Recently I've written about the Leica M10, which in the version I have here for testing is a luxury Veblen Good worth $14,000 ($10,000 for the camera and $4,000 for the lens). More recently I've been writing about the camera system in the iPhone 13 Pro. Mine cost $800 for the whole phone; but it does other things besides taking pictures.
It seems to me that, for an enthusiast, advanced amateur, semi-pro, or art photographer, the iPhone is both highly quirky and, in the end, not quite enough camera. The Leica M10 Reporter is both highly quirky, and, in the end, rather too much camera.
Which brings us to Goldilocks.
Fairy tale and meme
The fairy tale known as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," originally written by Robert Southey, the British poet, in 1837, probably from folk sources, was originally about three male bachelor bears and an old woman. The old lady didn't become a little girl until 1849, and then she went more than a half-century without the familiar name, which she didn't acquire until 1904. There have been innumerable variations of the story. None is agreed upon as authoritative. (I've reproduced one version as an addendum below.)
Likewise, the moral of the story remains elusive. For the psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, it depicted a child on a journey to adult independence who is waylaid by a regressive attempt to insinuate herself back into the sort of nuclear family to which she no longer belongs. Which seems a tad obtuse. To Alan C. Elms, writing in The Journal of American Folklore, the story deals with anality (issues of cleanliness, regulation, and order) for preschoolers, who he thinks should identify with the tidy and orderly bears rather than with the unregulated intruder. No one that I know of has suggested an environmentalist interpretation, viz., that humans are barging in and creating carnage in natural animal habitats, but that doesn't not make sense. Suffice to say that interpretation is a matter of judgment rather than settled fact.
The primary superficial essence that society currently prefers is to toss out any deeper interpretations and emphasize the "just rightness" part. You try one thing, it's not quite right because of this; you try another thing, and it's not quite right because of that. So you're trying to calibrate down to the exact just-rightness somewhere in the middle. (Which you then either consume, destroy, or appropriate for your own use, but never mind.) This has been formalized as "the Goldilocks Principle," and it's applied to all sorts of things, including machine learning, astrobiology, statistics, and developmental psychology.
Another way of looking at this is that we've reduced the story down to a meme about...shopping. That's the usual meaning of our cultural shorthand around the word "Goldilocks"—never mind that none of it belonged to her in the first place. Goldilock's dilemmas are also a shopper's happy task: deciding which to get. Shopping takes a high and central place among our activities.
I've articulated my views many times, but here I go again. My observation over the years is that the closer two competing products are to each other, the greater the likelihood that shoppers will bear down on the Goldilocks aspect of shopping, and the more effort they will expend on determining "which is best." But logically, what should happen is the opposite: the closer two competing products are to each other, the less it matters which one you choose. Honda or Toyota is like Coke or Pepsi. Who cares? Eenie-meenie-miney-mo and hit the road.
A great ongoing debate of the 'nineties and the 'aughts among hobbyists was, "should I get a Nikon or a Canon?" The upshot was a river of endless debate. My smarty-pants answer to the question at the time was "yes." That is, get a camera and get on with it. Nobody cares what you shoot with. Suit yourself.
Property rights
If you think of it, it's piggish of us to assume that "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is only about just-rightness. There's more to it than that. With all due respect to Bettleheim and Elms, a more sturdy and plainspoken interpretation a little closer to the surface is that it's a cautionary tale about private property—and we ought to sympathize with the characters whose home is being invaded. The real moral should be that you can't go around appropriating things that don't belong to you—on account of your eventual comeuppance will have claws and teeth. You oughtn't to mess with one bear, much less three. Especially when Mama's got a cub. Who doesn't know that?
The story doesn't give G. much of a comeuppance. She gets away scot-free, albeit after being frightened. Really, Goldilocks ought to get eaten herself at the end, or, failing that, at least tossed into the hoosegow and tried for trespassing, B&E, burglary, and vandalism. But in that case, since she's a "celeb"—I mean, who hasn't heard of her?—the entitled little blonde would just instruct her "people" to pay out of court for the damage to the house and the missing porridge, her lawyers would get the bears to sign a gag agreement as part of the settlement, and that would be that. It's all about her.
