The Online Photographer

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