Photographs, Photographers and Photography

November 30, 2006

A tale of two lenses

Filed under: Lenses — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:10 am

Some empirical tests deliver surprising results.

Being the ’serious’ photographer in the family, the sad responsibility of selling off everyone’s film cameras naturally falls on my shoulders as we all move on to the world of digital picture taking.

I made mention of my mother-in-law’s magnificent Kodak Medalist II earlier, at which time I also sold her film Canon Rebel, together with its cheesy 28-80mm ‘kit’ lens.

Years earlier I had bought my wife the same Rebel but we got so tired of the execrable quality of the kit lens that we sold it and replaced it with a better 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 Canon with improved optical and mechanical quality. When she decided to upgrade to the digital Rebel, we did the same, buying the pricey EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS in lieu of the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 non-IS kit lens. A wise decision once you have handled the latter.

Anyway, my wife finally decided to sell the film Rebel and I dutifully listed it for sale. However, as the lens will cover a full 35mm frame I spent a few moments taking some pictures with it side by side with the costly 24-105mm f/4 L lens, both on my Canon 5D. You can get some sense of the relative sizes of the lenses here:


Both lenses at their shortest focal lengths


Both lenses fully extended

I took pictures at full aperture and f/8 with both, at 28mm, 50mm and the 105mm maximum.

Looking at the results, I must confess any differences are more imagined than real, and I know my 24-105mm L is good for enlargements to any size any rational user would want.

The L lens adds an Image Stabilizer, goes wider at a very handy 24mm, has lots of metal, very smooth controls no wobble anywhere plus …. lots of weight and bulk. By contrast, the 28-105mm lens is very light, although the mount is metal, has a horribly raspy, grabby zoom ring and the lens barrel wobbles about merrily when fully extended. Both have autofocus with the L marginally faster, but not enough to make any practical difference. Oh! and yes, before I forget, the L is $1,300 and the other is $230.

Now we may have been lucky and got a really good example of the cheaper lens, but based on this little exercise, I would recommend it without hesitation for anyone looking for light weight, fine resolution and a nice broad zoom range good for 95% of anything a regular photographer might need. You might not want to bash it about too much or expect it to last to the next millenium but, then again, you would also save a lot on chiropractor bills, not to mention over $1,000 on the lens.

November 29, 2006

HP ink costs

Filed under: Printing — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:56 am

The old HP 12C helps out.

In my piece on framing Really Big Prints I guessed at the cost of ink used by that frugal beast, the Hewlett Packard DesignJet 90 printer.

Well, in the HP engineering spirit, I whipped out the old 12C and set to work.

Checking the ink levels on the printer showed the following:

Yellow 3/4 full
Black Full
Magenta 3/4
Cyan 3/4
Light Magenta 1/2
Light Cyan 1/2

Now as the level in each cartridge is reported in one quarter steps, I averaged 3/4 full to mean 5/8 full (i.e. half way between 3/4 and 1/2) and so on, making for ink use aggregating 2.5 cartridges.

Production?

13 18″ x 24″ prints and 27 13″ x 19″ prints, or 12,285 sq. in.

With cartridges averaging $35 (the prices differ, strangely, according to color), that works out to $87.50 in ink, or $1.75 for a 13″ x 19″ and $3.07 for an 18″ x 24″.

So my $4 ink cost-per-print estimate in that earlier journal entry was a tad high. You can make an 18″ x 24″ print with the HP DesignJet, paper included, for the price of a hamburger-and-fries at the local fast food joint.

The HP DesignJet dye-based series of printers (30, 90, 130) are frugal, indeed, when it comes to ink use. I cannot express how pleased I am with this large printer and, in truth, rather regret not having bought the 24″ carriage model, though how I would handle mounting and framing 24″ x 36″ monsters in 32″ x 42″ frames boggles the mind.

November 28, 2006

The Christmas snap

Filed under: Photographs, Technique — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:50 am

It cannot get any simpler than this.

Almost a year ago I wrote why I believe it makes no sense for a photographer to process his own small prints.

I am more convinced than ever that this is true.

