The Online Photographer

Football Today (OT)

[This is a new post, although I will still have to take tomorrow off. Since today is a football day in the good ol' formerly United States, I thought I would write about the national sport. Off-topic today, off tomorrow! Nobody will read this anyway, as you are all glued to the big screen watching football. And by the way, apologies to all of you who don't like sports or are from foreign countries and follow soccer, rugby, cricket, caber toss, curling, sepak takraw, toe wrestling, or jiskefet; I'm sure you are sharpening your pencils, but don't worry, I know you're out there.  —Mike the Ed. and Head Scribbler]

I've been keeping up with American football this year for the first time in many years. I watched the Super Bowl in 2015, but before that I hadn't watched in a handful of years. My biggest period of engagement was when Joe Gibbs coached the Redskins (now Commanders) in the 1980s; 1981 through 1992 to be exact, his first of two stints with them. They won the Super Bowl in 1983, 1988, and 1992. It was a big deal locally and exciting to be a part of; and I lived in Georgetown where the city celebrated. I kept up with the Packers when I lived in Wisconsin, but not as passionately. Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers each achieved one Super Bowl victory, in 1997 and 2010 respectively. That was also a lot of fun. But perhaps not quite as satisfying as those Gibbs years. As dominant and dazzling as both Favre and Rodgers were in their primes, it seemed like each of them ought to have won more.

I thought I would just briefly write my impressions of the way the game seems to have changed while I was "away"—what seems different to me on coming back to it. (Note that I'm not sure all of these impressions are defensible in terms of statistical analysis. They're just impressions.)

Scrums. A scrum, or ruck, formerly a characteristic of rugby but not of football, is when the person with the ball is supported by a number of his own teammates pushing him from behind while a number of defenders on the other side are trying to push the pile the other way. Scrums (rucks) in pro football are something new; the refs must just not have allowed it in the olden days.

CeeDee Lamb of Dallas, 24, executing the "pointing pose" that completes successful plays that cross the line to gain

Posing and pointing. Seems like every successful play these days ends in a silly shimmy of some sort, a little quotation of a dance move, or a pose. If a receiver makes a first down, he points to the opposing end zone. Seems like this is de rigueur currently. Obviously the League has decided to relax former rules against celebrating and taunting. Call me a spoilsport, but I don't care for all the ceaseless posing. It's your job; just do it. (I was a fan of Barry Sanders.) Then again, they're kids. Despite ageless wonders such as George Blanda and Tom Brady—and Joe Flacco, who I was rather confused to find still suiting up at this late date—the average NFL player lasts only three and a half years in the League and is in his early to mid twenties.

Defenses running together down to the opponents' end zone after a takeaway. It doesn't happen every time. But it's new to me. Could be it's just a passing fad and I just happen to be jumping back into the game while it's a thing, I don't know.

Kickers. What the heck happened here? In the old days a field goal attempt in the over-40-yard range was pretty dubious. A kick of 50+ yards was a hail Mary. Now, kickers seem to attempt and make kicks in the 50–60 yard range pretty regularly and will attempt kicks in the 60+ yard range, which coaches almost never went for in the 1980s. And the kickers sometimes make them, too. A field goal under 40 yards is not a chip shot, but many kickers make them with impressive consistency. This is a big change in the game and I'm at a loss to explain it.

Announcers no longer celebrate viciousness. Probably a matter of League policy, but it's striking how much announcers used to celebrate hard hits and other forms of violence and now by comparison seldom do. Players seem to be gentler with each other, too, which only makes sense—what guy really wants to ruin another guy's career? Refs call personal fouls more readily and protect kickers and quarterbacks better than they used to. Helmet-to-helmet is no longer a desirable tackling technique and almost all of the face-masks get called now. This is all an improvement to the game in my view. When Bradshaw, Staubach, and guys like Kenny "The Snake" Stabler were playing, it was open season on QBs by comparison. Stabler suffered from CTE before he died. Too many hard hits. His last words to his family were, "I'm tired." At least I no longer have to cringe several times a game because of something horrible a Free Safety does in a head-on collision for which only one of the two participants is prepared. Yet, as much as I used to hate safeties because of their violence, I'm still sorry to read about what became of the likes of Greg Clark and Andre Waters.

Players can't tackle. This is probably also a matter of those same rule changes and modifications to the culture, but it seems like players don't know how to tackle any more. I repeatedly see one-on-one facedowns in the open field where the guy with the ball gets away, and times when a defender has a guy fully wrapped up but fails to get said guy to fall down. Seems to me I also see defenders riding the ball carrier for three, four, and five yards at the end of a carry or catch, or two or even three defenders failing to get the ball carrier down right away. This all looks very...unfamiliar.

Refs determining outcomes. In the old days, referees tended to err on the side of conservatism and scrupulous fairness at key points in games, preferring to let the play on the field decide outcomes and making sure that calls when it counted were for obvious infractions. The public expected it. Just last night, we saw a clear example of the opposite. The Lions, visiting the Cowboys, mounted a final drive which was successful, and they won the game fair and square. However, the Cowboys were having a gala night with all of their luminaries present, and Jerry Jones is a powerful owner with outsized power in the League, and the Cowboy organization had a precious home win streak to preserve; so the refs contrived a blatant swindle by which the outcome of the game could be reversed. This they perpetrated as neatly as the Artful Dodger would pick your pocket. The bewildered public was afterward left arguing about something that had happened in plain sight right under their noses. Both teams were already in the playoffs, so no real harm was done; nothing suffered, except the integrity of the League and of the game itself, not to mention the notion of public trust, which has been under merciless attack in recent years anyway.

O-lines crumple and collapse. Maybe it's just because I grew up on the Hogs, but it seems like the whole idea of "the pocket" has gotten a lot more transient and fleeting. Even rushing four, much less coming with five, pass rushers seem to route the O-line more easily and flush the QB more quickly. Pockets take just seconds to collapse now, if not milliseconds. Half the QBs in the League are obliged to resort to Fran Tarkenton impressions (the Vikings legend was renowned for his scrambling abilities). Could be this is just my impression, but "great protection" and "having all day" to pass are not phrases we're hearing as often as we used to.

Black quarterbacks. Remember when it was remarkable and historic that Doug Williams started and won a Super Bowl? Warren Moon and Randall Cunningham were exceptions that proved the rule in olden tymes. Now nearly half of the QBs in the League are black. The idea of field leaders needing to be white was just a cultural convention, obviously. Now it's more of a meritocracy—depends on who plays best—and that's a good thing for everybody. Not to mention the fact that we get to enjoy players like Patrick Mahomes, Jalen Hurts, Lamar Jackson, and Dak Prescott, as well as one Coleridge Bernard Stroud IV, who I find particularly entertaining. The latter, amazingly (to old grizzlies like me anyway), is a rookie; gone are the days when a young quarterback had to sit behind an aging veteran for years before he was considered seasoned enough to take the reins of an offense.

The term "in space." Football announcing is inherently dumb. John Madden (R.I.P.) was the king of saying obvious things like they were great insights—such as, "they're either going to run the ball here or they're going to pass it"—although it was part of his charm and/or schtick, however you cared to look at it. But you never used to hear about a guy being "in space" just because he doesn't have a lot of other guys around him. A picture of an astronaut mid-space-walk pops into my mind every time. Like that thing about the defenses scampering gleefully to the end zone after a pick, though, this could be just another in a long line of passing fads. Fashions come and go in football, as elsewhere.

Players today seem better than players of old. Faster, more fit, more athletic, more coordinated, smarter, more skilled. And it's not just in comparison to the smaller, lumbering players in old 1950s game films, either—I even have my doubts that Brett Favre would get away with not knowing plays and just winging it most of the time if he were playing now. The Chicago Bears are in the basement right now, with no shot at the playoffs, but their win over the Cardinals last week was pretty impressive football judged against historical standards. The win only got them to 6 and 9, but they did not look like bums or sad sacks. They looked well-coached, fast, skilled, and efficient. In the '70s and '80s, the lowest-ranked teams could sometimes look like college teams playing against pros, hapless, aimless, or clueless by contrast. Not the case today.

•   •   •

I personally think a lot of the changes in the game are good ones, especially the steps being taken to protect players and reduce injuries, and cutting down on some of the bonehead machismo they used to try to sell to us like soap all the time. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the game would be improved by allowing offenses one more player on the offensive line, and that the goalposts should be narrowed to make half-field kicks harder. Overall, though, the game seems in good shape, unless of course you are of the opinion that it should be banned altogether.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John Camp: "Minnesota beat Iowa last fall by 12–10. Iowa football has become somewhat comic (the worst offense matched with one of the best defenses.) But in that game, the refs pulled off the worst 'steal' I've ever witnessed. An Iowa receiver took a kick all the way down the sidelines for a touchdown. The refs then reviewed the play to see if the runner had stepped out of bounds. He clearly hadn't. However, the refs ruled that the receiver had signaled for a fair catch, because he'd used his free hand to point to where he was planning to take the ball. His hand never rose above his shoulder—he simply pointed while running. None of the opposition players were close, and none slowed down because of the pointing. They called the touchdown back. Terrible call.

"That said, while I am a lifelong fan of football, we should be embarrassed that the game is still allowed. We know it causes devastating head injuries, both immediate and long term. Favre once mentioned that he couldn't remember an entire summer. If you recall the sad, horrifying conclusion to Mohammad Ali's life, think about dozens of football players suffering the same end; and that's on-going."

Chris Bertram: "What you call a 'scrum' is a 'ruck' in rugby union. A scrum is rugby parlance is a formal set-piece, with two groups of forwards pushing against one another in a highly-regulated manner, usually after the ball has been accidentally knocked forward. A ruck, by contrast, forms spontaneously with players pushing as you describe. Football, properly speaking, is, of course the sport you call 'soccer.'"

Mike replies: Thanks for that Chris. I added it to the post. However I think "scrum" is the word that would be recognized and understood by U.S. English speakers; I've never heard of a "ruck" before, and I have a higher than average vocabulary.

As far as the old football terminology question, I differentiate between the two sports (when I'm being serious) by calling them "American football" and "World football." To call soccer "football" in the U.S. without any further distinction would be wrong, as it would be almost certain to be misunderstood by 99% of U.S. English speakers if not more. Of course I realize it is properly "football" (and voetbal and Fußball and fútbol and futebol and calcio and Fotbal and ποδόσφαιρο and sokker [aha! That's Africaans] and كرة القدم and so forth) in the rest of the world.

JTK: "At last! 'jiskefet' finally gets a mention on TOP after all these years of watching and waiting. As a former player of International standing I can safely say that not a single player got concussed. (Not during an actual game anyway.) I represented England as a player, and was part of the team that won the World Championship in 1990. Of course I had to give up playing when I moved to the USA at age 46 when just approaching my peak years, which are generally accepted as 48 to 68. I am proud to say that I still hold the World Record for number of alcohol-free beers and packets of 'Salt'n'Vinegar' crisps downed at half time. I am reliably informed that no one has ever come close."

Mike replies: That's very impressive. I'm honored to have you here Sir. As are all loyal jiskefetishists.

Thom Hogan: "Part of this post is not as off-topic as you think it is. Photo editors started prioritizing 'jubes' (jubilation, or celebration shots), particularly with social media posts trying to keep up with events as close to real time as possible. If you don't get the jube shot these days as a sport photographer, you don't get published much. The players noticed that: when you celebrate, you first get the attention of the end zone camera (in football) solely on you. It's one of the few times you can guarantee that you're going to be in isolation on camera. And then the follow-on: you go to your social media and local newspaper and you see the same jube stuff appearing. So guess what, you do more of it. You get your friends who weren't in on the play to come join you  ;~) . Add to that the fact that some of those jube images go viral in a big way—remember a woman soccer player taking off her jersey top?  ;~) —and it's not surprising that this is happening all over sports now."

2017 Open Mike: Why I Like Vinyl

[Mike is on vacation until 1/2/24. To tide you over, a few "Winter reruns" for your amusement, a little jaunt through the past.

Since we've been visiting old posts about photography all week, I figured there should be at least one off-topic rerun. This one is from Friday, March 24th, 2017. Seems recent, doesn't it? But we were almost seven years younger then.

Curiously, although vinyl album sales were up again for the 17th straight year, a research firm called Luminate polled 3,992 people over the age of 13 who had purchased a vinyl LP in the previous year—and only 50% of them said they owned a record player. Wish I knew what that surprising factoid means! But I don't.

Any stats in this article are from back then.]

N.b.: I am not saying "vinyl is better"!

In fact, I don't listen to vinyl much. Even given the well-documented "vinyl revival," vinyl accounts for just under 6% of worldwide music sales. I currently have a funky, steampunky stereo system set up in my family room, and I've rather arbitrarily decided—I dunno, perhaps because false parallelism pleases me—that my vinyl listening should comprise slightly less than 6% of my music listening. As a real fact, that could be off by a few percentage points.

There are, however, some things about listening to vinyl that I continue to like.

• One is that one song comes after another. It's not very convenient to skip cuts, and it's certainly not convenient to design your own list and ordering of songs—even from one album, and still less so from multiple albums. In practice, you're more or less forced to listen to everything on the side, in sequence. This has several effects—it gets you to listen to the "lesser" cuts on an album to get to your favorites, and sometimes, cuts that didn't grab you at first begin to grow on you. Or you might begin to get over the ones you liked best initially. I like the fact that my feeling about various songs—their relative value—morphs and changes over repeated listenings.

• Sequencing has an odd effect. Ever listened to a song on the radio, and, when it was over, immediately "heard" in your mind the opening bars of the song that followed it on the album you've listened to sixteen times? Even when the album is not a deliberate unified sequence, placing cuts one after the other has a cumulative effect that one song in isolation might not have. Maybe it's similar to seeing five or six photographs in a row on the wall instead of one in isolation.

• I like the fact that a "side" is a discrete period of time. I have 12" records with sides as short as 12 minutes and as long as 28 minutes. It's easy to understand listening to a side as a discrete occasion, one that has an expected duration. I think this tends to make me alert, as if it were an event. I understand it subliminally as something that's happening now and will be over soon.

• I like the fact that some artists design sides as programs of music*.

• I like that the end of a side is a break. (Personally I insist on semi-automatic turntables...that means a turntable that picks up the arm and needle and turns itself off at the end of every side. They're very uncommon today, apart from a few cheap mass-market models.)

• I like the fact that a vinyl record is a physical object that has some weight and some cost. This is entirely artificial; the same music as a digital file has no object-presence. It's easier to "treasure" an object. It anchors or tethers the music (which is, after all, just evanescent vibrations in the air) to something tangible. It makes the music less abstract somehow—not terribly similar to, but also not entirely dissimilar to, the act of watching a musician create sounds with an instrument.

• You may sue me, but sometimes I kinda like groove noise, and even, sometimes, pops and ticks. Yeah, I know. But these imperfections emphasize the mechanical origin of the event. It's possible to find it charming. It's not like I have to listen to it.

• As is widely shared by other vinyl lovers, I like the 12-inch square "canvas" of the record cover as a field for a visual design or for printing lyrics or notes. The music gives the ear something to do, and the album cover gives the eye something to do. Again, it's entirely artificial to link these two things, but whatever—I still like it. I usually set up the cover of whatever album is on the turntable on a ridge that runs around the wainscoting of my family room.

