The Online Photographer

More on the Nikon Z7III

SA*

The Internet thinks the new Nikons tomorrow will be called the "Z6" and "Z7." In a stunning scoop, TOP has just learned that, thanks to an 11th-hour decision by Nikon top management, which is NOT in a collective cold sweat over all this, the high-resolution 45-MP-sensor one of the pair will actually be called the "Z7III." Nikon spokesmodel Flibber T. Gibbett called the unconventional move "daring" and said, "Nikon always thinks out of the box and goes places no others have gone before. This naming is to better distinguish us from our main rival. So that everyone will be completely certain who we are better than, and know which product to buy in preference to theirs. We want to be sure this is emphasized."

Why add the "III," when there have not already been a "null" and "II" versions as with the competitor's models?

Gibbett answered that the III in Nikon's case is not a version or variant number, but is sophisticated subliminal advertising meant to remind rich people of successful, rich, and super-cool people with Roman numerals in their names such as Paris Hilton boyfriend Stavros Niarchos III, Green Bay Packers football star Clay Matthews III, Rigdon Osmond "Rick" Dees III, Coy Luther "Luke" Perry III, Alexander Rae "Alec" Baldwin III, former President of the Philippines Benigno S. Aquino III, and Marshall Bruce Mathers III a.k.a. "Eminem."

But not the conniving hunchback Richard III or mad King George III who lost the colonies to independence? Said Gibbett helpfully, "We do not want to be associated with dead kings."

We politely mentioned that we had supposed the III might be homages to the famous 19th century actors Bandō Mitsugorō III and his archrival Nakamura Utaemon III. (Japanese, you know.) But here Mr. Gibbett got agitated and corrected us, saying "No! No! Those guys are dead too! We are not associated with anyone who is dead! That is off message!"

Recovering his composure, he exclaimed, with great feeling, "The whole Internet is talking about us!"

...Which it is. The king is not dead.

We expect the name "Z7III" to be officially confirmed tomorrow....

Always first with important predictions,

Mike

*This post is satire, of course. In fact, nothing could possibly be farther from the name "A7" than the name "Z7."

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

John Camp: "Mike said, 'The Internet thinks...' LOL."

Mike replies: A few things I've learned on Internet lately:

• People get excessively drunk sometimes.
• Cranes fall over.
• Forklifts can be overloaded.
• Attempts to show off can go wrong.
• Totally shocking and unforeseen, but people grow older and then look different than they used to.
• People, especially Russians, are bad drivers.
• Obese people are sometimes not as athletic as they think they are.
• And the biggie, which continually fascinates Internet viewers: people fall down.

And something unfortunate: most people are apparently not very sympathetic when other people, even their own children, hurt themselves.

But the Internet does show us some really interesting things too. For instance, here's an improbable "capture" of lightning hitting a tree; I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that before. [Warning: NSFW profanity at the link.]

Signed, a Guy on the Internet.

Josh Hawkins: "Give it a year. We’ll have the DZ7V MKII iBVR EX AF R, because that’s how naming conventions go and it just won’t end. Why can’t it end?!"

What Is Wrong With You Guys?

I acknowledge that I'm a dinosaur, and therefore supposed to think things like this, but...I find many vloggers intensely annoying sometimes. Not all of them, but even some of the allegedly good ones. Random examples from the last two camera vids I started watching:

Random vlogger 1 explains Fuji sensors: "...X-Trans sensors. That's that magic Fuji technology in there, that honeycomb technology some people refer to it as, where it just delivers a lot of goodness in those sensors is what [sic] people love the X series. Something to be aware of with the X-T100 is, it does not have an X-Trans sensor. So it doesn't have the same sensor as the X-T20. It's got a...downgraded sensor if you will. Still a very good sensor, still 24 megapixels, just not an X-Trans. So just be aware, I think the X-T100 is going to be a great offering, I think it's going to sell well. Be aware if you're buying that, to realize that you're not getting the X-Trans sensor."

No magic Fuji technology in X-T100. Got it.

Random vlogger 2 explains Leica lens names: "...Now, if you don't know what 'Summilux' means, Summilux is basically just Leica's top series lens, so it would be like a gold ring from Nikon, or like a red ring from Canon lenses, or a G Master from Sony lenses, but, it's just their sharpest lens. It also has to do with the amount of light that comes through the lens, so a Summilux is anywhere from 1.4 to 1.8, and then ƒ/2 to ƒ/2.8 I think is Summicron, and then, you know, any aperture wider open than 1.4 is what's called Noctilux, and that's just the most light that comes through the lens. Some people would argue that's the top-of-the-line Leica lens, just because it's the most expensive series of lenses, but they're super soft, and you have to really love that look, so I wouldn't say that they're the sharpest lenses that Leica makes, even though they're the most expensive lenses that Leica makes. The Summilux, on the other hand, is the sharpest lens that Leica makes for their cameras."

Got it. Summilux = sharpest.

Anyway, you can see why people much prefer video reviews to written ones. They're just so much easier to understand. Without all that, you know, hard reading.

Who?
And I have a question. Why are they eternally addressing me as "you guys"? Do they think I'm sitting here in the company of my betatted friend-posse or something? That we go everywhere all joined at the hips? That, as we're being so addressed, we're all gathered around my computer, eyes eagerly glued to the screen as one of us surfs Web flotsam? (Or are we making these decisions in near-synchrony, like the movements of a school of small fish or a flock of sparrows?) Or, perhaps I'm supposed to imagine all the other singular, individual audience members out there in the world somewhere, sitting glumly in their mothers' basements at their spaceship-cockpit computer gaming stations, alone, watching along with me, and I'm meant to identify with them strongly enough to consider myself part of a group with them? Shudder.

There's only one of me here. I'm not a "you guys," I'm just a...guy. Singular. One. One guy. That's the extent of it in my household. I take no responsibility for, and claim no solidarity with, anyone anywhere else who might be wasting their time in the same manner and at exactly the same time as I am. Any chance vlogging (and video ads) will outgrow the brainless prattling about "you guys" any time soon?

Noo!
Speaking of brainless prattle, I turned on X-M Radio the other day to find a dj gushing about "all the iconic Saturday-morning cartoon theme music." Really?I know it's old hat to complain about the overuse of the word "iconic," but the complaining has not seemed to have much effect yet.

I thought maybe we could all just calm down for a moment to recall that the original meaning of the term icon was "a representation of a sacred personage—Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, or a saint, or angel—that was itself venerated as sacred."

Considering that etymology, the theme music to "Scooby Doo" does not quite rise to the adjective in my opinion, I'm sorry.

Just as soon as everyone on YouTube drops "you guys," maybe we can all replace the word iconic with the word familiar. I've been quietly doing this substitution in my head for a week or so now, and I haven't yet encountered a single instance where it doesn't work perfectly well, or well enough. "Familiar theme music from Saturday morning cartoons," for example, parses just fine and actually sounds like someone reasonable is talking.

Whenever you hear the word "iconic," substitute "familiar" to yourself and see if it's an improvement. Let me know if you encounter a phrase out there in the wild where it doesn't work at all—I'd be curious as to just what that would be.

If I knew what noise dinosaurs made, I'd make it right now! Somewhere between a harrumph, a whinny and a "nay," I'd guess.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Jim Kofron: "Mike, that was an iconic rant...."

Ernie Van Veen: "Every time I hear 'you guys' in a video or podcast, I immediately think, 'who me?' in the familiar voice of Scooby Doo."

Joe: "I'm literally sick to death of all this constant misuse of language!"

Mike replies: Saw what you did there.

