July 1st, 2010
Ah, where to begin?
Lots of “experts” state that a 50mm focal length is a “standard” (or “normal” in Americanese) lens “because it’s a perfect match for the human eye”. When challenged, they assert that it has the same angle of view as a human eye. Which is of course utter balderdash. The human eye has an angle of view very very much wider; what IS true is that a focal length equivalent to the diagonal of the format in use gives perspective and relative magnification that pretty much matches the human eye. But that’s not 50mm; it’s 43.5mm for the formats in question. The reason why 50mm is considered the standard is pretty much that that’s what was available to Oskar Barnack when he designed the Leica.
Posted in Photomyths | No Comments »
June 9th, 2010
It’s a long time since I’ve read anything on DPReview’s forums, but in a fit of insanity, I’ve read quite a lot of posts on there recently. Why oh why oh why did I bother? The place is full of idiots finding non-existent faults on cameras with thousands of images betraying appalling technique but no sign of the alleged fault, who call anyone who can’t see the invisible defect an “enemy of progress”; or people who stick a camera into fully auto mode, hold it over their heads, and then blame the manufacturer that nothing is in focus; or those who shout out abuse of the manufacturer for things they’ve not yet actually resolved; or - well, you get the drift – absolute nutters. Why can’t they just get out there and take a few pictures instead of spewing inanity and insanity?
Posted in Wally of the Week | No Comments »
February 17th, 2010
If there’s anything more irritating in online forums, I’ve yet to find it. The fanboy – and he’s always male – is almost exclusively the owner of what might be termed a minority camera system, to whit Olympus or Pentax. His grasp on reality would most charitably be described as wafer-thin, and he is marked by an utterly unswerving loyalty to his chosen marque to a degree that is positively risible. Any comment about that marque that is not in the most glowing terms possible, and language so simple even the fanboy can understand it, is given as evidence of “bashing” the marque in question. Any magazine that dares to suggest that the cameras are in any tiny way not quite as good as those of Canon or Nikon in particular is thoroughly dishonest and has been bribed by the Evil Two. Anyone who chooses to buy any camera other than the fanboy’s favourite is a brainwashed buffoon who has been swayed by overwhelming marketing. Honestly, it’s almost funny, if it wasn’t so pathetic. The truth, of course, is that these people are desparately trying to live with their own buyer’s remorse, and failing fairly dismally, and their own insecurity is what makes them lash out. There is a rather related phenomenon, the “inverse fanboy” – this guy is actually a user of Canon or Nikon, but is forever complaining that the other marque is far better and that his chosen brand has let him down badly by not providing a particular function the other brand has – generally without actually understanding that function or having a need for it. People, eh?
Posted in Wally of the Week | No Comments »
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 »