Here’s a time line for this year’s annual family picture mailed to all our friends:

11:30 am – Family commences donning decent clothing. No jeans allowed!
11:40 am – Old Olympus 5050 digital is placed on the tripod and a test shot is made. This camera, despite the horrible shutter lag, boasts a fine wireless remote which is easily hidden in the palm.
11:47 am – The first picture is taken
12:06 am – The last of 22 pictures is taken – you try to get all five people, including a dog and cat known to conspire, looking good at the same time
12:10 am – The best snap is chosen in iPhoto and cropped to 3:2 to match the 6″ x 4″ prints we will order
12:15 am – The picture of choice is uploaded to Walgreens and forty ordered at 19 cents a print
12:25 am – Walgreens emails that the prints are ready for collection
12:35 am – The family, having strolled down the road, picks up the pictures at Walgreens and hands over $8.23
12:36 am – We cross the road to the greasy spoon for lunch and share the pictures with the nice Koreans who run it so well

1 hour and 5 minutes start to end. Meanwhile, the home printer is wondering why his print heads are clogged, the colors are wrong, and then runs out of ink. Walgreens uses a superb Fuji printer which renders lovely skin tones and runs it with Kodak paper, interestingly. They told me it works better that way.


Sixty-five minutes, $8.23 and forty prints later

November 27, 2006

A fool and his money….

Filed under: Photography — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:06 am

Don’t be a Red Dot Fool.

Despite all the publicity telling the world that all Leicas, save the M8, are made by Panasonic, there are still a lot of Red Dot Fools out there. You know, camera buyers who buy a Panasonic digital which Leica has emblazoned with its name and added a 2 cent red dot so that you can be sure everyone knows you are a Red Dot Fool. Both Panasonic and Leica buyers get to share the same excellent Leica designed (and Panasonic manufactured) lenses fitted to these cameras.

Here are the statistics on what that two cent red dot is costing these ill informed or delusional consumers:

So, even in the absence of any objective test data to indicate that the insides of these cameras differ one iota, consumers are willing to pay between $170 and $850 (!) for a two cent red sticker.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

I wish Leica lots of luck in selling these as they are going to need the money to fix all those faulty M8s they just had to recall, and they do actually assemble the M8 even if the only bit they make is the rangefinder. Maybe they should delegate manufacture of the M8 to Panasonic, though given that Panny would sell it for 50% less, maybe they couldn’t stand the cannibalization.

November 26, 2006

One hundred yards – Part III

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:13 am

Some of the best pictures are one hundred yards from your doorstep. Or less..

Given how much time we spend in our homes, it’s surprising that many photographers feel they have to journey to remote, exotic locations in search of picture opportunities. They arrive tired, are in a strange location which they have no time to ‘learn’, and leave frustrated. You must make the return flight and have to make do with whatever weather is around at the time.

By contrast, the circle centered on your home, with a 100 yard radius, provides some of the best photographic opportunities. You know the area, are rested and have no deadlines. There is no return flight. And you can wait for the weather to come to you.

Here are a couple more snaps, taken over the years, all within 100 yards or less of where my bed was the previous night. More to come over the next few weekends.


6 yards. Templeton, California. 5D, 200mm.


20 yards. Templeton, California. Mamiya 6, 75mm.

For more on this theme, please click here.

November 23, 2006

Giving Thanks

Filed under: Photography — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:29 am

The greatest American feast and the great man who made it possible.

Today’s journal entry is only peripherally about photography, as I am busy cooking. It is, however, intended as a reminder why any ambitious person should consider coming to America to improve himself and his lot in life. It still matters little in the United States who your father was, how you speak and what size, religion or color you are. Hunger enough and you will be rewarded. You don’t even need ability. Just the desire to work hard.

When I emigrated from Britain to the United States on November 16, 1977, I had no idea of the existence of the great feast of Thanksgiving. Why should I? Poor old England, having won the war and lost the peace, was mired in repressive socialist politics where everyone, starting with schoolchildren, was being reduced to the level of the laziest. Thus the citizens of the British Empire had little to give thanks for. Not having benefitted economically from my fine British education, I did not arrive with just the money in my pocket. Rather, I arrived $4,000 in debt – half from my employer, the other half from my sister in Seattle, who had the vision to come here some years before me. The only hard assets I had in this world were my Leica M3 with 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses and two shabby polyester business suits bought at C&A in London. The Leica would last me another thirty years. The suits quickly moved on.

