The Online Photographer

Above: an illustration from the New York Post.

The Atlantic Monthly magazine, after hiring controversial photographer Jill Greenberg to shoot a cover portrait of presidential candidate John McCain, has stood by its choice of cover shots but disavowed the photographer, after it transpired that Greenberg used the access to McCain the magazine granted her to create various egregiously sensational political statements on her website. Apparently she "deliberately took a sinister photo...of John McCain, then Photoshopped it on the web," according to the New York Post, which ran both photos and played up the various grotesqueries perpetrated by the photographer.

The New York Post article quotes Atlantic Editor James Bennet as saying, "We feel totally blind-sided. Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional." The magazine ran an official disavowal on its website, saying, "we expected her, like the other photographers we work with, to behave professionally," adding, "obviously...we will not work with her again."  

Perhaps she feels that she is primarily an artist and free to express herself regardless of the situation, but James Bennett is correct. Jill Greenberg's actions in this instance give all professional portrait and editorial photographers a black eye. (I'd be interested to hear editorial, newspaper, and assignment photographers in our audience give their opinions of the ethics involved.)

_______________________

Mike

Featured Comment by JM Colberg [responding in part to comments left by others]: "Folks, Alfried Krupp was a convicted war criminal. You can say whatever you want about John McCain, but that he is not. So let's all be adults, shall we? That aside, Greenberg's actions are irresponsible, juvenile, and idiotic. For a good explanation why (in the form of 14 questions) see Mark Tucker's blog."

Mike adds: Jörg's own piece about it is good too.

Featured Comment by Damon Schreiber: "I view this controversy with bemusement. Some of the discussion here seems to veer off on the wrong track (referring to her work as journalism for example when it's anything but), but there are certainly many interesting questions raised. Like most others, I don't find her political commentary clever or illuminating, but in general I don't feel any moral outrage over what she did. In essence, she did what she did—it was her choice, and her career to enhance or ruin.

"If it does result in further scrutiny of other portrait photographers, or more explicit contracts, I suppose that's unfortunate, but portraits will still be commissioned as often as ever. If there's a benefit, it's opening people's eyes to the fact that a photographer owns her own work whether or not it was commissioned for a magazine cover.

"I'm most curious to see the effect on her career. My guess is that it won't suffer in the long term. She's good and reasonably unique at what she does (I think that's true whether or not you enjoy her work), and she's obviously not afraid of stirring things up and dealing with the fallout. My main regret is that her political commentary was so embarrassingly ham-handed that it will do nothing to help her case."

Featured Comment by Mick Ryan: "I think JM Colberg's featured comment—a reaction to others' comments about the Arnold Newman portrait—is both partisan and a fallacy. The comparison is between one photographer and another—not one subject and another. Just because one subject is a Nazi and the other a conservative politician doesn't make it okay in one circumstance and not the other. It's either a photographer's right to shoot the subject as they see fit or it's not. Demonizing McCain is no more wrong than shooting him from a low angle to make him look heroic."

For Photokina, Leica Camera AG has announced an updated version of its popular M8 digital rangefinder camera called the M8.2 and four new lenses: 21mm and 24mm Summilux-M's with maximum aperture of ƒ/1.4 (28mm-e and 32mm-e on the M8, respectively), a 24mm ƒ3.8, and a replacement for the venerable Noctilux, which was one of the last (though not the last) of the great Mandler designs still in the Leica catalog. The new Noctilux has a maximum aperture of ƒ/0.95, matching the speed of the S-mount Canon lens of 1961 to put it in a tie for fastest production lens ever made for pictorial photography. (Faster custom lenses have been made, albeit rarely.) The new Noctilux will most probably have far better performance than the 1961 Canon, although the rationale for such a fast lens remains somewhat questionable, now as then. (Still, the old Noct was indeed used by Leica enthusiasts—not widely, but for real work.)