Hasa at Pediaa writes, "The moral of the story is the need to respect the privacy and property of others and how your actions hurt others. What Goldilocks does by entering another’s house and using their property is wrong." And as Benjamin Marks notes in his Featured Comment below, "Think about who isn't in the story: any grown-up. The story is therefore about how you act when no one is monitoring your behavior." So—of course, human nature being what it is—we've got a tale about respecting the rights of others and behaving properly when you're not being observed, and what have we taken from it? Little Goldilocks' method for choosing what to steal, damage, and use without permission. Figures.
But talk about comeuppance—in one early version (not Southey's), the little old lady who eventually morphed into Goldilocks gets impaled on the steeple of a church.
Anyway, this whole post is a digression (I get interested in stuff). What I was starting out to say is that in between medium-format digital and a smartphone, there's a middle ground, a just-right balance of all the competing factors. I think it can be narrowed down to a few cameras, but I'm going to narrow it down to one. Unfortunately, it's a camera very few people want. I take Saturdays (housekeeping day) and Mondays (pool day) off now, so I'll propose what I think is the just-right camera on Sunday—and then I—I mean all of us—get to hear why the experienced and wise TOP Commentariat disagrees with my choice.
Should be fun. See you on Sunday.
Mike
(Second illustration by Jessie Wilcox Smith; cartoon by Gaspirtz)
ADDENDUM:
The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears
Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Goldilocks. She went for a walk in the forest. Pretty soon, she came upon a house. She knocked and, when no one answered, she walked right in.
At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.
"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.
So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.
"This porridge is too cold," she said.
So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.
"Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.
After she'd eaten the three bears' breakfasts, she decided she was feeling a little tired. So, she walked into the living room where she saw three chairs. Goldilocks sat in the first chair to rest.
"This chair is too big!" she exclaimed.
So she sat in the second chair.
"This chair is too big, too!" she whined.
So she tried the last and smallest chair.
"Ahhh, this chair is just right," she sighed. But just as she settled down into the chair to rest, it broke into pieces! Goldilocks was very tired by this time, she went upstairs to the bedroom. She lay down in the first bed, but it was too hard. Then she lay in the second bed, but it was too soft. Then she lay down in the third bed and it was just right. Goldilocks fell asleep.
As she was sleeping, the three bears came home.
"Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge," said the Mama bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.
"Someone's been sitting in my chair," growled the Papa bear.
"Someone's been sitting in my chair," said the Mama bear.
"Someone's been sitting in my chair and they've broken it to pieces," cried the Baby bear.
They decided to look around some more and when they got upstairs to the bedroom, Papa bear growled,
"Someone's been sleeping in my bed.”
"Someone's been sleeping in my bed, too" said the Mama bear.
"Someone's been sleeping in my bed and she's still there!" exclaimed the Baby bear.
Just then, Goldilocks woke up. She saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room. Goldilocks ran down the stairs, opened the door, and ran away into the forest. She never returned to the home of the three bears.
THE END
(This version from DLTK-teach.com)
Book o' the Week
Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.
The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.
Original contents copyright 2020 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
SteveW: "I've been reading TOP for some years now, but not as long as many of the long-time readers, but long enough to keep coming back and enjoying the positive vibe of the blog, and also the Commentariat. I find TOP a breath of fresh air in the land of the web. But the point I want to make is that I think Mike's hard work on New Yorker articles has spilled over onto TOP. The recent posts have elevated Mike's game. I'm really enjoying TOP these days, even more than usual. Thank you Mike."
Peter Wright: "With all these OT posts—pool, watches, bunnies!!!, I think it’s time we had an OT post on something many of us find interesting, and that you have covered in the past. I refer of course to hi-fi and music, especially jazz. Did you really get into streaming? Get new speakers? What are you listening to? We need a catch-up OT post."
