The Online Photographer

Is the Fanboy Era Ending?

Expressing enthusiasm for photography by way of brand fanaticism seems to be something that's receding in the rearview mirror now. I wasn't really aware of it existing—well, except among Leica fans—much before the 1990s. There were certainly aficionados of brands, mainly I think because you had to accumulate equipment and mostly people did it within one brand, or at least one brand per format—but most people weren't partisans. I blamed the onset of "fanboyism" (I always disliked the term, because it was a putdown) in part on the decision by CompuServe to divide its photoforums by brand—initially they weren't organized that way. (I wish I knew when that happened. Sometime in the mid-1990s maybe?) DPReview continued the same structure, and for a while it got kinda ridiculous—one way of attracting attention became the "switching announcement." Some guy would announce with great portent and much bloviation that X brand had finally disappointed him too grievously and he was decamping for brand Y, and everyone would happily fret and natter over it for a while, at their keyboards.

I never cared what other people shot with. A very early post on this blog read something like, "Should you shoot with Nikon or Canon?" And the answer was "Yes." That is, buy one or the other and go shoot. I still don't care what people shoot with. Make yourself happy; there are good and bad shooters within every brand, and for most cameras there are people who love it and people who don't. However, over the years I noticed that this blog would attract more people who were partisans of whatever brand I was shooting with at the time, especially if I stuck with it for a while and wrote about it frequently. I'd hop from Sony to Konica-Minolta to Panasonic to Sony to Micro 4/3 to Fuji, and people would somehow think that that mattered. It didn't, of course. I was just one guy with my gearhead hat on happily wasting money as we are all wont to do, with all the cool and pretty toys.

J'accuse!
It went further than that: I started writing about photography in 1988, and wrote about all sorts of brands over the years. And at some point I detected that if I wasn't identifiably partisan about any given brand, people would spread the rumor that I had some sort of animosity toward it. So, if I wasn't an out-and-out Leicaphile, then I had to be a Leica hater. And so on. Over the years I came across random accusations that I supposedly "hated" almost every brand there was. At one point, I even got accused by multiple personages of loving and hating the same brand at the same time.

Is all that "fanboy" nonsense actually dying down now? It could be. It might also be that I'm personally just stepping away from it more and more, meaning I'm not as keyed into it as I used to be. But I learned a long, long time ago to keep my ear to the ground, the better to hear far-off hoofbeats, and that's long been second nature. And I sense recently that brand partisanship seems to be settling down quite a bit. It could also be that the all the disputation has simply shifted to some other venue that I don't keep up with. I have to confess I haven't watched a YouTube camera review in months now, and I couldn't even name the big channels. It's possible I'm just losing touch, is what I'm saying.

Another possibility is that nowadays we just want all the cameramakers to survive. To do well and thrive. I feel that myself.

Survivors and thrivers
I went down the list of DPReview's "Cameras" tab and tallied the names that still seem to be around. There are 26 company names listed, and I disqualify Holga, a toy plastic film camera which for some mystifying reason DPReview includes. So there are 25 names. First, here are the names that haven't listed a new product since 2018 or earlier, along with the date of the last listed product:

• Agfa (2009)
• Casio (2016)
• Contax (2002)
• DxO Labs (2016)
• Kodak (2016)
• Lytro (2014)
• Minolta (1998)
• Rylo (2017)
• Samsung (2015)
• SeaLife (2016)
• Xiaomi (2017)
• YI (2017)
• Zeiss (2018)

There are several missing from that list, for instance Konica-Minolta and Epson, and a number of small former digicam makers such as BenQ, Sanyo, and HP Photosmart. But anyway, that's 13, which gets us down to 12. Of the ones that remain, "Olympus / OM System" is certainly much diminished, although it's disputed as to how it should be considered now. Ricoh and Pentax, listed separately by DPR because they used to be separate, are the same company now. GoPro (last introduction 2020) is looking a bit like it might be a fad that's fading. DJI makes drones and the Ronin Cinema camera. So for the purposes of the list let's give OM System the benefit of the doubt, merge Ricoh and Pentax into one, and set the others aside. That leaves ten eleven remaining active companies on DPR's list:

• Canon
• Fujifilm
• Hasselblad
• Leica
• Nikon
• OM System
• Panasonic
• [UPDATE] Phase One
• Ricoh (Pentax)
• Sigma
• Sony

That's just going from DPReview's "Cameras" tab. Are you aware of any that deserve to be listed as major going concerns that aren't included among those ten? I wouldn't be surprised if there's a obvious omission staring me right in the face. [UPDATE: Many readers suggested that Phase One is missing, so I've included them now. Although for some unknown reason DPReview doesn't seem to cover them.]

In the peak years (ILC and dedicated camera sales peaked in 2012), it might have been fun to pretend all the brands were fighting and that we had to help. Now, though, rather than fighting, it seems more like circle-the-wagons time. I don't want to see any of these ten eleven disappear. Do I want Olympus shooters to lose support? I do not. Do I want Ricoh to lose interest in making cameras? I sure don't; that would be a big loss. Do I want Fuji or Hasselblad to destroy the other as competition in medium format? Absolutely not. May they both prosper and live long.

Actually, rather than single brand partisanship, maybe now is the time for shooting more than one brand!

If so, maybe instead of "fanboy," we can call it being a "panboy." Pan being the prefix from the Greek πᾶν, pan, meaning "all." Okay, I've already admitted than my coinages are dopey and seldom catch on, bokeh being the only exception, so don't throw food at me, please!

That's all for today. Maybe it's already a little too much.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Mike Ferron: "I appreciate all brands and never liked the infighting that prevailed, especially between the Nikon/Canon sides. Then there was the format wars. So ridiculous really. If you are a pro, use what you need to use. If not, use whatever makes you feel good. Humans will divide over the silliest of things."

Albert Smith: "I'll admit to being a brand snob back in the day. I had little money, but I only bought top brands based on the technical data that use to be captioned under images in photography magazines and books in the '60s, '70s and '80s.

"I was a fan of certain photographers and bought gear based on what they used. For me, it was Nikon and Leica, and only lenses from those brands. I wouldn't be caught dead with a Vivitar or Tokina lens on my Nikon, and Leica M cameras had no third party lenses until Cosina under the Voigtländer moniker started in the early '00s, but not for me.

"It took a big leap for me to start shooting with Fujifilm cameras and to go to APS-C after only accepting full frame. My brand loyalty was challenged, and I now have dozens of Nikons and Leicas sitting unused with an arsenal of expensive lenses, collecting dust.

"You are right about the fanboy thing being less relevant based on the various sites I visit. Many people buy a four-figure body and are happy to put a sub-hundred-dollar Chinese lens on it. The lens was always the thing I'd never compromise on, but today no one seems bothered as long as you can appreciate the 'character' that the cheap lenses render.

"Today I ordered a TT Artisans 25mm ƒ/2 manual focus lens for my Fuji, $64. I guess I'm out of the fanboy club."

Michael Fewster: "You missed Phase One. This high end medium format company is very much alive. Arguably the best medium format cameras available. If you can afford them that is."

Aaron: "Clearly, you’re an OM System hater.  :-)  "

Juan Buhler: "Yeah, but you never really liked Pentax that much, huh Mike?"

Mike replies: Sigh.  :-)

s.wolters: "Amazon is the owner of DPReview. You cannot buy PhaseOne via Amazon but all the brands on DPReview you can."

Tex Andrews: "Oh, and one more thing: 'fanboy' is a banned word at DPR!"

Mike replies: I didn't know that. I'm pleased to hear it.

JH: "Blame advertising and marketing. They are dedicated to creating demand for new or existing products and loyal buyers. The beginning of modern advertising is probably David Ogilvy in the '60s—the 'Mad Men' era, which focused on image, e.g. the happy housewife with her new space-age gadgets or 'the man who reads Playboy.' A major shift occurred in the early '70s when Al Ries and Jack Trout published Positioning, the original guide to building brands. In a later book, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, Law 4 says 'reality is nothing, perception is everything.' Advertising and positioning created a 'us vs. them' atmosphere: Nikon vs. Canon, MAC vs. PC, Ford vs. Chevy, McDonalds vs. Burger King, Coke vs. Pepsi, etc., etc., etc. Positioning created the idea of brands and the conflict between brands created the 'fanboys.' As long as we have advertising (especially with the 'influencers' on the Internet) and choices, I bet we will have fanboys."

Rob de Loe: "The whole concept of being fanatically loyal to the products of large corporations of any type is ludicrous to me. I have no loyalty to brands at all.

"They're tools. Make a good tool that does what I need well and I'm your customer."

Michael Fewster: "Wearing brands is another aspect of this. If you want me to advertise your brand with a large logo on my T-shirt or anything else, then pay me. Same goes for camera straps with huge Canon, Nikon, or Sony written all over them. I will never wear such things. If my memory serves me correctly, it was Camel that started this. Somewhere in the late '50s/early '60s they came out with a T-shirt with a large logo on it. Camel and the rest of the commercial world were staggered when it became a fashion thing. People bought them in huge numbers. The advertising world was incredulous. The public would actually pay to wear advertising. The rush was on."

THREE: The Twelve Links of Christmas 2022*: Nostalgic Strap

Red Woven Vintage Camera Strap

A camera strap just like...

a.) Your old one
b.) Your mom or dad's
c.) Your grandmother or grandfather's

...from the '70s. Available in several color schemes and materials, including blue denim. No, it's not too late to order for Christmas.  :-)

Mike
Flickr page / New Yorker author page

*A list of a dozen beautiful gifty things in the spirit of the season.

Original contents copyright 2022 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jim Arthur: "Dude, ya got me jonesin' for the past, man. I still have my hippie strap somewhere and it’s attached to the Pentacon hard case of the Praktica LTL I bought in high school. These straps are far out, man! Can you dig it? Hey, don’t Bogart that joint, man! OK…catch ya on the flip-side.

"'Bogart' meant to hold on to a joint too long without passing it—the origin comes from the actor, Humphrey Bogart, who had an iconic style of performing an entire scene with a cigarette dangling from his lower lip for an extraordinarily long time with 'cool' effect."

James: "GROOVY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

SEVEN: The Twelve Links of Christmas 2022*: The Tripod Is a Solved Problem

Gitzo Mountaineer GT 2532 Series 2 carbon fiber tripod (Amazon)

Thom Hogan recently mentioned that "tripods were mostly mastered by Gitzo many years ago with the Mountaineer." I concluded a rather comical series of articles on tripods 11 years ago (comical because I made a lot of errors along the way that readers had to correct), at the end of which I purchased...a Mountaineer.

Carbon fiber was the killer app in 2011. Of all the things that that fashionable high-tech material is used for, tripods make the most sense; CF is rigid, very strong, and very light. Before that, I had a nice schtick I used to trot out about how there was no such thing as a good tripod. It allowed me to flex my satirical (snarky?) chops a bit and lampoon what I thought then was a pretty low category of device. Can't do that any more. My 11-year-old Gitzo Mountaineer still looks and works like new, and it's a pleasure to use every time I unlimber it. I never loved a tripod before this one. I never thought a tripod could be loved before this one.

I'm also glad I invested in it back then. It means I never have to muck around with tripods, buying and trying and doing it over again. I keep my tripods a long time. My first Gitzo, which I got from crusty old Mr. Baker at Baker's Camera Shop in Tenleytown D.C., was only retired after 27 years or so, and it's still out in the garage like an honored racehorse put out to pasture. This Mountaineer is looking very much like it will last 27 years too. Thom is right; the matter of a tripod is a solved problem. Get a Mountaineer with the tripod head of your choice (the Really Right Stuff BH-55 is widely regarded as ne plus ultra) and you'll never worry about tripods again.

Mike

*A list of a dozen beautiful gifty things in the spirit of the season.

Original contents copyright 2022 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

james wilson: "Check out the deal on the Sirui MT2204 travel tripod that B&H has on sale today."

Niels: "Ouch! $1,700 for a tripod+head. The Gitzo tripod is only 600g lighter than my 40-year-old Slik Master deluxe. The RRS head is heavier than my Slik Master head—the latter being the best head design I have ever encountered (others' mileage may vary). I just checked B&H. Slik is still in business it appears, and still made in Japan—how refreshing. Given the Slik Master series has survived 50 years, I guess I am not the only one who thinks it is a brilliant design. The current Slik Master Classic tripod and head is the same weight as your combo. Excellent quality and cost only $200. Your suggestion is likely more satisfying and more luxurious, but so it the price. Great with alternatives. (I'll let you make these affiliate links)."

Mike replies: Done, but, just a reminder for other readers, I'm not necessarily recommending these alternatives (I don't know them), James and Niels are.

