginning, middle, and end.

You know what else happened? I had chronic neck pain for twenty years. After three weeks of playing pool it was gone. Something about the shooting pose of leaning down and looking up stretched whatever needed to be stretched.

Now I'm back to sitting hunched over at the computer for hours on end. At least I've learned to set an alarm on the phone when I'm working on the computer and have an appointment coming up. Otherwise I work right through it.

I miss my pool table. You scoff, but I needed it! Right now, it's 11:15 and I've been sitting here since 9:00, so I gotta get up and go do...well, something.

Anyway, I'll start to work on the backlog soon. There are some great comments. (The TOP Commentariat rocks.) Please come back as the weekend wears on and check 'em out. 

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Fuji X-T3 Available for Preorder

At the risk of creating an excessive amount of cognitive dissonance with the previous post  :-) , the Fujifilm X-T3 is now available for preorder from B&H Photo and Amazon. Here it is at Amazon UK.

Sales through affiliate links benefit this site, as the FTC requires we remind you.

Just keeping the bills paid,

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Best Comment Ever

All in, I believe we're approaching 270,000 comments on two different sites since I became a blogger in 2005. This might be the #1 best one ever. It's a bit dense, but be patient with yourself. Relax and read it over a few times.

"The problem is that photography has always been a technical pursuit and the mediating technology required to make a photograph has always threatened to overwhelm it. To quote Donald Kuspit, 'Technology is the last valiant attempt to discredit and devalue the unconscious.... The unconscious is the bête noire in a scientifically and technologically managed world, which is why it must be killed or at least ostracized.' The endless upgrade cycle, the more and more laborious and tedious mastery of imaging software, the solid belief in technical improvement and control as a means to achieve success, all of this leads one further and further away from any possibility of making original or authentic work. This is the bind of the technology treadmill. What it gives, it also takes away. So in digital photography we have an inherent pitfall in the photographic process married to the culturally dominant fixation with technology and control which are themselves obstacles to the unconscious, the very source of creativity itself."

Written by David Comdico (with, of course, a little help from Donald Kuspit).

I couldn't have said this. But I've certainly sensed it. As we get further into the age of digital imaging, there seems something a little more serious going on than mere fanboyism and gearheadism. It used to be that tech and gear geekery was a sort of lighthearted sideline to the main project of photography—something to be indulged in, or "the work behind the work"—but everyone understood that you got it settled and then got past it, and, when faced with photographs of emotion and power, you backed down on questions of mere technical fussiness. No more. Culturally, we do seem to be involved in a project—the project of asserting that there's actually some sort of pot of gold at the end of the "technical image quality" rainbow.

What's the point of more detail in photographs when we already have too much detail? A photograph today highlights detail, forefronts it, spotlights it—detail at an almost microscopic level dominates so many pictures. I call the look "CAF"—clinical analytical forensic. It's when you see the crusty mascara on a model's eyelashes instead of a girl with thick eyelashes. I'm sure it's why people have become so passionate about big sensors, fast lenses and maximal bokeh—that's the only relief permissible from the relentless CAF.

In 2008 I had a minor epiphany and came to what I called my "theory of überkameras"—we had reached the point where the Sony A900 saw more detail in the distance than my eyes can see, and the Nikon D3 saw in the dark better than my eyes can.

I wondered at the time if I really need a camera that sees better than I do. That's my definition of an überkamera—one that sees better than your ratty inferior biological self.

The disappearance of the unconscious is a thornier thicket, but I know what Donald Kuspit means. Page through Charles Harbutt's Travelog from 1974—one of the subversive underground masterpieces in the history of American photography—and then trawl around on any Internet picture site for as long as you like. It's not just that the pictures are different. It's that the project is: glimmer of the subconscious vs. the detritus of "the scientifically and technologically managed world." Culturally, are we lost in what should have been a mere digression? We sense something is missing, but to supply the shortcoming, we just double down, determinedly, on the project. Fixate, as David put it. The bind of the technology treadmill indeed.

Mike
(Thanks to David)

P.S. As I was thinking about David's comment, I happened to hear a comedian on the radio. Health club owner: "Hey, you'll love this. It's called a Stairmaster. You know how you hate having to walk up too many stairs? Well, I've got one that's different. Mine never ends. It just keeps going and going. I've got a bike that goes nowhere too! You can ride and ride and never move. It's great. Instead of just doing real things for free, you can come pay me to pretend to do them."

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon

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

Mark Sampson: "I studied with Charles Harbutt for a week when I was 20 years old. Some of the lessons from that time have stuck with me for the 42 years of photography since.... I bought, enjoyed, and still have his book. I never knew that it was a 'subversive underground masterpiece' until now, though you may very well be right about that."