David Saxe: "'Vlogging' can be a bit weird at times. One of the things that annoys me most is how they seem so 'peppy' and excited to to see me even though they can't. If someone greeted me on the street like that, I would be very concerned."

toto: "One good thing about some vloggers' vlogs is that your [sic] spared from having to decipher there [sic] poor spelling."

Mike replies: I resemble that remark!

Mani Sitaraman: "Video reviews and vlogging are a form of sequential access data storage, which is the least efficient way to store information for retrieval. It is exactly akin to an old cassette or reel-to-reel tape, where you had to wind the tape, tediously, to find the beginning of a particular song. And if there were no index numbers to indicate where the song began, good luck. Written reviews are much better, and a form of semi-sequential access. The eye can scan rapidly at random for key words, and then begin reading words (and thus absorbing information) in sequence, in sentence form, from the point where you perceive a keyword of interest to you. Videos are a truly terrible way of doing equipment reviews, unless the process of reviewing itself is a story that needs to be told in sequence. Top Gear automobile reviews are a good example. There has to be a strong reason to use a video as a narrative medium, and a natural fit. And that fit happens when there is an unavoidably sequential narrative to the material. Step-by-step instructions are well suited, but an equipment review is usually not."

Mike replies: Very well said Mani. (Wish I'd written that.)

Henry Petroski's fascinating but extraordinarily in-depth book The Book on the Bookshelf documents the change from scrolls, which have the same problem as videos, to books with "leaves" (pages). I lived with a guy on a farm in Vermont who had all his music on reel-to-reel tapes—many albums per tape. About the only option was to start one and let it run—which provided all the freedom of choice of listening to the radio.

How to Become a Successful Fine Art* Photographer

Guest post by Gordon Lewis

SA**

Do you want to see your photographs shown and celebrated in art galleries, modern art museums, monographs, collections, and all them other high-class places? Well my friend, that won’t be easy. The fine art photography scene is a hard nut to crack, and worth the effort only if you are really into nuts. (That was just a metaphor. Don’t read too much into it.) But if recognition in the art photography world is truly your goal, here are a few tips from an outsider’s point-of-view on how to do it.

Have an exotic-sounding name.

You’ll never get anywhere with a name like Bob Brown, Karen Carlson, or Mike Johnston. Bijan Ravishanker is more like it. Better yet, strive for being recognized solely by either your first or last name, not both. If everyone knows you by a single name, even if it’s Rufus, you have truly arrived.

Be provocative.

If you aren’t shocking, annoying, prurient, blasphemous, or at the very least, irritating, then it’s clear you’re not putting real effort into your work. If you are so reckless as to allow your photographs to popular among the masses, how do you expect anyone in the art world to take you seriously? (And frankly, why would you need their support anyway?)

Embrace conceptual, not representational, art.

Anyone can take a photograph of a street scene, a landscape, or a cat. It takes a real artist to create a photograph of a cheap motel room that features an unmade bed, cracked mirror, sheets stained with urine, and a half-eaten watermelon resting on the pillow. (You will search the web in vain for such a photograph, by the way. I made it up. See how clever and conceptual I am?)

Print extra-large.

Your images have to be measured in feet, not inches; meters, not centimeters. Unless it takes at least two people to carry one of your framed prints and mount it on a wall, it’s obvious you never had any intention of seeing it displayed in a museum or a multi-million dollar mansion. The odds are that you may only sell three or four of these prints in your entire lifetime, but if the price makes it appear that the comma is at least two digits too far to the right, you’ll still do fine.

Print extra-small.

If you have the foresight to begin your career as a fine art photographer in poverty, then the extra-large strategy will present obvious challenges and contradictions. So, print extra-small instead. That way you can comfortably and confidently pitch a narrative about how your small prints are so much more intimate, remove the distance between your work and the viewer, reflect a “less is more” sensibility, etc. Your prints can still be exorbitantly priced though. You are still a serious artist, after all.

Go to art school.
This won’t necessarily make you a better fine art photographer. What it will do is expose you to the movers and shakers in the art world, teach you the rules of the game, and provide much-needed bona fides. Let’s face it: No matter how good a photographer you are, having been a member of the Colorado School of Mines photography club does not have quite the same cachet as being a graduate of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Be deceased.
It is so much easier for art critics to build a mythos around you and your work if you’re not around to contradict it. It’s also a lot easier for dealers to hype the value of your existing body of work if you are not around to produce more.

Can I guarantee you that embracing these tips will rocket you to fame and fortune? Of course not. It’s no accident I omitted other important factors such as talent and determination. But let’s face it, if fame and fortune were really what you wanted you’d be better off pursuing a career in reality TV or becoming a lottery winner. Your odds of success, in my humble opinion, would be about the same.

 Gordon

*I don’t mean to imply that "fine art" is somehow better than "regular art"—though many people mean exactly that. I am only using the term as a way to distinguish fine art from applied arts, such as pottery, or decorative arts, such as tapestries.

**Satire Alert

Old friend Gordon Lewis, originally a colleague of Mike's from Camera & Darkroom magazine and later the writer of the blog Shutterfinger, is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook. He lives in Philadelphia. In a former life, he wrote television sitcoms in Hollywood.

©2018 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Grant: "I'm confused. I thought this was supposed to be satire."

James Hildreth: "Shutterfinger, please come back to life."

Mike adds: Shhh! He might hear you.

John Camp: "If anyone would be interested in a serious and comprehensive treatment of Gordon's satire, I would recommend Art: A New History by Paul Johnson. First published about fifteen years ago, it's still available on Amazon. Johnson reviews the whole history of art going back to the paleolithic (it's a lavishly illustrated, large-format book more than 700 pages long) but when he gets to the 20th Century, he details what he calls 'fashion art' in which novelty and public relations skills become more important that the art object itself. The book is controversial, especially with the people he excoriates: gallery owners, museum curators more interested in ideologies than in art, and artists more interested in money than in art itself. Among them: Picasso, who he portrays as the godfather of fashion art."

Geoff Wittig: "There's a sharp dichotomy in the painting world. On one side we have contemporary art, which tends to be just like Gordon Lewis describes: self-consciously hip and snarky, pretty much adhering to what prominent (i.e. catering to wealthy collectors) art dealers deem is 'real art.' The witty concept is the point; craft is basically irrelevant. On the other side is 'representational art,' what most folks would recognize as paintings that depict something real: landscapes, portraits and so on, with an emphasis on technical skill as well as vision.

"Representational art is generally dismissed by the wealthy hipsters as 'kitsch.' But folks who can see that the emperor has no clothes tend to like it."

vince garofalo: "I have been very successful with my series of potential photographs for many years. I'm getting a camera soon...."

Mike replies: My art-school mentor, Steve Szabo, once threatened to have a show consisting of photographs hung to face the wall. All viewers would see would be the backs of the frames. Steve would be seated in a chair in the middle of the gallery and he would describe in words what each photograph looked like, to anyone who asked.

Taking CES By Storm

[Ed. Note: Our Winter Print Sale is in Day 2 of 5.
Here's the post about it and here's the order page.]

SA

As everyone knows, all of the talk at CES has been about one innovative, breakthrough product: the new Nikon D5600. Lines are deep at the Nikon booth, while crickets chirp everywhere else in the hall. It's all anyone is talking about, all anyone wants to see.

As one excited showgoer cried out, "I wanted something just exactly like my D5500, but just enough better to be noticeable, and this is it!" Another said he had come "a very long way" to reassure himself about what the new camera felt like to hold. "At first it was disorienting," he admitted, "but I stood there motionless, gripping the camera in my hand and keeping anyone else from looking at it, and it began to feel like a budget Nikon DSLR to me. And I said to myself, yes...yes...this feels right."

