The Online Photographer

Here are the five things about my camera I don't like:

1. You have to look through the viewfinder to make any settings, check the battery, etc. The chimney finder just magnifies the viewing screen. So you have to turn the camera on and look through the VF to set or change most things.
2. There's a cover for the huge eyepiece (illustrated below) that has to be snapped on when you're not using the camera. The problem is that direct sunlight through the magnifier could damage the viewing screen. Although it's not something I've ever had to do before on any other camera, I actually don't mind it in practice. Cameras are quirky; you get used to the ones you use.
3. Electronic shutter only. As far as I know rolling shutter is possible. I haven't experienced any problems with it yet. I might have to do some tests. 
4. The conversion probably spoiled its resale value—I'll never get my money back out of it. I don't currently want to; but still, if I wanted to, I probably couldn't. 
5. The worst problem by far is also no problem at all: the crucial difference is that you have to know about it. Here it is. If you're reviewing a picture and you enlarge the review image as much as possible to check focus, it will look unsharp. That does not mean it is unsharp: when you get the file back to the computer it will be razor sharp. But if you don't know about it it will throw you for a loop when you first encounter it. I've actually read of people returning this camera after purchasing it because they are convinced it won't focus and everything is unsharp at the level of fine detail. That's an illusion. Of course, once you know about it, this is not a problem. [UPDATE: See Henry White's Featured Comment below.]

The eyepiece cover. Remove for use and replace when you're done.

There's actually one more problem, which is that some people give me a hard time for having/wanting a monochrome camera. But that's not the camera's fault. And I don't mind it, to be honest. I yam what I yam.

Do I recommend this camera? Probably not. Not as a monochrome conversion anyway. I'd recommend getting a factory Pentax K3 III Monochrome or a Leica Monochrom to preserve resale value, or getting an older camera converted, one you already own (although conversion is expensive, so don't convert one with tons of shutter actuations or lots of wear already on it). 

As a color stills camera? Hmm. Obviously I've never used one that way. But it has a cult following, and supposedly there's magic in Sigma's color science, and as far as the form factor is concerned you'll either love it or hate it, which means some people will love it. So maybe. 

Reducing friction
After yesterday's post, Rob L. mentioned, "Barely comes up, but reducing friction makes life more fun." He's gone down to one lensmount and configured his cameras to make them easier to use—that's what he means by reducing friction. That's probably the main thing I'm experiencing with my FP-m: I've got it set up so sweetly for my uses that it really reduces friction.

There might be one problem I haven't mentioned—now that I'm happy, I don't really look around at new cameras any more. And that leaves a void where GAS used to be. But you know what they say—oh well!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Henry White: "Workaround for camera finder unsharp imaging on review: The camera, when shooting in raw, creates a very, very small JPEG from the raw file to show for review. If you want a big, sharp review file, then shoot with the camera set to raw+large JPEG. Upon review the camera will show the large JPEG.

"This is the case not just with the Sigma camera but across other brands as well. It's an easy fix and if you are so disposed you can just toss the JPEGs when you download the files to your computer."

Mike replies: So that's it. I figured it was because the review JPEG was too small, but I didn't know the correction. Thanks. 

robert e (partial comment): "These two posts were really interesting. It's much more enlightening to read how a person gets along with a thing while they do what they want to do than to read about how the thing is designed to work for generic uses."

Erwin Frank-Schultz: "This comment is somewhat cheeky on this post as it refers more to the Phone post than this one...but one thing I don't like about my (phone) camera is that it is an internet connected computer. I recently finished Four Thousand Weeks by Oliver Burkeman (highly recommended)—one of his ten recommendations at the end is to use single use devices, to not get distracted. This struck a chord; whenever I use my phone to take a photo, there is a temptation to look at that e-mail or WhatsApp that just came in. Not a problem on my XE-3 and certainly not on my FM2."

I have a Sigma FP-m, which is an FP with a monochrome sensor. It's not factory; I had it modified. Also, I have just one lens for it, a slow 45mm ƒ/2.8 normal lens (I notice the price on that has gone way up recently).

Here are 15 things I like about my camera:

1. It isn't like any other camera I've ever used. The one it most resembles in feel and what Erwin called "haptics" is a Bronica 645, though of course it's arranged differently.
2. It's manual focus. I had no thought of using it that way when I got it, and even when I first tried it I had no intention of leaving it set that way. I just like it. Since I started using it that way I just never went back. I occasionally set it back to AF, but not very often. Well, I think it's happened twice. 
3. Focus ring is on the traditional position on the lens. Despite being focus-by-wire it's very smooth and feels great.
4. Traditional aperture ring is on the lens.
5. It's B&W only. I've written about this till the cows came home, went back out, and came home again. Briefly: I tend to see like a camera sees, and adapt my thinking to what I know the camera's going to give me. So it's actually freeing for me to have a camera that has a stable configuration, that sees only one way. Some people don't even understand this, so to say "their mileage may vary" is an understatement. But that's OK. We're all different. This is what I like, even if you just have to take my word for it.
6. The viewfinder is B&W-only too. That's all the camera can see, so there's no color option anywhere in the process.
7. The viewfinder is huge. About 1.5x linearly and 2.25x the area of the virtual size of my Fujifilm X-T4 mirrorless viewfinder.  That's thanks to Sigma's odd arrangement of a vertical magnifying "stovepipe"-type finder mounted horizontally so that it magnifies the rear viewing screen. The viewfinder gives me a more immersive and immediate sense of the scene the camera is seeing. You know that feeling you get when you can't see everything on the back of a phone when you're trying to shoot in sunlight? It's like the opposite of that. 
8. When I take images, there's minimal informational clutter in the viewfinder. When I review, I see nothing but the image.
9. I keep it in aperture-priority mode always.
10. I have it set up so that the index-finger front dial always controls exposure compensation, which is how I prefer to tweak exposure. 
11. ISO is one button push away, and is then adjusted with the same front dial that controls the exposure comp. One touch of the shutter button and I'm out of that menu and back to the ready state.
12. It's silent.
13. I can do everything I do on the camera by feel. Don't need to look at the camera for anything.
14. The image quality is great. It's not naturally my kind of tonality, but I've a.) learned to modify it toward my tastes and b.) I'm getting more and more accustomed to the way it naturally wants to look. As I mentioned, I tend to learn to see the way the camera sees. I take slightly different kinds of pictures with this camera that I would have taken with, say, a medium-format camera and Tri-X in D-76, but then, it's a different beast. This is about as close as I've been able to come to the look of Plus-X / K2 filter / D-76 1+1. This is more like the files want to look, with depressed mid-tones. Of course digital is fundamentally different from B&W film, because you have to mind the highlights. With B&W film you always had to mind the shadows. From the film world (in my experience, which was pretty extensive) the results from this camera most closely resemble the look of 4x5-inch Ilford HP-5 Plus. Nothing wrong with that. 
15. The bag I have for it fits it like a glove and is easy to use. It's perfect for the camera. Never underestimate a good bag!

That's pretty much it. Apart from setup, which never changes, those are the only controls I use. Very basic, pretty much like all the autoexposure 35mm film cameras I used to use. Weird that the camera I've found that is the most "film-camera-like" is one designed to be mainly a video camera. But oh well. The only other thing I do when shooting with this camera is that in some circumstances I take the yellow filter off the lens and stash it in my shirt pocket.

Maybe I should add "simplicity" to the list of things I like.

Roads not traveled
My "road not traveled" was that the Pentax Monochrome came out shortly after I committed to getting the FP modified. I do sometimes wonder how my life would have been different if I had gone that way. I would certainly just buy the Pentax if I were doing it now—it's cheaper than my FP-m, for one thing. Leica also makes factory monochrome cameras. I would have gotten the Q3-43 Monochrom*, but I balk at Leica prices. That's just me.

As I sit situated as I am, if you will, with my gear, I would love to pare my kit down to just an iPhone and the FP-m. I'm kind of antsy to do it. The things I need the Fuji for are wide-angle shots with the 14mm lens, and portraits with the 56mm lens. I really can't yet rely on the iPhone for those two things. Although I've gotten some very nice portraits with the iPhone, I've never had one printed, so I don't know how it would do. My next phone is probably the upcoming iPhone 17 Pro Max or equivalent, and I'll be eager to see how it does in those use-cases.

The other day in the "Dedicated Camera" post, Josh Hawkins and several others mentioned that having their big/real/dedicated ILC with them makes them happy and improves the whole experience of where they're going and what they're doing. That's definitely the way it is for me. The dedicated camera makes life better. I really like getting out with the FP-m and doing nothing but hunting for pictures. It gets me into a whole different mindset. And the results can be uniquely gratifying. I wouldn't like to forfeit that.

No way would I be as happy just shooting with the phone...much as I like shooting with the phone. 

Mike

*Oh, wait, they don't make that.

P.S. One very important thing I use my iPhone for is reading books. I probably split my reading about equally between the iPad and the iPhone. Having the phone with me when I'm out an about, it's not so important that I have a phone with me, not so important that I have access to the internet, not so important that I have the phone cameras with me. What's important is 1. driving directions, on the relatively infrequent occasions when I need them, and 2. that I have my current book with me. And that I can get and receive texts, but that's a lesser need. Of everything, book reading is No. 1. 

Original contents copyright 2025 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Tom Burke: "15 things I like about my camera:

1. It’s pretty much the same as all the other Canon cameras I’ve used over the last 30+ years. It’s an old familiar friend who’s learned some new tricks.
2. I press this button and it focuses!—which is good, because my eyesight is poor.
3. I don’t need to worry about the focus ring…
4. …Or the aperture ring.
5. Its images are in full, glorious Technicolor!—just like the world, in fact.
6. And of course the viewfinder shows me all that colour. Who wants to look at a monochrome version of our beautiful world?
7. The viewfinder is big enough to show what I’m shooting, without being awkward.
8. Both when I’m shooting or reviewing I can either see just the image or as much extra information as I want—my choice, with a single button.
9. I can leave it aperture-priority if I want to (and generally do) but it’s easy to switch to a different mode—just twist a dial.
10. I have it set up so exposure compensation is always available on the same dial.
11. I don’t change ISO on the fly. Instead, I have specific modes in which ISO behaves differently, and which I use for different types of shot.
12. It can be silent if I want it, or I can wake the neighbours with it! My choice, either way.
13. The menus are comprehensive and easy to use, and are grouped logically. And the ones I use most are available to me as a separate group of actions.
14. I’m happy with the image quality; indeed, on the occasions when I’m not it’ll be my fault.
15. Ah, rats: still looking for the right bag!"

Ken Ford: "I never realized the Sigma stovepipe finder worked on the FP—mine came with my DP0. I agree, it’s an immersive shooting experience to the point that I have to be sure I’m not anywhere near where I’ll get clobbered by an unnoticed vehicle. An 'FP-m' is something I would definitely pursue if I didn’t already have two other dedicated monochrome digital cameras. I’ve considered seeing if my old X100s can be converted, though. I’ve found having dedicated monochrome cameras inspire me to shoot more."

MikeR: "I'm tempted to write, 'What I like about each of my 15 cameras.' Except, it wouldn't be honest. Otherwise, why would I have set aside about a half dozen to sell?"

Mike replies: Ah, but do you really want to sell them?

ugo: "You should have seen the jalopy of a camera used by Giacomelli; a Kobell (you never heard of that brand, uh?) kept together with iron wire and black tape; let's say that image quality was not his paramount concern. There is a photograph of Giacomelli sitting on a bench with a woman; as the legend goes, she was a witch who removed a curse from his camera. Did you ever need a witch for your camera? Anyhow, he had a second Kobell for replacement, but he kept it behind a piece of furniture because 'If my camera knew I have a replacement, she would make a tantrum.'"

Mike adds: Here's a photo of Mario Giacomelli and his Kobell.