Cross section of the 1961 Canon 50mm ƒ0.95 made for the Canon 7 rangefinder

The old Noctilux was designed by Walter Mandler at E. Leitz Canada in Midland, Ontario. This next fact is in dispute, but I have it on good, inside authority that the lens was always built there, even though Leica had the lenses shipped to Germany with trivial final assembly left undone so that it could justify the label "Made in Germany." The facility, now owned by Raytheon and named Elcan Optical Technologies, is the largest integrated optical manufacturing facility in North America. No telling where the new lens will be made, but by some reports more Leica lenses are now built by Elcan (many, like the old Noct, shipped to Germany for final assembly and testing) than are actually manufactured at Solms. This, too, is disputable; both companies are secretive and solid, non-partisan information is hard to come by.

The M8.2 differences are summarized here (note that Adorama has a sense of humor, dubbing the M8.2's new snapshot mode "Dentist mode." My apologies [for calling attention to the joke] to any actual dentists this might offend.)

The prices for the new products are in the "If you have to ask, you can't afford it" range, with the exception of the slow 24mm, which will sell for ~€1,680.

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to Erik Markov on SportsShooter via Curtis Clegg)

Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "Yes, I was looking at this announcement this morning while rummaging through the early ruins of our financial markets. These seemed like very compatible activities.

"In my opinion Leica's 'M8.2' delivers far too little for the 15% premium (US$6,400) it demands over the original M8's price. Most of these 'enhancements,' previously offered as 'upgrades' to existing M8s—for a price—always seemed to be features that would have, and should have, been in the original M8 if it had not been so tragically rushed to market under pressure from Stephen Lee, Leica's previous CEO.

"As you know, I very much enjoy my M's. To-date I've shot many images for three books with M8s and shot the upcoming October issue of Sculpture magazine with one. I'm delighted that Leica eventually delivered the M8 and I plan to use it, when appropriate, until it's pried from my cold, dead hands. (Sorry, Charleton.)

Nevertheless it's clear that Leica is acutely drifting into jewelry sales mode with the M8.2. I also wonder if they're paying attention to the world's economic situation. There may not be that many 'dentists' willing to shell out $6,300 for a new neck trinket for a while.

"But anyone considering an M8 should take note: until the end of September you can buy a brand new original M8 model and get a $500 rebate from Leica. That brings the price down to $5,000, about the best 'deal' you'll find for a while and worth considering a career in dentistry."

Well, it's happened—after staunchly maintaining for years that it would not reverse-engineer its super-high-quality Zx lenses to fit the electronic Canon EF lensmount, Germany's august Carl Zeiss AG has either changed its mind or else entered into a cooperative agreement with Canon—because its new line of premium manual focus lenses, called ZE, is for Canon's EF mount, to fit all EOS film and digital SLRs. The lenses will cover full-frame digital models, and are compatible with AF confirmation, EXIF information, and E-TTL flash metering.

The new lens line will begin with the Zeiss ZE 50mm ƒ/1.4 Planar T* (below) and Zeiss ZE 85mm ƒ/1.4 T* (above), due to ship in the fourth quarter of this year, and expand from there. Initial prices are €486.50 (exclusive of German VAT) for the 50mm and €839.50 for the 85mm.

I didn't think this would happen, but it's certainly great news for Canon fans, who have heretofore been reduced to using Zeiss lenses with adapters and hence much less convenience and functionality.

Also expected soon is a version of the renowned Zeiss 21mm ƒ/2.8 for ZF (Nikon bayonet), ZK (Pentax bayonet) and ZE (Canon bayonet). The Zeiss 21mm, first introduced for the now-defunct Contax 35mm film cameras, has long been known as one of the world's best camera lenses.

_________________________

Mike

Hey, this image quality sucks!

Oh...

Oh. (It's ISO 3200.)

(Canon 50D samples at digitaldreams.com.)

______________________

Mike

Featured Comment by Mike Peters: "Pretty darn good when you consider that they were shot with a lens that is marginal at best, the 28–105 ƒ/3.4–4.5 zoom. If they had used a lens that actually could resolve a bit more detail it might even be more impressive."