We were able to catch up with D. Functionary Minion, Nikon's Associate Assistant Head of Blatherskite and Salespatter, by rescuing her from the press of humanity at the Nikon booth and treating her to a triangle of cold pizza-like substance and fizzless sugary-water at a dirty table near the grimy, dispiriting concessions stand here at Tech North-by-Northwest.

TOP: Greetings, Functionary—may I call you Functionary?—first of all, please explain to us all the fresh thinking and innovation that went into this new camera.

D. Functionary Minion: Actually, my friends all call me "D. Funct." You're welcome to call me "Ms. Minion." And for starters, this new camera replaces our long established and much-loved D5500 model, which was a worldwide success. Right here, if you'll look closely, you can see what's probably the biggest outward sign of all the changes inside.

TOP: You're pointing to the "D5600" badge.

Ms. Minion: Exactly! Very perceptive.

TOP: So what's the significance there?

Ms. Minion: Well, which is more, 5600 or 5500?

TOP: You're actually waiting for me to answer? Fifty-six hundred is a higher number.

Ms. Minion: Exactly. How much more, would you say?

TOP: One hundred more?

Ms. Minion [laughing]: I can see why they let you blog from your mother's basement! That was the overarching "deep principle" of our Nikon engineers in Japan—the new camera must accord with the ancient samurai principle of jumanji, which means "give them at least one hundred more."

TOP: Not all bloggers actually work in their mother's basements, you know. I work on my front porch. And I don't think jumanji means...

Ms. Minion: ...No, there's nothing much else new on the camera...that can be seen on the outside. But inside is a completely different story! A very different story.

TOP: Why don't you tell me that story.

Ms. Minion: Basically, we have sprinkled what is known inside the company as "magic eye-eye dust" all over the camera.

TOP: And what is "eye-eye" dust?

Ms. Minion: It stands for "incremental improvement."

TOP: Got it. And what incremental improvements are there?

Ms. Minion. Oh, a bunch of them. There are lots. All sorts of them.

TOP: Such as, specifically?

Ms. Minion: Are you ready? This camera can communicate wirelessly...through the air.

TOP: Do you mean it's got Wi-Fi?

Ms. Minion: It's magic, blogger. Something never before known.

TOP: Well, I agree it seems miraculous, but actually it's been around for...

Ms. Minion: Our marketing tagline is "Connected. Just Like a Smartphone. Only Not Quite As Convenient."

TOP: Speaking as a wordsmith, that's not a very compelling tagline.

Ms. Minion: The D5600 is an extremely capable little camera!

TOP: Agreed. But wasn't the D5500 an extremely capable little camera?

Ms. Minion: No.

TOP: No? Why not?

Ms. Minion: Because we don't need it to be.

TOP: Your predecessor seemed to think pretty highly of it two years ago.

Ms. Minion: We needed it to be then. We're not on that cycle any more. We're on this cycle. Marketing doesn't target all corporate products, you know, only the products that are in the selling cycle. The D5600 is the absolute latest thing. It's bleeding-edge new.

TOP: Well, actually it's been around since last November in the rest of the world.

Ms. Minion: I only handle North America. May I have another piece of pizza?

TOP: You liked that? I thought it was pretty close to the worst pizza I ever let past my lips. It was cold and old. The crust was soggy and the cheese was congealed.

Ms. Minion: Yes, it tasted like wet carpet. May I have another piece? Please don't make me go back to the booth.

TOP: Given that it was nine dollars a slice, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy your own this time.

Ms. Minion: Deal, sad blogger-boy.

TOP: Boy? I'm almost sixty years old!

Ms. Minion [puts her hand on my shoulder]: Aww. There there. I know. Last year at this time I was working in a knit shop in the desert south of town. Would you like another piece?

TOP: Can't you see I haven't even eaten this piece?

Ms. Minion: Oh, but I'm sure that old one is gone. They've probably put out a whole new pie by now. It's probably just out of the oven and it's sizzling fresh and steaming hot. Oooh—ooh—yum! I can just about smell it from here.

TOP: Right as you said that, I imagined I smelled the aroma of hot pizza.

Ms. Minion: It's just what you want. Picture it in your head. Exactly like you like it. The latest thing, new and beautiful and as good as they can make it! Oh so good! It'll be delicious! Fresh, tasty and satisfying!

TOP: You're good at this.

Ms. Minion: Thanks.

TOP: Here's nine dollars. Don't buy it unless it's actually better.

[After several minutes, Ms. Minion returns with two more slices of pizza on paper plates.

TOP: Hey! This looks just like the first slice.

Ms. Minion: Nope! This time there are mushrooms. See? It's better.

TOP: Let me guess: one hundred better?

Ms. Minion: [laughs] You're seeing how this works. Eat up, fat sad old blogger! We all need our strength this week.

Mike
(SA = Satire Alert)

P.S. Joking aside, the D5600 costs only $697 and offers very good image quality for the price. Here is the list of all the new products from CES '17 in Las Vegas.

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Hot pizza!
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Roger Cicala: "First, thank you for the laughs. Second, thank you for reminding me why I don't go to CES anymore. A great read to start my day."

Juha Haataja: "What a nice start to the day to read this in the morning, well done indeed. Well, what can a marketeer do if the engineers keep on turning out the same product again and again? Given that, I'm quite happy that there hasn't been an announcement of an upgrade to the Panasonic LX100, thank you very much. And if there is, please don't mention it. (Even though 'LX200' would be exactly one hundred more.)"

kirk tuck: "Can't buy the D5600. Am saving money for their 'Key Mission' camera. According to their advertising 92% of Americans want one now. I don't know what the hell it is but if 92% of Americans want one how can I go wrong? But I have a question I was hoping someone here could answer...is it just a Go-Pro with a different logo slapped on the front? Did they just rush out some rebadged Nikon Go-Pros?

"Is the Key Mission some sort of routine to keep track of one's car keys? Is that the whole mission or is part of it to record 'intimacy' as suggested in their survey of American buyers? Some 15% indicated they desired a 'Key Mission' to record their hanky panky. That's a lot of Americans!

"But then I read the (almost invisible) fine print and found out that the math genii at Nikon marketing were able to extrapolate all these percentages and numbers from a survey group of a little over a thousand self-selected poll takers.

"New math. Now that it's socially okay to lie about...anything I guess camera advertising is going to become exciting again. Go Nikon!!!"

hugh crawford: "When I read that I thought you were just making up the word blatherskite. But it turns out that it is not only a real word but is just as scatological as I imagined. Not only that, but I learned 'cheapskate' has nothing to do with skating! It seems our Scottish ancestors not only wore kilts but knew their s***."

The Kidding Camera

Ralph Kidding, of Kidding Camera Company, yesterday held a press conference to announce Kidding's new camera. We've removed all the interesting bits of his talk and just extracted clues to the technical specs of the new camera, because that's the only thing anybody is interested in. Here are some high points from Ralph's presentation. Warning—he's a kidder.

• The new camera will have an actual name rather than a hard-to-remember designation consisting of alphanumeric hash.

Kidding! It will be called the ZRZ-01.1X Mark I. That's to distinguish it from our Z-RX 011X Mark I, which is an entirely different camera, and the competitor's XRZ-01.1Z Mark I.

• Frame rate is only four frames per second, slow enough to require users to actually pay attention to what they're shooting and anticipate the optimum moment of exposure, but fast enough to be ready for the next shot.

Kidding! It shoots at 16 frames per second. Point it and hit it, you ought to get something.

• The camera is made larger than absolutely necessary because we thoughtfully studied optimal ergonomics for adult hands. It's designed to be comfortable and secure to hold and operate.