Yiorgos: "Yes, an excellent and much needed comment. I'd like to add a couple of other observations. Consumerism, not just technology, seems to be part of the force that has taken us down this cultural wrong turn. The artists I know disdain gear, which always makes me feel judged for finding it alluring (and not having the balls to call myself an artist). A new (to me) camera seems to reinvigorate my photography every couple of years."

Jeff: "I’ll repeat my comment to another recent post: the most important tools remain between the ears. That part hasn’t changed."

Andrew Molitor: "Regarding your postscript. When I lived in San Francisco, on Ninth Avenue there was a gym something like 100 yards from the entrance to Golden Gate Park. You could see people in the storefront on stationary bikes sweating away indoors, less than a stone's throw away from one of the most agreeable outdoor locations on the entire planet to take some exercise."

Rob de Loe: "Excellent comment and nice follow-up thoughts in the post. This all resonates very strongly. Some areas of human endeavour seem to attract people who are all about the technology and have no space for, or capacity for, emotion and the unconscious. Photography is definitely one of those areas. I think it goes beyond just different tastes. Extreme sharpness and detail are the end goal in many peoples’ photography, so upgrading to the newest lenses and sensors is essential for them. The result is often your 'clinical analytical forensic' pictures: incredibly sharp, but incredibly dull.

"For some people, the answer is to reverse course technologically: old lenses, old processes, Lomography, etc. Personally I don’t think that’s the answer. A crappy plastic lens can’t turn your dull photo into a thoughtful, engaging photo.

"I personally think the only way out is to focus completely on expressing ideas, emotions, and story in your pictures. We don’t all have to make photo essays, but if we’re deliberately and mindfully trying to say something in our pictures, for me that’s the only track that goes anywhere. Ironically, with those goals in the forefront, maybe you do need extreme detail to carry your ideas, or maybe you need 19th century photographic technologies. The key is that the technology is now serving the idea rather than being the end goal."

alan: "Tech takes us further away from original and authentic work? I couldn't disagree more. All extra technology does is give us more choices to take pictures and different pictures in more situations some of which would have been impossible before. How can that possibly lead to less originality or authenticity? It doesn't; it gives us more scope to be original if we have the vision and the imagination to use the tech to our advantage. Blaming photo tech is as daft as saying that after the invention of word processors no one would be able to write a good novel or that after we started making paper and paint in factories no one could possibly paint a picture worth looking at again. I can't agree. I think tech gives us the chance to do more and to do things we couldn't do before, at all. That's all. I disagree with the idea that tech removes creativity or originality. I think it enables more of it."

Dennis: "The bind is a terrible thing. I've attended PhotoPlus Expo many times over the last 10+ years. It's common to see prints on display in the 40x60" range from 24-MP FF cameras, a handful of much bigger prints from the higher-res models, big prints from Olympus and Fuji, even prints around 20x30" (if I remember correctly) from Fuji's little 2/3" point-and-shoots. Lately, I've been shooting less and less with my Sony E system and more and more with my RX10 III. I dislike the E-system for a variety of reasons and will probably sell it. I'm sorely tempted to make the RX10 my primary camera for the foreseeable future, at least until I have a real need for something else. And at the same time, I find myself inexplicably thinking maybe it's time to finally move to full frame...."

Charles Rozier: "I think you are very much on target. One little note—perhaps one element of 'CAF' is color itself, not just super resolution. For example, street photography now seems to be a different animal when in color, containing more 'data' but less psychological power, even when displayed at the same resolution."

hugh crawford: "Reminds me of how pop music became obsessed with perfection and clarity just before punk rock. Also umpteen art movements where as soon as a generation of artists figure one thing out everybody abandoned that goes onto the next thing to figure out. The real question is where to go now that photography looks more real than ever at the same time that the technology exists to make more convincing fakes than ever before."

Guiie: "Amazing Friday blogpost. Though I agree with the comment and your opinion I disagree with the general technology approach. Through the ages there has always been people mastering techniques and crafts, technology. But our time has been transformed by one 'simple' technology and its effect: Internet. The amount of information one can reach today is insurmountable and that exposure is what allows the 'technology treadmill' to exist.

"I'm from a little town in Patagonia and if it wasn't for the Internet I wouldn't have learned anything about digital photography. I like to think that my first year doing photography included the digital technology treadmill and later the argument 'the best camera is the one you have with you' and my lack of budget pushed me to not bother with the treadmill and try to exercise my vision...."

John Krumm: "To me half or more than half of the fun in art is when we experience it communally. That includes both art I create and art I enjoy. Those opportunities are indeed disappearing. Facebook and the rest of the internet is not a strong communal experience, despite us all being so 'connected.' Our 'unconscious' needs the room of real life to breath, and the experience of real community to grow. I never quite bought the 'I make my art for myself' line. Sounds like BS. I make art to share. On whether or not technology moves us farther away from making art because of the 'unconscious'-stifling nature of technology, I don't know. There are many other factors at play, like our economy's way of turning everything into a commodity, for instance."