• This might sound strange, but I like it that a record "lives" on the turntable for a while. I'm normally either enjoying hearing the same record (or even the same side) over and over again, or else I'm too lazy to put one record away and get another one out. Familiarity has an effect too—it clarifies your feelings. So I really get to know a record intimately, hearing it multiple times before it's relegated to the shelves again. This is even more true because my listening at the computer ranges so widely and freely; I get my fill of variety there and don't feel the need to get variety from the turntable in the family room as much as I would if it were my only source of music.

And finally,

• I like the "toy" factor of mechanical turntables. Again, this is silly and (these days) unnecessary, but I like it all the same. I'm currently using a 40+-year-old turntable (restored) and an even older cartridge (with a new stylus).

Child of my times, c'est moi. Or maybe I just like old stuff. Vive la <6%!

Hope you have a very nice weekend.

Mike

*Of course, one downside is that one cut you hate might ruin a side for you.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Feed your head

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Mike is on vacation this week. Comments will be posted promptly, but there won’t be any ‘Featured Comments’ on these.

[Mike is on vacation until 1/2/24. To tide you over, a few "Winter reruns" for your amusement, a little jaunt through the past.

Since we've been visiting old posts about photography all week, I figured there should be at least one off-topic rerun. This one is from Friday, March 24th, 2017. Seems recent, doesn't it? But we were almost seven years younger then.

Curiously, although vinyl album sales were up again for the 17th straight year, a research firm called Luminate polled 3,992 people over the age of 13 who had purchased a vinyl LP in the previous year—and only 50% of them said they owned a record player. Wish I knew what that surprising factoid means! But I don't.

Any stats in this article are from back then.]

N.b.: I am not saying "vinyl is better"!

In fact, I don't listen to vinyl much. Even given the well-documented "vinyl revival," vinyl accounts for just under 6% of worldwide music sales. I currently have a funky, steampunky stereo system set up in my family room, and I've rather arbitrarily decided—I dunno, perhaps because false parallelism pleases me—that my vinyl listening should comprise slightly less than 6% of my music listening. As a real fact, that could be off by a few percentage points.

There are, however, some things about listening to vinyl that I continue to like.

• One is that one song comes after another. It's not very convenient to skip cuts, and it's certainly not convenient to design your own list and ordering of songs—even from one album, and still less so from multiple albums. In practice, you're more or less forced to listen to everything on the side, in sequence. This has several effects—it gets you to listen to the "lesser" cuts on an album to get to your favorites, and sometimes, cuts that didn't grab you at first begin to grow on you. Or you might begin to get over the ones you liked best initially. I like the fact that my feeling about various songs—their relative value—morphs and changes over repeated listenings.

• Sequencing has an odd effect. Ever listened to a song on the radio, and, when it was over, immediately "heard" in your mind the opening bars of the song that followed it on the album you've listened to sixteen times? Even when the album is not a deliberate unified sequence, placing cuts one after the other has a cumulative effect that one song in isolation might not have. Maybe it's similar to seeing five or six photographs in a row on the wall instead of one in isolation.

• I like the fact that a "side" is a discrete period of time. I have 12" records with sides as short as 12 minutes and as long as 28 minutes. It's easy to understand listening to a side as a discrete occasion, one that has an expected duration. I think this tends to make me alert, as if it were an event. I understand it subliminally as something that's happening now and will be over soon.

• I like the fact that some artists design sides as programs of music*.

• I like that the end of a side is a break. (Personally I insist on semi-automatic turntables...that means a turntable that picks up the arm and needle and turns itself off at the end of every side. They're very uncommon today, apart from a few cheap mass-market models.)

• I like the fact that a vinyl record is a physical object that has some weight and some cost. This is entirely artificial; the same music as a digital file has no object-presence. It's easier to "treasure" an object. It anchors or tethers the music (which is, after all, just evanescent vibrations in the air) to something tangible. It makes the music less abstract somehow—not terribly similar to, but also not entirely dissimilar to, the act of watching a musician create sounds with an instrument.

• You may sue me, but sometimes I kinda like groove noise, and even, sometimes, pops and ticks. Yeah, I know. But these imperfections emphasize the mechanical origin of the event. It's possible to find it charming. It's not like I have to listen to it.

• As is widely shared by other vinyl lovers, I like the 12-inch square "canvas" of the record cover as a field for a visual design or for printing lyrics or notes. The music gives the ear something to do, and the album cover gives the eye something to do. Again, it's entirely artificial to link these two things, but whatever—I still like it. I usually set up the cover of whatever album is on the turntable on a ridge that runs around the wainscoting of my family room.

• This might sound strange, but I like it that a record "lives" on the turntable for a while. I'm normally either enjoying hearing the same record (or even the same side) over and over again, or else I'm too lazy to put one record away and get another one out. Familiarity has an effect too—it clarifies your feelings. So I really get to know a record intimately, hearing it multiple times before it's relegated to the shelves again. This is even more true because my listening at the computer ranges so widely and freely; I get my fill of variety there and don't feel the need to get variety from the turntable in the family room as much as I would if it were my only source of music.

And finally,

• I like the "toy" factor of mechanical turntables. Again, this is silly and (these days) unnecessary, but I like it all the same. I'm currently using a 40+-year-old turntable (restored) and an even older cartridge (with a new stylus).

Child of my times, c'est moi. Or maybe I just like old stuff. Vive la <6%!

Hope you have a very nice weekend.

Mike

*Of course, one downside is that one cut you hate might ruin a side for you.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Feed your head

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Mike is on vacation this week. Comments will be posted promptly, but there won’t be any ‘Featured Comments’ on these.

Date Unknown: Question Yourself

[Mike is on vacation until 1/2/24. To tide you over, a few "Winter reruns" for your amusement, a little jaunt through the past.

I downloaded an expensive app just now, called "Document Converter" from RootRise Technologies, and was able to open for the first time in many years some old CWK files. CWK was a ClarisWorks/AppleWorks format that was discontinued in 2004 and supported only in the first several (four, I think?) versions of Apple Pages. Thus I have hundreds and hundreds of old CWK files that sit there blank, glum, and unreadable, with various writings entombed therein. But what do you know, Document Converter opens them up in a jiffy. The first folder I rescued was called "B&WP Columns," comprising a handful of the 80 or so monthly columns I wrote for founding Editor Ailsa McWhinnie's original Black & White Photography magazine in the UK. When Ailsa moved on, the new editor had no patience for my shenanigans, and that was the end of that, but, fortunately for Yr. Hmbl. Scrivener, by that time TOP was beginning to take off.

This was the first old file I opened up, at random. No idea of the date or the original title—it wouldn't have been my title in any case; the magazine provided the titles for my articles. Note also that this would have been the unedited submission rather than a copy of the edited version that was published, so I am not infringing on B&WP's copyright—nor are my unregulated impulses being protected by Ailsa the editor's good sense and better judgement. The "FWSRN" was, of course, DPReview. And by the way, although the phrase "6-MP camera" seems antediluvian now, that Konica-Minolta 7D was to this day one of the more satisfying digital cameras I've ever used. The files were beautiful. But on to the old column....]

-

(Original publication date unknown, but it was before 2009)
Here's a little exercise for you, a sort of mind-game. Let's say you were in shopping mode, choosing a camera. But instead of looking around and comparing all of the features on cameras from spec sheets, let's say you were going to specify in advance what you wanted your new camera to be—and from there, you'd venture into the world of brochures and tech sites and see if anything matched your desires. I'd think that we could come up with a "question sheet" which would cover all the bases in asking ourselves what it is we want.

The reason this comes up is because I came across, again, another comment on a forum which shall remain nameless (FWSRN) that made me squawk in disbelief. (I do this from time to time during the day. All is quiet Chez Johnston, when suddenly a loud RAWWWP! comes from the computer room. It's me, of course, delving into the strange and bizarre minds of gear-geeks and pixel-peeps and making loud involuntary animal noises in response.) On this FWSRN, one poster related the rumor that New Camera X will fire at 11 fps for 65 exposures, and another poster responded, as if disappointed, "That's probably just a rumor, although it would be nice if it were true."

What? "Nice?" Art thou insane, man? Why? What are you taking pictures of, anyway—Sonic the hedgehog? Low-flying missiles? The Flash?

I suppose, to come up with a list of what you want, broad experience would almost be necessary. But it occurs to me that over the years, I've encountered the "Point of Sufficiency" with regard to various features a number of times. For instance, years ago I had an extended acquaintance with a Leica (18 milliseconds shutter lag) preceded by an EOS RT (8 ms. shutter lag, in "RT" mode). I couldn't tell the difference—they both seemed plenty responsive to me. But cameras with 125 ms. shutter lag do seem slow me from time to time, and 250 ms. is frequently unacceptable. Thus is the Point of Sufficiency vectored in upon. Subsequent investigation over a number of years seemed to indicate that my personal standard for shutter lag is around 60 ms, give or take 10 or 20 ms.

Another point of sufficiency was breached when I was using a Nikon 8008 (1/8000th top shutter speed) and the Maxxum 9xi (1/12,000th shutter speed) came out. When I used the aforementioned Leica, it was true that the top shutter speed of 1/1000th was almost never a problem—but, occasionally, I did notice it as a limitation. By the time a shutter speed of 1/8000th was made available, however, I no longer wished for anything faster. Ever. The Minolta's 1/12,000th thus offered no real advantage. Where between 1/1000th and 1/8000th my Point of Sufficiency exactly resides is tough to say, but I'm going to guess that a true 1/2000th is all I need.

Now, of course, my points of sufficiency are only sufficient to me—so they wouldn't necessarily hold true for you. Hence the list of questions. Only each person would know the answers for him- or herself. The questionnaires would be different for film cameras or digital ones, but you could make one for just about any type of camera or format. One for digital cameras would begin something like this:

1. How many megapixels do you really need?
2. What kind of “frame rate” are you ever likely to really use?
3. How many pictures do you ever need to take in a row, at that speed?

...And so forth, probably to great length.

For me, for example, I have to say I’m mostly happy with my 6-megapixel DSLR—but only in the same way that I was mostly happy with my old Leica’s 1/1000th shutter speed. Sometimes I do see pixelation, or wish that I could more easily make larger prints. So I know that my Point of Sufficiency is not quite reached by 6 MP. Where it does reside is unexplored territory, since I’ve never used a camera with more than six megapixels.

I’m on firmer ground with frame-rate. Long ago I had an SLR with an add-on motor-winder that provided 1.5 fps. It was grindingly slow. Then I got that EOS RT I mentioned before, which had 5 fps. Never once was that too slow for me. Voilà! The Point of Sufficiency, met and exceeded.

These things are all very useful to know, in my view. For instance, the new Nikon D3 has a shutter lag of 37 ms., according to its spec sheet, whereas the new Nikon D300 has a shutter lag of 45 ms. Knowing, as I do, what my own Point of Sufficiency is for shutter lag, I can comfortably predict that either camera would be fine for me, and that the better one wouldn’t offer any particular advantage over the smaller.

Filthy lucre
Where you can’t pinpoint a Point of Sufficiency, you can usually posit a useful range. This even goes for non-technical matters such as cost. I know that for me, if a camera is excessively expensive, it makes me feel snobby and foppish to carry it around—and sometimes nervous, too, since there’s always the risk of loss or damage. I did get used to carrying around a £1,600 Leica rig once, but only with some force of will, and only after some early qualms. Others might feel embarrassed to be seen with cheap or out-of-date gear, and feel as if they wished they’d spent more on their gear. (I’m almost immune at that end of the scale.) So you should even by able to specify, even if roughly, a range of prices within which you’re most comfortable.

If more people would begin with this sort of mental exercise, I believe, we could avoid saying silly things like how nice it would be if our cameras could shoot 11 fps for 65 frames. Jesse Alexander himself hardly needs that rate of performance, and John Q. Amateur is not in dire need of that feature to make some snaps of the geraniums on the weekend or document John Q. Junior’s trip to Sea World. While it’s no crime to carry our desires for performance features to extremes, sometimes it just seems...unhealthy; enough is enough.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Mike is on vacation this week. Comments will be posted promptly, but there won’t be any ‘Featured Comments’ on these.

From 1999: Lens Quality

[Mike is on vacation until 1/2/24. To tide you over, a few "Winter reruns" for your amusement, a little jaunt through the past.

This little squib has a long history. It was originally written as an email, I believe to Peter Croft, of Perth, Australia, who is still reading TOP at this late date (perhaps he could confirm that he was the original inspiration?). [UPDATE: Not the case.] He must have asked some innocent little question like, how can you tell if a lens is good, or how do you pick a lens to buy, or something like that. I was still Editor of Photo Techniques magazine at the time. The email was then published on mir.com—Photography in Malaysia—as "Johnston's Lens Ramblings," where it still resides. I've re-edited it lightly here. Of course this is from the film era, or rather my film era—written in 1999, whereas I got my first digital camera in 2003. Some of these things still hold true today, others not so much.]

-

(Originally published October 1999)
I'm no optical expert in the scientific sense, so I'm often left "thinking" that I see something and believing that "maybe" it may correlate to a scientific descriptive term. I'd be much more at home in Japan, where subjective connoisseurship of lenses is a well-established tradition. Here are a few of the things I believe about lenses:

—> That the cult of lens sharpness and quality evolved in parallel to the miniaturizing of film formats. It's very difficult for most lenses to look bad contact-printed, or enlarged three diameters; the smaller the film got and the more it was enlarged, the more the characteristics of the lens were exposed; so along with the interminable push for more sensitive and finer-grained films and developers, the "cult of lens quality" emerged. Nobody ever looked at a Daguerreotype and said, "not very sharp. Too bad the lens was a dog." If you've seen a decent number of Daguerreotypes you'll know what I mean.

—> Nobody knows what anybody else means by the term "sharpness." Resolution of ultra-fine detail? Contrast? At what degree of resolution? Edge sharpness that accentuates boundaries? Some people like one kind of "sharpness," others another.

—> Sharpness doesn't matter. Seen from a gestalt perspective, images can be very diffuse and broad-brush and still be recognizable, in the same way extreme abstraction can still be "read": that is, a line and two dots can be a "face," and vague fuzzy patterns of light and shade can be figurative. Ever seen those "pictures" made from thousands of little pictures? Called photographic mosaics or photomosaics. Fine detail in that case is little pictures that don't have anything to do with Marilyn Monroe, or whatever the "big picture" is of. (Forgive all these quotation marks.) Fact is, fine detail resolution doesn't have anything to do with why most pictures work as art—it almost never contributes to greater recognition of the subject, or to meaning. I could provide a list as long as your arm of great pictures which have coarse or limited amounts of detail.