Dennis Mook: "I believe I bought my carbon fiber Gitzo Mountaineer GT2540 around 1995. The price was high, more than I could afford at the time, but I took the advice of the phrase, ‘buy once, cry once,’ and that advice has paid off handsomely. The old Gitzo works as well today as when new. I’ve hauled those sticks around the country by car, train and airplane many, many times. They’ve never let me down and there is no reason to replace them. I agree, for me the tripod problem was solved many years ago."

[Ed. note: Dennis was a career Chief of Police in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, and after retiring from the Newport News force worked for NCIS. He's been an avid photography enthusiast for many years.]

Alex Buisse: "While I agree and absolutely love my Mountaineer (I used to hate tripods before it, thinking the limited extra support never worth the hassle of carrying one around), I must say that mine has required repairs twice in the seven years I have used it: once for the ballhead screw that had gotten bent and couldn’t be unscrewed anymore, and once for a leg twist that broke, which meant that I could take the leg segment straight out of the tripod. But then, I have taken it many places and often can’t afford to baby my gear...."

[Ed. note: Alex is a real mountaineer, so when he says he's taken his tripod "many places," it includes some places most people will never be. I highly recommend a visit to his website for some vivid visual examples.]

Photo by Alex Buisse

D'Oh! (Two Little Extra Notes)

Just two little extra notes to the foregoing about monitors...I feel rather like a dope, but I'm going to mention it, just in case anyone out there doesn't know it already. The downward-facing ports on the back of my NEC monitor were really hard to see and even harder to get at with the monitor set up in its usual position. Which bothered me. Until I realized, while watching a video tonight, that the monitor turns to a portrait orientation. Once turned, the ports are all on the side, and become easy to see and easy to access.

Ahem. Now you know, in case you didn't.

And secondly, if you are interested in the Datacolor SpyderX Pro Colorimeter so you too can experience the joys of a calibrated monitor, it's on sale at Amazon for $40 off. At B&H too. I assume by "Holiday Savings," they mean Thanksgiving, Homer said sternly!

Homer Mike

Sony A7R V: Taking Bets

The newest high-resolution Sony is here. It's the A7R Mark V, and is STBI™ ("said to be improved"). I'm sure it's a very good camera for $3,898. The last one was, and that one got a price increase too. The cynical might wonder—do they jack up the price to cover the improvements, or do they contrive the improvements to justify jacking up the price? Maybe a little of each.

V is the roman numeral for five, of course, and I find myself wondering how high the iteration number will eventually go. Things like this usually settle into patterns, sooner or later. The average automotive model cycle, for instance, lasts four to six years, with a "mid-cycle refresh"—meaning, they change a few things that are obvious to the eye, to expose earlier ones as out of style; fix any glaring problems from the original if they haven't already; and add a little dosh to the pricetag.

With cameras, repetitive iteration seems to be the norm. It happened before the "mark [x]" trend, too. I remember reading long ago that when a camera company hits on a model that's particularly successful, that model tends to sprout variants and updates. The camera being talked about at that time was the Canon EOS 620 (1987), so that goes back a ways. I owned one of its variants, the EOS RT.

I'm simply not enough of a gearhead to know this off the top of my head, but my intuitive impression is that most successful camera "lineages" tend to last for five to seven iterations. At least, a few of the ones I remember do. For example, the Nikon F lasted for six...there was never an F7. How about the Sony F-505? I can't track them one by one, but DPReview called the F-717 the "fourth generation" and later noted that the F-828, the last of the line, was "clearly" descended from the F-717. Then it went kaput. So, five. How about the Olympus OM-1 film cameras? I count the OM-1, OM-1N, OM-2, OM-2N, OM-3 (the mechanical model that worked without a battery, once highly prized and very highly priced on the used market, but now affordable again), and finally the OM-4 and OM-2S. That's seven, although it includes the "N" updates—questionable—and leaves out a few variants that had top and bottom plates made of titanium.

How many iterations were there of the original Canon 10D? I'm not sure. How about the Olympus XA pocket point-and-shoot, which evolved into the Stylus? Can anyone help us out here and count out the lineage of any particular model lineages that they're personally familiar with? I tended to pay attention only to the makes-'n'-models I was personally interested in or owned.

Leica headache
Count on the Germans to throw a wrench into the generalization. Try counting the lineage of, say, the Porsche 911. It's like the old Philosophy 101 problem of the Ship of Theseus—the newest one has almost nothing in common with the first one except the name and, very vaguely, the shape. The Leica M lineage might have a few more than seven, but it depends on how you count. I wouldn't count the one-off models, and I wouldn't count the M5, because it wasn't really the same camera as the rest of them. And how would you count the new M6 and old M6? One model or two? Here's how I'd count them, in order: M3, M2, M4, M6 early and late, M7, MP/M-A. So, six. But that might be too convenient, counted in such a way that it fits into my predetermined scheme. If you count all the variants and include the M5 and M1, then the M is an outlier. Either way I certainly would not group the digital M models with the film lineup—those are stylistically replicants, but fundamentally different. That lineage started with the M8 and extends, so far, to the M11.

How about the Olympus C-2000Z lineage? How many cameras were included in that before it fizzled? Or the Nikon Coolpix 900/950 lineage with the famous swivel body? My brother had one of those, and that was really a fun camera to use.

Is there any digital camera that has reached Mark VIII—eight? The indefatigable Sony RX100 has reached Mark VII status, despite the blitz of the iPhone/Android locust swarm. The celebrated Fuji X100 is up to Mark V and still going strong. How would you count the Ricoh GR models, film and then digital?

So then, how many iterations do you guess will the venerable A7R eventually rack up, before Sony finally overhauls its position in the lineup and makes an all-new model? It can't go on forever.

I have no crystal ball. But then, I've never been a betting man.

Mike

Featured Comments:

Kenneth Tanaka: "The apparent invisible boundary on model sequences is based solely on marketing psychology rather than technological incrementalization. (Sony’s A7R V offers the same resolution with a new processor and AI-based AF enhancements.) But, yes, I’d bet that an 'A8' or similar marketing reboot will come next, if the line continues."

Joseph T: "Olympus E-PL1 through 10, skipping 4."

SteveW: "iPhone 14."

Robert Roaldi: "There was no Canon G8, I don't believe, and they skipped G13 and G14 to go straight to G15 and then G16. (The G7 did not support RAW, an anomaly.) So, not counting the G7 because of the RAW omission, there were 12 iterations."

Dan Montgomery: "The 'Grand Tour' guys (formerly the 'Top Gear' guys) report that Subaru has sold 212 versions of the Impreza, grouped into five 'generations.' Impressive—and impressive cars, though I don't think I'd like to actually meet anyone who can talk about all 212 variants."

Søren Engelbrecht: "Time for my old Leica joke, it seems:

Q: 'How do the locals count to ten in the city of Wetzlar?'
A: "3, 2, 1, 4, 5, 4.2, 6, 7, 8, 8.2, 9, 240, 10.'"

Mike replies: Made me laugh anyway!

Michael McCulloch: "Ship of Theseus? I prefer Trigger's Broom:

Mike replies: Love it. Nice skit. That's like Howard Mansfield's book about restoring things, The Same Ax, Twice.

A Great Camera Viewfinder Safari

I really must pay a visit to Blimie and Herman in Hell's Kitchen (is that right? Is B&H [420 9th Ave.] in Hell's Kitchen? I don't know my Manhattan neighborhoods) and stage a Grand Guignol viewfinder showdown. Annoy the staff by looking through dozens of viewfinders to get a handle on the state of the art and identify the standouts. And identify if standouts are needed, which they would not be if the standard is high and many offerings approach the standard. But you never know that until you look.

Just the sort of quirky Quixotic test TOP would undertake....

Just thinking out loud,

Mike

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. UPDATE: Well, that was fast—Amazon's supply didn't even last one whole day! But you can order and get in line for when they get more.

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:

Alex Mercado: "Since they're immediately south of 34th St., I'll argue they're located in Chelsea. However, many of the kids these days would say they're located in Hudson Yards. Those kids can get off my lawn."

Open Mike: If You Don't Need It, Don't Bother With It

Got this email when I was sick:

We all wish you a speedy return to health and mental clarity.
Do not be discouraged.
We depend on TOP as an oasis of sanity.
Well, except for this B&W sensor thing.

—Luke

Made me laugh.

But there's a serious point behind it, and I think it's an important one.

Artists—and let's not get hung up on that word; people who create things—do what they need to do to do what they want to do. You master what you need to master.

You do need to master your craft. But only the parts that pertain to you. There's no unspoken requirement that you should master everything. One of the most dispiriting things about the age of digital imaging is that people have thrown themselves so wholeheartedly into mastering things like the the minutiae of camera technology. What does that matter? It doesn't, except where it does.Why in the world would it matter to people, for example, to memorize the whole product line of the brand of camera they use?

It has always seemed odd to me that ordinary hobbyists take such an interest in the business problems of the manufacturers. If you specialize in that because you write about it, or because you're an analyst, fine—but what does it have to do with creating work? Do you have what you need? Then why do you care about some corporation's balance sheet? Why do you want to second-guess their marketing strategies? That has nothing to do with creating work. It still seems odd to me that people get so interested in that.

But when you have a need for something in order to create what you want to create, that's when you go all in. You master what you have to. Whatever it is. So it's quite possible in the history of photography to point out numerous artists/photographers/creators who were obsessive about mastering the techniques they needed...and who didn't know much at all about other things. I knew a guy decades ago who claimed he didn't know how to use a 35mm camera. Why would he say that? Because he shot 8x10. He could tell you all about 8x10.

Humble bragging
Along these lines I think of Peter G., a studio advertising pro for whom I assisted for half a year in the 1980s. He told a story about how friends would come up to him at social gatherings and ask him to show them how to use their flash that they couldn't figure out. He would tell them he had absolutely no idea—he never shot with hot-shoe flash, didn't own one, and didn't know how they worked. His friends would stare at him incredulously and say, "you don't even know how to use a flash? I thought you were a pro!"

Of course Peter did know how to use "flash"—back at the studio he had $150,000 worth of lighting equipment, including $90,000 worth of electronic "strobes," as they were universally if incorrectly called at the time—pack-and-head units, the ancestors of something like this, many times more powerful and much more versatile than any on-camera flash. Anything having to do with studio lighting he had unto redundancy. He had something like 60 C-stands, short ones, tall ones, big ones, small ones. Of all that equipment, he was an absolute master. He prided himself on being able to light anything with strobes. In fact, he didn't even like to photograph without strobes—he did almost everything with them. He mistrusted natural light. But he really wasn't kidding. He had no idea how to use on-camera flash units. I can't recall if he owned one or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he really didn't, because he was cheap with a buck. He said they were too complicated—that pack-and-head units were much easier to use.

That's the way it is for most people who are serious. You do what you need to do to do what you want to do. So, yeah, you do a deep dive on that. But all the rest of it? Learn it when you need it. Otherwise, it's optional.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Migrant Mother, by Sarah Meister. "Each volume in the One on One series is a sustained meditation on a single work from the collection of MoMA." Forty-two pages with many illustrations. An engaging guided tour of the history and lore of "American photography's Mona Lisa."

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:

Luke: "I'm just glad you thought it was funny."

Thomas Mc Cann: "Years ago there was a pop music guitarist, who I won't name. He was a wizard on the guitar, an absolute virtuoso. His problem was he was so interested in displaying his virtuosity the music he played was dire. I think people who are overly interested in the technicalities lose sight of their aims."

Albert Smith: "I think differently. Photography is an art, but it relies on science, unless you don't care about 'wrong' things because of well, 'art.' I learned the theory of the science behind what the technology is doing, in a very general way not specific to the actual tool. It is this understanding that lets you know when the technology is violating the thing that you are trusting it to do. If I know the guide number of any flash, I can use it on any camera. I also would know when it won't work, like using flash in a football stadium from the upper seats. There was a time when ƒ/8 was ƒ/8 and 1/250th was 1/250th and guess what? That time is still now. Understand the science and you can be effective with any serviceable photographic gear. Fail to learn the math and formulas and you will be in trouble when the functions are not corresponding to the parameters because you won't know that is happening. This thought process has allowed many photographers to concurrently use a Leica M and a Nikon F plus a Rolleiflex. They all do exactly the same thing when you understand ƒ/8 is ƒ/8 and...."

Rick: "Work is hard, discussing gear is easy. Most people like easy."

darlene: "Re: 'you don't even know how to use a flash? I thought you were a pro!' A few times, I experienced a similar situation with point-and-shoot cameras when I shot high-end weddings in the '90s. If someone asked me to take a candid photo of their group with their camera while sitting at the dining tables, I struggled a little bit if the camera had more than one button on the top as I did not know which one was the shutter button. The only point-and-shoot camera I had during that time (my 'mommy camera') was a Nikon 35Ti, and the top of that camera had analog dials and an easy-to-distinguish shutter button. Some of us pros missed a lot of the pocket camera movement."