Christopher May: "I think there's a very large part of photography involves cameras that see better than we do. Much of it has some scientific or otherwise prosaic purpose (infrared photography, for instance) but so many of these tools and techniques have later gone on to have artistic careers, too (Richard Mosse's work in Africa with the aforementioned infrared, for example).

"At it's very heart, all still photography is about seeing better than we can. When we perceive the world in our biologically limited way, we're forced to interpret significant moments at the speed in which they happen. No matter how perceptual we are, there are going to be some bits of missing information thanks to our human condition. On the other hand, as photographers, we can take a single moment and preserve it for as long as we wish to contemplate and free ourselves from the constraints of life in real time.

"The still photograph has been with us for around two centuries now. In that time, we've been able to utilize it to see the world around us in new ways. Muybridge proved that a horse could hover, if only for a moment that our limited faculties couldn't perceive. Macro photography has shown over and over again that the very small can still be very exciting. Fast apertures can make most of the world go away so that we're forced to contemplate the subject of a photo. And on and on.

"Ctein's TOP article on 'Stochastic Photography' is a great example of utilizing the camera's ability to see better than we can for artistic purposes. Photographers always seem to go ga-ga over cotton candy water (another form of the camera seeing in ways we can't) but that article made me realize how incredibly beautiful moving water can be when photographed at the other extreme of superhuman camera abilities.

"So I'll take whatever additional abilities the camera makers want to make available to me. The better the cameras can see, the more I'll be allowed to see. That fascinates me."

The Story With the New Fuji X-T3

The big news is right at the heart of the new Fujifilm X-T3

All-new sensor, all-new processor: That's the basic takeaway for the new Fujifilm X-T3 announced today. Yes, there are other changes, but most of the big ones revolve around the sensor and processor.

Although effectively the same resolution as the X-T2 sensor (26.1 megapixels vs. 24.3, an unnoticeable difference if nothing else changes), it's Fuji's first APS-C sensor to have a back-illuminated structure with phase detection pixels distributed across the surface. Of course the new sensor means the camera has to have a new processing engine. It's a quad-core CPU called "X-Processor 4."

The effects of the new sensor and processor: AF performance (originally a bit of an embarrassment to Fuji when the X-Pro1 was introduced) can be expected to leapfrog into the realm of the cutting edge; AF now takes place over the entire frame with 2.14 million distributed phase-detection pixels. Focus tracking is expected to be vastly better; the camera refocuses and takes AE readings 1.5 times more often; low-light autofocusing ability jumps from –1 EV to –3 (vs. –4.5 for the Canon EOS R—Canon's advertised spec cheats a bit by using an ƒ/1.2 lens for its "–6 EV" claim); 4K/60P 10-bit video output; shutter lag is getting close to instantaneous; and a smoother, more responsive viewfinder.

There are some other minor changes (160 base ISO, a locking diopter knob, and the adoption of Color Chrome Effect from the GFX-50S for example) but it's the sensor and processor and all the functions they affect that are the main story with the update.

Proud
Fuji claims the sensor readout is ten times faster than the original X-Trans sensor, and that the processing engine is twenty times faster than the one in the X-Pro1. It calls the X-T3's AF performance "exceptional" and proudly states that the X-T3 "boasts the highest performance in the history of X Series."

Price is $1,499 for black or silver (which apparently is not the deluxe and expensive "Graphite" finish that was optional on the X-T1 and X-T2). Note that that's $100 cheaper than the old regular price for the X-T2. The camera ships on September 20th, two weeks from now.

Mike

P.S. Meanwhile, the older X-T2 is a still a swell camera and on sale for a bargain price.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Andy F: "This is a worthy upgrade and you didn't mention its class-leading video capabilities. It's a crying shame it doesn't have IBIS."

Mike replies: At least Fuji now has a camera with IBIS. But it appears they're going to ghettoize it into that one model. I was hoping for trickle-down into the right-sized-for-me X-T[1-2-3] series. You know what they say: Oh well.

Craig: "Wow. Impressive. I had been thinking I was perfectly happy with my X-E2s, but I may have to consider this...."

Dennis Mook: "This new X-T3 may be more of a bargain than just US$100 less expensive than the original price of the X-T2. In order to benefit from faster AF, higher frame rates and a few other things, one had to buy the X-T2’s Power Booster grip for an additional $300. Now those features are standard in the X-T3, effectively a $400 savings."

Kenneth Tanaka: "The X-T3 looks to be every bit the the sort of thoughtful incremental model improvement that Fuji owners have come to expect. It looks to me like nearly all of the camera's technical improvements are aimed toward the movie-makers. It's mostly the same still camera as the X-T2. While I've enjoyed my (admittedly very under-used) X-T2, I recently downgraded to try an X-T20...and I love it. Same image quality and imaging features as the X-T2 in a smaller camera body with a very handy tiltable touch-screen at a nice price!"