Kidding! We made it as small as possible, because we could. It's the size of a pack of cigarettes, and there's no place to hold it. You have to operate it holding it uncomfortably with your fingertips. But don't grab it the wrong way, because you'll be sure to hit a button by mistake and change a setting.

• There's just one autofocus point so you always know where it's focused, shown by a small rectangle in the viewfinder that changes from red to green to confirm focus. Switch the lens to manual focus and focus peaking comes on; half press the shutter and all the focusing aids disappear.

Kidding! There are 59 AF points that randomly light up, come off and on in delightful patterns, and never go away. Some of the 59 rectangles don't even correspond to focusing points, but they look good. Plus, we'll decide what our camera will focus on. It's our camera. Who do you think you are?

• However, it focuses securely even in very low light and locks on extremely quickly.

Kidding! The important thing is the top spec, for marketing purposes. You won't notice it isn't consistent until after you bought it, and by then, well, to be honest, we don't care.

• We kept the controls to a functional minimum, to enable operating the camera to become second nature.

Kidding! We loaded it with as many dials and buttons as possible. All of them do many different things, all are very complicated to set, and some of the controls even change functions spontaneously to remind you of what else they can do. Several buttons don't do anything but create pleasant noises and nice lights in the viewfinder!

• We kept the features to a minimum too. We build dedicated accessories that make our equipment configurable for different kinds of work.

Kidding! It's all about the shopping checklist. Whoever has more, wins. We load up on the features even if they work so poorly they're useless.

• The controls are designed to be silky smooth and pleasant to the touch, with a beautiful feel, and solid and durable for long-term consistency.

Kidding! We didn't even think of that.

• No video. If you build a boat, it's made to either be rowed, sailed, or propelled by an engine. No boat does all three well.

Kidding! Boats!?! We build cameras. We've got eighty guys at this company who don't even care if the camera does stills.

• Menus are for restaurants. Our camera can be hard-configured when connected to a computer, but the in-camera controls are minimal. For instance, there is no JPEG processing at all because we find that 99% of our customers process using standalone software.

Kidding! This baby has eighteen layers of menus, all denoted by enigmatic symbols, and none of the layers has options that all fit on one screen—they all have to be scrolled. Plus, we've used names for every function that are proprietary to our company alone. It's all right there in the 585-page manual.

• The viewfinder is critical to the photographer's interface with the world, so it's large, clear, and bright, and never obscured by informational overlays during the act of shooting. 

Kidding! Viewfinders? [Sing-song voice] Af-ter-thought. There's all kinds of stuff you can put on there. We have nine different combinations of clutter for the viewfinder, all of them really cool and futurey-looking. As a joke, one of the viewfinder configurations makes it impossible to see anything through it at all. And one screen can't be gotten out of. You have to turn off the camera and turn it back on. No reason, we just thought that was funny.

• As a courtesy to loyal customers, we're not inflating the price on introduction so we can stimulate sales with deep discounts later, destroying the investment of early adopters. We've chosen one very fair price that we intend to stick to.

Kidding! Gouge, baby, gouge! Plus, we'll be replacing this in two years, clearing out the old model for pennies on the dollar. Our customers better be ready to live for the moment. Clock's ticking! Carpe diem, baby! It's all about the churn!

• Also as a courtesy to customers, we have designed the sensor and processor as a factory-replaceable module. Future upgrades might cost 60% of the cost of this camera, because the development cost of sensors and processors is a large part of the cost of a digital camera, but at least our customers won't have to replace bodies they're used to and expensive accessories they've collected that fit those bodies, nor get used to a whole new suite of controls. Our cameras are accordingly made not only to last, but to wear beautifully.

Kidding! That would be insane. Might as well take a hatchet to the neck of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Bodies are disposable. Want the latest sensor, you gotta pay us for the rest. Heck, half the time we change stuff just to change it, no other reason. Makes sense though, because in three years this thing will look old enough to enter college. We live in the disposable age. Get with the program.

• Because the sensor and processor is a module, it was easy to make the camera configurable out of the gate. You can choose one of three sensors based on your own needs. No more paying for more pixels than you want or having to buy different bodies for different purposes.

Kidding! One size fits all, all the toppings every time.

[And so forth.]

Thanks, Ralph. We look forward to the announcement of the ZRZ-01.1X Mark II, two years from now. In the meantime it will be great fun to speculate about all the things that might be different about it, and then argue about the speculations as if they were true, while we hugely exaggerate the very small flaws of the Mark I, half of which are only theoretical anyway. The Mark I ships as soon as you're all bored with talking about it.

Mike

Disclaimer: No commentary on any particular camera or company intended.

Original contents copyright 2016 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.

TOP's links!

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

adamct (partial comment): "Oh, but Kidding Camera Company did away with 585-page manuals a long time ago. Now there is a PDF, downloadable from the Kidding Camera Support website, that is 400 pages long, with the same 25 pages of content appearing in 16 different languages. The manual was originally drafted in Mullukmulluk, then translated (poorly) into the other 15 languages.

"The manual is incredibly useful. For example, when going through the menu system, you may be confronted with the choice of whether to set Elevated ASA Smoothing (Kidding's proprietary name for High ISO Noise Reduction) to High, Low, Off, Automatic or Variable. Confused by the Automatic and Variable options, how they differ, and what it is that causes them to change the degree of Elevated ASA Smoothing applied, you may wish to consult the manual. There you will learn that in the Elevated ASA Smoothing sub-menu, you have the choice of setting the camera to High, Low, Off, Automatic or Variable."

Hugh Smith: "Back in the day (does anyone actually know what that means, Ralph? Anyway...) Pop Photo ran their annual April Fool's issue and two stand out in my mind. The first was a Smashelblad wherein a tiny hammer smashed the 8x10 mirror. Thoughtfully, it came with a small broom for cleaning after every shot. The second was a 'Dark Bulb' for those who didn't have a darkroom. Simply screw the bulb in and, when turned on, the room went instantly black. Now the upturn to this is we actually had a customer come in and ask for it. When I told her it was a joke, she left in a huff mumbling something about my not keeping up with the times. Just mi dos pesos."

Ken: "Helloooo.... Is anybody there? Bueller? You forgot to provide the links to pre-order.... Kidding!"

Luke: "You left out the way the tripod mount blocks access to the card and battery. This is an important and common feature these days. Oh, and focus-by-wire with so much wired-in hysteresis that you cannot focus by rocking the focus ring. A Pana, Oly and Fuji specialty."

Man Seeking Woman

SA*

Rejected by eHarmony from an unknown man in Dubuque, IA:

I am a unique individual: I like financial security, excellent health, enjoying all that life has to offer, and giving my sweetie roses**.

Other things I enjoy: time off; cash windfalls; free swag; getting away with things; lying when it's convenient; being waited on; traveling on somebody else's frequent flier miles; fart jokes at times that are very inopportune for you; making you pay for drinks; hitting on your friends and pretending it's all in fun; having no responsibilities; not growing old despite the passage of time (me: a very young 52); ignoring you to watch football, because I just love football; ignoring you to watch random sports I don't even care about, such as skeleton luge and slopestyle skiing; promising to accompany you to church and then backing out at the last minute, every single time; eating, eating well, eating very well, eating very well without having to help clean up (in ascending order). I am fond of being accorded high status for no reason and when people tell me I'm handsome; people sucking up to me; people mistaking me for someone famous; heroin without consequences (impossible, and did I ever find that out); co-worker underlings acting deferential because they're frightened of my power and my intermittent capricious ruthlessness. Winning. Especially undeservedly.

What my friends say about me: that I am scintillating, brilliant, corruscating, incisive, charming, beloved, strong, infinitely bold, passionate and deeply spiritual. Actually I don't know what the heck they say about me because most of them live in other cities and we hardly ever see each other any more, and we talk "once a year" which is actually more like once every three to five years. But enough about me!

