The Online Photographer

Open Mike: Notes vs.* Art

["Open Mike" is the Editorial Page of TOP, wherein Yr. Hmbl. Ed. wanders down tributaries and scolds the internet betimes. It appears now and then.]

-

I'm very happy with my cameras recently. My Sigma fp is not yet converted to mono-only, so I'm still using Jason's—and I still need to shoot with the Leica Monochrom. (My plans were interrupted by COVID-19, from which I have recovered.) But I really like the idea of splitting my arsenal into an "art" camera and a "note-taking" camera...the odd and unusual fp-M as a sort of walk-around B&W view camera (that's kinda how I think of it), and the iPhone 13 for taking visual notes.

The life of an artist
This split—a notepad on the one hand and the ambition to make self-conscious art on the other—has a long history with me. Before I first got into photography in a big way, I was into art—I drew and painted, which was my claim to fame when I was in the "gifted kid" stage of the Life of an Artist—so a lot of of my early photographing was as references for drawings and paintings. That is, it was all note-taking—it didn't matter if a photograph worked as a photograph; it didn't matter if telephone wires spoiled a sky. I was only going to use it as raw material anyway.

Then, when I got more serious about 35mm photography, I deliberately and consciously conceived of my shooting as half art and half personal note-taking. That is, I wanted to make "good" photographs to show, but I also wanted to be free to record things, to shoot things I wanted to explore or remember—and just to play around. I conceived of my contact sheets not only as raw material for art but also as my diary. My idea was that the balance should be half and half. I formulated this early on, and it freed me up to not be too serious all the time.

Ever since smartphones got "good enough," they've created tension in my life. All too often, they've been "the camera I've had with me." And that's been to the detriment of my photography, because photographs happen to you when you're out and about with a camera, and, contrary to the common truism, the best camera is not the one you have with you. In fact, it's a very common mistake, and occasionally a tragedy, to have nothing but the wrong camera with you. What you really need to have with you is the right camera, the camera the occasional good pictures should have been taken with. At this point in history I have lots of pictures taken with various smartphones that I really wish had been taken with a better camera.

Convenient and fun
And yet...convenience. It's what drives the evolution of photography. The quality of smartphone cameras as cameras is almost completely beside the point; their great advantage is the convenience of instant sharing over distances. The other day I shot a short movie, in color, with sound, and sent it to my cousin in California (I live in New York), who received it almost instantaneously, watched it, and sent a comment back. All over the course of just a few minutes. When I entered photography school 40 years ago, that would have been utter science fiction. In response to such an idea, anybody with any knowledge would have responded, "that's never going to happen." (It's one of the cool things about getting older...sooner or later you live in the future.) Anyway, convenience has most consistently been the driver of the evolution of photographic technology right from the start, up until this minute, and it's useless to pretend otherwise. And shooting with a phone is fun. Why would you deny yourself something readily available and free that's so much fun?

(As to what "note-taking" is—my iPhoneography—I was going to post some illustrations in this post, but on second thought I think it would just be a distraction. I'll put some examples in a separate post.)

I used to think that the ideal was to have only one camera that could do everything, which is why I've always leaned toward APS-C and Micro 4/3 cameras. I wanted one camera that was suited for both note-taking and more serious shooting. But for quite a while now—at least since Sara and I went to California to meet her parents in 2014, and I took only my iPhone 4s—I've had this idea that using the smartphone frees me up to balance it out with a camera that's more specialized and less suited to covering the note-taking aspects of photographing. I b'lieve at one point I mused in these pages that maybe it should be a Fuji medium-format digital camera...big balancing out little. (I'd link to that post, but I can't find it.) But honestly, a dedicated B&W camera with an enormous viewfinder that yields as much detail as I could want is just the perfect counterbalance to the iPhone...for me personally.

I want to use the iPhone. I'm going to use it. No sense pretending I won't. The important thing is to have something that suits my personal desires that balances it out. And I feel like I've got that now.

Like I say, I'm just very happy with the solution offered by this pair of cameras. One is easy to use and shoots color and panos and movies and everything is available for instant sharing; the other is funky and deliberate, lets me see in B&W again, has a giant viewfinder, and is perfectly suited to concerted shooting ("concerted shooting" meaning shooting when that's all I'm doing). It's ideally suited (again, just for me) to careful, slow, contemplative photographing. The opposite of the iPhone.

So the two of them balance each other out. One does one kind of shooting I want to do, and the other does the other kind of shooting I want to do.

Express yourself
Of course, the Sigma fp-M paired with the iPhone 13 Pro is a very idiosyncratic answer to the question "which camera?" You could pretty easily make the argument that getting a mainstream high-megapixel FF mirrorless camera with a 24–105mm zoom lens and then having it with me at all times would actually make more sense and be the best thing I could do. But, hey, I've always been an artist at heart. And we march to the beat of our own drummers and take the roads less traveled, right?

Mike

*And by the way, "vs.," the abbreviation for the word versus, is pronounced ˈvər-səs. (Hear it here.) Idiot YouTube has decided that the way to say it is "verse," which is brain-dead. Have you noticed the blinding speed at which the world is becoming illiterate? I come across strange and primitive semi-literate formulations of English almost every day now, even in reputable sources. Verse is the singular of "verses," which means lines of metrical writing. Versus means "against" or "in opposition to." It descends from the Latin word meaning "facing."

Book o' the Week

Annie Leibovitz. At long last, the unlimited trade edition of the humongous, limited Sumo edition by Taschen. Mind you, it's still a huge book—15.4 inches high, 556 pages, and almost 13 pounds. And the price! (But that's nothing—the Sumo weighed 57 pounds and cost $7,500.) This is the closest ordinary folks (with ordinary shelves) will get to the ultimate Annie. It will be released on Friday, and can be pre-ordered now.

This book link is a portal to Amazon. You're very kind use our links, as they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

John Krumm: "We like to think the gear doesn't matter, but of course it does, it just is very personal and is not always related to what is broadly popular. So I understand your pleasure with your unusual camera and funky elephant grip.

"I've recently started shooting with a new manual-focus Voigtlander APO 35mm ƒ/2 Z mount lens. [This one? —Mike] I just totally love using it. I'm getting better and better at just looking at the distance scale and guessing the zone. It makes focusing a pleasure, not a chore, when you can skip the whole magnify, fine-tune, then shoot process. But I would not recommend it for most people." 

Mike replies: I focus the 45mm ƒ/2.8 on the fp-M manually too. The AF works fine, but I just like the manual focus.

John: "Re '[This one? —Mike]': Yes, bought a few weeks ago from CameraQuest, the main U.S. Voigtländer dealer, but newly available at B&H. Not a perfect lens, but very nice, with great feel. I'm hoping they eventually make a 28mm version."

Geoff Wittig: "Gaaah. I feel physical pain at the degradation of the English language before our eyes. 'Verse' is bad enough. Nails-on-a-chalkboard for me is 'on accident,' an utterly wrong substitute for accidentally, or by [way of] accident."

Mike replies: I feel like everybody who cares about language has at least one pet peeve that drives them particularly wild. For me it's "loose" in place of "lose." There's no reason why that one in particular should bug me so much—but every time I see it I get to feeling that it might be all right to strangle someone.

Luke: "Easy, Mike. Don't loose it. Breath, breath."

Tom Duffy: "At least a perfect camera combination is possible for you. Always available vs. contemplative. I'm still trying to shoot Tri-X and digital at the same time. And it seems that I really prefer a 6x9 negative to 35mm for Tri-X. And I'm in love with that large 50mm ƒ/1.2 on my Canon. Camera bag no matter what. I don't know how this situation is going to resolve."

Mike replies: What a nice coincidence. I have a quote by Tom Duffy taped to my office wall, and for some reason it caught my eye this morning. After rereading it, I found myself wondering whether Tom still reads TOP, or if he might be among the legion of the departed (there's a lot of turnover in a blog audience, even though this one has many loyal readers who've been reading for many years). And then I turned on my computer and found this comment at the top of the stack. Nice.

Terry Letton: "Arghh. You guys that think words have meanings fixed from on high. No No No. their meaning is whatever the current consensus says it is and that changes over time. Sorry my pet peeve."

Ken: "Yesterday, a photo caption in the paper referred to two cyclists in post-Ian Florida 'peddling' their bikes somewhere or other. I 'must of' missed when pedaling bikes went out of fashion, but it doesn't 'phase me' if some guys just want to sell their bikes instead of riding them."

Kylian: "What? Aren't you going to tell us what quote of Tom Duffy's you have taped to your office wall?"

Mike replies:

"I used to do a lot of climbing when I was younger (OK, way younger) to the point of getting frostbite from a winter climb on Long's Peak in Colorado in '77. Experientially, I found that if I kept looking at the summit of a mountain, I would find myself becoming disheartened at my seeming lack of progress as I climbed. I came to realize that since I knew the goal, all I had to do was keep putting one foot in front of the other, and that steady-state, non-introspective activity achieved the summit.

"The insight stuck with me. Much of success in life comes from endurance and not much more. As important as thinking is, I'd make the case that after defining a goal, it's often more productive to simply endure."

—Tom Duffy

[From this post. Bruce Springsteen said something similar about his early career; he said something to the effect that there were setbacks that could have discouraged him if he had let them, but he knew that if he just kept walking, he would get there in the end.]

Danielsroka: "Having both a note-taking camera and an art camera makes sense to me as well. But not just from the nature of the camera (its convenience, quality, etc.) but from where the photographs end up living, and how they get used. My note-photos taken on my iPhone live on my iPhone. They are made to be quickly referenced, lightly edited (at best) and easily shared. My art photos taken with my Nikon D850, on the other hand, live on my computer, where they can be carefully considered and slowly edited. Neither environment is good for the other type of photo for me, so I appreciate having the clear separation between them."

Fujifilm Goes the Nikon/ Sony Route (The September 8th X Summit)

As per the Fujifilm X Summit press event last night, it looks like Fuji is going the Nikon/Sony route, splitting its flagship camera into a "high speed" and "high resolution" pair.

The Fujifilm X-H2 made its debut last night. It has 40 megapixels, the highest-ever resolution in a Fuji X camera, as well as a pixel-shift mode for even higher resolution on a tripod, and is the first APS-C camera ever to offer 8k/30P video. The previously introduced 26-MP X-H2S is the high-speed variant.

Also introduced was a redesigned XF 56mm ƒ/1.2 II—the new one has 13 elements and old one 11, which means it's not the same design. The new lens has a larger filter size, 67mm vs. 62mm, and weighs more, 445 g vs. 405 g, but the $999 cost is the same. It's slated to ship at the end of this month.

Fujifilm GF 20–35mm ƒ/4

In addition, a GF 20–35mm ƒ/4 wide-angle zoom for the medium-format cameras was introduced. With a 16mm–28mm angle-of-view equivalent, it's an ideal range for a wide-angle, but the lens is still reasonably sized and not too heavy thanks to its modest but still adequate maximum aperture. The price is $2,499 and it ships on October 6th. There's no way to quantify this for certain, but this was probably the most requested lens that had previously been missing from the GF lineup—a single lens that can satisfy every wide-angle need and purpose for generalists, the only one you need to own or carry.

The camera's model name on the back and no "S" on the
front are the identifying markers of the new X-H2

While the X-H2S seems targeted at professionals and action shooters, the 40-MP X-H2 looks designed to appeal to people such as artists, enthusiasts, landscapists, fashion and portrait photographers, and printmakers. It also seems to have more to offer to stills photographers, in that the stills image quality of the X-H2S isn't better than that of the X-T3 or X-T4, but the stills image quality of the X-H2 is expected to exceed that of those smaller cameras. The physical design of the pair, which has drawn praise for being effective and efficient, is the same. An outstanding viewfinder is reported to be a highlight of these new cameras. The new X-H2 also costs a more reasonable $1,999, vs. $2,499 for the pro-oriented X-H2S. Cameras pre-ordered in time will ship on or around September 29th.

Several future products were teased, including two tilt-shift lenses for the GF medium-format lens line.

Mike

Thom Hogan: "Technically, it's the Nikon route, pioneered in the D1h/D1x, and iterated several times since (D2h/D2x, D3/D3x, Z6/Z7, and many suggest D5/D850)."

Mike replies: Fixed. Thanks.

David Bateman: "In response to your response to Dennis's comments, I don't think Fujifilm released the H2 series for photography, but rather videographers. The H2 (no s) is for 8k, just the sensor isn't really fast, so can't do everything. So they also released the H2s which has a fast sensor and can do many wonderful videos things, except 8K. So that is where we are. I wouldn't be surprised if this 40Mpixel camera sensor doesn't end up in other cameras. Or maybe it will as the market may demand it, but I don't think the camera was designed for photographers."

Kodachromeguy: "ByThom recently wrote about the new megapixel war and noted how many buyers insisting on more more more had murky ideas of their real needs. 48 'sounds' better than 24."

The Lowdown on the New iPhone

It looks like both iPhone 14 "Pro" models—the Pro and Pro Max—will feature one camera with 48 MP. This can be used two ways—for expanded cropping options, or for pixel-binning down to 12-MP in low light. The sensor on the wide module is still 12 MP, but it's physically bigger. And multi-exposure computational photography isn't just for Night Mode any more—you can use it for normal shots as well, to get better quality. The range of focal lengths is also changed, to four: .5X, 1X, 2X, and 3X. How that works out is that the three modules are 13mm-equivalent (12-MP), 24mm-e (48-MP in Pro Raw), and 77mm-e (12-MP). The "2X" option is 48mm-e and uses a cropped section from the 48-MP module.

DPReview points out a very interesting little fact: that iPhones, in sensor size and number of megapixels, have now caught up to the old all-in-one small-sensor digicams such as the Canon Powershot G15 of ten years ago. Albeit with far more capability thanks to processing, binning, and image combining.

Check out Tom Burke's comment from the other day (you might remember Tom—scroll down a bit at that link):

TB: This summer I decided to be honest with myself and recognise that I was simply no longer using my DSLR and lenses. When we went to Dubai in late winter they never left the hotel room; I used the iPhone instead. So during the summer I sold all my photo equipment and I've been waiting for Apple's announcement. I like the hardware improvements in the iPhone camera system, such the bigger sensors, improved apertures, and the increased resolution of the main camera sensor which it seems can be used in either full resolution mode or in binned 12 mp mode. And of course the continued improvements in the software are also attractive.

But the camera and its surrounding system are just part of the story. What I've come to understand is that good technique is as important with an iPhone as it is with any system. Night mode, for example, works pretty well however you use it, but with the phone on a tripod and exposure triggered remotely (via my Apple Watch, for example), the results can be stunning. So I'm pretty sure I can see an iPhone 14 Pro in my future. Mastering it is going to be my next photographic journey, and I'm looking forward to it.

It's a perfectly legit approach, and I'll be interested to hear how he gets along with the new iPhone 14.

Mike

Peter Wright: "I watched the presentation today. Very slick! Looking at the camera section made we wonder why I even think of getting another camera any more. I doubt if anything I want to photograph can’t be done with the 14 pro. Seriously, isn’t buying a dedicated camera a waste of money for almost all of us? The only exceptions could be if you have some very special needs like professional wildlife, or some strange proclivities like the desire to photograph with a 'greys' camera."