Five days later I found myself a guest of an American family which, with traditional hospitality, had invited this funny sounding immigrant to their Thanksgiving meal. I can never forget this act of warmth and welcome, nor the truly wonderful selection of food loaded on a table whose legs must have been groaning under the weight. This was America as I had always pictured it – the family home, warmth, conviviality, joie de vivre, everyone healthy and rosy cheeked and food a plenty. No wonder that Thanksgiving remains one of my favorite American holidays, for it was my introduction to the best in American values. To this day, few occasions give me greater pleasure than cooking a bird of choice for the feast that follows.

Years later I got to know the art of Norman Rockwell and he captures the sense of this great occasion better than anyone. No photograph can improve on this. Four generations gather to enjoy the feast to come. The sun is shining. Everyone is smiling. All is right with the world.

Let me preface what follows with the statement that I am an apolitical animal, believing solely in an economic system which allows individuals to be rewarded for their efforts and which keeps entitlements and government to a minimum. At the same time, such system has to be imbued with a strong dose of humanitarianism to protect the poor and unfortunate. That’s simple decency. The picayune distinctions in America between Democrats and Republicans, and their rabid hordes of followers looking for a benefit for no cost, are simply of zero interest to me.

Sad, then, to contemplate a Thanksgiving where I can no longer say with joy that I am sharing my lot on this God’s earth with the giant who was Milton Friedman, who passed away a week ago. People speak of him as a great economist, but he was much more than that. He was a great humanist, having by the sheer power of his intellect created more wealth in twentieth century America than all her industrialists combined. Consider just some of his achievements.

The ending of the draft.
The abolition of the gold standard.
Proof positive that Government monetary policy caused inflation.
Abolition of perpetual welfare, the biggest cause of unemployment
The commitment to free immigration.
The drive to abolish the Federal Reserve. We still need to do that.
The support of school vouchers to remedy the crime that is American public education.

This was a man for the ages.

I had the great pleasure of meeting him at the invitation of my friend Art Laffer, in 2002 on his 90th birthday, at a presentation he gave at the Ritz in San Francisco. It was, interestingly, the first time I saw a journalist use a digital camera – I recall with some fascination noting how he inspected the little screen on the back of his camera to check the picture from time to time. Friedman was, his 5 foot 2 inch stature notwithstanding, a giant, with an electric personality. A sharp wit and great charm. His teaching inspired two great students – Reagan and Thatcher – to fix the messes they had both inherited. Milton Friedman’s school drew no geographical boundaries in its admission of pupils. And tuition was free. Indeed, the president of the newly free republic of Estonia, when asked why he had imposed a low rate flat tax on his nation shortly after it gained freedom from its Russian opressor, replied that the only book on economics he had ever read was Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose”. It hardly need be added that Estonia is booming.

So while I rue this Thanksgiving, the first where Milton Friedman is not among us, I rejoice in the knowledge that even now he is teaching our maker why freedom is the only policy for those in charge to pursue. Friedman once famously remarked:

“A society that puts equality – in the sense of equality of outcome – ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom. On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality. Freedom means diversity but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today’s less well off to become tomorrow’s rich, and in the process, enables almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a richer and fuller life.”

Amen to that, and Happy Thanksgiving.

November 22, 2006

Kitsch

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:41 am

Runaway winner of the 2006 Bad Taste award.

Kitsch is a German word used to describe taste so bad that you have to laugh that someone actually paid money for the item involved.

A friend (?) sent me a picture of this execrable excrescence, knowing full well it would incur my wrath. It looks too real to be a piece of Photoshop work. I was in two minds whether to share it in this journal but felt I had a duty to disclose. If you are thinking of doing this to your Leica, or maybe have already done so, please cease reading this journal. You are emphatically not a welcome reader of a journal noted for its good taste.

Before scrolling down to see the picture, please make sure you do so on an empty stomach.

The nominee shown here has to be the runaway winner of the 2006 Kitsch Award. And the year isn’t even over yet. There is no accounting what more money than taste will do.