You: you should look like Amanda Holden but not be quite so old, even though the real Amanda Holden is ten years younger that my fake age (the one I'm lying about which is five years less than my real age)—but don't forget, you must agree to look like Amanda Holden looks now when you get to be the age she is now. Before I go to the hassle of meeting you in person, you must agree to marry me eventually if I want. You should also agree to go away quietly if that turns out to be what I want. Total commitment, true loyalty, and complete honesty on your part are a must.

 

My approximate appearance. If I were a little younger. And a little thinner. And had a little more hair on my head. And a little less on my upper body. And a better tan. What? What makes you think I
pirated this picture off the Internet?

I am very buff and fit. Oh wait, that was 25 years ago. My memory of once having been fit, however, exerts a powerful influence over my self-image now, even though I have not worked out since Clinton was President and the only way I could run fast is if I were being chased by a criminal or a large animal that was trying to kill me—which would be self-defeating, since running hard at my age would cause me to experience a massive heart event and die anyway. Or at least enter a vegetative state. Which, come to think of it, would probably mimic my general energy level fairly closely. My appearance now does not bother me—I'm still thin from in here, and I find it easy to ignore my added weight. So it should not bother you. I cannot however ignore excess weight on you, because I can see you—so you must be, and agree to stay, fit and trim.

So I guess what I'm saying is that my ideal mate should enjoy exercising alone.

You should earn at least $75,000 a year—that would make our combined income as a couple $100,000 a year, which I consider a comfortable level. So I am generously thinking of both of us with this requirement.

In short, am the kind of person who likes perfect weather, tropical island getaways, carefree fun, beautiful music, being adored by domestic pets, and being happy. I like to laugh—and really, how many human beings can say that?

Oh, and yes, I can tolerate walking on beaches as well as candlelight. So as you can plainly see, I'm perfect for you.

•     •     •

The foregoing is fiction. Any resemblances to anyone's real eHarmony profile are completely coincidental.

Happy [cynical, satrical***] Valentine's Day!

Mike

*Satire alert

**Exactly once per relationship

***And also the real, sincere, heartfelt kind, if and where applicable

Original contents copyright 2014 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.

TOP's links!

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

Burton Randol: "I remember, as a bracing antidote to the usual personal ads, a 1999 Valentine's Day article in the New York Times that contrasted the British approach, as represented by actual postings in the Personal Ads section of the London Review of Books, with counterparts from the New York Review of Books. Excerpts from some of the (real) British ones:

Sixty-seven-year-old disaffiliated flaneur picking my toothless way through the urban sprawl, self-destructive, sliding towards pathos, jacked up on Viagra and on the lookout for a contortionist....

Why, oh why, oh why?...47-year-old male serving life sentence in Scottish academia. Respondents must know absolutely nothing about Byron or Shelley and loathe the thought of reading Wordsworth and Keats. Blake is a concessionary 'maybe' only.

Illiterate old bastard with not a single book in sight seeks someone to read poetry and wash away the interminable cynicism that comes with reading this magazine. Must harbor profound hatred of Tuscany.

A hopeful young student of Freud/Is looking for fun unalloyed/She's fresh, free and flirty/And loves to talk dirty/About dreams she's especially enjoyed.

"Here's the article."

Jim Witkowski: "Oh! I thought you were writing about me!"

Anonymous: "Funny story from me time. Last year, when Peter Turnley's book was offered, I ordered a copy and recall that it was suggested (if not by you, then by commenters) that it would make a good Valentine's day gift. Some time later, I reactivated a profile on a dating site and (skipping skipping skipping) tonight I'm taking my wonderful girlfriend to a nice dinner at a restaurant of her choosing, where I will be giving her the copy of French Kiss, and I will serenade her. FWIW, both of our profiles were oddly not like the satiric version you wrote, and in fact would have scared off many women (in the case of mine)."

Stats

As of today, there are an estimated 7.129 billion people in the world.

6.786 billion of them have digital cameras.

5.318 billion people have an app out. 16.7% of those have hired PR agencies, and 8.53% of those have an employee named Jessica, Ashley, Brittany or Amanda* who would be happy to let me have a free app in return for a review which surely my readers would be interested in.

Four million people are having a show (804 million if you count the Internet). This number fluctuates. The average number of prints sold per show is .007 (<.000001 if websites are included.)

Approximately 2.6 million of the planet's residents spend some appreciable amount of time looking at other peoples' photographs.

Slightly fewer than 1.3 million people have a book out. This is good, but it makes it difficult to keep up. No one person on Earth, for instance, has seen every book published by Steidl except maybe Steidl. But it's possible he has missed one or two.

Cumulatively, about $44,800,000 was spent for photographs in 2012, which sounds good at first, but roughly half of it went to 21 photographers in L.A., NYC, Toronto, London, Paris, Rome, Milan, Berlin, and Tokyo, and they haven't actually seen any of it yet. (Still in the billing cycle.)

More than 650 photojournalists are still employed! 

On the bad side, all but three are nervous.

Of the 6.786 billion cameras in the world, more than 220 million of them are advanced, interchangeable lens cameras with 1" sensors or larger. But those 220 million cameras are owned by only 16 million people, including 1,450 guys who are completely out of control. Oh, you know who you are.

Of those 16 million advanced camera owners, only eighty-seven individuals understand every single feature on every one of their cameras.

Of those, one-third write blogs.

•     •     •

I have all the above on pretty good authority, but you should bear in mind that I'm not good with numbers.

Mike

*Absolutely no disrespect to anyone who has any of those names. They are beautiful names.

P.S. TOP is off tomorrow. Knowing me, I'll probably post something anyway.

Original contents copyright 2013 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.

TOP's links!

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

Jock Elliott: "'Of those 16 million advanced camera owners, only eighty-seven individuals understand every single feature on every one of their cameras.' It calls to mind an old saying from the world of shooting sports: 'Beware the man with one gun; he might know how to use it.' I, for one, find my problem is not that I need a new camera, but that I don't know how do adequately use the ones I have."

Erik: "'Statistics are like bikinis: what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital…' —Prof. Aaron Levenstein."

Nasty D800 Pixelization

Do you remember my very first shot with the D800, the picture of my dog Lulu on the back porch from this post? You might want to take another look if you don't.

Well, a terrible problem has cropped up. There is huge, obvious, blatant pixelization in part of the shot: look at the peace signs on her collar:

iPhone 5 Promo Video Leaked

Our lives are good.

Mike
(Thanks to Paul De Zan)

UPDATE: I swear I didn't know this was arriving on Wednesday...the Nikon CoolPix S800c,"...the first CoolPix that's also an Android smart device. All the imaging power of a Nikon—superior optics, telephoto zooming, a high resolution image sensor and much more, meets the endless possibilities of the Android OS and Wi-Fi connectivity. Create exceptional photos and Full HD videos, then edit, style and share them easier and faster than ever before."

Any resemblance to the "cameraphone" in the spoof video is, I presume, entirely coincidental...

...And in a related note, I heard on the radio today that Apple expects to sell 200 million of the real iPhone 5's. Wow.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

God Answers Prayers

In an uncharacteristic move, God apparently began actually answering prayers in the U.S.A. sometime on Wednesday evening, until sometime early this morning. Among the extraordinary effects:

• All but 168 purchasers of Lotto tickets for Wednesday's drawing won. Despite widespread initial euphoria, after the usual fees and administrative costs were skimmed off the top each $2 ticket paid $1.38.

• Nationwide, 1,460,385 sick and hospitalized patients miraculously recovered. On the other hand, more than 2 million previously healthy people dropped dead for no outward reason.