Mike replies: That's funny. I ran into the same problem teaching high school. Once, a parent gave me an earful for not knowing every button on his kid's ancient Zenit! "You call yourself a teacher?" etc. I wanted to tell him to buy his daughter a decent camera made sometime during her lifetime, but I held my tongue.

Choosing a Grip for the Sigma fp and fp-L

The Sigma fp as shipped needs a grip. So I asked B&H Photo if they would send me all the ones they sell so I could try them all. They sent me four. I had a clear choice pretty much from the beginning, but I'll run down the plusses and minuses of all four of them for stills photography, in the order of least to most preferable to me. I'll use B&H's titles for each one at the beginning.

These comments also apply to the physically identical 61-MP Sigma fp-L.

FotodioX Deluxe Metal Camera Hand Grip for Sigma fp Camera with Wooden Accent and Battery Access ($59.95).

This one comes in a nice package, with the grip embedded in dense foam.

It's a baseplate-style grip. It struck me as having the least secure attachment to the camera—just the tripod screw and some ridges on the base into which the edges of the camera fit—although I'm sure it's secure enough. There's an oversize bronze-finished Allen wrench, longer than the baseplate itself (five and a half inches!), to help you batten it down.

The grip itself has beautiful wood grain and is deeply contoured. Although it's too small for my hands, I have to acknowledge that some people will be trying to preserve the miniature size of the camera itself, and will be looking for a small grip.

The FotodioX is the only one of the four that has an integrated Arca-style plate for tripod QR systems. The other advantage is that the baseplate depth is rather shallow, making it easier to grab the SD card out of the battery compartment with the grip mounted. A further disadvantage is that there's no augmented thumb grip, so you're stuck with the small pad for your thumb on the camera.

However this one is incompatible with the LVF-11 viewfinder, so it's a non-starter for me. Back in the box it goes.

Sigma HG-11 (small) Hand Grip ($58).

Of the four, the smaller of the two Sigma hand grips adds the least to the camera. And it's the lightest one, albeit by just a little. It attaches to the side of the camera, leaving the bottom and hence the battery compartment clear, and it provides a nicely ergonomic thumb pad that's helpfully slanted.

Note that although the grip attaches to the camera with a screw post, you can still add a strap lug for a neck- or wrist-strap. The hardware for the lugs is separate on the Sigma and are mountable into the camera or the grip using the extra screw hole on the grip. The grip is also nicely finished and matches the finish of the camera, as you would expect.

The trouble, again, is that the grip is just too small. It's not as bad as you might think; you can actually get your fingers partly underneath it which improves your carrying hold on the camera. But there's just not much extra to grab on to.

My guess is that this one would frustrate me on an ongoing basis. It was not for me.

Sigma HG-21 Large Hand Grip ($95)

This is the one Kirk Tuck recommended to me, and it's nice. Also made by the manufacturer, it's the most expensive of the four.

It's large enough. It offers the most secure connection to the LVF-11 viewfinder, which bolts directly into it. And of course, like the Sigma small grip, it matches the finish of the camera.

However, there are some design decisions here I could question. Why not give us a better area for the thumb grip? The one on the camera is not annoyingly tiny, but verges on that. Also, the baseplate is deep and both adds to the height of the camera and also makes it tougher to get your finger in to remove the SD card. And it's frustrating that, when it would be so easy to do so, there are no Arca-style plate grooves for a tripod connection, so you'd have to add still more height to the camera to get that. It's comfortable to hold, though, and I could live with it.

Which brings me to the one I chose:

SmallRig Wooden Side Hand Grip for Sigma fp ($40.14)

After trying all four I liked this one best. It's soft and smooth, with a good feel, yet provides a nice comfortable grip, and it provides a large blob in back for your thumb. It doesn't interfere with the bottom of the camera at all and yet still offers an attachment point for a wrist strap. It doesn't add much weight to the camera (49.2 g vs 44.6 g for the small Sigma grip, as measured), and it's the cheapest one of the four (now that the camera and 45mm lens are bargain priced, maybe that matters).

After I decided on this, I put it on the camera and went outside for a while to play around. Within fifteen minutes I had all but forgotten about the grip and was just enjoying the camera.

So this is the one that's staying at TOP Rural World Headquarters for the B&W Beastie.

Mike
(Thanks to B&H Photo)

Book o' the Week

Migrant Mother, by Sarah Meister. "Each volume in the One on One series is a sustained meditation on a single work from the collection of MoMA." Forty-two pages with many illustrations. An engaging guided tour of the history and lore of "American photography's Mona Lisa."

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:

David Wilson: "Really enjoying this project of yours, Mike. I bought a Niceyrig Leather Hand Grip for my Sigma fp and it suits my large hands. It locates my thumb well, provides lots of attachment points and doesn’t cover the camera base."

Kirk: "I still like Kirk's choice best. But at 5'8" and 155 pounds I probably have smaller hands. And you've got to find the one that fits your hands. Someone wrote about the color but if you have your mitts wrapped around the grip the right way how would anyone know? And, if we have another winter here in Texas like the one we had in 2020 it's nice to know that the real wood grip will serve in the fireplace much better than my choice of grip. With your eye on the LVF-11 you never notice the grips."

T. Edwards: "I think the whole search for a monochrome camera is a complete waste of time, that the Franken-camera you are cobbling together is ugly and absurd, and I look forward to reading each installment in the series."

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."

Have Camera Manufacturers Fallen Victim to Audience Capture?

Sroyon wrote: I feel like Leica (for example) has to some extent fallen victim to audience capture. The basic M design was so revolutionary, and attracted such a loyal following, that they're condemned to repeating it forever and ever with only minor tweaks allowed.

In the post below this we were talking about "audience capture," which theportal.wiki defines as "a self-reinforcing feedback loop that involves telling one's audience what they want to hear and getting rewarded for it."

Berny Belvedere wrote about a term called "intellectual capture":

It is very important to me to be able to avoid intellectual capture.

By that I mean putting myself in a position where I have to professionally censor what I really believe due to investors disagreeing with it, or advertising people not approving of it, or an audience not appreciating it. It is of paramount importance to me to avoid ever being in a situation like this.

That’s not because I have particularly explosive beliefs. It’s because the lifeblood of a writer is being able to think and write freely.

That used to be called being "co-opted" in the 1960s, if I'm not mistaken. If you were co-opted, you sold out—joined the oppressors, abandoned your higher principles, self-censored, etc.

The business of business is business
As far as business is concerned, it seems obvious that "capture" of some sort is part of the very nature of enterprise. You give your audience what they want because they will buy it. And since the goal of business is not something amorphous like "doing good" or "having integrity" but simply making money, there's a pretty coarse test of concept right at hand: if something sells, you were right, and if it's a dud in the marketplace then it's a fail. You are pursuing customers who will pay, and you'll give them whatever they will want to pay for. So of course businesses are "captured" by their audiences—at least, that portion of the audience that actually buys their stuff. And they want to be captured.

There are a lot of ancillary issues around this that have intermittently interested me, and we can't parse them all here. As you know, though, an issue that preoccupies me these days is complexification—the continual addition of features in order to vie for customers. As soon as one manufacturer adds GPS or dual card slots or slow-motion video or built-in Bluetooth or whatever, then everyone has to do it, and they get slagged in reviews if they don't. And no matter how many features the makers lard into their infernally cunning little computerized cameras, the mavens always laser down on the ones that are missing, which might include things nobody knew they wanted two years prior. The overall result has been that most consumers now just sidestep cameras. Because instead of making life easier, the ever-increasing trend toward extreme capabilities just makes things too complicated for mere humans to master during the shortish lifetime of any given product. When was the last time you read and mastered a whole camera instruction book? I used to do it as a matter of course. Now it's too much like taking a semester-long college course.

I personally think that cameramakers have painted themselves into a corner in this regard. They've catered to the neverending nattering of the nabobs until even experts don't know all the capabilities of their own devices. "Audience capture" has led them into making products that are fundamentally unappealing except to an ever-shrinking pool of hardcore mavens. The public, meanwhile, given a viable alternative in smartphones, is drifting away. Most potential buyers of cameras don't even know what an ƒ-stop is, or that best focus in a fixed-lensmount camera is a plane parallel to the plane of the sensor. How are they going to master 28 pages in the IB on AF setup?

I do agree with Sroyon's point about the M, although I like the camera. But here's the funny thing: given my preoccupation with complexification—more accurately put, my yearning for radical simplification, for purity—I actually think Leica is the one company that has not been captured by its audience. It's the only company that has the cojones to go against the crowd and make fundamentally simple cameras.

I wish it weren't so, because Leica is also our industry's only maker of Veblen goods, the one company that frankly caters to the carriage trade. Nothing wrong with that, except for me, because I can't/won't participate. I've only bought cameras that cost close to $3k twice in my life, and both times it just drove me crazy to have that much cash hanging from a strap.

You know what they say: Oh well.

Mike

P.S. I once actually painted myself into a corner. In an outbuilding at my grandparents' summer cottage there was a chauffeur's room upstairs, because in the early days of the automobile it took three days to drive from Indianapolis to northern Michigan and my great-grandparents hired a driver to cope with the crappy roads and the incessant tire changes. (This would have been in the 1900s and 1910s.) Back then they stayed all summer and went home in the fall. And of course the driver had nothing to do once they got there but to hang out and wait for the drive back. So the little room above the workshop was for him to live in. I suppose it was only used for that purpose for a few years; roads and cars improved dramatically in a relatively short time. Anyway I and my friends used that room as a hangout, briefly, in my early teen years, and I found a can of green enamel down in the workshop that was still good, so, in the spirit of decorating the hangout, I happily painted the floor of the chauffeur's room green, ending up in a little aperture in the corner that led to the space under the eaves. After realizing what I had done and heartily experiencing the feeling of being an absolute dunce, I had to walk across the freshly painted enamel, repairing the footprints as I went, and then leave my now green-soled tennis shoes in the sun to dry so I wouldn't inadvertently leave a green footprint somewhere I oughtn't. So the expression "painted into a corner" has long been a vivid one for me. An older cousin later moved that old outbuilding down the shore to his own property. I don't know it for a fact, but I'd wager that little upstairs room still has a green floor.

And by the way, one of the things I once treasured that is now lost is a scrapbook my great-aunt Margie made when she was a girl that documented one of those three-day trips to the cottage. There were a lot of pictures of punctured tires being changed at different locations. The car was an open touring car with a tonneau cover of a type that was common then. A Pierce-Arrow similar to the one above. According to family lore, my great-grandmother was the first female in Indianapolis to learn to drive; she made her chauffeur give her lessons on the little winding roads of Crown Hill Cemetery.

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:

Sroyon [OP]: "Ooh that's an interesting way to look at it! I like simple cameras too. I have the good fortune of owning an M3; I love it to bits.  :-) 

"I recently did a few photoshoots with dancers: DSLR, multiple speedlights, wireless trigger, the works. And the technology is marvelous, no two ways about it. But today I was taking available-light photos with a manual-focus Minolta SLR, just for myself. Sweet delight."

Dogman: "You know those camera reviews? The ones that list the 'Pros' and 'Cons' of the camera under review? Yeah, those. I always read the 'Cons' first. They always tell you what the camera doesn't have. That's what I'm interested in. I like not having all those things."

John Camp: "I agree with you that some of the over-elaboration of cameras can get silly, but I've never understood you obsession with 'simple' cameras. I have four complicated cameras (wait: when I think of it, I have five; no, six.) But they're all designed to be made simple. Yes, you have to thumb through a complicated instruction guide, but still: they can be made simple for whatever your particular definition of simple may be. Given the likelihood that no two photographers are exactly alike, the question becomes, which photographers would you leave out with your simple camera, because you don't value what they do? Astrophotographers, maybe? Or wildlife? Or bird? Or night shooters? Or those who prefer square aspect ratios, or 4/3? Or those who prefer legacy lenses because they like them or because it's all they can afford, and need to be able to shoot manually instead of with automation? How about sports shooters who value bracketing? What about people who do three or four different things, and value one-button assists to switch modes? I mean, really, who would you choose to leave out?"

Mike replies: I hear objections like this a lot, and in some ways of course they're valid. But they're also like saying, "when Leica made the Monochrom, they ignored the needs and wishes of the millions of people who love and crave colors!" Or, about the Miata, "aren't you forgetting about people who have large families? Which children would you suggest they leave at home?" You get the drift. Just because a few cameras are pared-down and purist doesn't mean others can't be "do-everything." And if some cameras were specialized tools in one way it doesn't mean others can't be specialized for other uses.

Put another way, I've never said all cameras should be simple.