Benjamin Marks: "I think the Goldilocks principle became shorthand because so much of the observed world can serve as a reference point. Questions like: 1.) why is there something, rather than nothing? 2.) why did Earth develop a thriving ecosystem, and not Mars? and so on, seem to have a tautological answer: because some set of factors were in the middle of some range of possibilities (not to far from the sun, just the right amount of matter vs. antimatter and so on). But the sanitized version of that story didn't get told to establish that principle...it's just a byproduct of good narrative structure and the 'rule' of threes (not a rule, but still).
"The story is a morality play and it features bears rather than your next door neighbors so that it has general applicability as moral lessons ought to have in order to be as persuasive as possible. Think about who isn't in the story: any grown-up. The story is therefore about how you act when no one is monitoring your behavior.
"Face it: you'd hate to live next to Goldilocks in a property-oriented society. In one in which there is communal responsibility for children, the story probably makes no sense at all."
David Dyer-Bennet: "Dear me; Coke and Pepsi being similar to each other? What a weird notion! When we did a careful double-blind cola tasting first, back in the '80s, nobody failed to distinguish the major brands, and nobody failed to distinguish diet from real. Most of the test crew could accurately identify glass bottles vs. plastic bottles vs. metal cans. (You knew that was going to draw comments, didn't you? It's probably bigger than Mac vs. PC and certainly bigger than vi vs. Emacs.)"
hugh crawford: "These days I think that Goldilocks is about the illusion of choice. You can pick anything you want as long as it’s bear stuff."
mark: "Cameras and bunnies and bears, oh my!"
If philosophy deals with how people ought to think, psychology deals with how people actually think.
"The contrast effect is a cognitive bias that distorts our perception of something when we compare it to something else, by enhancing the differences between them."
— https://effectiviology.com/contrast-effect/
The focusing illusion:
“Nothing in life is as important as you think it is, while you are thinking about it”
― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Posted by: Yoshi Carroll | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 02:54 PM
My current Goldilocks camera is not quite a Goldilocks camera, because cameras come with systems, and most of the lenses in this system are slightly chunky for Goldilocks. I have a used Nikon Z6. Great in the hand, good viewfinder, good focus, enough resolution, good dynamic range, good sensor stabilization, and relatively cheap. My favorite system lens to actually walk around with is the little Z 40 f2, sharp enough, but with bokeh that some have described as "making you physically ill." I shoot mostly f8 or so, so no problem. But most of the other lenses are on the large size, even the gorgeous 50 1.8. I would like Nikon to get together with Fuji and Pentax and figure out how to make something with the contrast of the Pentax 43 limited, in a small package too. The Goldilocks lens.
Posted by: John Krumm | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 02:59 PM
Not sure why you’re so hung-up about the special-edition M10. I bought a standard silver M10 used from a Leica dealer for the equivalent of about $3700 and a Summicron 50 for about $1600 and guess what - it works exactly the same as the ridiculously-priced, dressed-up version that you’ve been comparing to other cameras for the last couple months.
I also have an iPhone 12, and I doubt the 13 is that much of a leap that it even comes remotely close to the M10.
[Um...what? I suspect you read what you thought I said, rather than what I said. When did I suggest or imply that the iPhone 13 comes close to the M10? It certainly doesn't. --Mike]
Posted by: mani | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 04:10 PM
"After she'd eaten the three bears' breakfasts..."
No bears were mentioned before in this story; maybe it is to be assumed that a house in the woods where breakfast is porridge can only belong to bears?!
I'm not anglo saxon myself, so i might miss something; or maybe it is a too short or too poor of a version?
On the other hand, even being familiar with the story, i will spend the weekend wondering about the deeper meanings of it i can find. Thanks!
Posted by: Daniele | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 04:24 PM
From Mike It seems to me that, for an enthusiast, advanced amateur, semi-pro, or art photographer, the iPhone is both highly quirky and, in the end, not quite enough camera.
It'll come as no surprise that I'll respectfully disagree with ya on that one, Mike. My view is it's fully capable for a range of enthusiast, commercial, or artistic applications.