Now you will have to scroll down – if you have the courage.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


No, that’s not your imagination. That really is a yellow Leica

November 20, 2006

Framing Really Big Prints

Filed under: Technique — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:26 am

It’s not fun, but it has to be done.

Henry Ford, genius that he was, determined that it’s better to get a semi-skilled worker to do one task many times than to try and train him to do many tasks once. And, I’m afraid, when it comes to framing lots of prints, that a production line mentality is consonant with productivity and low error rates. Let’s face it. Only an assembly line worker, could find this work interesting.

I have previously illustrated how I Mount and Mat Really Big Prints. In this pictorial I will walk through the framing process.

The time had come when I finally had to frame the last 15 prints for my one man show – some 18″ x 24″, the rest 13″ x 19″ – all mounted on 22″ x 28″ stock. Marty Paris, the UPS man, sadist that he is, had dropped off the framing supplies from the fine folks at Documounts, so there was little excuse but to get down to it and get through the drudge of framing. Earlier, glass had been procured from the nice people at Paso Robles Glass down the road, so no excuses remained.

Unlike the miserable wretches at the much hyped Light Impressions, who wouldn’t know proper packaging if it hit them (avoid these people like the plague), the crew at Documounts knows how to pack supplies for delivery. The box, generously padded, contains no fewer than 15 of their fine, matt black #900 035 wood frames, ready for assembly. These have the classic appeal of the Little Black Dress or a Patek Philippe. In other words, they do not compete with the wearer.

Documounts includes all the hardware – corner joiners, wire eyes, screws, bumpers. Note the nice packing in foam paper.

You need a clean, well lit, flat workspace, some Titebond II wood glue and a moist rag to clean up glue squeeze out. While wet, this glue is water soluble. Once dry – don’t even think about it. I use the Wall Street Journal to keep things scratch free, preferring to reserve the New York Times and Washington Post for lining the parrot’s cage.

No sledgehammer needed. A drop of glue on the two mitred surfaces, pop in a corner piece, and tap it in gently with a soft blow mallet.

Wipe off any glue squeeze out and move the frame to a safe place. The matt surface is fragile and easily scratched. I delegated custodial and security duties to my regular assistant, Bertram the Border Terrier. If you use one of these, do make sure the chap is comfortable, as in the picture above. Guard duty is stressful, diligence essential.

Thirty-three minutes of indescribable tedium later, fifteen frames are assembled. Note the unceasing diligence of the faithful hound.

When you buy glass this large – these sheets are 21 15/16″ x 27 15/16″ – do ask the glazier to pack them in groups of five, or you will be risking a hernia. Glass is heavy! While the frames accommodate 22″ x 28″ mats, I have the glass undercut by 1/16″ as the glazier cannot guarantee tight dimensional tolerances.

Now for the toughest and most dangerous bit. Tough because cut sheet glass is coated with fine polymer granules to prevent abrasion between adjoining surfaces. These must be cleaned off. Dangerous because you can easily cut yourself on the unpolished edges (ever seen a glazier’s hands?) – polishing these is God’s way of telling you that you have too much money. You need to get the glass crystal clear and lint free. Any dirt will show like you wouldn’t believe if you use black mats, which I prefer.

Rather than using an ammonia-based glass cleaner like Windex, which is prone to leaving streaks, I prefer Sprayaway, which is ammonia-free and simply does a better job. The lint-free cloths are from Griot’s Garage, a superb business which really cares for its customers. You can wash and reuse these until they fall apart. Forget the paper towel rolls from the local Home Depot – these have so much grease and oil in them as to be useless.

You will find it far easier – and safer – to clean the glass by placing it in the frame. That way you are protected from the sharp edges and it doesn’t slide around dangerously because of those polymer granules. I do this on a black marble table top for the simple reason that the black background discloses every piece of dirt and lint.

Once clean, drop the mat/print/mounting board sandwich in.

Now, do yourself a favor. There is only one effective way of installing framing points in a frame, and that is using the right tool for the job. This superb tool, available from Blick Art Materials in the fine state of Texas, goes by the name of the Fletcher FlexiMaster Framing Tool. Expensive, you say, at some $80? Nonsense. How about perfect point installation, all sixteen of them, in thirty seconds?

