The Online Photographer: December 2016

« November 2016 | Main | January 2017 »

December 2016

Friday, 16 December 2016

Panasonic: The Sleeper Camera Company

I've always liked sleepers. A "sleeper" can be defined as something that becomes a success when no one thought it would, or something that turns out to be more than what it appears to be on the surface.

Mazda, for example. A small car company perennially taking a back seat to the big boys, both nationally in Japan and globally; but the Mazda 3 and the CX-5 (wait for the '17 refresh, though) are arguably two of the most recommendable all-around vehicles made, everything taken into account, striking the right balance in about every way. Panasonic, meanwhile, doesn't even have a logo. Its logo is just its name, spelled out in conservative, standard sans-serif letters, upper case and lower case. It just changed its catchphrase from "Ideas for Life" to "A Better Life, A Better World." O-kay.

Although Panasonic will be celebrating its centennial in 2018, as a digital cameramaker its august history goes way back to 2001. (Well, at least the Lumix brand.) So it doesn't take styling cues from its "iconic" 1960s designs, or build digital cameras with removable baseplates because someone thought that was a good idea in 1953. It doesn't have to deal with nine generations of lensmounts, either. As for heritage, when the GX8 came out with styling reminiscent of the standout LC1 of 2004, no one noticed because no one remembers the LC1 even though we were all excited about it at the time. Among the multinational electronics giants who are now players in the camera industry, Sony is the one that leans towards the enthusiast; Panasonic skews the other way, toward the consumer. It's not even the most prestigious partner in the 4/3 consortium. Panasonic partners with Leica the way Sony partners with Zeiss, except you get the impression that Sony is the lead partner in the Sony/Zeiss collaboration, whereas Panasonic definitely comes off as junior to Leica in terms of calling the shots, even though Panasonic is a much bigger company.

...When people even remember there is such a collaboration at all, that is. Mainly it consists of Panasonic letting Leica rebadge its consumer cameras while jacking up the jack.

And yet...I've really come to love Panasonic cameras and lenses.

Panasonic GX8 and 12–35mm zoom, showing the GX8's tilting VF

I know, go figure.

You'd think I'd be a traditionalist, and snobby about the history of photography and all the great companies with history and heritage and prestige and so forth, and I am...I'm not arguing against those wonderful companies either. I love them and lots of us love them. But now here I am going on about Panasonic. I loved the GF1 and the 20mm ƒ/1.7 and used it for years, and I loved the GX8 when I had it here for review.

Not bad for a company that also manufactures air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, compressors, lighting, televisions, personal computers, mobile phones, audio equipment, broadcasting equipment, projectors, automotive electronics, aircraft in-flight entertainment systems, semiconductors, batteries, electrical components, optical devices, bicycles, electronic materials, photovoltaic modules, electric fans, range hoods, air doors (air curtains), hand dryers, dehumidifiers, and subterranean air blowers, just to name a few. Panasonic even resurrected the Technics brand name a few years ago.

Panasonic has also collaborated with Leica on a series of Micro 4/3 lenses, possibly its most high-profile products among dedicated photography enthusiasts. I believe the first one was the Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm ƒ/2.8 ASPH. MEGA O.I.S., a slow seller but an excellent lens, and the lineup now includes the formidable Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100–400mm ƒ/4–6.3 ASPH. POWER O.I.S., which, with its reach of 800mm-e, must surely be among the very top choices for birders and other critter and sports photographers.

None of the Leica-branded lenses happen to make my wish list, however, and all of the Panasonic lenses I like best are pretty compact. In the post "What's the Best Lens Line?", from last May, I specified a complete kit of the Panasonic lenses I'd choose personally. Note that the weight (882 grams) of that entire kit, all four lenses including two zooms, is less than that of the Leica Summilux-SL we were discussing the other day (1,065 grams).

Apart from traditional DSLR zooms such as the Canon EF 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II USM (for full frame) and the Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17–55mm ƒ/2.8G IF-ED (for APS-C, and the lens I'd have for the D500 or D7200), my favorite zoom across all brands is currently the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 Asph. pictured above.

I haven't said much about the cameras, but if you're a regular reader you already know (from my Panasonic GX8 Review) how I feel about the GX8. That camera is paralleled by the upcoming SLR-body-styled GH5 (the outgoing GH4 is on closeout for $300 off), which is aimed at photographers who do more video, but from there the line goes in the direction of consumer cameras exclusively. Panasonic supplies:

a competitor to the Sony RX100V;
a bridge camera (you know, with the tiny sensors and mega-range zooms);
compact models;
more economical versions of both the SLR-body-style flagship camera as well as the rangefinder-body-style flagship GX8;
and of course the marvelous little LX100, which is the sleeper from the sleeper.

As is the case with Mazda, Panasonic doesn't attract as much notice or mindshare as some of its more visible competitors. But don't write it off—it quietly makes some very fine products that are well worth getting to know.

Mike
(Review equipment in the illustration courtesy B&H Photo)

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.

The sleeper photo site
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Nigel: "I think the Panasonic 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 and 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 zooms are far better thought-out than the bulky, heavy Olympus equivalents, which defeat the concept of Micro 4/3 in my view. I have both these lenses and find them equally superb and, most of all, practical to take on long hikes in the mountains. I bought a secondhand LX100 to use as a briefcase camera for my work. But I have found it a superbly thought-out camera for when I want to carry just one camera, or even a camera to go out with and shoot with the idea of keeping things simple and basic. I like the idea of the physical aperture and shutter speed dials that are quickly adjusted to the desired shooting mode.

"Reading through the various camera forums there seems to be a lot of prejudice towards Panasonic when compared to the more 'real camera company' Olympus. But I find the conceptual design of Panasonic camera gear to be first rate."

Mike replies: Glad to know somebody agrees with me!

Juha Haataja: "I'm now using my second LX100. The first got broken after 100,000 photographs taken with it (dust getting inside and other problems), but the second one is doing well after 20,000 photographs taken. If I would change to using a system camera, my first choice would be Panasonic GX80/GX85 with the Lumix G Vario 12–60mm ƒ/3.5–5.6 lens. This combination would be relatively portable and quite versatile, but I would be missing a few things from the LX100, for example the dedicated aspect ratio switch. And even though the Dual I.S. would compensate for the less bright lens, the LX100 would behave better in the dark season, not to speak of the fine bokeh of closeup photographs possible with the LX100."

John Sarsgard: "Partly based on your earlier review, and Carl Weese's love for his GX7, I got both the GX8 and the superb 12–35mm. I am delighted with both. I still use my Canon 5D Mark II for portraits...one needs a larger camera for clients to take you seriously...but the GX8 goes everywhere with me. Got it after spending a week in Cuba in July doing street photography. The size fits me just right...not too big or too small. The weight is wonderful. The silent shutter is a deal maker on the street. The tiltable viewfinder makes it easier to not be obvious...and facilitates getting down low with arthritic knees. The image quality and this superb lens combine with a camera that if you don't like the way it works almost anything is customizable. My GAS disease is hunting for another lens, but having a hard time needing one. Thanks for pointing me in this direction."

James Weekes: "I have been a Micro 4/3 user since the GF3. I have bodies from both Panasonic and Olympus. I have lenses from both companies. And I am with you. With a choice of seven bodies (some quite old) and numerous lenses, prime and zoom, what I walk out the door with seven times out of 10 is the GX8 and the 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 Panasonic zoom. That lens really makes even primes in that range superfluous. Beautiful, sharp, smooth files and ease of use. The camera is wonderful and I have never seen or suspected the dreaded shutter-shock. The rest of the time I take the Pen F with the neat little Olympus 30mm macro, for close-in work. I prefer the Panasonic color rendering, even though both cameras return easy-to-work-with color. And the Panasonic menus are a pure joy to use after the Olympus menus (designed by Klingons). So there are two of us who agree with you."

Jeff: "The sensor in the Leica Q, and likely the Leica SL, is designed by TowerJazz, which is owned by Panasonic."

Mike replies: I know TowerJazz was formed when Jazz Semiconductor was merged with Tower Semiconductor, but as someone who used to shop for jazz at Tower Records that name always startles me!

[Note: Don't miss Kevin Purcell's clarification of the TowerJazz connection in the Comments section. Kevin is a better Internet researcher than I am, and I ain't chopped liver. —Mike the Ed.]

Steve Jacob: "I don't own a Panasonic camera. I'm a committed Fujiphile, but I do recommend Panasonics for almost everyone else who asks. My reasoning is simple. If someone has to ask, they probably don't want a Fuji. It's the kind of camera you get because you know your cameras and you want one, and you are prepared to make an effort to get the best out of it. If you need to ask, you probably want a good-value, reliable, easy-to-use camera that does everything well, both in terms of stills and video. Right now, I don't think anyone can match Panasonic for the best balance of all of those attributes, and the fire-sale prices on some of their excellent outgoing models are also very tempting. They are just nice all-round cameras."

Posted on Friday, 16 December 2016 at 12:09 PM in Cameras, new, Lenses | Permalink | Comments (48)

Random Photographer (and Butters)

Two of the categories of pictures I've always liked, perhaps understandably, are portraits of famous photographers, and pictures of people taking pictures. Related, but not quite the same thing.

I can't make a "Random Excellence" out of this, but check out this shot by "TrevTheBrit." Made me smile—I even like the pigeon! There's a lot going on in that shot. It has character. Everything seems a bit off balance.

To add a little color to all the "gray matter" recently (text, I mean), and to keep his fans happy, here's the latest snap of the charismatic canine:

Butters seems to love it when the ball plummets down into the snow and disappears. He starts sniffing the ground frantically while his oversized tail waves broadly back and forth as if to say, "I got this, I got this."

His latest quirk—and believe me, this dog has plenty of quirks—is that he doesn't see any reason why we can't go outside and play fetch even though it's night. Pitch dark outside, and he's raring to go play and bugging the heck out of me until I finally relent. I toss the ball for him trying to keep it near enough to the barn light so he stands a chance of following it. He does well—dogs see well in low light—but eventually he loses it anyway, and then we both go searching. He can't smell it and I can't see it in the dark, so we both wander ineptly around in the backyard in erratic circles, around and around, until one of us eventually stumbles on the darn ball.

Such is my life.

I notice that when I work on pictures lately I make a color version for everybody else and a black-and-white version for me. I don't really need to show anybody the B&W versions. But they make me happy. This one, I admit, works better in color.

Mike

Will work for dog food.
Buy yourself a present

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Posted on Friday, 16 December 2016 at 10:04 AM in Random Snaps | Permalink | Comments (14)

Thursday, 15 December 2016

Reflections on Size

Just a few stray thoughts relative to yesterday's post. First that there's no right and wrong. I know of two photographers who actively liked large cameras: my friend Kim Kirkpatrick of C60Crew fame is one, and the other is Ansel Adams, who, whenever he was asked (as he often was) what camera he used, liked to reply, "The biggest one I can carry!" So I'm not advocating for anything or criticizing anyone who likes any type of camera. "It's a big world," as they say*. Photographers use what they need to use to do the work they want to do, and that's the way it is and ever should be.