The batt'ry in my iPhone 13 seems to be getting hinky—a long stint on the charger sometimes doesn't get it to 100%, and it's draining faster—and I'm wondering about replacing it. Replacing the phone, I mean, although I could be talking about replacing just the battery. I've replaced the battery in a phone before, but that just tends to encourage me to keep the phone until there's no trade-in value left in it. Replacing phones generally is the same kind of conundrum as when to sell stock or deciding when to take Social Security—it's a game, but there's no gaming it. When to do any of these things is an insoluble puzzle. Anyway the reason I replace phones is for the cameras, pretty much exclusively. And in researching the newest cameras vs. the one I have, I've happened across the phrase "so good" several times now. 

As in, the camera in the phone is "so good" you might not even need a "dedicated" camera any more.

"Dedicated camera" is only the latest modification of "camera" that I've encountered over my lengthening journey. It distinguishes a camera from a phone camera, which is what "camera" most often means now. "Stills camera" was another that popped up, a bit further back, to distinguish that from a camera that shot video as well, although that's basically everything now, including the phones. Before that, 25–30 years ago, it was "film camera," to distinguish those from digital cameras; before that, "manual focus cameras," to distinguish those from the autofocus cameras coming on strong; way back, before my time,"manual camera" helped distinguish cameras without autoexposure or just cameras that didn't have built-in light meters. Now, if you say to somebody that their camera has a light meter in it, you're likely to get the response, "what's a light meter?" But I suppose it's always been this way: in the 1890s there was "hand camera," to distinguish those from "stand cameras" and cameras on tripods. Whereas, in the 1860s, maybe, every camera was a stand- or tripod camera.

It's tough being a camera—you're never just a plain ol' camera. Each time, the new term acknowledges that something has changed to make it so that all cameras are lately not what the newer term describes. No one would have said "film camera" in 1960 or "stills camera" when the only way for consumers to shoot video was with a camcorder. Remember when those were a hot thing and all the rage? Time was if you had said "dedicated camera" and explained that it meant a device that was just for taking pictures, you would have gotten funny looks.

But I digress. So anyway, now there are dedicated cameras as well as cameras, which are assumed to be in your phone. So do you even need a dedicated camera any more?"

Oooh! Oooh!
I have my hand up. My answer: absolutely I need a dedicated ILC. (ILC = interchangeable lens camera.) The phone cameras that are so good now aren't that good yet.

My response actually tilts the other way altogether. That is, I sometimes wonder if it's bad for me to even have a phone with a camera in it at all. What it does is to encourage me not to have my "real" camera with me. What happens then is that I take a picture with the phone that I wish I had taken with a better camera. I've discussed this before.

A personal memory. Wex has Butters' discus toy, which Butters considers a violation of the proper order of the Universe. Wex would tease Butters by keeping it, and Butters would stalk Wex patiently until he got it back. I called it a "Wexican standoff." I could wish this were shot with the Fuji, but in all likelihood the picture wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the iPhone.

I think, however—I hope—that I have fully embraced iPhoneography. It's freeing and fun to be able to "take notes" with the iPhone, and to almost always have a camera with me (I still leave my phone at home sometimes—I didn't grow up with them; that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it), and to be able to take a meaningless picture just for myself and just for the pure joy of it. There's another advantage: it has meant that I get out on purpose to do "dedicated photography" more often, with my real camera. Since my dog died I've been lonely and depressed, and my old "mindless compensating" activity—pool—is (temporarily I hope) not comforting, because he was always with me in the pool shed. But when I get out with the camera it's been working as a refuge, a relief. Driving around looking for pictures is still relaxing and comforting. He was never with me on those trips. It's a nice way to get away. Also, I enjoy concentrating on photography.

Should I happen to get a good shot, I would much rather it have been taken with my Sigma FP-monochrome or Fujifilm X-T4.

Do you make any effort to keep a dedicated camera on you at all times, or most of the time? Because that's one solution to avoid getting stuck with just your phone—to always have a real camera close at hand. I would think that would be the great advantage of the new Fujifilm X-E5 and its pancake lens, or any small, pocketable larger-sensor camera. 

But here's what would be the real test of dedication to dedicated photography: if you could buy a phone without a camera in it, would you?

I'm actually glad I can't (I'm in the Apple ecosystem, and Apple doesn't make a cameraless iPhone). I'd like to think that that's exactly what I would do if I could—reserve photography for the tools that do it best; force myself to carry a dedicated camera; never get stuck with an iPhone file for something I'd love to print.

But in reality I guess I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. For all I think I'd like to be uncompromising, I actually like my phone. I've gotten used to it.

Cameras, after all, are useful for other things than just making "dedicated photographs"!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Roger Bradbury: "I have a dedicated camera on me nearly all the time. It's in a canvas shoulder bag which is part camera bag, part old boy on an old British motorcycle's bag. The camera is a Sony A6000 with the okayish-quality and tiny 16–50mm kit lens. As it's protected by being inside a strong 1960s British Army ammo pouch inside the main bag and hardly weighs anything, I hardly have to take any notice of it at all. It goes everywhere I go when I don't have another camera, and only gets left in the car or bike if I'm in the pub or supermarket. I essentially already have a mobile phone without a camera, as the best the camera in my phone can do is little better than a potato print."

Vijay: "I always carry a dedicated camera with me. It’s a Ricoh GRIII in my front left pocket. My back left pocket always has my iPhone. I wouldn’t buy a phone without a camera because I use the iPhone for videos, and the GRIII for stills. My videos aren’t long, usually about six seconds, and their primary purpose is to capture audio. Sounds (especially of nature) are so representative of many places for me."

Henry White: "Hmm. I leave my phone at home more often than I do my camera. I can't remember the last time I left home without a dedicated camera. I was at a doctor's appointment this morning, Leica D-Lux 8 over one shoulder...as comforting as a warm blanket."

Josh Hawkins "Eight to 10 years ago I was going camping with the kids a lot. Every other weekend, every third weekend. It gave my then-undergrad wife time to study. The kids were three and five, in that range, at that time. I decided to make my life easier and just take my phone with for photos. The photos were just fine from it. What I found was camping just wasn't as much fun. Part of the joy was from having a 'real' camera with me. It wasn't that I just had more fun taking photos, I had more fun camping, overall, all around, because I was using a 'real' camera. It's been a valuable discovery. Sometimes I take my camera to things not because I need it, but because it's just more fun that way. "

Kye Wood: "You carry a dedicated camera for the fun factor. Just like you drive the convertible on the weekend. If you're wired that way, and it floats your boat, a dedicated camera will get the superior shot every time, because you will be engaged and not just passively prodding a button drawn on a glass screen."

Herjulfr: "No. The more I use my phone for photography, the less I like photography. I now prefer to leave the phone or at home or in the car and bring my X-Pro1 or my old Canon FTb. Holding them sets me in the mood, I am more aware of my surroundings and, at the end of the day, I have enjoyed taking photographs."

Edward Taylor: "What no one seems to discuss much isn’t whether a phone camera can replace a dedicated camera, but whether a dedicated camera could ever replace a phone camera. My phone captures decent photos in challenging lighting conditions that my $4,000 dedicated camera simply can’t, especially handheld. And I can share those photos instantly. I often use both cameras for the same shot, and frequently the phone is the only one that produces a usable image. At some point, I believe dedicated cameras will need all the computational power and connectivity of phones to stay competitive, or to replace phones entirely. Cameras should have cellular plans and appropriate software. Is a $20/month data plan really prohibitive when you’ve spent thousands on the camera?"

James Coleman: "I carry a 'dedicated' camera everywhere. I never leave the house without one unless it's raining cat and dogs or I'm headed somewhere 'dedicated' cameras aren't allowed (never mind everyone's got a phone...). My Pixel 6a does a great job but I've taken too many phone photos over the years when I'd wished I'd had my dedicated with me."

I think Hahnel deserves a little attention from time to time. Camera makers, even for some pretty nice cameras, are skimping on chargers and cables as a way of saving money. A reader and friend just kindly donated a camera to the TOP (and Mike) stable, but without a charger. The last time that happened, I inherited a Hahnel ProCUBE2. It’s a third-party charger base that takes interchangeable plates for different kinds of batteries. I really liked it. When you travel you only have to remember to take the charger and power cord, nothing else; information is right there on a screen on the unit; and it charges one or two batteries at a time quickly and efficiently. I sent my first one to my son along with a camera for him to make videos with. So now I’m about to buy another one.

The Hahnel Cube came out in 2018 and got lots of awards and praise from reviewers at the time. But like all products eventually do these days, its marketing has gone stale and no longer gets attention. It still deserves attention in my opinion. I’m a fan.

But it’s a little confusing to buy. There are a variety of packages in different colors—one each for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Fujifilm, and Olympus, all with bases of different colors. What’s not immediately obvious when you’re shopping is that all the bases are identical, except for the colors. The plates that snap into the top are what customize the base for different batteries, and if you look around a bit you’ll discover that you can buy the plates separately. There’s a little hole in the side of the Cube, and you use a SIM card tool (one is included in the box, but any will do, or a paper clip or even a pen or pencil), stick it in the hole, and the plate pops out. Fit and press and a different one clicks in place. The fact that the base kits are labeled “Canon” or “Nikon” and so forth just means that the base comes with those plates.

It also comes with plugs for UK, EU, and US outlets, an AA charging plate (with one limitation—you must charge four batteries of the same kind at a time), and a car charging cable.

Another limitation is that they don’t make plates for every camera or battery. But do a little research to see if your battery is used by different camera brands. For example, they don’t sell a Sigma package for my Sigma FP (or fp—Sigma styles it both ways). But the Sigma BP-51 is the same battery as the Panasonic BLC12, so I just bought the Hahnel plate for that Panasonic battery, and I’m good to go for my Sigma camera.

While I’m on that subject, that same battery is also used for the Leica CL and the original Leica Q. But the Sigma version costs $40, the Panasonic version costs $60, and the Leica version costs $99! They’re all the same, except for the magic Leica dust on the Leica one. I couldn’t prove it, but it’s likely the batteries are all made by Panasonic in China. So if you’re in the market for extra batteries and don’t care to buy generic ones, you can still save some money by doing a little research to see if your battery is sold under different brand names.

As a final complication, neither Amazon nor B&H Photo has complete stock of the Hahnel stuff. I had to buy the plate from Amazon (less than $11), but the charger from B&H.

I didn’t search around for the best price on a base, but maybe you can save some money there too. At least one manufacturer, Manfrotto, sells the Hahnel ProCUBE2 base under its own branding.

Mike

UPDATE: Two things I forgot to mention: the ProCUBE2 also has a USB-A port that you can use to charge a phone or a third battery in the camera. It starts as soon as the batteries loaded directly in the charger are finished.

Also, John Sparks points out that Watson makes a similar charger that uses individual plates, so you can charge two different kinds of batteries at once. Of course, then you have to buy and carry two plates to charge any two batteries at once, but that’s probably not a big deal for most people. That one is the Watson Duo LCD.

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Under the heading of cameras, lenses and the like: how do you know when someone's a fanboy?

Sample answer:

...They get excited by announcements or articles about new firmware for their camera.

So...how do you know?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Comments are all moderated on the last two posts as of 12:38 Eastern Time Wednesday

Some while ago I decided an exercise machine at home would be best for me, and I researched the alternatives. I always like to look for creative alternatives—following the herd is not my natural impulse—and I came around to the belief that a rowing machine might suit me. I researched the alternatives and settled on what I thought was the best choice. Came very close to buying it one night, but didn't click the fateful buy button, because I'm cheap.

A few days later, I discovered that the health club had a side room I was only vaguely aware of previously, and in the room was...the exact machine I had settled on buying. Same model, same features. Pleased by my luck, I asked the manager if she would give me a brief lesson on how to use the machine properly, which she did.