Funny Things

I've added a few more shots to the fp sample album. I spent well over three hours out shooting yesterday. I got five keepers, although I only posted three of them. I'm holding a few back so I have something to post in case I don't get anything today. (I always worry about where the next picture is coming from.)

To me, using the fp-M is like walking around with a medium-format camera that shoots 4x5. Here's a funny thing: I've always said I want a camera with IS and my new camera doesn't have IS; I've always said I like small cameras and my new camera (as I'll configure it) isn't small; I've always said I don't care for high resolution and my new camera has high resolution; I always said I don't need full frame and my new camera is full frame; I've always said I didn't mind 3:2 and I've decided to shoot the new camera in 4:3 (for the most part). I guess I'll add that I've never done video and the camera was meant primarily for video.

And, when I first started writing about photography almost 40 years ago, the one brand I knew I didn't like was Sigma, which at the time made very inexpensive commodity lenses for people (and there turned out to be many of them) who couldn't afford better. And now I'm a Sigma shooter.

Goes to show you, you never know what's going to click.

As for the OC/OL/OY idea, here's another funny thing: you don't actually want me out photographing all the time. The more time I spend out photographing, the less time I spend writing about photography, and the latter is what I'm really good for.

The same thing has usually been the case when people make other suggestions to me, like, that I should teach workshops. The problem is the same: the more I do of other things, the less I'd write.

How It Works
By the way, here's how I'd do a portfolio, or a body of work, or a book:

• Start with a defined idea.
• Shoot every day.
• Distill the day's shooting down to that day's keepers. Aiming for between one and five.
• Do provisional post-processing on them so they can stand on their own well enough to be well seen (and so I know the files will work.)
• Do that for a year, or some other defined but extended period of time.
• End up with 400–1,500 keepers.
• Make a quick pass and throw out all the "what was I thinking" or "I don't even remember that one" or "I'm repeating myself" duds.
• Resulting in 100–400 strong pictures.
• Get down to serious editing/sequencing.
• End up with 40–60 pictures that work together in sequence and express my take on my idea.

Only then could I begin to think about the logistics and financing of a show and a book. Which is why I'm so impressed with people who have a show and create a book!

Over the past week or two you've watched me do steps 1–4 with the borrowed Sigma fp Monochrome. The keeper rate would go way down during the long Winter months, but in a year, maybe two, I could be ready for the next eight steps.

Of course, no one really needs me to do that. I think people would rather I write.

Mike

P.S. Oh, I forgot one! This is pretty funny. I used to have to wait till after sunset to do darkroom work, because my various darkrooms were seldom light-tight enough during broad daylight. And now, I have to wait till after sundown to process the day's shooting, because the glare out on the porch where I work makes it too difficult to judge values of gray during the daytime. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Book o' the Week

Fred Lyon, San Francisco Noir. "The version [of San Francisco] that Fred Lyon celebrates in his new book is a classic San Francisco full of smoky jazz clubs, neon lights in the fog and sharply dressed men and women stepping on and off of trolley cars. Made mostly during the 1950s and '60s, Lyon's images are big on atmosphere and style, and hit many parts of the city that visitors love." (PDN)

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use these links; they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Peter, in Boulder: "I don’t know who to put this into words Mike, other than to say this post makes it very clear how much you’ve enjoyed taking pictures this past week. I’m smiling reading it."

robert e: "I've always enjoyed your writing and looked forward to your posts, Mike, but the fp-M saga really has me on the edge of my seat anticipating the next post and uploads. Your excitement is contagious. I'm still flabbergasted by what seems to me extreme depth of field. I'm wondering what the trick is, but maybe it's not a trick at all—maybe it's just been a really long time since anyone on the internet has stopped down. We do want you writing, sure, but I think all of us would prefer you writing about having fun. We just need to figure out how to make that practicable."

Mike replies: In a short while I'll upload to Flickr an example of what the Ancients called "pan-focus" or front-to-back focus...the world of today has forgotten that this was the manifesto of the then-revolutionary Group ƒ/64, to have everything in focus front to back, ƒ/64 being a stopped-down aperture that gave good depth-of-field on an 8x10 view camera. [UPDATE: Here it is.]

Stephen McCullough: "Although you’re making photographs, this is creating material for the writing. And you ‘sound’ happy. I’m enjoying this series."

Mark: "Finally a Speed Graphic replacement…."

Tom Duffy: "I really like this picture. The tones on the shady side of the barn are perfect. I'm not sure I could have resisted making the sky a little more dramatic. Good restraint on your part. I remember when digital started becoming a thing for Leica and people were commenting on the great image resolution. A naysayer commented, 'Since when did the Leica become a view camera?' Since digital, almost every camera has become a view camera. This is why I own two tilt-shift lenses for my Canon."

Decision Made

As of today, Adorama is having a big sale on the Sigma fp—only $1,759 for all three pieces I need, the camera, the lens, and the magnifying finder—that's $300 less than the best price yesterday. At some places it was $500 more. What a difference a day makes. I bought one this morning. So, decision made, for better or for worse.

Seeing for yourself
This is how it's going to be nice for the blog: before I send it off for conversion, I can compare the color and monochrome versions of the exact same camera.

Not only can I compare the monochrome-sensor fp to edits from the regular uncoverted color fp, but so can you—I can post large B&W files from the converted camera and large color files of the same scene from the unconverted camera. You can download the files, change the color files to mono, and compare them for yourself. So the question "which are better, files from a monochrome camera, or converted color files from a color camera?" is one you will have some evidence for on your own, with your own methods and preferences applied, which is usually the best way.

Sometimes a price drop is as good as a shove

Plus, Sigma has an in-camera monochrome DNG option, so I can report back on that, and perhaps compare that to the monochrome-sensor files as well.

'Interior'
Check out my latest, if you haven't seen it—I love playing around with this camera, so just for fun I wanted to see how close I could come to the "feel" of the light in my living room when it's sunny outside. "Interior" is a HDR merge in Photoshop (File > Automate > Merge to HDR Pro, then "Tone in ACR" to adjust as usual). I "fooled" Flickr by uploading a lighter image, but I couldn't defeat the sharpening or whatever is going on there. The lamp base has haloing around it that is not there in the real file.

This merging of several exposures is very easy to do, by the way. I like the way this one turned out.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Fred Lyon, San Francisco Noir. "The version [of San Francisco] that Fred Lyon celebrates in his new book is a classic San Francisco full of smoky jazz clubs, neon lights in the fog and sharply dressed men and women stepping on and off of trolley cars. Made mostly during the 1950s and '60s, Lyon's images are big on atmosphere and style, and hit many parts of the city that visitors love." (PDN)

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Robert Roaldi: "I have found that the best part about coming to a decision is that once the decision is made, you don't have to spend time thinking about it anymore, and you can get back to what you were doing."

KeithM: " I look forward to hearing more about this camera and the B&W conversion. I have toyed a few times with the possibilities or practicalities of using the Sigma fp or fp L as one would use a view camera—i.e. only a couple of primes and always on a tripod. It would be a step up in resolution and image quality from the Micro 4/3 cameras I usually use—when not shooting LF film (which is not often!). I think the tripod and restricted lens/focal length choices makes one think harder about image-making. Anyway, I look forward to hearing about, and seeing, the results of your new project.

"And, by the way, I also look forward to seeing more lovely images of your local environs—you are lucky to be able to live in such a beautiful spot."

Guy Perkins: "Not related to this post, but about B&W photography, I wonder if you have come across the work of Ando Fuchs. I'm sure you look at far more photography than me so the answer is probably yes. But I thought of his work in relation to your thoughts about B&W toning and style. His work might be overly dark in tone for your taste, but following him on Instagram I find his work of a very high standard, and his style is his own. Thank you for the blog."

Mike replies: There's always room for photography when we're talking about photography. Thanks for the good tip.

Sunday 'Open Mike': Decisions

I have just been having a high old time with Jason's loaner camera, the monochrome-converted fp. I love B&W and I am so happy being able to shoot it again in a free and unfettered way. I've been spending a lot of time out and about with the camera these past few days. This is just provisional for now, pending further investigation, but it seems that a converted sensor can give results that are as good, in most cases, or at least almost as good, as conventional color files converted in software.

Osprey Nest, edited to look as close as I can come
to Kodak Plus-X in D-76 1:1 with a yellow filter

I believe two things will be true: 1.) that I'll get better at editing these files as time goes by and I practice more, and 2.) that my taste will evolve to move a little closer to the way the files naturally want to look. It's not like there's ever been one invariant look to the B&W materials and processes I've used over my lifetime, up to and including edits into B&W of X-T1 files.

So I have a decision coming up.  Assuming the sensor conversion itself is a sunk cost, because I'm going to do it one way or the other, I need to decide: whether to follow my original plan and have my Sony A6600 APS-C camera converted; or to recreate Jason's camera for myself.

It makes the most sense to convert the A6600. I already own it; I don't believe I need the outstanding resolution of the FF sensor, nice as it is; the camera is smaller and easier to carry; and it has IBIS. I would need to buy a lens with an aperture ring for it, but there are candidates.

Unfortunately, you can't try these things before you buy. Ideally I'd convert the A6600 and then pit it in a comparison against the Sigma fp. But converting it would destroy some part of its resale value, which is about $1,100 right now; and if I resell it I will be out the $1,200 cost of conversion. This makes for a potentially disastrous mistake if it turns out to be the wrong choice. I'd have to unload a camera I have $2,400 invested in for maybe six or eight hundred dollars if I'm lucky. I've taken losses that bad before on my photography hobby, but ya hate to lead with your chin.

On the other hand, an fp like Jason's is an expensive proposition. Camera and lens are $1,900, the viewing magnifier $300, the grip $100. It's okay to dismiss the cost of the conversion because, as I say, that's a sunk cost presuming I get a camera of any kind converted. It's also okay to dismiss the resale proposition, because I like the camera a lot and I think I can commit to keeping it for the long haul—even if I don't use it much I still think I'd enjoy having it and using it occasionally. But it's $2,300 out of pocket not counting the conversion. I'd have to sell a bunch of stuff to rationalize the purchase.

The fp doesn't have IBIS. That is a serious drawback. (Friday's task was experimenting with low-light shooting with the fp.) but I like other aspects of the camera so much that I might be able to put up with that. Also, I still need to have a few prints made before I get too carried away.

The best outcome would be to convert the A6600 and have it be good enough to live with. The worse outcome would be to convert the A6600 and not be happy with it and still continue to want an fp.

Decisions, decisions...what I should probably do is simply keep shooting with the fp until Jason needs it back, and then decide. If you can't decide, delay.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Fred Lyon, San Francisco Noir. "The version [of San Francisco] that Fred Lyon celebrates in his new book is a classic San Francisco full of smoky jazz clubs, neon lights in the fog and sharply dressed men and women stepping on and off of trolley cars. Made mostly during the 1950s and '60s, Lyon's images are big on atmosphere and style, and hit many parts of the city that visitors love." (PDN)

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Jeff: "I bought a mint used original Leica M(9) Monochrom, with new sensor/service and warranty, for $3,500 in 2017. I could sell it now if I wanted to for about $3,800. Regardless, I’ve received more than equivalent value and joy from the experience in the meantime, and the prints are reminders. Sometimes it costs less in the long term to make up your mind, pay more up front and enjoy the ride."

Severian: "You wrote 'If you can't decide, delay'—there is some real wisdom there, when applied properly. The pain of an unmade decision (ambivalence) is often overwhelming to some people so they resolve the tension too soon, often to a less than optimal answer.

"Over the years, reading what you've written about how much you value IBIS, I think you need to delay long enough to fully recall how much a non-IBIS camera is a major annoyance for you.

"I think no IBIS would be a constant burr under the saddle for you. Of course, you know 'you' better than your readers!"

Mike replies: I wonder if I do, though. My brother Scott, who knew me really well, used to say that I was much better at advising other people than I was at knowing what to do for myself.

David Aiken: "There are two ways to get a camera that shoots B&W only: you can obtain a camera with a monochrome sensor or you can restrict your own personal choice in shooting. You're the man who has proposed the one camera, one lens, one year challenge to readers on a couple of occasions. I'll propose a challenge to you. Pick a camera you have, set it up to show a B&W viewfinder and screen, and use it only for B&W for a period, six months to a year. If you want to shoot colour for a particular purpose, you have to use a different camera but you then can't convert anything taken with a different camera to B&W. That way you're faced with a binary choice when you go out to take photos, if you choose a particular camera then you have to shoot B&W or colour depending on the choice of camera; if you want to shoot in B&W or in colour you have to choose a specific camera.

"Those are the same choices you'll be faced with if you obtain a monochrome camera so just start doing it today with the cameras you have and see how it works for you. If in six months or a year, whatever time period you set yourself, you can't imagine working any other way, then get the monochrome camera. You'll have answered your questions about whether having a purely monochrome camera will work for you and whether you're prepared to deal with the cost issues without the reservations that currently seem to bedevil you."

Mike replies: Excellent, sage, sane advice. However, unfortunately, I've tried exactly what you're proposing on many different occasions already...with the NEX-6; with the Fuji X-T1 (I was very dogged that time, and stuck with it over hundreds if not a thousand+ images, but ultimately it was just too much of a struggle and not fun; with the "Big Dragoon" AKA D800, which I bought specifically hoping I would love it for B&W....

B&W with the Big Dragoon

It's all documented back there in the archives if you go looking for it. 

Rob Griffin: "Decisions, decisions, certainly a skill that is not my strong suit, but I think it would be a good idea to make some prints before you make a final decision. You and many others here on TOP have said that an image file is not really a photograph until it’s printed.

"Many people have commented on and don’t understand your 'mindset' issue. I have the same mindset issue you have spoken of when trying to shoot black-and-white images on a digital camera. I wish I didn’t, but I am not sure that any sort of mental training would help me overcome the issue. I am happy for the majority of readers of TOP that don’t have the same issue, but it is a real thing for some of us.

"I number of people have said seeing an image in black and white in the EVF or on the LCD is helpful to them when shooting black and white with a digital camera. I wish I felt that way. I feel mostly uncertain as to what I am seeing when viewing the image on what amounts to a black-and-white monitor. Mike, you wrote about when shooting black-and-white film in a film camera the image in an optical viewfinder or on the ground glass is in color. For me, having taken up black-and-white photography years before digital photography was invented, seeing color in the optical viewfinder but black and white in my mind’s eye feels natural, what I am used to. If possible, I think you should try a camera with an optical viewfinder converted to monochrome before you make a decision.

"Your pardner in a specific 'mindset.'"

History of the Monochroms

I'm not an expert on Leicadom, but, if I've parsed the source* correctly and not missed anything, here's the history of the company's unique dedicated B&W models:

2012 (announced May 10): Leica M Monochrom (internal pre-production code name "Henri" in homage to H.C.-B.). 18-MP FF CCD sensor. Based on: Leica M9. Sample by -M&E-.

2015 (announced April 30): Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246). 24-MP FF CMOS sensor. Based on: beats me.) Sample by bob camera.