Still, the size of the recording area behind the lens has always been, up till extremely recently**, a constant technical parameter of photography. The larger the film or sensor size, the less the effective depth of field, and, all else being equal***, the more information will be captured. The smaller the film or sensor, the greater the effective depth of field, and, with everything held constant, the less image information it will contain.

A current paragon of near-perfect sensor, lens, and body size,
the GX85 can yield quality that approaches 645 film

There are all kinds of related considerations, the main one being that the larger the film or sensor, the less convenient and more expensive it tends to be to use, and the smaller the film or sensor, the more convenient it is. When "serious photography" overwhelmingly meant black-and-white film, I used to say that the larger the film format, the more difficult it was when you were shooting and the easier it was in the darkroom, whereas the smaller the film format, the opposite was the case. The most exciting camera development this year was the announcement of the Fuji GFX 50S, a very small, compact and handy medium-format-sensor camera that will have a Full-Frame-beating 33x44mm sensor. Large is getting more convenient all the time.

We've discussed before that the "same" image quality has been "moving down" in sensor sizes over the years. While impossible to measure with any exactitude, it's undeniable as a general principle: it's now possible to get better image quality from APS-C than the early FF cameras offered, and 1" sensors (8.8x13.2mm) can now achieve what it took APS-C to accomplish in earlier days.

And it's become almost conventional to note that much smaller digital formats can exceed the sharpness and detail of much larger sizes of film. Thirty five millimeter film was good enough for most people in 1990; today 1"-sensor cameras compare favorably to it.

So generally, it seems to me, one of the major desirable features of digital equipment is that it can be small. This puts me rather at odds with some (not all) of the current trends in high-quality equipment, for example the Zeiss G-Master lenses for Sony and the Leica SL lenses. Am I sorry lens makers have a market for making unlimited-performance optics for cameras? Perish the thought! I love lenses, and one of my basic tenets as a writer about equipment can be summed up in the phrase "choice is good." At baseline, I want photographers to have available to them what they need to do the work they want to do.

Still, one of the truly cool and very appealing things about digital photography circa 2017, to my way of thinking, is that you can get good stuff that's small, portable, and handy. I photographed with a Minox "spy camera" (8x11mm) in about 1975 (it was my Dad's), and a Kodak Disc Camera (8x10mm) at Christmas 1982 (I poached my 11-year-old cousin Katie's Christmas present and used up all the film that came with it, much to her wonderment). Neither one was good enough. In my film years I used 35mm and 6x6 cropped to 645; 645 was my favorite or optimal format, although I never found a 645 camera I liked. Now, my "note-taking" camera is an iPhone 6+ (~5.16x6.25mm sensor—quite noticeably smaller than the dimensions of Minox or Disc camera film) and my favorite "serious" format is APS-C (smaller than 35mm and 645). APS-C (15.6x23.6mm) seems to me to offer the best balance for depth-of-field. I can get enough D-O-F most of the time, and shallow enough D-O-F when I want it. And current APS-C cameras offer enough detail and exposure range (AKA dynamic range) for the print sizes I like to make.

Camera body and lens size
As for camera size, it's gotten so they can be too small. With large-ish hands, I need enough to "get to grips with." I've been a brand nomad, and one reason is because my first "DMD" camera was a Panasonic GF1, and Panasonic's natural successor, the GX1, was just too small. That was why I migrated away from Panasonic, alighting eventually with the Sony NEX-6 for a spell before moving on to Fuji.

As far as lens size is concerned, Micro 4/3 lenses seem perfect to me—the apotheosis of the old original pre-ASPH Leitz-family-era Leica lenses. The quality-no-object design exercises (such as this one) aren't too chunky, and good zooms aren't too chunky either, and the right-sized, right-speed lenses are just...gems. But APS-C lenses, especially Fuji's, aren't very far at all from right-sized either.

So these days, we're able to shoot with smaller, handier, easier-to-carry cameras. And, although you wouldn't know it from the lenses generally on offer, slower lenses, too.

This is just my own opinion and my own perspective, of course, and I'd never expect everyone to agree. But I'm very happy in the Micro-4/3-to-mirrorless-APS-C sensor-size/camera-size/lens-size range. Others surely delight and enjoy departing from that range in either or both directions, and I have no quarrel with them.

Thus I have no quarrel whatsoever with a photographer who loves his Leica SL and will exult in the quality of a Summilux-SL 50mm, or a Sony A7[x] shooter happily collecting G-Master lenses. But by lugging a one-kilogram normal lens around (considerably more weight, as one commenter pointed out yesterday, than a Noctilux, the now dethroned over-the-top big-as-a-glass-brick champ), you're really missing out on something valuable and precious. You will have voluntarily foregone one of the great advantages of digital.

Mike

*And note that we also say "it's a small world." Ever noticed how for most aphorisms or sayings, there's also an opposite saying floating around? Plus, sometimes sayings mean the opposite of what they appear to mean.

**Computational photography is in its infancy, but might be the wave of the future, and that could put paid to the old notion of capturing "the" lens image on a single sheet of film or a single chip.

**Acknowledging that Ctein used to say, "all else is never equal."

Like what you read?
Give Mike a small gift or buy something for yourself

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

Curt Gerston: "It's interesting to me how much my purchasing priorities have changed over the years. Early in digital it was the highest image quality I could afford, which meant bigger DSLRs and lenses. At some point, 3–4 years ago, the quality got so good across brand and format, that it has become all about size and enjoyment-of-use for me. The camera industry as a whole has diversified in so many directions, with excellent IQ all around, there seems to be a system for nearly everyone, no matter their priorities."

Frank Petronio: "I have a big Zeiss 50mm and while I was skeptical, these new-era designs are really quite spectacular on the high-rez FF bodies. For years prior I was dinking around with the smaller conventional primes and while they were more compact, once you look at files or prints side by side you can definitely see the improvements. The difference is significant enough that I'm tempted to toss a lot of earlier work made with lessor lenses and sensors.... If you want a small camera then there are plenty of options but I quite appreciate the beast because it really is medium format quality for a fraction of the price (and a lot more versatility). I simply carry the one camera body and one lens most of the time and it's not that bad. If anything it's simply the one camera one lens philosophy taken to a higher level."

Dave: "I can't imagine a situation where the photos from this lens would be that much different from a lens that was half the weight and 20% of the price. Or even 2% of the price. Perhaps I'm of limited imagination."

Nigel: "For me it is in the long lens zone that Micro 4/3 or 1" is the winner for me. My Panasonic 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 is light and small as well has being a very nice lens. The Panasonic 100–300mm is light enough to carry on long walks. I have taken some of my favourite pictures with this lens in situations where an APS or FF lens would not be just too heavy and bulky to take on a long walk. IBIS makes hand-holding at 300mm more than possible. Long lenses on smaller formats have opened up a lot of creative doors for me."

Bruce: "Hi Mike, great post...having just come back from a walk up a hill in Nepal (Everest Base Camp) my views about this topic are tinted by the fact that an Olympus E-M1 and two primes (the fabulous 12mm ƒ/2 Zuiko and the 45mm ƒ/1.8) and two zooms (the 9–18mm and the older 40–150mm ƒ/4–5.6) are still very heavy at 5,350 meters altitude. Looking at the EXIFs of the 1500 pix taken, I find 80% taken with the 9–18mm, none with the 45mm, 10% with the 12mm, and 10% with the 40–150mm.

"I carried the body and 9–18mm around my neck supported by the waist band of my backpack up past Namche Bazar until the strain became apparent on my 68 year-old-frame. The camera went into my day pack, and out came my Nikon J1 with the 10mm prime which then produced some of the best pix of the trip. Panoramas stitched from two or three snaps from the 1" sensor now adorn my walls, and are better than old 16x20s from my 35mm film days. I felt very sorry for the trekkers lugging their Canikon full frames with 24–70s around their necks (most with a 70–200mm ƒ/2.8 in their day bags)—they were so exhausted that they missed smelling the roses and seeing the most amazing and spectacular photo ops.

"Vale the Nikon 1 system—a brilliant camera for the job. And, incidentally, the only Nikon I've ever owned, having cut my teeth on Pentax SV, Olympus OM-1, Canon APS-C, now Micro 4/3. I'm happy with my pix. And isn't that what photography is all about? Being happy with your pix?"

Geoff Wittig: "For some years now I've shot most of my landscapes with zoom lenses, but turned to fast primes for indoor portraits, generally Canon's 85mm ƒ/1.8 and the 135mm ƒ/2 'L' model. I recently bought Sigma's new 85mm ƒ/1.4 'art' lens, and it's optically fabulous—no vignetting whatsoever, stupid sharp, and lovely bokeh. But it's huge! Here's a comparison photo with Canon's 85mm ƒ/1.8, and it's David and Goliath:

"The comparison is even more ludicrous with the lens shade attached."

mark I: "This has happened before. When the Olympus OM-1 came out everyone else started making small cameras. Nikon then went from the F3 to the massive F4 and I loved it, so much that I bought another this week and still love its handling. I use a Nikon D810 and a Fuji X100T. The Fuji is going as I find it too small to handle properly and the Nikon could be bigger as far as I'm concerned. In fact I find the weight makes it easier to handhold in low light. Lucky we're all different...."

Mike replies: ...Whereas I sold my F4 for two N8008's. Although I do agree with you about the Fuji X100[x]. A lovely camera, but a bit too small for me.

Posted on Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 11:01 AM in Photo equipment | Permalink | Comments (32)

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Leica SL Gets a Prime

It's been more than a year since the Summilux-SL 50mm ƒ/1.4 was announced at the same time as the Leica SL, and now it's available for pre-order...just in time for Christmas. The SL has earned fans among those who use it—people speak especially highly of its state-of-the-art electronic viewfinder—and now those shooters have a prime lens worthy of their camera.

The Summilux-SL 50mm features 11 elements in 9 groups, takes 88mm filters, is 125mm (4.9") long, weighs 1,065 grams (37.5 oz.), and costs $5,295 (about €5,000).

Mike

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Geoffrey Heard: "A prime lens about as big as an elephant's trunk and not nearly as versatile or good looking. 88mm filters, by gob! Taking into account where Leica started from and where it gained its reputation—small, compact camera, small sensor (film) size, photojournalism and documentary photography—I have to say, sorry, it's a joke."

Mike replies:

Graphic courtesy Camerasize.com

On the left, the new Summilux-SL 50mm ƒ/1.4 mounted on an SL. On the right, the Summilux-M ASPH. mounted on an M9. While it would seem that Leica has rather lost the thread, actually it pays a lot of attention to its heritage—qua the replicam digital M's very existence. And the SL is deliberately named for the Leicaflex, which were (for the time) brawny metal beasts built like Tiger II tanks.

...Which, if you'll pardon a digression, had 88mm cannons! If my memory all the way back to young teenagerhood, building Tamiya models of Tiger tanks in my friend Mark's basement, is still any good. I'm sure it's just coincidental that that's the filter size of the new lens; but watch to see if Leica ever names a new camera the Königstiger(!!). Heh. Germans, if readers will forgive an overbroad stereotype, do seem to like things to be overbuilt.