—> Most people can't see lens properties in pictures. Most lenses are loaded with aberrations of different kinds, most of which are visible in pictures. But people don't see them, I guess because they don't know what to look for, or what they're looking at when they see it. Many of our readers never noticed the quality of the out-of-focus blur until we did our articles on "bokeh" (bo-ke, Japanese for "blur") in 1997. We know because they wrote and told us. (Some people never wanted to notice it: we know because they wrote and reamed us out, highly indignantly, for presuming to discuss it. "You're not supposed to look at that part of the picture!") Yet many, many photographs have large areas of out-of-focus blur and always have had and always will have. It's a technical property of lenses. It's there in pictures. Why ignore it? Similarly, you can see color fringing, linear distortion, coma, spherical aberration, falloff, and on and on, in pictures. Some people don't "notice" flare ghosts or obvious falloff, much less the many, much subtler cues as to how a lens is behaving.

—> Some lenses go "well" or "not so well" with different kinds of films. Many color photographers are very preoccupied with the color transmission on lenses. Is it cool? Warm? Accurate, or not? This is not so much a concern with the film I use: black-and-white Kodak Tri-X. That's a blatant example, but you can get as subtle as you want. Many descriptions of a lens that begin, "This lens looks..." actually mean, "This lens with this film looks...."

—> You can't buy wine by the label, books by the cover, etc. In the 1980s, German tycoon Heinrich Mandermann owned both Rollei and Schneider, and Schneider built a set of wonderful new lenses for the Rollei 6000 series. Guess what? People wouldn't buy 'em. They wanted the magic word "Zeiss" on the lenses, and they'd buy older, bigger, heavier, more expensive, worse-performing lens designs to get it. Most of those Schneiders are now discontinued. German lenses aren't "better" than Japanese lenses, Leica lenses aren't all better than any other brand, etc.

—> On the contrary, there do seem to be "house tendencies" among optical companies. Zeiss lenses do tend to have lousy out-of-focus blur; Nikon lenses do tend to be super-sharp-looking but at the cost of a certain harshness that can make Caucasian skin look pasty; Canon does favor a smooth, high-res but not quite so high-contrast look that works best with color film (because color can function as contrast: it can help distinguish adjacent areas and their edges. Imagine two areas of equal value, but one red and one green. In B&W, it may all be one undifferentiated gray; but in color, these two areas would tend to, ah, stand out from each other. Zap). Re Leica, some Japanese savants, I'm told, can wax poetic regarding the philosophies of the era of Mandler vs. the era of Kolsch.

—> Lens tests are meaningless. They almost never give you data, they almost never sample enough of the many parameters under which a lens can be used, they almost never adjudge sample variation, they almost never consider how well a lens will remain in spec over time, and they almost never contribute to your understanding of what the lens will actually do, with your film, in picture-taking situations typical for you. (The one single thing they can offer is a comparative grading to make shopping easier.) Most especially, lens "tests" which purport to reduce the quality of a lens to a single number, grade, or ranking, are never valid. Ever. There is no exception to this rule. Most of them don't even tell you how the disparate performance parameters are weighted! For instance, what if money is no object to you, and image quality is of paramount importance, and a lens tests weighs value highly in its final rating? What it if rates distortion as unimportant, and you're an architectural photographer who needs straight lines at the edge of the picture to look straight? What if it penalizes a lens for severe falloff wide open, yet every time you shoot wide open it is in "available darkness" with nothing but blackness and no important subject content anywhere near the corners? What if it rates ultra-fine detail resolution very highly but you use a grainy film with limited resolution? What if it "tests" the lens by photographing a test target four feet away at ƒ/8, but you're an aerial photographer who needs to know how the lens does wide open for subjects half a mile away?

Well, there's a lot more to it than this, of course. Where the fruit of all my investigations have led is that I sort of understand what properties I personally tend to value in a lens for my own work with my own film, and how a large number of the available lenses compare with each other within the focal-length ranges I work with. I.e., I don't know much...and the more I find out, the less I find I know.

But here are my recommendations:

• Believe the evidence. If you love a lens but it's not "supposed" to be good, believe the pictures before reputation, published test results, or the status of the brand. Don't scorn a lens that gives you what you want just because it's not prestigious. Or, if a prestigious lens really does give you more of what you want than a cheap one, don't hesitate to embrace that.
• Don't believe one or another property should be important to you unless it is. If a lens is universally admired because it is super-sharp, don't accept this uncritically as being a good thing. Maybe that lens looks harsh to you; maybe your work needs a softer look.
• New isn't necessarily good. Manufacturers in many fields typically expend a lot of effort and engineering expertise learning how to suck value out of a product—that is, to make it possible to make a "good enough" or an "almost good enough" product that can sell more cheaply and/or have a higher profit margin. With one lens design I've investigated thoroughly, I can virtually trace the bell curve as the makers first learned how to improve it and pour value and performance in, and then as they subsequently discovered how and where they could cut corners and suck value back out!—i.e., how they could reduce the number of elements, where they could get away with planar rather than spherical surfaces, which surfaces could be single-coated or left uncoated as opposed to being fully multicoated, how they could cheapen the barrel. The lenses at the top of the bell curve perform best, and some of these were manufactured thirty years ago [Ed. note: 25 years have passed since then].
• Good isn't necessarily that good. Science can make much better lenses than any photographer will pay for, or than can be purchased for use on any camera extant. When my father was a Director of NASA, I was privileged to get a look at some satellite ("spy") lenses for which the government had paid $250,000 each...in the 1970s. They could resolve a car license plate from hundreds of miles up.
• Bad isn't necessarily that bad. There are two parts to this rule. First, some very inexpensive lenses are surprisingly good; and second, even many poor lenses are good enough....for some use or other. Artists are people who can take tools and materials, perceive the properties of these tools and materials, and apply them to good effect. Good photographers can make, and have made, great photographs with really, really "bad" lenses. Never be blinded into thinking that good tools = good work. The world is full of photographers who churn out sharp but wretchedly poorly-seen pictures. They can break their own arms smugly patting themselves on the back for owning the latest apo-this or aspherical-that, but, regardless, crap is crap. Despite the high popularity of testing lenses and the great relish with which photographers argue the topic, ever wondered why photographers have no enthusiasm for conducting simple surveys with pictures? Actually, much of the seminal research into lens quality and exposure (in the 1930s and '40s) was done in just this way. Pay attention to what viewers of your pictures notice and tell you. Interestingly, the only lens I've ever used that got much in the way of compliments from non-photographer viewers was a Minolta 40mm ƒ/2 Rokkor-M.
• Finally—this is again apposite to the foregoing point—most viewers can't tell. Mushy feelings of delight at the optical prowess of this or that lens squelching up from within ourselves is something we photographers pursue for ourselves and for other photographers. Viewers of pictures just look at the pictures, not how grainy the film is or how luminous the shadow detail is or how many lp/mm the lens allegedly resolves on a test bench. How would they know anyway? They have no standard of comparison. So, much of lens connoisseurship is something one does for own's own diversion and gratification. Best not to confuse it with something done for the sake of others, or, for that matter, with anything important.
• Lastly, however, Never sell a good lens! The three best lenses I've ever used are gone with the wind, swept out along with the sundry detritus of this acquisitive hobby. Woe is me.

Hope this helps—

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Mike is off this week. Comments will be posted promptly, but there won’t be any ‘Featured Comments’ on these.

2010: The Original Fujifilm X100

[Introduction: This was our first article about the then-just-announced Fuji X100, first of the five iterations so far. The little camera launched the range of Fujifilm mirrorless products that currently has the company at No. 4 in market share globally among makers of dedicated ILCs.

The original title was "Beautiful Fuji."—Ed.]

-

(Originally published September 19th, 2010)

This is certainly the most enjoyable camera news I've gotten in a long while. Fujifilm has made a "development announcement" at Photokina for a camera to be called the X100: a high-quality, fixed-lens, 12-MP, viewfinder-window compact digital camera with an APS-C sensor. The lens is a 23mm ƒ/2 Fujinon...exactly equivalent, in 35mm terms, to a 35mm ƒ/2.

The executive summary is that this camera was built from the ground up to optimize image quality as much as possible.

Here are the major points:

Viewfinder: What will undoubtedly get the most press and be the subject of the most talk in the days and weeks to come is the all-new viewfinder concept. You say you want an optical viewfinder (OVF)? You say you sometimes prefer an electronic viewfinder (EVF)? Well, how about both? Together? In the same viewfinder?

In the picture of the front of the camera, above, see that little lever at the upper left of the lens? That lever allows you to switch instantly between an OVF and an EVF.

Here's how it works. In a normal rangefinder OVF, extra light is gathered from a separate window and used to project the framelines into the prism, which has a splitter in it to allow the two images to superimpose for your eye. What Fuji has done here—a really rather brilliant idea—is to simply dispense with the optical framelines and project a 1.4 MP LCD screen on top of the optical view. This allows them to put bright lines and full information (even a little histogram) into the optical viewfinder; or, you can flip the switch and see exactly what the lens sees as an EVF. Your choice. You can change at will depending on conditions. Oh, and the brightness of the superimposed information in the OVF changes with the intensity of the light, so it never washes out or becomes hard to see. Brilliant. I hope it works as well as it sounds like it does.

(Click on this image to see a larger version)

The lens: Fuji, of course, has been a lensmaker for a long time. Its Fujinon lenses have graced many of its cameras for many decades, and its view camera lenses were highly thought of and sought after for years. Fuji says its 23mm (35mm-e) ƒ/2 in the X100 was developed in tandem with the all-new sensor to optimize image quality...in fact, the company says the X100 will have the highest image quality ever offered in any FinePix. And the new lens is a big part of that.

The lens has a design of 8 elements in 6 groups, with one really radically-shaped press-molded (all glass) aspherical element (check it out, below). It functions as a near-macro lens in that it focuses to 10 centimeters (less than 4 inches), and it is said to achieve its highest contrast at only 1–2 stops down (the MTF diagrams at the Fuji site give graphs for ƒ/2 and ƒ/4, which usually means ƒ/4 would be the optimum aperture).

Cross section. Objective on the left, exit pupil on the right.
Note the extreme aspheric (element 6) and the huge
"follower" (a field-flattening element) on the right.

And get this—it's got a built-in (but of course optional) –3 neutral density filter, for when you want to shoot wide open and get lots of bokeh in bright light!

Crazy, man, crazy.

Classic Olympus 35 SP of 1969. Photo by D. Scott Young.

Finally, Fuji says the lens was designed to be as physically short as possible, in keeping with the compact-camera ethos, but it was deliberately made not to collapse in or telescope back out so that the camera will be ready to shoot the instant it's turned on.

Top view—note the real aperture ring, with finger grips. All the dials are metal. Fuji says the camera was designed so that the basic settings could be set with the camera off and confirmed visually at a glance with the camera off or on—old-fashioned functionality to go with the old-fashioned styling.

The sensor and processor: The X100 "features a custom CMOS high-performance sensor, internally optimized and developed exclusively for this model." The lenses over the photosites are shifted incrementally more towards the edges of the sensor, à la the M9, to maximize sharpness at the edges and corners and minimize falloff. The newly-designed EXR processor. Fuji says, "Throughout development of the processor, Fujifilm has re-examined every aspect from response to the circuit structure, and achieved a significant leap in signal processing performance."

Design: Obviously a retro design that conjures rangefinders of days gone by (engadget calls the X100 "rangefinderesque"). The main point to be made about the design is that, like the Digital Pen before it, the X100 seeks to give photography enthusiasts what many of us want—a digital camera with some distinctiveness and object-quality, one that isn't just another rounded lump of black polycarbonate or yet another magnesium frame with a rubbery covering.

Incidentally, there's a video at engadget [link removed 'cause it's broken now —Ed.].

I'll of course have more about this as we learn more—the official introduction isn't until Tuesday. Meanwhile, a last thought: Fuji says in its press release that "Fujifilm has closely studied the current line-up of professional cameras and feels that there is a strong need for a compact high-quality (APS-C based) camera as a counterpoint to an SLR." Here's what I said five years ago, when I first called for the type of camera we've finally been getting lately: "It would be a second camera, in the way that a two-seater sports car is a second car. It would be neither a do-everything camera nor a replacement for a DSLR, but rather a complement to a DSLR." Looks like our choices in the two-seater category just got that much richer.

—Mike

ADDENDA:
1. I heard from "our man in Japan" (he's not really our man, just a friend) who says that the prevailing rumor there (I should emphasize the word rumor) puts the X100 at ¥120,000 to ¥150,000 (that's $1,399 to $1,749). I.e., undercutting only the Leica X1. So those of you hoping for a "friendly" price might have to wait more like two or three years.

2. While the camera is remarkably close to "the DMD" from what we know so far, don't forget that a crucial part of the DMD spec is, "Has to be—must be—razor quick. As good as the best pro DSLRs," with fast AF that works positively in low light. That aspect of the X100 will have to await actual testing, but, on the evidence of cameras like the DP1 and DP2, E-P1 and E-P2, and X-1, it's not something that cameramakers are finding easy to implement in compacts.

3. Fuji is calling for release in "early 2011." Total coincidence: my birthday is in late February. Might be looking to buy myself a birthday present. I'm just sayin'.

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Mike is on vacation this week. Comments will be posted promptly, but there will be no Featured Comments on these republished articles.

From 2010: The Goldilocks Box

[Introduction: this is the article I wrote in 2010 calling for a mid-level Mac computer without a monitor. Back then, all you could get was either a Mac Mini or a Mac Pro (not the trashcan, the great big aluminum enclosure that was as big as a suitcase), but there was no "just right" not-too-big, not-too-small middle option. The iMac ruled in the middle of the lineup. The post was called "Needed: The Goldilocks Box."

Steve Jobs died only 13 months after I wrote this, and Apple introduced the Mac Studio in March of 2022. As predicted in this post, I left iMacs behind and got a new NEC monitor in 2016, and have had it ever since. (The linked article has one of my favorite illustrations I've made for TOP.) Alas, I had to (belatedly) sound the death knell for NEC photography monitors a little over a year ago; my next monitor won't be an NEC. And, yup, I'll be keeping the one I have for as long as it lasts. So far so good.

Oh and by the way—that caption to the illustration? That number is $8,422 now! —Ed.]

-

(Originally published September 28th, 2010) It looks like it's come time to replace the TOP worldwide digital hub again, a.k.a. the computer in my office. It'll be the fun purchase I get to make as a result of my cut from the recent print sale.

But I have shocking news...I'm afraid I really must...criticize Apple.

I know!

Before this causes a furor and a hubbub, not to mention a hullaballoo or other types of tumult, I should hastily say that I understand that Steve (kowtow) likes computers with built-in monitors and that therefore they are Good Things. But this will be something like my tenth Macintosh since 1984 (is there a name for people who've been using Macs since the very beginning? No sarcastic answers, now), and I have to say it: buying a 1984 Mac with a permanent 9-inch black-and-white CRT screen is one thing; buying a 2010 iMac with a 27" LED screen is quite another. The monitor component has been becoming—literally—a bigger and bigger part of the one-piece Mac cost equation.

My first computer, the "Fat Mac" of late 1984. OS 1.0, $2,795. (That's $5,700 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars!)

So why do I have to toss my monitor every time I want to upgrade my computer? Because Apple doesn't make the box I need. I can buy a Mac Pro, which is too big, and I can buy a Mac Mini, which is too small. Otherwise, I have to buy another big monitor to replace the already perfectly good big monitor I already have, which replaced the last perfectly good monitor I had, which replaced the one before that, etc.

There is no "just right sized" standalone Mac box.