I then used it for seven minutes. I've had a bad back all my life, and it became obvious (I should say painfully obvious) after no more than 45 seconds that a rowing machine—any rowing machine—could not help but aggravate my back, short term, long term, morning, noon, and nigh-on neverendingly. The other six minutes and 15 seconds were really just to save face. The "painful" part lay slumbering in my spine, giving me an occasional zing, for the rest of the day, and I feel thankful it didn't last three weeks, because it could have. Sometimes it does. You might be tempted to say that I just needed to get used to it, but no, I don't think so; I've been living with my back my whole life, and I was in no doubt whatsoever about the obviousness of the obvious conclusion; but yes, you'll have to take my word for that.

Luke said the other day, "One particular thing about the [Canon] R3: it feels better in my hand than any other camera I've ever held." I used to emphasize all the time that it's important to actually try cameras. You have to use them, or at least hold them, look through them, and click the shutter. You can find out a lot about them that way that you just can't learn from video reviews, written reviews, spec sheets, etc. I don't mention this much any more, because the hordes of shoppers that used to descend on photography websites are all gone now, presumably off happy-snapping with their cellphones. But it's still important: You can't do all your shopping on paper.

The man in the Edwardian suit
Supposedly, somebody in my family three or four generations back used to have a saying about romantic love interests. The story that originated the saying was that a female forebear was wooed by a gentleman who seemed perfect in every particular all Winter long, down at home in Indiana, and this idealized impression lasted until he was invited to visit the Summer cottage up in the north of Michigan. Evidently he prepared for swimming by donning a one-piece Edwardian bathing suit with sleeves, like the one worn by the fellow in the middle in this old photograph, even though it was decidedly out of fashion by that time. (Please ignore the parasol; this isn't a family picture and there's nothing in our story about a parasol.)

He also put on a woman's bathing cap as though there were nothing remarkable about it, and wore it in the lake. This seemed, to my female ancestor, strikingly odd. It was a much more conformist era. With that, the rose-colored glasses of her Winter-long infatuation began to fall away from her eyes, and oddities aplenty began to magically appear, one after another, although what those might have been are lost to history. Maybe he used a knife as a fork, I don't know. She ended up throwing him over at the end of the Summer, and that was the end of his chances of diving into our gene pool.

The saying in the family became, "You've got to Winter 'em, and you've got to Summer 'em."

When I was writing camera reviews for magazines, I had a personal standard that I tried my best to follow: I had to use a camera for three months, for my real work, before I would write about it. That lasted for several years, until I realized that using so many different cameras was fracturing the unity of my output. But it was a good impulse, I think. You need to use a camera (or drive a car, or own a watch, or cut grass with your new lawnmower, or whatever) until the infatuation rubs off. Until then, you won't really know what you think of it.

However I can't always take my own advice. A while back, I owned the original (Mark I?) Panasonic G9 for a remarkably short period of time. On paper, it seemed like the perfect camera for me. So I ordered one, sight unseen. To be honest, it still seems like the perfect camera for me...on paper. And I know lots of people love that camera, so no diss. But once I opened the package and got the camera working, I knew within no more than five minutes that it wasn't for me. Why, I can't even say. But I knew it. The exact opposite happened with the Panasonic GX8! I remember looking it in a glass case at a camera show when it was still a prototype and thinking, "I'll have no interest in that." But I reviewed it, used it, and loved it, and it's still one of my favorite cameras. But for my mental FUD about the shutter-shock issue I would probably still be using it, and if there had ever been a GX8 Mark II I would have been on board for sure. Even as I write this, I want that*.

So it goes. Never do all your shopping on paper. You've got to Winter 'em, and you've got to Summer 'em. And if you can't, at least make sure you hold it, look through it, and click the shutter.

Mike

*The cameras I think are sure to be forthcoming never are. The cameras I don't need to be updated are updated again and again until they reach Mark VII status or more, and still they soldier on. The Universe is a trickster and loves to taunt me.

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Despite the hand-wringing of the past few days, I ended up buying SanDisk cards anyway.

Dan Ariely, in Predictably Irrational, a book about consumer choice, says that consumers like to follow other consumers. If a lot of people buy Canons, then a lot of people will buy Canons. But we also "follow ourselves," in effect, because we have a pretty strong tendency to do what we've done before. If you've owned several Nikons in succession, then you're likely to think of yourself as a Nikon person and "get in line behind yourself" to buy another Nikon.

In that sense I guess I'm still a SanDisk guy, even if the new SanDisk isn't quite the old SanDisk.

The card I bought is called the SanDisk 64GB Extreme PRO UHS-II SDXC. The V60 version. It seemed to push all the right buttons for me, plus it's the same old brand I usually buy. I settled on V60 as the "overkill" level for write speed for a stills photographer who doesn't shoot bursts (it should also do bursts pretty well, although you might want to go with V90 if you do a lot of that for action or sports—buffer clearing in particular should be better). V60 usually has a maximum write speed of 90–130 MB/s, more than enough for me with my particular camera. As an aside, however, check the maximum write speeds of V30 cards against those of V60 cards. The maximum write speeds could be quite close to each other; V30 and V60 refer to the mimimums. If you're not a "power user," the V30 cards could be plenty, and within any particular brand and type they're usually significantly cheaper.

Point two: it has great reviews on B&H Photo: 34 reviews with an average score of 4.91—about the highest I encountered in my shopping—with zero one-star reviews. Thirty four is just barely a large enough sample, but it's adequate.

Third, I have faith that B&H won't sell me a counterfeit, even though we've heard secondhand from a SanDisk engineer that up to 25%(!) of all SanDisk cards out there could be counterfeits.

Fourth, the price is right, which suits my cheap gene—at only $27 a pop, it gives good bang for the buck. I could probably do better if I waited for a sale, but I'd like to stop thinking about cards now.

SanDisk might be getting ripped here and there on the internet for poor customer service since Western Digital bought them out, but there's that bathtub curve to think about—most failures happen either right out of the box or at end-of-life. The period in the middle is usually pretty stable. I'm very likely to take each new card to the backyard and fill it up and download it to check that everything's working properly, because that's what I do with all new gear. That should serve as proof of non-failure at the outset (and give me an idea of actual capacity, and I'll check the number of frames till the buffer fills). Beyond that, I'll trust in the general reliability of cards, because they're mostly very reliable despite the few exceptions prominently highlighted in online reviews.

I also got one of these to replace my old off-brand card reader:

It's a Wise Advanced CFexpress Type B / UHS-II SDXC USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 card reader. Why choose that one? No reason, really. Aside from the fact that it looks clean and it appealed. And I figured any card reader I buy is going to be made in Asia anyway, no matter what name it's sold under, so why not get one from an Asian name brand? And, I tend to have good luck with stuff made in Taiwan. And I like pool players from Taiwan, such as Chou Chieh-Yu and Ko Ping-Chung. But I'm not supposed to write about pool so forget I said that.

Ingesting 175 image files of ~26 MB size, the new Wise reader needed 18 seconds. My old card reader took 2 min. 6 sec. [UPDATE: Whoops—miscalculation. I'm now one USB-C port short. I'm going to have to plug and unplug to use the new card reader. Oh well.]

They came today! The spoons are for scale.

One other nice little thing: I still had that $200 B&H gift certificate floating around, and the bill for four cards and the Wise card reader came to $200.42. Shame about that 42¢.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Mike Chisholm: "Heh.... Three long and informative posts out of buying a new SD card. Good going, Mike: what is the sound of one hand wringing?  ;-)

"But, wow, you really don't believe in tempting fate, do you? You'd better touch some apotropaic wood right away!"

Mike replies: I was actually kind of retroactively embarrassed by my first post ("Where Do All the Cards and Pens Go?"). It was lazy and outdated because it was written off the top of my head. I figured my readers deserve a better effort than that.

Peter: "Thank you, Mike. A most helpful and entertaining post. These are the cards I settled on—buying a set of four for each of my cameras (Canon and Lumix). The 64 GB size is right—I've never filled a 64 GB in a day of shooting. I selected the V60, as in the Goldilocks 'buy the one in the middle' rationale. Can you answer one more question? Do I need to have a separate set for each camera? Is there a reason to use SD cards only in the camera in which they were formatted? Or could I format the SD card in one camera and use it in the others?"

Stephen S. replies to Peter: "Every camera I know of follows the Design rule for Camera File system specification from the Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association, so they all use the same, compatible file system, making them perfectly safe to interchange. Anyone claiming cards shouldn't be interchanged between cameras seems to say so based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt [FUD], with no proper technical reasoning behind it.

"For testing memory cards, I used H2testw from Heise.de to write to every single block of the card, and then read it back to ensure it wasn't corrupted. That will also detect fake cards mis-reporting their size! It's only for Windows, however."

Stephen Cowdery: "Great series of posts. Almost every purchase of photo gear is a balance of features/cost and you really gave me some insight into something I otherwise wouldn't think about."

Niels: "I work in the back office of a camera store which sells SanDisk among many other card brands. The front office personnel often talks about what products used to be better, are of poor quality, and give them bad customer interactions and headaches, but I don't recall SanDisk cards ever being mentioned as one of those products. When we do recovery services on SanDisk cards, it has always been due to formatting or overwrites. I have never experienced card failure with SanDisk. I sometimes wonder if the often repeated reputation of declining quality is an effect of the many counterfeits in circulation?

"Glad to see you got a good card-reader. Few people realise how much it matters to pay the premium a until you have tried it. I use and can highly recommend the ProGrade equivalent of what you have (also made in Taiwan)."

dogman (partial comment): "I've shot digital since 2007. Not a long time, admittedly. Over this time I've used SanDisk, Lexar, Delkin, Transcend and Kingston cards in various cameras. I've only had one card go haywire--a SanDisk SDHC. Later, after reading about counterfeit SanDisk cards, I checked that old dead card and, yep, it fit the description of a fake. I didn't even know SanDisk was owned by WD until reading this article."

John Krill: "My complaint with all these SD cards is the write protect switch. I’m always having to put it in its proper position. Write anything you want and erase it all thank you. I’m thinking of gluing that damn switch somehow."

Mike replies: The Delkin Black and Sony TOUGH cards do not have write protect switches. The Sony cards inspire many complaints that they are too large and do not physically fit in the card bays of cameras, so Delkin Black is your best bet.

Ken Bennett: "Despite the fact that my most recently bought camera is a Canon (R6), I still think of myself as a Nikon shooter—and I feel the siren call with every new Nikon or third-party lens for Z mount that is in the news. It is hard for the brain to give up on something that is not only useful but tactile. Not for nothing the satin finish, the curves, the 'fits like a glove,' etc."

robert e: "As others will surely have noted, several ducks have to be in a row for a card to deliver close to its spec speeds. So, a little overkill in each component is good, but too much in any one is a waste. Excess capability is not much of an investment when that capability will cost you half as much to buy by the time you actually need it. There's also something to be said for going with the most popular reputable cards, both in terms of massive user base and knowledge, and the likelihood that these are the cards that device manufacturers use for testing and optimizing their products."

The following is a simple price comparison between brands of SD-type cards in early May 2024. Two stars for mid-price, one star for low price, three stars for high price. These prices are for top-spec V90 cards with a lower-end capacity, all UHS-II. I tried to find cards of the closest comparable specification, but not all the specs are identical. Bear in mind that V90 is for video, and is overkill for stills-only shooters unless you do a lot of shooting on high-speed continuous settings. The prices are from B&H Photo, TOP's recommended source for authentic cards. The hope is that these prices are a typical representation of each brand, but bear in mind they might not be. Prices fluctuate as well.