The reason for the lens's size and cost is simply that Zeiss and Sigma have built extremely fine ~50mm lenses recently, and Leica is in a bind because it must be the best. That's the reputation it trades on and which keeps its legions loyal. So it is obligated to outdo Zeiss and especially(!) Sigma.

(Speaking of what I was speaking of, the M is increasingly sticking out, in my mind, as the oddball in the Leica lineup, a contrived contraption which does not quite fit in with thoroughly thought-out and well-designed beauties like the SL and S. It never made terribly much sense as a digital camera, and makes less sense as new designs fill in around it. But the faithful love it and that's all that matters.)

Winwalloe: "Leica heard about Otus lenses and took it as a challenge. Or maybe they saw their national counterpart BMW making their products larger over the years and got inspired."

Mike replies: ...Exactly. My feeling is that BMW's ultimate aspiration is to be the German Pontiac. One of the saddest sights I ever saw as an amateur wannabee car guy was an advertisement showing the 3-Series cars over the years all lined up side-by-side. Made me want to weep. :-O

[A different] mike: "Seems all of the new lens designs for FF cameras are super sized! Over the weekend a local camera store had a mini expo and I got to see the Tamron 85mm ƒ/1.8, and it's much bigger than I expected. It took me by surprise as my old Canon EF 85mm ƒ/1.8 was pretty small.

"The new lenses by Sigma are also gigantic, much larger than they appear in pictures. Yes they are fast and good, but wow, the thought of carrying them makes my back and feet hurt just thinking about it.

"I sometimes pull out my old Nikon F and F2 bodies with their plain unmetered prisms and marvel at how small they are compared to any FF digital body. The lenses too are tiny in comparison.

"I'm so glad I switched to Micro 4/3 a few years ago and left behind the megapixel and sensor size wars for a more reasonable system that more than satisfies all of my professional needs. A plethora of amazing lens choices that are all reasonably sized.

"When I compare them to my old Nikons, the size of the bodies is comparable, yet the lenses of matching apertures are even smaller, more like my old Leica M pre-aspherical lenses from the '90s. And the quality that I get from my miniature sensor blows away any film format smaller than 4x5. Nice."

Jeff: "And more to come...the Leica SL Lens Roadmap."

Dave I.: "I'll stick with the Pentax 43mm ƒ/1.9. Three-quarters of a pound and the filter size is the same as my old Super Takumar screw-mount lenses. How's that for backwards compatibility!"

Mike replies: A great lens. Maybe a little too sharp, but.... :-)

Bernard: "This is the size of lens manufacturers make when most people buy their lenses only on the basis of reviews which in turn are done solely by photographing test charts."

Goff: "I found the M 240 too small for my (big) hands and too fiddly for my (aging) eyes. The SL is perfect for both hands and eyes. I have been using it with my M lenses. Beautiful results. The focus assist works well in the EVF. Yes, I would like autofocus. But I am not going to buy the SL 50mm ƒ/1.4 because it is too big and heavy. Maybe the SL ƒ/2 lenses will work for me. Autofocus becomes more valuable on longer lenses. So I'm looking to the 90mm. Finally, the SL video is spectacular in 4K. The Leica SL will be my camera for both still and video for the next decade to so. Initially with M lenses, then with SL lenses."

Posted on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 08:30 PM in Lenses | Permalink | Comments (55)

TOP World Headquarters from Space

New York's beautiful Finger Lakes region seen from space. TOP World HQ is the red dot (that's not Photoshop—that's really there; it's the red red glow of my Christmas cheer).

Finger Lakes dot com has a bunch more. Remember, there are an infinite number of pictures possible of anything.

As usual, this year I'm asking Santa for a Porsche (pronounced PAW-Schuh.) I've been asking him for one for 46 years and I'm not about to stop now. (That's an official Porsche video, by the way. The idiots at Road & Track concluded from that video that, "Yes, that's two syllables, not one. Por-schuh"—when clearly the voice says something much closer to paw than por. So that's an example of what ol' Porsh is up against.)

Oh, I am radiating cheer, I am.

Mike
(Thanks to Jim Bullard)

I'm not really hoping for a Porsche, I'm hoping you will
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Posted on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 02:51 PM in Random Snaps | Permalink | Comments (20)

Ergonomic Keyboards (OT)

Alas, I have to return the beautiful Déck mechanical keyboard, the Francium Pro. I love it—the keys are made of material that doesn't show wear or get shiny; the letters are molded in with a different color of plastic (called "two-shot" molding) so they can never wear off (the irritating failure mode the old Microsoft Natural Ergonomic 4000 that I've used for years); the base is a metal plate and the thing is beautifully solid; the Cherry MX Brown key switches offer a wonderful, subtle feel; and of course it's backlit, with white light as an option, which is the reason I bought it.

But apparently I have to relearn every six or seven years that I can't use straight standard keyboards. Honestly, if I had to use, say, a laptop to write on, I would be forced to quit writing. The problem is RSI (repetitive strain injury), in my case aggravated by ulnar flexion, or ulnar deviation, which is a cocking of the wrist toward the little finger, and pronation, which is what you call it when you have to hold your hand flat, palm down, instead of at a natural angle, as your hands might fall if you held a basketball between your knees and placed your hands on both sides of the top of the ball. (You can find some illustrations of wrist positions here.) After spending four days typing on the lovely Déck, I spent the weekend in agony—seriously, I went around holding my right wrist and popping ibuprophen like candies (no, actually I followed the dosage instructions. But my hand was in enough pain that I looked forward to each Advil hit).

The key to solving ulnar flexion is simply to split the keyboard and arrange the halves in whatever way doesn't hurt you.

Pronation is usually solved by "tenting"—imagine if you broke the keyboard in half and angled each half upward like the sides of a pup tent:

This is a Kinesis Freestyle2 split keyboard tented to a rather radical angle, 20°, using an expensive accessory called an "Ascent."

One size does not fit all
Of course, the problem with ergonomic keyboards in general is that not everybody needs the same thing. Right-handers, for example, are sometimes bothered by having to locate the mouse far away from their body because of the "tenkey," or numberpad, affixed to the right side of full-sized keyboards. That doesn't bother me because I'm left-handed. And my left hand never hurts; the problem is all in my right hand and arm. I have a slight physical affliction, a large so-called "port wine stain" vascular birthmark on my right hand, arm, and shoulder that seems to be associated with stiffness and tightness on the right side of my body (I notice it even in my feet, far away from the birthmark. A masseur who once worked me over as a birthday present told me, "your right side is about ten times tighter than your left side"). My left hand has never given me any trouble when typing.

So there's no such thing as an "ergonomic keyboard" as a single distinct thing—rather, there are all kinds of different designs that represent different peoples' attempts to solve the problem. For example, both of these are ergonomic keyboards:

The top one is something called the Truly-Ergonomic Mechanical Keyboard, and below that is the formidably odd but apparently effective Kinesis Advantage2. I assume you'd have to be a touch typist to stand a chance of accommodating to the Kinesis Advantage2, and I'm not a touch typist. I suppose it's not quite right to call myself a "hunt-and-peck" typist, because I can usually type without looking at the keyboard very much and I can manage 45 words per minute on a good day, but I learned to type the wrong way and now it's ingrained.

Should you use an ergonomic keyboard, even if you don't have problems? Well, talk to someone who does have problems. It's like being a normal weight—would you like to stay that way, or would you be fine with gaining a hundred and fifty pounds? With smoking, I used to tell my son and his friends when they were kids that by far the easiest way to quit is to not start in the first place. If you don't have any physical problems from sitting at a desk and typing, I'd say (after a weekend of constant annoying pain in my wrist), for heaven's sake try to keep it that way.

Recommended
The keyboard most likely to help most people is the Microsoft Sculpt. Mild in every parameter with just enough of every accommodation to help in every way—and thus make the desired difference—a Sculpt would be especially good for people who don't yet have problems. It's not expensive as ergonomic keyboards go; it's good-looking (although the pad discolors after time, some reviewers report—something Microsoft might quietly fix, or, for all I know, might already have fixed); it has a separate, detached numberpad and even includes an ergonomic mouse; and it shouldn't be too hard to get used to.

The best for me right now would probably be the Matias Ergo Pro, available for Mac or Windows and with regular or low-force keys. It's a fully split board with mechanical keys and adjustable orientation. I don't know, though. It's expensive, and I'm a bit sore, literally, so I guess I'll stop poking fate with a stick and just stick to what I'm used to.

As a reviewer I give high marks to the lovely Déck Francium Pro gaming keyboard. It's sweet. Love those Cherry MX Browns. I just can't use it. YMMV.

Mike

Click your mouse gently:
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Gordon Lewis: "This is in no way to contradict the truth or importance of what you wrote, but I have more issues with mice than keyboards. Although I can and do type comfortably all day on an Apple keyboard, Apple mice, for example, are naught but well-disguised instruments of mockery and torture. Other mouse designs assume I am right-handed, which I find so presumptuous as to be insulting. My pointing device of choice is a Logitech Trackman Marble Mouse: sturdy, ambidextrous, programmable, and comfortable."

Robin: "Unfortunately I know all too well about these issues, being an 'early adopter' of voice solutions thanks to an RSI that almost ruined my life. As an indication of when this was...a sound card for digital input cost ten thousand dollars. I could write a chapter but really only want to say a big THANKS! for even bringing this issue to light. The more people who read an article like this, the more who might save their bodies and careers.

"Since mice are evil, my biggest problem has been buying a good touchpad. The old Cirque ones simply are not built as well as they used to be (my first lasted a decade). And they do not work as reliably with Windows 10, for whatever reason. My days are filled with frustration and knowing that things were better in the 'nineties is really grating."

Posted on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 11:15 AM in Computers, Off-topic posts | Permalink | Comments (31)

Monday, 12 December 2016

Service and Support Coming at Ya?

Written by Eamon Hickey

Pardon this brief indulgence in camera-business navel-gazing, but an unusual event caught my eye last week. What happened is this: Canon USA issued a press release highlighting the results of a U.S. customer satisfaction survey, which compared Canon USA service with Nikon USA service. Canon was the clear winner, according to Canon, and the press release goes on to claim several other advantages for Canon USA’s service and support network (all of which may well be true).

Several blogger/commentators picked this up, including Thom Hogan, who pointed out that it’s very rare for a camera company to make direct comparisons with a competitor by name like this. He’s right—it’s unusual and it will ruffle some Nikon feathers.

The thing that caught my eye, however, was one almost throwaway sentence in Canon’s press release: “…Canon has also launched a new digital advertising campaign that highlights the Company’s knowledgeable tech support staff and efficient service times….”

Why did that jump out at me? I’ve been either working in, or writing about, the camera business in the U.S. for 30 years, and I don’t remember ever seeing a camera company actively promote service and support as part of its sales pitch to regular customers. (Canon and Nikon do promote, very narrowly, their support programs for working pros, CPS and NPS.) Ever since I went to work in a camera store in 1987, service and support from camera manufacturers has been pretty much abysmal across the board in the U.S. Uniformly embarrassing. The secret shame of the industry. But nobody has hitherto made much effort to improve it because the companies believe that regular customers don’t give service much weight in their purchasing decisions. Indeed, the companies believe it has almost no impact on sales. (And, by the way, camera company executives have reams of market research data at their disposal—how customers make their buying decisions is obviously a very well-studied phenomenon in every business.)