I've decided to try offering a few private consultation services. This is just an experiment until further notice. (I consistently get requests for this sort of thing, so I thought I'd try it.)

________________________

Mike

UPDATE: Tuesday, Sept. 16th—All the available slots for Portfolio Review are now filled. If and when I decide to accept more commissions I will post another announcement. Thanks! —MJ

Craig Norris, Lauren

By Craig Norris

I read with great interest Mike's recent post about his new Sunpak monoblock flash unit (monolight), and the ensuing enthusiastic references to the excellent Strobist online tutorials. Strobist tutorials are great for low budget on-location flash photography. I operated that way for the first two years of my paid portrait work.

But when working the Strobist way, there are two limits you'll hit very quickly: flash power and flash recycle time. For serious portrait work, and even some product photography, I now find myself needing to shoot routinely at ƒ/16 in order to get enough depth of field (meaning one full head and shoulders completely sharp).

If you want the eyes and hair sharp, and the earrings and the necklace and clothing and the shoulders sharp too (so you can cut the person out and paste them on to a different background—a regular requirement for corporate portraits) then ƒ/5.6 isn't small enough when shooting at typical portrait focal lengths of 70mm and longer (much longer with medium format).

But battery powered strobe units, including the big hammerhead type Metz units, after bouncing off the inside of a large white umbrella, are only good for about ƒ/8 at best, and then only if the person stands very close.

But even if you can get away with ƒ/8, which requires maximum power from the flash unit, you then have a six or seven seconds wait for the flash to be recharged enough for the next shot.

It's liberating when you get "real" strobes, like Mike's Sunpak monolight, and start enjoying the freedom of shooting at very small apertures for depth of field requirements, and the ability to take a shot every second or so.

Another argument for very high power strobes of 1000 watt-seconds or more is not to use them at maximum output power, but to operate them at one quarter power so you can enjoy an almost instant recycle time—an important benefit when you photograph unruly children under strobes and need to shoot almost continuously to catch the "decisive moment" when they smile and look in the right direction.

The studio strobes I use on a daily basis are not very different from Mike's. They cost me about the same as Mike's, and at that price, they solve the economic equation of my business in a very acceptable manner.

Bron is better
But there's no free lunch. When you investigate what you get for the extra thousand bucks spent on a Broncolor or Elinchrom unit, you'll find out some interesting things, like:

1. The color temperature doesn't change as you change the output power. Or if the color temperature is different at different output power settings, Bron tells you in the specifications what that altered color temperature will be.
2. Operating the flash repeatedly at maximum output power is sometimes necessary, and it can be likened to driving your car at maximum engine RPM for a long time. Things get hot and stressed. If the strobe is going to fail, it'll fail during this high stress, high temperature mode of operation. To prevent damage, good studio strobes have a thermal cutout to protect the unit from catastrophic failure (and in the worst case, fire). But the really good strobes will just keep on working, without cutting out, and without failing.
3. There are other nice little touches, like the way the modeling light dims during the recharge period, so you know when the flash is ready again just by looking at your subject.

I'd love to own some Bron strobes, but for now, the economics of my business have only allowed me to buy a Broncolor umbrella for my made-in-China strobes. It's a really good umbrella. It cost about the same as the strobe.

_____________________

Craig

Craig Norris is an Australian freelance photographer based in Hong Kong. He's also a technology consultant for the television broadcast industry.

Mike adds: Just for the record, I really like Strobist too, and recommend it all the time. It's a hugely valuable resource that is teaching an entire generation of photographers about lighting the pj way. But what can I say—we're all the children of our experiences, and after years of lugging monolights around Washington, D.C., and doing many hundreds of headshots, executive portraits, and senior portraits, that's just where I live when it comes to artificial light. I think it's real treat to have today's very cheap and accessible monolights as alternatives both to much more expensive pro lighting as well as to little on-camera "flashes."

Our thoughts go out to the victims of Hurricane Ike and to our readers in Texas, or those who have relatives there. We know you are dealing with severe disruption, and we wish you safety, security, and health.

