February 5th, 2010
Another one that seems to have a lot of supporters, yet how many of them have actually thought it through?
The argument goes that it’s crazy to put all your eggs in one basket, because if the card gets corrupted or your camera gets stolen, you lose the lot.
Now let’s just take a look at this one: firstly, when are cards most likely to be corrupted? When the read or write cycles are disrupted, that’s when. And when is that most likely? Whilst changing a card. So what’s the best way of tackling the risk? According to the myth, by limiting the impact of the event, but it’s pretty obvious that it’s better to avoid the event – by not changing cards so often. Which requires a bigger card…
But say the worst happens, and your card is corrupted. In my experience, it’s rare that the whole card is actually corrupted – in fact I’ve never known it. But even if it is, there are plenty of data recovery programs out there that will save the day with most images. So the chances of losing all your pics if your large card gets corrupted are miniscule, whereas your chances of losing some images are significantly multiplied by using lots of cards.
Now let’s look at loss: yes, loss of camera/sole card is catastrophic – so I would recommend backing up images at the end of the day onto a separate device. And carrying a spare card! But to be honest, if you’ve got lots of cards to look after, aren’t the risks of losing one far greater than if you have less to worry about?
Again, this is one for people to make their own minds up on – but after genuinely thinking about it, not blindly accepting dogma.
Posted in Photomyths | No Comments »
January 19th, 2010
For a very long time, I’ve puzzled as to what the point of the 4/3 system was. Get a sensor the size of a frame of 110 film, and make the cameras the size of 35mm SLRs? Where’s the logic in that? The system struggled from the start with worse image quality than the competition, and no meaningful USP. From the start, I asked the obvious question – if the sensor’s that small, why not make the cameras smaller? And eventually Panasonic came up with Micro 4/3, which all of a sudden made sense. OK, the quality’s not quite as good as APS-C, and a fair way off full frame, but at last the cameras were smaller and made more sense. Olympus huffed and stamped their feet, then got on and refined the concept with the beautiful and beautifully-marketed EP-1. All of a sudden, people who hadn’t wanted an Olympus since the OM2 wanted one. And people who didn’t want a camera at all wanted one. OK, Panasonic swiftly responded with an even better (but less pretty) camera, the GF-1, but it was clear Olympus had finally woken up from their AF and 4/3 nightmare and seen the light.
Which is all well and good, but where does it leave the “main” 4/3 system? Well I strongly suspect we’ll see no more cameras from Leica or Panasonic, nor indeed anyone else except possibly Oly – but I wonder why they would bother. Sales have never been great of the more up-market models, and the lower-end ones have basically sold in box-shifters on price. That’s not a great recipe for financial success…
Meanwhile, the micro variety has been selling strongly at a premium price in the middle of a global recession. Now if I were a camera maker, would I continue with manufacturing low-margin (or perhaps worse!) models when I could be using that capacity to make high-margin product? Er, no, so I feel 4/3 is dead in the water – a victim of both the inadequacy of the original vision, and the success of the far more logical daughter system.
Posted in Gear talk | No Comments »
November 3rd, 2009
Posted in Photoposts | No Comments »
September 7th, 2009
Posted in Photoposts | No Comments »
September 3rd, 2009
Posted in Photoposts | 1 Comment »
May 27th, 2009
Most cameras are either good looking or at least OK, IMVHO, but every now and then there’s something hideous launched. So here’s my top 3 of ugly bugs.
1. Leica R8/9 – a very nasty looking piece of kit indeed, and a real shame given how handsome earlier R SLRs were. A bit like a Kiev 10 without the charm.
2. Nikon F4. Looks like an explosion in a camera parts factory. A camera undoubtedly designed by a very large committee, each member of which felt obliged to tack a bit on. Ghastly.
3. Sony Alpha A900. Yuck. ‘Nuff said.
Posted in Gear talk | No Comments »
January 26th, 2009
There’ll be a 1Ds Mk IV at PMA…
Posted in Gear talk | No Comments »
December 30th, 2008
I’ve decided not to comment on this one yet. Somebody had to!
Posted in Gear talk, General | No Comments »
December 1st, 2008
…and it’s expensive. But what do people expect? Already there are those criticising it for the price, for having too many pixels…
The answer’s simple – if you don’t want one, don’t buy one – leave it to those who do. Which isn’t me, of course!
Posted in Gear talk | No Comments »
November 26th, 2008
This week, my target is those who don’t have a clue, but always have an opinion. Whatever the subject, they have some sort of rumbustious opinion based on prejudice and ignorance, never on facts and understanding. You can’t reason with them, because they’re so stuck in their prejudices; it would be nice to ignore them, but that’s not always possible. Goes without saying that they’re as thick as pigshit. Spare us from such people…
Posted in Wally of the Week | No Comments »