Now comes Canon USA touting its investment in superior service and support—i.e. “making customer service an integral part of our business model,” as the press release says. Providing said service ain’t cheap or easy, and advertising it won’t be cheap either, but Canon evidently intends to see if it can get a return on its investment, contrary to decades of accepted wisdom in the business. If Canon USA can, in fact, sell more cameras by promoting better service, it may drag Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fujifilm et al. along with it. Call it a good service arms race. Well, let’s not get crazy — it’ll probably be a not-quite-as-dismal service arms race, if it happens. But, hey, if things aren’t quite as dismal, then they’re looking up.

So if we're lucky, maybe we'll see some improvements in camera company service in the near future.

Eamon

Eamon Hickey is a Contributing Editor of TOP and...well, he already told you, he's been either working in or writing about the camera industry for more than 30 years. He has written for Imaging-Resource, CNET, Rob Galbraith's blog (officially Rob Galbraith Digital Photography Insights), and a handful of magazines including DigitalFoto, Computer Shopper, Macaddict, and Laptop.

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

Like TOP?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Tom: "I primarily use Nikon so I'm an NPS member. Aside from a nice magazine and a diary sometime in March I see very little value by the way of support. I don't trust them to service my equipment.

"Only one camera manufacturer has ever made me feel that they value me as a customer and additionally that they are committed to photography as opposed to camera sales, and that's Leica. A company I have bought exactly three items from in 20 years. I recall once approaching a Leica rep at a trade show and asking when Leica might produce a digital camera. Instead of brushing me off with some nonsense I could have read someplace on the Internet, he took the care to explain exactly what unusual technical difficulties Leica was facing at that time with their short flange distance and said that although they were a small company, they were working on the problem. I went away with renewed confidence."

Maggie Osterberg: "And who has the worst customer service? Leica USA. For instance, the M9 series of cameras has a sensor that will corrode, but that Leica will replace free of charge. Sounds pretty good, right? Nope. You send your camera (you pay shipping there and back, by the way) to Leica USA in New Jersey, where it will sit for anywhere between six and twelve months. Then the sensor gets replaced along with the vulcanite, which has to be removed to do the repair. I've read that that can take up to a couple of weeks. Then, finally, the camera is shipped back to you. Leica is like owning an old Mercedes-Benz—yes, it can run forever, but repairs and parts are insanely expensive and take forever to obtain.

"On the other hand, my husband's Nikon DSLR, which also had a warranty Sensor replacement, went off to Nikon and came back a little over a week later, all at zero cost to him."

Ed. note: I'm sure you noticed how closely those two comments mirrored each other, but with conclusions reversed. Here are two more which came in one right after the other:

Anthony Shaughnessy (partial comment): "When I was little the television repair man and the washing machine repair man were regular visitors to our house. Nowadays things don't usually break and when they do they're usually impractical to fix and trying to get good sales service for most devices is difficult. So I've grown to expect no after-sales service and simply hope that nothing goes wrong and generally it doesn't. Hence, after sales service isn't part of how I choose products."

Stephen Scharf (partial comment): "I don't know about other customers, but service and support is something that is foremost in my mind when making purchasing decisions. When you invest in expensive purchases, like cars, high-end audio, or camera/photography systems, you are entering into a relationship with the vendor. You're going to be living with the product in fair seas and foul, so while most customers don't think about this at all, timely and robust service and support capability are 'critical-to-quality' requirements for me when making purchasing decisions."

kosch: "Lately, I feel like I have moved back to a time before I was born, when a purchase was not replaceable; all because of the ability to reference YouTube. For the past five years, when any appliance, gizmo, or electronic thing has broken I diagnose it as far as I can, Google it and then watch a YouTube video (sometimes, many of them) on how to fix it.

"I have fixed my washing machine, refrigerator, two cars, a Sekonic light meter, dishwasher, installed wood flooring, and even poured a huge stamped concrete patio, all because experts online have showed me what to do. I don't rely on nuanced warrantees, I do not call repair places anymore, I do not have to consider the service available after I buy the product. I research major purchases based on the amount of repair videos on the Internet.

"I have an Olympus 50mm ƒ/2 Ziuko that will not autofocus anymore. I have a couple of days off coming up. I have been watching videos online already, ordered $17.50 worth of electronic parts, and will have a fully repaired lens by next Tuesday (fingers crossed).
I am already awaiting the videos that will teach me how to build the things that I need...."

Ned Bunnell: "Smart move by Canon. In a declining market, they want to make sure they still capture the lion's share of sales. They've now made service a conversation, and for the first time, a factor in our purchase decision process. Knowing how Canon runs a conservative and financially well-thought-out business, I don't think this is a short-term campaign. It'll be interesting to see how Nikon responds."

Posted on Monday, 12 December 2016 at 09:14 AM in Photo industry | Permalink | Comments (46)

Friday, 09 December 2016

Four Photography Books

Reviewed by Geoff Wittig

The Documentary Impulse By Stuart Franklin (Phaidon, 2016, $20.40)

Stuart Franklin is a highly experienced documentary photographer best known for his iconic "Tank Man" photo of a Chinese civilian standing defiantly before a column of tanks at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

He also happens to be an extraordinarily erudite and articulate student of art and photography. This deceptively small volume comprises eight chapter-length essays addressing questions ranging from the link between documentary photography and the origins of representational art in cave paintings, to the role of ambiguity and visual poetry in photographic storytelling, to manipulation and staging as they relate to the future of documentary photography. A handful of intellectual threads tie the various essays together; perhaps the most central is the concept of photography’s capacity to "undeceive," to tell new truths to the wider world, or conversely to reinforce existing comfortable deceptions. Chapter 2, Lost Eden: Traces of the Colonial Legacy, for example, illuminates how beautiful landscape photography by Ansel Adams et al. conveyed the notion of the Americas as an empty paradise, conveniently eliding the genocidal removal of the previous inhabitants. Franklin’s analysis of documentary photography of aboriginal populations is particularly pungent, demonstrating how even the most sympathetic Western photographers from Edward Sheriff Curtis to Sebastião Salgado tend to reinforce a false "trapped in amber" vision of such cultures, while the work of indigenous photographers receives far less exposure. Franklin also makes a very persuasive argument for the marriage of informative captions and text with images, noting that leaving photographs to speak for themselves without context can greatly limit their potential for story-telling.

One doesn’t have to agree with all of Franklin’s conclusions, but he surely makes the reader think. His comfort with ambiguity and nuance is one of the book’s great strengths.

Physically the book is beautifully done; the cover playfully emulates a classic Leica, and the typography is brilliant. The paper is high quality matte stock. Despite modest size and dense typesetting, the clean digital neohumanist font (complete with f-ligatures and lining numerals, hallelujah) is extremely readable. The text is nicely illustrated by scattered photographs, many of them recognizable classics. Kudos to Phaidon for obtaining all the necessary rights.

Amazon
Amazon UK (£16.56)
The Book Depository

Rouge By Michael Kenna (Prestel, 2016, $45.94)

Michael Kenna’s elegant black-and-white photographs have presented a vision of subtle beauty for decades. This volume is a revised and expanded edition of a book ﬁrst published more than 20 years ago. Included are many images not part of the original book, and others re-interpreted from the existing negatives. Consider it an antidote to the current fad for huge high-resolution color photographs of abandoned and decaying industrial sites. Kenna spent the better part of two years photographing Ford’s colossal River Rouge factory complex. The resulting images range from his signature brooding nocturnal photographs to dramatic, graphic compositions invoking Charles Sheeler. Not for everyone, but if you like this kind of work, you’ll love this book.

Amazon
Amazon UK (£29.25)
The Book Depository

Essential Elements By Edward Burtynsky (Thames & Hudson, 2016, $51.33)

Edward Burtynsky has been photographing the transformation of the Earth by human activity since the 1980s, typically working on long-form projects culminating in exhibitions of his giant prints and accompanying coﬀee-table books. Initially using large-format film cameras, he has more recently employed medium-format digital cameras, generally from an elevated viewpoint or from aircraft. Most of his books are still in print, and they are consistently beautiful, despite the often toxic and disquieting subject matter. This volume summarizes his oeuvre, with sections addressing each of his major projects, accompanied by a range of brief essays and reviews. Certainly the most illuminating are the comments from Burtynsky himself, spelling out what he was trying to achieve with his photographs. Admirers of his work may want to seek out project-based books like Oil and Water. But if you want the best single volume treatment of his photography, this is the one to get. The photo reproductions are as good as it gets these days.

Amazon
Amazon UK (£29.25)
The Book Depository

[Note that there is also a Deluxe Collector's Edition of this book that includes an original print. The cheapest way to get it as of this writing is through The Book Depository, where it costs $377.10, shipped free, versus £325 at Amazon UK and $500 at Amazon.com. —Ed.]

Dirt Meridian By Andrew Moore (Damiani, 2015, $36.04)

I will readily confess to being a sucker for the austere beauty of the great plains of North America. I’ve made multiple trips to the region, and always find its vast horizons compelling. Andrew Moore’s unsentimental yet sympathetic documentation of the endless prairie skies, cultivated ﬁelds, and weathered farming families just sings for me. Many of the photographs were taken at dusk with a high-resolution medium format rig mounted to the wing strut of a low-ﬂying Cessna and directed from a tablet in the cockpit. The photo reproduction quality is excellent, and the accompanying text includes a brief foreword from Kent Haruf, author of Plainsong, the quintessential contemporary novel of (Anglo) prairie life. Not for everyone, but if you like the subject, you’ll love this book.

Amazon
Amazon UK (£35)
The Book Depository

Geoff

TOP Contributing Editor Geoff Wittig is a rural family physician with interests ranging from health care quality improvement, medical informatics, and integration of health care delivery to photography and landscape painting. Photo books are a particular area of interest; he admits he has far too many for his own good.

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

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

Joseph Vavak: "Andrew Moore's 'Dirt Meridian' is on display at the Joslyn Art Museum in Omaha right now. It's a really nice exhibition with immaculate large prints and dozens of photographs. His use of an airplane, especially at very low altitudes, really gives the series a different look than what we generally see photographers (myself included) do. He really captures the isolation of the plains in an effective, beautiful way. The following video is playing alongside the photographs. It shows how he works (ladders, airplanes, etc.)."

Tom: "I look forward to the TOP book recommendations at this time of year and pick out a book I would probably never have otherwise considered. My collection is much the richer for it. This year I've gone for The Documentary Impulse."

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "For the record, while the repro quality of Essential Elements is as good as Geoff notes, I highly urge readers to make an effort to see Burtynsky's prints whenever possible. Unlike so many art photographers who make exhibition prints gratuitously large, most of Burtynsky's images really require scale to make the complete message. Having seen many in both public and private collections all I can say is it's worth the effort."

Posted on Friday, 09 December 2016 at 07:15 PM in Books | Permalink | Comments (16)

Random Excellence: Jill Krementz

Photo by Jill Krementz

...And speaking of keyboards, as I also was in the "Blog Notes" post below...here's E.B. ("Andy") White, author of Charlotte's Web and prose stylist primus inter pares, at his.