Thirty seconds later. What is your time worth?

I leave drilling of holes for the wire eyes until the end for the simple reason I can never remember how many prints are portrait and how many landscape in my ‘production run’ and, of course, the placement is either on the long, or short, frame sides, respectively. Use a drill size that allows you to torque the screw down easily but not so large that it’s sloppy. If you are struggling and your Phillips screwdriver is jumping out of the screw, your drill is too small. This has to be right. The completed frame + glass + print is heavy and you do not want the screw coming out in the next California earthquake or whatever natural disaster your location is prone to.

I drill the holes six inches down for both portrait and landscape prints. Why the pedantry? Because if you make everything uniform, hanging a bunch of prints dead level becomes easy if everything is identically placed. Old H. Ford taught me well.

The wire eyes, provided by Documounts, can now be attached.

Once again, if you are fighting that screwdriver, use a bigger drill for the hole. And please repeat after me: “I will not use an electric drill to insert the screw”. Unless you want to split the wood frame, that is.

Attach the hanging wire – I use 20 lb wire which is more than strong enough. Don’t even think of using synthetics like nylon. They will rot with age and …. well, I leave the rest for you to figure out. Tension the wire identically for each picture and the degree of sag you will get when you hang them will be …. identical. Hanging pictures is right up there with framing – I suspect more practitioners have been driven to chemical dependency by this process than through doing their annual tax returns. And the eye is incredibly sensitive to improperly aligned prints – or horizons. It’s something God seems to have built in to our genetic make-up.

Finally, place one of the provided bumpers at each corner to protect the wall.

What does all this cost?

A sheet of paper sized 18″ x 24″ for the Hewlett Packard DesignJet 90 printer costs $4. Inks probably add another $4. The mat is $14, the mounting board some $7, the glass $18 and the frame $26. Add $2 for the wire, hook and mounting tissue, and you are in for $75 for each framed print. So my show, with thirty of these, plus a couple of dozen unframed prints in the saw horses on the side, adds up to some serious money.

But is it worth it, or what?

Aaah!

November 19, 2006

One hundred yards – Part II

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:13 am

Some of the best pictures are one hundred yards from your doorstep. Or less..

Given how much time we spend in our homes, it’s surprising that many photographers feel they have to journey to remote, exotic locations in search of picture opportunities. They arrive tired, are in a strange location which they have no time to ‘learn’, and leave frustrated. You must make the return flight and have to make do with whatever weather is around at the time.

By contrast, the circle centered on your home, with a 100 yard radius, provides some of the best photographic opportunities. You know the area, are rested and have no deadlines. There is no return flight. And you can wait for the weather to come to you.

Here are a couple more snaps, taken over the years, all within 100 yards or less of where my bed was the previous night. More to come over the next few weekends.


90 yards. Burlingame, California. Lumix LX-1


1 yard. Templeton, California. 5D, 24-105mm.

For more on this theme, please click here.

November 17, 2006

Vibration Reduction

Filed under: Lenses — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:02 am

The greatest photographic invention since digital imaging.

The current B&H paper catalog contains no fewer than ten pages listing some 132 digital cameras, from inexpensive point-and-shoots to full frame Canon DSLRs. So there’s no shortage of choice at any price point. What is intriguing is that some 25% of these now include words like “Image Stabilizer” or “Vibration Reduction” in their specification. Go back a couple of years and the only place you could find these technologies was in a select few exotic lenses for their DSLRs from Canon and Nikon. True, some makers cheat by simply upping the ISO where slow shutter speeds would otherwise be required, but you can see the general technological direction nonetheless.

My guess is that, a couple of years hence, every digital camera save the very cheapest will have this technology built-in. Makers have come to realize that it offers a competitive advantage and, until proper optical viewfinders make a comeback, holding a camera at arm’s length to squint at the little LCD screen on the back while composing the picture denies everything we were taught as children about holding a camera steady.

And steady means sharp.