Hello Mike!

I answer to a forgotten camera challenge.

My camera (actually was my grandfather's) is the Agfa Isola I. The camera was produced in years 1957–1960. It is a point-and-shoot of its time. It has only one shutter speed (1/30th) and B, and two apertures, ƒ/11 for cloudy and ƒ/16 for sunny weather (so the "sunny 16" rule demands ISO 25 film...!). The camera takes medium format (120) films and has square aspect ratio of 6x6 cm (actually 56x56mm).

The photograph with Agfa Isola I was taken in the spring of 2007 in Secovlje salina nature park (I work there), home developed, scanned. Contrast and some sharpening was added.The other two are of the camera with ladder case, and the person posing with the camera is my brother....

You can see the other photos from this camera (and other cameras) and the rest of my work on my blog and on photo.net.

Best regards

Matjaž Lužnik
Slovenija, EU

My forgotten camera is a Voigtländer Perkeo I, a pocketable 6x6 folding rangefinder that I bought at a flea market for a couple of bucks. The lens is a 75mm ƒ/4.5 Vaskar. Focusing is a matter of guesstimation and a fair number of my pictures have been out of focus. The camera probably needs a CLA. I eventually bought a Yashica Mat, which I found to be a lot easier to use but doesn't really count as a forgotten camera (or is this just my opinion?).

The picture I have included was taken in Middelburg, Holland. I remember being surprised at it when I hung the film up to dry.

I'm looking forward to seeing what others submit.

Paul Christensen

I already linked to this, first clued in by a reader named John, but people are missing the link: there's a picture on the internet of a Panasonic G1 under glass with what looks like a mock-up of a "pancake" 20mm ƒ/1.7, said to be coming next year some time. The picture seems to have originated on digitalcamera.jp and you can see it here.

This looks like a mock-up to me, rather than a prototype. The lens has no filter threads and it doesn't look like it has a full complement of actual elements in place. That doesn't mean the final product won't look exactly like this, but for what it's worth I personally don't believe this is an actual prototype.

But, just in passing, bravo to Panasonic for planning this lens!

Another thing to bear in mind: The Panasonic G1 is the first Micro 4/3 camera, not the last. No need to bemoan the size or the feature choices just yet. There are going to be more cameras in this standard, even if it doesn't take off. If it does take off, there will be a great many more.

___________________

Mike

In response to a comment in a previous thread about the size of the new Lumix G1, a reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent us the following, done to scale:

(Click on the image to see it larger.)

There are some more interesting size comparison photos here.

_____________________

Mike  (Thanks to anonymous and Charles F. Heuer)

Regular readers will remember my wailing about the death of my trusty old Sunpak monolight (or monoblock), the longstanding abuse of which I chronicled in that post in loving detail. I only recently threw away a belt my father bought in the 1950s; I have a blow-dryer that my son's mother left at my apartment, still going strong, and we haven't seen her since Clinton and Gore were newly elected; and our microwave is just about to turn 20. The old Sunpak ranked among such exalted bargains.

I mentioned then that I would provide an update once I replaced it. Well, I have some stuff to post on Ebay this week, so the time had come. I didn't even buy the cheapest one, the 150, although with today's high-ISO DSLRs it would doubtless have been plenty—B&H had it listed as "Accepting Orders" rather than "In Stock," and I didn't feel like waiting. So I bought the next model up, the Sunpak Platinum 300, which, as the name implies, is a 300 watt-second unit. (There's also at least a 500, an 800, and a 1000, although I think Sunpak also makes a 200 and 250; the importer doesn't have any information about any of these units on its website. Don't ask me—maybe B&H gets these gray?)