Forever-Old APS-C

Ah, the furor.

From all appearances, you'd think the full-frame (FF, 24x36mm) sensor size is the banner of the future.

Ah, the hubbub.

Personally I think that's "wishful marketing"—more like what the cameramakers hope will happen.

Actually, I think it's likely that the standard for "really good" performance will get smaller and smaller. As it has been doing.

I know I'm getting to be a cranky cantankerous contrarian, but...I still like forever-old APS-C as the sweet spot. Unless you need three-foot wide prints. Is this anti-social? Am I being a wet blanket? Am I hanging back at the fringes of the party instead of joining in? Well then, sue me.

No, don't sue me. You know what I mean.

Mike

ADDENDUM: The above is stated within the context of my overarching guiding principle, which is that everyone's photography belongs to them and, as long as it's not hurting anybody, they should do whatever they please. I have nothing against anyone shooting any camera they like! So don't think I have any axe to grind except my own. If it helps you do the work that pleases you, whatever floats your boat is A-OK with me....

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Dennis: "Unfortunately, the same camera makers hoping that FF is the future have a lot to say about it. If Canon, Nikon and Sony sell 80 or 90% of all ILCs and all three of them choose to neglect APS-C and put most of their efforts into FF, consumers see where the buzz is and start to worry about long-term support for APS-C. Nikon DSLR users long ago gave up on ever seeing wide primes or an updated ƒ/2.8 midrange zoom with VR (though the 16–80mm ƒ/2.8–4 probably took a lot of people by surprise). Sony's APS-C lineup remains the same messy hodgepodge of good, bad, pricey and third party that it was when they shifted all their resources to FF. Now Nikon and Canon have new FF mirrorless and Nikon hasn't said a word about APS-C (Canon threw EOS-M users a bone with a new prime). And while you're right in that cameras that can produce 'really good' images get smaller and smaller (cameras that use Sony's 1" sensor are great, other than the lack of easy shallow DOF) the standard itself seems to be getting arbitrarily higher. Meanwhile, people carry bigger and bigger phones and drive bigger and bigger cars, perpetually illustrating that 'good enough' isn't good enough!"

Brian Stewart: "I made the jump from APS-C to FF at a time when the modest improvement in low-light performance made a real difference to what was possible for a lot of my shooting at the time. It also gave more options for wide-angle lenses, but at the cost of losing the crop factor at the long end, and of having to use larger and more expensive FF lenses.

"Nowadays, while FF is still going to give you better low-light performance, what I can achieve with APS-C is more than acceptable. There are good APS-C wide angle lens options, especially from Fuji. I've reverted back to APS-C. I'm not interested in FF because I can't see the attraction. Unlike some, I don't feel the need for maximum pixels and ultimate image quality. They don't mean I capture more compelling images, and I don't believe I can see the difference in my prints. YMMV."

Canon Too!

Canon EOS R with the smaller of the two new zooms

As expected, Canon (which is actually much bigger than Nikon) has released its own first salvo in the upcoming FFM Wars. The elegantly named R System* consists, to begin with, with a mid-level body intended to compete with the Nikon Z6 and Sony A7III, plus four lenses rather confusingly designated "RF."** 

The camera is a nonstarter for me personally, because unlike the Nikons and Sonys it has no IBIS, plus it has a flip-out screen. But there are no doubt more variants to come. And that might not matter to you.

Without doing the metrics, this launch seems much quieter and more cursory to me, with less furor at the major news sites than accompanied the Z System launch. C|net isn't circumspect about it: its headline is "The EOS R is official and it's a big leap for Canon / But the company's long-anticipated full-frame model seems a small step for mirrorless."

However, the R does feature an all-new lensmount, and, as with Nikon, the structure of the mount is going to open up new possibilities for Canon's lens designers. So the most exciting thing about the new system are the rather glorious initial lenses, which include a seemingly rather compact 35mm Macro with IS, a utility 24–105mm slower zoom, and, as I mentioned yesterday, two all-out pride-of-ownership efforts: the RF 50mm ƒ/1.2L and the RF 28–70mm ƒ/2L zoom. Although the latter has a somewhat limited range, it's already beginning to receive glowing praise from early field testers.

Canon has a long and distinguished history with superfast lenses.

All in all there are two takeaways. The first is simply that Canon is the biggest bear in the woods and seems likely to grab gobs of market share like a bear pawing honey, and, that the promise of this new system remains largely in its future. As Canon apparently wants to have emphasized.