The Mac Pro is too expensive and too much computer for me, too, but I really mean it's too big. I've thought about it, and I just don't see where it would fit in my office within reach of everything it would need to be connected to.

My office is very crowded.

Sorry to criticize Apple. I'm aware that such behavior is not permitted (unless you're a PC user, in which case it's mandatory).

But I think it's time for Apple to rethink. Give us the i7 iMac computer without making us buy the monitor at the same time. I probably only need one new monitor for every three new computers I'll buy—but I need to be able to buy the computers I need for the monitor I'll be keeping. If ya follow.

So what about it? Come on, Apple. I promise not to criticize for another 26 years.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Mike is on vacation this week. Comments will be posted promptly, but there will be no Featured Comments on these republished articles.

MC & HNY!

Merry Christmas! I will be taking vacation until January 2, but during that time I will re-post selections from the archives and will approve and publish comments quickly (though there will be no Featured Comments till I get back).

Winslow Homer, Christmas—Gathering Evergreens, from
Harper’s Weekly, December 25, 1858, p. 820

I started with the idea this year of listing all the December or midwinter holidays and celebrations and doing a little writeup on each, but there are too many of them. Here's a short, partial list of the holidays being celebrated at this time of the calendar:

Christmas, the big daddy. "There are those who love Christmas and then there are those who really love Christmas." —Claire Rutter, Rolling Stone. Christmas is a religious and secular holiday widely observed in the Western world. It originally derived from the midwinter festivals of the ancient world, most closely resembling the Roman Saturnalia, "celebrated with sacrifice [and] a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival"—although now we most often sacrifice a turkey. Early Christianity fought to eliminate the holiday, but it was so persistent that after several centuries the Church decided to co-opt it, arbitrarily claiming that the occasion was the birthday of Jesus. Actually, no one has any idea when Jesus was born, as nothing is known about his early life. Devout Christians as late as the English puritans refused to celebrate Christmas, considering it pagan and "made-up by Man" because it isn't prescribed in the Bible. The Plymouth Pilgrims, after having arrived on the 16th, actually started work on their settlement on Christmas Day 1620. (A kind of funny situation about that: newcomers to Plymouth Colony in 1621 and 1622 who were not from the original Separatist group found their sensibilities offended by the idea of working on Christmas day, but their alternative for their day off, playing games and engaging in various sporting entertainments, was frowned upon by the settlement leaders, who forbade such foolery and urged the newcomers to keep their Christmas, if they must, as a day of devotion behind closed doors.) Curiously, Christmas is lately returning to its secular and folk roots, as it is increasingly a secular holiday celebrated by people of many religions, and by the religious and non-religious together*. And may I just say that my town rocks when it comes to Christmas lights. The people of Penn Yan have really done it up this year. I'll miss the lights when they go; they cheer everyone up.

Hanukkah. Celebrates a military victory in which Judah the Maccabee re-took Jerusalem from the Syrian Greeks, who had defiled the Second Temple by turning it into pagan shrine; Judah re-dedicated the Temple to the glory of Israel's God. A story related to the event was that the people had one day's supply of oil for their lamps but it miraculously lasted for eight days, although exactly how that helped the war effort is something I haven't been able to uncover. It seems the more serious the source, the less is made of the oil story. A symbol of the holiday (and indeed of the Jewish religion) is the menorah, a candelabrum with seven or sometimes nine branches. An alternate name for the occasion, the Festival of Lamps, was changed to Festival of Lights by the late 1800s. The holiday migrates in date and is held over eight days and nights. This year, Hanukkah was celebrated from December 7th to December 15th, so it's over, but it's appropriate to wish Jewish people Happy Hanukkah throughout the holiday season.

Kwanzaa. Not a religious event, Kwanzaa is a pan-African cultural celebration started by Maulana Ndabezitha (previously Ron) Karenga, an African studies professor and Black separatist, in 1966, following the disastrous Watts riots in California. It is held from December 26th to January 1 and peaks at a December 31st feast called Karamu Ya Imani, Karamu for short, which initially developed separately in Chicago. Karenga has stated that the purpose of Kwanzaa is to "give black people an opportunity to celebrate themselves and their history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society." His ideas were initially quite radical (for instance, that Jesus was psychotic** and that the cultural unity cultivated by Kwanzaa is a necessary precursor to violent revolution), but he softened his radicalism considerably over the years to make the observance more appealing to the mainstream and less threatening to non-Black people. A 2019 poll determined that 2.9% of those Americans who intended to celebrate a midwinter holiday would be celebrating Kwanzaa.

Boxing Day. An English custom dating from Victorian times (1837–1901), when servants were given gifts and a day off on December 26th—doubtless after long labors helping to stage the elaborate Christmas celebrations of their employers, and presumably because they'd had to work on Christmas day. Coincidentally, the same day, December 26th, is Zarathosht Diso, which honors the death of the prophet Zoroaster (that's spoken "zoro-aster," not "zo-roaster"). Zoroastrianism, at more than 3,000 years old, is the world's oldest monotheistic religion.

Festivus. A made-up family Christmas alternative invented by Daniel O'Keefe and popularized by his son Dan O'Keefe, a writer on the TV series Seinfeld. It heads up a long list of secular, fictional, and parody midwinter holidays, some of which are alternatives devised by anti-religious groups such as atheists or Satanists, and many of which are part of things like video games, science-fiction or fantasy book worlds, or TV shows and movies. To name just a few examples: Newtonmas is celebrated by skeptics on December 25th because it is Isaac Newton's birthday in old-style dating; various groups, such as those calling themselves Druids (Julius Caesar described the historical Druids in De Bello Gallico), celebrate the hibernal solstice on December 21st, with varying degrees of seriousness and involvement; Erastide is the midwinter festival in David Eddings' Belgariad and Malloreon series of books; Hogswatch is the parody holiday in Terry Pratchett's Discworld fantasy novels; Candlenights is a "pan-religious, pan-sexual, personal pan pizza winter holiday" created by brothers Justin, Travis, and Griffin McElroy on their comedy advice podcasts; and Life Day is the Wookiee celebration of life in the Star Wars Holiday Special. There are many more.

•  •  •

However you might be celebrating this year, I wish you and your loved ones health, happiness, togetherness, and good cheer!

Until next year,
Mike

*A 2022 Pew Research poll determined that 64% of Americans identify as Christians, down from 90% in 1950. And yet the observance and celebration of Christmas is not declining. Earlier Pew Research polls also report that less emphasis is being placed on religious displays such as nativity scenes, and that most people who perceive this trend are not bothered by it. A greater percentage now say they don't believe there is a factual basis for the details of Biblical Christmas stories. Most citizens who no longer identify as Christian have migrated either to non-belief or to unspecified lack of affiliation; very few have migrated to non-Christians faiths. Despite these trends, nine in 10 Americans celebrate Christmas in some fashion.

**Although this sounds extreme, it turns out—this was news to me—that it actually has deep and persisting roots in the search for the historical Jesus, spanning many years, with many scholars and psychiatrists venturing retrospective diagnoses of Jesus based on his known actions and behaviors. The idea also has echoes in fiction and in comparisons with more modern messianic figures such as Jim Jones and David Koresh. There's also the interesting question of why the followers of Jesus were not executed at the same time he was, which would have been the case if his main crime had been a challenge to the local authority. One can read an overview of all this here.

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Joel Becker: "The real reason that Chanukah is eight days is because it is a delayed celebration of Sukkot, the eight-day harvest holiday. At the normal time of Sukkot (~October in the Gregorian calendar), the Maccabees were busy fighting the war, and so could not celebrate. Once they had retaken Jerusalem, they re-dedicated the Temple and caught up on observance of Sukkot. This is why Chanukah remains a minor Jewish holiday, even though it coincides with a major Christian one. We observe the major harvest holiday at its normal time. Chanukah is for remembering our fight for freedom and independence."

John Krumm: "My birthday falls on Festivus, December 23, and last year we held something of a Festivus celebration. No feats of strength, and we left the metal pole in the garage, but we had a great time airing grievances. Highly recommended for a fun time at a dinner party."

The Camera as Wearable Accessory

Some cameras are both picture-takers and fashion accessories. Primary among these is the beautiful and cunningly tiny and delicate Fuji X100V, the latest iteration of the viral sensation that took even Fuji by surprise in September of 2010. (I was told back then that Fuji initially expected the camera to be a niche product that would appeal mainly to females in the Japanese home market. Instead, it's been like a book that was a surprise best-seller and then never went out of print.) You can actually buy an X100V at Amazon right now, although the prices start at $1,900, rather a lot for a fixed-lens camera, but then remember you're getting the lens. But the camera has been particularly hard to get for a long time now. DPReview says it is "so desirable that it's almost impossible to actually buy an X100V (without paying a substantial premium over the list price). This may be a knock-on effect of the chip shortages and supply chain problems, post lockdown, an intentional restriction in supply to keep prices strong or the winding-down of production in anticipation of a new model, we can't be sure." B&H lists it for a slightly more reasonable $1,400, which hardly helps, as it is "temporarily out of stock" there, a condition that's been so persistent that they might have to rethink that word "temporarily."

The Sony A7CII

If you have an X100V, hang on to it. It's been so hard to get that prices of used X100F's have been rising as fast as the prices of two-year-old Toyota RAV-4's.

Of the "usual suspect" alternatives, the Ricoh GRIII (28mm-equivalent) and the GRIIIx (same camera but with a 40mm-e lens) are just as good for pictures but not nearly as good as jewelry. In fact, the opposite might be the case: the Ricohs are anonymous, both in terms of their appearance and the brand name. Not always a bad thing of course. Other alternatives are also-rans as well, in the present sense, because they don't cut it as style statements.

Sony's beauties
The best camera-as-fashion camera right now might be the Sony A7C, which has been unjustly overlooked almost since it got here. It's a handsome camera, especially in silver. Even a bit smaller than the X100V (and they're both surprisingly small, if you've never seen either in person), it has a better grip, it's full-frame, and it takes interchangeable lenses.

For a lens, I'd get the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2.8 Sonnar ZA. It's barely four and a quarter ounces, and it comes with a dedicated lens hood. Yes, it's slower than the Fuji lens by a stop, but with a FF digital sensor, does that really matter in practice? It looks great and balances well on the camera, even if passers-by can't see the little blue Zeiss logo.

There are actually three options available now: the original 24-MP A7C which was introduced in 2020, and the pairing of the new A7CII and the new A7CR which were announced just last August. The A7CII has slightly improved specs in most areas, including a modestly higher-resolution 33-MP sensor, and, as those familiar with Sony's nomenclature can guess, the A7CR has a 61-MP sensor, enough to offer a noticeable improvement in resolution in some cases. You won't save any money over the Fuji, but the A7C trio are all available. So at least you can spend your money if you want to.

With the little Sony instead of the little Fuji, would you turn just as many heads out on the boulevard? That remains to be tested. But probably.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Mackenzie: "Lack of availability of the Fuji is primarily a result of it being touted on TikTok. That led to the rapid rise in prices as it was purchased as jewelry driven by the 'influencers' there."

John Holmes: "A Speed Graphic for me, please...the 'Weegee Look' will really command attention!  :-)  Merry Christmas."

David L.: "I had the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2.8 Sonnar lens for Sony. Definitely enjoyed using it, and carrying it, and I was always happy with the results. It would fit well with any compact Sony camera."

Richard: "My recent experience is that the camera of mine which attracts the most attention (by far) is my Olympus OM-2n."

Mike replies: That's because it's the best all-around choice of all the used cameras from the film era, the best balance of old and new, light yet tough, ideal size, sweet to operate, sufficient capabilities without excess crud, and accessible price. Want to see mine?

Open Mike: Readings

["Open Mike" is the Editorial Page of TOP. That might be all you need to know.]

When vacation times come around my thoughts turn to reading. The treadmill revitalized my reading time; I read on my phone or my iPad while I'm exercising.*

Daniel Strieff at a site called Medium wrote an article called "The 15 most influential journalism stories in U.S. history" back in 2018. I just discovered it in my ramblings around the internet in search of good nonfiction (which landed me with my nose in a book of historical fiction written by a writer of romance novels, odd considering I hardly ever read either historical fiction and might never have read a single romance novel. I can't think of one, anyway). I don't think it's reasonable to assume that anyone will have read all the stories Strieff covers: one is a novel; one a series of articles; one famously took up the entire issue in a prestigious magazine, running over 31,000 words (about a third the length of a book); one is The Federalist Papers.

One of the entries credits not so much the written story but the gruesome photographs that no other media outlet at the time would show—the mutilated and decomposing body of poor Emmett Till after his murder. (No, I won't illustrate this post with one of those.) And the credit for that one goes mostly to the committed and brave editors and publishers of Jet magazine rather than to a writer or photographer.

It's a lofty, distinguished list, limning many riches. But the originals, collectively, are daunting. I'm not sure anyone could be expected to read all of that. Too much tragedy and heartbreak, not enough relief; too specific about certain subjects, mute about so many more. Maybe that's journalism, "the first rough draft of history" (a quote often credited to Phil Graham of The Washington Post but actually said first by Alan Barth in 1943).

But I enjoyed reading the article about the articles.

What she said
That might be the way that a lot of books get into the culture, after all. When I was young a book came out that was reviewed and discussed extensively in Washington, D.C., where I lived at the time. I can't recall the title; I believe it concerned the journalist and liberal hero Walter Lippmann, who, among other things, originated the idea of a "cold war" and coined the term "stereotype" in its modern meaning. [UPDATE: The book was Walter Lippmann and the American Century, by Ronald Steel, 1980. Thanks to Jeff.]  Anyway, when I went to a local bookstore meaning to buy it, I was put off by the sheer size of it. It was an enormous tome with tiny print that would have taken me weeks and weeks to slowly slog through. I'm a thoughtful reader, but not a fast one. So I got to discussing that with the bookstore owner. Those were the days when small bookshops were staffed by their owners, who were book lovers.

When I asked how that particular book could be such a local bestseller in D.C., given that it was so long and formidable, she said, "Oh, none of the people who buy it are going to read it. They find out all they need to know by reading the reviews of it, and then they can discuss it at parties and with their friends. They buy the book to put on their shelves or leave casually on a coffee table so everybody can see they have it."

I've always remembered that. Sometimes when I read a really good book review, I'll quietly think, there—now I've read that, and I know enough. I don't need to read the book. (Of course if the review is really good, I might really read the book. I think this one is next up in the queue.)

Anyway, maybe you'll enjoy reading the accounts of those great masterpieces of journalism in "The 15 most influential journalism stories in U.S. history" (the author actually names 21**) over the holiday break, if you're taking one. You don't necessarily have to read the primary sources themselves. Just the article and its descriptions are likely to expand the reach of your knowledge.

After all, learning can never come to an end, and life isn't nearly long enough to learn all we should. (When it comes to learning I wish I had a thousand years.) Shortcuts allowed.

Mike

*It makes it important to choose good books. A good book makes the time on the treadmill fly by; a bad book makes the exercise session into a trudge and slows the hands of the clock.