202o (announced January 17): Leica M10 Monochrom (current product). 40-MP FF CMOS sensor. Based on: Leica M10-P. Sample by Paolo Viviani. [UPDATE: See Jeff's Featured Comment below.]

2020 (announced November 10): Leica Q2 Monochrom (current product). 47-MP FF CMOS sensor, fixed 28mm ƒ/1.7 lens. Based on: Leica Q2. Sample by guy clift.

Presumably there will eventually be a Monochrom based on the M11, which was announced seven months ago.

Mike

*Based on the DPReview Product Database.

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Jeff: "The original M Monochrom was based on the M9 sensor, sans Bayer filter. It was CCD. Likewise, the M Typ 246 was derived from the M240, which was CMOS. But the M10 Monochrom sensor, also CMOS, was not based on the M10 or M10-P sensors, which were 24 MP, even though the body and other features were based on the latter. Rather, the 40 MP sensor was derived from the Leica S3 sensor architecture, as was the M10-R, which has the same sensor with a Bayer filter. This was apparently a way for Leica to produce some economies of scale from the uniquely specified and expensive 30x45mm S3 sensor. The M10 Monochrom and M10-R therefore share its pixel pitch, but scaled down in size.

"There are also many other differences between the evolving Monochrom bodies. The M9 platform, for instance, has frame lines optimized for 1m, a .68x VF magnification, a very loud shutter re-cock mechanism, a RAW (DNG) based histogram (unique to this camera), etc. The M10 Monochrom has a much more robust body with better weather sealing, a quiet shutter, a larger VF diameter with .73x magnification with better eye relief, frame lines optimized for 2m, and is a much more modern body with tighter digital tolerances."

UPDATE on The Great Monochrome Safari

A followup on the progress of The Great Monochrome Safari, in which Don Quixote Mike stalks the veldt in a funny hat for "always-on" digital B&W and other big game not mandatory for the sustenance of Dawgs*:

—Daniel Morrison at MIS (Monochrome Imaging Services, one of the camera conversion businesses) doesn't have any loaners. Daniel has been kind and cordial, but I'm going to guess that, just maybe, he gets a little weary of having to wade into long hand-holding discussions with punters like me who aren't in the end going to open up their wallets for his services. So I'm going to try not to press him too heavily unless I actually decide to spend for his services. His is the most informative website as far as I can tell, so he's already put up a lot of information for everyone who cares to look.

—Haven't heard back from Roger Cicala, but no worries—I don't think he always sees emails right away. Plus it's vacation season.

—Reader Jason M. has a MIS-converted Sigma FP that he's willing to let me try. The Sigma FP, if you don't know it (I didn't), is a very small 24-MP camera (presumably intended for video?) that comes with a Bayer array rather than Sigma's proprietary variant of the Foveon sensor.

—Reader Chris H. is sending a loaner Leica M Monochrom. We will eventually parse the offerings in that lineage and sample the one he sends.

—Reader Steve R. referred me to an accomplished photographer, Norm Eder of Portland, Oregon, who uses MIS-converted camera(s) for his concert and music photography work. I've sent him an email.

Resources
A few resources which have surfaced, thanks to the Cloud-Mind of the Commentariat:

The new Pixii camera, which I was already planning to try at some point, has a real Mono mode in which the processor ignores the color information from the Bayer array. [Thanks to Frank Grygier and Richard Parkin for this.]

Here are some of Norm Eder's pictures, "most but not all" of which were shot with his MIS-converted Sony. [Thanks to Steve Rosenblum.]

Here's an interesting and carefully done comparison of converted raw files from a Leica Q2 compared to the Q2 Monochrom, then a similar comparison of color and mono M cameras, and finally a showdown between the two Monochrom cameras, Q2M and M10M. The color Q2 comports itself admirably, being almost indistinguishable from the Q2M at lower ISOs (putting paid to the supposed sharpness advantage of monochrome sensors, at least in this comparison), but the ISO insensitivity of the monochrome sensor wins out at higher ISOs: according to the tester, David Farkas, the mono sensor has a two-stop advantage over converted color files. Looking at "where the cameras hit their respective ideal maximum ISO values," by which he means "the highest ISO values achievable without a significant sacrifice of image quality," David's conclusion is that the color Q2 files, when converted to B&W in software, look very good up to ISO 6,400, and the Q2M's, to ISO 25,000. (The latter is the value as given in the camera's menu.) [Thanks to James for this.]

More parties heard from
I'm more than 100 comments behind in moderation, so there are lots more comments on the previous post coming up. New Featured Comments as well. Here are three common reactions:

• I understand where you're coming from.
• I don't understand where you're coming from.
• Is that really worth $1,200?

Mike

*An art school friend called fine-art students "art dawgs" so I started to call our little cohort in the Photo Dept. "photo-dawgs." Like most of my attempted coinages it did not catch on. Except with me.

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Bob G.: "Individual determined and focused artistic endeavors can and should be beyond critical reproach, as well as immune to any financial logic. History has shown time and time again that strong artistic ideas will prevail, regardless of the barriers thrown up against them. Persistence will make it so."

Jeff1000: "I think you’re tilting at windmills."

Same Old Problems! (More on Monochrome Sensor Cameras)

No surprise, I'm experiencing the same old problems as always in discussing this topic, the topic of the monochrome sensor.

Problems with explaining
First, it's not a question of output/results. Of course I can make B&W/monochrome files/pictures, and have done so a great many times in innumerable ways. It's an issue of mindset. (Thanks to Jeff for introducing that word in the comments.) It doesn't affect everyone, so not everyone gets it. This happens every time the topic comes up, and apparently, from what I find "out there" on the internet, it comes up everywhere else it's mentioned, too.

Secondly, what's needed isn't to see the B&W/monochrome image in the viewfinder or in the workflow. I have something like 90,000 B&W negatives that I shot mostly with SLRs with yellow filters on the lens—what you see in the viewfinder is a color image "stained" overall with yellow. I don't care what I see in the viewfinder. I have no problem visualizing the final results based on whatever materials I'm using. It's what the camera sees that counts, not what I see.

The problem is that I shoot with a different mindset when I'm shooting color. I take different pictures. I mentally translate the world differently. I look for different things. Do you see? And what happens with me is that I can't help looking for color pictures when I'm photographing if I know the camera is recording color. I'll always be looking at the world as if I'm looking for both B&W and color pictures. It's very unsatisfying.

...To me. I understand that if you don't experience this, then naturally you wouldn't see why it's a problem. But I'm telling you it's a problem for me, so it doesn't help if you simply say I shouldn't be having the problem.

It's not an inability, either. I actually did a project in art school for which I shot color negative film and made enlargements on Panalure B&W paper, to make B&W prints. It's just that I find that difficult to sustain over the long haul. If I know color is available, I gradually migrate into seeing color pictures again and making pictures that have to be in color. It's totally a mental thing. It's not a technical issue or a technical problem. It's about mindset.

Jeff wrote,

The reason my Leica Monochrom cameras (M9 Monochrom and M10 Monochrom) help with my black-and-white mindset is that I’m not distracted by looking for color pics, as I know the monochrome cameras can’t capture color [...]. I’ve found that it’s a different mindset than when I shoot with my color-based digital cameras, even when my intent is to take B&W pics. I didn’t think this would be the case before I actually bought a Monochrom, but I should have learned otherwise from my decades shooting B&W film.

There it is..."distracted by looking for color pics." When you look for B&W pictures you're looking for scenes that will render nicely with just luminances. When you look for color pictures you're often looking for colors that work together or against each other. It's a different mindset. I'm sure some people can simply "decide" they're shooting B&W, and only look for scenes that would render well as luminance-only, and God bless 'em. I find I can't do it. 

Aspect ratio
Stephen S. added,

"Re 'But what I've always found is that if the camera sees colors, then I'll see in color. Can't seem to help it. However the camera sees, that's how I'll look at the world.' I fully understand this, and how I relate may help others who can't figure out why you don't just set a colour camera to record B&W: I have many cameras where you can choose to photograph in a different aspect ratio than what the sensor physically is, but I can never bring myself to do it, as it seems like I'm just wasting potential. I want to use all of the sensor I've got. Why throw away perfectly pixels on the top and bottom of my frame, and perfectly good light from the lens, to crop a 4:3 or 3:2 sensor to 16:9? I know it's all in my head, but I have a hard time doing it. Using a sensor's full size and native aspect ratio just makes me feel better about it.

That's a good analogy. I've had different experiences with that. Once I tried to use a 28mm lens meaning to crop it down to a 35mm angle of view in post, and found I simply couldn't do it consistently—I found myself simply composing pictures with the entire 28mm field of view. (Duh, huh? It took all of one day to discover how dopey the idea was. Probably didn't even need to actually do that experiment.)

Oddly, when I once had the opposite problem, I had no trouble. I had an old medium-format SLR, 6x6cm, on which the viewfinder showed less than the negative would record. Worse, the overlap was offset:

And for some reason, in that case, I would often find myself calmly composing in the viewfinder with the top of the picture cut off! I knew the negative would get it, and I didn't worry about it.

And this is odd. With most square cameras, it doesn't matter if I mean to crop to a vertical or horizontal rectangle, I end up composing with the whole square. I just end up looking for square compositions and arranging to the square in the viewfinder. But in the case of that one camera with the offset viewfinder, from first to last I created vertical rectangles. It just felt natural, and that's the way I saw and that's what always worked.

Why was this? No idea. But it brings up a crucial point: you need to adjust to yourself. You're not seeing with a camera. You're not even seeing with your eyes, mostly. You're seeing with your brain. So you have to adjust to how your own brain likes to see things!

Problems with the product
People who are objecting that it makes no sense to pay a lot of money to cripple a perfectly good sensor sure got that right. People like me are trapped by the camera manufacturers. Apart from Leica, the cameramakers have no interest in making cameras with B&W-only sensors, I presume because they know the "take rate" would be minuscule and they'd make no money on the product. And they have no interest in giving random artists what the artists need—their purpose is to make money. Q.E.D.

But could they? If they wanted to? Of course they could. It would be easy as pie. If there were a market for it, the camera would be simpler to make and most likely cost less.

I honestly believed that once Leica did it, that some other more mainstream manufacturer would follow suit with a reasonably priced monochrome sensor camera. But no. Didn't happen. I'm sure the camera makers just don't see it as something that would be worth the hassle. It would be like a car maker building a sedan with a stick shift, manual windows, and no air conditioning.

So then I'm left with taking a $1,200 camera (what I paid for the A6600) and investing a further $1,200 in it, to make a camera that would have cost $900 if Sony offered it as a commercial product.

This would make sense two ways: 1.) if I wasn't price-sensitive about that extra $1,200 (I loved what Bruce Bordner said: "don't make a business decision on a toy"); 2.) if I knew I'd like it and would use it. But of course you can't try it before you buy it, so that makes the second proposition iffy. (You can't even find much about it online; there's doesn't appear to be a lot out there.) I don't really like the tonal rendition of the Leica Monochroms, for instance, so they're not really what I'd want. [UPDATE: I don't actually really know this...having not tried a Monochrom for myself. —MJ] What Sroyon said is very true: "What I'm wondering is, do you know for sure that you'll like the way the B&W-converted sensor renders colours? Because as you know, sensors have a spectral sensitivity curve, just like film. With a product like Tri-X, decades of research have gone into producing a curve which 'translates' colours to B&W in a pleasing way, both natively and with the typical filters." Richard Parkin seconded this, writing, "Why do you think the B&W from a converted camera will be the 'good' B&W you desire?" The answer is that I don't know if it will be.

Anyway, I've asked Daniel at Monochrome Imaging if he has a converted camera he'd be willing to let me try for a couple of weeks for the purposes of writing about it. We'll see what he says.

Maybe I could ask Roger Cicala if he has any interest in adding a few converted monochrome-sensor cameras to the rental fleet at LensRentals, just so people could try them out. He might not be, as they already rent Leica Monochroms. But I'll ask.

Thanks for all the comments! Very engaging, at least for me. I love B&W, and miss it a lot.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Clyde Rogers: "I'm primarily a black and white photographer, a Pt/Pd printer, and have a Leica M10 Monochrom. It's easily the best camera I've ever owned, and I love the results I get from it. The primary technical advantage is not just absolute higher ISO capability, but how much better the noise looks is as it creeps in at middle ISOs—smooth and stochastic, never chunky or patterned.

"That said, the black and white camera hasn't changed my photos in any way I can notice. I get that better middle and high ISO, but won't carry a second camera, so lose color. I was hoping for but haven't noted any mindset advantage. Having used both extensively, I think an excellent black and white EVF is a more useful tool for me than the monochrome sensor. The ability to do filter effects after the fact is also worth more than the noise/ISO advantages. Is the monochrome sensor worth it? As the owner of a beautiful monochrome camera, I have to be honest and say not for me."

John Cornelius: "$2,400.00 would buy a lot of Tri-X; just saying. I still shoot it, develop it myself, scan it and print digitally. Silly, but I love it. With any luck the next house will have room for a darkroom and I can be even sillier. It is my hobby, I can be as silly as I want."

Pierre Charbonneau: "Mike, About your dislike of the Leica Monochrom’s tonal rendition, I would point out that the natives files coming out of the camera are on the flat side, without any pop. On the other hand, these are very rich (shadow details) and malleable, so you can play with it a lot, to your liking. After years of using the first and also the latest iteration of the Monochrom, I do not have yet any preset to apply universally to the files. Each picture that I spring for asks for a specific process, even if moderate, like for the curve, exposure, highlight and shadow and even graininess. In the end, it is less work than shooting and processing Tri-X, and the work is cleaner and safer than the chemical way. I still use a film Leica here and then, to reset my appreciation of film. I enjoy using the old non-automatic, manual winding and the beauty of the camera and even the distinctive click of the shutter. But the road to satisfying results is more complicated."

William Cook: "Depending on the day, it may or may not be natural to ‘see’ in B&W for me, but I fully understand what you’re getting at. I too yearned for a simpler camera and I also was a happy B&W film shooter, mostly in medium format. I get easily overwhelmed and the dearth of controls on current digital cameras is the opposite of what I want, well, except for IBIS, that’s mandatory! All that, coupled with the infinite ways to enhance a photo in Photoshop, was overwhelming—and not fun. Granted, most other photographers feel exactly the opposite that I do. I yearned for a simple B&W experience again. When the Leica Q2M was released, that was the answer to my dreams. I don’t even want to get into the angst over the price, but I bought one anyway. Instead of thinking of how I can fiddle the color sliders to produce a ‘filtered’ monochrome image, I do it the old fashioned way, with glass filters on the lens. In Photoshop, I adjust exposure, maybe some dodging and burning, add a touch of sharpening, and that’s about it. Rather than endless options, I love the constraints and discipline. The process now makes me think more when I’m behind the camera and I enjoy the entire photographic process again. I suppose those younger would consider me a dinosaur, but there should be room in the tent for all of us!"

Kirk W.: "C’mon Mike, just hurry up and do it. Then within a few months, I’ll be able to order one of those trick new Fuji X100Ms!"