The best overview of the new equipment I found—easiest to read, most to-the-point, and best-illustrated—can be found, oddly enough, at B&H Photo. It's called "Canon Launches R Mirrorless System with Spectacular Glass." The article is by Shawn C. Steiner.

The next launch in the FFM category—allegedly, according to rumors hither and yon, for a version of the Panasonic GH5 with a full-frame sensor and possibly even a Leica SL lensmount—should be a good deal more interesting.

Mike

* At one point, Leica would have objected to that, but then, Canon already calls its smaller mirrorless cameras "M." Leica's not using "R" any more anyway.

** I had kinda thought those letters were reserved for "rangefinder," but guess not.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

emptyspaces: "I’m with you, Mike, on a couple of key features here. First, I really dislike flip-out screens. I much prefer the flip-UP screen of my Olympus camera, because I have young children and the combination of waist-level shooting and the near-eye priority face recognition AF let me get shots of them at head level rather than overhead shots. If I had to flip that screen out every time it would drive me nuts. Second, IBIS is wonderful, even the simple three-axis version my camera has. My hands are rock steady, but I still love that IBIS. Those two features have become more important to me than almost anything else when considering a camera system."

Jim Richardson: "Count me among those who were scratching their heads when I read 'No IBIS!' Huh? Isn't that about half the reason you buy a mirrorless camera? What were they thinking?"

Eolake (partial comment): "Though I changed to Canon when the first 5D came out (I can’t believe how long it took for Nikon to even start to compete with that), in this case the Nikon seems much more appealing to me. I’m not so sure why actually."

Josh Hawkins: "For those who remember Canon’s initial digital offering, the D30, this seems like the same idea. Start with mid-upper level and go from there."

[Working photojournalist Josh H. was the manager of an old-line city camera store in his youth. —Ed.]

c.d.embrey: "IBIS falls into the not-invented-here category—it's beyond my comprehension why folks expect Canon to abandon their invented-here [in-lens] IS. In a former life I did a lot of tripod-mounted vertical shots, so I luv flippy-screens!"

David Bateman: "Well it will be interesting to mount those Canon R lenses on the Nikon Z to gain IS. The 4mm difference and slightly larger mount of the Nikon will allow for it."

Kshapero: "Wasn't the whole idea behind mirrorless, that it would be much lighter? So now we are getting lighter bodies with enormous humongous lenses. Waiting to see what Pany brings us."

KeithB: "Ken Rockwell answered the 'I thought mirrorless was supposed to be smaller' question: 'Full frame mirrorless systems will be the same size and weight as DSLR systems have been. The bodies are smaller, but the lenses and flash and everything else is just as big. It's the same thing in television. Professional TV cameras in the 1950s were the size of VW buses and today are the size of a DSLR, but the big 100x zoom lenses we use to televise sports are still as big as your leg. Cameras get smaller, but asking lenses to get sharper and sharper means they will keep getting bigger and bigger.'"

 

Are We Witnessing a Sea Change?

Sea change, noun: A profound or notable transformation.

Canon's FFM (full-frame mirrorless) announcement is due tomorrow, if the rumors prove true. If so it's bound to be a bit anti-climactic, since pictures and specs of the EOS R are already online. The best thing about reaching the official announcement date is that all the big equipment sites are constrained by NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) until the official date of release. Since they've all had working cameras and have been briefed and have run actual tests, they'll know far more about the new equipment than we get from the leaks. Short take for now: it's a 30-MP Z6 competitor, with a new lensmount and four dedicated lenses to start with, including an RF 50mm ƒ/1.2L and an RF 28–70mm ƒ/2L zoom. The camera is unlikely to have IBIS because the RF 35mm ƒ/1.8 is an IS lens.

If Canon's and Nikon's FFM are indeed followed by a similar announcement from Panasonic, and maybe even if they aren't, I've got a question: are we witnessing a sea change here?

I believed more than a decade ago that eventually the SLR would go the way of the dodo, for the simple reason that it costs much more to build a camera with a flipping mirror than without. Frankly I'm surprised that the old 35mm configuration has survived so little changed for so long already. Is this the "tipping point" where the old SLR is going to start to go away? Assuming that the remaining advantages of DSLRs will gradually be eroded as mirrorless gets better.

What's your take?

Tomorrow should be fun.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Stephen Scharf: "My take, the ire of YouTube talking heads aside, is that Canon will take the majority of the FF mirrorless market share. They already have the leading mirrorless market share in Japan. They've been doing this literally for decades."

John Camp: "Yes, I think we are witnessing a sea change. A lot of people think the Z6 and Z7 will be followed quickly (after more lenses are produced) with more 'pro-spec' Z's, and that might be the practical end of DSLRs. There might be a D900 and a D6, but they'd be the been-nice-to-know-ya equivalent of an F6. IMHO."