**I don't know why people do that, but they do. I believe the Penguin Guide (is that still published?) used to award up to three stars for a record, but it diced the results into half-stars—meaning it's a scale of six, not a scale of three. So why not just make it a scale of six in the first place? Why the cutoff at 15 if you're going to go ahead and name 21? Six are "Runners-up." The author says they didn't quite make the list...but then he adds them to the list. Sigh.

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jeff: "Walter Lippmann and the American Century (almost 700 pages). Never cared to read it. But I’m fortunate to still have an independent bookshop 1.5 miles from me that is owned by knowledgeable book lovers."

Mike replies: That was it. By Ronald Steel, 1980. Thanks. And by the way, I'm sure a lot of people did read it.

Alan Whiting: "On books for show: the Irish columnist Myles na Gopaleen (an alias) pointed out that it was clear that these books had never been read. Tongue in cheek, he offered a book-handling service. Several pages would be dog-eared, old theater programs inserted as forgotten bookmarks, the spine would be cracked, and a worn look generally imparted, for a reasonable price. That was many years ago, but maybe it's a viable market niche now in some pretentious place."

Mike replies: Houses for the superrich are sometimes sold completely decorated and furnished, as they are essentially places for their owners to visit occasionally, and some high-end antiquarian book dealers offer a service whereby they will stock the shelves of such houses with appropriately elegant books. If you've never read A Gentle Madness by Nicholas Basbanes, I highly recommend it for book lovers. It's now cheap on Kindle, a fact which belongs to some species of irony.

John Camp: "Okay, you started the book thing, and I've been looking for a place to whine about one of the stupidest editorial decisions I've ever encountered. I've never read Tolstoy's War and Peace. I decided this holiday season was it, so I carried myself down to the local bookstore and bought a copy, a Vintage Classics edition. Translated, of course, from the Russian. But aristocratic Russians from Tolstoy's time commonly spoke French. So this book is translated into English from the Russian, but they didn't translate the French into English, except in small-type footnotes at the bottom of the page. So the first page of the book begins with seven lines of untranslated French. Then there are mixed paragraphs of English and French through the rest of the book (I didn't read, I just looked.) It's insane. You're trying to get a feel for the heart of the book, into the flow of the story, and you keep getting thrown out by passages in French, and I think, not even contemporary French, but 200-year-old French. Well, excuse me mon cher, but I don't read Napoleonic French, which is the reason I bought an English edition. Honestly, in an entire lifetime of reading, never encountered anything quite like it.

Mike replies: I went to prep school, so of course I read all sorts of 18th-century Englishmen, who were fond of peppering their writings with Latin and Greek quotations. Same thing—modern editions did not translate those. Like I had received the same neoclassical education as those writers enjoyed, and "had" at least Latin if not Greek. because what educated gentleman didn't? And French, but of course. My prep school actually taught Latin. And I took it, for three days.

I always recommend this volume of Montaigne because it's a nice articulate readable translation, and because a little Montaigne goes a long way; most general readers don't need to read the complete essays, however much they love the word "complete," and because that one, at least, translates all of the little quotations so beloved of Montaigne into English. But, yes, as footnotes.

A quirky little thing I do now and then is to compare the readability of various translations and research the best translations of foreign-language classics to read. (And don't get me started on translations of the Bible.) For your project, I'd recommend the Anthony Briggs translation of War and Peace (2005), which emphasizes idiomatic flow (in British English at least). It has all of the French bits translated inline. You can get it in hardcover (in the pleasant Penguin Clothbound Classics Series), or in paperback—for a higher price than the hardcover! But the paperback is one of Penguin's oversize ones with the nice fake deckle-edged pages. They have an option for Kindle as well, although I'm suspicious—Amazon is notorious for mixing translations on its sales pages, and the preview they give for the Kindle edition may just be the preview for the paperback, with the actual Kindle version being a different translation. You'd have to buy it to check. But that's happened to me before.

I heard once that three things are best saved for late in life: travel to Alaska, because nothing else will ever measure up after it; War and Peace; and opera.

Rob L: "I am deeply grateful for this article—I'm teaching Journalism Merit Badge at camp next week and this is a treasure trove to work from. And yes, the editors at Jet were magnificent. A writer or photographer can afford to take chances, it's expected and they always have the safety net of an editor to rein them in. When the editors take a risk, they bet their publication's existence."

Arch Noble: "I first waded all the way through War and Peace as a precocious 11 year old, bewildered—not by the book, but by the fact that it was reputed to be great literature. It was only when I reread it some 60 years later (and much education and many, many books later) that I realized that in fact it is painfully and irretrievably dull. Flat-out boring and very poorly written. I have finally concluded that it is not great literature; it is just the opposite. Which makes me wonder how many people have actually read the thing."

Mike replies: I have a memory of the first bad adult book I read. I was the same age as you were, 11, and that summer had just read an issue of TIME magazine cover to cover for the first time (TIME was denser and more serious in those days that it was later). I picked an adult book off my parents' bookshelves and started reading. About halfway in I was just astonished by how bad it was...so I kept reading, because I couldn't imagine it wouldn't improve before the end! Most of the books I'd read before that were either for school, chosen by teachers, or they were from the school library and thus vetted by the school librarian. I read that novel all the way to the bitter end and to my astonishment, it never got any better. The experience shook my foundations a bit. Previously I had just sort of assumed that any book that made it into print had to have some redeeming qualities.

I've never read War and Peace. The book I read that struck me like Tolstoy struck you was Guard of Honor by James Gould Cozzens. "Painfully and irretrievably dull" in spades. It boggled my mind that it was once a best-seller. I guess if you were in the Air Force Stateside in WWII it might have been interesting. For me it was like four days in a dentist's waiting room.

Young People, Now People

Just wanted to mention, apropos the previous conversation, that it looks like Pentax is taking into account the desires of younger people in designing its Film Project—and I think that's a good thing.

I'm "Generation Jones," beginning to age out (just passed retirement age, just started taking Social Security)—I bought numerous film cameras new, and was even formally trained in how to be a still film photographer. I had been photographing for years by the time digital became a gleam in Steve Sasson's eye.

I do think that the first all-new premium film camera following the digital transition will be news—big news—as the vast hoard of left-over film cameras grows ever more antique and fragile, and the people able to service them leave the field or enter age-appropriate retirement. Film Leicas, an appropriate and fortunate survivor, are certainly premium, but have design roots going back to the 1950s and are hardly all-new. It has to happen sometime, given that film photography in enjoying a modest resurgence. So the first such camera to appear will almost automatically be a landmark.

But it's not me and the likes of me who need to be satisfied; it's Gen Z and Millennials whom Pentax ought to be listening to, and whose wants, desires, and concerns should to be served. That's as it should be; it's a good thing.

Truth be told, if "my ship comes in," as they say, I would build a little house with a darkroom in the basement and take up film photography again. I honestly would. But that's unlikely to happen, and unless it does I won't be buying any film camera Pentax cooks up anyway. So I'm not the target market, either—not if they're smart.

So it's as it should be. "And all shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be exceeding well*." —Mother Julian of Norwich

Mike

*I know the quote from T.S. Eliot's "Little Gidding," the last of the Four Quartets:

And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flames are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

Little Gidding, by the bye, is a town in Cambridgeshire in the East of England. I have roots there if you go back far enough—I'm descended from the Ferrars and Colletts of Little Gidding through John Collett (or Collet, ) of Bourne, Cambridgeshire, and Little Gidding, 1572–1659, and his wife Susana née Ferrar (also spelled Farrer and Farrar—note the plaque below). And an ancestor of his was Lord Mayor of London not once but twice, in 1486 and 1495. My grandfather was the last John Collett in our line. My great-grandfather John D. Collett got the birthdate wrong in his privately printed book The Genealogy of the descendants of John Collett Born 1578 [oops!], Died March 29th 1659 of Little Gidding and London, England and United States of America. I have of a copy of that now exceedingly and perhaps deservedly rare book around here somewhere, stuffed with notes and clippings from my great-grandfather's further genealogical researches post-publication. I also have a dye-transfer print made from a Kodachrome slide of John D. Collett by his son, exposed in a Zeiss camera my grandfather brought home from Europe in the 1950s; he would have traversed the ocean on one of the great liners, something he and my grandmother did many times. I have the camera too, and ran a roll of film through it once. The lens was very sharp in the middle but fell off in quality away from the optical axis. If you must know.  :-)

The little church that so inspired Eliot still stands in Cambridgeshire. Here's my many-times great-grandmother's plaque on the wall there, with an account of her formidable brood:

"Here also sleepeth Susana, wife to John Collet Esq by whom she had issue 8 sonnes & 8 daughters. She was ye only daughter of Mr Nicholas Farrar of London Merchant & sister to John Farrer Esq late Ld of this manor who died ye 9th Oct 1657 aged 76 years."

I don't know the name of the photographer. I got the information from the Church's website.

Hmm, I think I just wrote a second, unrelated post as a footnote! About olden people, in a post about young people. Oh well, such is blogging. Seinfeld "Newman" voice: Blogging!

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

William Lewis: "Ah, probably a Tessar on the old Zeiss camera then. That's the signature look for them—knife sharp in the center, smoothing out to, at their best, a buttery look on the edges. I love a good Tessar lens and have a number of them in different formats for different cameras."

Mike replies: Then you'll appreciate this. I have a Tessar cross-section (also called a block diagram) on my business card.  :-)

John C: "I'm going to make a prediction and say that the first of the new Pentax film cameras is going to look a lot like the digital MX-1. I think It will be similar in size and have similar lines. It will be a fixed lens compact with a prime lens somewhere between 28mm and 35mm. Most likely 28mm. Not an SLR, not through the lens viewing, so a viewfinder compact. Scale focus or autofocus with premium optics both in the viewfinder and the objective. It may be aimed more at the Japanese market which would appreciate such a camera more than the US market. It think it will be a camera that Daido Moriyama would use.

"A couple of other posters have mentioned the difficulties of sourcing gears and machinists and the like (mechanisms in a digital electronic world), so I think this will be a step in a incremental development project. We'll see."

ian scholey: "Little Gidding is just 10 miles from where I live in Cambridgeshire. I have a few images of the Church after I visited, inspired by an artist who lives close by—Carry Akroyd. Her painting of the church can be found here."

And Here's What I Think the Pentax Film Project Ought to Be

Disclosure from the outset: I don't have any insider track at all. I haven't even followed the rumors, and haven't even looked at the teaser videos that are out there. This is just all my own imagination. It isn't information.

With that out of the way, a few basic principles:

• A new 35mm film SLR must be designed to be iconic. It should be something that can last in the market for 20+ years like the LX did, and be something worthy of standing next to the survivor film Leicas. It must be special enough to gain some mindshare out in the general culture, beyond the boundaries of the community of enthusiasts.
• It must position Pentax as an iconic marque and company, and build off of its classic heritage and highest accomplishments. Perhaps even help launch a proud Pentax brand, with regalia and merch and swag and wearables, in the same manner as Harley-Davidson did so successfully during one of its comebacks. Maybe that last is a stretch, I dunno.
• It must be mechanical, or at least mostly so, so that it has "object quality." Jewel-like. A fetish object. An object worthy of desire. With electronics used judiciously, sparingly, and only where needed. Not unworthy of being pressed into use as a "fashion accessory" by some. We old Photo-Dawgs don't care, but classic film cameras are personal style statements to young people now. Lean into that!

I'd have them make the "Spotmatic III." Does any old SLR look as classic and perfect as a Spotmatic? That doesn't exist. The same size, shape and weight as the classic SP and SL. Perhaps with adjustments—maybe three ounces lighter, and maybe the pentaprism would have to be a bit larger. Modernized, stylized—slightly. The same beautifully durable materials. (Do any old cameras wear as well through time as Spotmatics? Methinks not.) And purist: no self-timer. No hot shoe or flash terminals. No mirror lock-up (well, maybe mirror lock-up). No double exposure button. No connection for motor winders or drives. No autofocus, of course (although I'd tolerate a focus confirmation light)—manual focus might be slower, but it's its own joy. The whole camera would embody the ideas of  deliberation and contemplation, as does using film in 2024.

None of that is needed now because the camera won't be anybody's go-to for workaday, necessary pictures. Just a purist machine for exposing negative film and nothing more. It doesn't need to do any kind of specialist double-duty. It would be for one thing and one thing only: looking through, and exposing pictures mindfully, deliberately, and joyfully.

The legendary Pentax Spotmatic, pride of Japan in
the 1960s. Photo by Paul M. Provencher.

Then, some modern updates: 100% finder and better eye relief, better coating in the prism and finder optics. But with plenty of "snap" on the groundglass, rather than brightness at the expense of being able to see the plane of focus. K-mount, of course, not Pentax screwmount. Diopter correction built in, so it can't get lost. The beautiful self-timer lever could be retained to serve as the lens-release lever. Great care taken with haptics and hand-feel: the smoothness of the wind-on, the sound of the shutter (quieter), the damping of the mirror. I'd give it three sizes of optional add-on handgrips, but, continuing under the heading of "if it ain't broke," retain the plain old ring lugs so that any strap could be used, and a mechanical connection for a mechanical cable release. 

One thing they could work on re-engineering would to foolproof the film loading. Years of serving students and enthusiasts have taught me that that's something that can frustrate people about film cameras. Kodak's research showed the same.

Spot on
Autoexposure and metering is where my fancies get really sweet. Pentax needs no introduction to logic in control layouts: they perfected it, their cameras (many of them) embodied it. So, the classic aperture ring and shutter speed dial (going up to 1/2000th or at most 1/4000th, no more than that is needed for film now!), with an "A" for auto on each: when both are set on a value, you're in Manual mode; when the aperture dial is set on A and the shutter speed dial is set on a value, you're in Shutter Priority; when the aperture is set on a value and the shutter speed is set on A, you're in Aperture Priority; and finally, with both set on A, you're in Program Mode. No more modes than that.

Simple centerweighted averaging metering. People will, after all, be using forgiving B&W film and forgiving color negative film for the most part.

...But here comes the kicker. Longtime Pentaxians know that the name "Spotmatic" was originally chosen because the camera was supposed to have spot metering capability. But it was too early for the tech, the idea was dropped late in the development, and the cameras never had spot metering—even while the name was retained.

I'd propose to restore the original raison d'etre of the classic camera. On the back of the top plate, right where it's easiest to access for the thumb of your right hand, a small button that, when you push it, gives you a spot reading corresponding to just the area of the focus aids in the finder, and simultaneously locks exposure until you release it again. This allow you to take a spot reading on a middle gray area of the picture and recompose and take one shot or many, or quickly revert or reset as needed. Two metering methods (and nothing else, no matter what your engineers can think up), in combination giving the photographer all he or she really needs for general and expressive photography.

Simple. Purist. Elemental.

Could they sell this whole idea? I don't know, but I sure as hell could.