The new unit arrived after three days in a neat package containing the monoblock, power and sync cords, and a reflector, and promptly was put to work. I bought the historical unit (a 150) used, and paid $150 for it back in the '80s—and the new one, a 300, cost only $188.50 in today's less beefy dollars (doubtless partially a courtesy of foreign fabrication, although I couldn't find hide nor hair of a "Made in..." mark on the unit, the box, or the instruction leaflet). The new unit is considerably smaller and lighter than the old one, despite its higher power. It seems decently made—for the money, certainly—with a metal chassis, mounting hardware, and reflector, and plastic elsewhere. More control flexibility too—separate on-off switches for the modeling light and flash, and a rheostat-style continuously adjustable knob for output (the old one had a rocker switch with full, 1/2, and 1/4 power, if I remember correctly).

Here's the business end. If you're not familiar with monolights, the bulb in the center is the modeling light and the clear glass ring behind it is the flash tube.

The only thing I don't like about the new unit is that the slot for the umbrella has a spring clip instead of a threaded knob. This is probably a "feature," to save from themselves customers who bore down too tightly on the threaded knob and deformed the umbrella shaft, thus (probably) getting it stuck in the slot. You can't point a 32" umbrella far enough downward that it will slip—it contacts the center pole of the light stand before than happens—but I'd rather have the proper lock-down knob just the same.

The new Sunpak's maiden outing, a quick-and-dirty product shot for Ebay that took all of two minutes to shoot. The background is my son's bathrobe, hanging from a curtain rod. Product shooters will notice instantly that I didn't bother to turn off the room lights! Naturally, having bought a 300 w/s unit, I was on half power at ƒ/10, shooting through a white umbrella. Oh well—the extra power will doubtless come in handy for something, someday.

If you're a nothing-but-the-best-will-do type, try a Broncolor or a Profoto monolight. The Sunpak is definitely a spend-less-and-throw-it-away-when-breaks type option. But if you've never owned an off-camera flash, you should buy one of these just to play around with. The price is certainly right. (You'll need a light stand and an umbrella too.) You can do a zillion different things with a monolight—tabletop product shots and portraits being just the tip of the iceberg. And with your digital camera's histogram serving as your light meter, the need for a flash meter is a thing of the past.

I'll write some more in the future about some cool stuff you can do with one of these.

No telling how long this one will last, but if it does half as well as its predecessor, I'll have gotten my money's worth and then some.

The Sunpak Platinum 300 at B&H Photo—$188.50
The Sunpak Platinum 150 at B&H, for people even cheaper than me—$139.95
The Broncolor equivalent of the Sunpak 300 (note price)

_______________________

Mike

Question from Thiago S.: "Besides the light stand and umbrella, I assume you need a battery pack too? Or has it its own?"

Mike replies: No, the difference between a head-and-pack system and monolights or monoblocks is that monoblocks are self-contained. They're sometimes not the best solution because—traditionally, anyway—they weren't able to deliver as much power, and of course every monolight needs its own power cord reaching to an outlet. If you're doing a shoot far from an outlet, it's easier to run one power cord to the pack and then multiple cables to the heads. But in most situations—certainly with one light, and certainly in one's home—a monoblock is more convenient.

We interrupt our regular programming this morning to bring you news of the cute li'l Panasonic G1, the first camera announced in the Micro 4/3 standard. Panasonic shares the new standard with Olympus, but has been expected to be the prime mover behind the new standard, and sure enough. Its aims are clear: it says the diminutive new camera is "as easy to use as a compact digital camera, with the stunning photo quality of a digital SLR camera." It's basically a tiny live-view camera with an EVF and an articulated viewing screen (take your pick). The similarity to a DSLR is its large 4/3 sensor with generous 4000 x 3000 pixel size, and the difference is that it has no reflex mirror and the flange distance is half that of a conventional DSLR, allowing for a corresponding shrinking of all its other dimensions. (The linked illustration from Imaging-Resource shows the Panasonic L10's Four-Thirds lens mount, mirror box and sensor assembly [left] versus the G1's Micro 4/3 lens mount and sensor assembly [right].)

How small is it? Well, small, but not too small. Probably the best clue from these pictures is to take a look at the standard-sized strap lugs. The camera is only 3.29" high by 4.88" wide by 1.78" deep, and weighs 13.6 ounces. Compare this to the Olympus E-420, the current DSLR small-size champ, at 3.6" high, 5.1" wide, and 2.1" high, and 15.5 ounces.