Just as an example...some interior Real Estate shots. The standard practice is to use lights during mid-day with all the interior lights turned one, and blending the "ambient" frames with the "flash frames", and then, doing a specialized technique called a "window pull" (which involves yet more layers) to pull in the detail out the window into the photo. This requires camera, tripods, daytime ambient light, flashes and a buncha layers in PS.
Well, here's some interior RE shots, with me, just moving through the house turning on the interior lights in preparation for an exterior twilight shot, shooting handheld with the iPhone 13. No lights, no tripod, no frame for the "window pull" and...no layers in post in PS. One frame...handheld. Bing! Job done.
Check this out....look at the detail and color of the foliage out the windows in the next two shots...this is straight out of camera, no window pull.
Kitchen, 1-point shot.

Dining room, no window pull here, either.

Are these photos at the level of Joe Flectcher who does amazing architectural photography with a MF Fuji? No. Are they suitable for viewing online as JPEGs on the MLS? Absolutely.
Key business best practice: don't spend unecessary time and money creating more "engineering specification" than is required for the job-at-hand. This is the premise of "fit-for-purpose".
Using an automobile analogy, you don't need a Porsche GT2 RS to get to commute to work and back. A Honda Accord or Acura ILX is fit-for-purpose.
And then, there's how capable it is for professional videography work, which, from what I've seen, first-hand, is very impressive.
Cheers, Stephen, your friendly devil's advocate. ;-)
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 04:39 PM
“Someone’s been sitting with my Reporter”
Posted by: Jack Mac | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 05:33 PM
Nikon Z5, with a 35mm f/1.8S, or the little 40mm f/2? Forgive my indecision over the lens choice.
Posted by: Dave Stewart | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 05:50 PM
Well, it really seems like there was no place for Goldilocks anywhere in bear family structure, though I don't know what we're supposed to conclude, except maybe start questioning bear society norms. I guess that makes me sympathetic to Bettelheim's take that it's time for Goldy to move to the city.
I seem to recall identifying with Baby bear, but probably because I had a younger sister. But in the end, as with many cultural touchstones, I think Looney Tunes ruined the story for me, or perhaps saved it, I'm not sure, though not nearly as well as they jazzed up Little Red Riding Hood.
Anyway, it seems pretty clear that Goldilocks would be happier with something more capable than an iPhone.
"Little Red Riding Rabbit" (one of the best classic Bugs Bunny cartoons): https://youtu.be/0TwubBMMAQQ
Posted by: robert e | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 06:48 PM
And then there’s the Leica Q (and Q2) with a 28mm focal length (w/ lowlight friendly f1.7 lens) w/48MP & IBIS. it’s all an iPhone user could ever imagine. Oh, and it fits very nicely in the hand with a great EVF, or touch LCD if you’re committed to cell phone ergonomics (+ it has filter threads!). Feels just right.
Posted by: Jim R | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 07:20 PM
Coke and Pepsi are not the same thing. What a shocking statement.
Posted by: Patrick Wahl | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 07:32 PM
What if the moral of the story is that contentment is short-lived? You only get the briefest of bliss before dissatisfaction returns and chases you back into the woods, from where your quest renews?
That would be such a GAS!
Posted by: Arg | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 08:01 PM
OK, so I've got three bears living in a ravine near my house; a Momma bear and her cub, also, a rather large Papa bear, but not seen as frequently. And, I have been keeping three trash containers in my back yard right now: 1) a big dumpster for construction debris (we are renovating our old historic home at the moment). 2) a trash container for household waste that gets picked up weekly, and 3) a recycle container that also gets picked up weekly. My three bears have concluded a) the big dumpster is a waste of their time, b) the recycle container isn't worth tipping over because it never contains food scraps, and c). The regular weekly trash container is just right!.. in turn forcing me to adapt and put the household trash container inside a storage shed otherwise it gets tipped over and contents spilled every day!. Moral of my story... The Goldilocks principle applies to bears as well, LOL!