• 1,856 fourteen-year-old boys were transported literally into World of Warcraft. Once their parents discovered they were missing, more than 1,600 of them came home again. (The parents of the remainder evidently prayed for something else.)

• More than 2,600,000 young (and some not-so-young) people suddenly got cars. Brand of choice: Corvettes. Those who have religious parents will never get hurt or killed in them.

• Many mortgage and rent payments were miraculously made.

• 12,392 TOP readers suddenly acquired their dream camera outfits, plus various lenses, printers, and accessories. In most cases, their spouses did not notice the acquisitions.

• To spare you the gruesome details, let's just say that the approximately 14-hour period during which God was answering prayers was not a good time to be a boss.

• More than 56,000 men got lucky with women they met in bars late Wednesday evening. However, most of those men disappeared in a poof of smoke as soon as the women woke up sober the next morning.

God suspended the answering of prayers quickly as it became apparent that it is a logical impossibility for every American football team to win its first game. "People like to say 'God knows,'" God told reporters. "But I really don't. Both teams can't win." He added, with a chuckle: "You'd think there would have been fewer of those kinds of prayers to deal with, on account of it's only the preseason. But no."

Mike
(Inspired by Sal Santamaura)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Jim Hart: "In Detroit we do not pray to God for a football win. We do, however, pray to Bobby Layne to intercede with God in hopes of someday getting a professional football team."

Mike replies: I thought you guys did pretty well last year...you had our respect.

Featured Comment by Emmanuel Huybrechts: "I love your humor. Not quite as funny as athletes thanking gods but very close."

Featured Comment by Steve: "Unfortunately, very sad post! Your photography related information is excellent on the other hand."

Featured Comment by Dave: "Mike: I was one of the 12,392 on whom God saw fit to bestow their dream camera kit. There was, however, a bit of delay in processing my prayer as the Canon T90 and full set of lenses were prayed for 1986. On a related note, anyone wishing to purchase an unused vintage film camera should contact me via email."

Proper Handling of Memory Cards for the Digital Photographer

By Lamberto Go

SA*

Tip #1. Download, email, post-process and/or print your images promptly. If you wait weeks or months, the colors could fade, saturation could suffer and color balance could shift. Or worse, image files could become corrupt or you could misplace your card.

Tip #2. When you're not going to use a memory card for a long time, it's a good idea to securely wrap it (make sure it's airtight) and store it in the freezer. Doing this helps preserve the card's ability to retain data so that your images remain crisp and sharp. To thaw the card, take it out of the freezer and place in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Then take it out of the fridge and place it away from direct heat and sunlight, until it reaches room temperature. Do not unwrap until it is fully thawed. That bit of moisture could affect the card's ability to hold the images. Do not microwave.

Tip #3. Try not to swap memory cards in direct sunlight. But if you must, at least shade it with your body. Never, ever swap cards in direct sunlight. It could melt some of those metal contacts. Store the filled-up card properly, and make sure the memory card compartment on your camera is shut tight after replacing the card. We don't want any stray light ruining our images now, do we? And what to do with the filled-up memory cards? Why, see Tip #1 above, of course.

Tip #4. Handle memory cards only by the edges. Avoid getting fingerprints on your card—they will show up in your images, leading to countless hours of Photoshopping. (Well, the upside is, at least you'll become a master of Photoshop.)

Tip #5. When traveling through airports, carry the cards with you. Don't pack them in checked luggage, where they could be subjected to strong X-rays, not to mention pilferage. Strong X-rays could fog not only images already on the card, but also those still to be taken. Fogging can be particularly severe if you shoot at high ISOs.

Follow these tips, and you'll be on your way to enjoying problem-free photography, at least where memory cards are concerned. Happy shooting!

Lamberto

*Satire alert.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Panasonic GF Series to Continue to Get Smaller

SA*

In an interview with the Japanese magazine Fashion Camera
(方法カメラ) yesterday, a spokesman for the Panasonic Corporation revealed the company's ultimate aspirations for its GF mirrorless camera: to make it as small as a contact lens.

"Engineers need goals," said Toshiro "Elmer" Kikuchiyo. "People really liked the size of the GF1, so we made it smaller. That made our customers 23% happier, so, when our engineers came to us looking sort of aimless and lost, our management direction was clear."

Elmer said he expects the current direction to continue. In Japan, one iteration or generation of a concept is enough to establish a tradition. At the current rate, the Panasonic GF camera will be essentially too small to see easily by 2023, at approximately the GF18.

"We envision it being too small to find when you drop it on the floor," said Elmer, smiling, "like a contact lens. This will make our customers 819% more happy."

As the camera gets smaller, its instruction book will get larger.

Asked if perhaps the ever-diminishing size might not have consequences in terms of photographic competence and capability, Elmer replied that only one of their designers, who he identified as Hideo, is a photographer. Hideo originally thought that the best direction might be to start with the excellent base of the GF1 and add photographic capability. Panasonic opted for the opposite approach. "First, in the GF1, we eliminated the superfluous viewfinder," said Elmer. "Now we've eliminated the hot shoe. Some of our more visionary designers are already proposing to eliminate the LCD viewing screen next. And why not? You can't see it outside anyway." He added that Hideo is a good employee and keeps quiet.

If he ever does say anything, Hideo will be assigned to figuring out how to make ink cartridges for inkjet printers hold less ink.

Mike

*Satire Alert. This post in no way reflects the views, beliefs, or intentions of Panasonic Corp. or any of its employees named Hideo.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Edward Taylor: "Then there is this—quoted from Engaget: 'We know some of you have been a little disappointed in Panasonic's GF line of Micro Four Thirds cams as they've shed advanced features and become more "consumer friendly"—terrifying words for any serious user to hear. But, we've got some good news, at some point in the future the GF line will split with a more professionally-minded model sold alongside the more simplistic GF3. That's straight from the mouth of Ichiro Kitao, the head of Panasonic's camera division, who spoke to PhotoRadar about the company's plans. When the GF1 will finally get a spiritual successor isn't exactly clear, but we're glad to hear the pocketable Micro Four Thirds series will finally get another serious shooter.'"

Mike replies: Will this happen before or after the pro-level Olympus Micro 4/3 body arrives? Sorry, I'm being cynical again. Can't help it sometimes, though.

Featured Comment by Jim McDermott: "Stop knocking Panasonic and Sony. We all realize the benefits of the truly pocketable camera, or as Mike calls it, the DMD. That magical moment arrives, you plunge your hand into your pocket, whip out the DMD, pause only to blow off the tissue fluff, take a second look, blow off that last, stubborn bit of fluff, switch on the camera, deftly descend through three menus on the touch screen, set the action program, touch back to shoot mode, raise the camera at arm's length to peer into the rear screen (your only option), whack celebrity in face accidentally as you do so, get knocked to the ground by said celebrity's boyfriend, land heavily on DMD, make mental note as you lose consciousness to bring along Gandolfi next time."

Tsk, Tsk—Bad, Very Bad!

SA*

A Guest Post by L. T. Gray

I'm afraid our friend Lloyd Chambers has stepped in it. Stepped square in fresh poop with a great big squishing sound. He's written a commentary about the Leica M9 that's not totally over the moon about that august device (which Mike actually quite likes, we hasten to add—even though he can't figure out how to get the Tri-X in).

I can't find the post Mike wrote on the Leica User Group (LUG) many years ago now called "The Leica Rules" or something like that, but I do remember one of the cardinal rules, which is that you're not allowed to criticize current Leica products. Only once they've been replaced can you talk frankly about the flaws of the earlier versions. Until it is replaced by Leica, every current Leica product is by definition unimproveable. That's a fact of life—a Universal Truth. Axiomatic.