Gordon Lewis: "My opinion (and it's just that, an opinion) is that Canon and Nikon's entry into FF mirrorless is motivated more by a desire to increase their profit margins in a shrinking overall market than anything else. They see Sony charging $2,000 and more for camera bodies and a 50% premium on every lens and want to get in on the action. Guys like me who don't want to pay that kind of money can sort through whatever else is left at the lower end of the price scale. If I've lived this long without feeling the need to own a BMW, I can live without a Sony, Canon, or Nikon FF mirrorless camera and lens."

The Answer to the Nikon Question

How do you correctly pronounce Nikon? Turns out that Eamon, who used to work for Nikon, knew the answer.

Quoth he:

Aaaargggghhhhh!! This "debate" drives me insane. There is no debate. It's settled. Zero room for disagreement. Nikon Corporation (that's Nikon Japan) officially and consciously blesses all regional pronunciations of their company name.

This is policy, agreed upon decades ago—likely in the 1950s—in some meeting room somewhere in Tokyo. Nee'kon is correct. Neye-kon is correct. Nick-on is correct. Many others are correct.

This was explained to me when I was a Nikon employee by the Executive Vice President of Nikon Inc. himself, in the flesh. I can still picture the conversation, 25 years later. And to anticipate the usual objections: Nikon Corp. is the ONLY, the SOLE, the UNITARY authority on this question. "Nikon" is not a natural word in the Japanese language. The company that is now Nikon (then Nippon Kogaku, K.K.) made it up. It's a brand name—like Kodak or Xerox. A neologism, and maybe even a portmanteau (that's debated). It was likely first conceived in the Latin alphabet, not in Kanji. Nikon Corp. gave birth to this name, and they own it. They get to make the rules about it. And their rule is clear: all regional pronunciations are equally correct. If you doubt this, just listen to their own regional advertising, produced by the company's various subsidiaries around the world. You'll hear several different, completely official, pronunciations. Oy. I feel better now.

Addendum: Of course, it goes without saying that however they pronounce it in Scotland is wrong.

It was news to me, so I learned something today as well. So now we all know, and it's official: all regional pronunciations of "Nikon" are correct! I like it.

And now we need a few Scottish readers to post videos of themselves saying "Nikon."

Mike
(Thanks to E.H.)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Dave Stewart: "Ma Naekon D700 disnae day video, ye ken...."

Ian: "Now all we have to do is figure out how to pronounce 'Eamon'...."

Open Mike: What's That Smell?

"Open Mike" is the often off-topic, anything-goes editorial page of TOP. It appears on Wednesdays, except when it doesn't.

 

I've got a modest little suggestion that just might have the power to change your life. It's just something I've been noticing lately.

But permit me a little digression first. Many years ago I had an English professor at Reed College whose didactic method was to cite the titles of books. He would mention an idea, remember a book that expounded further on it, and leap to the chalkboard in a state of excitement to scribble down the author and title.

I, of course, being impressionable (I am still impressionable), wrote the authors and titles in my notebook, resolving to seek out and read them all.

That project foundered quickly. The gentleman was an endless waterfall of book recommendations. By the end of the first week of class my list had reached twenty titles, and I was already doubting my ability to follow through with all that semi-curricular reading. When my list reached sixty titles, somewhere around the third week, I threw in the towel. 

But I did read a few. One book I did read from his list, and was glad I encountered, was William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity. Empson was an Englishman, born in 1906, perished in 1984, who was allied with John Crowe Ransom's so-called New Criticism. When I went to the Amazon page for it just now and looked over the table of contents, the musty smell of the old volume in the Reed College Library came back to me so powerfully that I almost believed I was experiencing it again.

Bet you can't smell this. But I was startled to find that I could, for few seconds.

Anyway, recently I've become aware of certain types of statements, by me and by others. It's a kind of statement that can have two meanings. Psychological meanings, in this case. I don't know what type of ambiguity that would be, in Empson's terms.

It's when we make a statement about ourselves that seem to reflect fear or anxiety, but might also be mistaken for intention or resolve.

For instance, "I'm never going to find a job."

You might suppose that the speaker is saying "I'm afraid looking for a job will only lead to rejection or failure." / "I'm worried I won't have an income." That's the fear/anxiety meaning. But on the other hand, the exact same statement can be looked at from the intention/prediction angle: "I'll be damned if I'm going to get a job!" / "I don't know about you, but I refuse to work."

Which is it? Sometimes, even when I hear these statements in person and take in the context of the person's expression and surrounding statements, I still can't tell.

Here are just a few more examples, taken from real conversations I've heard recently:

Every boyfriend I find is a jerk.

People always let me down. It never fails.

I'll never be able to afford a new car.

I'm always going to crave cigarettes. 

I can't win!

Do some of these statements somehow contain both meanings at once? Partly fear—partly determination?