I've been reading several books about writing recently, and this is the photograph that William Zinsser talks about in the opening pages of his book On Writing Well.

One of Jill Krementz's best, and I appreciate a lot of her work. She specializes in portraits of writers, many of which are among the best of their respective subjects. (She is the widow of a writer—Kurt Vonnegut). William Zinsser points out that the barrel in the foreground has to be one of the essential, elemental, and irreductible tools of writing on paper—namely, the wastebasket.

Mike

"Random Excellence," a regular feature on TOP, presents excellent photographs encountered at random.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Kent Phelan: "That's Eggemoggin Reach out the window. E.B. White summered annually in Brooklin, Maine. There, his son Joel White lived on the water all summer, in a Nathanael Herreshoff '12 1/2' sloop named 'Shadow.' Joel went on to MIT, became a naval architect, and founded the Brooklin Boat Yard, which his son Steve runs today. Brooklin is at the center of the Wooden Boat revival in the United States, due in large part to Joel White's contributions.

"That is a fabulous part of our country, and I can only imagine what a clearing, calming effect it would have on a writer. I am not a writer, but I occasionally fake my way around a tiller."

Posted on Friday, 09 December 2016 at 12:31 PM in Random Excellence | Permalink | Comments (14)

The TIME Magazine Cover Controversy

Speaking of the States of America, as I was in the "Blog Notes" post below, did TIME magazine subtly either a.) give Trump devil's horns using the "M" in its name or b.) make a sly visual reference to an historical cover of Adolf Hitler on purpose?

Both, I'd wager; creative work is usually more intentional than casual observers give it credit for being. Alex Cooke, who wrote a commentary on the issue at Fstoppers, says the Internet is very split over this. "I spoke to several industry associates," Alex writes, "and surprisingly, no one was lukewarm; they either saw the resemblance in the extreme or saw nothing at all."

Mike
(Thanks to Aaron Greenman)

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

Barbara Haig: "Hi Mike—here's an interesting take on the photo: 'Why Time's Trump Cover Is a Subversive Work of Political Art,' at Forward."

Posted on Friday, 09 December 2016 at 11:53 AM in Visual Culture | Permalink | Comments (17)

Blog Notes (Computers and Coming Attractions)

The comments on yesterday's post (the post below this) are particularly excellent—all of them, not just the few I featured. Just a tip that you might want to block out a little time to go through some of them. And gracias to those who chimed in.

Wednesday's "Open Mike" posts got almost as much traffic as the #1 post of the past five or six weeks, which was the political post on the day after the election. (Best joke I've heard on that score: Great Britain has dropped the "Great" in its name and will henceforth be known simply as "Britain," and The United States has dropped the "United" and from now on will be known as "The States of America." Thanks to the reader who passed that along.) I always get complaints when I go off topic, but those posts pull in readers.

I've bought a mechanical keyboard because of an odd problem: my new monitor has an extending stand, so I raise it up higher (a big relief)...but now it's farther away from the keyboard, and I never realized that the monitor was helping to illuminate the keyboard at night. Since I'm a hunt-and-peck typist and basically terminally clumsy (seriously, I test with unusually low manual dexterity) I sometimes need to see certain keys. I bought a Deck 87-key Francium Pro because it has lighted keys. It's got nice build quality and great action. It uses Cherry MX Brown switches, my favorite Cherrys. I might add O-rings to it. But like most keyboards it seems too small—about 3/4 size compared to what I would like. I guess I have big hands. Were keyboards standardized to fit women's hands, back in the Mad Men days when women were only allowed to be secretaries, teachers, or nurses, and men weren't taught to type? An oddity is that the letters on the keys don't light up completely—in the dark, the E looks just like the F, for example, because the lowest arm* doesn't get much light. Oh well, I guess I know where the E key is. Deck is headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin, near where I used to live.

By the way this is my new favorite thing. Or one of the many similar ones on offer from many sources. Makes the biggest difference I've experienced in years. From now on it's SSDs in the computer and conventional hard drives for external storage and backup for me.

Looks like we are not going to have our Beautiful Bokeh print sale in time for delivery by Christmas. The choices have been made but the photographer is a printing perfectionist and has been working for days to get the prints just right. Better to do it right than fast, right? I think I'll plan it for the first five days in January. TOP is never right up to the moment with anything else (reviews, news, commentary, obituaries), so that fits okay. Both pictures were made with the Sony A7rII mirrorless camera and hard-to-find old lenses beloved of bokeh connoisseurs. Ravishingly gorgeous. Oddly, I think these work both at a superficial level (decor) and at the geeky photo-dawg level and at the subtle and profound art-lover level. Those of you who are fans of color photography are going to love these.

Next up right now—book reviews! By Geoff. (Yay.) I hope to have them up by 5:00 or 6:00. Please check back in a couple of hours.

Mike
(Clip art image by Cliparts.co)

P.S. The reason I wrote "LOOK AT THIS!" down below the small print is that in the last three days, five people have emailed me to ask where the tip jar page or the affiliate links page are.

*That's the technical calligraphic/typographic term for a horizontal stroke that is attached at one end and free on the other.

LOOK AT THIS!
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Posted on Friday, 09 December 2016 at 09:48 AM in Blog Notes | Permalink | Comments (15)

Thursday, 08 December 2016

Would You Really Want to Be a Pro Photographer?

Years ago there was a commercial that featured the champion golfer Tom Kite and another professional golfer. The two were on massage tables getting rubdowns, discussing in weary, jaded tones whether they were going to take the trouble to fly to Hawaii to play in a golf tournament. It's been a very long time since I saw that ad, but, if memory serves, the two also discussed the huge prize money on offer as if it were barely worth the trouble.

The joke, of course, was that they were complaining bitterly about things the average golfer would dearly love to be privileged to do.

But how many of those jealous amateurs would really have enough desire to be a professional golfer? Those guys practice four, six, eight, even ten hours a day. They'll do two hours just practicing putts...and then do it again the next day, and the next. Would you want to do that? If you play golf, have you ever once worked with the same club for two hours straight at a practice range? Maybe you have if you were on the golf team in college. The average amateur hasn't, I'll bet.

Even if I were good at it, I think I'd be bored out of my mind inside of a week.

Number 36
It's the same way in many fields. The people who succeed have a great deal of energy for the work.

At least with golf there's the potential for reward. Top pool players also have to practice eight hours a day (three hours was about my max, back when I had a table) but the difference is stark: as a competitive-pool-playing friend of mine pointed out a few years back, the no. 36 pro golfer on the PGA tour earns more than two million dollars; the no. 36 pool player in the world (a friend of my friend's) has to sleep in his car when he travels to tournaments because he can't afford a motel.

People who succeed also have a huge appetite for the work. A desire and an interest—and a satisfaction when things go well—that keeps them going.

I think I read somewhere—in about '08, around there—that the average blogger writes four posts and then gives up. I have a relative who did exactly that—four excellent, well-conceived, informative, entertaining, well-written blog posts. Then, because the effort had tired him out, he took a few days off. That turned into a few weeks, and what do you know? A number of months later it emerged that he had, in fact, retired from blogging after those first four posts. He hadn't exactly intended to, but he did. Too much work, not enough reward.

This is blog post number 7,242 for me, and that follows more than 240 published columns in print and on the Internet, and around 200 published magazine articles and editorials.

Would you want to do that, or would it drive you crazy? You won't offend me if you say the latter.

Granted, not all of those blog posts are much good, but maybe 10% of them are. That's still 724 well-crafted mini-articles, most conceived and finished within a span of one to three hours. More than most writers would have the stamina for. There must be something keeping my batteries charged.

Be a happy amateur and be happy!
I have two separate points to make here. They don't necessarily relate to each other. The first is my belief that you simply have to have a certain amount of aptitude and ability for any type of work (or sport, or art, or anything) that requires so much time, effort, and practice. (Reward is a strong motivator, too.) That popular idea about 10,000 hours being needed for mastery is nice and tidy, but the fact is that if you don't have aptitude and ability for a particular pursuit, and if you're not getting real gratification from it, you won't be able to find the drive and the energy to keep going that long. Determination alone just won't do it. You can't force yourself to be what you're not. (And the worse you are at something, the more effort it takes to do it well.)

The second point is that it can be okay to be an amateur. Professional photographers work very hard. The job has an unusual number of facets and they have to be good at most of them. It requires a broad range of talents and abilities. And it never stops. If you're an amateur, think of the hardest you ever worked at photography and ask yourself, would I really want to do that all day long, five, six, sometimes seven days a week?

For most people, the answer is probably very much like it would be for the average amateur golfer: "Ahh...not really." Just as it's great fun to be able to play golf every weekend in the Summer and partake of an occasional golf holiday, maybe even practice a few times a week and enjoy reading about golfers and equipment, so it is with photography. For most of us it's lovely to be able to do many of the things I've done myself over the past week: head out for a few hours of exploring, looking around, and photographing; happily sift through those shots on the computer and spend some time feeling enthusiastic about the good ones; settle down for an hour to the satisfying task of making a great print of an image you care about; or sit down for another satisfying stint of reading a few more pages in the book I've currently got going, The Origins of American Photography. I love every part of it. It's a great hobby, and it keeps rewarding me. Add a dedicated photography vacation or workshop every now and then, a museum visit, and the company of intelligent and interesting like-minded enthusiasts (that's you!), plus the appealing distraction of the gear and gadgetry, and I'm contented.

But all the time? All day every day? The answer for me is clear: I love being an amateur photographer. And I'll continue to jealously guard that status. Your mileage, as they say on the Internet, may vary!

Mike

Help encourage no. 7,243:
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Rob: "I'm a musician, classical and jazz mostly, and the same thing applies. I tell my students to remember that practicing and playing (rehearsals, concerts, etc.) are not the same thing, and that high-quality practice is very intense—and hard—work. To become a competent instrumentalist requires years of four to eight hours of practice a day in addition to any playing that one might do. It might be great fun and spiritually rewarding but it is also d**n hard work!"

Gato: "I started college as a music major at one of the top schools. The thing that amazed me most—and moved me to change majors—was just how much time and work people put into developing their talent. At that age I just couldn't understand putting in six or eight hours a day in a practice room—on top of classes and rehearsals.

"A couple of years later I discovered photography and found myself spending six or eight hours a day in the darkroom, in addition to shooting, studying and classes. That is, putting in the kind of work the musicians had been doing. Then I began to understand what drove them.

"I was lucky enough to make a decent living doing the kind of photography I enjoyed for about 12 years—and also lucky enough to segue into a related career when it began to get old.

"I cannot imagine how awful it would have been had I been forced to continue churning out commercial-grade photography after the glow faded. Being forced to do work you don't like just to put food on the table is bad enough. Being forced to do work you don't like in a field you once loved would be torture—at least to me.

"Now I'm retired and can do photography on my own terms—and I love it again.

"By the way, my accountant loves accounting the way some people love photography or music. Some of us are lucky enough to find a calling and be able to pursue it."