The G1 does have a wee built-in flash, but a separate unit is among the first accessories. I like that; the further off the camera your flash is, the better your flash pictures.

The first two interchangeable lenses (both equipped with Panasonic's "Mega O.I.S.," by the way, a.k.a. image stabilization), are, naturally, kit-type zooms, one normal and one long. The normal lens is 2.36" long and 2.36" in diameter (60x60mm), takes 52mm filters, and weighs less than 7 ounces (6.88 to be exact). The normal zoom has a range of 14–45mm (28–90mm-e, which, as I have opined elsewhere, is all most people really need), ƒ/3.5–5.6, and the longer one is a 45–200mm (90–400mm-e) ƒ/4–5.6. No primes yet, but we hope until we die.

Gender marketing will probably be downplayed in the U.S. and Europe, but see that image of the bride and groom? The camera is available in (yipes) colors—there's the G1K (black), the G1B (blue), and the G1R (red). This is a pretty clear signal that the G1 will be marketed most energetically to the fair sex in the all-important "home market" in Japan. Just a guess.

Another feature that will be touted is "HD TV mode," whereby you can shoot in 16:9 aspect ratio and easily hook up the camera to your flat-screen HD TV to look at your pictures. The G1 has no movie mode, though (which is fine with me).

All in all, a conservative but very interesting first step for Micro 4/3. Even the smartest people get very dumb fast when predicting the future, and I ain't even smart, but I expect Micro 4/3 and its inevitable followers to come on like an avalanche, providing a useful bridge between the limited IQ of digital point-and-shoots and the inherent complexity and cost of cameras with reflex mirrors. After all, it won't be long before APS-C-vicinity sensors get very cheap, but optical prism and reflex mirror assemblies are always going to be fairly intricate and expensive to manufacture.

No word yet on prices. There is a "world exclusive preview" at dpreview.com.

Imaging-Resource.com Hands-On Preview with lots of interesting technical background.

Sample Images (only a few up so far; see below for one if you don't want to bother downloading it yourself).

_____________________

Mike

ADDENDUM: A sample image from Panasonic (at the link above). Taken with the 45–200mm lens. (There are no samples posted yet from the normal lens, but check back later for that.)

Featured Comment by John: "If you want to see the size of the 20mm ƒ/1.7, take a look here."

Nick Rains has published a preliminary Field Report on the Sony A900 at The Luminous Landscape.

Imaging-Resource has also published its review.

___________________

Mike

I know—not according to Mick. At least not always.

For many years I had a camera I enjoyed using with a good 35mm ƒ/2 and 85mm ƒ/2. That's still what I want—only in digital. Don't really care about the sensor size, as long as it's at least 4/3.

You'd think I could get that. And with today's burgeoning "full-frame" craze, my prospects have gotten better. But there's a "new technology" twist that has sent my prospects for happiness tumbling, alas.

Understand, I'm hardly a technology freak, and when it comes to features I'm comfortable in a hair shirt, almost contrarian—I've never owned a car with an automatic transmission or power windows, don't have a home theater or cell phone or camcorder, don't own an iPod or a personal organizer (not that I couldn't use one of those! Except I'd probably lose it) and don't get cable. I'll bet there are whole categories of modern essentials I don't even know about. When it comes to cameras I can ignore or resist plenty of technologies that make the checklists of others. Even AF. But...and aye, it's the rub...I love IS. It's really been a boon to me and I'm a sucker for it.

So—can I get a digital camera I enjoy using, with a good 35mm ƒ/2 and 85mm ƒ/2 (equivalent)—and IS, with any sort of sensor 4/3 or larger?

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think so. Not yet.

Sigh.

How about you—can you get what you want?