Henning: "I get what you say, because I'm the same way. I started shooting mostly B&W film. In later years colour became more important. They definitely required a different mindset. I photographed professionally for 40+ years, and in the early years B&W was requested more than colour. By the 90s B&W had largely disappeared as a preference. In the transition decades I was often asked to shoot both B&W and colour, and I always asked the client which was more important, as I had to know going in. With large format in particular, it was easy enough to shoot both; just put in a different film holder, but my vision was right for one but not the other. I couldn't readily do both to my highest standard on the same job on the same day; it was either/or. If a client was particularly discerning I would suggest that I go on two different days (I did architectural photography) and use one medium the first day and the other on the next day. I probably did that about once a year.

"Now I have colour cameras, and I have an M10 Monochrom. I don't take both on the same day."

Frank Gorga: "Although I am,for much of my work, a black and white junkie, I doubt that I will ever buy a monochrome-only digital camera. The reason...flexibility. The control one has in converting colors to gray tones using modern software is much too important to me. The color channels sliders allow me to dial in exactly the right strength or a particular color 'filter' rather than having to rely on one or two strengths of a physical filter. Additionally, one can easily 'stack' virtual filters something that is not recommended and difficult to do with physical filters. Lastly, using layers and masks, one can apply different color filters to different parts of an image. This is not something I do often, but it is impossible to do with physical filters. To me, a monochrome digital camera is a big step backwards."

Inkphot: "Another analogy to think about. I have recently returned to shooting (now digital) with single focal length lenses, something I almost always did when using film (I haven't shot film since 2003). I find I select a focal length to use depending on a whim. A 35mm-e one day, 28mm-e another or an 85mm-e the next. It doesn't matter what the focal length of the lens is, after a few practice compositions I find I can now see and compose in my head the view the camera will record. Using a zoom lens these day throws me off balance. I feel very discombobulated. On the other hand I find the ability to show a black and white image (grey actually) in the EVF and on the LCD to be very useful for me to 'see' in B+W. Also I have a camera converted to infrared and the same thing happens when I am out shooting with it, I find I quickly adjust to seeing in IR (obviously not literally). So Mike I totally get where you're coming from on this."

V.I. Voltz (partial comment): "I don’t think you’d be happy with the tones from the Monochroms. They look like APX 100 in Rodinal—they lower the midtones and produce quite closed shadows. And, most of all, the tones are more resistant than you might imagine to opening them up—it is harder to do and image quality suffers more than I thought it would. In 2012 when I got the first Monochrom I noticed this markedly, thought about it a while and just decided to live with it and shift my look. Until then I used a lot of Plus-X in Xtol with a yellow filter. I thought about continuing with film as my main medium, but, as you put it, I’ve done enough of that work. These days when I use film I use Adox CHS 100 II to match the tones of my Monochrom."

Frank: "Re 'I love B&W, and miss it a lot.' I think you are missing black and white photographs that have been beautifully exposed and developed in the darkroom on fine paper. Digital monochrome photography is quite different, and is often very ugly. I have not yet seen a single beautiful black and white photo from digital that was beautifully printed. For that you need a 6-greys printer, another investment."

Jens Hauser: "I have more or less the same issue because I want to try a monochrome Sony before I decide to buy one, so renting one would be super. I have loved monochrome for a long time and edit many of my photos to B&W."

Bill Tyler: "I have to admit that a full monochrome camera has a strong but irrational appeal for me, even though I would likely not use it very much. What's stopping me is the price."

Joe Holmes: "The mindset is powerful. More than once I've lifted the camera to my eye and felt a kind of reeling vertigo as I discover that my mind's lens, with which I'd been I scanning the world, is not the lens I've got on my camera."

Josh Hawkins: "It is all mindset. I shoot my mirrorless camera in the B&W setting but with raw files. I’m seeing the image on the LCD as B&W. I’m composing for B&W. But I’ve got all the color data. I almost never use the image in color though. It looks wrong. Off. I just can’t. It’s a B&W image, in my mind. Thanks for the read. As always."

The Pinchpenny's Dilemma

Thanks for all the good camera talk on Friday and yesterday. I always enjoy that, as superfluous as it may be. I enjoy cameras and talking about gear.

What I've decided to do is enlist the help of Monochrome Imaging Services (MIS) and have a Sony camera converted to B&W-only. (I actually started talking to them about this briefly right before the pandemic, but let it drop amid the concern of those early days.)

I have several candidates to be the donor camera. And I have three E-mount lenses hanging around the camera closet: a Sony 16mm, the Sigma 30mm Contemporary, and an older Sigma DN 60mm ƒ/2.8. (Actually for some reason I have two of those. Not sure why.) That's enough to play with. If I like the camera, I'll eventually need a lens with an aperture ring, but there are several possibilities for that: the Viltrox 23mm (also available in a cosmetically slightly differentiated mount as a Tokina for those who feel an urge to pay more), the Sony FE 24mm ƒ/2.8, or the Sigma I-series 24mm ƒ/3.5. Both the latter are FF lenses but will work on APS-C Sonys.

What to do, what to do
The only problem is that I have to raise $1,200 for the conversion. The camera budget is dry as a bone at the moment. Have to figure out some way to raise a bit o' cash.

Looming behind that problem is a pinchpenny's dilemma: I can have either my old Sony NEX-6 or my new Sony A6600 converted. The conversion costs $1,200, which is a significant investment. So do I invest in the older, less valuable camera, with its smaller (16-MP) sensor? Or do I convert the sleek new 24-MP A6600, which I like better and is much newer...and has that great big battery that lasts forever...but which will presumably be worth much less on the resale market after conversion? NEX-6's go for less than $250 these days. But minty A6600's go for $1,100–$1,300. It's like if you want to hot-rod a car, which do you choose: do you invest more than the car is worth in an old clunker, or do you void the warranty and hurt the resale on a perfectly good late-model vehicle? Which is more cost-effective? Which is less risk? Thinking about this is prob'ly gonna make my brain hurt tonight.  :-) 

Home at last
I hope my "cheap gene" doesn't derail the project. I really do want to experience a camera that shoots only B&W again. I had a lot of experience shooting B&W, and I have no trouble seeing in B&W if that's how the camera sees. But what I've always found is that if the camera sees colors, then I'll see in color. Can't seem to help it. However the camera sees, that's how I'll look at the world. (Not everyone is like that.) I think it will be very interesting to be "forced" to see in B&W again. I'm working on an article for the big mag about B&W right now, so at the very least, it'll be grist for the mill.

From what I can see, the process has a lot of advantages. First of all, the camera becomes about one stop more sensitive because of the removal of the CFA (color filter array). You don't actually lose the ability to affect the image with color filters—you just have to do it the old-fashioned way, with color filters on the lens! That won't be a drawback to me. Furthermore, there's very little difference between ISOs...for instance, ISO 100 and ISO 3200. Even though you can see a slight difference when you pixel-peep at 100%, the higher ISO image is still very clean and quite pleasing. Finally, the image from the converted camera is markedly sharper than a color image converted in software. All this is discussed on Monochrome Imaging's website.

A small detail from the above. This will be 100% after you click on it. TOP's blog software softens images slightly.

I downloaded the above sample image (made with a converted a7R II) from MIS's website and worked on it in Photoshop. Raw files from converted cameras do need to be run through specialized raw converters (this one's just the JPEG, not the raw file), so that the standard demosaicing that would be done on color files isn't applied. After that, though, the images open as monochrome files in Photoshop and are easy and natural to work on. I fiddled with this one a bit, which was fun.

A converted Sony might be a "poor man's" Q2M, but I have a good feeling about this. I do know most people don't understand—you don't have to tell me yet again—however, I've always wanted a B&W digital camera. I just can't pay Leica's prices, is all.

More to come in this topic, I'm sure. (Unless I lose momentum. That sometimes happens. We'll see.)

Mike

Book o' the Week

Home Fires Volume II: The Present. There is of course a Volume I: The Past.  TOP reader Bruce Haley has produced documentary work relating to conflict, humanitarian crises and environmental/industrial/land use issues for 30 years. He received the Robert Capa Gold Medal for his coverage of the ethnic civil war in Burma.

These book links are a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Gordon Lewis: "Re '...what I've always found is that if the camera sees colors, then I'll see in color.'

"I'm sorry, but this makes no sense, either in logic or fact. All cameras with optical viewfinders, including film cameras, display color. This means you are and have always been fully capable of imagining an image in B&W even though you are seeing color through the viewfinder. The only difference in the film days was that you had to commit to a full roll or sheet of B&W film.

"Mirrorless cameras or DSLRs with 'live view' however, are capable of displaying live images in B&W if you set the camera to B&W JPEG or RAW+JPEG. You don't have to 'see in B&W' because the camera can do it for you. Some would see this as a simple, cost-effective way to achieve your goal. Apparently you do not.

"I'm sure you're well aware of these facts, as are your readers. Whether or not you choose to take advantage of this feature is entirely your prerogative, but if you're trying to build a case for the merits of spending $1,200 to convert one of your Sonys to a monochrome sensor, this is one of your least convincing bits of evidence."

Mike replies: Hi Gordon. (For those who don't know, Gordon and I are friends and have been fellow photo-writers since the early '90s; he's been a houseguest here at TOP Rural World HQ.)

I can easily believe that it makes no sense to you (in logic or in fact), because you would not be that way, and indeed most people are not that way, but my visual brain works the way it works and I have to work with that. I get a pretty acute sense of how any camera is "seeing" and then, when I'm using that camera, I find I can "previsualize" (to use Ansel's term) the way the camera is going to translate any given scene. It's that way for me with all cameras. I had no difficulty at all seeing color in SLR viewfinders and previsualizing the look of Tri-X or HP-5 Plus or whatever I had loaded in the camera. (The viewfinder image of SLRs was yellow for me, actually, because of the K2 filters on my lenses.) In fact, seeing "bad" B&W in a digital viewfinder is a hindrance, not a help, when I'm visualizing my own B&W conversion which would be much different. I have yet to find a "B&W mode" in any digital camera that's halfway decent as B&W. Most of it simply looks like color desaturated—a look a colleague, John McIntosh, once called "student grays"—which is very different from good B&W. There's not one "B&W." There are many.

I have the look of the result in mind when I shoot. I was actually a little surprised when I first learned that most people don't. I suppose this the reason, or part of the reason, why I was a good B&W photographer.

And I am certainly not rationalizing a purchase! I have felt this way about B&W since I gave up film around 2000, and I have struggled with it since then. Have I not been complaining about the lack of dedicated B&W digital cameras since that time? The record will show that I have been. For example, this post from 11 years ago. It is not the only one—I wrote about the issue on the old Blogspot blog, and in my column in Black & White Photography magazine, and on The Luminous-Landscape. Or this from 2020. Here's another one from when the Leica Monochrom came out, which began with the words "Regular readers will know that I've been calling for a monochrome digital camera since forever...." And that was ten years ago.

If I get a camera converted, it will be only the last in a long series of tries. I bought the "Big Dragoon" (Nikon D800) meaning to use it for B&W. (Note the illustrations at that link.) I tried a Sigma DP2 with the same intentions. I tried firmly resolving to convert everything from the X-T1 in Silver Efex 2 (result? Fail, because I kept seeing in color because the camera sees in color). I tried going back to film several times, unsuccessfully because it's so much more work and so expensive. Why? To get back to B&W. The logical question is probably not whether I ought to try a converted camera so much as why I've waited so long to try a converted camera....

Moose (partial comment): Re 'I have a good feeling about this': Petty sure I've heard this before, likely more than once, about an enthusiasm that has fallen by the wayside. (I have those, too.)"

Mike replies: Yeah, that's why I'll probably resist this in the end. Because I'd have $2,400 invested in a camera that would be worth almost nothing and my enthusiasm would inevitably ebb, leaving me with naught but a big loss and a rueful feeling. It's why I've never had a camera converted.

I would sure love to "demystify" it, though. You never really know about something until you try it for yourself.

Thomas Rink: "Assuming that 1.) you bought the A6600 for making photographs, and not for reselling it, and 2.) your thing is B&W photography, I think the conclusion is simple: just have the camera converted! Then use it until it is worn down beyond repair, and you don't have to worry about resale value."

Bruce Bordner: "Why should you worry about resale value? Pick the one that feels better—the body and controls aren't going to change. Your value lies in how much you will enjoy it. Don't make a business decision on a toy."

Kye Wood (partial comment): "OK. I'm very late to this party. But—Mike. Buddy. You're no spring chicken. I think you should jump on this idea, ASAP."

Bill Bresler: "Ye Gods, man! It sounds like a really good idea, but I just can't get past the $1,200 price."

Roger: "That NEX-6 is likely approaching its 'recycle by' date—look for its recycle symbol. It probably has a 10 in the center. That’s 10 years of expected life. Not much point in paying to convert a camera whose lead-free solder could turn on it at any moment.

"I own a Typ 246 Monochrom and an A7III. I get what you’re saying about how the camera in use affects how you see. It’s a different experience."

Mike replies: The NEX-6 recycle symbol does say 10. However, according to the information I found about this, the number refers to the type of polycarbonate plastic the camera is made of, and isn't a prediction of longevity in years. However, the camera is 9 1/2 years old.

Roger replies: "Well we’re both wrong. That symbol with the 10 in it is a RoHS compliance symbol. The plastic recycle symbol tops out at 7.

"At 9 1/2 years old I’d be very leery of that camera’s lead-free solder causing a short circuit."

Mark Sampson: "If Leica (of all manufacturers) can't make a B&W camera with tonality you like, what are the odds that some conversion company will? It's your business to understand these things and then write about them—modifying a camera is just part of the cost of doing business. Convert the older camera, you'll get your answer, at a lower cost."

Extra Credit Question

A camera should make you happy. So I have a brief question. If you've been reading me for a long time and know my tastes, what camera would you recommend for me? I'm being serious, although I know some people will be tempted to make a joke of this.  :-)  It's okay, I won't hold it against you.

And you don't have to take budget into account.

Just curious,

Mike

Book o' the Week

Home Fires Volume II: The Present. There is of course a Volume I: The Past.  TOP reader Bruce Haley has produced documentary work relating to conflict, humanitarian crises and environmental/industrial/land use issues for 30 years. He received the Robert Capa Gold Medal for his coverage of the ethnic civil war in Burma.

These book links are a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Kirk: "The best of all possible worlds. A Leica SL2-S (insanely good high ISO, beautiful files/color at all ISOs) with its simple and elegantly designed menus and operational interface combined with Sigma's i-Series 35mm ƒ/2 lens—which looks perfect on that camera and delivers great, sharp photographs. Even at full retail you could be back on the streets shooting beautiful monochrome images (and superb color images) for comfortably less than $6,000 and never again have to wonder if the Leicas are really all that great. If you are feeling flush with Patreon cash you could go ahead and spring for the 35mm Summicron but I think it's too big and heavy for the kind of work you might want to do. I tend to stick to the Sigmas. The SL series is radically under-appreciated. Or...well...nothing else. Because why settle for less?"

Niels: "I think you need a film camera. One cannot love a digital camera. That’s a fact."