Darlene: "Well I was a pro photographer for decades and I would do it all over again knowing what I know. I made a very good income, was my own boss, was well respected, met some incredible people and some famous personalities that I otherwise would never have met if not for my profession, and because I was good at it, doors opened for me and that was a pretty cool ride to be on. It was difficult at times to balance my personal life with my professional life, and it becomes hard work physically the older you get, but I have the passion and have always known that nothing else will satisfy me like photography does. I am equally happy doing personal work as I was doing commercial work, and I find teaching photography and the business just as satisfying; it truly is my life, it makes me happy and I do not care to be doing anything else. I see very few students with the passion I had early on, and others that I hope will find whatever it is that lights their fire before they grow too old or too tired because they ain't gonna make it in the photo business; this I know. Nothing wrong with their art, they lack the need to breathe! Passion is about risking everything for a dream no one can see but you, and when the risk turns into a negotiation with life, your passion will equal your need to breathe, and it is then you will succeed. Gotta have the passion to succeed."

Patrick: "Like most professional photographers, I started photography as a hobby, dare I say even a passion. When I started photographing professionally my shooting was split between work and personal. Sadly, the more successful I became as a professional (read: the more of my hours are spent photographing what others pay me to capture) the less and less I found myself doing photography for pleasure. At this point, six and a half days of every week are spent doing the job of professional photography (from shooting to editing to various business tasks) and I almost never pick up a camera for myself any longer. I guess it's a case of 'beware what you wish for.'"

Bruce McL: "Self-made billionaire Marc Cuban wrote a blog post on this subject. His advice: forget about following your passion. If you want to be successful, find what you like to grind away at and do that. Ideally it's something that you can't help but grind away at—every time somebody brings up a problem or issue around this subject you feel compelled to grind away until you have an answer you are satisfied with."

Gordon Lewis: "Having been a pro photographer in L.A. for a couple of years, I heartily agree with everything you've said. I might also add that the hard work involves a lot more than photography alone. Depending on speciality, it also requires marketing, accounting, client relations, bill collecting, travel, hiking, equipment transport and logistics, set building...the list goes on. That said, it was a great learning experience and I would gladly do it all again; I just wouldn't do it now. Writing ain't easy either, but at this stage in my life it's easier, and frankly, more rewarding."

Curt Gerston: "I've been an avid skier my whole life, got pretty good, and in college spent a season as a ski instructor...only one season. Turns out, I loved skiing as an escape for me, not as a job to be paid for. I feel the same way about photography...I tried shooting some weddings, portraits, events, just to see if I wanted to go pro...nope. Your post perfectly described my feelings about my 'amateur' status...I like to play at photography, not work for others."

Ade (partial comment): "Similarly, I've always wanted to be able to play the guitar but somehow I've never wanted to actually play the guitar enough to become competent at it. In fact, I suspect I'd rather be seen (and fêted) by others for being able to play it, rather than actually enjoying it as an activity in itself. This seems to be key for a lot of creative pursuits: if you can't subsist on the internal rewards alone, there are precious few external ones to compensate and they are usually hard-won. I guess it's fortunate that I've been able to make a career in IT, a field I'm happy to tinker about in anyway on my own time."

Peter Komar: "Photography was first my hobby and my passion and then I got my dream job of a professional photographer for a major corporation. The hobby and the career were totally different and although my photo career lasted over 12 years it just was not the fit I had expected. I grew in my career and learned so much but I also at times regretted my decision, the hobby and the profession were just so different, so for me if asked for advice I would simply say, think it over long and hard if the opportunity presents itself.

"The hobby was always and still is my passion."

Posted on Thursday, 08 December 2016 at 09:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (53)

Wednesday, 07 December 2016

Wednesday Open Mike Number 2: Ann Patchett (OT)

"Stephen King has published 57 novels, all of them bestsellers. He has sold more than 350 million copies of his works. According to Forbes, he earns approximately $40 million per year, making him one of the richest writers in the world.

"In 2002, King temporarily abandoned writing horror novels, instead publishing On Writing, a little book chronicling his rise to fame and discussing exactly what he believes it takes to become a good writer. Since then, it’s become the most popular book about writing ever written, pulling in over 1,000 reviews on Amazon and selling God only knows how many copies."

—Jon Morrow

I was one of those God-only-knows folks who did buy and read On Writing, some time shortly after 2002. It is good.

But the best advice for writers I've ever read comes from Ann Patchett, the novelist, essayist, former Seventeen magazine writer, and famous independent bookstore owner. It's a longish essay called "The Getaway Car: A Practical Memoir About Writing and Life," and it appears in her collection This Is the Story of a Happy Marriage (in the title essay, the author chronicles her avoidant/dismissive adult attachment style and the relative unhappiness of her marriage—she refused to even live with her husband for many years, and seems surprised that he became happier once she relented and moved in with him—but never mind).

Why this post: every now and then I get an email from a high-school or college student asking if they can please write something for TOP. Evidently this is part of a course they're taking, which (I'm deducing) recommends that one of the ways to market oneself as a writer is to construct a chipper "cold call" email to an established website and request to contribute. Since some of these young persons write to TOP, I suspect that maybe the coursework recommends that they shouldn't be too ambitious and that it might work better to pick a smaller, less well known, somewhat out-of-the-way site.

All of these form(ish) letters include the assertion "I can write about anything you want!" or some eager variant thereupon. Note to earnest would-be writers: no; no, you can't. You can write about your opinions; you might be able to flex your fledgling reportorial skills to some incomplete degree of competence (deliberately ignoring that many seasoned and excellent reporters are lately out of work); you might know a few things and can probably write about those things, after a fashion. But not only can you not write about all things or anything, you are fortunate enough if you can write about one thing. And some of us older wannabees will have our doubts on that score too, I have to say.

Ann Patchett's basic prescription: She notes (obviously but at the same time astutely) that writers write, and suggests that if you're one of the numerous people who fantasizes about being a writer, the first, most basic test of that aspiration would be to see if you can sit down and write for an hour a day for thirty consecutive days. If you can't do that, she says, you'll never make it.

The rest of the essay has a similar hard-boiled, practical, no-nonsense tone. I've found it useful.

She has a new novel just out, if you're a novel-reader.

Mike

"Open Mike" is the off-topic editorial page that I try to write every Wednesday. Since I haven't been doing too good with that intention lately, I thought I could make up for it by writing several of 'em today. Does that count?

Will write for food.
Patreon or Amazon

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

J. Robert Lennon: "Ann was my writing teacher. She gave me the single most useful criticism (or, more to the point, put-down) I've ever received: 'If this is the kind of thing you want to do, then this is about as good as it's going to get.' Needless to say, I stopped doing that kind of thing, and moved on to projects that were beyond my capability—the kind that make me a better writer every time I try them."

[J. Robert Lennon is an accomplished published novelist and short story author. —Ed.]

Gaspar Heurtley: "I'm a journalist. I've worked in newspapers and online news sites for a long time, and now I'm an editor (mostly educational books). I studied hard when I was young(er) and I'm working my way up the ladder. My essential tool, required to do my job, is the spoken language. Same way a blacksmith would use a hammer or a surgeon would use a scalpel. The thing is, everyone can speak and write a few words. So everyone thinks they can do my job. It's just words, isn't it. The same way a photographer just presses a button and that's it! One of my best friends is an architect, but I would never ask him to skip work and let me build a bridge for him."

Geoff Wittig: "Stephen King's book is delightful, both as a fine example of clear expository prose and for the sound advice it contains about the importance of simple diligence and a work ethic to the creation of any art, however humble. I'm equally fond of William Zinsser's classic On Writing Well. Zinsser similarly emphasized simplicity and clarity of prose, citing Strunk and White, but he also pointed out the importance of finding and cultivating one's own unique voice, rather than emulating someone else's. English is a wonderfully supple and potent language. It can be immensely satisfying to craft a sentence or paragraph that conveys precisely what you intend, in an entertaining or even beautiful manner. Much like crafting a beautiful print."

William Schneider: "Re 'The first, most basic test of that aspiration would be to see if you can sit down and write for an hour a day for thirty consecutive days.' That advice, modified a bit, would work for anyone who aspires to be a professional photographer too."

Posted on Wednesday, 07 December 2016 at 03:40 PM in Off-topic posts, Open Mike | Permalink | Comments (18)

Wednesday Open Mike Number 1: 'I Somehow, Some Way Keep Comin' Up With F*nky A St Like Every Single Day' (OT)

I have very bad news for black people who like hip-hop, and I do extend my condolences: Hip-hop isn't cool any more.

How do I know? Because I've been listening to it.

Me—a vanilla, white-as-can-be, erudite, somewhat stuffy, perilously close to sixty-year-old male autodidact who, according to demographics, should be listening to nothing but Classic Rock and getting into arguments with my beardy friends about how Journey is underappreciated and whether the Stones can still access the true spirit of rock-and-roll now that they are all wizened little old men who resemble elves. I go bopping down the road in my Acura (really, I'm very sorry—not a hip-hop vehicle) with XM radio set to the "Backspin" station (subtitled "Classic Hip Hop"), the speakers pounding to Public Enemy, the Notorious B.I.G., Coolio's "I Remember" (aight!), Ice Cube's "It Was a Good Day," Dr. Dre, Lil Wayne's "How To Love," OutKast, Salt N Pepa, Geto Boys...you get the picture. Love it, love it.

You will be relieved to know that, as I drive, I am not puffing on my bubonic chronic or sipping on gin and juice.

But I have taken to referring to A Tribe Called Quest as "A.T.C.Q." Again...so sorry.

Elijah Wald's book How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'N' Roll has a startlingly cynical title, faux-provocative for purposes, apparently, of marketing—the book is an iconoclastic history of American popular music and how it was played, written, recorded and disseminated over the years, and has nothing at all, or very little, to do with the Beatles or their alleged destruction of anything. Anyway if memory serves, I think it was How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'N' Roll in which I read the thesis that the pattern of American music is for black music to be in the vanguard, only to become popular with white people thirty years later, by which time black music has moved on. Not sure if that's true, but I appear to be one data-point in favor of the theory.

All this is a long and wholly gratuitous preamble to mentioning "Don't Fall Asleep," featuring tracks from Wechsel Garland, DJ Shadow, Eric B. and Rakim, Irresistible Force, Freakniks and more. DJ KK has been on a hot tear recently, with new mixes seemingly every other day. Wonderful, wonderful mix, with much to love and more to listen for. Possibly especially if you are anything like me.

Full disclosure, I actually did go to sleep halfway through "Don't Fall Asleep." But it didn't put me to sleep; it's just that, the older I get, the earlier I have to go to bed. LOL!

Mike-drop
(Props to KK)

"Open Mike," which is meant to appear on Wednesdays, is the off-topic, anything-goes page of TOP, written by Yr. Hmbl. Ed.

Straight Outta Penn Yan
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Del: "Mike. I fear the deep end is near. Better strap on a Mae West!"

Ken James: "I Respect hip-hop. That said, maybe you could combine your pool and hip-hop posts. I am smiling Mike."