The information about reviews gives some sense of the relative popularity of each brand, at least at B&H. Because the number of one-star reviews is meaningless alone, I also give them as a percentage of all the overall number. Be mindful that one-star reviews are sometimes given for delivery, packaging, or customer service issues irrelevant to the actual product, and that any negative review might be the result of operator error.

-

★★ SanDisk Extreme Pro 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W (write speed in MB/s) 260, R (read speed) 300:$59.99

Max write speed notated on label: No

611 reviews, 4.86 avg. score, 13 1-star reviews (2.1%)

★ Kingston Canvas React 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 260, R 300: $49.99

Max write speed notated on label: No

74 reviews, 4.61 avg. score, 3 1-star reviews (4%)

★★★ Sony SF-G TOUGH 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 299, R 300: $93.00

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

317 reviews, 4.64 avg. score, 8 1-star reviews (2.5%)

★★ Lexar Professional 2000x 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 260, R 300: $59.99

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

230 reviews, 4.24 avg. score, 29 1-star reviews (12.1%)

★★★ Delkin Devices Black 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 250, R 300: $69.99

Max write speed notated on label: No (but a unique serial number is)

13 reviews, 4.92 avg. score, 0 1-star reviews (0%)

★ Delkin Devices POWER 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 250, R 300: $44.99

Max write speed notated on label: No

28 reviews, 4.68 avg. score, 1 1-star reviews (3.6%)

★★★ ProGrade 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 250, R 300: $69.99

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

365 reviews, 4.71 avg. score, 14 1-star reviews (3.8%)

★★★ OWC Atlas Ultra 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 250, R 300: $74.99

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

1 review, 5 stars (0% 1-star)

★★ Nextorage 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 299, R 300: $59.99

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

3 reviews, all 5 star (0% 1-star)

★★★ Angelbird 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 280, R 300:$89.00

Max write speed notated on label: No

67 reviews, 4.64 avg. score, 3 1-star reviews (4.8%)

★★★ Panasonic 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 250, R 280: $198.82 (special order)

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

4 reviews, 4.25 avg. score, 0 1-star reviews (0%)

★ PNY Elite-X PRO90 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 280, R 300: $49.95

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

14 reviews, 4.2 avg. score, 1 1-star review (7.1%)

★★★ Exascend Essential 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 260, R 300: $85.00

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

0 reviews

★★★ Exascend Catalyst 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 280, R 300: $89.00

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

0 reviews

★ Sabrent Rocket 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 250, R 280: $39.99

Max write speed notated on label: Yes

4 reviews, 5 avg. score, 0 1-star reviews (0%)

★ Transcend 700S 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 180, R 285: $41.99

Max write speed notated on label: No

32 reviews, 4.41 avg. score, 2 1-star reviews (6.3%)

★ Patriot EP 64 GB, V90, UHS-II, W 260, R 300: $37.99

Max write speed notated on label: No

2 reviews, 5 avg. score, 0 1-star reviews (0%)

-

Highest number of reviews: SanDisk, 611
Lowest: Exascend, 0

Highest average review among cards with more than 10 reviews: Delkin Black, 4.92
Lowest: PNY, 4.2

Lowest percentage of 1-star reviews among cards with more than 10 reviews: SanDisk
Highest (by far): Lexar, 12.1

Lowest price: Patriot EP; runner-up: Sabrent Rocket
Highest price: Panasonic; runner-up: Sony TOUGH

-

Next up: what I bought.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Daniele: "So if V60 are more than enough for photography, why are all these V90? Are you moving to video?  :-)  "

Mike replies: Good question. It's because I wanted to give an apples-to-apples comparison between brands, and some of these brands, such as Delkin Devices, don't offer V60 cards.

Greg: Do people give good reviews for expensive items to justify the purchase to themselves—I have no idea, but I think it's been seen in other realms. I haven't read the reviews, but unless a card fails early what's to rate on unless on does extensive tests? Four to one price spread. Maybe you mentioned it, but what's your need for a V90 card? Don't you shoot stills? And aren't most of your readers still shooter. V60 or V30 would suffice? Is it good or bad that the max write speed is noted on the label? Honest question since I don't know how relevant it is?

Mike replies: Write speed is important because it gives an idea of how quickly the card is able to record continuous sequences without hitting its buffer and slowing way down, and it affects how fast the buffer will be cleared. It all depends on the camera's capabilities of course, but many of today's cameras are capable of faster operation than U1/V10 or U3/V30 cards can keep up with.

If you shoot like I do—at a slower, more contemplative pace (I focus manually and have the drive mode set on single frame), then V60 is certainly overkill and V30 will do. Some sources recommend using cards that match the camera's bus speed, so I opted to get V60 cards because they're UHS-II. I'm pretty sure I would have coped just fine with V30 UHS-I cards. Some of the old cards I actually use aren't even that good.

Patrick Perez: "So which is the one clear winner? ;-)  ."

Mike replies: After having looked into it, I think I'll defer to Kirk and call the Delkin Black the best card money can buy. They're probably tougher than the Sony TOUGH, seem to have a very low failure rate, are immune to shock and moisture, and Delkin only sells them though a select number of qualified dealers—and marks each card with a unique serial number—so they're well protected from counterfeiting. Their physical durability is going to prevent a significant number of failures all by itself. For the excellent specs and features offered, the prices are not excessive, and Delkin makes both V30 UHS-I and V90 UHS-II versions.

For the best bargain without sacrificing quality, my pick would be the SanDisk 32GB Extreme PRO UHS-I V30 SDHC for $11.68 per card. I have lots of experience with earlier versions of that card with almost the same spec. A real workhorse, and if you need a cheaper memory card than that you're probably in the wrong hobby.  :-)

If you want to shoot video, you already know that CFexpress Type B is the way to go. The spiritual heir of the old CF cards, CFexpress Type B has been making its way into cameras too in the last handful of years. From a performance standpoint, they obliterate the best SDXC cards. Despite this, many if not most of our cameras still use the much smaller and generally cheaper and handier "SD cards" as they're generically called. SD cards are far and away the most popular cards for cameras.

I've been delving more deeply into SD cards since two days ago, and it's a bit like digging in ground that has a lot of buried rocks. (Ever had to do that? It's difficult). Despite which, a few points:

—> Running down corporate history is like tracking genealogy in a small village, and I won't get into the weeds. Suffice to say that SanDisk was indeed acquired by Western Digital in early 2016 and might not be the safe, solid-gold go-to choice it once was for photographers, although it is still one of the main makers of SD-type cards for multi-use purposes.

—> Speaking of which, a little disambiguation:

SD = Secure Digital: up to 2 GB;
SDHC = Secure Digital High Capacity: 2–32 GB;
SDXC = Secure Digital eXtended Capacity: 32+ GB up to 2TB;
There's also SDUC, Secure Digital Ultra Capacity, for storage up to 128GB, but B&H doesn't list one and I'm not sure this standard is relevant.

"SD cards" should really be called "SD-type cards," because "SD" alone has a very specific defined performance parameter, as you can see in this table. I won't change the world, but that's what I'll try to call them herein.

Definition: an SD-type card is any card with a Secure Digital form-factor, including SD, SDHC, SDXC, and the tiny MicroSDXC cards in SD adapters.

As an aside, here's one of those little oddities of history: the SD logo was first developed for an altogether different product, namely, Toshiba's Super Density Disc, an unsuccessful DVD competitor, and that's why the "D" in all the SD logos looks like a disc!

Most "SD" cards you'd buy now are SDXC

The card type names above basically trace the format's evolution. SD, 1999 (introduced by a consortium comprised of SanDisk, Panasonic [Matsushita] and Toshiba); SDHC, 2006; SDXC, 2009. MicroSD (now MicroSDXC) first came out in 2004. Virtually all SD cards you'd buy now are SDXC. Occasionally SDHC, although those seem to be on the way out, for photography at least, although I still have one in my card wallet! Sheesh.

SDXC compared to MicroSDXC. Image courtesy of Kingston.

MicroSDXC cards can be used in adapters that look like SDXC cards, and used as you would use an SDXC card. I have literally no idea whether this is a thing that is done by photographers, whether it works, or whether it's desirable or not. (Oops, shovel hit a boulder there. Anyone out there use a MicroSDXC card with an adapter?) [UPDATE: Robert K. at B&H Photo says (source), "It is not recommended using a memory card adapter in a camera. It can slow the speed of the memory card. And that can produce glitches, especially while shooting video." Despite this, some of our readers say this is what they do.]

They also make it convenient for counterfeiters. Crack a counterfeit big-name card and you might find a MicroSDXC card inside.

I need to write a whole article on counterfeit cards and fake reviews. For now I'll just repeat what I said the other day, which is that it's best to buy your cards from a reliable and reputable vendor. I would not buy cards from a third-party seller on Amazon and I would certainly not buy a card from eBay. No telling what you'd be getting.

—> Keep in mind that the card works in conjunction with the camera. Card types are backwards- and forwards-compatible, limited by whichever one is less capable. Having a card with a newer standard is useless if your camera doesn't support it; similarly, if your camera supports a newer card type and you're using an older card type, you won't be getting the performance your camera is capable of. When in doubt, you can just buy the best card, and it will support the best your camera can do. Knowing what your camera needs, however, is important to maximizing performance while also not spending extra money for no reason. Or, rather, almost no reason: keep in mind that buying a better card than your current camera needs might future-proof your cards for when you eventually get a new camera.

It's also important to realize that if you have a camera with two card slots, and you have a card in each slot, the camera will probably limit performance to the capability of the lesser of the two cards. ByThom says: "Cameras tend to be as slow as the slowest card in them. That applies both to buffer and image review performance. That's why you don't want to put a UHS-II card in one slot and an old, pre-UHS card in the second slot of a two-slot SD camera. Even if you aren't writing to both cards simultaneously, image review performance often will be triggered to the slowest card. Note that some cameras have one 'fast' card slot and one 'slower' card slot. If you use two cards in those cameras, the camera operations are only as fast as the slower slot. ... So: if you want fastest performance use only one fast card in the faster slot."

A similar thing can happen with card readers, too. In a card reader with two SD slots, downloading one card at a time often takes not half the time it takes to download two cards simultaneously, but less than half.

—> Lexar seems to be in a good stretch. Its history is more convoluted than SanDisk's. Originally American, founded 1996, it was at first a division of Cirrus Logic, an IC manufacturer. Lexar was an early leader in USB flash drives. In 2006 it was sold to Micron Technology, and merged with Crucial, another maker of flash memory, and renamed Lexar Media. Eleven years later, in June 2017, Micron (which is a huge company; Lexar was probably on the level of a rounding error) threw in the towel. It announced that Lexar would no longer manufacture portable flash media such as SD cards, and put its Lexar subsidiary up for sale.

Although that seemed like a big deal at the time, it turned out to be a temporary interruption. Lexar was acquired by Longsys, a Chinese company based in Shenzhen, which announced in 2018 that Lexar would re-enter the flash memory market. So Lexar was back. Since then, Longsys has flexed its technological might in several ways, including introducing the first 1 TB card. (Here's a current version. This series, V60 with both write and read speeds on the label, appears to be a strong option for photographers.) Lexar's reputation, quality, and offerings, perhaps reflecting the vagaries of its history, appear to have gone up and down over the past 20 years. Right now things seem to be going well—but I discerned that with a divining rod and my ear to the ground, so don't put overmuch stock in it.

—>Speaking of "V60," I found this nice table sorting out speed ratings:

This is from the website of ProGrade, a newer card brand which I'll talk more about in a minute.

All these speed ratings refer to minimum write speeds. As with the letter designations, speed classes mirror the history and development of the cards. Each type basically supersedes the previous one. "Class 10," the 10 inside the round "C" or broken circle, is not really relevant if the card gives a "U" or UHS speed class (which is different from the I and II, which refer to the bus type); and "V" or video speed class ratings supersede that. So if the card you're buying has a V number on it, you can pretty much disregard any other indication of minimum speed.