Thomas Walsh: "I don't believe (given what I have read from this blog) that you will be content with a particular camera. For a while you will enjoy it; but eventually something else will appeal to you. Your tastes vary, your interests vary and you are curious about many things. My opinion is that you would be best served to abandon writing about gear and focus on other aspects of photography: techniques, photographers, genres. You know a great deal about those things and a great many more. I am always educated and intrigued to read about what you have devoted your career to learning. Your recent New Yorker piece is a case in point. Anyway, that's my two cents."

Rob Campbell: "Nothing. The best part of GAS, even imaginary GAS, is anticipation and uncertainty. Why spoil that delectable state of suspended climax by actually owning anything? Nobody needs to make photographs; today, one talks about them. Making them is so, well, pedestrian: tradesman’s entrance kind of thing. Be happy; free yourself of having to prove anything, even to yourself."

Stephen S.: "There are technicians who will scrape the Bayer filter off a sensor to turn any camera into a monochrome version, so that's a possibility.

"I bought a Leica T a while back because I wanted to experience the 'single block of aluminum' build of it. I expected to hate using the camera, and I do: image review can't actually be turned off, it has no IBIS, no peaking and the dials can't be assigned logically so manual focus lenses are a pain, the EVF is ridiculous, and other issues...and yet, I absolutely love the results I get from it, especially the B&W profiles, which do something I can't figure out how to recreate on other cameras. The limitations and minimalism actually make it a refreshing change from my other do-everything cameras. It pairs well with the Sigma ƒ/1.4 primes of 16mm, 30mm, and 56mm, or the 18–50mm zoom. The TL2 would solve many of my complaints, but is out of my price range."

Frank Figlozzi: "Leica M Monchrom (Type 246)."

Mark Rouleau: "Ricoh GRIIIx. It's the most fun I've had with a camera, ever. You'd love the lens, which is amazingly flare- and chromatic-abberation-resistant, the image-stabilization for the 'yips' as I believe you call them, and the pocketability. No viewfinder, but does have a hotshoe, which many pocketable cameras no longer have."

Christer Almqvist: "Only if I can also recommend the lens that has to go with it."

Mike replies: You may.

Peter: "Show me six of your best photos and tell at what size they get displayed and I'll point you to a suitable camera."

Mike replies: I don't know about "best," because very little of my film work is digitized and my digital work isn't organized, but you can see three of my pictures in my recent newyorker.com article that are fairly characteristic.

"A Family Chair" (titles are by the editors) was taken with a Leica M6 and 50mm Summicron, and "Xander at 14" and "A Birthday Moment" were both taken with the Konica-Minolta 7D and a Tamron zoom. Most of what I consider my "real" work is B&W.

Here's an example of digital B&W:

Taken with the Fuji X-T1 and XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 and converted with Nik Silver Efex 2.

In the darkroom I had three standard sizes for 35mm prints, although I occasionally departed from those when needed. They were 7x10.5" for most pictures, 5x7.5" for pictures that wanted to be smaller, and 13" wide by whatever it is for prints that wanted to be bigger, all on 11x14 paper. I started printing 7x10.5" because I had a box of 500 sheets of 8.5x11" RC paper once and got to like the slightly larger than 8x10 size.

Roger Bradbury: "I suggest a Leica with a 40mm lens on it, and a couple more lenses; a 28mm and a 90mm. It'll have to be a late model digital one and not a film camera, as you've been led astray by the miracle of pixels.  :-]  Thinking about it, what you'd really like is a sort of digital Minolta/Leica CL...."

Brandon: "Either a Fuji XS-10 or a Ricoh GRIIIx. The Fuji because it’s the right size, it has IBIS, and you already have/enjoy the lenses you’d need. Biggest drawback is that the screen flips out instead of tilting. The Ricoh because it is quite small for having an APS-C sensor and because the fixed lens is 40mm-e. It doesn’t meet the exact specifications of the DMD, but it is in that spirit for sure."

Bear.: "Leica Q2. I passed on the Monochrom as too limiting for a go-to, take-everywhere camera, and also because I’ve become lazy and used to being able to avoid physical filters by just converting colour files when I do want B&W work.

"It took me a long time to work myself up to spending the serious coin it costs and I had doubts about 28mm, since I mostly shoot in the 35mm range. But I’ve both adapted to the wider angle and use the 'digital zoom,' which shooting raw really amounts to no more than automated frame lines for a 35mm FOV. Apart from making sure that always have it on a strap over my neck when carrying or using it, I’ve made no concessions to its cost.

"Probably because I’ve already spent the money, I have convinced myself of its value—it really is such a joy to hold and use as a tool that I often prefer to adapt my images to the tool rather than carry different gear. I think if a Q3 were released with the 60-MP sensor from the M11, I would probably go for it—the extra resolution would give the 50mm 'zoom' enough resolution for it to be a useful tool. And if Leica manages to fit in IBIS or a higher resolution EVF or both, I would definitely be a buyer—I might have to sell the car though!"

Jim Couch: "Simple—Micro 4/3 Olympus OM-1 with the PRO M.Zuiko 20mm ƒ/1.4. Nuff said."

jens: "Contax G2 and free film and development."

Mike replies: If I ever get rich, I'll go back to film and have somebody else do all the work. I spent enough of my life doing that work, frankly.

HVJ: "Long-time reader here. Jettison it all for a Q2. Joyous."

Bruce Polin: "Honestly, whenever you describe your ultimate camera you come very darn close to describing the Hasselblad 907X but, for some reason, you seem to avoid it, which could mean you really might have a crush in it. Have you asked her out yet?"

The Best Bargain Out There Right Now

I came very close to buying another camera yesterday. As close as you can come without actually doing it.

The Canon 5DS R DSLR from 2015—basically a 2012 5D Mark III with a 50.1-MP sensor (which dominated the pixel race in 2015).

It's on blowout sale brand new at B&H Photo for a mere $1,499. Are you kidding me? Considering it listed for $3,900 new, that's beyond a deep discount. Not only is it older now, its strengths matched and exceeded by current competition, but Canon is moving away from DSLRs altogether. The perfect storm for a true blowout sale price. So the former king-of-the-hill prosumer Canon DSLR is now only $100 more than the garden-variety hobbyist 6D Mark II FF that has half as many pixels.

As regular readers know, I've been playing with the iPhone camera a lot lately, and thus I've had a hankering for a while now to balance it out by going the other way. I keep talking about trying a medium format camera, or something else where high quality is part of the point. Something at the other extreme from the phone. You know, so all the ballast isn't over on one side of the hold.

But I didn't know about the blowout price of the 5DS R until Jonathan mentioned it commenting on the "Hypothetical Camera Question" post.

To get a camera that used to cost $3,900 for $1,499 is almost more than my "cheap gene" can pass up. Of course it's not exactly cheap, because I don't need another camera and I know from experience I don't particularly like big SLRs. But I was willing to overlook that because...well, because I overlook practicality when GAS strikes! (If I'm honest.) And the 5DS R is best for one kind of photographer: people who print larger than 13x19". Which I don't. Yet.

Yet?! Be reasonable, Mike.

I think the only thing that will cure my GAS is when they RUN OUT of these. The 5DS's are already gone. Sure the 5DS R's won't be far behind?

I'm still out on the ledge, to be frank. I've been reading reviews for two days. Could it hurt to try it? Just try it? The two little figures on each of my shoulders are whispering into my ears. Don't do it...better hurry...don't do it...better hurry...aaaaaugh....

Mike

ADDENDUM in the light of day early Thursday morning: Take a look at a few pictures. I can't snag them and reproduce them here, so you'll have to click through and see them on flickr. (Left clicking on the link usually gives you an option to open them in a new tab, as you probably know.)

Just look at them holistically...do they work okay as pictures, notwithstanding whether you like them or not? Sharp enough, adequate detail, decent color, unobtrusive bokeh? Do they get across what the photographer was trying to show, do you think?

Cat picture by DizzieMizzieLizzie

HDR Storefront by Gordon McCallum

Small B&W object by Glen Bledsoe

Action shot by Youri Koliada

Kid pic by Gaétan 

We used to say "but how would they print?" except that these days, things usually print better than they look onscreen...we need to pixel peep to tease out the alleged flaws a little better. For instance, this shot by Glen Bledsoe isn't perfect, but it works perfectly well. Nobody minds the slight motion blur, which just indicates, well, motion. It's no worse than 98% of the pictures ever taken in similar situations on film.

Anyway, the upshot is that these were all taken by my current $264 lens, the Sigma 30mm Contemporary, and earlier versions* of my little Sony camera**. When sanity returns I realize I should just take pictures with that, and not get all swept up in the idea of a Canon 5DS R (just because it's "cheap") and EF 50mm ƒ/1.2L (which isn't cheap, except it's a good bargain used).

GAS crisis averted. But it was a close one!

*Respectively: A6500, A6000, A6500, A6000, A6000.

**The A6600.

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Robert: "I have a rule which helps with GAS: 'when in doubt, don't.' If you have waited two days already you are in doubt."

Trevor Johnson: "I bought one from B&H last year. Although I live in the UK, the cost, including all duties, VAT and carriage, came to just under £1,400. And delivery from order to arrival at my doorstep took only three days.

"Why the 5DS R? Because I use the 17mm and 24mm Canon TSE lenses and the 5DS R is still the king of resolution when using them. I have used those lenses on an R5, but the 5DS R has a clear resolution advantage over the R5. It is quite simply a great camera, still extensively used in pro architectural photography."

Jim Kofron: "Buy 10. Think of the money you'll save!!!"

John Camp: "Maybe you don't do big digital prints, but you could—there are all kinds of online printers, and you can get like 24x36 for $65 bucks or so. And it's not like you'd buy a hundred of them, just one now and then when you hit something really good. If you think of yourself as a photographic writer, maybe you need a lot of cameras going through. But if you still foster a photographic picture-taking gene, you should have one good solid high-res camera, that basically you could keep forever."

Alberto Bengoa: "I was in the same boat with the recent closeout discount for the Fuji 50R, originally introduced at $4,500, now sold for $2,800 with a free lens. That's the same price I originally paid for a Canon 5D Mark II in 2009, with a (lackluster) lens thrown in. Long story short, I now own a Fuji 50R."

Ken Bennett: "Don't do it, Mike. Avoid the GAS attack. I have the 5DS and while it was a fine camera, it is nothing really special, and it's 10-year-old tech. The Fuji GFX stuff blows it away."

Tam: "I can’t blame you. I bought an open-box 5DS for something like eleven hundred a few years ago and it’s still my main work camera for product photography and landscapes and portraits and stuff. If you need ninja-level eye focus or ultimate dynamic range for amazing nightscapes there are certainly better choices these days. But if you just need a bangin’ camera body for the buck, it’s hard to beat the 5DS/5DS R."

Aaron: "I chased the high megapixel cameras (for me A7R Mark IV) because I kept thinking 'but what if I want to print large?' In reality I’ve printed larger than 13x19" exactly three times in 20 years of photography. All three are high detailed landscape photos printed at about 24x30 hanging throughout my house. They’re fantastic prints in my humble opinion. I’m still always proud of them every time I walk by. They were all taken with the original Canon 5D—12 MP! So I’ve decided to be happy with my more than capable Micro 4/3 cameras and let the A7R Mark IV go the way of my other completely unrealistic expectations of myself and my photography. (Now check back with me in three months and see if I’ve actually been able to make myself sell the Sony!)"

Bruce Alan Greene: "Go on…get the camera! I’ve been using the 5DS for four years. Bought a used one for…$2,600! It’s a great camera and not so big for me as I often use a 35mm ƒ/2.0 prime lens which is small and lightweight. With 50 MP, one can easily 'zoom' in Photoshop to 50mm or a bit more. Way lighter and smaller than a zoom on a mirror less camera.  :-)  And, dynamic range is better than the reviews describe and I’ve shot many photos at night hand held with success. At the very least, the price of admission will provide content for future stories here!"

Phil Aynsley: "I used the 5DS R professionally for many years, before switching to the R5. It is an excellent camera!"

Gordon R. Brown: "How much is a used Canon 5DS R selling for at Precision Camera in Austin, Texas? A recent Visual Science Lab blog post had pictures of the display cases there filled with used DSLRs that no one wanted. I suspect you could buy one there for less than the new price at B&H Photo."

[Link added by Ed.  —Ed.]

Geoff Wittig: "Hah. Don't do it, Mike. Don't get me wrong, I love the 5DS R. I own two of them, complete with battery grip, L-brackets and lots of lenses, and I still use them all the time. They still yield great results—with a giant asterix. You can get wonderful high resolution files that print beautifully right up to 24x36", if you work within its limits. This older sensor does not like high ISO; noise in the shadows is annoying by ISO 400. Any camera movement will instantly degrade the image, so you must have the camera bolted to a heavy, solid tripod; and use mirror lock-up with a cable release; and focus very carefully. The small apertures needed to maximize depth of field and the low ISO limits mean long shutter speeds, which in turn means waiting patiently for the wind to stop blowing before tripping the shutter. Oh, and it's big and heavy. So there's that. And it doesn't have IBIS. I don't think it will be a good match for your style of documentary, slice-of-life photography. If you didn't bond with the Nikon or Sony full-frame hi-res DSLRs, you won't like this one either."

The Goldilocks 'Just Right' Camera

When we parted on Friday, I promised to propose the Goldilocks camera, for the sake of argument. Something ideal in the middle of the medium-format digital 44x33 cameras and high-megapixel FF cameras on the one hand, and the latest smartphones with their smartcameras on the other. Not that there's anything wrong with those.

The OM System Olympus-badged OM-1

The just-right point, I think, where everything is in balance, the happy medium, is the OM System "Olympus"* OM-1.

Read what Kristine Hinrichs said in her comment to the "Hypothetical Camera Question" post:

I’m still getting great results with my Micro 4/3 system—currently the new OM-1. I can shoot 80 MP tripod-mounted if I need it, or 50 MP, handheld, using the high-res modes. I have had images from other Olympus models printed as large as 10x17 feet and 4x6 feet. These cameras are lighter and more reasonably priced. So many people use 'shooting FF only' as some sort of outdated badge of professionalism. For my work, I’d rather be able to easily shoot handheld 2–3 seconds and up to 6-ish seconds if I take a deep breath, than shoot larger files.

If you have not looked at it, the OM-1 is really a big jump in performance and image quality. When you get through all of the specs to real use, the dynamic range is much better and the images have a special quality.

Meanwhile, in the same thread, Mike Peters said:

My Micro 4/3 system already out-resolves, is sharper, and has more dynamic range than my 35mm Kodachrome slides and my 120 Fujichromes. Everyone was happy with that stuff back in the day. Rarely does more capability in anyone's camera make for more interesting photographs. [If] you work on a tripod and are looking to recreate what you got with a view camera, and need to print very large, then sure, more is always better. And for that, I have a built-in high res mode that'll get me there on my G9's and GH6's. But for the average shooter out there, [medium format is] like driving a Ferrari in rush hour traffic in NYC.

I'd get the OM-1 with the excellent OM System 12–100mm ƒ/4 as well as a "nested"** normal or normal-wide prime. The former has all the range I'd ever need and superb dual-IS, and the latter makes the camera much smaller and more portable as a walking-around camera. If you don't need such a long zoom, OM System has a very high quality fast normal zoom, the 12–40mm (24–80mm-e) ƒ/2.8 Mark II. 