For instance, if you'll remember, Mike wrote a review of the Leica M8 (in separate "Pro" and "Con" sections) that now looks quite sane and balanced. But it wasn't at the time, because, when he wrote it, the M8 was still a current product. Big mistake. Leica fans let him know in no uncertain terms what an irredeemable shit he is. And they were right to do so.

He should have learned his lesson long ago, when he wrote a review of the 35mm Summicron (4th version, now called the "Pre-ASPH") that was only mostly glowing. He said the lens had excessive vignetting with thin-emulsioned B&W films such as 100 Delta. He duly got raked over the coals by aficionados for daring to say such a thing. Later, when Leica introduced the 35mm Summicron ASPH, it mentioned that one of the improvements is that it vignettes much less than its predecessor version. You see, only then did the earlier lens start to vignette; before that, it never did.

Lloyd, your review might look perfectly reasonable...someday. Once the M10 has come out. Until then, though...well, your timing is very poor, and you've done a bad thing. Very bad. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done until you're ready to play by the rules again.

L. T.

(Important Note: I had nothing to do with writing this post. Don't blame me. I am not the author. L. T. Gray is a former columnist for the now defunct English Darkroom User magazine. —Mike)

*Satire Alert.

Send this post to a friend—but please, not if your friend is a Leica user!

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Ed Buziak, Founding Editor (ret.) of Darkroom User magazine: "El Tigre, huh? My lips are sealed!"

Featured Comment by Erlik: "I saw Lloyd's rant. I don't mean it pejoratively, but it is a rant. I had two questions.

"One: if you can find so many things wrong with the camera, what have you been doing with it for two years?

"Two: the camera is too expensive? Wasn't it too expensive when you bought it?

"Besides, for all his expertise and experience, I wonder whether he thought everything through. I'm not talking about the reactions. Couldn't care less. But we all know that Leica is a boutique manufacturer. He must have known that.

"So where does he think that Leica is going to find manufacturing resources for increased numbers of cameras and lenses should they lower the prices? And why does he think that Leica wants to raise the numbers of its cameras and consequently lower its prestige and margins?"

Special Edition Leica

SA*

You've no doubt heard of a blue-chip company. Well, now there's a delightful camera with a new type of "chip." In a move cleverly designed to protect collectors' investments, Leica has announced an M9 with a body covering made of baked molasses cookie studded with real chocolate chips. The unusual camera body covering—believed to be a World's first—is meant to insure future purchasers of the collectible-to-be that their camera has in fact never been used, or even displayed in direct sunlight. Anything but the very lightest touch would naturally cause the chocolate chips to run or melt; thus, anyone acquiring one of these highly desirable cameras on the aftermarket will be able to see almost literally at a glance that their camera has never been degraded by any picture-taking activity.

The camera features sapphire glass and a silver-chrome 35mm Summicron lens. Only 50 will be made. Leica tells owners of the new camera that they may test their camera to assure themselves that it works properly by soaking their hands in ice-cold water, drying them quickly, and then making one or two exposures before their fingers warm up. Even so, the precious edible must be handled with the greatest care, or touched only on the top and bottom plates.

Priced at $129,500, the new camera comes at a satisfying premium of$121,500 over the price of an ordinary M9.

Mike

UPDATE: We have been notified that we slipped a digit in the price of the Chocolate-Chip Leica. TOP regrets the error. The actual price is $1,295,000.

UPDATE #2: We have now been notified that we did indeed slip a digit in the price, but in the other direction, you idiot, the other direction. The real price of the camera is $12,950. This means you pay a mere $4,950 extra for the chance to own this delicious soon-to-be-prized confection. We believe we've got the number right now and once again, regret the error.

UPDATE #3: The cookie coating is not ostrich leather, as might have been reported on other sites. Do not contact PETA.

Mike
(Thanks to OG)

*Satire alert. Picture courtesy leicarumors.com.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Paris: "I read on the Web that the thermal expansion properties of the cookie dough change the flange focal distance, so some lenses may not focus to infinity. Deal breaker. Count me out."

Featured Comment by Player: "I believed every word. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary to me: just another slice of the Leica aficionado/ collector's life. I was incredulous to learn it was satire :)."

Featured Comment by Roger Bradbury: "At this price, it must be a fortune cookie."

Featured Comment by chris: "Your 'Update #2' is still wrong. You forgot to subtract the cost of the Summicron lens; the price premium is, umm, only, about $3000 more than a regular-production M9, not $5000 more.

"Yes, I got that it was satire. The sad part is that given the abysmal non-availability of Leica M9s and most of their best M lenses, a $3000 premium to take them both home today almost seems reasonable.

"What pushes this all firmly beyond the range of satire is that once you take them home, chances are you'll have to send it all off to Solms for another couple of months before you get everything actually working perfectly. (Yes, I own an M9, and in spite of everything I am not sorry.) Heck, if they've 'pre-re-adjusted' the sets they're selling, these would be practically a price wash in terms of basic value—after the addition of 35 cents worth of black gaffer's tape...."

Mike replies: I actually did forget to subtract the cost of the lens.

Featured Comment by David: "You wrote, 'Only 50 will be made.' I believe that number may be in error. Another source mentioned the quantity as being a baker's dozen. Another concern is the rumor that Leica can't actually warranty any product that's been baked at 350 deg. for a few minutes. Damn lawyers!"

Mike replies: Those other sources are almost correct. The actual number to be produced will be 3.846153846154 baker's dozens, closely approximated. Thanks for pointing this out!

Terrorists ’Sick of Being Treated Like Photographers’

Radical extremists object to being mistaken for common photographers.

As one member of a Coventry-based Al Qaeda cell explained to us, "I resent being treated like I’m some sort of photographer. [...] Photographers are a blight on society, and obviously I damn them all to Hell, but I find the assumption that carrying a camera makes me some sort of 'photographer' insulting in the extreme."

(One only wishes this were a bit more far-fetched.)

Mike
(Thanks to Erlik)

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Canon 5D Mark II Achieves Only 60% TOP Rating

SA***

The Canon 5D Mark II has achieved only a 60% rating from TOP, the world's leading camera review site. Although this might seem low to the camera's fans, there are very good reasons for this based upon our standard reviewing policies. Here is a list of the camera's demerits and downgrades:

• Only 167 features out of a possible 243. As everyone knows, features are weighted for bulk. Cameras are penalized 1% for every ten features by which they're short of the maximum, the maximum being always the most desirable state, and not just when it comes to features. Minus 7%.

• Not as heavy as the 1D or 1Ds. Heavier is better. Minus 2%

• No phone. Whoever heard of a camera you can't make calls from? It's like a phone that doesn't store MP3s. Minus 5%. 

• Doesn't store MP3s. Minus 1%. Would have been more of a downgrade, but the musical taste of many potential purchasers is sorry bordering on wretched. Speaking of which, if American Idol doesn't end soon you're going to have to get the noose ready, Farquar, because we're going to have to hang ourselves.

• People are using the naff device to shoot bloody television episodes with.* Any camera that so blatantly encourages its own misuse cannot be all good. Minus 6%.

• Nail clippers? Mini scissors? The little slide-in toothpick thingy? All missing. Minus 3%.

• Cameras exist with higher megapixel counts. Demonstrated extremes in megapixel counts reveal the limits of technical feasibility, and the limits of technical feasibility must be at least equaled for us to take a product seriously. Minus 2%

• Bad name. Naming cameras after weapons can get you shot at in war zones, especially if you use a zoom the size of a battering ram with your initials painted in big letters on the side, and your name is Ricardo Pesterman Grunwald. Minus 8%. Seems harsh, but there is no remedy for death under the terms of the warranty.