As you no doubt already know, the speed rating given on the label of most cards in MB/s (megabytes per second) is the maximum (not minimum) read (not write) speed. As you know I'm forever tilting at the windmills of terminology, but that particular terminology is so asinine it almost makes me angry; as you probably know, MB/s (uppercase B) means megabytes per second and Mb/s (lowercase b) mean megabits per second. (Whoever came up with that bit (or maybe byte) of asininity should be docked 5,000 life points.) The write speed specified for a card means the maximum possible write speed, not a guarantee of what the actual write speed will be.

Some of the more advanced and enlightened card makers are now giving both write (W) and read (R) speeds on the labels of cards. Curiously, ProGrade labels its V90 cards this way but not its V60 ones.

With this card, for example, you're effectively given the range of write speeds right on the label: a guaranteed minimum of 90 MB/s (that V90), and a potential maximum of 250 MB/s. Nice.

—> Another especial area of confusion comes with the UHS speed class versus the UHS bus type. They're not the same. The U with either a 1 or a 3 inside it (see it just to the right of the "v90" on the card above) is a speed-class rating (10 and 30 MB/s respectively) for a camera that uses a UHS bus. The Roman numerals "I" (one) and "II" (two) refer to the bus type, UHS-I or UHS-II, and this is something you should not ignore, because your camera will either be compatible with UHS-II or it won't be and you probably want to get the card that suits (B&H recommends doing so strictly). As you probably know, UHS-I cards have one row of metal pins on the back, and cards with the UHS-II bus have two rows of pins.

UHS stands for "ultra high speed," by the way. And, as is the case with the SDUC card designation noted above, UHS-III has apparently been announced but appears not to exist yet, unless I'm missing something.

—> As I noted on Wednesday, The basic problem of SD cards is that most of them work and most of them serve. And yet there's no one make and model that never has failures and has 100% good reviews. Regarding that, and just in passing, I'll mention that a meme that works for fake reviews is "...and there's one clear winner!" or words to that effect. So every time you see some variant of that sentiment in the title or first paragraph of a purported "review," be suspicious. Human nature makes us want one clear winner. If some antisocial miscreant out there is constructing a clickbait "Best SD Cards" site, that would be one of the tricks he might use.

The sad fact is that there's not one clear winner. And now that the WD acquisition has cast some shade on my old go-to, SanDisk, well, even after all the reading and researching (and desultory websurfing) I've done over the past three days, I still don't know what to buy. And yet, whatever I do buy will probably work and will probably be good enough. Unless of course I just get unlucky.

But now on to the new kids on the block.

—> ProGrade Digital is a private company started in California in 2018 by engineers, marketers and businessmen who used to work for the old Lexar*; some have career experience at SanDisk as well. I've actually written about them before and yet somehow forgot all about them until I started researching cards again on Thursday morning. ProGrade traffics only in higher-level cards, and sells matching card readers. It has an excellent website from which the table above comes. ProGrade also sells recovery, clean formatting, and ingestion software, and has charts on its website for specific camera-to-card recommendations (unfortunately, my camera isn't included... ::sad face emoji::). ProGrade also marks its cards with a symbol meaning the card is compatible with its Refresh Pro software—you can see that in the card image above in the lower right—and some of the cards are marked with both W and R speeds, as I mentioned above. I believe ProGrade cards are manufactured in Taiwan. It's tempting to go with ProGrade just because of the software it offers, among all the other reasons.

Another small, newer bespoke company is Angelbird, from Austria. Its website is also interesting and fun to explore, but unfortunately the "About" page is marketing gobbledegook ("we want to spread our wings and defy the standard industry experience," "we live for adventure," etc.) with little substantive information. But I believe it was founded somewhere within a few years of 2010 and makes its own products in-house, in Austria. There's a factory tour video here that reveals a lot. Angelbird also makes its own card readers too, and although it does not sell software, it does offer a recovery service. And it has a page that matches specific cameras to recommended cards as well. I almost pulled the trigger on a couple of these Angelbird cards last night, but the matching card reader is out of stock.

There's a sharp distinction between anonymous fly-by-night commodity card sellers who are just trying to scrounge a buck, and small bespoke companies who are trying to do everything right and are making solid good-faith efforts to serve discerning buyers. When I first encountered the name "Angelbird" I immediately thought of the former. But they're the latter. 

It's worth mentioning out loud that these committed little companies are tending to sell only higher-level, higher-capacity SD-type cards. You can't blame them; they need to make a profit, and they can't beat the enormous multinationals at quick and dirty. ProGrade's lowest-level card is a 128 GB V60 UHS-II card with a maximum write speed of 130 MB/s, for $45 each if you buy a 2-pack; Angelbird's lowest-level card is a 64 GB V30 UHS-I card in its only UHS-I series, maximum write speed 100 MB/s, and that costs $12.99 (and is probably all I myself need, if I'm honest). But apart from that series, all its other cards are UHS-II.

—> Another lesser-known seller, Wise Advanced Co. Ltd. of Taiwan, also has a compatibility chart, and also sells a cool high-performance card reader, which seem to be two indications of a good company to do business with. My Google-fu fails me when it comes to Wise; I have been able to find out almost nothing about them. [UPDATE: They seem to have a pretty strong presence on Instagram.] After I post this tonight I'll probably go read whatever reviews I can find for them at B&H and Amazon. Well, after I check the Derby results. [UPDATE: There were no Wise reviews at B&H or Amazon, and the Derby was thrilling, with a three-way photo finish.]

Here are the charts:

ProGrade Camera Compatibility Chart

Angelbird Technologies Camera Compatibility Chart

Wise Advanced Co. Camera Compatibility Chart

Compatibility advice might also come from your camera's manufacturer. Here, for instance, is the compatibility page for Fuji cameras. Sigma (I shoot with a Sigma fp, converted to monochrome by Daniel Morrison of Monochromeimaging.com) has a page of recommendations of various media, which I perused for commonalities; basically it recommends only V90 cards with the UHS-II bus. But of course there's a wrinkle there, because the Sigma fp is made as a video-centric camera and I use it exclusively for stills. So does that mean I'll see any performance increase if I use a V90 card for stills? I admit ignorance.

I must say I like this emerging custom, however. I mean the compatibility charts and the focus on...well, us. In the past three days I've found that SD-type card choice is pretty simple on the surface, but more and more opaque and mystifying the deeper you try to delve into it. Will the camera compatibility chart become the signal that a company is worth our attention? Could happen. I particularly like the way ProGrade splits its charts into Camera (i.e., stills), action-cam, and video sections. That makes a lot of sense. I also appreciate that Angelbird differentiates between media that is merely compatible and media that it recommends for any given camera (they are constantly making actual in-camera tests, according to the video linked above). I like that. I want my media recommended, please!  :-)

The ideal SD-type card compatibility chart would specify the usage, at minimum stills versus video; would differentiate between "compatible" (i.e., works) and "recommended"; and would be backed by actual in-house, in-camera tests like Angelbird performs. 

It's nice that smaller companies such as ProGrade and Angelbird are cropping up that appear to be specifically catering to photographers and videographers who use higher-end digital DSLR and mirrorless cameras. I don't know how good that will be for them, but it's good for us.

ProGrade, Angelbird and Wise are all available from B&H Photo, which I trust as a vendor. I've linked to vaguely middle-of-the-range options, and you can explore from there.

Mike

A big thanks to all my Patreon supporters, new and old, who help keep the lights on.

*In Kawasaki City, Kanagawa Prefecture, Nextorage was similarly founded by a number of ex-Sony engineers and staff with long-term experience in flash memory products. Like Wise Advanced, Nextorage appears to serve the Asian market and is little-known here.

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

Ken Bennett: "I've been using ProGrade since they came out, both SD and CF Express, and they've performed very well. The card readers are excellent. Not cheap, but nothing is in this business.  :-) "

Kye Wood: "Timely question you asked there. Yes. As of last month, I've been using a Samsung EVO MicroSD card (512 GB) in the SD adapter that they come packaged with. It's inside an OM System TG-7. It's brutally fast and I can't fault it. Given how much cheaper the MicroSD cards are than the same sized SD card, it seems like an idea I'll employ in more cameras."

robert e: "Have you looked into Kingston Technology? I used to think that they were a value-added assembler, but turns out they're a privately held US-based chip maker founded in 1987. Impressive Wikipedia history. Anyway, they're never the cheapest choice, but never the priciest either. Ubiquitous, with an excellent reputation (as far as I can tell). My choice when I can spend a few bucks more for peace of mind, especially since SanDisk started slipping."

Peter Williams: "I've been using the Samsung EVO series microSD cards in adapters for years in my Fuji X-E3 and Kingston card reader. Never had any issues and they are better value and more readily available than regular SD cards."

Greg: "I recently got an OM-1. Based on discussions on DPReview and elsewhere I determined that for stills, V60 was all that is useful. Since V90 cost a lot more, it was worth knowing. And the only limitation on a V30 is probably the speed and number of burst shots. At at guess, that doesn't matter to you. For my camera, V90 will provide benefits for video. I haven't bought a card yet—still using existing V30, so your post will be helpful. I second the comment on MicroSD being too small."

Stephen S.: "Robert K. at B&H Photo is incorrect. You can easily find dozens of photos online of MicroSD to SD-type adapters that have been cracked open, and they very clearly just match the pins from one format up to the other. There is no circuitry or intelligence of any kind, so there is no way the adapter could slow the MicroSD card down compared to using it on its own. Sure, some MicroSD-type cards may simply be slower than some SD-type cards, but an adapter won't slow them down."

"'I would not buy cards from a third-party seller on Amazon' is good advice, but better is to not buy from Amazon at all. Even cards 'shipped and sold by Amazon' can be counterfeit cards mixed into their own inventory by nefarious third parties, thanks to the joys of 'co-mingled inventory.' If you're not familiar with that practice, it's worth Googling."

Bob G.: "Thanks for the research and reviews, Mike. Always worth the effort to try to clarify, even if it’s a work in progress. Every time I try to do a deep dive into these memory issues, it becomes too much to ingest, and I just go with the manufacturer’s recommendations, which get dated fast. Overall, I’ve shied away from the micro SD's in still cameras, and just use them for the GoPros or car cams, etc. Their small size seems to beg issues to create more problems, handling, heat, dirt, etc."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Don't look now, but this whole topic might be becoming quaint. Right now I have two cameras that have large, lightning-fast internal SSDs for storage. My Leica M11P has a 256 GB internal SSD and my Hasselblad X2D 100c has a 1 TB SSD. The general consensus seems to be that many other upper- and mid-range cameras will soon follow suit. It's likely that most cameras will continue to offer removable storage options for some years. But with most top cameras now emphasizing connectivity and rapid communications for image files, and with many brands beginning to offer phone app utilities (i.e. marketing-driven apps), I don't see removable media on an incline for digital photography."

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "This may have been mentioned somewhere in the comments but I did not see it in my quick pass. I am a bit of an intensive user of these SD cards. For example, my image count from April (last month) was 27,842. I've used various brands—typically Sandisk and Lexar. For SD cards, this started back with maybe 16 GB cards and I now have four 128 GB in my main rotation with a couple of older 128 GB sitting in the bag for backup.

"But the weak-point of SD cards is the very fragile plastic 'guides' that run along the bottom of the card between the gold/copper contacts. If you damage these flimsy little pieces, the card becomes unmountable, which is a huge issue. For that reason I have moved to only using Sony Tough cards as they do not have these pieces of plastic. The Tough cards feel different and sound different—feel solid and sound more ceramic? They seem more expensive, but they do not have this weakness. Has anyone else considered this factor?"

Ed. note: If you want to hear what John means by "feel different and sound different—feel solid and sound more ceramic," check out the beginning of this short promo video by Delkin for the Delkin Black cards. Although it might be computer generated, it perhaps represents what John means.