If you start listening for them, see if you don't begin to hear statements in this form from others. I've only been listening for them for a few weeks, and it gets easier as I go. Now they pop out at me.

And I have to warn you about something a little less comfortable. When you start listening for them in others, you might occasionally hear one coming from your own mouth! Then you might really want to try to resolve the ambiguity and figure out which meaning is more pertinent. Is it fear/anxiety/pessimism/lament—or intention/resolve/prediction/desire?

For instance, I recently heard myself saying, "I'm going to be alone for the rest of my life." Hmm. So am I saying I fear I'll always be alone—please prove me wrong? Or that I want to be alone and I dang well will be? Which is it? Or is it both at the same time somehow?

See if you can learn to listen for this type of statement from others. And see if you can notice it when you do it yourself.

The power of language
I do wonder about the power of language. When we make statements, are we telling ourselves things? "Things keep getting worse and worse for me," one friend told me not long ago. Well, that's a lament, for sure. But it can also be viewed as a prediction. Does stating the prediction over and over set it in our psyches, and help the prediction come true?

And, if that's so, well, then, can you regain power over it by using language to your advantage?

When I used the "I'm going to be alone for the rest of my life" example above, what sprung to mind was that in 2012 or so, I started telling people something I wasn't quite sure I believed myself: "I'm looking for a wife." I'd only say it where it was appropriate, and I'd say it to random people who I sometimes had only glancing contact with, like a saleswoman at a furniture store. But the strangest thing happened: women started coming out of the woodwork; female friends began introducing me to single friends.

And I noticed that all women were being nicer to me. Even attached women started treating me differently. If you think about it, the phrase "I'm looking for a wife," contains some powerful messages. The clearest ones are: I'm single; I'm not scrounging for casual sex; I'm ready and able to make a commitment. It also implies that you're not trying to hit on someone whose status you don't know. The saleswoman at the furniture store introduced me to her divorced mother.

And two years later, very improbably, I got to have a yearlong relationship with a woman I had always considered to be my long-lost "dream girl." It didn't work out, but that's another story. Just the fact that it happened is more than a little amazing. Did I help it along with that little five-word statement I kept saying to people?

When neighbors, acquaintances, friends and strangers hear "I'm looking for a wife," the takeaway is far, far different from "I'm going to be alone for the rest of my life." But the two statements aren't actually incompatible. They could both come from someone who's in the same place in their life.

Dare to spin it differently
So back to that person who said, "I'm never going to find a job." What if, instead, he started saying "I'm going to find a new job soon"?

You might argue that he doesn't actually know if he's going to find a job soon. But I'd counter that he doesn't actually know he's never going to find a job, either. Both statements are similarly provisional.

But "I'm going to find a new job soon" has very different takeaways for those neighbors, acquaintances, friends and strangers who hear it. It says, "he's looking"; "he's optimistic"; "he's working on it"; and "he might not be available for long." It implies that somebody's going to snap this guy up soon.

Not long ago I heard myself saying, "I could lose my house."

Ew. Wrong thing to say. Anxiousness, or prediction? Our minds are suggestible. When I looked at that title page for Seven Types of Ambiguity, I actually thought for a fleeting second that I was smelling something real—that the smell of a musty old book I read in 1980 was being replicated, somehow, by something nearby in the house. Of course it wasn't. It was a memory. But it shows how powerful our minds are, and how formidable the power of suggestion can be.

See if you can catch yourself repeating a pessimistic statement about yourself that might also be interpreted as a declaration of your intent. And if you do, don't let it slip thoughtlessly past. Grab on to it, hold it up to the light, examine it—and dare to turn it around! Even if you don't quite believe the one with the positive spin. Even if it's nothing certain. Figure out how you can transform the language into a statement that's positive, optimistic, and hopeful. And start saying that instead.

See what happens.

As for me...well, I'm going to have my mortgage paid off soon! 

:-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Jason Melancon (partial comment): "Unconscious aspirational lies fit into this discussion also. The extent to which we unwittingly reveal ourselves is startling once you learn to listen for it. I tell people this, they don't believe me, then they try listening for it for a while and often then tell me how well it works.

"When someone makes some moderate to strong statement about their character or behavior using unconditional terms, they are quite often expressing their recognition of their failing and their desire to overcome it. This is overwhelmingly true if the conversation they were in didn't really require them to comment one way or another on themselves.For example, if someone says 'I'm very good at keeping secrets,' you will make long-term money betting that that person cannot keep a secret.

"If someone says 'I'm really good at juggling a bunch of different tasks' you can be confident that that person really really needs to focus on just one thing at a time. If someone says 'I'm an especially safe driver,' you can be sure that at any time they are not actively thinking about driving safely they will be way too close to the bumper of the car in front of them.