Kenneth Tanaka: "There's a vast chasm between 'audience capture,' as it's been portrayed here, and customer responsiveness. The former is a symptom of a psychiatric / emotional disorder that compels attention seeking...with no direct reward other than the momentary attention of an 'audience.' The latter is a business tactic usually deployed in order to retain / attract customers who pay for your products or services. Each of the top camera manufacturers has proven to be responsive to their customers; that's why they're 'top' companies. And that especially applies to Leica, whose customers tend to be very involved with the response loop."

kevin willoughby (partial comment): "Re 'I actually think Leica is the one company that has not been captured by its audience,' I respectfully disagree. Leica did try to build a different / better rangefinder camera: the M5. The Leica M audience rejected the camera. Leica had to drop back and issue a more M3-ish design: the M6. The audience rejected the M5 and demanded the M6. Leica did what the audience demanded."

Nikons 'In Order of Desirability'

A few days ago I listed the current Nikon DSLRs "in order of desirability," and several readers asked me to explain that ordering. So here goes. First, this is what I wrote:

The current Nikon DSLRs, ranked in order of desirability, are:

The D850 (pro FX/full-frame, $2,800);

The D7500 (prosumer DX/APS-C, a bargain at $999);

The D500 (pro DX/APS-C, $1,600);

The D780 (prosumer FX/full-frame, $2,200);

The D5600 (amateur/consumer DX/APS-C, $800 with kit lens);

The D6 (specialist professional FX/full-frame, $6,500—don't buy unless it's a business expense and you can depreciate it); and

The D3500 (entry/cheapie DX/APS-C; with kit lens, $650 that probably won't be money well spent).

Get 'em while you can....

First, I wouldn't buy a Nikon DSLR, so that needs saying. I owned a D800 briefly (some cameras "take," some don't), and I tested both the D750 and D7200 when they were new. I think the Sony A900 was the biggest SLR I ever owned, film or digital. Big SLRs have never done it for me, as a rule, in the same way I don't like pickup trucks—and the bigger, the less I like 'em. As my friend Gabi once observed, "you like go-karty cars," and the same is true translated to cameras.

No, wait, it was the Nikon F4s—that was my biggest-ever 35mm/FF SLR. I bought it new when it was first introduced, right after joining a professional studio in the Maryland suburbs of DC, and there was a waiting list: I used an N8008 as a stopgap until the F4s arrived. After using it for a year (and converting it to an F4 with the smaller hand-grip), I went back to the N8008. I own an N8008 now, and I'm surprised by how heavy it is—that wasn't my memory. But it's a lot smaller than the F4. But I digress. (When don't I digress? But let's not digress into that.)

The list also isn't my personal list. Mine would probably go: D500 first, D780 second, ferget the rest.

Here's the rundown, with reasoning:

D850: This is Nikon's top pro-am DSLR, the highest quality and, apart from the D6, highest functioning. The most pixels, the better to make big prints with, my dear. A natural choice for dedicated photography enthusiasts who want a full-dress Nikon with no apologies needed.

D7500: I ranked this highly because at only $1k it's a relative bargain, and as a DX/APS-C camera it's more useful for long-lens work like birding and sports, even if the sport is your kid's soccer game or pictures from the stands at the stadium.

D500: Thom said it better than I could: "The D500...is still in the top three APS-C cameras you can buy today, and only recently eclipsed in any way (by the X-H2S for sure, and in some ways, arguably by the R7)." Since it's been out for quite a while, it's high value both new and used. Odd to call $1,600 "high value," but it's considerably cheaper than the D850. Or the XH2S. This is the one I'd have, and I'd have the now-elderly Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17–55mm ƒ/2.8G IF-ED lens on it. That is truly one of Nikon's best-ever lenses, made at the tail end of the time that Nikon was sticking to APS-C, and the only lens most people will need on a D500. Love that lens. I'd almost buy the camera just to be able to shoot with it. Personally I probably wouldn't even buy any other lens for the D500, to simplify my choices going out the door.

D780: The sensible choice for full-frame, if you don't want to splash out for the D850.

D5600: Of course this is a good camera, since it's Nikon's Corolla or Civic. But the advantages of SLRs plummet when you move away from the better viewfinders, IMO. I'd never shoot with this, if I'm honest.

D6: Anyone interested in a D6 for valid reasons wouldn't be looking for advice from me. My only job, therefore, is to prevent rich neophytes from buying it for status reasons. (In the days of the F4s, I occasionally saw one hanging from the shoulder of a Washington lawyer or a Washington tourist, and I'd silently think to myself—because that's how I think to myself, silently—"too much camera."

D3500: Again, doubtless good of its breed, because it's a Nikon and Nikon is Nikon, but if you're going to spend for this, you should definitely spend the extra trifle and get the D5600. It's only a $150 difference in price.

So that's my reasoning.

Some people like DSLR viewing, and the recent wholesale shift to mirrorless will make DSLRs more appealing to those people, not less. Like those who stuck with Leica-style rangefinders in the 1960s, back when everyone and his uncle was shifting to SLRs. You don't have to follow the crowd.

SLRs and EVFs have different sets of advantages and disadvantages. I switched allegiances a few years back. Plus, I love the way the new Nikons can put WYSIWYG exposure compensation on a lens control ring; if I were getting any Nikon now it would be the Z6 II (assuming it supports that feature, which I'm not 100% positive about. I tried it on Dave Levingston's Z7 II when he was visiting). 

So that's it. I would guess I've tried my last Nikon SLR...new, anyhow.

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:

Tam: "This brings us to the immortal photography nerd scene from Veep, 'Not a 1D?'"

Albert Smith: "Regarding the DX 17–55 ƒ/2.8, I concur that it is the top of the crop-sensor food chain in Nikon world. I got one to use on my D300s and the images that I come back with often shock me with the quality. And if you put the external battery pack on the camera along with this lens, you may need a hernia truss and a chiropractor when you finish a shoot. You really need to know that you need this lens. It is not a casual carry-on-spec optic."

Mike replies: That is true. Serious Nikons be big.

What's the Most Amazing Development of Your Lifetime?

Allan Stam wrote: "The number of industries that the iPhone has destroyed is really quite extraordinary. Pocket cameras, calculators, stand-alone GPS, and literally dozens of others. One wonders how much of this Steve Jobs anticipated or if he would be just as surprised at the scale and scope of the smartphone's success and impact."

Mike's comment: Years ago, my brother Charlie and I had a game: what's the most amazing development of your lifetime? We were talking generally about "stuff," not big political changes, ecological considerations such as the population explosion, or deep scientific advances.

He's double-boarded in internal medicine and pediatrics (pretty close to a general practitioner), and at one point he chose antidepressants. One of my earlier choices was the reliability of cars: pre-1969 cars were very unreliable compared to today's, 1969 being the cutoff given to me by the crusty old guy at my local car mechanic shop who knows more about cars than he could ever impart. I remember when I was very young, younger than 10, our father would take the car to the gas station, which also doubled as a "garage" at that time, a.k.a. a mechanic's shop, to have it "checked" prior to a driving trip from Milwaukee to Indianapolis...a trip of only 273 miles (440 km). Cars then seldom lasted past 100,000 miles, and "tuneups" for cars with carburetors had to be regular starting at, what, 5,000 miles was it? Today, a humble Toyota Corolla, which I would argue is just as high an expression of human ingenuity as the fanciest Ferrari, sells for a very reasonable price and can last 20 years and go 300,000 miles with pretty minimal maintenance.

In the '90s Charlie and I had to make an exemption for the internet—the question became "what's the most amazing development of your lifetime apart from the internet?" At some point it was the personal computer. I think Charlie picked his iMac G4—the one set on the base that was half of a sphere—a little past the turn of the millennium.

But sometime around 2010, our answers converged: the iPhone. Charlie named it first; I was a late adopter. It's so obviously the answer now that we haven't played the game recently. (Another game we play is, "who would you like to be President if you could appoint anybody you wanted?" Elizabeth Warren!*)

(iPhone 13**)

As far as we picture-people are concerned, it's just plain lucky that "the camera" (I'd say camera system) in smartphones just happens to be one of the differentiators that matters to people when they are making their choice of what phone to buy. That's the only reason why so much development is concentrated on the built-in cameras and their functions. It could just as easily not be the case.

Of course, this—the whole fundamentally bizarre situation—is a haphazard development, in the way that most of culture is haphazard rather than rational, sensible, and planned. I mean, would anyone plan that enormous gas-guzzling pickup trucks and giant seven-passenger SUVs would become the de facto personal conveyances in non-urban America, in an era of rising gas prices and the threat of climate change? That's madness. Would we have planned that fast food, which is arguably the least healthy food ever regularly eaten by any cohort of human beings in the history of the planet, would become ubiquitous in the first era in which "what's good for you" even became a consideration in food choice? (The "health" of food didn't really start to be rationally framed as a concept, scientifically at least, until about the 1890s.)

Much of culture is actually the opposite of "rational, sensible, and planned." It comes about by chance, because of a hodgepodge of random factors that can't be predicted or managed. That certainly extends to cameras. Tell me: in 2012, at the peak of the digital camera boom, would you have agreed with the statement that the ultimate "lowest common denominator" we should all agree to be stuck with would be a tiny point-and-shoot or digicam built into another device, with fixed lenses, the advantages of which would work partly by falsifying the integrity of the lens image? I doubt it. But that's the way the various forces of culture, economics, and happenstance have dictated things would head. (No, we're not there yet. We're only heading that direction.)

Then again, I certainly wouldn't have said that cameras should be excessively expensive, hyper-complex, grossly overfeatured electronic devices built around sensors the size of a 135 negative, either! Or that most "good" lenses should be greatly oversized, greatly overpriced, and greatly overweight compared to, say, the OM Zuikos of the 1980s or the Leica M lenses of the 1960s.

But really, most "deep enthusiasts" of photography have always gone their own way, and have always existed on the fringes of the popular market. We adapt because we have to, but we force the existing choices to adapt to our needs, too. Because it's the work that's important. And if you can do your work better with an iPhone, then power to you, my brother, my sister. It's all good.

+  =  +  =  +  =  +  =  +

I've just posted all the Featured Comments to the past five posts, so go back and catch up with those if you want. And I'll try hard to keep up with comments better this weekend. The question before the Commentariat is: what's the most amazing development of your lifetime? You can relate it to photography if you would like to, but you don't have to. For extra credit, don't answer the question about who should be president. (Unless it's the correct answer, Elizabeth Warren.)

Have a nice weekend! I'll be posting on Sunday this week, and not on Saturday or Monday. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention: I'm told my latest article for newyorker.com will be published next Thursday! Very exciting. It's a more major article than the last one. I'll post a link, if and when.

Mike

ADDENDUM: I meant to mention, seconding what Allan wrote, that after I got my first iPhone—first smartphone—the Apple iPhone 4s, which I think I bought in 2012 when the blog really took off—I had the idea of making a photograph of all the things that it replaced. I pictured a little heap of objects that would fit on the kitchen table—an old Ma Bell phone, a camera, a flashlight, a calculator, a Rolodex, a stack of LPs, a GPS navigation device, paper books, board games, a light meter, a calendar, maps, a clock, a timer, a stopwatch, a dictionary, a compass, a radio, a news magazine, etc. Of course, you know the problem...actually the heap would be so big you wouldn't even be able to see everything in it, and even then it wouldn't include everything the smartphone can reasonably be said to substitute for. I'm not an "app chaser," and I have relatively few of them on my phone, but one of them is an altimeter—I got it to measure the height of the hill I live beneath—and one I use all the time can scan plants and instantly identify them. Another can listen to music and identify the song and artist (although my friends Kim and Bob stymie it sometimes). The list goes on, as you know.

*That's my answer, not Charlie's. Well, it's very far from his answer. Come to think, I don't actually know what his answer would be today—it's a game we play prior to elections. I'll have to remember to ask him. Maybe I'll just pretend his answer is Elizabeth Warren—he doesn't read the blog regularly, so he'll never know. Heh heh. But I suppose if he comments I'll have to feature it. Although if he says Ted Cruz I'll have to delete it on the grounds that he's insane. Sorry, just amusing meself here.

**I cannot tell a lie, this was Potatochopped. I moved in the clump of grass at the bottom from another exposure. Dutiful disclosure.

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:

mike r in colorado: "I see a few comments have already been posted. Skipping them to not be influenced. The whole computer hardware industry is my number one pick. And if that's too easy, the integrated circuit is probably specific enough. I work in computer software, so maybe I'm more jaded to the amazing-ness of software, but I consider it a much less 'under control' part of the industry. I can think of several other amazing things during my lifetime—global communication, medical imaging—but many of them circle right back to being based on computer hardware."

Dillan: "I'd agree that it has to be the iPhone, or more generally the smartphone. I'm not picking it for the camera in my pocket, though, for I don't use the camera for anything other than visual note taking. No, for me it's the internet in my pocket. I have access to the world's information anywhere. It is a dream come true for an inquisitive person like myself."