KeithB: "As an 'Illuminary' on the Canon Community board, our standard advice has been that adapted micro cards can cause issues with Canon cameras. Based on anecdotes, there have been a lot of folks who have card trouble with micro cards, switch them for full size cards, and no longer have trouble. So for Canons, at least, stick with full size."

[Ed. note: This article was rather slovenly, as I wrote it more or less off the top of my head. It contains some outdated information, and doesn't reflect the current state of affairs very well. I'll leave it up as background, and so as not to orphan your comments, but the newer post "ProGrade and Angelbird" is a better attempt.]

Do you know the English young adult novels about the Borrowers? It's a charming series of books for tweens and young teens about a race of miniature people who live in the unseen spaces in houses and account for all the little things that mysteriously go missing. Written by Mary Norton, who was my grandmother's contemporary, the original title has been around for longer than I've been alive.

Well, around here the only things the Borrowers seem to snitch are pens and memory cards. I continually load pens into the house and the house absorbs them. It gradually becomes more and more frustrating trying to find one, until I give in and buy another box. It really is a mystery how they all evaporate.

Same for SD cards. In my recent office relocation I was only able to lay my hands on six of them, which is remarkable considering how many there should be. The six I rescued are a motley of different types and sizes, although most of them are by SanDisk because that's the brand I usually buy. I recognize some of them as remnants of past "buys." Some of them are quite old. You can find lots of "repeated opinion" out there about the lifespan of cards—most places say they'll last ten years, which sounds to me like a number that came out of a monkey's butt. I'm not aware of any hard real data except for data on write-read cycles, which are unlikely to ever be exceeded, by me anyway. And I'm not sure how useful hard data on longevity would be in any case, because in my experience digital storage can either last a long time and be very dependable or it can conk out after a short time and take valuable data out with it. And there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to which is which. The two hard drives that failed the soonest for me were supposedly the most dependable drives from the most reliable vendor. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever had a memory card fail, and that goes back to Smart Media cards and Sony Memory Sticks.

Of course, it could be that the Borrowers get them before they have a chance to wear out on me. (The Borrowers must have a reseller business on eBay or something.)

By the way, I buy SanDisk cards because Eli Harari, Sanjay Mehrotra, and Jack Yuan revolutionized flash memory in 1988 when the company was called SunDisk. Just before the company went public in '95, they changed the name to SanDisk to avoid confusion with (and probably a bitter legal tussle with) Sun Microsystems. SanDisk is the OG. [UPDATE: But see Stephen S.'s Featured Comment, below. —Ed.]

At least I still use SD cards exclusively, so I don't have to learn all about the XQD/CFExpress tangle, although I'd do so if I needed to of course. XQD has been around for a dozen years now, can you believe that? Time flies like an arrow, and fruit flies like bananas. Speaking of Dad jokes, here's a nice one:

What has four letters, sometimes has nine, and never has five

See if you can figure that one out. Took me a while, I have to admit. Anyway, I hope to get a new computer this year (mine is six years old, which I guess is my current refresh cycle—although I'm going to wait for the Apple M3 Mac Minis to either appear or not appear this coming Summer, When I do I'll probably get a Satechi hub for it too. There are some things I just want, and a front-facing SD card slot is just one of those things. You know those things that shouldn't matter and yet do?

My use-case makes optimizing card selection complicated, but also probably means that my choice is non-critical. I'm a light shooter and download my files promptly, so I don't need a lot of capacity on any given card. I don't need it to work well with video since I don't shoot video. And although my camera supports UHS-II it's supposedly not any faster with it except when ingesting to the computer (I think that's right anyway)—and I almost can't imagine a case where I might need the card to upload  faster than a UHS-I card already does. So my buying-decision progression goes pretty smoothly: SanDisk because of "following myself," which is what Dan Ariely calls consumer loyalty (that is, I buy a Honda rather than a Toyota because I've bought Hondas in the past—I follow my own lead); U3 because that's enough write speed; UHS I instead of II because they're $11.70 per card instead of $40 per card and I'm cheap; and four of them because the little card holder that I carry in my fp bag has three compartments (one card in the camera, three spares). Then I just need to use a permanent marker to write the year on the cards so future me can identify when I bought them.

The six cards I have are limping along pretty good, but just looking at them together makes me realize I should sweep away the old and bring in the new. One is a UHS-II card I got when they first came out c. 2014; one is from a c. 2009 buy and one of the contacts keeps bending, which means I'm kinda playing with fire by continuing to use it; one is an off brand; one is a physically worn 128GB card that showed up through some unknown avenue or other—I didn't buy it; it probably came in a camera I rented or was loaned—meaning I have no idea how old it is or how many write-read cycles are on it; and so forth. One more little thing to remember is that a TOP reader was told by a SanDisk engineer that a third of all the SanDisk cards out there are counterfeits. B&H Photo sells nothing but authentic manufacturer-manufactured cards. I buy my cards from B&H and that's that. So my choice is the 32 GB SanDisk Extreme Pro U3 UHS-I from B&H Photo. YMMLWV! ("Your mileage likely will vary.")

I've said this before, but I should point out that a 32GB card for $11.69 is 36 and a half cents per gigabyte, and the first 1-GB CF card I bought cost $150.00 used. $150 to 36¢ is the arc I wish more things I have to buy would follow!

Well, actually I guess I'll buy five. They come in packs of five. That's three or four for me, and one or two for the Borrowers.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

AN: "I think the Borrowers have been depositing your lost memory cards on my desk at work. For the last few weeks, old memory cards that do not belong to me have appeared at irregular intervals, for unknown reasons. My co-workers claim no knowledge of the source. A few interesting ones have popped up: a 4GB Seagate microdrive, a 2MB Casio CompactFlash card, and one of those 'Shoot & Store' series cards (from when SanDisk was trying to market SD cards as a single-use thing that you would save forever like a negative). No sign of your pens, though."

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "Along with my very low serial number Nikon D1 [introduced 1999 —Ed.], I purchased two 64MB cards for $349 each. A year or two later, after a failure of the incredibly fragile 1GB IBM Microdrive, I sucked it up and bought a 1GB CFII solid state for the whopping price of $1,199. That's a 1GB card! Probably 2002–2003. And in terms of speed, maybe 2x—for whatever that is worth."

Ed. note: These next two comments came in one right after the other:

MikeR: "Ya know how paper clips seem to disappear? They migrate to your closet, the paper clip larvae taking on the adult form of coat hangers."

hugh crawford: "You may want to read 'Or All The Seas With Oysters.'"

Stephen S.: "If your newest card is from 2014, that means you've never owned a SanDisk card made after they were bought by Western Digital. Things have gone downhill, everything from memory cards thicker than the standard that won't fit in some devices, to portable SSDs that lose all of their data and Western Digital spending months lying about the existence of the fault while clearing out existing stock at steep discounts, before finally admitting there was indeed a known problem. It has been sad to see the brand's reputation plummet under new ownership."

David Dyer-Bennet: "UHS II allows less compression when shooting 4k video in my camera (or you can just get uncompressed video with no overlay out the HDMI port and use an external recorder and real hard drives; you'd have to do that if you were doing anything serious). So yeah, important largely for video."

Luke: "At Imaging-Resource, we had a lot of cards from a lot of sources that were reformatted and used in hundreds of cameras. I think I threw out one bad one in seven years.

"And, I agree with Mr. Wood: get A good pen you like."

Graeme Scott: "I still use the Canon 20D I bought in 2005 as a camera for quick reference shots (8 MP is plenty for this ). The two Jessops-branded Compact Flash cards I got with it are still working fine.

"I don't lose pens, I just use them so infrequently that I find they've dried out when I try to write a greetings card. Pencils are definitely the way to go."

Mike replies: CF cards were the best. Robust, not too small, really held up. I wish they were still the standard.

And, have you ever read The Pencil by Henry Petroski? Amazing book.

Roger Bradbury: "It's socks and pens I lose in the house, but out in the shed it's the special bolts I lose; the ones I can't just replace with an ordinary one. They drop to the floor while I'm working on something and I search for them immediately. I've cleared out every corner of the shed, but none have reappeared. I've bought replacements, the piece of magic that usually guarantees the old one suddenly materialises in clear view on the workbench. Nothing works. My conclusion? It's the scrap metal mice."

Tom Burke: "Pens: since I started storing my Bic pens in just one place, I have actually had the experience of exhausting a ball-point pen! Never happened to me before in my life. And when it happened, I knew where I had a replacement.

"SD cards: Some years ago I read that cards that were continually removed from the camera, inserted into a reader, and then replaced into the camera were more likely to fail than those that just stayed in the camera. So I stopped using SD card slots/readers and instead connect the camera to the computer (via a USB-C cable in my latest camera) and use Canon's EOS Utility to read the files and transfer them to the computer. I'll generally wait until the card is more than half-full before formatting it, too—the EOS Utility remembers which files it has already transferred to the computer and on a future occasion gives me the option to transfer 'new files.' I never delete files on the card in-camera (easier to do it later on the computer) and I always format the card in the camera. No card failures since adopting these practices! —But I have no evidence that they have any actual effect on card longevity/resilience. They make me happy, however."

Bill Tyler: "When I first started using computers, memory cost about $1 per byte. At that rate, your 32 GB card would be...."

Forum review of [X] camera:

Title: MY ENDGAME CAMERA!! By George*

Review begins: "This is it!! This is the camera I have always wanted and it will be the last camera I will ever buy!!"

Review might have continued, but doesn't: ...Because I just got it after weeks/months of focused and intense gear longing/pining/desire and I just unboxed it and it's brand new and I'm still enthusiastic about it. I've been working hard for days/ weeks now talking myself into it in order to justify the mostly unnecessary expense!! I.e., still on the pink cloud of NTS (new toy syndrome). I've got the latest shiniest bauble and few other people have it and everyone envies me. Besides, my wife is frustrated and borderline annoyed with me for slinging so much ready dosh into the crapper and I kinda need to broadcast my happiness so she'll think "at least he's happy" and back down.

Actual but unspoken conclusion: In three years I'll be tired of it and bored anew, and at that time there will be new shiny new toys enticing me across the far-flung domains of internet camerababble. Ardent influencers will be joyously proclaiming some new product's virtues just as they are my new toy's virtues today, slighting if not overlooking altogether its inevitable weaknesses because they got blessed by the manufacturer with a pre-release sample and they know which side of their bread the butter's on. So suddenly I'll start being hyperaware of the weaknesses of my by-then-old last-gen camera that I will claim only emerged after months or years of use when, actually, said weaknesses were listed right there in early non-ambassador reviews. And I shall duly begin talking myself into needing that as-yet unspecified newer camera at that time, as the cycle repeats.

Isn't honesty refreshing?

Mission
Spoilsport Ed.'s fingerwagging admonition: Work is what cures GAS. Nota bene. Print this page and clip this out and tape it to your monitor (Bruce Bordner cautions: but not on your monitor at work, or people will walk past very fast!):

Work cures GAS

I got this from the late Mark L. Power, one of my teachers and a wise man. It was late one night and we were working in the darkroom at the old Corcoran School of Art, since dismantled and dispersed; I might have been helping him set the colorpack for some of his pictures while he was printing in the school's color darkroom (he was red-green colorblind, and mostly worked in B&W but occasionally printed color). There had to be some reason he was working at school; his B&W darkroom was back at his Virginia farm. I mentioned that certain students seemed to be complaining a lot. He told me he had noticed over the years that when students get restless and bored and start to complain, it's because they're not working. They don't have a project. He said that as soon as they get a project and it takes off and they're energized by it and excited by pictures, the complaints come to a screeching halt. They only focus their attention on the shortcomings of their tools when they're not using them enough.