Skimp not!
Finally, and this is important: really, really good build quality, and a high enough price. (That might sound surprising, coming from me!) You have to differentiate it properly from actual old cameras. It has to be better and finer, in part because it is newer, in part because it's made to be a precision instrument. Not priced so high that it seems like a ripoff: that would not be aligned with Pentax's history of making plain, unpretentious working tools (which this is not manifesting but rather glorifying, as all good retro ought). I'm thinking somewhere between maybe $2,200 and $2,800, today? To earn the company some money, sure. But it also has to be high enough for the new camera to be the aspirational target of all those young enthusiasts who are currently using actual old used SLRs from the bygone days. Importantly, it has to be enough nicer than all the old cameras that it creates legitimate lust and longing: the kind of thing people of all sorts would want because, well, because they want it. Remember, nobody needs a film camera. People will only buy one because it's beautiful and it delights them and it promises them an experience and they desire the thing. They'll buy it only for love, so you've got to make something people can love and then be able to articulate all the reasons why they should.

Never happen, of course. But, as Ernest Hemingway once famously wrote (coincidentally, in The Sun Also Rises, Japan of course being the Land of the Rising Sun): "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Landon Whitsitt: "This may not earn me a 'Featured Comment' spot (pun intended), but: YES. A thousand times YES. All this. Every bit of it."

Mark: "When Nikon released new film rangefinders in 2000 and again in 2005, my impression is that they were mostly snapped up by collectors. Of the ones currently for sale on EBay, quite a few are (or claim to be) unused. Will that be the case with a new film Pentax? I hope not, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Pentax’s revived film SLR sells at collector prices, and has a limited production run."

Erwin Frank-Schultz: "Agree with most of your ideas. Don't see much harm in a self timer and sync terminal. Love the idea of focus confirmation LED (with arrow either side). Should have optional focus screen with no optical focus aid, just circle for sport meter and frame for assisted focus. The first camera I bought (rather than 'inherited') was a Canon AL-1—loved the focus confirmation on that. Single button press spot meter / AE-lock also spot on.  ;-)  Any thought on lenses that should be released alongside?"

Bill S. (partial comment): "So what about lenses? I'm sure Pentax will want to sell some lenses for the camera."

Mike replies: Hmm, not sure, because I no longer remember off the top of my head all the various functional permutations. I think it would require an A lens to conform to the modes I've already called for. But the A lenses weren't my favorites. I'd say on the ideal plane at which my brain resides on this topic, it should be designed to be native with SMC Pentax-M lenses, the best line they ever had, and that there should be some new ones to go with the camera—but all designed for character rather than excessive, bland, synthetic-looking, overperfected perfection like many of today's lenses. Leave resolution to digital. The Spotmatic III would be for negative films, B&W and color.

Oh, and for any such camera to be manual-only would be THE KISS OF DEATH.

Kenneth Tanaka: "I’ve never touched a Pentax camera in my life and my desire to use film again is just slightly ahead of getting a cold sore. But I’d endorse your performative specs for such a camera. It’s worked for Leica for a long time."

Mike replies: That amounts to high praise from you! (Ken is a businessman and remarkably clear-eyed and hard-headed.)

Kenneth Tanaka: "Addendum: Watching The Beatles' A Hard Day’s Night yesterday (an annual event) reminded me of how terrific Pentax’s marketing maneuver was with them. Pentax gave 'the lads' cameras around that time…which they used well during their first American tour. (Ringo's snaps were published some years ago and Paul’s were just recently published.) Plus Ringo is prominently shown with his camera in the film. Although the main audience from those days is dwindling, Pentax might still do well to leverage such retro moments, as the film camera itself is pure retro chic."

robert e: "According to Pentax designer Takeo Suzuki, the first camera being developed for this project is a compact, fixed-lens non-SLR with a mechanical film advance lever. This video is particularly interesting. But there is lots more at the project's home page. The main takeaways for me, based on a brief sampling: 1.) The project is not about one camera—it's about reviving a vibrant and relevant film camera industry to support the growing numbers of young film enthusiasts and make the hobby more accessible to the uninitiated. (With Pentax as the flagship brand, of course.) That said, a lot is riding on this first camera. If it succeeds, SLRs and medium format are possible. 2.) It's about the joys and pleasures of analog photography, including the satisfying haptics and ergonomics of mechanical cameras. More generally, Pentax wants to understand and deliver what people find so compelling about film photography. 3.) It's a last chance to preserve and pass on a living body of manufacturing know-how (and Pentax's legacy) before it disappears along with its last practitioners. However it goes, Pentax seems to be doing a wonderful job so far of involving the world and stoking enthusiasm."

John v: "Not having seen anything about Pentax’s film camera plans, I’m inclined to think the untapped film camera market isn’t high-end SLRs but rather high quality point-and-shoot cameras. It’s the Yashica T4 and Contax P&S cameras selling for ridiculous prices to young film photographers."

Roger: "Pentax will need to come out with a 6-MP CCD-sensored digicam if they want to stay current with the cool kids. It’ll need to use AA batteries and create 'film-like' output."

Kodachromeguy: "It will be difficult for Pentax to find the machinists/technicians, materials, and production system make a new camera that has the smoothness and precision of an early 1970s Spotmatic. Was the gearing made of brass? Was each camera hand assembled? Nikon pulled it off with their reissue rangefinders in the early 2000s, but it was expensive and difficult. They even had challenges finding the correct metals and coatings."

Steve Renwick: "The meter display should be match-needle style, like God Herself intended. And of course the camera should allow the photographer to go on shooting, unmetered and manually, if the batteries fail."

What Will the Pentax Film Project Camera Look Like?

I certainly don't know, but I'll venture one guess: they'll probably get it wrong. At least in terms of what I'd like.

There are several reasons. First, because everybody wants something different and they won't be able to satisfy everyone with one camera. Second, because they won't be able to resist doing something "special and distinctive" to "set it apart" from other film cameras. This is a common failing in design: designers simply can't make something classic and archetypal, because they can't resist the lure of specialness. Like the slanted top deck on the MZ, or the nonstandard strap fasteners on the LX. So some kind of special feature or special capability will be baked in or tacked on the new camera, because that's human nature. Third, because we have certain capabilities now that we didn't have back in the film era, and the committees influencing the final product will not be able to tie themselves to the mast and resist all of those siren calls. Example from the same country but a different field: the Mazda Miata, a.k.a. MX-5, a car whose purpose is to distill the essence of elemental 1960s British roadsters, has an infotainment screen.  An ugly anomaly sticking up out of the dashboard like a giant flat sore thumb. Audrey Hepburn wearing a clown nose. Why? Because that's what we do now. Hell, if I were calling the shots on that car it wouldn't even have a radio. Listen to the engine and the wind rushing by! So the Pentax film project will have onboard chips and a variety of electronic complications, because that is what we do at the moment, and because the designers will not be able to bring themselves to deny those things to the company's customers even if they say they are pursuing simplicity, purity, and directness.

There might be another reason, which is that cameramakers equate complexity, featuritis, and complication with desirability and consumer appeal. It's so thoroughly entrenched in the culture that I doubt they can collectively step back from that even if they wanted to. Oh, and one last one. In creating an ideal, one must not give in to the temptation to go to extremes. Rather, one must find a thoughtful and considered Middle Way that is in perfect balance. But it's human nature to go to extremes.

Finally, I have to note (though it makes me sound sour) that Pentax has never been great at clean-sheet, blue-sky designs: the MZ-S, the *ist, the K-01. They're better at building on their solid, sensible, workmanlike past.

LX = 60, for 60th anniversary

But even if you accept the idea that the mission is to create a camera that distills the best of Pentax's film past—a fact not in evidence yet—there are still problems. I've been reviewing cameras for longer than most of today's camera engineers have been adults, and have forgotten more about using Pentax film cameras than most people know. I have more experience with Pentaxes than any other marque. I've used dozens of them from every era. The 1950s Asahi Pentaxes like the Honeywell H3V? Tried 'em. The Spotmatic series of the 1960s? I've used virtually every single model of Spotmatic, including the SP, Electro-Spotmatic, and ES II, and many of the M42 screwmount lenses. The early K-mount trio, K2, KX, KM? Owned 'em all. The early "tiny" cameras, when "small" was the in-thing in the early to mid-1970s, the MX, ME, and ME Super? Check, although the big hole in my bonafides is that I never owned an MX. The K-1000, of course, because I was a photo instructor and teacher. The professional LX of 1980, obviously—still have one. The only cameras that are lacking from my resumé are some of the "BBP" or "black-blob polycarbonate" models, the P-series (although I owned a P30) and the Z-series like the Z-1p and PZ-1p, because I rather loathed the trends by then and took a dim view of BBP cameras from all makers. I also used the onetime flagship/pro MZ-S (a camera I don't think ever gained much traction) and I owned a plastic-fantastic MZ-5n. Among many others. I also used the medium-format cameras and carried on with the early Pentax digital SLRs, too, although both of those are beyond the current discussion.

The point of all this is that I'm qualified to say this: there isn't actually a single historical Pentax camera that embodies in one camera all of the virtues of the great Pentaxes of the past. Each one has some weakness or some omission, or was too early in the development of some needed technology, or was decontented and cheapened to meet competitive price points, or lost something that an earlier model got right, or...something. As with most things, to keep up with the styles of the moment you embrace progress and change, which is good, but you also throw away some of the things you were already doing right, which is bad. The closest they came to putting all the company's virtues into one camera were the MX (1976–85), and the LX (1980–2001), the latter produced to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the grand old Asahi Optical Co.

But that is what I'd be after if I were in charge of the Pentax film project: to embody all of the venerated old company's traditional film-camera virtues in one great synthesis of its strengths from across the years.

And what would that look like? Well, that would be another post. And it would just be my personal opinion, which is worthless in the present context. The coming camera, though, if it is actually going to arrive, will probably not be anything like what I'd like. As to what it will be...well, it may be exciting, and it may be different, and I might even like it, maybe even love it. I'll try to keep an open mind, just in case.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Grant: "Ouch! 925 words to slam Pentax for a camera that has yet to be released and only 10 words to say your mind is open. Methinks your mailbox will be full. Almost 50 years a Pentaxian. Ten-plus film bodies, three digital bodies, far too many Pentax and K mount lenses to count. I can't put together ten words of complaint."

Mike replies: Well, as I explained in the previous post, I'm sick. Can't breathe, can't sleep, and my brain isn't getting enough blood.  :-)

Joseph L. Kashi: "I still have my two M42 Spotmatics, but did get two BBP bodies to go along with the KAF lenses that I have for my K-1 II. I must say that the Spotmatics still feel better in the hand and in operation than the late BBPs, which have been relegated to a dark drawer. On the other hand...a local camera repair place has a CLA'd LX in the case for a few hundred. Makes one stop and consider the extent to which the LX could be improved, at a much higher price. The realistic tone of your post makes perfect sense to me. Better realism than disappointed optimism. After all, you can't fool nature, to quote Richard Feynman."

Robert Roaldi (partial comment): "Whatever Pentax builds, assuming it actually gets built, will be Leica's only competition in film cameras, and indicators are that Leica film bodies still sell well. It's a crazy mixed up world. Fuji still makes a ton of money selling instant cameras, and I don't see how a new film body is so unusual compared to that. We have a camera store here in town whose main purpose is to sell film and every time I've been there, it's full of people a third my age. Something is afoot."

robert e (partial comment): "I rather hope for the opposite: that Pentax will start from scratch and build a capable, affordable, efficient film camera that makes sense for today, using the most sensible materials and design approaches available now. That ethos, if you ask me, is what made the early Pentaxes (and most later Pentaxes, too) great, not any particular set of features or specific details."

[You can read the full text of "partial comments" in the full Comments Section, accessible through the footer or by clicking on the post title and scrolling down. —Ed.]

Rob de Loe: "If you want a one-stop destination to learn about all these Pentax cameras Mike mentioned, visit the Pentax Forums."

John Camp: "Not being an antiquarian, I have no idea why people would want a new film body. As my first real SLR was a Spotmatic, and I currently own a Pentax Monochrome and a sackful of lenses, I have no problem with Pentax, but a new film body? Why? Why, when you can get a Nikon F6 with the battery pack from KEH for a hair less than $1,300 in LN– condition, or another in EX+ for $1,096? Or—get this—an F5 in EX+ for $86. Of course, film does give you limited flexibility and inferior pictorial output at no extra charge."

We Are Lucky

Screen shot of Ray Davies of the Kinks being knighted by then-Prince Charles. The man on the left in the gray suit waiting his turn is photographer Don McCullin.

I've been a mite under the weather. Mysteriously so. Finally might have figured out what's going on. I hope.

I had a spell of dizzyness, vertigo, lightheadedness, wooziness, and visual disturbances this past week that lasted about four days, the latest in a string of weird symptoms.

Of course I couldn't get in to see my doctor just for that. The way things are now, there's only a narrow band between "not serious enough to get an appointment" and "so serious you need the ER or the ambulance." Poking around on my own, I figured it might be low blood pressure. A friend told me Wal-Mart sells home blood pressure (BP) monitors, so I ventured into the wilds of Wal-Mart in Watkins Glen. Once located, I balked at the price of the home units, but there was a little kiosk right there where you could sit down and take your own BP. It was rather alarming to have my arm gripped in a giant steel contraption in a Wal-Mart. "Your blood pressure is very high," it admonished me, "Stage 2 hypertension." That sent my BP even higher, I'd guess. It's unusual for me—I've had low blood pressure all my life. I called my doctor brother and my doctor friend Steve. For counseling. Or, er, consoling.

Well, my blood pressure doesn't seem to be a problem, turns out—it was 122/70 this morning on the new home BP monitor I got from Amazon (way cheaper than Wal-Mart)—but my heart rate (HR) at Wal-Mart was 42, and my HR since then has been measuring in the 30–40 range. Which is low unless you're a marathoner, and I am not. Many calls later, with the surprise help of a friendly nurse I don't know who was looking out for me, I actually wrangled an appointment with the cardiologist on Monday morning. The main guy, no less. Mike for the win! So I hope to get to the bottom of this on Monday. Or at least get launched on that quest.

I was just about to write a post about how I was going to abandon my diet—it's just too hard to come back from a relapse. I had it, but I lost it. (That ought to be carved on my headstone someday [grimacing smiley face].) I'm not sure I'm up to the task of managing an old body. But maybe I have to keep trying. The stakes are pretty high...although just for me. The funny thing is, I like this age. I like it a lot. It's actually a nice time of life, except for the little fact that you're getting old.

The march of medical advancements
A fair number of my same-age and older friends are complaining about various medical issues, but I have to remind myself that at 66 I'm at the age where most men died in the middle of the nineteenth century. Which wasn't that long ago. When the retirement age was set at 65 in the 1930s, 65-year-old men could expect to live to 76 1/2. A lot of the procedures and treatments that my friends bitch about only came into being fifty, twenty, five, or even two years ago. My paternal grandmother died at more or less my age of a stomach cancer which is now 100% curable—it kills exactly zero people. (Well, unless they're completely untreated. It makes me mad that, historically, so many black people died of simple lack of adequate treatment. The world lost Eric Dolphy for that reason, among many other losses to humanity.) My other grandmother was blind at the end of her life, and never would have been had she entered her 80s at the turn of the millennium or later.

So it's true that medical entanglements are a PITA, but on balance we're actually quite lucky to be living when we are in terms of medical science and treatment. You can console yourself with that the next time you're dying of boredom in a waiting room.

Listen to your heart beat
There's a line in Sir(!) Ray Davies' "Morphine Song"—written about a hospital visit—that goes "Hey buddy, you know, you got a slow heartbeat." Well, me too, now. But at least it's still beating, and I'm still looking at the grass from the good side.

