The Online Photographer

[Mike is on vacation until 1/2/24. To tide you over, a few "Winter reruns" for your amusement, a little jaunt through the past.

I downloaded an expensive app just now, called "Document Converter" from RootRise Technologies, and was able to open for the first time in many years some old CWK files. CWK was a ClarisWorks/AppleWorks format that was discontinued in 2004 and supported only in the first several (four, I think?) versions of Apple Pages. Thus I have hundreds and hundreds of old CWK files that sit there blank, glum, and unreadable, with various writings entombed therein. But what do you know, Document Converter opens them up in a jiffy. The first folder I rescued was called "B&WP Columns," comprising a handful of the 80 or so monthly columns I wrote for founding Editor Ailsa McWhinnie's original Black & White Photography magazine in the UK. When Ailsa moved on, the new editor had no patience for my shenanigans, and that was the end of that, but, fortunately for Yr. Hmbl. Scrivener, by that time TOP was beginning to take off.

This was the first old file I opened up, at random. No idea of the date or the original title—it wouldn't have been my title in any case; the magazine provided the titles for my articles. Note also that this would have been the unedited submission rather than a copy of the edited version that was published, so I am not infringing on B&WP's copyright—nor are my unregulated impulses being protected by Ailsa the editor's good sense and better judgement. The "FWSRN" was, of course, DPReview. And by the way, although the phrase "6-MP camera" seems antediluvian now, that Konica-Minolta 7D was to this day one of the more satisfying digital cameras I've ever used. The files were beautiful. But on to the old column....]

-

(Original publication date unknown, but it was before 2009)
Here's a little exercise for you, a sort of mind-game. Let's say you were in shopping mode, choosing a camera. But instead of looking around and comparing all of the features on cameras from spec sheets, let's say you were going to specify in advance what you wanted your new camera to be—and from there, you'd venture into the world of brochures and tech sites and see if anything matched your desires. I'd think that we could come up with a "question sheet" which would cover all the bases in asking ourselves what it is we want.

The reason this comes up is because I came across, again, another comment on a forum which shall remain nameless (FWSRN) that made me squawk in disbelief. (I do this from time to time during the day. All is quiet Chez Johnston, when suddenly a loud RAWWWP! comes from the computer room. It's me, of course, delving into the strange and bizarre minds of gear-geeks and pixel-peeps and making loud involuntary animal noises in response.) On this FWSRN, one poster related the rumor that New Camera X will fire at 11 fps for 65 exposures, and another poster responded, as if disappointed, "That's probably just a rumor, although it would be nice if it were true."

What? "Nice?" Art thou insane, man? Why? What are you taking pictures of, anyway—Sonic the hedgehog? Low-flying missiles? The Flash?

I suppose, to come up with a list of what you want, broad experience would almost be necessary. But it occurs to me that over the years, I've encountered the "Point of Sufficiency" with regard to various features a number of times. For instance, years ago I had an extended acquaintance with a Leica (18 milliseconds shutter lag) preceded by an EOS RT (8 ms. shutter lag, in "RT" mode). I couldn't tell the difference—they both seemed plenty responsive to me. But cameras with 125 ms. shutter lag do seem slow me from time to time, and 250 ms. is frequently unacceptable. Thus is the Point of Sufficiency vectored in upon. Subsequent investigation over a number of years seemed to indicate that my personal standard for shutter lag is around 60 ms, give or take 10 or 20 ms.

Another point of sufficiency was breached when I was using a Nikon 8008 (1/8000th top shutter speed) and the Maxxum 9xi (1/12,000th shutter speed) came out. When I used the aforementioned Leica, it was true that the top shutter speed of 1/1000th was almost never a problem—but, occasionally, I did notice it as a limitation. By the time a shutter speed of 1/8000th was made available, however, I no longer wished for anything faster. Ever. The Minolta's 1/12,000th thus offered no real advantage. Where between 1/1000th and 1/8000th my Point of Sufficiency exactly resides is tough to say, but I'm going to guess that a true 1/2000th is all I need.

Now, of course, my points of sufficiency are only sufficient to me—so they wouldn't necessarily hold true for you. Hence the list of questions. Only each person would know the answers for him- or herself. The questionnaires would be different for film cameras or digital ones, but you could make one for just about any type of camera or format. One for digital cameras would begin something like this:

1. How many megapixels do you really need?
2. What kind of “frame rate” are you ever likely to really use?
3. How many pictures do you ever need to take in a row, at that speed?

...And so forth, probably to great length.

For me, for example, I have to say I’m mostly happy with my 6-megapixel DSLR—but only in the same way that I was mostly happy with my old Leica’s 1/1000th shutter speed. Sometimes I do see pixelation, or wish that I could more easily make larger prints. So I know that my Point of Sufficiency is not quite reached by 6 MP. Where it does reside is unexplored territory, since I’ve never used a camera with more than six megapixels.

I’m on firmer ground with frame-rate. Long ago I had an SLR with an add-on motor-winder that provided 1.5 fps. It was grindingly slow. Then I got that EOS RT I mentioned before, which had 5 fps. Never once was that too slow for me. Voilà! The Point of Sufficiency, met and exceeded.

These things are all very useful to know, in my view. For instance, the new Nikon D3 has a shutter lag of 37 ms., according to its spec sheet, whereas the new Nikon D300 has a shutter lag of 45 ms. Knowing, as I do, what my own Point of Sufficiency is for shutter lag, I can comfortably predict that either camera would be fine for me, and that the better one wouldn’t offer any particular advantage over the smaller.

Filthy lucre
Where you can’t pinpoint a Point of Sufficiency, you can usually posit a useful range. This even goes for non-technical matters such as cost. I know that for me, if a camera is excessively expensive, it makes me feel snobby and foppish to carry it around—and sometimes nervous, too, since there’s always the risk of loss or damage. I did get used to carrying around a £1,600 Leica rig once, but only with some force of will, and only after some early qualms. Others might feel embarrassed to be seen with cheap or out-of-date gear, and feel as if they wished they’d spent more on their gear. (I’m almost immune at that end of the scale.) So you should even by able to specify, even if roughly, a range of prices within which you’re most comfortable.

If more people would begin with this sort of mental exercise, I believe, we could avoid saying silly things like how nice it would be if our cameras could shoot 11 fps for 65 frames. Jesse Alexander himself hardly needs that rate of performance, and John Q. Amateur is not in dire need of that feature to make some snaps of the geraniums on the weekend or document John Q. Junior’s trip to Sea World. While it’s no crime to carry our desires for performance features to extremes, sometimes it just seems...unhealthy; enough is enough.

Mike

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

Mike is on vacation this week. Comments will be posted promptly, but there won’t be any ‘Featured Comments’ on these.