So if someone you know is ever feeling bored with his or her camera, you know what their real mission should be. The solution is work, not new gear.

Mike

*George, as you might remember, is a made-up person. I try never to ridicule real persons. The internet has a long memory, and nobody needs negative energy.

P.S. Johnston's Corollary: You should only take people seriously when they declare a camera to be their "endgame" camera and the last one they'll ever buy if two conditions pertain: 1.) it's already been superseded by a newer iteration, and 2.) they've already had it for long enough for all the NTS to wear off.

Original contents copyright 2024 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.)

Featured Comments from:

J. Paul Thomas: "Many years ago I worked for a subsidiary of a major sewing machine company. This enabled me to purchase a new machine at a pretty good discount. My wife loved to sew, so this sounded like a good deal. An executive of the parent company advised me to always buy the top-of-the-line model of the previous generation. His reasoning was that all of the bugs had been worked out, and it would still probably do everything my wife needed. He was 100% correct. Over the years I have applied this advice many times to many purchases and have never come up wanting."

A rather strange and odd fact. I have a $200 gift certificate that I have no idea what to do with.

Embarrassing to admit. But I have this longtime policy that I got from the photo-writer David Vestal (1924–2013), an early influence and mentor, later enlisted as a columnist  for the magazine I edited. His column was called "Vestal at Large." David said once that he didn't sign non-disclosure agreements because "I'm in the disclosure business." The policy I developed after I started writing about photography in 1988 was, well, to disclose—"man up," spill the beans—that is, be honest, even when it hurts, because then readers have a sound basis for judgment and can decide for themselves.

Quite a number of early complaints went something like this:

They: "You only downgraded the X camera because you had a dispute with X."
Me: Yeah, but how do you know I had a dispute with X? Because I told you.

They: "You weren't even much good as a professional photographer so your opinion is worthless."
Me: Yeah, but how do you know I wasn't much good as a professional photographer? Because I told you.

They: "You just got that information from X."
Me: Yeah, but how do you know I got that information from X? Because I told you.

Etc.

I'm sure I've fallen down in the practice of this principle over the years. Making ourselves look good is human nature, and I can't be immune. But that was the principle from the start of my reviewing: try to be honest, and then people will know where you're coming from, and they can take that into account when they draw their own conclusions. Do your best not to fool anybody, in other words. Admit the awkward or embarrassing facts along with the ones that make you look good.

Calendars
Actually two awkward little factoids have come up recently that I don't want to admit. One is that for the first time in more than a dozen years, nobody sent me a calendar this year! In the heyday (oh, the heyday) I used to get a pile of calendars every New Year. For the past two years I've ticked off my daily eyedrops using calendars gifted by Gordon Haddow, whose work was nice to visit every day. (Thanks Gordon.) Charlie Cramer's calendars were always a pleasure. This year I had to go out and buy my own calendar at the office supply store. I'm reluctant to admit this because I suppose it is a sign of TOP's shrinking readership, the decline of the blog form, the curdling of the camera market, the decay of the World, aging, entropy, and the brooding spectre of perdition! I exaggerate. But...oh well. Disclose.

The other fact is more weird. I got a $200 B&H Photo Gift Certificate over the holidays, which I usually use right away because otherwise I forget about it, and...I cannot think of a single thing to apply it to.

I started pining for camera gear in 1980 when I caught the photography bug, and once I decided to buy a Contax it took me months to save up for it. I bought the lens first and kept it by my bedside (a virtual cult object, and the time I discovered that you can use a 50mm lens as a loupe) while I saved up for the 159Q. I obsessed mightily over that Planar lens and mid-level body. And then it became my constant companion in photography school, which is still the most concentrated episode of every-day shooting I've ever enjoyed, even though I was spinning my wheels madly and staring hard at my own navel and didn't really know what I was about. Over the ensuing decades there was always something to want. Darkroom gear, lenses, cameras. And in the background there was always paper, film, and chemicals to soak up spare money. Now, I have too much camera gear; in fact, I have to sell a bunch of it. I have enough cards. Don't need a strap, don't need a bag, don't need another lens. My tripod will see me out, doubtless. I'm set. The only thing I want right now is a used Apple Watch for its built-in heart-rate monitor, and B&H doesn't sell many Apple Watches; the few they have cost a lot more than $200. I don't know which one to buy anyway.

I literally can't think of a thing to do with that gift certificate. I've looked at SSDs, a new set of cards, software, filters, monolights, instructional books (Gordon's book is still evergreen, but I already have it). Nope, nope, nope. After 35 years of always wanting something photo-related, it's come to this? Feels weird.

Anyway: what would you do if you had $200 to spend at B&H?

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.)

Featured Comments from:

Doug Anderson: "$200 is kind of an awkward amount isn't it? Not enough for a major piece of equipment, but too much to fritter away on just little bits and bobs. I'd probably change my mind tomorrow but if I had to spend it today I would order a 100' roll of Tri-X ($160) to put in the freezer (it's not going to get any cheaper) and put the remainder toward the annual replacement of the batteries in all of my emergency lights."

calvin amari: "Speaking of your policy to always exeleutherostomize, suggesting that one of your principal sponsors doesn't sell anything you want is unlikely to be recommended in the small business handbook (though I trust that, if they sent you a $2K gift card, you'd not be so stymied.) Check out the wonders of B&H's Photographer T-Shirts, Hats and Collectibles section. You can get a Lego model of the B&H store, full sized crystal or wood models of cameras, and a whole wardrobe of t-shirts."

Mike replies: You sent me straight to the Dictionary! Thank goodness I have a good one.  ;-)

David Dyer-Bennet: "Partly—this is the progression of inflation—$200 just isn't significant in photography any more. My 35mm Summicron lens cost me $240 new in a camera store—but that was in 1975 I believe."

...The term "gizmo huckster" comes compliments of "Cocobolo Cowboy," a participant on pool forums who is not otherwise known to me. Credit where credit is due.

A Gizmo Huckster is somebody who sells a product that really isn't better than the average or the standard, by imbuing it with some sort of specialness, or magical thinking, and heaping upon it fancy verbiage, or all three of those, coupled with stylish appearances and—most importantly—brazenly high price. The purpose of that effort is to create FUD in the mind of poor Mr. or Ms. Consumer.... Oops! Should I be using something better? Is my product good enough? Am I being held back by my suddenly "inferior" gizmo with which I was previously well satisfied in every way?

"Veblen goods" are goods that sell better when they're higher priced rather than lower—the opposite of high value. Once you're in the land of Veblen goods, status and prestige become very powerful agents of FUD ("fear, uncertainty, and doubt"). FUD is what plants the seed of anxiety in your mind that your good is not good enough, or says something about you that is better left unsaid. Consider, for example, recent news articles that tell us how the world's billionaires have recently been shamed for only having 100- and 150- foot yachts, such that they are all exchanging these sore-thumb signifiers of poverty for 200- and 300-foot yachts of the type that any self-respecting rich fellow really ought to have*. (Take a look at the yacht Steven Spielberg sold so he could buy a bigger one. Because you really need something more commodious than that meager thing.) The way those poor misguided fronting pretenders go around acting like 100-foot yachts are sufficient is just too much! And they think they are something! We laugh at them, and blow snot in their general direction**.

This post is not about pool, because I never write about pool, as regular readers know. But in pool—this is just an example—there is a thing called a cue tip. It's the little disc of shaped leather that gets glued to the business end of a cue. You then apply chalk this tip so it will grab some traction on the ball, because where you strike the cue ball with the tip (high, low, left, right) is how you impart spin and thereby control the subsequent action of the cue ball. For eons, the most you could spend on a cue tip was a few bucks. Then a company called Kamui came along and started selling cue tips for many multiples of what cue tips had always cost. This created mighty FUD! Since Kamuis cost $25 rather than $3, didn't they have to be better!? Doubtless somebody made much money. But then, there was so much extra money that Kamui began helping to sponsor tournaments, so where's the harm really. (I am wending my way to my point; strive to stay patient.) Not to be outdone, makers of chalk (chalk!) took the hint and strove to create FUD about the cheap chalk that had been working perfectly for generations for misguided souls who didn't know any better, such as Ronnie O'Sullivan and Efren Reyes, the greatest masters of snooker and pool respectively. This situation, too, was ripe for Gizmo Huckstering! And so sure enough. You can now spend $29 (twenty-nine dollars) on one piece of billiards chalk, and I wish I were kidding. At least it is aptly named after its creators.

I have not come to my point with any dispatch here because you already know what it is. Photography has been beset by Gizmo Huckstering probably right from 1839 until at least now. How many attempts have been made to finally, once and for all, create the perfect camera?*** I counted how many, and the number is 28,137****. And it still hasn't been done, because, obviously, I could spec a better camera than has ever been made. Off the top of my head.

Special steel and cellulose-based film-hanging Acme Grip Clip, made of material chosen to securely grip wet 35mm film. Pack of twelve (enough for three large developing tanks of film!) less than $2 each!!! Only $23.99 

It was in darkroom products that Gizmo Huckstering reached its apex. Every man-Jack***** who ever worked in a darkroom bloomed with ideas for gizmos; you didn't have enough else to think about as you performed the drudgery. I didn't pay enough attention at the time, and so, sadly, cannot give you chapter and verse now, but there were whole catalogs, some on newsprint, even, chock-full of gizmos, gadgets, widgets and contraptions meant to improve every aspect of the photographic enterprise no matter how negligible or trifling. And of course, another aspect of gadgets and widgets intended for photography is that they were always priced higher because they were specially for photography! And how could anyone get by with something humdrum and lesser, when something specially designated as special could be had for only a few dollars more? Perfectly ordinary things were transformed into things of more value when they were designated as being for photography, even if they were the same dang thing people used for something else.

Protect yourself
My favorite example of this was when I once saw advertised some special filmstrip-hanging clips, used for hanging 5-foot strips of developed 35mm film to dry, which appeared from the illustration to be identical in every way to something called wooden clothespins. Which in that simple time were available very cheaply at any grocery store.****** And might still be. I must admit, though, that a wooden clothespin is absolutely the ideal thing to use to hang films to dry. You can even thread the line through the center of the little spring. It's perfect, really.

Here's the way to proof yourself against the practice of Gizmo Huckstering: learn to recognize feelings of FUD in yourself. When you feel it, you might be being conned. Especially, when something common and adequate is being promoted as needing replacement by something much more expensive, allow your anti-BS antennae to begin humming. More globally, you might consider whether you have an overarching preference for Veblen goods or high value. I know where I stand, but your mileage may vary*******, as they say. Heck, if I were a billionaire, I would probably be just the type to continue to be satisfied with a mere 100-foot yacht, even in the face of the withering scorn and blistering condescension of my peers. I hope I'm not boasting. It's just the kind of guy I am.

Mike

*This sentence unmasks me as a dolorous peasant, because those in the know know that the lengths of yachts are properly given in meters. (I may be dolorous but at least I am not malodorous.)

**Very old movie reference, proving I am old.

***That's what the engineers and marketers—no, sorry, make that marketers and engineers, because marketing comes first—at Pentax are attempting to do right now with their upcoming new 35mm film camera, which I am, in equal parts, a.) eagerly awaiting and b.) certain they will get wrong.

****I'm lying, I didn't count. But it must be some number that is very high.

*****Meaning "everyone without exception." A delightful antiquarian phrase derived from the now-extinct custom of addressing someone whose name one didn't know as "Jack," a common nickname for John. Earliest citation 1809, used by Dickens in Barnaby Rudge in 1841.

******The Mennonites around here still hang their clothes out to dry on clotheslines, in warm weather, and loaded lines are sometimes very picturesque, in a bucolic, nostalgic, country-Americana sort of way. I have never had the temerity to photograph them. That would be intrusive, to photograph someone's garments, including what used to be called unmentionables, wouldn't it? Creepy, even. And I place a high priority on not being creepy. Even asking for consent would be weird as heck, I think. So it's one of those things that can't be photographed, then. At least not by the scrupulous and the virtuous. 