• Lack of Bluetooth connectivity for the phone. We know we already said it has no phone, but we expect Bluetooth connectivity for cameras with phones, and our policy is to downgrade cameras for all missing features. Sorry, no exceptions. Minus 3%. 

Total demerit score: Minus 37%. This results in a score of 60%**, which in turn leads to a rating of "Warmly Recommended." This is on the verge of a failing rating for us, since it comes five down in our rating hierarchy, after (in ascending order): Urgently Recommended; No Really Very Strenuously and Urgently Recommended; Critical To Your Happiness And Continuing Sense of Self Worth; and our top rating, We Are Debiting Your Bank Account And Sending You One Whether You Like It Or Not. 

It does takes great pictures, like that's enough.

Mike

*We employed Britishisms here because Hugh Laurie of House, in a canny Andy-Kaufmann-like existential vamp, gives interviews speaking in a really very plausible English accent.

**Note that the total score is arrived at arbitrarily. It has no relation to the total demerit score.

***Satire Alert. This means that this post is not serious. Before firing off angry comment, please refer to the definition of "satire," which may be found in most decent English dictionaries. Comes after sateless and before satori.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Mike Plews: "I understand the last episode of Jeeves and Wooster was shot on a Minolta 16. Or was that an Aaton 16? I get them confused."

Featured Comment by Louis McCullagh: "Re the episode of House shot on a Canon 5D Mark II: an interview with the producer, Greg Yaitanes, is on Philip Bloom's website."

Saving Face?

Photo courtesy Pentax

By Hugh Crawford

I was reading the press release for the Pentax Optio I-10, which says "In addition to popular features such as the innovative Small Face Filter, this upgraded version is programmed to detect not only human faces, but also the faces of dogs and cats [...] These features make it simple and effortless to capture delightful faces of active pets."

My software development experience suggests that after weeks of trying to remove the "accidentally focusing on dogs and cats" bug, engineering and marketing declared it a feature. The feature for automatically posting said pictures of cats to the internet with funny captions should be out by year's end. Meanwhile, my daughter's point-and-shoot camera will be imbued with the "Shroud of Turin feature" whereby it recognizes and tracks the faces it detects on manhole covers, burnt toast, and twenty dollar bills.

Does the Small Face Filter remove unexpected Rod Stewart hair along with red eye?

Hugh

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...

Great Photographers on the Internet, Part II

(Robert Capa)

Dear Bob, As I always tell people the single Most Important purchase I ever made for my photographic endeavors was my tripod. You certainly needed one here didn't you?  ;-)  You might object that you were standing in the surf to take this, but you could have merely stood on the beach and used a longer lens.

-

(Frederick Sommer)

Sorry but there is a reason why they call it "portrait" orientation. Are you too lazy to turn your camera vertical? Thumbs down

Although your daughter is cute

-

(Philippe Halsman)

Nice capture!

-

(Henri Cartier-Bresson)

In response to your request for a critique (which I assume you wanted because I have found your photo uploaded on the internet) I have been thinking about your picture for a long time and have concluded that your problem is you don't really know which your subject is. Are you trying to take a picture of the kids? In that case you have failed miserably because the kids are around the edge, almost an afterthought. Are you trying to take a picture of the walking man? Then perhaps you should of considered formal portraiture, at least gotten him to stop, if you ask for permission to take his picture you will be surprised how many people will stop and help you out. 

And here is what I would of done, I would of made an abstract study of the windows, which is the strongest element of what you encountered here. It is the most unusual aspect of your scene and yet you have not drawn sufficient attention to it, a more abstract treatment can be achieved by cropping out and cloning out some of the distractions. Oh well that is my 2 cents I could be wrong, hope it helps you, I have done my best for you, Sincerely Dennis G.

-

(Gertrude Kasebier)

SHOW ME HER BOOBS!!!!!!! WOOT-WOOT!!  —seahawksdood90

-

(Pete Turner)

Comment from Phil: Excuse me, can someone please tell me why the color balance is so blue on this? Am I missing something? Because if this guy is trying to come off like some kind of expert, I think he should at least know how to SET COLOR BALANCE. I may not be some kind of famous big shot, but at least I know how to use the color sliders and set neutral balance in the raw converter, which is something this guy obviously doesn't know.

-

(Sally Mann)

Please don't get me wrong, I totally love this as it is an awesome picture, and I have total respect for your photographic vision. I only wish my photographic vision were half as good. However there is one thing, which is that I see in color. Do you not? I hear dogs see in black and white are you a dog? When I look at this I see a totally unrealistic representation of reality as I see it. Why don't people understand that human beings see in color and black and white far from being artistic is just a depature from reality as bad as anything you could do in PhotoShop? That's my only comment otherwise I love this. I just really wish it had been in color as it would have been double awesome. dmofong999 please see my photostream

-

(Andrei Tarkovsky)

I am one who loves this effect, which I have seen before. Do you have an action for this and could you share it with me please? Thanks and love, Gloria from Topeka

-

Mike
(Happy Birthday TOP)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Chris: "I really love that HCB, at least in the top five of his. It almost surprises me that not everyone gets what I do out of it. But of course, why would they? When different people look at the world, they see very different places. Which is scary. Or sometimes wonderful. But keeps surprising me. Photography sometimes seems like a way to sort out how we do see the world, and share it with people...but then it turns out that a photo is also another part of that mercurial world."

Featured Comment by William Sawalich:

Dear Ansel:

You're making such progress! I really like the simplicity of this composition, but there's so much "detail" missing from the finished image. Have you considered HDR? I've taken the liberty of fixing your photo to show you what I mean.

Keep snapping,
Bill

-

Featured Comment by Damon Schreiber: "Another fine parody. What we are witnessing, though, is something that I think is great. It's the democratizing of photo-exhibition and criticism. In the days when HCB et al were 'big,' it really was something to show one's work publicly, to mount an exhibition or publish a book, and to receive written criticism of one's work from strangers.

"Today, both the exhibition of one's work and the criticism of others' work can be made without removing one's ass from the comfy confines of the computer chair. And this is both terrible and wonderful.

"The terrible is that with so many million photos on display, the online critic will spend no more than three seconds deciding that something is saveme or deleteme, thumbs up or down, one star or four. And that the less insightful among us rely on pat prescriptions and descriptions like 'use a tripod' 'crop' 'rule of thirds' 'nice capture' 'great DOF,' etc.

"The wonderful is that those of us who would never dream of getting as far off our asses as a gallery or publishing house are still able to find ways to display our work and receive something like valid criticism. Also, one finds every once in a while a truly great unsung photographer. And in the absence of curators and editors telling us how 'important' one person's work is, we are able to respond more authentically to what moves us as opposed to what is supposed to move us.

"Actually I have to say that contrary to most of your examples, much of the online commentary I see at places like Aminus3.com (and I'm equally guilty) is generic praise and logrolling (praising those who have praised us) rather than truly close reading and trenchant criticism.

"On balance, things haven't probably changed all that much in that there have always been less-than-insightful critics as well as those who baffled with bullshit and used tortured rhetoric to camouflage that fact that they had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. The pointedly ignorant drive-by put-downs were mostly unpublished until recently, though. Ultimately, I do always have to come down on the side of giving more voice to more people, even if some of those voices remind me of people I thought I'd never have to hear from again after high school."

ADDENDUM: A poor digisnap of Mark Klett's "Man Behind Creosote Bush," which I mentioned in the comments. From MK's lovely little book Traces of Eden, which is an old fave, one of those books I treasure. (Long out of print. Looks like there are some used copies available for reasonable prices, however.) —MJ