Posted by: MHMG | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 10:15 PM
While I can agree with the basic premise that the Apple is one end and the special edition M10 is on the other, I'd call my M 240 a Goldilocks moment especially with the old school lenses I buy. While, sure, an APO-Summicron 50/2 would be nice, heck I'd hardly say no to a Portugal made plain Summicron, but the reality is my Elmar 50/2.8, Nikon 50/2 or Canon 50/1.4 are all fine lenses that cost far less and give me what I want rather than what that APO can do so clinically.
As you mention about Nikon vs Canon, just grab something and enjoy it.
Posted by: William A Lewis | Friday, 22 July 2022 at 10:21 PM
My middle ground camera is the one I've been using exclusively for the last ten years. Its just right. Its got a whopping 11 autofocus points, shoots at 4.5 fps and can run on 6 AA batteries. :-)
Digital Photography Review chose it as one of the 20 most important cameras of the 2010's and it was the most commonly used camera in images to be short listed in the RMG Astronomy Photographer of the Year competition in both 2019 and 2020. (Wikipedia)
Posted by: Jim Arthur | Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 12:31 AM
Roll on Sunday...
Posted by: Nick Reith | Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 08:22 AM
glad we are back with photography. was beginning to think that that was the ot these days!
british very mild tongue in cheek filter on please.
actually enjoy the variety and good humor (in its truest sense) shown here on this blog) among us all.
Posted by: brian | Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 12:04 PM
Goldilocks was interested in a single specification -- temperature. Camera owners and users are presented with a plethora (a word I don't use often) of specifications which they must compare and contrast and list from important to not important. And then there are a few "must haves" or "no ways" which may simplify or complexify the selection process.
I used to have and use two cameras -- an APS-C as a carry-around point and shoot, and a full frame for serious work. I now have three cameras and use just two -- a full frame and a phone.
I miss my APS-C but even though compact, it isn't compact enough.
(My phone tells me that it currently holds more than 25,000 images -- 38 added today and the day isn't half over. Practice. Practice. Practice.)
Posted by: Speed | Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 05:05 PM
If the three bears had a Ring Doorbell they would have had some protein with their porridge and we would be out a favorite fairy tale.
Just sayin...
Posted by: Mike Plews | Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 08:45 PM
Governments should read this….. And I’ll reveal my Goldilocks camera tomorrow.
Posted by: Mike Ferron | Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 09:02 PM
I'm really impressed with Stephen Scharf's interior shots, taken with the iPhone 13, which he handles masterfully,- and this compliment doesn't come easily to me as a traditional photographer, but, "credit where credit is due."
Posted by: Lothar Adler | Sunday, 24 July 2022 at 05:17 AM
Yes, very pleasing real estate shots, and probably excellent for online viewing. How would they score as large window display images, though?
Thing is, I’d still require a tripod, and one of those images clearly demonstrates how important a rising/falling front to good composition. I don’t imagine Mike’s blog “rules” permit this, but it would be interesting to hear what has been found to be a truly excellent device/brand for fixing an iPhone to a tripod. It might encourage me to give my cellphone another chance as camera… or not.
Posted by: Rob Campbell | Sunday, 24 July 2022 at 11:21 AM
for Rob (Campbell)
Yep, your point is well-taken. However, these don't have to "score" as large window display images, they only have to be fit-for-purpose when viewed as JPEGs at 1500 pixels in the long dimension on the MLS (which for RE, is always the Landscape orientation).
With respect to shooting with my iPhone on a tripod, I use this iPhone tripod mount from Ulanzi. 16 bucks at B&H...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1487524-REG/ulanzi_0595_st_03_metal_phone_holder.html
Here's a 'studio' shot I took using it...this was taken using the Profoto app and the Profoto C1 smartphone light through a modifier. Not "perfect", but fit-for-purpose dinkin' around for fun on a Sunday, seeing what the iP13 PM can do. ;-)
Cheers.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Sunday, 24 July 2022 at 04:58 PM
For Stephen Scharf:
Thank you for the information regarding the device for attaching an iPhone to a tripod; it looks like a solidly constructed piece of equipment that might open a new vista for me. Thanks again for your trouble!
Rob Campbell
Posted by: Ro Campbell | Monday, 25 July 2022 at 03:26 PM