*******English for this overused phrase might be "your experience might be different." I think I'm going to stop using "your mileage may vary." I'm getting tired of it.********

********This post has more footnotes than any other post ever posted on TOP. Added value for you! At no extra cost.

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.)

Featured Comments from:

Chuck Albertson: "Nice clothespin. But is it archival?"

Mike replies: Yes!! Because you cut off the end of the filmstrip where it was touching. No contamination on the strips of negatives. :-)

Harry B Houchins: "Beginning my photo journey in the NYC fashion industry in 1966, I can relate to everything you say here. My experience is that everything has a creeping increase. You gotta have it! It's so cool, necessary, new! At 79 I haven't bought any new gear for five years. What have I missed?"

Mike replies: I think it's actually more satisfying to wait a longer time before updating. That way the changes are more pronounced. Like waiting till your car is really dirty before washing it.

Dave Levingston: "Made me think back a decade or so to my days as a motorcyclist. Everything for a motorcycle costs more because it's for a motorcycle. I used hiking rain suits because they cost about a quarter of motorcycle rain suits. And simple rubber rainboots worked just fine. I would tell my wife, 'Sure motorcycle tires cost much more than car tires, but on the other hand, they don't last nearly as long.'"

Nigel Voak: "Reading though this, I thought the piece would arrive at a point where the forthcoming Sony Alpha 9 Mark III would be named. At least my thoughts turned to this upcoming marvel whilst reading this post. Who on Earth needs a shutter speed of 1/80,000th of a second or 120 frames per second? How did I ever successfully do dance photography and even some sports stuff with a Nikon F801, with manual focus lenses? I am making digital copies right now of my old archive, and the shots were in focus, and I caught peak moment."

Mike replies: Even at my Fuji X-T1's highest speed of 8.31 frames per second, I found I still could get a moment before or after what I wanted! I learned to try my best to capture the exact moment even when in Continuous High mode. I had a higher success rate that way, plus some extra frames.

JH: "Brings back memories of the Porter's Camera Catalog. They had a thick newsprint catalog full of photo gadgets. I think I was buying stuff from them throughout the '70s and '80s—maybe '90s—when I still did my own darkroom work. Alas, they closed in 2019."

Roger Bartlett: "Over the weekend I watched a YouTube video by Adam Savage about Apple USB C cords and why they cost $130 as opposed to the same cord from Amazon costing $12. I expected to hear a similar conclusion to yours but was pleasantly surprised to hear that the $130 might actually be justifiable. It is worth watching this just to see some amazing technologies at work."

Jeff replies to Roger: "But it’s not 'the same cord.' The Apple version is Thunderbolt; the Amazon one, standard USB-C. Not exactly Apples to apples."

John C: "Re 'marketers and engineers': Sorry to pick nits Mike, but you spelled that wrong. It's 'marketeers'—you know, like 'mouseketeers.' However, I will vouch for your ordering, having been a software engineer myself."

Dave: "There isn't much that unites the whole of Europe when it comes to behaviour which doesn't then also line up with the behaviours of those in North America. But one thing I've noticed over the years is that a willingness/fear to hang washing outside seems to be one of those things. From what I know of the US (a lot of my family live there), hanging laundry to dry outside is regularly frowned upon and even, in some areas with particularly militaristic residents' associations, actually banned. Some radical types (like my sister) apparently insist on doing it and taking a stand, but they'll get regularly berated for it.

"I live in one of the soggiest, least sunny countries in the world (Scotland) and it's still completely normal to do so, here. If you want to come photograph it, feel free! Strolling through Edinburgh you'll see loads, and some of it even stretches across publicly accessible courtyards and greens."

There are all types of dorks, dweebs, nerds, weenies, geeks, and et cetera. There's little point in untangling all the definitions, even if only humorously.

But what I meant by "I'd feel like a dork" yesterday was one particular situation that personally makes me feel dorky. I would define that as being "ostentatiously over-equipped."

Bunny hill
When I was a kid, my family went on a ski vacation. I think the resort was Waterville Valley in New Hampshire, but I'm not positive now. In the locker room, getting our gear on—I had only gone skiing a couple of times before—there was a family that seemed to be "in the know." The father was talking loudly about the fine points of all the expensive equipment they had. (We were renting skis and boots, and were wearing our regular winter coats, which were not ski jackets.) They had all the latest everything. The man talked at length about all the virtues of his choice of skis (either K2 or Rossignol—one of those two he liked, the other one he didn't.) I have a picture in my head of the man in his mostly white ski suit. I thought, wow, these people are real skiers. They really know what it's all about.

At the time—and I hope I'm remembering the right resort—the first step to the ski lifts to all the runs was the bunny hill lift. Everyone went up that before either getting off there or continuing to the higher parts of the mountain. Well, I happened to find myself behind that dazzlingly well-outfitted family on the first lift, and assumed they would leave me behind when I got off at the first stop. But no. They all started down again from the top of the bunny hill! None of them could ski. Even the braggart father of the group didn't know what he was doing at all.

Later in the week, I encountered my friend Jeff K. at the lift, and we rode up together. I had met Jeff on the Freshman Week Outing Club trip at Dartmouth. He told me he'd been skiing since he was little; he was a member of the ski team and had won races all over New England. I said "must be nice to be that good at something," and he told me in a jaded tone of voice that learning been the fun part for him and he kinda wished he had it all to do over again. He said he envied me for having it all in front of me. (I didn't, of course. I've skied fewer than a dozen times in my life.) Anyway, Jeff was dressed in jeans and a poncho and had beat-up old skis and old-fashioned boots. I told him about the well-equipped Dad from the locker room and Jeff shook his head and said something like, "I'd rather surprise people than pretend I'm better than I am."

Anyway, that was my lesson.

Bulging bags full
Another memory along those lines: many years ago—it must have been the early '90s—my friend Kent P. invited me to the Michigan 400. He had pit passes. I took my trusty Leica M6 and 35mm Summicron, which I carried slung from my shoulder as always. It didn't get a single look—might as well have been invisible. (That was one of the things I liked about the M6.) Wandering around in the pit lanes before the race, it appeared that about every third male was equipped with camera gear. De rigeur was a large block-shaped camera bag carefully stuffed with bodies and many lenses, plus a tripod strapped on top. That seemed to be the fad, "fad" meaning that people look around at what everyone else is doing and mimic it. I shot a lot that day and got a lot of great shots, including portraits of A.J. Foyt and Niki Lauda (although the day was mainly notable for the shot that got away. I've told that story before). No one paid me the least little bit of attention. But as far as I could tell, none of the guys carrying the big bags took many pictures. As I watched him, one guy stopped, set his bag down, fished the camera out of the bag, looked for a lens, mounted it, then set up the tripod—in the middle of a sunny day!—appeared to take one picture, then reversed the whole process and put everything away again. It took ten minutes, or seemed like it. I took a picture of him doing it.

Then again, you schlepp what you need. Remember what Ansel Adams always said when people asked him what camera he used: "the biggest one I can carry!"

There's nothing wrong with a Z9 (I mean, look at that thing), and I'd use one if I wanted to or thought I needed it. No criticism of anyone else implied here. But given who I really am, carrying one around would probably feel like a form of posing for me, and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it.

On the other hand
Oddly, the situation can be reversed if you're a professional. You want your equipment to say "I can do anything" and "I'm well equipped." At least if you deal with the public. I can tell you from experience that it's awkward to show up at a shoot with a camera that's not as good as the one your client owns!

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.)

Featured Comments from:

Moose: "I like the circularity of this post. You start with a story about how 'pro' equipment may be in the hands of a tyro, then end with '...it's awkward to show up at a shoot with a camera that's not as good as the one your client owns!'

"I knew that guy! The one with old jeans and tired wooden skis—who flew down any mountain like an angel, occasionally spinning in a a circle, one ski up at a 45° angle, spraying snow in all directions. One day, he hit a hole or something, and broke one ski into matchsticks. Undeterred, he went into the shop and bought a pair of the best metal skis. This mediocre skier, having difficulty with the switch from not worn-out wooden to metal, suggested he start carefully. No point; he was immediately still the most beautiful, graceful skier on the hills. I asked him what he thought of the new skis. 'They're nice,' he said, laconically."

Mark Rouleau: "Your camera gearhead story reminds me of two similar events, both of which happenend in Canada.

The first is when I took the family to Dufferin Islands. This is a series of man-made islands in the Niagara River. Very pretty area. I was playing with the Sigma DP1. Really the forefather of the large-sensor, small form factor cameras that we have now.

As we were parking, I watched a man exit his car with his SO, and, in the parking lot, started posing her, firing off shot after shot with his DSLR. His background was the cement brick building that housed the washroom (you call them restrooms) to the park. I told my wife, I may not be a great photographer, but at least when I take your picture there's not a bathroom behind you.

Another time, at Niagara-on-the-Lake, I got up extra early to catch the sunrise. I got a lot of great pictures out of that one. The light was amazing, so I got not only a sunrise over Fort George, but some lovely shots at the beach of driftwood and rocks. As I was dancing around taking as many shots as I could while the light was still amazing, I noticed an older gentleman, standing stock still, with an expensive DSLR with a white Canon lens attached, so, probably some bucks. In the 30–40 minutes I was flitting from place to place, he stood in the exact same spot, never bending over or looking up, keeping the camera at eye level, occasionally rotating it from side to side, no more than 45 degrees horizontally at most, but always on the same plane, shooting across the water. I did stop to look to see what was so interesting over there, but even with my telephoto, I couldn't see anything of interest. He was still there when I left. I hope he got good pictures of whatever it was he was after."

Soeren Engelbrecht: "This summer, our family went to the Faroe Islands (Situated in the North Atlantic)—in part to experience the amazing birds (like this one, which I was fortunate to catch myself). We went on a boat trip to the island of Mykines along with other tourists, many of whom were carrying large cameras and lenses. I particularly noted one lady with a Canon DSLR and a huge zoom (200–600mm or similar) due to two things: a). The bucket-size lens hood remained reverse-mounted for the whole trip b.) She probably had the camera on 'green mode,' because every time she tried to photograph birds on a dark cliff from the boat, the built-in flash popped up and fired."

Thomas Basista: "Wow! Talking about the very thing I saw Saturday. The local watershed association dedicated a new kayak/canoe access to the river. Basically a low-key, local event. No more than 30 people there. I was using my Panasonic FZ80 This guy shows up wearing a leather shoulder harness in 90-degree weather. There was a Nikon hanging from the harness on each hip, like a pair of pistols on a movie gunfighter. While most people were taking snaps with their phones, the camera slinger seemed to just be walking around. I did not see him take a single shot. I guess he just wanted to play photographer."

Mike Peters: "Re 'Oddly, the situation can be reversed if you're a professional. You want your equipment to say "I can do anything" and "I'm well equipped." At least if you deal with the public. I can tell you from experience that it's awkward to show up at a shoot with a camera that's not as good as the one your client owns!' The reality is, most of my clients own phones to take photographs. I've been shooting pro work with lowly Micro 4/3 gear for over 10 years now and nobody seems to notice or care. If your photographs don't make the case for you, then maybe you're in the wrong profession. My motto is use the gear that sets you free and is a joy to use. It's not the camera that makes the photo, it's the meat sack behind it."

adam: "I do user research consulting in very technical fields, and a big part of my job is to boil the findings from all the interviews I do down into some key points the client can act on. A few years ago I came across a piece of wisdom I try to keep in mind: 'The beginner makes things complex in order to demonstrate their expertise. The expert makes things simple in order to demonstrate their expertise.'"