And now I think I'll go treat myself to a listen of Ted Curson's "Tears for Dolphy." He's long gone, but I love Sir Eric Dolphy, I gotta say. (You see what I did there.)

Mike
(Thanks to Chuck Albertson)

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Al Gardner: "Hmmm. A low heart rate put me on the floor in May of 2022. I wore a heart monitor for two weeks and the results revealed that my heart's electrical system was the culprit. Long story short I signed up for an FDA trial of then-new wireless pacemakers that are inserted into the heart via a catheter. Immediate relief and no surgical procedure to place the old style pacemaker. Only a small, one inch or less, incision to insert the catheters. Two and a half hour procedure and an overnight stay to be certain the incision was sound and not leaking. The FDA issued it's approval during the summer and that solution should be widely available now. If you need that then please look into it. Be safe."

Albert Smith: "I've been doing home BP testing for years. I get 'white coat' syndrome in the doctor's office and any single test can be scary, but a single test is not a trend. Just want to say, do the test correctly. Five minutes of quiet sitting, feet on floor, cuff at heart level. Google the protocol. In the doctor's office, they call you in and immediately throw the cuff on and say that it's high. I then present my physical calendar with daily annotations of my BP, taken at various times in the day and show that my trend is low-normal. So keep good records."

Dan Khong: "A friend of mine had giddy spells and low heart rate and ended up with a pacemaker. He's OK now."

Ben: "My father had a pacemaker put in a couple years ago for a low heart rate. Sorted him out no problem. I met Ted Curson in Paris in the late '90s. He seemed a very kind and generous man, and had all the patience in the world for some random kid."

Stellar Seasonal Bargain: Sony A7III

The Sony A7III full-frame digital mirrorless camera body is on sale with some enticing accessories at B&H Photo for $700 off, only $1,298. With a kit lens it's probably an even better deal. $1,300 for a highly featured new FF camera body from a major maker is a good deal any way you cut it.

...However I'm not exactly certain I would recommend it. There is indeed a difference between the FF and APS-C 24-MP sensors; you can tell. It's just that...it's not that much of a difference. I'm sure in some situations you'd be glad to have the larger sensor. But in a lot of situations, I don't quite believe that viewers in general would notice all that much. And the high-res FF sensors—40-MP and above—are so good that I think it's smarter to go all the way if and when you get a new FF mirrorless camera. I don't know if you would agree.

And the better that smartphone cameras get, the more camera you need to strongly differentiate your results. My friend Jack has been singing the praises of this transformative little SmallRig cage for his iPhone 15 Pro Max. There's a shutter release button in that grip, and you can reposition the grip on the long side for verticals. There's one with two handles as well. He says it's extremely handy and a delight to use, although he notes that you lose a little of the advantage of total invisibility; it turns the iPhone into a real camera in more than one way, in that people notice him more when he's got the phone in the SmallRig. If an iPhone 15 Pro Max was one of your cameras, something like a Canon EOS R5 might be better as the other one.

But still, there's cost to consider.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

hugh crawford: "If you’re a collector or merely an accumulator of old lenses, the full frame Sonys are a pretty wonderful way of using them. APS-C cameras are less wonderful in that respect."

Jack Mac: "The SmallRig addresses several issues I have had with using an iPhone as a serious camera replacement.

1. Holding a naked iPhone as a camera is not natural. It’s not fun. The SmallRig handle makes an iPhone easier to use as a serious camera.
2. It’s too easy to smudge the iPhone’s lenses. The SmallRig has lens protection that makes it easy to keep your fingers off the lenses. But remember to wipe clean your lenses before you slide your iPhone into the cage.

"If I’m just taking one quick snapshot, I don’t need to use the SmallRig. But now when I am out doing serious shooting, the iPhone in a SmallRig is my primary camera.

"A photographer friend who saw me use a SmallRig asked me if I thought it made for sharper pictures. It doesn’t make better pictures; it makes taking pictures more fun. If I’m having fun, I take better pictures. Now he has a SmallRig too."

Brian B: "For what it's worth, B&H has the Nikon Z7 [refurbished —Ed.] for just under $1,400, or with the 24–70 ƒ/4 lens for $1,650. A great deal for 45 full-frame megapixels! (Via diglloyd.)"

John Krumm: "I've accepted the fact that most of the reason for me owning a full frame camera vs. APS-C or Micro 4/3 is not to impress viewers, who do not look at images at 100 or 200 percent magnification, but to satisfy my own need for pixel peeping, which it does. Fortunately, it's a decent camera too! "

Rob L (partial comment): "What is nuts right now is that it's cheaper to get a really great full-frame body—the A7III new, or Z6's, Leica SL's, Panasonic S5's used or refurbed—for way less than the best crop-frame bodies. And with crop-frame lenses not having much of a cost differential from full-frame, there's a lot of choice (or confusion!) around."

Alan: "Dynamic range is often an issue for me and my Micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras can not match my 10-year-old and counting original A7."

John Camp: "I have a full-frame Nikon Z7II with 45 MP and an APS-C Fuji X-T5 with 40.2 MP, and on a large Apple Studio monitor I'll be damned if I see any difference on similar photos; that might change with prints, but I suspect they'd have to be especially large prints to see anything at all. I prefer the Nikon because I've had Nikons since the 1970s and the Z7II (and the Z6) are definitely a solid part of the whole Nikon ecosystem, and felt instantly familiar to me. The Fuji is quite different (the lenses are more compact, for one notable thing) and many people sing their praises, but I have to think before I shoot.

"For me, that's now the difference between high-end APS-C and FF—the way the camera handles and how your brain reacts to it. The actual photos, not so much. If you're an older person like me, and were once satisfied with film, I believe that Sony A7III would do anything you want."

Open Mike: Wasaaaaaaabi! (Wasabi)

["Open Mike" is the often off-topic Editorial Page of TOP, wherein Yr. Hmbl. Ed. wades in the streams of mountain valleys.]

The news: Wasabi might improve memory. Hmm?

A "robust" but "small" Japanese study, of 72 Japanese adults between 60 and 80 years of age with "memory complaints," has found substantial increases in memory (but no other cognitive improvements) among a subject group taking 100mg of Wasabi extract over a 12-week period. Here's the source in English from Neuroscience News, which, oddly, doesn't mention the lead authors or the institution(s) backing the study. Here's that: the study is titled "Benefits of Wasabi Supplements with 6-MSITC (6-Methylsulfinyl Hexyl Isothiocyanate) on Memory Functioning in Healthy Adults Aged 60 Years and Older: Evidence from a Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial," and it was published in the journal Nutrients, Volume 15, Issue 21, with a publication date of October 30th, 2023. The authors are Rui Nouchi, Natasha Y.S. Kawata, Toshiki Saito, Haruka Nouchi, and Ryuta Kawashima, who have various and several institutional affiliations listed at the beginning of the Nutrients paper.

This viral news is highlighting the open secret that most "wasabi" used in sushi restaurants actually isn't. It's a paste made of ground horseradish, mustards, and food coloring. Real Japanese wasabi is a flowering leafy edible plant that grows naturally in the stream beds of mountain valleys in Japan, the rhizome of which is ground freshly for serving using very fine graters. Horseradish is related to wasabi, although it was not studied. Further complicating the confusion is the fact that horseradish is called "western wasabi" in Japan and wasabi is sometimes called "Japanese horseradish" in America. Still, they're not the same. The fake stuff is cheaper than real wasabi and doesn't have to be as fresh as real ground wasabi needs to be. Powders made from real wasabi, however, do keep well, so restaurants could serve real wasabi if they wanted to. One restaurant in Brookfield, Wisconsin, does so. The name of the restaurant is Wasabi Sushi Lounge.

When looking for real Japanese wasabi, it's imperative to check the ingredients and look for the terms "Eutrema japonicum" or "Wasabia japonica." That's the real deal. If you see any combination of horseradish, mustard, and artificial color listed, you're looking at the wrong thing. If you don't find an ingredients list, best not to assume, as real wasabi is substantially more scarce than the fake stuff. Note that some fake wasabi includes a small percentage of real wasabi so the latter can be listed in the ingredients, or so the product can be advertised with phrases such as, "Made using real Japanese wasabi!" (Food fraud is a recent interest of mine, by the way. A sprawling, and appalling, topic.)

Because memory and dementia are such widespread concerns, this study has received impressive amplification in the echo chamber, with hundreds of outlets all over the internet and across the globe jumping in on it. Real wasabi is sold out all over the place—the several American suppliers are sold out of many products, and the few powders available on Amazon that are 100% Eutrema japonicum or Wasabia japonica have sold out and become unavailable. (I had actually found a real powder and was discussing it with my friend Dan by text when it sold out before my eyes! Those who snooze lose.)

Note however that the study was done using supplements, not sushi. The members of the subject group took a capsule of powder containing .8 mg of 6-MSITC (also called hexaraphane), believed to be the operative isothiocyanate. What's 6-MSITC?

6-(Methylsulfinyl)hexyl isothiocyanate (6-MITC or 6-MSITC) is a compound within the isothiocyanate group of organosulfur compounds. 6-MITC is obtained from cruciferous vegetables, chiefly wasabi. Like other isothiocyanates, it is produced when the enzyme myrosinase transforms the associated glucosinolate into 6-MITC upon cell injury. (Wikipedia.)

Hmm, I still don't know what 6-MSITC is. But that's the best I can do for you. I'm not a scientist—I don't even have an academic bachelor's degree, and didn't take chemistry in high school. I'm not competent to parse the chemistry niceties.

Anyway, if you want to replicate the study conditions, it might be best to choose a supplement, some of which—whaddaya know—turn out to be already sold as memory boosters and for brain health and so forth. I would think it would be best to look for one that has the relevant ingredients plainly listed, like this one does, so you're getting what you think you're getting. But, again, I'm no expert.

Have a nut
A study a few years back found that, oddly, eating four brazil nuts every month (four was better than two, but eight was not better than four) measurably lowers blood pressure. It wasn't the best study, but...it's just brazil nuts. So it falls into the category of "might help; can't hurt," and not a lot of caution is needed. That's probably the current status of consuming a bit more wasabi or wasabi extract. People have been eating it since the 8th century A.D. It ain't gonna kill you. Might help; can't hurt.

Finally, note that Kinjirushi Co., Ltd., is one of two entities listed in the paper under "Funding." The Kinjirushi website offers a plethora of wasabi products for sale, and the company describes itself thusly (this is the complete description at the top of the "About Us" page): "KINJIRUSHI continues the research of wasabi, to develop wasabi products, and spread wasabi through the world, under our management philosophy: 'Through our products, contributing to a trend for a healthier diet and diversifying food culture around the world.'" The paper states that the funders had no influence on the study; but, at the same time, you have to admit that the study certainly hits it out of the ballpark in re Kinjirushi's mission statement.

It's probably unrelated that Japan's largest purveyor of wasabi, Kinin, at one time promulgated the idea that wasabi cures baldness, triggering a lot of interest, and presumably sales, based on that evergreen concern. People are really looking for a way to rejuvenate and protect their memory. I ordered some powdered Eutrema japonicum.

The funding source does not necessarily discredit the study, and the study was published in a reviewed journal, which says a lot. But to me it means that independent corroboration not funded by a wasabi purveyor is essential before any real conclusions ought to be drawn. Or, as the old saw puts it, "more research is needed."

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go slap some wasabi on my bald spot.

Your hopefully helpful viral sensation untangling service,
Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

robert e: "Thanks, Mike. Very interesting. There's more. It seems medical research has been interested in 6-MSITC for some time for its demonstrated 'anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antiplatelet, and anticancer effects.' That list is growing, obviously. The following study states that MSITC of all kinds are much more abundant in wasabi than in horseradish. Oh well. I once splurged on an omakase [chef's choice —Ed.] lunch at a celebrity sushi chef's restaurant (there's now over a dozen of them around the world), one reason being that I'd read that the 'wasabi' was 50% real wasabi. Well, the wasabi was great, but the meal was disappointing, thanks to an apparent desire or need to 'elevate' the simplest dish with an extra—presumably signature—flourish, whether gustatory or visual or (most often) both, which too often overwhelmed the key ingredient(s), and usually involved excess salt."

ASW: "Just my semi-educated (I moonlight as an evolutionary biologist/wildlife ecologist) opinion here, but the time folks spend chasing the latest and supposedly greatest diets, nutrients, memory enhancers, erectile ballooners, hair growers, or muscle maintainers would be better spent living a balanced and healthy life.

"I don't want to discourage anyone, but there's a good chance the time we spend researching the latest pill or extract to take, or whether it's better to eat this Amazonian fruit vs. that ancient Sumerian grain, would be better spent walking your dog, or bird watching, or going for a hike in nature, or playing pool. All of those activities engage and strengthen your body and mind, right now, rather than some time in the future.

"Speaking directly to Mike here, I would propose that your chosen profession keeps your mind active and engaged in excess of what most folks get on a daily basis. Add in a balanced and nutritious diet in moderate portions and regular exercise and you will maximize your health. No extracts or magic potions required. If you really like wasabi, that's fine too, but I wouldn't spend my time trying to buy it based on one (potentially questionable) study."

A Fictional Fable About a Spottie and a Hottie

Okay, okay, okay. I know they're just trying to manipulate your reactions, I know it's calculating, but what can I say, they got me. This one hits me right in the feels, as the kids say. As much for the camera as anything else. Spotties (Pentax Spotmatics) are legendary, legendary.

Sure, I couldn't help but notice a few places where the photo-choreography wasn't quite right, but there was nothing blatant. And may I just say, my ageless inner self very much wants that fictional young woman to marry me. I know we'd get along fine. Except for her non-existence, that is.

They got me. We all have our weaknesses. Toyota: the truck of the Season.

Mike

P.S. One of the many things I'm selling right now is a beautiful SL, the "purist" Spotmatic, the one without a light meter of any kind. It does have a dent in the prism housing, but I'm including a pristine NOS (new old stock) SL top plate, in like-new condition. You'd just have to either know how to swap it out, or find some wizened old workman camera repair guy to do it for you. Or maybe an elf.

I'll put up a picture of it later.

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

James Weekes: "I do love the windows in the darkroom."

Mike replies: Yeah! I didn't spot that one before you mentioned it. And the fact that there are color 3R prints hanging from clothespins next to the B&W prints on the drying line!!

I did have removable darkcloth curtains on bathroom windows at one point, in an apartment. What you do is get a grommet tool and put grommets on one edge of the dark cloth, then drive finish nails into the top of the window moulding, and you have a temporary blackout curtain that you can put up and take down. Then, before you move, remove the finish nails. The landlord will never notice the holes in the top of the window frame.

Anton Wilhelm Stolzing: Very well done. Plus, it is hip to take photos on film, even more so with a classic like the Spotmatic. So the premise of the story is believable. It helps of course if you have a good product to sell, which is given with Toyota.

Mike replies: The biggest problem with it as a mini-film IMO is that the cuts are way too frenetic, as with most advertising. Or rather, that the rapid cuts are at odds with the the whole languid, pastoral, nostalgic mood the commercial is striving to evoke. Gotta do what ya gotta do I suppose. But I would have preferred fewer scenes with more time devoted to each.