"I used to call this the Big Lie. And I'm not pointing fingers; we all have roughly the same genetic code. After I became aware of this I caught myself gratuitously telling people how I was good at managing time and being on time, and I believed it as I said it. But when I caught myself in the act I immediately saw that I aspired to be a great time manager because that is what I am not."

Michael Perini: "If you try to think, speak and act as though the thing you want is already true, it will more likely become true (as long as you are willing and able to do the work required to achieve it). Making your intentions known and working toward them is a very powerful thing. As James Allen said, 'Move confidently in the direction of your own dreams,' which is really the power of intention. People who wake up every day determined to make progress toward a goal are far more likely to achieve it. Announcing it to the world in a kind and thoughtful way, will bring you unexpected help. As you point out, there are different ways to say the same things, the way that displays your intention and willingness to work toward it will bring more satisfaction over the long run...I've seen it play out a thousand times. Does it always work? Of course not, but it works better than the alternatives."

James: "Talking of smells and ambiguity...I am trying a new deodorant stick today. Instructions say 'remove cap and push up bottom.' I can hardly walk but when I fart the room smells lovely."

Mike replies: All right. You go to the back of the class and sit facing the wall, James.

How Do You Say "Nikon"?

Every now and then someone or other takes the opportunity to slag off Americans for something they claim we do wrong. I just got an earful from one one about how correct they are to say NICK-on and how wrong we benighted Americans are to say NIGH-kon.

Well, both are wrong. Or right. How is “Nikon" pronounced in Japanese? Do the Brits (short "i") say it closer to correct, or do we (long "i")?

Oren, who speaks some Japanese, answers, "neither. ニコン is pronounced 'neekon,' with the 'kon' part much closer to 'kohn' than to the 'kawn' that we say here."

Like this.

As Scott Daniel Ullman wrote about this question on rec.photo.equipment.35mm (top post at this link), Los Angeles "is of Spanish origin, and in Spanish, it is pronounced lohs-AHN-hay-lays. One might think that the only 'correct' way to pronounce the name of the city is the way in which it is pronounced in its language of origin. But, most Americans pronounce is laws-AN-jah-lis, and no one would think that this is a 'wrong' way of pronouncing the name. To complicate matters, almost every time I've heard someone from the UK say Los Angeles, he or she has pronounced it lohz-AN-ja-leez. This too is not the Spanish pronunciation, yet it too is not considered 'wrong.' In a three-way conversation about Los Angeles between an American, a Mexican, and an Englishman, all three of them would pronounce the word differently, yet they would all be pronouncing it 'correctly.' The reason for this is that it's just an accepted fact that people from different places can have their own pronunciations for some words."

Can we agree on that? NICK-on is not correct in Chicago. NIGH-kon is not correct in Sheffield. Both would sound foreign in Yokohama. Paraphrasing Scott, in a three-way conversation about Nikon between an American, a Japanese, and an Englishman, all three of them would pronounce the word differently, yet they would all be pronouncing it "correctly." And all would know what the others meant, which satisfies an editor's standard for clarity of meaning and avoidance of misunderstanding.

Lord knows there's enough that Americans do wrong. But that's not one of them. "It's just an accepted fact that people from different places can have their own pronunciations for some words."

Mike
(Thanks to Oren Grad)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

MikeK: "To borrow from the British comedian Stewart Lee, in a routine about an exchange with a taxi driver: 'You can prove anything with facts.'"

Bruce: "A number of years ago, Adorama ran a series of photography lectures at their store in NYC. I attended a bunch of them and there were some really interesting speakers and topics. One of the last ones I attended was given by a guy who spent more time insisting on the 'correct' pronunciation of Nee-kon than saying anything of any value at all. I walked out in the middle since it seemed like he was never going to get on topic. What a douche!"

Mike replies: Wait a second...how exactly are you pronouncing "douche"?

Steve Jacob: "Any country that calls Leicester 'Lester' and Gloucester 'Gloster,' can't decide how to pronounce 'bath' or conjugate the verb 'to be' in any of its many regional dialects*, and adopted a spurious letter 'u' in many words that did not previously require them, such as 'color' and 'flavor,' is probably in a weak position to dictate to anyone on pronunciation, spelling or grammar.

"An example of the most indecipherable English dialect...Geordie Lessons

"*West country tradition conjugates the very 'to be' thusly...

I be, you be, he be, we be, they be.

"And the negative:

I ben't, you ben't etc. (pronounced 'beent').

"Then you have Estuary English (South East) which adopts a similar simplification.

I is, he is, you is, we is, they is.

"Negative:

I ain't, he ain't, etc....

"And that only covers a handful of the 30 or so recognised regional dialects in England alone. One of the best books on the subject is Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson, who is American (of course).

"By comparison, having travelled around at least 20 US states, and only once getting slightly out of my depth in New Jersey, the general uniformity is striking."