Nikhil Ramkarran: "Like most other people, for me, it would definitely be modern mobile phones. But a decade or so ago, after dark one evening, I opened the door to our darkened living room and saw my two-year-old daughter sitting on the couch with her mom's iPad lighting up her little face, and her four-year-old brother leaning from the side so he could see the screen also (yes, I got the picture). It struck me right then (and I've never forgotten) that this slim, portable screen, with all of its entertainment, information and power, was just a mundane, routine thing to these children. What would be their most amazing lifetime development?"

Malcolm Meyers: "I'll forego all the 'obvious' answers and throw a vote in for podcasting. It is a relatively simple technology yet it allows pretty much anyone to start broadcasting their thoughts and ideas to the whole world via their own, personalised 'radio station.' I have to say that I enjoy a lot of film photography podcasts and I've listened to people who, ten years ago, I would never have had a chance to listen to."

Phil: "My Dad, born in 1923, once told me that he had always thought the most amazing invention during his lifetime was inter-continental air travel. He first flew from Vancouver to England in 1972 and it took less than 12 hours, including a fuel stop. He couldn't get over that for a long time, but then when I and his various grandkids started showing him what we could do with our smartphones, he changed his mind. He was quite computer-savvy, so the internet itself was something he had already absorbed, but I remember him describing how a visiting grandkid declined a ride home because he knew exactly when the bus was coming. When he showed the transit app that had real-time tracking for the bus stop down the street, Dad was just amazed.

"As for me, I'm just a bit younger than you, and I distinctly remember during a trip to Paris in 2012. We decided to go for a quick walk in the evening to shake off jet lag, and, it being a 'quick walk,' I didn't bring my camera; but then I saw an entrancing scene along the river with great light so I pulled my Nexus S out of my pocket and took a decent souvenir shot and it just struck me what an amazing thing it was because, at the same time, I was also using maps I had downloaded to the 'phone' to navigate us to and from the hotel!

"I still walk around with an actual camera most of the time but I often feel sheepish that I'm just being 'old' and if I only spent a bit of time to learn how to get the best results from the camera in my phone (a Pixel 3), I would be better off. As long as I bring my reading glasses, that is!"

Rich Beaubien: "In the 1960s as a teenager I got interested in Amateur Radio (ham radio). For the most part the radios were made using vacuum tubes as a principle ingredient. The big thing though was to learn about and use FETs (Field Effect Transistors). I just remember being fascinated by FETs when they first appeared in QST (QST was the magazine for amateur radio users. QST in the lingo means 'calling all stations.')

"The idea of a field-effect transistor came in 1926 from an Austro-Hungarian physicist, Julius Edgar Lilienfeld. The first working FET was invented in 1947 by William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain at Bell Labs. They shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics.

"The FET was first constructed of Germanium which is chemically similar to its Periodic Table neighbors silicon and tin, called a metalloid. Metalloids are a type of chemical element that has properties both of metals and nonmetals. When transistor R&D was opened into the public domain, business discovered that silicon had improved electronic properties, was cheaper, and worked just as as well. The first commercial product was the Sonotone hearing aids (1952). Followed by the first transistor radio (1954), and, in the early 1960s, portable TVs.

"Without the invention of the transistor none of today's electronics (those faxes, radios, CD players, phones, computers, digital cameras, etc.) would exist. It is the most important invention of the last 100 years."

Omer: "Passenger jet aircraft travel. Before COVID, more than two million people traveled by plane every day in the USA alone. It astonishes me that I can physically travel from Tucson, Arizona to Dhaka, Bangladesh in roughly 35 hours. Try that on the internet."

Philip Byford: "For me it is chemotherapy. So far I've enjoyed an extra 17 years of this wonderful life (I'm now 72) since a wonder drug destroyed my leukemia back in 2005. Cheers!"

Mike replies: Hard to argue with that!

Gaspar Heurtley: "My grandfather was born in 1901 and died in 1986. The Wright brothers' first flight was in 1903, so he was born in a world where planes didn’t exist yet, and in 1969, when he was about your age, he got to see the man walking on the Moon. How crazy is that? It always impressed me as a kid thinking how all that could happen in just one lifetime."

Mike replies: I've written before that, to me, the most amazing single thing in human history is that there were only 66 years between Kitty Hawk and the Moon landing. Even after long familiarity it still astonishes me. Of course, that happened in our grandfathers' lifetimes rather than ours.

Jon Erickson: "My sentimental favorite amazing development is the computer mouse, thanks to Douglas Englebart and the Stanford Research Institute, first commercialized by Apple in the Macintosh. The technology is foundational to how most of us interact with our various computing devices, including smartphones."

Paul: "Solar cells. These brilliant thingies are going to save us all, if we actually choose to employ them properly. Wind turbines are also high up in the list."

Ian Parr: "'Most amazing development of a lifetime' is apt to change at the drop of a hat with the pace of technology being what it is. For today, ignoring fundamental science as per Mike's rules (so ruling out the semiconductor transistor and DNA sequencing), I'd have to say the James Webb Telescope is probably the most amazing thing of my lifetime. It's due to start publishing images and science data in a couple of days, on July 12th. I suspect that even the wildest dreamers of the Apollo era would have struggled to foresee such a device being launched into space, let alone what it's going to study (imaging the origins of the universe, dark energy, exoplanets, etc.). Amazing by any criteria, and, for a bonus point, heavily linked to cameras and imaging."

Bryan Geyer: "The 'Most Amazing Development' in my lifetime initially sparked on December 23, 1947, when the first transistor was successfully demonstrated at Bell Laboratories, in Murray Hill, NJ. It was a crude point-contact germanium device, and its lengthy evolutionary course has now absorbed some seven-plus decades, but that event marked the birth of a technology that now allows us cram some 40,000+ equivalent transistor-type devices (as integrated silicon MOS-FET digital switches) into a modern smart ’phone. It's the 'Amazing Development' of this semiconductor brain that makes all of those iPhone applications feasible. P.S.: I personally entered the semiconductor trade in March of 1957, as a sales-engineer trainee. I was employed by the fledgling Semiconductor Division of Tung-Sol Electric Co., a company then notable as a producer of vacuum tubes."

Ernest Zarate: "After reading through the comments here and giving some thought to it, I’m hard pressed to come up with anything more amazing than the smartphones of today. Not only their capabilities but also the ubiquitousness of them in our society. Yes, the Internet preceded smartphones, and without the Internet, smartphones would be a lot less 'smart.' But, the smartphone took the Internet to entirely new levels it would not have reached without smartphones.

"As an aside, my two sons (ages 12 and 14) seem nonchalant towards their phones. They use them, but infrequently. The 12-year-old has to be reminded to charge his, and it is rarely on his person, typically languishing on its own on some shelf or other. The 14-year-old uses his a bit more, but even then, mostly as a phone (!!) to communicate with his friends. Their mom and I don’t say anything one way or the other (unless they’re heading out the door over to a friend's home or to the movies). I know it’s a small sample size, but I wonder if there is a trend by the youngest to not get hooked into constant attention to those small screens. Curious…."

Jim: "Fiber optics. Without fiber optics, you would not have the Internet, wireless phones (especially smartphones and 5G), CATV/streaming and just about every other technology that depends on communications. Fiber optics made communications incredibly cheaper and better enabling of all sorts of other technological advances. Every future advance that needs communications will depend on our worldwide network of fiber. When I first learned about fiber optics at Bell Labs in the late '70s, I realized it was going to be big. I became an entrepreneur in the field and let's just say it has made my life comfortable."

Mike replies: There's a great display and docent presentation about fiber optics at the Corning Museum of Glass in Corning, New York. When I was there, the docent giving the talk and media presentation recounted how he looked up one day to see one of the three inventors of fiber optics sitting in his small audience. He got excited just telling the story. Apparently all three patent holders (Robert Maurer, Donald Keck, and Peter Schultz) still live in the hills surrounding the town of Corning—or did at that time anyway. That was maybe 2014 or '15.

The iPhone at 15: 'You Have to Adapt. What Else AreYou Going to Do?'

iPhone doodle

The first iPhones came on the market at about this time 15 years ago.

It's an era now. One that has hugely impacted our hobby. As Enric Martí puts it, "You go through life having to change. The world is moving quickly. You have to adapt. What else are you going to do?" That's from a nice article and portfolio called "The iPhone at 15" from the AP that has some interesting reflections on the iPhone and a diverse selection of photographers' personal pictures. Enric Martí, a native of Spain, is deputy director of photography for the AP.

Enric Martí

By the way, about the picture at the top: I'm sitting here drinking that mug of tea, which helped me discover that the iPhone has parallax! I was very self-indulgently taking a picture of the pretty light, as I often do, when I noticed a particular streak of light that was on the screen but that I wasn't seeing with my eyes. Turned out it was because the lens is offset up in the corner and the view is slightly different from what I typically see when from behind the screen. When I moved my head around, the little reflection showed up. I moved in on it to show it better. It's mild, and you'll only notice it doing closeups, but yeah, a sort of parallax.

I stopped off at the Verizon Store to look at the 13 Pro again. My old phone is starting to worry me, acting buggy. I do need a dependable phone...I think I bought my current phone right around this time six years ago, back when the iPhone itself was only nine.

Mike
(Thanks to Kenneth Tanaka)

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.

Here's 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: "I am not trying to spend your money but get that darn phone. I have the 12 Pro and for me it has brought back the joy of photography. I have mentioned this before but it is very easy to shoot IR with just a filter and shoot in night mode. The ease of use and editing on the phone adds huge bonus points."

Albert Erickson: "Mike, I haven't commented in awhile since I have been away, but I saw that you were looking at the iPhone 13 pro and will tell you it is truly an amazing piece of photo equipment. I used to say I would never use my phone for serious photography, but I have changed. I now use my phone much more than a real camera. Further, I can print nicely small 5x7 or 8.5 x11 prints from the 12 MP built into the phone. Just an observation. I think you would find the phone very useful from a photographic standpoint. All the best, Eric."

Joseph: "I'm overdue for a new iPhone too, but I can't bring myself to do it this late in the cycle. The new ones will likely be here in September. Especially when you skip several generations, iPhone camera improvement is really quite remarkable. I still use an OM-D E-M5 from 2012, but an iPhone 5 from that same era? No thanks."

Chris A Beloin: "Turns out that 92% of Apple products are made in China, and our trade relationship with them is very much in question with recent events. Better get that iPhone now in case it takes a couple of years for Apple to resource manufacturing to another location, should that supply chain get sanctions, etc."

Gavin Paterson: "I bought an iPhone 13 six months ago; it’s a revelation! I have Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Sony digital systems, as well as Nikon, Olympus, Leica, Ricoh and Voigtlander film equipment, but most of the time have just the iPhone in my pocket, so now (at last! says my wife), will cull what I have to be subject-specific, such as telephoto for wildlife, and enjoy a simpler life courtesy of Apple!"

V.I. Voltz: "You should see the parallax when the 13 Pro Max can't decide if something is macro or not and starts jumping between the 28mm-e lens and the 13mm-e lens. Hope you don't have a latent Brian malfunction. [I love that typo so I left it in. —Ed.] But, I must say, it's about the only flaw I can find with the camera, within its basic limitations."

Rich: "I went from an iPhone 6 to a 13 Pro and I can confirm that the cameras are amazing, considering their size. I use it a lot as a feed for Instagram and visual note-taking. Also only have to charge it every couple of days, although I don’t make a lot of calls, so YMMV."

Hugh: "Hmmm...you feel you need to change cameras frequently because of your job as a photography commentator? The most important photographic instrument of today is the phone—iPhone or Samsung—yet you are on a six year old iPhone? That's a bit like still shooting with a Canon 50D in DSLR terms.  :-)  There was a big jump in picture quality with the Samsung S10 (2019), and probably with the iPhone around that date. In this country one can get an immaculate refurbished S10 for £200 and a sim only contract."

Implementation Would Be Everything

Yesterday, reader Bear wrote:

"I'd like Leica to get together with Apple and build an iPhone into a Q2 or 3 or whatever...that would give me both a reason and an excuse to cart a camera everywhere. I might look a bit silly holding a camera to my ear instead of my eye though...but I probably would still buy it!"

I've actually always wondered why Apple doesn't do this. I used to wish for an "Apple Camera," but that was before the smartphone era.  

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "I trust a good deal to common fame, as we all must. If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods." That's the original quote from his Journal, in 1855. Folk wisdom streamlined it to: "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."

It might have been true in 1855. Not any more. For one thing, big companies don't take ideas from random citizens—there's way too much liability in it. Whatever they do, they get pestered by people claiming the idea was theirs, like a hiker in Maine in the summertime gets pestered by black flies. They'll not only not use your idea, they don't even want to hear about it—my father, who was a management consultant for 30 years, told me about one company that wouldn't even open letters if they had any idea that there was a product idea inside.

Of course, companies also do steal ideas all the time, but good luck getting them to admit it.