Bob Rosinsky: "I just had my 1964 Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic CLA'd. The Super Takumar 50mm ƒ/1.4 lens is a gem (thorium coating and all). Then a few weeks ago, I bought a minty Super Takumar 200mm ƒ/4. I love shooting with the camera. Mostly I use it on a tripod for shooting trichromatic photography—separate R, G, B filters on successive frames of HP5, then digitized for Photoshop, where I combine the color data to make true color prints. The effect reminds me of the original three-strip Technicolor process that The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind were filmed with."

Mike replies: That's very cool. You must be one of about nine people worldwide who are working in tricolor right now!

AN: "Hey! I also do some tricolor! Are the other seven here too?"

Dennis Ng: "Did not have that ever...but did have a Pentax 67 and should take it out for a walk.... Merry Xmas."

Patrick Perez: "Hey! The Java Jive (AKA Java Dive) and Frisko Freeze are right here in my town, Tacoma, Washington. Frisko Freeze burgers are sublime when they are on their game, but somewhat uneven. You can't be sure what you'll get; sort of like going to see a Bob Dylan concert. Last time I was at the Java Jive was for karaoke with friends and I made the tactical mistake of singing 'MacArthur Park,' which has two multiple-minute bridges where I was left standing on the stage looking dumb(er than usual)."

Mike replies: My friend Dan went to see Dylan recently and he reports that it was a great concert, Dylan in fine voice and articulating well, with an excellent mix of classic and newer songs. And that the venue was surprisingly small and the ticket only cost a hundred bucks!

When you think of it, it's kind of amazing that you can go see Dylan like that, considering he broke out all the way back in "the old folkie days" of the early 1960s. Kinda like being able to go see Leadbelly or Woody Guthrie or Hank Williams Sr.

David Drake: "The comment about a window in the darkroom reminded me of a framed print which I used to have in my darkroom. Given to me by my photography mentor, a good friend, it shows a darkroom from yesteryear, like way back before electricity, which is lit by a red glass filtered window. I always thought this would be so cool, and I might try it some day. I just googled it and found the actual image (above)."

Mike replies: I had a B&W TV in one of my darkrooms that had a sheet of rubylith over the screen. It allowed me to watch Redskins (as they were called then, now the Commanders) games on working Sundays. I grant you, not quite as cool as the red window.

J D Ramsey: "OMG, this so resonated since I had a Honeywell Spotmatic back then, with the 50mm lens. And I had the darkroom (no windows) thanks to my parents' generosity when they didn’t have much extra cash. Such a sentimental video, can’t help but bring a smile/tear. Wonderful memories."

Basil Steinle: "Ok, I admit it. The commercial and all the online chatter got me to pull the trigger and buy a Spotmatic. I’ve been on the fence for one for months till now. It will keep my SV company."

David Turnley Christmas Print Offer

Photo by David Turnley

I've almost missed the Turnley sales for this year, dang it. Negligence.

Peter's is over, but you still have a few days left to catch David's. Pay the pictures a visit. (Disclosure, if you say I sent you, David and Rachel kindly share a bit with me.)

As an exercise in delectation, even if you aren't going to buy one, which one would you choose if you were buying? I think my choice would be Print #25 this year. Last year (unless it was longer ago than that) it was Print #16.

Nelson Mandela by David Turnley

Amazing that two brothers can both be so talented. And have such similar concerns. Although they are identical twins, so maybe it makes sense. Mysteries of the Universe. Surely they have been influences on each other.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

The Best Battery Jumper: Update to the Update, and I Promise This is the Last of This

Final update:

After doing my usual ferocious cyclone of superfast ninja research, this is the one I settled on: the Hompow 4000A. Pretty sure the "hom" is pronounced "home": home power, geddit? I like that this shows its own charge clearly on the unit (the "100%" in the picture above) and has a little light on the plug for the cables that confirms that you have it properly hooked up.

This rates highly on Project Farm (there's one video guy I don't need to speed up to 1.5X to watch!), seems simple to operate, looks nice (design aesthetics matter to me, might not to you), and comes with a case, so it can knock around in my trunk/boot. It does three basic things: 1.) jumps your battery, 2.) serves as an emergency charger for your phone or other devices, and 3.) it's a flashlight.

Re No. 2, I do recall being lost in Michigan when Xander had snitched my charging cable, being dependent on the phone directions as the charge drained from 4% to 2%, then 1%, then going blank. I ended up stopping at three gas stations before finding one that could sell me a paper map.

This one doesn't have a tire inflating function; if you want that, the Vtoman X7 is the choice. I want a separate tire inflator, because I can just see myself getting a dead battery somewhere and discovering that the jumper box is back at my garage because I had been using it on the tires.

Finally, Mike P. found the clever thing pictured above: it's the "Locisne Car Door Assistance Handle, 5 in 1 Vehicle Support Handles Multifunctional Portable Safety Hammer Seatbelt Cutter Car Handle Assist with Lighting Function for Elderly and Handicapped" (really, Amazon? Editors needed everywhere), an emergency escape hammer and seatbelt-cutter that has a nifty extra function: you can use is as a temporary handle to help you or others get in and out of the vehicle! Like so:

Mike says it helps when getting an elderly relative in and out of the car. Wish we'd had that for Loyle. I half think I need it myself, to ratchet my ponderous self out of my little, low sedan.

By the way, pretty sure an escape hammer follows the umbrella rule: if you have it, it will mean you never need it. Because that's how that works.

That's it for this subject, you have my word.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Joel Becker: "Mike, it's not that you're getting old, it's that the Pandemic has messed with all of our senses of time. Something that 'just happened last year' might just be four years in the past, etc. I have that experience with remembering visits with friends, home repairs, and everything else.

"We got a bruiser of a jumpstart battery during lockdown, because our van battery did not like being idle for months at a time. The NOCO Boost Pro GB150. It goes bloody forever, and I'm never going to have a car without one again."

Mike replies: That one comes in first in all the tests but is approximately three times more expensive than the alternatives. A great choice if the cost is not a worry.

Jim F: "Didn’t we have this discussion before. Just carry a good pair of jumper cables. They never need maintenance and never wear out. You probably never drive where you would need to self-rescue or die. The directions on how to use them is likely in your car’s user manual."

Mike replies: We did have the conversation before (good on you for remembering!), but the technology has changed radically since then. The jumper packs then were capacitor banks, which worked by slowly building up a charge from the depleted car battery (3–15 minutes), then delivering it back into the system in a big lump to give the car enough juice to start. For one thing, those didn't work on completely drained batteries.

This year's roundup by Project Farm on YouTube contains only one capacitor type; battery technology has improved so radically that now they all contain actual lithium batteries, and work right away.

MARILYN NANCE: "Consider a bag with a small blanket, spare mittens/gloves (they don't have to match), sweat pants and a sweatshirt that might fit anyone in your car (don't have to be pretty). And a knit hat and scarf. AAA is definitely worth it. Don't leave home without it. Your flashlight should be one that has a winder since batteries are always dead when you need them."

Mike adds: Good advice, and easy to implement. Also, don't leave the car on in a snowstorm unless you get out regularly and clear the exhaust pipe. Remember poor Anndel Taylor, only 22, who died in Rochester when she went to sleep in the car during a blizzard with her motor running.

Here's one more thing that occurred to me about AAA: the more easily you're able to afford it, the more likely you are to have a late model car that works. And the worse or older a car you have, meaning you need AAA more, the less likely you are to be able to afford AAA. But that's life!

UPDATE: Auto Emergency Preparedness! Or, O Happy Day

Great news—it was the battery, after all. I'm very relieved. When you live in the country, alone, and have only one car, it's pretty important that that car be reliable. Not to mention present on the premises.

I blathered on to one and all when it happened that it couldn't be the battery, because the battery was new—or new-ish—being purchased only a year and a half ago. But not exactly, it turns out. I bought the battery three years ago, and it was manufactured in January 2019.

Does that ever happen to any of you older folks? Things that seem recent actually aren't? I've learned to double my estimates of when something in the past happened. If I think something happened three months ago, it was probably six months. I guess that's a natural corollary of the "time flies" principle. (Time flies like an arrow, and fruit flies like a banana. Bah-dum-pah. I'm a Granddad now, which means I can go 2X on the Dad humor—them's the rules.) My brother, Dr. Charlie, says life is like a roll of toilet paper—runs out faster the closer you get to the end.

Anyway, I'm overjoyed that the car is fixed and that I won't be paying a huge bill that would wound me in the wallet. Although the towing fee still stings.

I'm going to ask Steve Wheeler the Mystical Honda Whisperer if one of those jumper boxes that Dori recommended yesterday Thursday would have gotten me home on Wednesday night. [UPDATE: yes.] Maybe I should get one of those (I researched it last time the battery went kaput, but then cheaped out without buying one. Oh well.) But then you need to be able to remember to keep it charged, so maybe that's not for me. The one she recommended seems to be well reviewed. [UPDATE: See the post above this.]

So here's what I learned: Triple-A is probably worth it; a Premium Membership allows free tows up to 200 miles up to four times a year. You can also add roadside assistance and towing to your auto insurance, which I did yesterday. I didn't know about that. That seems less helpful, though, once I research it, because you're still on your own finding a towing service. The insurance just reimburses you for the bill after the fact. Also, I'm not sure about the towing distance allowed by the insurance. Could be that it's a lot shorter than 200 miles. The insurance upgrade only cost me $21 from now to June, though, so I'm not out all that much if I switch to Triple-A. I also learned that a Triple-A membership follows the person, not the car; my friend Chris B., who was with me on Wednesday, could have put the tow on her membership Thursday morning and it would have been perfectly kosher.

So anyway: roadside assistance plus towing, a jumper box for the car—anything else? What else do you need to be prepared for automotive emergencies? My cousin carries an escape hammer in her glovebox—she lives near a canal and drives alongside it often, and I guess she can envision her car plunging into it. Then there are tire inflators—one of those could be helpful even if you left it in your garage and used it there. My Acura has had battery problems all its life, but the second worst thing about it is the TPMS, or tire pressure monitoring system. It's always unhappy, and multiple fixes have not worked. I end up with the warning light constantly on and having to check the air in the tires the old-fashioned way. I lost a snow tire two four years back because I drove on it for a while when the pressure was too low (back when I was still counting on the TPMS).

Sleep well or sleep with the fishes
Also as a followup but on the good side of the ledger today, my apneas were back to normal levels last night. You don't need to hear every detail of my health issues, just like I don't need to hear every detail of yours (we all got 'em), but do be aware, if you aren't, that sleep apnea is serious and could be deadly. When I was diagnosed with heart disease, the formal diagnosis blamed sleep apnea as the cause. Reggie White, the great defensive end for the Volunteers, Eagles, and Packers, and a guy with an outsized personality who deserved to enjoy his golden years, died of it at 43. Or at least it contributed to his death. His widow founded the Reggie White Sleep Disorders Research and Education Foundation in his honor. If you snore, or are overweight, or don't feel like you get a good night's sleep that leaves you feeling rested in the morning, get tested. I'll never get used to the CPAP, but it's better than the alternatives.

This post should have been two short paragraphs. I'll shut up now. But Oh, Happy Day. I'm so relieved.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jeff: "My dad enrolled me in AAA when I was 15. Have continued that membership every year, now at age 73; my longest continuous business relationship of any kind. Came in handy, I learned, even when I had motorcycle issues traveling through the Rockies and Sierras. And, yes, my coverage has occasionally benefited others over the years."

MikeR: "Two things: AAA Membership. Lead acid storage batteries don't last forever. Three to five years. It's part of the inherent chemistry of the things. Hot weather speeds up the self destruction. A BatteryMINDer is a good thing to have, if you don't drive long enough to keep the battery charged. I pull out my riding mower battery around this time of each year, and set it in the garage with the battery minder [trickle charger —Ed.] attached until Spring. If I don't, it's shot."

Be of Good Cheer (OT)

Very sorry there was no post again. I was up to my a** in alligators all day. Didn't hear from the mechanic, but at least confirmed that the disabled car got where it was supposed to be going. And I learned that AAA will tow someone else's car if someone is willing to call for it! The policy follows the person, not the car. My friend Chris would have called her AAA and saved me the $286 or whatever it was. Finished delivering the pictures to my Mennonite friend Andrew's friend Lyn, which is what I was undertaking when the car conked out. Called Hertz to check on the availability of rental cars, just in case, and was barely able to stop some lad in Kolkata from bestowing upon me a reservation against my will! My goal was to find out what a rental car cost and did they have any. He was very avid to achieve his goal instead, and showed remarkable persistence. We sparred; he feinted, I parried. After narrowly avoided reserving a car I don't yet know if I need, he informed me that they have no cars at my location anyway. But they have some in Rochester. Rochester is 54 miles away. "Not that far away from you." I'm proud of my restraint for not remarking that it is a rather long way, when you don't have a car. I filed a claim with the insurance agency for the house generator which went kablooie almost a year ago, and that took multiple calls. (Yeah, I know. The agent was curious about my delay too. But don't mock me too much. When I called to see if a rental car would be covered under my policy [nope], it shook loose the memory of the generator. I also added roadside assistance and towing to my car insurance policy.) I spoke to the adjuster for the dead generator. That took a while. He scheduled a visit from a tech/inspector who was due in "two to four business hours" but never showed up. Lastly, I could sleep for only five hours last night and suffered an alarmingly high number of apneas, so I called the Otolaryngology Department that oversees my CPAP sleep therapy to see if I could speak with the sleep therapist. We played telephone tag a while too. I was not able to speak to that person, but I did get a stern lecture from another person who said I absolutely must be seen in person. She informed me that my CPAP machine is a prescription device, and they would absolutely not make any changes to any settings or attempt to diagnose any problems until I had been seen in person; I could not just call on the phone; I had to be seen in person and they can make no exceptions. I said all right, that's fine, I'll be seen. She then checked and...told me their next available appointment is in a month and a half. Made me laugh. 

But you know what? It was a great day. I got a lot done, made some headway, never lost my composure, and handled everything that came my way. My neighbor very kindly bought some breakfast staples for me while she was in town, for which I was grateful. And midway through the day came a big blessing...my son texted to tell me that he's gotten an impressive job offer back in Illinois where he lives. I'm so proud of him I could bust—I do not need any other Christmas present this year.

The icing on the cake was that it was a sunny, warm(ish) day, so look what I did:

It looks a little forlorn I will admit, but at least it signals that TOP Rural World HQ is participating in this year's festival of peace on earth, good will toward men. And on time for once (pats self on back).

I'll sleep well tonight. Alligators vanquished! Well, maybe not all the alligators quite yet. I'm still grateful to be living in this great land where we are free to choose our own system of weights and measures*. Even if we are a little discombobulated.

Mike

*That one really gave me a good laugh. Hope those in Europe or elsewhere can see it.

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

JTK: "Thanks for the link. It's 7 a.m. and I am laughing and my eyes are watering. I grew up in England and was thoroughly involved in the technical side of the metric conversion in the banking system. The money was good whether I got 240 pence to the pound or 100 pence to the pound. Lots of overtime."