David Raboin: "Speaking of hip-hop, every color photographer needs to watch the Netflix series 'The Get Down.' My wife and I just finished watching it and I was blown away by the visuals. Baz Luhrmann, the director, is a master of color. There's one episode where a pink shirt almost becomes a lead character. In that episode, every set has a color pallet that plays off the pink shirt, even blurred out street signs in the distant background, it's amazing.

"'The Get Down' was the prettiest and most visually interesting eight hours of TV I've ever watched. Some reviews complain that 'The Get Down' is a mess, but I think the show's creators where trying to create a hip hop fairy-tale. To enjoy the show you've got to accept that it's over-dramatized for a reason. Or, if you're a photographer, just pay closer attention to the color palette than the story."

Joe Holmes: "Hip-hop used to do nothing for me (though in the 90s I'd sometimes buy a 12" hip-hop EP and play the instrumental side), but lately I've gotten just where you're describing—old school hip-hop now sounds so good to me. It feels like pure energy.

"Recommended: the movie 'Straight Outta Compton,' especially if you can still find it in a theater (unlikely). It gets sappy in the last third, but until then, it just kills."

Stan B.: "Last post I ever expected to see here—and I do mean last...."

Posted on Wednesday, 07 December 2016 at 10:07 AM in Music Notes, Off-topic posts, Open Mike | Permalink | Comments (36)

Tuesday, 06 December 2016

The Best Digital Cameras Part I

TOP's current favorite digital cameras, Q4 2016.

Camera: The Pentax K-1

Why? Ignites a deathless warm glow in owners' hearts. Pentaxians are nice people, conservative about their cameras, remarkably loyal, and tend to have a higher level of satisfaction with their gear than people who buy other brands. The K-1 is Ricoh's first full-frame camera and it's the Pentax enthusiast's longstanding dream. And it's very competitively priced for the rich list of features it offers. Owners are loving it.

Accepts all the marvelous and fun Pentax lenses from a number of eras. Pentax's lenses are hopeless as a lineup—it's the anti-Fuji in terms of the lineup making internal sense. Yet that's half the fun. So many lenses, so little time.

Photo by iPhone 6+, lighting by iPhone 6. Note reflection of
iPhone screen in the car window.

Camera: The Apple iPhone 7 and 7 Plus

Why? Fun times two. I play a lot with my iPhone 6+ camera and enjoy the heck out of it. Although I lose some shots to the tiny sensor's limitations and I couldn't possibly get along with it as an only camera, it's the "visual note-taker" par excellence and especially nice for instant sharing.

The iPhone 7 is also notable as the first mainstream instance of computational photography, which our erstwhile columnist Ctein predicted way back in 2011. It uses two separate camera modules and combines them in inventive if still rather basic ways. Expect that trend to continue. For now, you've essentially got a Minolta Freedom Dual 60 (a long-ago film point-and-shoot which offered only two focal lengths—38mm and 60mm) for the social media age.

Camera: The Sony A6500

Why? Because it makes me cry. They actually made exactly what I wanted, which might be the first time that's ever happened. Yet—ah, the pain in my heart—I can't afford it. Especially when I take another switcheroo of lens systems into account. (I'd get the 24mm ZA and the 55mm FE.) And I got along so well with the ex-NEX form-factor, too. Love it.

Other buyers will find it hard to complain about the price, because Sony offers basically the same camera without in-body image stabilization and the touch-screen focus point (the A6300) for hundreds less, and as a price-leading budget economy model (the A6000, which right now costs a thousand dollars less than the A6500). Other makers have not caught on to Sony's idea of offering different tiers of the same camera; they ought to.

Camera: The Olympus Pen-F

Why? What do you mean "why?" Are you kidding?

What photographer—no, what person—could fail to love this little gem? A handy, pocketable picture-taker with gobs of jewel-like object quality and style out the wazoo, it's a camera everyone likes to look at. Owners, SOs, strangers. Starts conversations. Grown men put it on the bedside table so they'll see it first thing when they wake up in the morning. Fashionable women can use it as a fashion accessory. For wise older people it channels the MMM (metal, mechanical, manual) cameras of their exalted youth. To the young it's hip. Your dollars, pounds, euros or yen buy a very up-to-date camera too, as well as lots and lots of pride of ownership. Can't beat the Pen F with a stick.

Camera: The Panasonic GX[x, where x > 8]...

Why? ...First, note that such a camera doesn't exist yet. That's okay, because the GX8 itself (above) is a splendid sleeper of a camera with the mirrorless world's nicest viewfinder, sez moi. Tainted by the "shutter shock" controversy with certain lenses, a rap the GX8 doesn't really deserve; probably down to kinks in the hybrid "Dual IS" image stabilization system that haven't quite been worked out yet. Still and all, Panasonic has developed a better shutter, and put it, for now, into the nifty little GX85, which our friend Kenneth Tanaka loves. Eventually the GX85 shutter will migrate up into the GX8-style body to create the perfect Micro 4/3 workhorse. Until then, Panny's in a cycle of clearing out the production run of the GX8 and you can get great deals on it if you vulch. It doesn't hurt that Panasonic's lenses are marvelous and Micro 4/3 as a whole is the richest field to harvest for people who love lenses.

Watch this space.

Camera: The Hasselblad X1D-50c

Why? For now, this is the only camera that most every photographer in the world approves of and covets. There's the giant sensor, small, handy-dandy rangefinderish form-factor, and cost-no-object lenses. But its main advantage is that it's still bathed in the Xanadu glow of vaporware, so it can be postulated in the mind to be perfect; and only about 1 in 300 photographers can even theoretically afford it, which makes it into the green green grass on the far side of the fence. (And four out of five of those are already invested in Leica.) What could possibly be better for GASsy daydreams?

No matter. 2016 became the year of larger-than-full-frame mirrorless when Fuji joined the XD1 in the category (with the announcement of the GFX system). That future shootout is just waiting to happen. Coming soon to an Internet near you.

[TO BE CONTINUED....]

Mike

Other handy links

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

Terrance Crooker: "Pentaxians loyal? Oh yes. I became a Pentaxian in the late 1960s and have been one ever since. No Nikon or Canon or any other brand has ever tempted to switch. So many lenses, joy, joy!"

RubyT: "Santa can't quite bring me a K-1 to keep this year, but he is going to let me have one to try out for the last two weeks of the year. I'm not sure whether that will make things easier or harder. :-O "

Steve Higgins: "Best for what?"

Ernest Theisen: "I am really happy with my Olympus Pen F. I have several lenses for it, including the 45–150mm. I keep the 14–42mm on it most of the time. I love the look of it and the solid heft of it. It is built like a Sherman tank. And in fact it does sit on my bedside table!"

Kent: "Help! I'm Trapped! My stable of Sony E and FE lenses has grown to the point that I can't switch to a different system! Oh wait...my A6500 arrived on Friday and I don't want to switch to a different system. Never mind."

Mike replies: Oh, that's it, gloat. You're cruel, Kent. :-)

Lynn: "I was wondering if 'to be continued...' might suggest you'll have a 'Best Film Cameras' article. That got me wondering—how many new film cameras are actually available? Excluding instant film and cheap disposables, that is. Can't be all that many."

Mike replies: B&H lists 14 35mm film cameras, half of them Leicas, but several of the 14 are variants of the same camera or different kits with the same body; and then seven medium-format film cameras, all by Horseman or Linhof; and 43 view cameras.

That excludes Lomography cameras like the latest iteration of the old Diana (I saw several of these for sale at the shop in the George Eastman Museum yesterday), and instant-film cameras. It also excludes cameras B&H doesn't carry but that you can still get, including many atelier-built view cameras and a motley of Kickstarter project builds. I actually got word the other day that the old Rollei company is still hanging on, albeit by the most threadbare of threads.

So, actually there are quite a few. Of course, the vast used market puts quite a large dampening effect on the sales of new film cameras. I keep meaning to write an article about great used film cameras, but I never seem to be able to block out enough time to actually write it.

Kenneth Tanaka [Ed. Note: Ken has never shared with me how many cameras he owns, still less how many have passed through his ownership since the dawn of the digital age, but there have been signs over the years that it is...rather a lot. So he offers a perspective informed by better-than-average direct personal experience.]

"I have two thoughts to offer:

"First, having just this week received a long-back-ordered Sony A6500 I have to admit that the Lumix GX85 beats its pants off as a casual, versatile, in-a-pocket (still) camera. I have been an enthusiastic customer of Sony's NEX-style cameras since the NEX 3, having owned the 3, 5N, 7, A6000, A6300 and now the A6500. But aside from its larger and conditionally better image file the Sony A6500's overall usability pales against the same-sized Lumix GX85. That's really hard to admit, given the price difference. But it's true.

"Second, having also recently updated my DSLR to the latest-and-greatest model (for the first time in years) I am truly struck by what an era of near-perfection the DSLR user enjoys today. This has really become the ultimate in powerful, versatile picture-taking devices. Of course since perfection is the arch-enemy of business, the DSLR is gradually being sublimated by other not-so-perfect-yet camera designs. But if you can't make a 'good' picture today, especially with a DSLR, you really should consider other pastimes. This thing has become the analog of evolution's crocodile."

Mike replies: Ken! We're friends. You can't just throw that out there and not give detes. Whaddja get? The DSLR I mean. I won't tell if you don't want me to.

Ken replies: "Mike: I updated to Canon's new 5D Mark IV. But I'm sure if I was a Nikon shooter my revelation would have been the same. I've spent little time with DSLR-style cameras for several years. The level of perfection they've achieved is stunning."

Posted on Tuesday, 06 December 2016 at 09:58 AM in Recommended Cameras | Permalink | Comments (26)

Monday, 05 December 2016

If You Shoot With an Older Camera...

...You can get a copy of DxO Optics Pro 9 for free. Courtesy of DxO and DigitalCamera UK, which is a magazine.

Check the list of supported cameras first; most are more than two years old.

The free license is not upgradable. (Fair enough.)

The current version of the software is DxO Optics Pro 11. It's currently on sale for $149 from $199.

Mike
(Thanks to Eric Walter)

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Posted on Monday, 05 December 2016 at 01:12 PM in Software | Permalink | Comments (13)

Beautiful Bokeh

...And now for something completely different, as Monty Python used to say. TOP's own Print Sale for this season will feature two absolutely lovely color prints, quite different from each other, that both have a radical amount of bokeh.

Bokeh as many of you know is a term derived from the Japanese that means "out-of-focus blur" but is shorter to say and easier to write. Many photographs do not have any out-of-focus blur; many photographs have a little; a few have a great deal, and, in a very small percentage of cases, photographers deliberately use bokeh as a creative element.

As is the case with our two sale pictures.

The prints are made by a master printer who has been refining his printing techniques, skills, and style since taking a workshop from some guy named Ansel Adams a number of decades ago. He also loves to experiment with a variety of fine and expensive papers to get just the right effect...

...And that is where we are right now. John is experimenting with papers, FedEx is en route to me with proofs; the process continues.

Much to be done. It's a several-week-long process with many steps to present a print sale. As you might imagine, though, this one is close to my heart. I love these. I am trying not to suggest print sizes based on where they will go in my house.

More news about the beautiful bokeh print sale soon. The pictures are quite different from anything we've ever offered before. And yep, the lenses used were chosen for their bokeh properties. Of course we'll eventually fill you in on all the geeky details about that as well.