Here are few more advantages of the OM-1:

• Small and light
• Superb sensor with extreme high FPS capabilities
• 20 MP is a "Goldilocks" number as well (just ask Nikon)
• Highly weatherproof
• Excellent IBIS
• Great viewfinder, reportedly
• Excellent AF
• High-res modes, some available handheld (Kristine mentioned this)
• There's a hobbyist's cornucopia of Micro 4/3 lenses from a number of companies

Of course the Fuji X-T4 is an excellent alternative to the OM-1 (both have that darned flip-out videographer-centric viewing screen that I dislike, but I'm much unhappier with Fuji for its version, on account of the X-T2 and X-T3 had achieved the perfect viewing screen and then Fuji threw it away), and there are others.

Is smaller better or worse?
And now we come to a touchy subject. Four-Thirds (13.5 x 18mm) was introduced in 2003, and I was an early supporter from the get-go. The reason is that I think it's an advantage to have a sensor smaller than 24 x 36mm (a.k.a. 35mm, a.k.a. 135). You get a narrower angle of view from the same lens focal length, which I consider an advantage; the lenses can be smaller and lighter and brighter because they have less to cover, which I consider an advantage; and you get more depth-of-field for the same aperture, which I consider an advantage. I've always thought it a plus for digital that cameras can be designed to have smaller-than-35mm sensors. It was something we always wanted with film—cameramakers kept trying to make film sizes smaller—but it turned out 24x36mm was a practical minimum for film. With APS-C and Micro 4/3 we were freed of that limitation. That was and is a good thing.

And it's a good thing I've always been loathe to relinquish. Faced with the choice:

[Micro 4/3 or APS-C] vs. [FF or medium format]

...I usually choose the option on the left. I did own two FF cameras along the way (the Sony A900 and Nikon D800), but neither of them made it to the status of my everyday go-to "axe" for whatever reason. Other than that I've almost entirely chosen Micro 4/3 or APS-C cameras for my personal use over the past 16 years. All three of my current cameras are APS-C.

But not everybody agrees with that viewpoint.

If you want a 24x36mm sensor, compare the OM-1 with the Nikon Z5:

(Image courtesy CameraSize)

As you can see they're about the same size. Both have nice big grips. The effective focal length (angles of view) of those lenses is the same, the Nikkor being slower at the long end, counterbalanced by better higher-ISO performance. The Nikon is 76 g (about 2.7 ounces) heavier; the Nikkor lens is actually only 9 g heavier. The Z5 is a little simpler, which—again in my book but maybe not in yours—is a plus. Bigger plus: you can get that Z5 and lens and a card and a bag for less than the cost of the OM-1 body alone. Although price sensitivity might not be much of an issue for you with expensive cameras.

I personally like 40mm as a walkaround focal length, and Micro 4/3 has two options there, the 20mm Panasonic and the highly corrected 20mm ƒ/1.4 OM System. Nikon has the new ultralight 40mm ƒ/2 Z lens (only 170 g / 6 oz.), which effectively makes the camera smaller and lighter. So, really, you can get an equivalent FF camera with not much if any penalty, presuming that's what you prefer.

Again, it doesn't matter to me that the OM-1 isn't smaller and lighter than a "full-frame" camera, because I think the smaller sensor is an advantage and I would prefer it. But your mileage may vary***.

Image quality
This is bound to be controversial, but I also prefer the image quality of the Micro 4/3 to FF. It's not quite as smooth or detailed, but it has more "bite" and subjectively gives an impression of greater sharpness. I like it better, all else being equal. Note that I don't make large prints (13 x 19" paper is the largest). It's a matter of taste.

Conclusion
After I wrote the "Goldilocks" post I heard it from a few M10 shooters (no, I have no hate for the M10, quite the contrary), and if you haven't seen Stephen Scharf's comment in the Comments Section of the "Goldilocks" post defending the iPhone 13, go look at it. No hate for that either; I have one. And there are many cameras out there and I'm not the expert on what other people should buy. This is just my opinion. And of course Micro 4/3 is on the outs in terms of popularity, with Olympus having bailed on its camera division and Panasonic busy vigorously filling in an entire FF line. (I'm also very unhappy with Panasonic, for abandoning the GX8 instead of making a GX8 Mark II.)

But to me, the OM-1 hits the Goldilocks Principle nail right smack on the head. It's the best all-'rounder for everything and anything. To me, it makes more sense than an iPhone, and it makes more sense than a FF or larger-than-FF camera.

I'm guessing you will have an opinion about that, so let 'er rip, I'm ready.

Mike

*It's not made by Olympus. It's to be the last Olympus-branded camera and was called that as a 50th-anniversary homage to the original Olympus OM system, which debuted with the compact film Olympus OM-1 in 1971. I want the next one, with "OM System" blazed on the front. And please, call it the OMS-1...it's the age of the internet, and things need searchable names. Don't we know that yet?

**A "nested" prime is one with a focal length within the focal length range of the zoom.

***You have to use that phrase in every camera comparo; it's an internet rule. 

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

SteveW: "My iPhone is my standard zoom with a range of 13–77mm equivalent. And longer if necessary with digital zoom. My nested lens is a Fuji X-T4 with a 33mm ƒ/1.4 or 23mm ƒ/2. Currently, I have more fun with the iPhone which is always with me. Everything about it is easy."

SW Rick: "I can see the flame-throwers being ignited as we speak.  :-) "

Mike replies: Nah, we're nice to each other around here. Our little corner of civility on the web. 

James: "For what it's worth, I’ve had no problem getting Micro 4/3 images accepted into juried all-media art shows and selling prints at my local gallery. And that’s with lesser models—E-M10 Mark II and E-M5 Mark III."

Benjamin Marks: "Not much rests on agreeing or disagreeing about a specific piece of gear. But having said that, I absolutely love the OM-1. I have one that I use with Olympus primes that I originally bought to use with an earlier Micro 4/3 camera. I use a Pen-F as a back-up/second body when I am out with it. No zooms. Lenses are 12mm, 17mm, 20mm, 45mm, 50mm, and 60mm, and I usually carry four or five (they weigh almost nothing). The 45mm and Panasonic 20mm are the magic lenses of that group for me.

"I have that larger Pentax K-1 and I have a Leica M-9. But for photographing my family, or the streets of New York City, the combination of in-body stabilization, AF, a silent motor drive mode, and low-light IQ good enough that it has never been the limiting factor for my photography really puts it in the Goldilocks zone for me, of 'just right.'

"If I am having someone over for a portrait session, the Pentax definitely comes out. But for traveling around in the world, the OM-1 is really a treat. I am thinking of buying a spare in case the company now making them 'goes away' at some point."

Aaron: "I use Micro 4/3 and the OM-1. I also have a Sony A7RIV. Perhaps surprisingly, in marginal light for landscapes I prefer Micro 4/3 for the simple reasons that I can shoot at ƒ/5.6 and get roughly the same depth of field as ƒ/11 on the full frame. In addition, as you note, the stabilization is great—I routinely get an extra stop or two compared to the Sony. Put those together and I routinely shoot the OM-1 at a 3–4 stop faster ISO than the Sony. So much for the full frame advantage (at least in marginal light without a tripod)."

Dan D: "Micro 4/3 really made photography fun for me. The size is ideal for travel and street photography. I carry a Lumix G9 in a Kiva street bag with an Olympus 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 and a Lumix 20mm ƒ/1.7. I prefer the Lumix menus over the Olympus as I felt Olympus's were not very intuitive. After selling all my Nikon cameras and lenses I haven't looked back. The Lumix G9 hits the Goldilocks spot in my hands."

Daniel J. Cox: "I’ve been shooting Micro 4/3 cameras since 2008. Full time since about 2015. You did a fabulous job pointing out the many benefits of Micro 4/3 and in particular the new OM-1. But by far the best line in your review was Kristine's: 'So many people use "shooting FF only" as some sort of outdated badge of professionalism.' Absolutely dead nuts on! Could not have said it better myself and Ive been shooting professionally for over 40 years. The OM-1 is a tremendous camera."

Dave Levingston: "That OM-1 is more camera than I need...and apparently about the same size and weight as my Z7II. I'm enjoying working with the Z7II, but find myself frequently just reaching for the Panasonic GX8's for anything where I don't feel the need for the higher pixel count. If only Panasonic would make a worthy successor to the GX8 with a higher pixel count sensor.... At any rate, I won't be getting rid of the Micro 4/3 kit, though the Z7 is here to stay as well. But I do agree that M 4/3 is the Goldilocks system."

Fulvio Senore: "About normal zooms for micro 4/3 don't forget the Olympus 12-45 mm f/4. It's cheaper, smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 one. I use it with my GX9: I don't care if it is slower and I am very satisfied."

Pak Ming Wan: "No problems with this choice at all. My GH5 Micro 4/3 at 20MP is plenty good enough. Micro 4/3 arguably pioneered the whole mirrorless march (even though the maturity in the market now is more even across the board). The new OM-1 I think is much more camera than I'll ever need. For the record, I feel like my GH5 is the Ferrari and my Leica M-Monochrome is my Ford Focus."

Brunell Val: "My Goldilocks system is Fuji X-T2. If I had to start over, I might migrate to Nikon FF mirrorless. Seems weird that Canon and Sony are hardly mentioned, as I perceive them to be the commercial/innovation market leaders based on reading elsewhere on the Web."

John: "What’s missing in your comparison with the Nikon is that the OM-1 is much, much more camera than that Nikon. The OM-1 is on par with the top cameras of the other brands, except for a smaller sensor. Plus, it uses computational photography that other cameras don’t offer."

Goldilocks

Recently I've written about the Leica M10, which in the version I have here for testing is a luxury Veblen Good worth $14,000 ($10,000 for the camera and $4,000 for the lens). More recently I've been writing about the camera system in the iPhone 13 Pro. Mine cost $800 for the whole phone; but it does other things besides taking pictures.

It seems to me that, for an enthusiast, advanced amateur, semi-pro, or art photographer, the iPhone is both highly quirky and, in the end, not quite enough camera. The Leica M10 Reporter is both highly quirky, and, in the end, rather too much camera.

Which brings us to Goldilocks.

Fairy tale and meme
The fairy tale known as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," originally written by Robert Southey, the British poet, in 1837, probably from folk sources, was originally about three male bachelor bears and an old woman. The old lady didn't become a little girl until 1849, and then she went more than a half-century without the familiar name, which she didn't acquire until 1904. There have been innumerable variations of the story. None is agreed upon as authoritative. (I've reproduced one version as an addendum below.)

Likewise, the moral of the story remains elusive. For the psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, it depicted a child on a journey to adult independence who is waylaid by a regressive attempt to insinuate herself back into the sort of nuclear family to which she no longer belongs. Which seems a tad obtuse. To Alan C. Elms, writing in The Journal of American Folklore, the story deals with anality (issues of cleanliness, regulation, and order) for preschoolers, who he thinks should identify with the tidy and orderly bears rather than with the unregulated intruder. No one that I know of has suggested an environmentalist interpretation, viz., that humans are barging in and creating carnage in natural animal habitats, but that doesn't not make sense. Suffice to say that interpretation is a matter of judgment rather than settled fact.

The primary superficial essence that society currently prefers is to toss out any deeper interpretations and emphasize the "just rightness" part. You try one thing, it's not quite right because of this; you try another thing, and it's not quite right because of that. So you're trying to calibrate down to the exact just-rightness somewhere in the middle. (Which you then either consume, destroy, or appropriate for your own use, but never mind.) This has been formalized as "the Goldilocks Principle," and it's applied to all sorts of things, including machine learning, astrobiology, statistics, and developmental psychology.

Another way of looking at this is that we've reduced the story down to a meme about...shopping. That's the usual meaning of our cultural shorthand around the word "Goldilocks"—never mind that none of it belonged to her in the first place. Goldilock's dilemmas are also a shopper's happy task: deciding which to get. Shopping takes a high and central place among our activities.

I've articulated my views many times, but here I go again. My observation over the years is that the closer two competing products are to each other, the greater the likelihood that shoppers will bear down on the Goldilocks aspect of shopping, and the more effort they will expend on determining "which is best." But logically, what should happen is the opposite: the closer two competing products are to each other, the less it matters which one you choose. Honda or Toyota is like Coke or Pepsi. Who cares? Eenie-meenie-miney-mo and hit the road.

A great ongoing debate of the 'nineties and the 'aughts among hobbyists was, "should I get a Nikon or a Canon?" The upshot was a river of endless debate. My smarty-pants answer to the question at the time was "yes." That is, get a camera and get on with it. Nobody cares what you shoot with. Suit yourself.

Property rights
If you think of it, it's piggish of us to assume that "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is only about just-rightness. There's more to it than that. With all due respect to Bettleheim and Elms, a more sturdy and plainspoken interpretation a little closer to the surface is that it's a cautionary tale about private property—and we ought to sympathize with the characters whose home is being invaded. The real moral should be that you can't go around appropriating things that don't belong to you—on account of your eventual comeuppance will have claws and teeth. You oughtn't to mess with one bear, much less three. Especially when Mama's got a cub. Who doesn't know that?

The story doesn't give G. much of a comeuppance. She gets away scot-free, albeit after being frightened. Really, Goldilocks ought to get eaten herself at the end, or, failing that, at least tossed into the hoosegow and tried for trespassing, B&E, burglary, and vandalism. But in that case, since she's a "celeb"—I mean, who hasn't heard of her?—the entitled little blonde would just instruct her "people" to pay out of court for the damage to the house and the missing porridge, her lawyers would get the bears to sign a gag agreement as part of the settlement, and that would be that. It's all about her.

Hasa at Pediaa writes, "The moral of the story is the need to respect the privacy and property of others and how your actions hurt others. What Goldilocks does by entering another’s house and using their property is wrong." And as Benjamin Marks notes in his Featured Comment below, "Think about who isn't in the story: any grown-up. The story is therefore about how you act when no one is monitoring your behavior." So—of course, human nature being what it is—we've got a tale about respecting the rights of others and behaving properly when you're not being observed, and what have we taken from it? Little Goldilocks' method for choosing what to steal, damage, and use without permission. Figures.

But talk about comeuppance—in one early version (not Southey's), the little old lady who eventually morphed into Goldilocks gets impaled on the steeple of a church.

Anyway, this whole post is a digression (I get interested in stuff). What I was starting out to say is that in between medium-format digital and a smartphone, there's a middle ground, a just-right balance of all the competing factors. I think it can be narrowed down to a few cameras, but I'm going to narrow it down to one. Unfortunately, it's a camera very few people want. I take Saturdays (housekeeping day) and Mondays (pool day) off now, so I'll propose what I think is the just-right camera on Sunday—and then I—I mean all of us—get to hear why the experienced and wise TOP Commentariat disagrees with my choice.

Should be fun. See you on Sunday.

Mike
(Second illustration by Jessie Wilcox Smith; cartoon by Gaspirtz)

ADDENDUM:

The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears

Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Goldilocks. She went for a walk in the forest. Pretty soon, she came upon a house. She knocked and, when no one answered, she walked right in.