The stabilizer switch on the superb Canon 24-105mm L lens

I have become so attuned to the grain-free sensor in the Canon 5D that an 18″ x 24″ print is, if not something that is made with impunity, at least pretty commonplace, and the definition in the details is nothing short of startling. There is simply no way that I would be turning out so many large, sharp prints, with 35mm film technology. The enlargement ratio would be the same, true, but the vibration reduction in that splendid 24-105mm Canon lens would be noticeable by its absence. So while Leica can justifiably lay claim to making the best 35mm interchangeable lenses on the planet, not a one of them boasts vibration reduction. Bottom line? The less refined Canon optic with VR beats the superb Leica one unless a very sturdy tripod is used.

And it’s not just at the slower speeds that this is noticeable. Like most photographers, the majority of my pictures is taken using shutter speeds in the 1/60th – 1/500th range. Now the old rule used to be that you had to use a shutter speed no longer than the reciprocal of the focal length for a sharp picture. So, 1/50th for a 50mm, 1/100th for a 100mm and so on. This rule, of course, is so much rot. Go to any photo show and viewers will not step back twice as far to view an 18″ x 24″ print as they would for an 8″ x 10″ one. So the effects of camera shake in big prints are effectively magnified from the viewer’s perspective. So that 1/50th at 8″ x 10″ suddenly becomes 1/100th at 18″ x 24″ for the same perceived absence of camera shake. Offset this with the three shutter speeds of added sharpness gained from VR and you can see why most of my 5D originals easily scale to 18″ x 24″ prints. I am, in effect, using far faster shutter speeds than ever before, thanks to VR. Take away the detail-robbing effects of film grain, courtesy of the 5D’s noiseless sensor, and you have another quantum leap in definition.

So VR will become as commonplace in digital cameras as anti-lock brakes have in cars.

No way I need VR in my Canon fisheye, which has an effective focal length of 12mm after applying ‘defishing’ software, but I would kill for it in the 200mm f/2.8 where it is sorely missed. So until Canon does that, I continue to drag my monopod around with me when using this otherwise excellent optic.

November 16, 2006

Remote strobe trigger

Filed under: Technique — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:16 am

How does $20.39 delivered sound?

When, with the help of that merry boulevardier, Bert the Border Terrier, I wrote about my happy times with studio flash I grumbled about the cost of a wireless connector between camera and power pack. This obsoletes one cord, making for one less thing to trip over, but I couldn’t find anything reasonably priced, so I put the idea out of my mind. Canon makes a unit called the ST-E2, for some $210, which will trigger their Canon flash units only, and that price is for the transmitter only! And that’s an optical transmitter, meaning your receiving flash gun has to be in line of sight of the transmitter. No way, José. B&H also lists many units from other makers. My only interest is in radio transmitters, which do not require line of sight, and the cheapest receiver-transmitter I can find on their site is some $125 and that requires mains power. Ugh! Lose a cord, gain a cord. Too much money, too little gain.

The other night, thinking about that strobe piece, and preparing mentally for the annual Christmas family snap which requires strobes as often as not, I was reminded of a conversation with a nerdy friend. You know, the one who thinks nothing of dismantling his computer to convert it to a faster chip or ripping apart his motorcycle in the quest for two more horsepower. This fellow had bought an el cheapo radio receiver-transmitter from eFraud, excuse me, eBay, and was singing its praises to the high heavens.

Now, truth be told, he was visiting from Crime Central, a.k.a. Baltimore, and the libations were flowing freely, so I dismissed this as so many ramblings of a too active brain. But that strobe piece caused something of a flashback to that discussion so I checked eCheat, sorry, eBay, to see what was out there, dialing in the words “flash remote”. Well, seemingly hundreds of choices presented themselves so I went for the cheapest, smallest, battery powered radio unit, going for the startling sum of $4.95. OK, OK, plus $14.99 postage. So $20.39 all in, counting 41 cents to the serial larcenists and pant droppers in Sacramento, CA for sales tax. My unit of choice goes under the splendid name of “New Wireless Remote Radio Slave Strobe Flash Trigger AA”. No prizes for originality, but five days later my good friend Greg Littell, who doubles as the mail man, dropped off a small package which must have cost the vendor all of $1.99 to mail. Hey, whatever, I was only in for $20.39 all told.

And here it is.

You get the receiver, with a 1/4″ mono plug, which plugs into your strobe’s power pack, a mini-jack adapter, a transmitter-to-camera cable if you have no hot shoe, and the transmitter. The whole things weighs – well, about $1.99 in postage.