So, mental exercise only: picture some compact but good quality APS-C or Micro 4/3 ILC such as a Ricoh GRIII, a Sony A6[x]00, or (okay, Bear) a Leica Q2. If it had a phone touchscreen on the back of it, with all the functionality of an iPhone, would that be something that would appeal to you?

Implementation is everything
I doubt I'd like it, and here's the reason: it would entirely depend on implementation, and the chances they'd screw it up are exactly 92%.* My family had a little Boston Whaler once that was supposed to do everything: it had oarlocks and oars if you wanted to use it as a tender, a transom stern so you could mount a little outboard motor, and a mast well for a little sunfish-style sail (don't know what that rig is called) [UPDATE: It's called a lug rig, technically "balanced-lug rig,"and such boats are called luggers. So now we know.] Well, it was horrible at all three tasks.

Skerry with balanced-lug rig. Illustration thanks to
John C. Harris's The Life of Boats blog.

Of course, a phone itself replaces approximately a dumptruck's worth of traditional tools, objects, documents and implements, from maps to calculators to books, and does a lot of new stuff besides, so it's already a Swiss Army knife. So maybe it would accommodate being stuck to the back of a camera without issues.

Still, my opinion is that they seldom get cameras quite right, so I'm guessing that adding a phone would be more cooks than the broth could bear.

Would you buy such a thing?

Personally, my seven-year-old iPhone had a seizure over the weekend, which scared me, even though it seems to have recovered. I guess it's of the age that I should be thinking about a new one when Apple comes out with the iPhone 14 in September. I'll have to have a print sale before then, if I intend to be able to pay for the blasted thing.

Mike

*That's a "monkeybutt number." Pulled it out of a monkey's butt.

Book o' the Week:

The Beatles: Get Back. The story of the band's last year, coinciding with the release of Peter Jackson's documentary Get Back.

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

Here's the 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: "Statista tells us, 'In their 2018 fiscal year, Apple sold more than 217 million iPhones. After the release of the first-generation iPhone in 2007, the unit sales of the Apple mobile device saw rapid growth year after year, peaking at 231 million in 2015. iPhone sales have stayed relatively stable since then.' After completely re-engineering the iPhone into a Leica (a large and complex task), the incremental sales to apple would be vanishingly small—how many Leicas are sold today? Even a million could be mistaken by Apple as a rounding error. That isn't to say that owning such a thing would be interesting, useful and probably fun."

James: "Although I own both a Ricoh GR III and IIIx and absolutely love them (I also have a Leica Q2 Monochrom), I much prefer using a viewfinder. My favorite camera is the Fuji X100V. On the Q2 and X100 I never use the screen to compose. Focusing with a screen is a compromise I am willing to make with the GR series. I find phones difficult to take photos with. I am always accidentally touching the screen so that it suddenly doesn't allow me take the photo. I haven't mastered holding it by the edges.... :-)

"Additionally, the GR series has a handgrip and buttons which are very easy to use. It's even more remarkable given its size and the fact that it has a APS-C sensor. If I had to choose between the Leica and the GR, I would pick the GR every time. Is this hypothetical phone/camera going to have buttons/dials to change the aperture, exposure compensation, etc.? If it does then does it actually work as a phone with all these extra controls?"

Mike replies: Re holding a phone, you don't have to hold it by the edges. Just look on the back where the lens is, and wrap your hand around the back so that it doesn't cover the lens. Perfectly easy and natural. (But I still think the go buttons are in entirely the wrong places. And I hate the way its exposure adjustment works.)

KeithB: "Here is the somewhat cheeky user tip I wrote for the Apple Community Discussion board about submitting ideas to Apple."

Mike replies: That's very good. Tells it the way it is.

Mani Sitaraman: "What I really want is 1.) the digital interface on my Nikon DSLR to be as simple to use as the camera app on my iPhone and 2.) for my in-camera image files to be seamlessly transmitted without excessive fuss to my iphone/iphotos database so that I can forward them."

Omer: "Yeah, but no. I get enough stares when my camera is at my eye, what would those stares turn into if the camera were at my ear?"

Mike replies: Made me laugh. And that's the last word!

Great Expectations

Matt O'Brien wrote in response to yesterday's post:

"All of these reasons are why I am waiting for the [Leica] CL2."

The late Leica CL. It was Leica's me-too X100[x],
but failed to slay the dragon.

Alas, Fuji excepted, these are woeful times for people who like smaller-than-24x36mm sensors, and the Leica CL is one more reason. On May 17th, Leica Rumors published an internal document from Leica advising its dealers how to handle any questions they might get about the CL and TL from "distributors, customers, and the media." Essentially, the document says that sales of cameras with smaller sensors are in die Toilette (again, Fuji excepted, I would guess) but that the FF segment is still a bright spot, and that this state of affairs "has prompted Leica Camera AG to discontinue its CL-/TL2-system cameras." The company adds that it'll be concentrating on FF cameras going forward.

On the good side, the rumor filters through that Leica is surprised at the success of the Q series. (See Peter Wright's comment.)

Leica did affirm that it'll service any CL or TL2 for six years from date of purchase. B&H lists the CL as discontinued, but, in what is no doubt a glitch, lists the TL2 as being both available and discontinued. I have a feeling if you were to try ordering a TL2 with lens (same price as the TL2 without lens), your order would be cancelled.

Six years might be a good prediction for the extent of survival for "legacy" smaller-sensor ILCs. (The legacy is from the days when "chips," as they were called then, were exponentially more expensive the larger they were.) If I were to wax acerbic as is my wont betimes, I would fire off a snarky comment about how we'll soon all have to drive giant pickups like the GMC Deniali [sic] and take pictures with proper bricks and bags of giant lenses if we can't be satisfied, like good sheeple, with the phones Apple gives us. But I won't go there, and thou art welcome. You might think Fuji is also excepted from this six-year dire prediction, but they're only one decision away from it. Remember that Nikon was "committed" to APS-C in the early days of DSLRs, until it wasn't any more.

But, as Matt knows by now from other commenters, he's unlikely to get a CL2. But hey, Matt, join my club—I'm waiting for the Panasonic GX8 Mark II. Comma, dammit. Miss Havisham is still waiting for her bridegroom, too—we all have our great expectations!

Mike

P.S. Note the categories for this post. :-)

Book o' the Week:

Inspiration Leica Akademie (English and German Edition). A "group show" of 76 Leica Akademie photographers from 16 countries worldwide, curated by Heidi and Robert Mertens. It looks to me like this is going out of print soon, so act soon if you want one.

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

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:

xf mj: "I just upgraded to a used 'big dragoon' Olympus to pair with a new-to-me 80–300mm-e lens, but these last posts had me really thinking I should replace my ol' 2011 E-M5 + 20mm combo with a Fuji X100v. I still very much enjoy the digital equivalent of a walk-around, almost pocketable RF with a wide-normal, and those posts were a good reminder of that love. For a few years every other comment I made on TOP expressed my allegiance to that E-M5 combo.

"So I do a deep looking back at the image quality etc of all these guys. It's all good. Quite good. What the industry achieved with that Fuji, probably with this CL, with the E-M5 Mark III, etc., is more than good enough. They are all great. They are all capable cameras, some with IS, some with good weather sealing. All I ask of everyone who owns these cameras now is to treat them nice and sell 'em cheap to me someday on eBay!

"The market has briefly forgotten this segment for the time being. Hopefully it will twist back around. Some possible evidence in the vehicle realm: I live in a rural coast area, and all the big truck bros are now into buying used Minis to drive around these days. They want stick shifts, good gas mileage, and some fun handling. Gives me a weird kind of hope. Heck, maybe a fun-to-drive, compact, reliable, light-duty truck will be back in vogue soon too!"

Mike: Strange, I just noticed the other day that I'm seeing more Minis on the road around here. There's a Mini parked in a driveway that used to serve as parking for one of those 700-HP Dodge Challengers.

A mini point-counterpoint:

Kirk (partial comment): "As to the Leica CL, which I own. The images out of that small and agile system are extremely good. It's a product that required a better educated market, and the interchangeable lens capability makes it head and shoulders better than the Fuji X100V. I owned that camera as well—until I shot with the CL. Then it was 'Adios X100V.'"

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "Re: the Leica CL, alas, 'tis fading to history. No surprise to me. I owned one for a couple of years. Yes it was kinda kute. Yes, it loved M lenses via an adapter. Yes its native lenses were nice. But the package, as a whole, was, typically for Leica, overpriced, outdated, quirky, and under-featured. I felt no sentimental pangs when UPS took mine away."

stmpjmpr: "Re 'Leica is surprised at the success of the Q series': I'm surprised that they're surprised: The Q gives a lot of the Leica feel and quality, but for those of us whose eyes aren't up to the manual focusing of the M. Its simplicity, quality, and M-inspired styling are alluring. To Yuan's point in the comments, it is EVF-based, but it's quite nice in manual focus mode."

darlene: "In 2010 I purchased my last DSLR, the D700 for an Iceland trip. My favorite Iceland photos were actually made with the smaller Canon G7 because it stayed in my pocket and was easily accessible, although the D700 images are 'prettier.' Not long after, I acquired my first mirrorless camera, an APS-C Sony NEX-7. The D700 was sold off after it slept for a year in my gear closet. I shoot tech cameras with digital backs in the studio, and Fuji APS-C cameras for all my other needs. No longer do I have a need for the 24x36 sensor. If I did not shoot medium format, that might be a different story, but medium format and tech cameras make me happy. The 4/3 system never interested me because I found APS-C good enough for my smaller format needs."

More on Those $6,000 and $7,000 Cameras

ChrisC wrote, yesterday: "I’m not sure if this is something you have already posted about, but to add to your comments on economics: Boots Theory.

Cool.

Here's The Boots Theory, in case you don't want to follow that link: "The boots theory comes from a passage of the 1993 novel Men at Arms [by the late Sir Terry Pratchett], the second novel to focus on the City Watch, in which he muses about his experiences of poverty as compared to his fiancée Lady Sybil Ramkin's conception of poverty:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

I've never heard of "Boots Theory" per se (thanks for that) but I've written about that very thing, for instance in the first paragraphs of this post from 2015. Three points by way of commentary: I heard once that the MacArthur of the MacArthur "genius" grants made his fortune in insurance, but that he self-insured his own cars. It might be apocryphal that he said "insurance is a ripoff" by way of explaining why. Next point, consider that my father, when we moved to Washington, D.C. in the 1970s so he could work for NASA, paid $200k for our house in Maryland just across the D.C. border (Zillow "Zestimates" its current value at 11 times[!] that), and he paid cash. (He was Dave Ramsey before Dave Ramsey was Dave Ramsey.) Then consider that for most middle-class people, the no. 1 or no. 2 expense of their entire lives is the interest on their house. As I said in that 2015 post, "the reality of having no money is that it costs more. Not 'more' in any diffuse general sense, taking into account intangibles like limitations on life choices and personal satisfaction: it just costs more in plain ol' money." The third point: my grandfather, an investment banker whose lifestyle I like to semi-humorously describe as "Downton Abbey at one-quarter scale," used to say you should "buy the best." When I was a young teenager, I asked him why, and he said "if you buy the best you only have to buy it once." There's Boots Theory right there...

...And a bit of advice I probably should have followed when it came to cameras!

And believe me, I've often thought about what might have been. I actually wrote a manifesto-style little essay in the 1980s declaring that I wanted to be like Eugene Atget, and continue doggedly with one technique for my whole life, except in my case it would have been what I called my "Photo 101 technique": a 35mm camera, fast B&W film, and smallish prints reproducing the whole negative out to the blackline:

Photo-101-technique prints. Paper size is 11x14 inches.

At the time I couldn't even image how such an ordinary technique would be come obsolescent, although of course now it has. So what might my life have been like if I had stretched for that out-of-reach M6 at Industrial Photo off the beltway in Maryland back in 1984, and then kept using it and actually fulfilled my little manifesto? I might still have it today, and be using a newer one or an M7 or something. Would I still be at it?

If I had bought an M6 and three lenses back then and kept using it, I would have been way ahead of where I actually am. I can't estimate how much I've wasted spent on cameras since then, but $20,000 is way too low an estimate.

Of course, it's a moot point, because I turned out to be a writer—a magazine/Web writer—rather than (primarily) a photographer. I didn't know that's what was going to happen, at the time. (Funny, though, I still consider "Photo-101 style" B&W my "real" work. I've never been able to completely "own" digital inkjet prints in color as being wholly "me.")

My point here is smaller than you think
And an answer to Thom and everyone else who suggests used gear: it's been my observation that a certain subset of hobbyists prefers used gear, probably because it's a financial win: it's cheaper, still useful, and satisfies an urge for thrift that's important to them. But by "hobbyist" I certainly didn't mean "rank beginner." They're not hobbyists. Yet. A hobbyist would more likely be someone who already has a number of older cameras (the older they are, the older their old cameras). I would counter the "buy used" approach with another subset you're very familiar with: those who are so eager to own the latest thing that they'll discard superseded models that are still in great condition and still have a lot of life left in them. (Y'all know who you are. Haven't we all done it at least once or twice?) The ones who own an X-Pro2 and just have to have an X-Pro3 as soon as it appears. That's a big group too.