____________________

Mike

P.S. By the way (to respond to some of the comments), please don't worry about me "using what I have." For the past 2+ years I've used a very capable 6-MP DSLR that is too big and heavy for my taste, with one zoom (when I like primes) that is too long (for me) on APS-C. I've taken very many nice pictures with it and made many nice prints, some of them quite big. I've gotten very used to it. I still don't enjoy using it much, but the results are what count. I'm not at all unhappy to use what I have. It's just that it's not what I want.

MJ, Luis with Zander in the back yard. K-M 7D, K-M 28–75mm ƒ/2.8, ƒ/9 @ 1/640th.

In what is surely one of the most interesting recent developments for fine-art and dedicated hobbyist photographers, Sony yesterday officially announced its long-anticipated flagship camera, the A900. The camera and its specifications have been no secret during the long run-up to its expected November ship date. It has a full-frame, 24.6-megapixel sensor, 100% viewfinder, image stabilization in the body, and, at 156 x 117 x 82 mm (6.15 x 4.6 x 3.2 inches) and 895 grams with battery (31.5 oz.), isn't even terribly big or heavy. (Compare those numbers to the reasonably-sized A700's 142 x 105 x 80 mm [5.6 x 4.1 x 3.2 in.] and 768g [27.1 oz.] and the older Konica-Minolta 7D's 150 x 106 x 78 mm [5.9 x 4.2 x 3.1 in.] and 845g [29.8 oz].)

The new camera provides a fascinating counterpoint to the other recent "most interesting" non-pro DSLR body, the Nikon D700. Nikon went a different route, concentrating on high responsiveness, a modest (by today's standards) pixel count, and great high-ISO performance in the absence of image stabilization in the body (note that we don't know yet what the A900's high-ISO performance will be like). Of course they're hardly "opposites," but they do embody notably different approaches to the task of making a premium-quality body for serious digital photographers.

Sony certainly seems to have made a good call here in one sense. Canon and Nikon between them share, and thus virtually own, the pro market. Fine-art and landscape photographers are a different market. We watch admiringly as the latest pro bodies are announced to great fanfare, and either settle on one or another of the pro alternatives or find a non-pro model that will serve; but at the same time, it's obvious that the "big two" aren't aiming their all-out efforts straight at us. Sony, rather than create a "me-too" pro wannabe camera that would attract few pros (a repeated failing of second-tier camera companies in the old film days, not excluding Sony's antecedent company Minolta), has logically focused its effort on a market that differs subtly from the standard pro market. This gives us, as photographers, more, and better, choice.

And speaking of choice, it's very likely that the splendid new A900 will soon have competition. Good thing, then, that the first of the expected "big three" is blessed with such a reasonable asking price—$3,000 to start.

We'll certainly be following updates about the A900 with interest and attentiveness.

_______________________

Mike

I'm going to resist the temptation to read Deep Meaning into this, but consider these two images in light of our recent post about the Sarah Palin spoof picture. The first one (titled "Will one be wanting fries with that?") is a jokey commentary on hard times reaching the financial markets in Britain:

The second is Annie Leibovitz's portrait of Queen Elizabeth. However, despite being nominally an "environmental portraitist," Leibovitz didn't photograph the Queen in front of either a real or a painted backdrop. Here's what Leibovitz says of the picture in the current (October 2008) issue of Vanity Fair: "I was thinking of one of Cecil Beaton’s last pictures of the Queen. A very stark and simple and strong portrait in which she’s wearing a boat cloak. We went back into the anteroom, where the gray canvas backdrop had been set up, and she took off the tiara and put on the cloak. That’s the shot we digitally imposed on pictures of the garden."

Hmm. Food for thought.

___________________

Mike  (Thanks to Peter Church and M.M.)

ADDENDUM:

Diego Velázquez, Las Meninas (The Maids of Honor), 1656

Here's my contribution to your Befriend-A-Forgotten-Camera Challenge: An old Calumet C1 8x10 view camera from the 1950s. It has since gotten a proper lens board and film holders. The big negatives fueled my first foray into platinum printing. For all the gory details see here.

Thanks for sparing a gander!

Christoph Hammann