At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.

"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.

So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.

"This porridge is too cold," she said.

So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.

"Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.

After she'd eaten the three bears' breakfasts, she decided she was feeling a little tired. So, she walked into the living room where she saw three chairs. Goldilocks sat in the first chair to rest.

"This chair is too big!" she exclaimed.

So she sat in the second chair.

"This chair is too big, too!" she whined.

So she tried the last and smallest chair.

"Ahhh, this chair is just right," she sighed. But just as she settled down into the chair to rest, it broke into pieces! Goldilocks was very tired by this time, she went upstairs to the bedroom. She lay down in the first bed, but it was too hard. Then she lay in the second bed, but it was too soft. Then she lay down in the third bed and it was just right. Goldilocks fell asleep.

As she was sleeping, the three bears came home.

"Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.

"Someone's been eating my porridge," said the Mama bear.

"Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair," growled the Papa bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair," said the Mama bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair and they've broken it to pieces," cried the Baby bear.

They decided to look around some more and when they got upstairs to the bedroom, Papa bear growled,

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed.”

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed, too" said the Mama bear.

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed and she's still there!" exclaimed the Baby bear.

Just then, Goldilocks woke up. She saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room. Goldilocks ran down the stairs, opened the door, and ran away into the forest. She never returned to the home of the three bears.

THE END

(This version from DLTK-teach.com)

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

SteveW: "I've been reading TOP for some years now, but not as long as many of the long-time readers, but long enough to keep coming back and enjoying the positive vibe of the blog, and also the Commentariat. I find TOP a breath of fresh air in the land of the web. But the point I want to make is that I think Mike's hard work on New Yorker articles has spilled over onto TOP. The recent posts have elevated Mike's game. I'm really enjoying TOP these days, even more than usual. Thank you Mike."

Peter Wright: "With all these OT posts—pool, watches, bunnies!!!, I think it’s time we had an OT post on something many of us find interesting, and that you have covered in the past. I refer of course to hi-fi and music, especially jazz. Did you really get into streaming? Get new speakers? What are you listening to? We need a catch-up OT post."

Benjamin Marks: "I think the Goldilocks principle became shorthand because so much of the observed world can serve as a reference point. Questions like: 1.) why is there something, rather than nothing? 2.) why did Earth develop a thriving ecosystem, and not Mars? and so on, seem to have a tautological answer: because some set of factors were in the middle of some range of possibilities (not to far from the sun, just the right amount of matter vs. antimatter and so on). But the sanitized version of that story didn't get told to establish that principle...it's just a byproduct of good narrative structure and the 'rule' of threes (not a rule, but still).

"The story is a morality play and it features bears rather than your next door neighbors so that it has general applicability as moral lessons ought to have in order to be as persuasive as possible. Think about who isn't in the story: any grown-up. The story is therefore about how you act when no one is monitoring your behavior.

"Face it: you'd hate to live next to Goldilocks in a property-oriented society. In one in which there is communal responsibility for children, the story probably makes no sense at all."

David Dyer-Bennet: "Dear me; Coke and Pepsi being similar to each other? What a weird notion! When we did a careful double-blind cola tasting first, back in the '80s, nobody failed to distinguish the major brands, and nobody failed to distinguish diet from real. Most of the test crew could accurately identify glass bottles vs. plastic bottles vs. metal cans. (You knew that was going to draw comments, didn't you? It's probably bigger than Mac vs. PC and certainly bigger than vi vs. Emacs.)"

hugh crawford: "These days I think that Goldilocks is about the illusion of choice. You can pick anything you want as long as it’s bear stuff."

mark: "Cameras and bunnies and bears, oh my!"

GAS Explained

Found this as part of a larger discussion about the anticipation of rewards ("wanting") as opposed to achieving the actual reward itself ("liking"):

"Your brain has far more neural circuitry allocated for wanting rewards than for liking them. The wanting centers in the brain are large: the brain stem, the nucleus accumbens, the ventral tegmental area, the dorsal striatum, the amygdala, and portions of the prefrontal cortex. By comparison, the liking centers of the brain are much smaller. They are often referred to as 'hedonic hot spots' and are distributed like tiny islands throughout the brain. For instance, researchers have found that 100 percent of the nucleus accumbens is activated during wanting. Meanwhile, only 10 percent of the structure is activated during liking.

"The fact that the brain allocates so much precious space to the regions responsible for craving and desire provides further evidence of the crucial role these processes play. Desire is the engine that drives behavior. Every action is taken because of the anticipation that precedes it. It is the craving that leads to the response."

—Atomic Habits by James Clear, "p. 108" in the digital file

So there's that settled.

I think I wrote once about undergoing an intense period of shopping (strangely, I can't remember what for now), finally buying the camera I wanted, and then suffering the very peculiar feeling of missing shopping—I had the real camera right there, sitting on the desk, but I still wanted to look at it online and read reviews about it. At the time I thought that was just a little bit crazy. And yet, maybe you can relate.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

David Brown: "The way you described buying the camera and then still wanting to 'shop' is the experience I've had with my last new car!"

Timothy Auger: "‘GAS explained’ also accounts for the sex lives of a few people I know. The chase is more fun than the actuality. That doesn’t apply to me, of course. Of course."

Hypothetical Camera Question

If you could have a.) a high-megapixel FF camera, or b.) a medium-format digital camera, which would you choose, and how come?

Mike

P.S. The illustration is the $5,999 102-MP Fujifilm GFX 100s and the $3,697.99 47.3-MP Panasonic S1R, but you could choose any camera of either type.

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Yuan: "I take most of my photographs on trips, so I would go for the FF. MF cameras and lenses are still too bulky. If I were stationary, I would choose the MF for the potentially better DR."

Dave: "I have been an APS-C shooter for quite a while now, so when I had the opportunity to purchase a digital medium format over a full-frame one, I jumped at the chance to shoot with a MF camera...and I love it. The huge resolution, depth of the images, etc....love it...."

Geoff Wittig: "I've already voted with my wallet on this one, though reasonable people would differ. I have a pair of Canon EOS-5DsR full-frame DSLRs because they suit my needs better than Fuji's medium format system. The 50-megapixel files can be printed up to 24x36" and still look great...provided I use a solid tripod, mirror lock-up, low ISO, and flawless technique. The Fuji GFX system is tempting and provides some image quality gains. But its autofocus is much more rudimentary, and I do use the 5DsR's for bird photography at times. Fuji's lenses for their medium format system are actually pretty reasonable in cost. But I'm quite happy with results I'm getting now, so I don't feel the need to grapple with the larger file sizes and slower operation of a medium format system. High-end boutique systems like Phase One, Hasselblad or Leica's S3 are just ludicrously expensive. I would consider a good full-frame mirrorless system, but Canon has yet to release anything remotely interesting to me, and I am repelled by Sony's obtuse ergonomics and menu system."

Arg: "Whichever has the better autofocus and lens options that suit me best, to a clearly specified total expenditure budget. Which in practice, today means an easy win to the Sony A7R IV."

John Krill: "Medium Format. I already have the Fujifilm X series equipment so going just to full frame seems a waste of money, but moving all the way to medium format would be better fit. This choice assumes I still use the X series equipment on a daily basis and the medium format equipment for special projects.

"...On second thought forget the whole thing. I think I will sell the medium format camera gear and go to Paris. It always seems that Paris turns out to be the best choice."

Jack Mac: "Full frame. I initially went medium format digital eleven years ago [written up in TOP, with a print sale to support it  —Ed.] when the resolution was four times what could be achieved in FF and I needed that resolution for the huge enlargements I was selling. Today, the incremental resolution is minimal, the dynamic range is almost the same. I still use my MF; however, I have not upgraded it in years while I do have the latest upgrade in FF."

Mike replies: This is the significant "reveal" of this post!

Richard Jones: "I made my choice seven years ago: FF with Sony A7R2. That sensor was a groundbreaking marvel, and continues to give great results today. Medium format was too expensive to consider."

Cecilia: "I have had a GFX100, Z7, and Olympus and landed on the 45-MP full frame. The issues with the GFX100 are file size and less DOF. The issue with Micro 4/3 is file size. The Nikon Z7 is in a Goldilocks place between the two.

"I’d really like a square sensor 50-MP camera that took FF lenses."

Paulo Bizarro: "Medium format and high megapixel are not mutually exclusive, are they? So the best of both worlds is the Fuji."

Dave Stewart: "Neither, but thank you for offering."

Mark: "I have both, and there is room for both (though my medium format system is 'only' a 50-MP one). My FF system is for event and concert photography, travel, and more informal things. My FF system is much more adaptable, its AF is miles ahead of anything from a medium-format system, as is its video output and range of features. It is neither much larger nor much heavier than my old Micro 4/3 system.

"Fujifilm medium format, on the other hand...that is for personal projects I don't have to justify to anyone but which I'd sorely miss if I did not do. It is for slow and considered, fully manual photography, often on a tripod. It is for the pure pleasure of image-making, something I often miss at the more businesslike and commercial end of the market."

Jonathan: "Having recently pondered this exact same question, I went with a high megapixel FF (Canon 5DS to be precise). I have the L glass already for my EOS 1v, the 5DS is currently a steal either new or used [wow, is it ever—I didn't realize]  and I don't have to waste the year it would take me to get used to a new system. I wanted to want the medium format, but my previous experience with Fuji's ergonomics made the choice a relatively easy one."

Luke: "What I want is the best possible dynamic range and color depth, for the most malleable raw data, as well as enough pixels to fill my fridge-sized prints. But what I need is powerful IBIS and light weight. Oh, well."

Mike: "This is hilarious, and my answer is neither. My Micro 4/3 system already out-resolves, is sharper, and has more dynamic range than my 35mm Kodachrome slides and my 120 Fujichromes. Everyone was happy with that stuff back in the day. Rarely does more capability in anyone's camera make for more interesting photographs. Unless you work on a tripod and are looking to recreate what you got with a view camera, and need to print very large, then sure, more is always better. And for that, I have a built-in high-res mode that'll get me there on my G9's and GH6's. But for the average shooter out there, it's like driving a Ferrari in rush hour traffic in NYC."

John Camp: "I alternate between a Nikon Z7II (and Z6) and Micro 4/3. I would have no use for medium format, both for formal (photographic) reasons and for ergonomics. When I go out the door with nothing particular in mind, I take an GX8 with a Leica-branded 12–60mm zoom (24–120.) I often have a 1-inch Sony RX100 VII (in a little Lowepro case) on the back seat of my car, and that's decent, if not great. I think medium format is really a specialty format, useful for a relatively small slice of photographers. Just like it always was."

Rod S.: "To put it mildly, I'm surprised by the reluctance expressed by the majority of commenters to even consider the 44x33mm sensor cameras such as the Fujifilm GFX series. I got my GFX 50R through a swap for a beloved Mamiya 7II. The 50R is very nice indeed: It fits my hands and face well, is easy to comprehend and use, and I like the high quality of the files. What's not to like? Hardly anything. Am I happy with it? Yes, very. I photograph carefully and want excellent image quality. And the 44x33mm sensor provides the format proportions I want. My GFX 50R and the GF45mm (35mm-e) and GF63mm (50mm-e) lenses fit easily within a compact zip-around F-stop ICU 'medium shallow' satchel case measuring 28mm (1') square and 15mm (6") deep. It fits nicely under the airline seat in front. So the reluctance expressed here about even trying out the 44x33mm sensor cameras strikes me as really odd. Perhaps the designations of FF and MF act as walls that define spaces that many people feel they belong within."

Ken Bennett: "This is a question that I am pondering these days, as I prepare for retirement. I have the use of an excellent Fujifilm GFX100 and most of the lenses at work. The files are amazing, and I get great enjoyment out of shooting with the camera and working on the final images. So, the question is, do I want/need to drop $20k on a personal GFX system for myself in retirement? I have a perfectly fine and extensive Fuji X system already. The files are good enough for solid 16x20-inch prints. I should be fine. But I do see the limitations of the system for landscape work, and as I mentioned, I get great enjoyment from the GFX. There's something to be said for that. But $20k will go a long way in Paris.   :-)  "

The Best Camera in the Universe

Webb's First Deep Field

-

"[Photography] is fast becoming the
right hand of the astronomer."

—Peter Henry Emerson, Naturalistic
Photography for Students of the Art, 1889

-

"NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has delivered the deepest and sharpest infrared image of the distant universe so far. Affectionately known as Webb’s First Deep Field, this is galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 and it is teeming with thousands of galaxies—including the smallest, faintest objects ever observed.

"Webb’s image is approximately the size of a grain of sand held at arm’s length, a tiny sliver of the vast universe.

"The James Webb Space Telescope is the world’s largest, most powerful, and most complex space science telescope ever built. Webb will solve mysteries in our solar system, look beyond to distant worlds around other stars, and probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. Webb is an international program led by NASA with its partners, ESA (European Space Agency) and the Canadian Space Agency."

(Photos and text courtesy NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScI [Space Telescope Science Institute]. Read more of the description of Webb's First Deep Field here.)

The JWST

(Courtesy XKCD. See it at the site to read
the alt-text. Here's what L2 means.)

Mike
(Thanks to Dennis Joy and others)

Book o' the Week

The Mindful Photographer by Sophie Howarth. I only know of Sophie Howarth from her time as a curator at the Tate Modern in London, but my impression then was positive. Her brand new book (it only came out a few days ago) is about slowing down as a means of enjoying photographing more. It's said to contain a curated collection of photographs along with anecdotes and explanation.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Speed: "NASA tells us, 'The image shows the galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 as it appeared 4.6 billion years ago.' Remember when we used to count the seconds between a lightning flash and the subsequent thunder to calculate how far away the lightning was? It'll be quite some time before we hear a rumble from SMACS 0723. The universe sure is big."

Mike replies: It boggles my mind that Voyager 2, traveling 35,000 miles per hour, took 41 years to cross the heliopause, leaving the solar system into interstellar space. After that, the nearest star to ours is 4.246 light years away. And that's just two stars in one galaxy that has 100 thousand million stars. And then you look at the tiny patch of sky in Webb's First Deep Field, a patch of sky that could be covered by a grain of sand at arm's length, and there are many galaxies visible...it's way beyond incomprehensible.

John Krumm: "As a sci-fi fan, to me that telescope/camera seems straight out of a movie, with clean and curvy lines. It's a looker, as you would say."

Sorting Out the iPhone 13's Tricks and Treats

Any time you get a new camera of any sort, you have to get a handle on it. It's an especially fun adventure with a phone, because the many engineers responsible for it are baking in all sorts of tricks and treats that are supposed to remain behind the scenes for most folks. Of course we're not satisfied with that, and will eventually want to know what's going on. 

Here's an iPhone 13 Pro shot from yesterday:

This little one is a juvenile, and she seems not to have grokked the whole "run and hide" thing yet—she's let me take her picture several times now. (Of course I have no idea if it's a male or a female, I'm just assigning arbitrarily.) I was trying some into-the-sun shots, to see how the camera system behaves in those situations. (Quite well, is the answer.) I like the way her ears are backlit. It seems to me the iPhone 13 Pro is automatically correcting for loss of contrast due to flare—the setting sun was shining on the lens here—but I could be mistaken. I'll get a handle on it sooner or later.