I won't ask Thom how many times in his career he himself has been satisfied to buy a 5-year-old camera for his professional and personal work. It's not a fair question, as I well know, because we have to write about the newest gear and we need to be familiar with it, he much more than I.

Several readers took me to task for creating a litany of "apex" cameras and not considering the reasonably-priced alternatives that are good enough. D B wrote: "Re: the question 'are hobbyists being priced out of the hobby,' I agree with Ken T.: you (we) are not. What the heck do you (we) need a Z9, A1, or GFX 100S for?"

But that's an interesting aspect of this: how can an enthusiast site survive if it doesn't consider the best gear in the field at least occasionally? But it's been getting sort of pointless. If I write about a $6,000 camera body, the portion of readers with a real interest in the product is just so small, for the simple reason that most of them would not spend that much on a camera even if they can. I know I wouldn't. Some of you would read it anyway and might even enjoy it, but, well, there's that "what has this got to do with me" reaction that I worry about, too. The equation has gotten more...fraught, let's say.

All I was really saying with the post is that the trend to five- and six-thousand dollar camera bodies might be putting a damper on enthusiast participation in the hobby, merely because those prices close off what is conventionally considered to be the most interesting and most desirable end of the market to a greater proportion of us—that is, the total set of "all hobbyists" or all enthusiasts. I do think that's true to some extent, notwithstanding a.) those who don't desire the apex cameras, b.) those who are satisfied to buy five-year old cameras, and c.) the existence of capable intermediate-priced models. (I'm also saying that those models wouldn't exist at all if we lived in a more egalitarian society, but that's just theoretical musing.)

As John Camp wrote, "Your complaints are reflected in virtually every hobby that equipment freaks have come to dominate—hi-fi, photography, music, horse competitions, computer gaming, sporty cars. But at the extremes, except perhaps for a very, very tiny professional minority, it's all Veblen."

Anyway, I don't mind if you disagree with me. It was actually a smaller point than many people took it to be. It's just a bit of a practical problem for me these days, that's all—since I ought to be making smart decisions about what to write about.

Mike

Book o' the Week

 All About Saul Leiter. The Amazon writeup for this book says "Photography lovers the world over are now embracing Saul Leiter"—and oh boy, is that ever true of me—"who has enjoyed a remarkable revival since fading into relative obscurity in the 1980s." One of my favorite photographers. Beautiful photopoems. Saul's Early Color (which you can still get for around $300) was one of our all-time bestselling book links. (I bought two, one to thumb and one to not touch!)

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Link to B&H

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:

Nick: "When I started reading about cameras and photography in earnest, ca. 2009, I coveted the near-top models: Not the huge, pro-grade cameras, but the higher-end enthusiast cameras, like the Nikon D70. I talked myself down a bit ('for the time being,' I said) and bought into Micro 4/3 for a fraction of the price. I figured I'd sell it and get a 'real' enthusiast camera in a couple of years.

"Now, 13 years later, my income is higher, but I've stopped reading gear sites almost entirely. I just made my first gear purchase since the pandemic started: A $320 used OM-D E-M10 Mark II to use as a second body. My last purchase before that? A $320 used OM-D E-M10 Mark II to replace a Mark I that died a week before a scheduled trip to Japan. I make a good bit more now (even inflation-adjusted) than I did then, but between the rapidly increasing prices of enthusiast gear and my contentment with what I had on hand, my covetousness dwindled to almost nothing and my priorities shifted. My (still limited) disposable income goes to getting to new places to take cool photos (see above about the trip to Japan), not on the gear with which to take them. From my point of view, the lack of focus around here on gear, especially stratospherically-priced gear, is definitely a feature, not a bug."

Mike replies: I'll tell you what else pertains: consistency. Once you've done 13 years of Micro 4/3, you might want your new pictures to continue to look like your old ones. I understand this isn't always the case; sometimes people are eager to make a break and create work that has a new look. But sometimes we don't want that.

Stephen S.: "I have owned thirty Micro 4/3 camera bodies, from the bottom of the range to the top, all purchased used. Regardless of how much they were used (going by shutter count and cosmetics,) the factor that most determined which ones would fail was how much they originally cost. The lower-end cameras were far more likely to have shutter failure, command dials that didn't respond, broken battery doors, and LCD screens that blanked out, sometimes at varying degrees of tilt. It seems to me some corners were cut in their design, in order to cut costs. When they were new, it may have had made sense to save several hundred dollars by buying a lower-end camera that could produce the same images, even if it was lacking a few features. However, if buying older gear used, it now only costs a little bit more for the higher-end models, and in my experience they are far more reliable. With warranties expired, and in some cases even paid repairs completely unavailable, this is an even more important factor."

MIKE: "Boots Theory? So true, but instead upgrade to Furniture Theory. Do we imagine that the rich have to go out every two or three years to replace their IKEA furniture? Or do we conjecture that the family probably hasn't bought a new table in centuries, not since great great great great (you get the idea) grandfather bought the Chippendale table that's still in the dining room. My Dad always said the Rich live cheap."

David Lobato: "Several years ago there was an article about tripods. Photographers often bought cheap ones to start. Then when its limitations arose they bought an incrementally better tripod, and so on. Turned out that it was much more cost effective to initially buy an expensive tripod."

Mike replies: It's about the only thing I've done right. I bought a very expensive Gitzo Studex in maybe 1982, used it for 30 years, then replaced it with a very expensive carbon fiber Gitzo Mountaineer which I'm sure is my last tripod.

We Love Cameras

Apropos simple cameras, I finally learned why the IS on the A6600 sucked so badly: operator error. Natch*. When I got the camera I checked that it was "On," and on "Auto," but it seemed to be having little effect, to the point that I was beginning to dread having to report to you that Sony's IBIS (Sony calls it SS, for Steady Shot) in the A6600 sucketh**. But I'm using a Sigma 30mm Contemporary lens. Even though it's an E-mount lens and communicates with the camera, does it report its focal length to the camera? It does not. After a succession of actions too boring to relate, I went on YouTube to help me locate the SS in the @#$! menus, and learned that the focal length was set to 8mm, the first choice on the list of focal lengths. No wonder the IBIS didn't seem to work! With SS set to "Manual" and 30mm, it actually...worked. (Not as well as the Fuji X-H1's IBIS, but worked.) Presumably this wouldn't have happened if I had just paid through the nose for Sony's Zeiss 24mm.

Why did I need YouTube to locate SS in the @#$! menus? Probably because the SS controls are buried in the Video menus. I don't shoot video so I ignore those. What, stills shooters don't benefit from IBIS?

By the way, it looks like Sony has finally dropped the price on that Sonnar T* E 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA. It was $1,100 forever, but now you can get it for a mere $798. I don't know, maybe it's just a temporary sale. It's a lens I like a lot, the Zeiss Sonnar 24mm, but I'm eventually going to get around to pitting it head-to-head against the Sigma 30mm Contemporary and I have a feeling it's going to smack the canvas headfirst. And the Sigma is a spectacular bargain (truly) at $264.

The Sigma 30mm is the Butterbean of APS-C primes.

I hope the very expensive Zeiss Loxia I have coming knows what it's up against. Butterbean don't take no sh*t.

When I confided my SSNAFU to Ctein, he replied that he had the Olympus OM-D E-M5 for years before he learned (from Moose) that it would do focus bracketing. Simply because Olympus called it something different from what he expected in the @#$! (and I quote) menus.

Quote o' the Day:

"I hate cameras."

—Photographer and longtime Smithsonian
Instructor Kim Kirkpatrick

Defender
However, still on this subject, TOP reader Walter C. Foreman of Lexington, Kentucky, USA, felt compelled to rise to the vilified E-M5's defense:

"I submit this photograph," Walt writes, "in response to a recent TOPic in which the Olympus OM-D E-M5 received—rather than affection—disgust, scorn, maybe even hatred, as an example of the 'wretched excess' that has crept into modern digital cameras. It failed to be simple enough. Ironically, the E-M5 was the digital camera with which I finally felt the compatibility and ease which, back in the last century, I had felt with the Olympus OM-2n. [Gasp! —Ed.]

"Much of the distaste expressed on TOP for this camera focused on its menu system, not on the photographs it produced. Yeah, there’s a lot of stuff in there, somewhere, but since I don’t need most of it, my approach has been to ignore it, just leaving it in there, somewhere, where it can’t bother me. If it turns out that I later want to use some piece of digital magic, I can find its address.

"Meanwhile, it feels enough like an OM-2n to have won my affection: to the simple but wonderful capabilities of the OM-2n add the power to vary ASA (sic***) from shot to shot, the option to autofocus, and the very long rolls of sensitive medium, oh, and weathersealing, and I was in love again.

"I still use the original E-M5. It wanted to take its own photograph for this submission, and I have honored its desire with this self-portrait."

We will let Walt have the last word. Because we love cameras.

Mike

*"Natch," short for naturally, is a 1920s expression that people of my generation don't actually use. Well, except for Yr. Hmbl. Ed. occasionally, when he is being antiquarian.

**Best football comment of 2021, yelled by a fan just before a ref announced a penalty: "After further review, we suck!!"

***Walt wrote the "sic," not me.

Book o' the Week:

Ernst Haas: New York in Color 1952–1962. "When Haas moved from Vienna to New York City in 1951, he left behind a war-torn continent and a career producing black-and-white images. For Haas, the new medium of color photography was the only way to capture a city pulsing with energy and humanity. These images demonstrate Haas's tremendous virtuosity and confidence with Kodachrome film and the technical challenges of color printing."

This book link is 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:

'Stop Switching'

[Comments have been added.]

That's the advice of Thom Hogan of ByThom.com, who says your New Year's resolution should be to never switch camera systems again.

He makes the case for it. Charting some of the real switching dilemmas of the past, he concludes, "there's now no clear benefit. All you're doing is showing your angst and wasting money."

I also noted this sentence in passing:

"Oh, you switchers all tried lens adapters, because that seemed to be a solution that kept you from buying new lenses, but I've been amused as person after person attempting that trick quickly tires of it and succumbs to new mount lens buying."

He has further comments along that line, but let's not steal his thunder—you can read his article for yourself. I merely wanted to point out that this has been my observation over many years too. That's why I'm always advising people to make sure that all the lenses they want are available in the lensmount of the camera system they choose. Every time I say it, I hear from those few people who are happy using adapted lenses, bless 'em, but that doesn't change the fact that most people who count on using adapted lenses "quickly tire of it" once they actually have to take pictures that way.

Thom makes specific prescriptions for users of specific brands, too, in which the phrase "just get better at using it" keeps recurring. Sobering thought...that we should just get better at using what we already have. What a concept. The guy's no fun.

Another good recent Thom post: "2022 Is Going to See Changes."

Makes me want to...switch
So, when you read this post, was your reaction a.) to think of course I'm not going to switch, I already have what I want, or b.) to anxiously start thinking about switching again?

I'm in group "b," but then I'm a nut when it comes to cameras. Too old to change now*.  :-)

Mike

*Not really, but that's my handy excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Book o' the Week

American Geography by Matt Black, a great name for a photographer but a terrible internet name, impossible to search. Stan Banos calls American Geography a "handsome, well thought out and put together book." Matt's work is outstanding.

The link is a portal to Amazon. Thank you kindly for helping support The Online Photographer!

The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

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:

Ben Marks: "I had to laugh at Thom's idea, because it contains an unstated assumption that the relevant question is 'either this or that' and not 'why not this, but also that?'

"And let me just tip my hand here: I have Nikons and Leicas, a Fuji XPro-1 and an Olympus OM-D, a Pentax K1 and.... Well, you get the idea. And yeah, I am a bit of a photo gear hoarder. But the mortgage is paid and the kids aren't hungry, so....

"I do endorse the idea that no single piece of gear will be the one that makes you happy. But being able to take pictures in lots and lots of different situations, and with lots of different 'looks'? That has been shown, historically, to make me very, very happy. So when a piece of gear comes along that promises to add to those capabilities? Let's just say I have my eye on you, Nikon Z9."

Steve Biro: "If the purpose of one's involvement in photography is strictly to produce images, if one is a professional photographer or if one is attempting to do photography on a tighter budget, then what Thom writes is absolutely correct. But if photography is also an enthusiasm, if one is also a gear enthusiast or if one becomes bored periodically, one system isn't going to cut it. Over the years, my personal solution was to simultaneously run two systems that were different enough to make it interesting. I would gradually update bodies (usually as a camera maker would bring out the next generation) and add lenses to keep them reasonably current. For a while, when Micro 4/3 came out, I was running three systems. I could afford that at the time but not as I head for retirement. I'll probably go down to one main system (likely Fuji) with one full-frame body and two or three lenses to go with that.