The Turnley Twins
Peter Turnley's holiday print sale is over now, but his twin brother David's is still going on. David and Rachel are once again offering prints of a wide selection of David's award-winning work as a photojournalist. David and Rachel, like Peter, have kindly offered to share a referral fee to TOP if you mention you came from here. Scroll to the bottom of the sale page to order. Tell your friends!

David Turnley and Jim Harbaugh, who have both returned to the University of Michigan after impressive careers out in the world

Mike

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Posted on Monday, 05 December 2016 at 11:43 AM in Print Offers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, 02 December 2016

A Weekend Exercise: Who's This For?

Our most popular post this week was "The Zen of Shooting," published on Tuesday.

Lo and behold, for once, we actually saw a blip in affiliate sales on Cyber Monday! I think this is the first time that's actually happened. (The first time I mentioned Cyber Monday, a few years back, we had an utterly unremarkable day just like any other.) Thanks for that. All the Mike Johnstons appreciate it when you do some holiday shopping through Amazon or B&H or our other links.

Teaching
I've been mulling over making some changes at TOP. My son Xander has been helping me rethink some of the predicates of the enterprise.

I'm still pretty serious about starting to do a little teaching online once in a while, taking a different fork in the road by concentrating on seeing and conceptualizing skills more than technical how-to (the latter being excessively specific and also well covered elsewhere, since it constitutes most of the hobby for so many people). I think I'll probably wait until Spring to start, because most of our readers are in the Northern half of the planet and it's easier to go out to shoot when the weather's nicer.

However, here's a starter exercise, in two versions.

The goal is to take two pictures: one that has great personal meaning for you personally but wouldn't mean anything to anyone else; and one that a wide variety of strangers, including non-photographers, might like, appreciate or find appealing.

The Challenging Version: Go out and take two such shots. That might take a few days, or even a few weeks.

The Easy Version: Search your assets and find two such shots among your files.

Why? Well, "who it's for" and who a given picture might appeal to is one of the central problems in photography, and it trips up a large number of practitioners who are unaware of its implications or who haven't thought it through. The fact is, all of your mental assumptions about the pictures you're taking change radically when you learn to, or manage to, change your ideas about the identity of the imagined audience. We're always imaging an audience, whether we do so consciously or semi-consciously or subconsciously. And we're almost always, at some level, fitting the pictures we take to suit that imagined or intended mode or usage. Even if you don't think you do this, you do—and allowing those assumptions to remain unexamined is one of those things that holds photographers back.

As you do this exercise, think long and hard about the differences between the two. Try to feel the contrast between the two modes of approach. Notice which one might be easier for you or more pleasurable. Whose acceptance is at stake in any given picture? Really question it and try to go whole hog with each half of the exercise.

Boilerplate disclaimer: As with any of my exercises, insights, and suggestions, now, ever, and always, this one's status is "take it or leave it." It's spaghetti thrown at the wall—for some it will stick and for some it won't. Don't sweat it. If you think it might be useful or don't mind a challenge, try it. If you don't care, or feel you already have the issue worked out for yourself, or feel you're beyond this particular topic or at too high a level to learn from it or it's too basic for you, no worries. Suit yourself. (I'll just note in my wily way that even world-famous concert pianists do finger exercises; Tony Bennett sings scales every day of his life.)

For extra credit, test your choices: Ask a sampling of other people whether they like the two pictures you choose or find much meaning in them. If the personal one manages to leave people cold or mystified, if they respond by being polite but quiet, you've succeeded there. And if the "popular" one draws pleased reactions, positive comments, or compliments, especially from non-photographers, then you've succeeded with that one too.

As always, I hope you have a pleasant weekend. The IT guy still hasn't worked out my backup problems, and I have a heap of end-of-year tasks on my To-Do List that I have to force myself to chip away at. But I shall be back on Monday, and I hope you will be too.

All best,
Mike

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

01af: "'The End Game.'"

Paul: "I'm afraid some people might not understand your exercise. Here's a link to a video which I hope may help. A word of advice; if one does not like this photographer's work do not let that put you off the advice. Just listen."

Posted on Friday, 02 December 2016 at 12:49 PM in Weekend Exercises | Permalink | Comments (20)

Random Excellence: Rosario Civello

Rosario Civello, Signs #20

Rosario Civello of Italy is presented as the "Discovery of the Year" at something called the Neutral Density Photography Awards for 2016, about which I know nothing. This beautiful thing earned a prize of $1,300.

Funny, though...it used to be that if a photograph looked like nothing I had ever seen before, that was a point in its favor. Now, it just makes me suspect that it might be manipulated. I have to say this looks like a Photoshop creation to me. (I've invited the photographer to comment.) But I don't know, and does it matter? A cursory look around the ND website reveals no rules about manipulation. Either way, it's still an interesting idea and good to look at. Second-guessing the veracity of artistic creations is like guessing if someone colors their hair: these days it just doesn't matter to anyone.

Here's his website.

Mike
(Thanks to Hernan Zenteno)

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Fulvio Senore: "It might be a real thing. It looks like a ski slope cut in a beech wood. Beeches grow at lower altitudes so usually there are no ski slopes in those woods. I live near the Alps and our slopes cut fir woods or they are above the trees. I suspect that in central Italy, where mountains have much lower altitudes, many slopes cut beech woods."

ShadZee: "Wow...I love his style. As we've discussed here (too many times), it's artistic expression, and he's got talent and expresses his vision very creatively."

Roger Overall: "Something odd happened to me when I saw this photograph. My first reaction was, 'That's wonderful. How well observed and executed. A marvel.' Then I read your comment that you suspected it was manipulated on a computer. Immediately, my impression of the photograph changed. 'Meh. Nothing special here.' Bonkers! Without any evidence, my opinion changed. The mere suggestion that it might be manipulated photograph was enough for my high opinion of it to come clattering down around my feet. Let's face it, manipulated or not, it's still a very striking and beautiful image—the product of a good deal of creative talent. Maybe my disappointment stems from my hasty assumption at first glance that it was a photograph. If I'd known from the outset it wasn't, maybe I'd still gaze upon it in wonder. 'What a clever thing to imagine and create,' I would say. Silly me for assuming it was a photograph. Much better to appreciate it as an image, without basing its value on how it was created? Or does that undermine the fundamental enjoyment of appreciating a photograph: that it is, in fact, a photograph? Oh dear. I seem to be digging quite a hole."

Mike replies: I think what you describe is a big part of looking at photographs now—namely, that you don't know exactly what you're looking at. It's similar to the confusions between news and propaganda—which exactly are you listening to? My 12-year-old niece mentioned in passing (when she was 11) that she assumes all photographs are manipulated. Maybe that solves the issue.

Curiously, I noticed this phenomenon first because I realized that I know exactly what is happening in one person's photographs—my own. With mine, I know what's up. With other peoples', I have to wonder.

I need to work on just accepting the possibility of manipulation and incorporating it non-judgmentally into my assumptions when I look at pictures.

Jim Bullard: "From the 'About' page on his site (which includes the above image): 'these are not abstract constructions but photographs of actual places and objects.' It appears to me to be a photo looking down a mountainside in winter. I did not take it as a construction or 'Photoshopped' when I first saw it except that he has clearly heightened the contrast to the extreme."

Nick Hunt: "Yes, this is fabricated, or a montage—there are duplicate tree groups in the top and bottom halves, above and below the treeless middle part. For me, this means I am somehow less delighted by the image, while still admiring the craft technique and imagination involved."

[Ed. Note: Jim's and Nick's comments came in one after the other, in the above order. Together they do seem to illustrate Roger's and my point just above that.]

John Camp: "I don't like manipulated photographs and the more that manipulated photos appear to be not-manipulated, the less I like them. Most manipulated photos are simply inane, but some are not. And usually, those take their power from their closeness to reality, and through the photographer's willingness for people to believe they are real. In other words, they are usually dishonest. And when the photographer (graphic artist would be a better word) is honest, and tells us the photo isn't real, my interest usually falls precipitously."

TBannor: "The problem with the cloning is once you see it, you can't unsee it."

Posted on Friday, 02 December 2016 at 12:34 PM in Random Excellence | Permalink | Comments (23)

Ratty Old Nikon

All you guys who say you like to buy used cameras missed a good one the other day—

The third Nikon, a Nikon I from 1948 engraved "Made in Occupied Japan" in English, sold for $406,000 at Westlicht the other day. Doubtless some hardworking wage-earner needed a user...and probably likes the camera's unusual 3:4 ratio (these were 24x32mm if memory serves. Buyer shoots Micro 4/3 in digital, no doubt).

Seriously...a lot of money for an historical artifact. Roughly half a lifetime's earnings at the present minimum wage in my state. The remarkable price is probably just more evidence of "too much capital sloshing around the world," in Niall Ferguson's memorable phrase. Heck, for that kind of dosh, you could almost afford a bargain used Porsche. (I assumed at first that the article at the link was tongue-in-cheek, but no.)

It's the earliest Nikon known to exist. I'd like to look at it in a museum. Maybe the buyer will leave it to the George Eastman in his will.

Another reason to hang on to your old cameras! Although, come to think, I have an old Nikon I'd let go for slightly less, and no takers. You know what they say: Oh well.

Mike
(Thanks to John Camp)

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

Eamon Hickey: "Photo dawg brain teaser: Although that may be the oldest Nikon known to exist, it is not the oldest existing camera made by the company called Nikon. Say what? Well, 'Nikon' was, in those days, simply a brand name created by the company Nippon Kogaku. And Nippon Kogaku made a variety of aerial reconnaissance cameras for the Imperial Japanese Navy going back to the 1930s. The U.S. Smithsonian Air and Space Museum happens to have one of the relatively few that survived the Second World War."

Posted on Friday, 02 December 2016 at 11:27 AM in Cameras, old | Permalink | Comments (17)

The Online Photographer

Recent Posts

+ Sponsors

Resources

December 2016

Friday, 16 December 2016

Panasonic: The Sleeper Camera Company

Random Photographer (and Butters)

Thursday, 15 December 2016

Reflections on Size

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Leica SL Gets a Prime

TOP World Headquarters from Space

Ergonomic Keyboards (OT)

Monday, 12 December 2016

Service and Support Coming at Ya?

Friday, 09 December 2016

Four Photography Books

Random Excellence: Jill Krementz

The TIME Magazine Cover Controversy

Blog Notes (Computers and Coming Attractions)

Thursday, 08 December 2016

Would You Really Want to Be a Pro Photographer?

Wednesday, 07 December 2016

Wednesday Open Mike Number 2: Ann Patchett (OT)

Wednesday Open Mike Number 1: 'I Somehow, Some Way Keep Comin' Up With F*nky A St Like Every Single Day' (OT)

Tuesday, 06 December 2016

The Best Digital Cameras Part I

Monday, 05 December 2016

If You Shoot With an Older Camera...

Beautiful Bokeh

Friday, 02 December 2016

A Weekend Exercise: Who's This For?

Random Excellence: Rosario Civello

Ratty Old Nikon

Portals

Search

Categories

Archives

Stats