Here's another thing the iPhone 13 Pro seems to be doing:

This woman on Seneca Lake setting off for a paddle with her two doggies aboard was very far from me, so I started with the 77mm-e "tele" lens on the iPhone 13 Pro and used a large amount of digital zoom—to access the control, you just hold your finger on the "3" spot (the three lens choices are given as .5, 1x, and 3), and the dial appears. Here I had a whopping 350mm-e dialed in (15x, 406mm-e, is the max). It appears that the iPhone 13 Pro compensates for the lack of detail by automatically applying processing to the image similar to the old "Paint Daubs" filter in Photoshop (it might still be in Photoshop somewhere, I dunno), which breaks up the areas of color into broad areas similar to "impressionistic" brushstrokes. The detail below will be 100% after you click on it, assuming you're seeing it 800 pixels wide:

It's a neat trick. I personally always kinda liked that filter, although I seldom used it. And by the way, it's a fine demonstration  of contrast vs. resolution: the dog paddler is a picture with lots of contrast but very little resolution.

This effect seems fine. You can't expect to dial in so much digital zoom and not lose something, and this solution looks quite good on the phone screen. Again, it helps if you stay in context: this is a "supertelephoto" shot with a phone, comma, fer Pete's sake. Quite a magic trick. When I was shooting Tri-X, I never owned a 300mm lens, much less a 350mm. (The youngster-bunny shot also has a bit of digital zoom added to the "3" 77mm-e lens, but much less than the paddler.)

Here's another digital zoom shot with the iPhone 13 Pro, this one at 158mm-e. I was happy to see robins nesting on the back deck again; it's been a couple of years. This mother built her nest on top of an old nest, which is why it looks so tall. In the picture, there are actually two young robins—the second one is in front of mother's red breast, and is difficult to pick out. This is  the second brood in this nest this year—there was another earlier in the summer. Robin hatchlings only stay in the nest about two weeks, and these are big, so they'll be off and on their own soon. Oh, and the apparent distortion seen in the gutter downspout isn't distortion, it's actually that way in real life.

If you click on this to see it a little larger, again you can see the effect of good contrast and low resolution in the nest area. And again it makes sense: Kodak research in the 1930s showed that people actually prefer contrast to resolution. I'd say the only problem with the iPhone is that it doesn't apply the effect consistently—it looks like you'll get it heavily if you use lots of digital zoom, but not otherwise. Oh well—just something you need to know, so you can take it into account.

Have a great Monday. I hope you'll come back again.

Mike

Book o' the Week

The Mindful Photographer by Sophie Howarth. I only know of Sophie Howarth from her time as a curator at the Tate Modern in London, but my impression then was positive. Her brand new book (it only came out a few days ago) is about slowing down as a means of enjoying photographing more. It's said to contain a curated collection of photographs along with anecdotes and explanation.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Ed Hawco: "I continue to be amazed and impressed by the abilities of the newer iPhone cameras. What still blocks me, however, is the workflow. I just can’t get my head around what the workflow is. iPhone photos go into the Apple Photos app, which makes them available on all your devices (if you use iCloud), which is nice. But they’re all just piled in there. You can sort into 'Albums,' but that’s pretty tedious. Whereas in Lightroom, my images are sorted by date (via the folders where they natively live) and by various tags, and the notable ones are typically grouped into collections. I have the original DNGs, plus multiple virtual copies. They’re all easy to find.

"But in Photos (the app) all I get is Albums. No metadata editing, no tagging, etc. How do I find images that are older than what I can tolerate scrolling through?

"Is there a way to manage iPhone photos in Lightroom, short of exporting selected ones? I haven’t found it."

Stephen Scharf replies to Ed: "Just some info for Ed Hawco's comment about workflow. I simply use AirDrop to send the photos from my iPhone to my MacBook Pro, curate and do high level edits in Capture 1 Pro 22, and final touches in Photoshop. I just put the files Air Dropped to the MBP into a folder, and access them there from C1. Easy-peasy."

[See also Adrian Malloch's and psu's replies in the full Comments Section. —Ed.]

Hank: "Carrying an iPhone 13 and my Leica IIIa would be an interesting bookended history of small format photography."

Mike replies: Wow, I'd stop you on the street if I saw that. I appreciate the way you think.

Does Night Mode Turn the Tables?

I did some more experiments with Apple's Night Mode (NM) last night, taking pictures with the iPhone 13 in near-darkness. The results, with very little effort, were extremely impressive. As I understand it (and I admit I have not done a deep dive), NM activates automatically when the camera senses low light; using image stabilization, it takes several pictures at several different exposures (using all three cameras or some combination? I don't know that), then chooses the ones it needs and merges them in software, obviously using highly sophisticated algorithms and impressive amounts of speedy processing power. The result is remarkably clear and noise-free images taken in light levels that might give larger cameras trouble.

The consequence for me is that it's the very first time I've ever thought that a phone camera could actually be preferable to a larger one. I like to shoot in very low light; it's one of the reasons I like IS so much. Night Mode was introduced by Apple in 2019 in the iPhone 11, and Android makers such as Google and Samsung had something similar before that. I'm a bit late catching up to it, although I remember a friend snapping away happily at night scenes in 2019 when he got his then-just-introduced iPhone 11.

One thing I've observed over many years is that older technology (cameras and cars, among other things) are mostly fine, except that there will typically be few features, aspects, advancements, or capabilities that you really do want want that the older models don't have. A while back I mentioned a finely-made Nikkormat that, in the '90s, I had to disqualify as a daily user because of the darkness of its viewing screen; replacement "bright screens" didn't solve the problem because they had less "snap" and were harder to focus. Airbags and backup cameras and other safety features on modern vehicles are another obvious example. So what I'm wondering now is...will there come a time when "big" ILC's by traditional makers and electronics firms can't match some of the "miracle" features found on smartphones? We might be on the cusp of that change. It may well be that traditional large-sensor cameras will do a lot of things better, but smartphones will do a few things better that large cameras can't match.

I guess that's already been the case for years now with at least one thing: the ability to instantly, easily, share images via texting. It's going to be very interesting to try NM against my Sony or my Fuji in similar low-light situations.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

The Mindful Photographer by Sophie Howarth. I only know of Sophie Howarth from her time as a curator at the Tate Modern in London, but my impression then was positive. Her brand new book (it only came out a few days ago) is about slowing down as a means of enjoying photographing more. It's said to contain a curated collection of photographs along with anecdotes and explanation.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Peter Komar: "Yes, the Night Mode is a great feature and has other possibilities as well. I have used Live Mode in the following way for moving water, waterfalls, moving trains, etc.: Capture the scene in live mode, handheld of course. Go to your photos and pick that image, you will see 'Live' in the left hand to corner. Click on it and you will see four options to edit the image. Pick Long Exposure and you will produce a smooth silky blurry water effect, I was quite surprised how well it works. I think point-and-shoot cameras are dead, and who knows what the future holds for digital cameras with interchangeable lenses. Only time will tell."

Kirk in PDX: "Newer iPhones are so good in many scenarios, good enough in many of the remaining, and always on hand. Granted, the haptics of a smartphone leave a lot to be desired. What situations is an ILC still warranted? Sports and wildlife were mentioned above. Anything else? I’ve barely touched my big camera in two years. That can be largely attributed to a distaste for sitting in front of the computer processing images in LR. I recently have had the bug to replace my nine-year-old camera, but to what end? Perhaps just the pleasure of using a purpose built camera. Is this akin to the sea change of when 35mm cameras displaced earlier larger format cameras?"

psu: "It's gratifying for me, long time iPhone photo evangelist, to see the camera finally getting some appreciation from the head honcho here.  :-)  The iPhone cameras got to be almost as good at low light as many pre-2008 DSLRs a few years ago (maybe even as early as 2016, if you were careful). By the time Night Mode hit they were actually doing better than those systems, by a lot.

"The Night Mode and the HDR modes on the iPhone, I think, are probably two different applications of a core capture engine that takes advantage of being able to capture a lot of images at once and combine them to make various improvements in the final result. There is a lot of interesting software and hardware working together there. The 'real' camera companies, over the years, have usually shown much more competence on the hardware end of this equation than the software end. So I would not be all that optimistic about them figuring out how to do this sort of thing well either. After all, they've had almost 30 years to figure out networking and other connectivity, and still have not managed it at all."

Brandon: "My wife and I each took some photos from behind our kids while they were seated on the ground watching the fireworks. We both shot at ~26mm full-frame equivalent: hers were SOOC, whatever the iPhone 13 Pro wanted to do, while mine were Olympus E-M10 Mark II with the 9–18 ƒ/4–5.6 shot RAW at 1/30 sec and processed in Lightroom. Fireworks look great either way, but the kids are very noisy (or extremely mushy after NR) in my photos, whereas the stripes on their shirts look quite sharp and clean in her photos. Now maybe I could have changed to my 17 ƒ/1.8 and backed up, but I think she might have still had me beat, and that wasn’t the photo I wanted to take."

Robert Roaldi: "I love irony, and I get a kick out of reading about how the smartphone will take over photography while at the same time I read that Micro 4/3 will die because the sensor is too small."

Edward Taylor: "The big breakthrough will be when the mirrorless cameras start to have built-in wireless chips and start to use AI the way phone cameras do. It will have to happen. There are currently many instances where I know my phone will do a superior job. I have a Sony A1 and a Canon R5 and even when I have them with me, I have to reach for my phone sometimes to get the photo I want. Eventually, top cameras will have to have a phone number and sophisticated AI. Otherwise, it will become increasingly difficult to compete with phones."

Rob de Loe: "The technology you're enjoying in your new phone poses a major challenge (to some), and is a non-issue to others: do the ends justify the means? The 'ends' in this case means a photograph. Modern smartphones are a decisive vote for the ends justifying the means. All of the in-camera processing that you're marveling over takes us further and further away from the naive idea that photography is about what was there. The vast majority of people making pictures just want their pictures to turn out the way they want. It's hard to argue with that.

"Meanwhile, over here on the losing side of this game, I'm feeling wistful. The thing I like the most about photographs—that with all the caveats we all know, they are (were) a two-dimensional representation of what was there in front of the lens at the moment the image was recorded—is fast disappearing. I know, I know...progress and all that. Still."

Tam: "It’s been my experience that phone cameras using computational photography have outgunned the sort of cameras the normal consumer would use for some time. As far back as the early-twenty-teens my Samsung Galaxy SII would handle low light better than the Rebel XTi and kit zoom I was using at the time if I was taking photographs in a museum or similar challenging environment."

One Crazy Camera

Okay, I've only had my new iPhone 13 Pro for the better part of one day, but let me show you a couple of things. First, this is Butters, cowering under my desk because of the fireworks. In this top frame, I did my best to reproduce the actual visual impression of the actual light. This is cleaner and a bit more contrasty than my eyes see it, but it's fairly close. This top picture is intended to give you an idea of the light level:

The picture, in other words, was taken more or less in the dark.

Next, fixed up in Adobe Photoshop 2021:

Click on it to see it larger. (Seriously, do, and look how pretty.) It takes an astonishing amount of correction for a small-sensor file. I'm not at the limits yet here.

This is a ProRAW .dng file, by the way. That's my leg on the left, and the edge of the desk at the top. [UPDATE: And at the bottom left, that reddish area, that's my finger! Yikes. I haven't done that in many years. I'll have to get used to these three big ol' lenses on the back of the phone.]

Finally, this will be a 100% detail after you click on it to enlarge it. Keep in mind the blogging software blurs images slightly, which affects the rendering of hairs; the original is a bit sharper than you'll see. I haven't done any noise correction (noise doesn't bother me; I actually like it). I did "level up," though:

I imagine you'll say, "I've seen better," but stay in context—this is a phone, taken handheld, using lots of IS, under very dark conditions!

Here's a detail of a test shot made in daylight. This will also be 100% after you click on it, hopefully. Something a little funky is going on at the top edge of the sunlit portion of the solid stem of the lamp, but I don't know what.

I would normally "unsharpen" this a bit to get rid of the edge artifacts, but I wanted to process it minimally for you. (And sorry about all the dust on the speaker. I'm a bad housekeeper.) It's an 800-pixel center section, also of a ProRAW shot. Pretty good for a tiny sensor.

This is a SOOC JPEG, not ProRAW, again adjusted to show the actual dusk light according to my visual impression, with no adjustment for the haloing. And this has some digital zoom added over the longest focal length module (I don't know how to find out how much). Plus Butters was tugging at the leash when I took it. Really pretty impressive that I got a shot at all, much less that it looks this decent.

Here's a rather tough lighting and color-depth challenge, which the camera + software has handled with remarkable aplomb. Note that the sunlight tree behind the campfire is just a little out of the d.o.f.:

I think I needed to twiddle the black point just a skosh, here. But for digital rendering of the colors of fire, that's pretty strong, you've gotta admit. Again, it's a phone. This is also just a JPEG, not a ProRAW.

That's enough, for now. Color me impressed, out of the gate. Pretty amazing camera system.

Hopefully I'll be back later today with Stephen's portfolio. But tomorrow, at the latest? Never make promises, Mike....

Mike

Book o' the Week:

The Mindful Photographer by Sophie Howarth. I only know of Sophie Howarth from her time as a curator at the Tate Modern in London, but my impression then was positive. Her brand new book (it only came out a few days ago) is about slowing down as a means of enjoying photographing more. It's said to contain a curated collection of photographs along with anecdotes and explanation.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Richard Man: "Keith Cartmell wrote: 'How much of the image quality (and I admit these are pretty good quality images) comes from computation photography techniques, rather than the optical qualities of the lens and sensor technology?' A lot. You can see it in action especially in low light photography. Just a gut guess (I am a Silicon Valley tech geek by days), Apple probably has more software people working on just the computational photography aspect than all other non-phone camera companies (e.g. excluding Google and Samsung) combined on their respective cam processing pipes."

David Brown: "I have an iPhone 12 Pro and am equally astonished at the camera(s). If the ergonomics were better, I would be tempted to use it even more. However, as it is, in extreme wide angle and low light, it is hard to beat."

TC Lin: "People call it a 'tiny' sensor, but it's actually larger than the sensors of a lot of the older digicams that we used to use in the early part of the century, e.g. the Canon Powershots et al."

John Merlin Williams: "Just wait till you try 'Portrait' mode! When you view the image after taking, click 'Edit' in the bottom right of the screen. In the next view, you should see an f-stop number (my iPhone 11 Pro defaults to ƒ/4.5)in the upper left of the screen. This is the effective f-stop setting of the preview now on your screen. Click that 'ƒ/4.5' button and a 'Depth' slider bar will appear at the bottom of the screen. Scroll back and forth from say, ƒ/1.4 to ƒ/16 to change the effective aperture—and prepare to be amazed."

Ed Kirkpatrick: "I think it's a camera that makes phone calls...."

Dave: "...And how is it as just as a phone?"

Mike replies: Improved in at least one way I've noticed: the speakers, both the earpiece and the 'speakerphone' mode, are much better.