"But if practicality is paramount, Thom Hogan has it right."

John Krumm: "I find that I yearn to switch every so often. The first switch was the hardest. It gets easier from there. I'm neck deep in keywording, re-organizing, and occasionally re-processing all my digital images since around 2008 when I bought an Olympus 420 and a 14–42mm kit lens. I get to revisit my history of switching, from the 4/3 cameras, then Micro 4/3, then Pentax K1, then Ricoh GRII, then various Fuji mirrorless cameras. Each had their charms. Got my eye on a Panasonic S5, which looks pretty sweet, but I'm resisting so far. "

John Krill: "I switched from Nikon DX cameras to Fujifilm X series cameras for one reason only. I wanted to use prime lenses. Wide to normal. And not the fastest (waste of money). I got them and I love them and the cameras. Especially my current everyday camera, the Fujifilm X-E4. I stopped using the X-Pro2 and it is now my backup. Hell of a backup, no? Anyway, I am very happy with Fujifilm cameras and primes lenses and have no desire to switch to anything else."

Joe Holmes: "I have reached the point where I can't see ever being disappointed shooting with my four-year-old Nikon D850, or my even-older collection of lenses. But to answer your question, yes, that does make me sad. I miss the thrill of new equipment."

Rick Popham: "Thom has an unusually clear-headed approach to gear advice in this age of Internet influencers. But I love switchers! Back in the day when my favorite camera store was still around, and Nikon and Canon kept leapfrogging each other, I got a lot of used Nikon gear in very nice shape. The source was a wealthy dentist who would trade in his gear and switch systems each time one frog would leap over the other. The guys at the store used to call me whenever 'Dr. D.' would start talking about the latest Canon releases (I shot Nikon).

"Nowadays I shoot mostly Micro 4/3, but would really like to trade in my Nikon F gear to try some of the new Nikon Z stuff. I guess that's a big enough change to call it a 'switch.'"

Kirk: "I didn't know that switching systems was a bad thing. I always thought it was fun and kept the process fresh and interesting. I guess I know better now. I wonder what other pursuit we can find to suck the fun out of next."

Mike adds: Kirk has been, um, known to switch from time to time. That's the problem of being a blogger...everybody knows your business!

Zack S: "I have a decent Fujifilm system; an X-T2 and six Fuji lenses which I acquired over a long period of time. Have two different pinholes for it and a zoneplate too, all in Fuji mount. The only adapted lens I have is a Holga lens in a Nikon mount and the adapter for it, but they do not work well together. Never really understood the whole adapted lens thing. When I got into the Fuji system I sold all of my Nikon things to avoid using adapted lenses. After all, what works better with a camera then lenses designed to be used with it?"

Hank: "I shoot a lot with old Leica rangefinders—I have II and a IIIa that I enjoy using very much, and the results, technically anyway, are really top notch. But I also keep my 'old' Nikon FM3a, partially because it really is a much 'better' camera than the Leicas (it does a lot more, more simply), but mostly because I seem to get more pleasing results out of it more often. With digital, I seem to be the opposite—the cameras which do more confound me a little, and they are less enjoyable to use. My little Ricoh GR III (and now GR IIIx) always seem to punch above their weight, and I end up with more interesting shots using them. Maybe it is because I expect less, or maybe because I am just more relaxed shooting them. Whatever the reason, I like 'em!

"All of which means that there is little out there now that appeals to me. I just sold my Panasonic S5. It was an excellent camera, and very good with my old Leica lenses, but never felt 'right.' I see no need to replace it with another camera of its ilk. I am beginning to learn, at nearly 60 years of age, that certain cameras do one thing very well, and once you figure out what it is, you’re golden. It’s a very personal thing, and no reviewer out there has the same needs that I do (apparently!)."

Huw Morgan: "I think the joy is slowly disappearing from the camera market just like it did for the PC market. When technology was advancing in leaps and bounds, switching cameras and computers was fun. Each switch brought a measurable jump in functionality, whether it was autofocus speed, compute speed or portability. Now that we've reached maturity in both areas of technology, a change brings little in the way of any wow factor. Right now, I think anyone would be very hard-pressed to pick a winner between a Nikon z6II, a Canon R6, and a Sony a7 IV. The pain of switching is huge compared to the tiny advantages one platform might enjoy over another.

"On the computer front, I recently upgraded from a 6 year-old desktop with a seventh generation Intel processor to a new desktop with a 12th generation Intel processor. The difference was marginal. Compared to the 'good old days' when Moore's law was in full swing, the upgrade was disappointing. The fun of technology has shifted to other areas like virtual reality and electric cars. Photography is no longer a technology race; it's back to being a profession and an art form where expertise matters more than tech."

Pak Ming Wan: "That comment about the lens adapter is so true. I bought a Pentax-K-to-Micro-4/3 adapter, with speed booster (i.e. it reduces slightly the focal length magnification) and used it for about a week or two. I finished by buying the lens I really wanted in Micro 4/3 (the Panasonic-Leica 15mm ƒ/1.7) and I haven't looked back. I haven't seen any advancements in camera technology that might make me switch. This is also supported by viewing Salgado's exhibition of 'Amazon' in London, where you can see his prints based on 2010s technology or earlier. They look perfectly fine to me."

Trust (and Aggravation)

I mentioned in the previous post that when a camera feature works inconsistently it inspires the opposite of trust.

Trust is the most important thing about any camera to me. Mostly, you gain trust in a tool by using it a lot and learning it well enough to demystify its quirks and foibles. You figure out what's happening and come up with a workaround, and then you're fine. But consistent performance is almost equally important to trust. Once I can't trust a camera, it's outta here.

I had a camera briefly that had inconsistent apertures. Really mystified me until I figured it out; you could stop it down to ƒ/8 and sometimes the hole would be a little bigger, sometimes a little smaller. An acquaintance who used the same lens patiently explained that he always moved the aperture ring at the same deliberate speed and in the same direction and as long as he did that the aperture would be pretty consistent. Well, I wasn't going to do that. Away it went.

A talented friend many years ago shot with a camera the design of which seemed nearly perfect for him, a rare bird called the Plaubel Makina 670. It was a compact 6x7 camera with an extensible bellows and a Nikkor lens. My friend, however, was bedeviled with problems with the film advance. I might be half-remembering and half-inventing this story, but, as I recall it, he first assumed he had a bad sample and bought a second copy of the camera; then, on the second one, he decided to be patient and get it serviced. Next, what happened either two or three times was that he sent it off for repair and got it back only to have it break again. As this process went along his frustration and irritation levels went up and up, and of course his trust in the camera as a tool went in the other direction. How can you get immersed in photographing when you always have it in the back of your mind that your camera might randomly stop working?

Having heard his tales about these trials and tribulations as they happened, one day I realized I hadn't heard an update in a while and remembered to ask, "so what's the status of the Plaubel?" He seemed perfectly calm about it. He explained that after the last time it broke he decided he was done with it. Didn't want to put up with the problems, didn't want to deal with selling it, just wanted it out of his head. So what became of it? "I put it in the back of the closet," he said, "and I'm pretending it's not there." Made me laugh.

...But it's a trick I adopted. I've had a couple of monumentally frustrating possessions that I did the same thing with. Just put them in the closet and commenced pretending they weren't there. Not worth the aggravation.

For all I know my friend's old Plaubel is still sitting there! I'll ask him and report back if I get an answer.

Anyway, trust is not on any feature list. And you can have trust in any camera you know well, old or new, full of features or not, pro or am, big or small. If you know what it can do and what it does and you know you can count on that, that's worth a lot.

Mike

UPDATE Wednesday: My friend no longer has the Plaubel. He also once had a collection of thousands of rare vinyl records, many very rare, and got rid of them all once CDs came along. He acknowledges that the vinyl collection would have been very valuable now, but says "you know me, move on and don't look back." It's true, it's the way he's always been.

Book o' the Week:

The second edition of old friend Bruce Barnbaum's The Essence of Photography is just out. Bruce wrote for Photo Techniques when I was Editor. I always enjoy his insights into the art and craft, even if his technique isn't the same as mine. I still learn. Mastery is fun to read about.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of The Essence of Photography at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

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:

Michael Perini: "I remember when I got my first job in a real, established photo studio, the thing that surprised me the most was the amount of 'testing' we did. No new equipment ever went on a live shoot until we 'trusted' that we understood it, and that it worked as expected in a consistent manner. Film was bought by the case from the same emulsion batch and kept cold in the film fridge. Each emulsion batch was tested on standardized targets and the same few people as models. Some batches needed 05M or 05Y and the batch was marked. We would test possible lighting setups for the kind of job we were about to do. Cameras and lenses tended to be slightly old but very well maintained. Every year we would send them to Marty Forscher's Professional Camera Repair for a CLA.

"To this day once I am comfortable with a camera, I find it hard to buy a new one without a compelling reason, and even then the old one stays as backup.

"Although that was Film, I think the lesson applies even more to the digital era. A camera that is known, trusted, and familiar enough in operation to just disappear, is usually a greater benefit to pictures than the latest technology. That is not to say that I don't enjoy the benefits technology has brought—I do—but I am never in a rush to have it, and I test it until I trust it."

David Dyer-Bennet: "Oh! And this exactly explains my relationship with face detection (in real cameras, point-and-shoot cameras, and camera phones. Every time I try to use it, it fails to lock on just when things are time-critical—and then, of course, it's not focused, either. So I hear so much about how it's a great feature, and I absolutely believe it—but when I'm in a hurry I can't afford to have it fail, and when I'm not in a hurry I don't need the help. If it's not rock-solid reliable it's not useful. So it remains turned off in my cameras.

"In fact this explains a lot about real photographers' interactions with cellphone cameras, I think. They do so much—a lot of the time. But they're not consistent, not reliable."

Stephen Scharf: "Actually, what you've described as 'trust' may not be on a feature list, but it is actionable and measurable from an engineering perspective. The examples you've given of sketchy, inconsistent, or unpredictable performance or operation is managed by a type of engineering called 'Robust Engineering.' 'Robustness' from a Design for Six Sigma perspective means that key functional responses or attributes (whatever they might be, accurate aperture or reproducible film advance in the examples you've given) perform to specification...in the presence of noise factors. A 'noise factor' is anything that takes a functional response off-target, adds variance, or both. For example, missing or incomplete functionality to due to say, humidity or temperature changes is a lack of robustness due to environmental noise factors.

"Fortunately, there are very effective ways to deal with this. A specific type of Design of Experiments (DOE's) known as Taguchi Robust Design DOE's can be performed to make functional responses robust to the effects and impact of noise factors. A classic approach are to use the Taguchi Robust DOE L12 or L16 designs.

"Good thing is, mature and sophisticated companies like Fujifilm already use these powerful statistical techniques during development. So...I don't think you need to worry about the new medium-format GFX50S II from a 'robustness' perspective."

"Cheers, Stephen, your friendly neighborhood Six Sigma Master Black Belt."

hugh crawford: "The Plaubel Makina 670 had a horrid reputation for breaking. I am amazed how many 'mint condition' examples are for sale at ridiculously high prices. Probably because they never worked long enough to get wear marks. I almost bought a used one once but when the owner of the camera store saw that I was looking at it he refused to sell it to me because he knew I’d break it. And then two customers started telling how awful their own experiences with them were. When they worked they were wonderful, beautiful cameras.

"Pre-1975 Plaubel cameras are pretty wonderful; always wanted to try a Pecoflex but was told that the spare parts were in some sort of limbo after the Japanese bought Plaubel. Camera Barn in NYC apparently bought all the stock in the late '70s and dumped it cheap."

Simon: "Trust in tools! So, so important. Thank you for writing this. I became aggravated with digital Leica M's after too many problems, especially Leica batteries losing their charge not long after purchasing original ones for $150 each. My Fuji X100S keeps going after many years, and I plan to upgrade to the latest model soon. I am not surprised Koudelka raves about these tough little cameras! If only the focus ring stopped at each end (macro and infinity), like on a mechanical rangefinder, so we could focus without looking through the viewfinder."

Howard Sandler: "On the other hand, when you shoot old vintage film cameras with all their quirks and sticky shutters and light leaks, you don't have to be a good photographer. If anything turns out at all, you impress yourself."

s.wolters: "In the 'eighties there was a group of British photographers that inspired me to buy a Plaubel Makina 670. Among them Martin Parr, Chris Killip, Paul Graham and Anna Fox. Most of them used that camera and their gallery prints were really stunning for that time. A friend in Singapore helped me to get one for an acceptable price, but after 10 rolls the mechanism got broke and the camera had to be send back to the factory. After they repaired it, it still made an awkward sound when transporting the film. The best thing about this camera was that I made a good profit when I sold it. By that time it was already out of production but somehow it was still very popular amongst connoisseurs."