The instructions are written in Chinglish. “Trigger flash lamp in long distance and in all around way without barrier”. Let Dr. Pindelski, your Sino-studies expert, translate. “Radio remote strobe transmitter and receiver, not requiring line-of-sight”. They also say you need a 12 volt 23A battery for the transmitter, the bit that goes on the camera, and two “Size No. 7″ batteries for the receiver, the part that is plugged into the strobe’s power supply. That’s “AA” to you. I popped the small Phillips screw in the transmitter, and the 23A battery was already there.

By contrast, the receiver was sans AAs, excuse me, No. 7s, so I dropped in a couple rechargeables.

Now, there’s a bit of a snag. My Novatron power pack, being Texan, has little in the way of effete connectors. When Texans decide you need to connect a camera to their power pack, they make the connector a household ‘H’ plug, which is designed to transmit some 15 amps of power. So, off to Radio Shack for a pair (they wouldn’t sell me one) of their 274-340 1/4″ coaxial jacks and to Home Depot for a household H plug. Solder the two together, glue the bodies for a nice look and this is what you have at an additional cost of some $7. The Dr. Pindelski 1/4″ Mono Plug To H Socket Adapter. Available from me at $99.95 + $30 shipping, should you need one. Order early as I expect to be inundated with Christmas and Hannukah orders.

Time to test this little rig. We don’t need the 1/4″-to-mini-jack adapter, so that goes in the cardboard box in the corner of the garage which the black beetles call home, together with the coax cable, as my Canon 5D has a hot shoe. This is how it looks on the 5D:

Let me stress, my 5D can sustain 250 volts, so I’m safe. You should conduct your own test before use if you are unsure.

Finally, here is the receiver plugged into the Novatron power pack, the same one those good Texans use to fry the miscreants on Death Row.

So does it work?

You bet.

As reliable as the Texas Electric Chair. I measured the range at an astonishing 75 feet on my 5D. At 76 feet it fails to trigger the flash.

Not bad for some $28 all told, huh? And one less cable to trip over.

November 14, 2006

Volkswagen: A Week at the Factory

Filed under: Book reviews, Photographers — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:01 am

An extraordinary book by Peter Keetman.

What the Leica is to rangefinder cameras and the Nikon F to SLRs, so is the VW Beetle to cars. Each is an icon which transcends time and criticism. Each was the very best that its respective designers and engineers had to offer.

The photography in this book is exceptional. The cover picture is a foretaste of what is to come. Keetman, who spent a week in the VW facory in 1953 without a commission or pay, does not document workers toiling in tough conditions making thousands of cars. Social statements are not his interest. Rather, everywhere he points his camera he seees geometrical forms, shapes repeated, industrial beauty of the highest order.

Hundreds of differential gears look like so many flowers in a meadow. Stacked body panels create beautiful, repetitive designs. Cylinder heads look like nothing so much as immense, expressionist buildings – think of the Capitol Records building in Los Angeles or the BMW headquarters in Munich.

An exceptionally honest essay by Rolf Sachsse pulls no punches as to the provenance of the Beetle and Armin Kley provides a useful technical piece on the development of this cultural icon – the iPod of its day.

You do not need to like cars to love the great photography in this ninety page paperback, first published in the US in 1992. Amazon lists used copies for very little. Rush out and get one before they are gone.

November 12, 2006

More censorship from Leica

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 4:15 pm

Censorhip is simply much tougher than in day’s past.

I wrote of Michael Reichmann’s appalling behavior regarding his review of a faulty camera from Leica (the M8) here.

Now an erudite posting, addressing the M8’s problems that Reichmann struck from his ‘review’, was censored by one of the moderators on the Leica User Forum. Not so fast, Mr. Censor – you can erase the message on the forum, but you cannot remove it from my news reader:

Now I do not know the poster, but the message seems rational and well argued. Why then was it struck soon after posting?

One hundred yards – Part I

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:44 am

Some of the best pictures are one hundred yards from your doorstep. Or less..

Given how much time we spend in our homes, it’s surprising that many photographers feel they have to journey to remote, exotic locations in search of picture opportunities. They arrive tired, are in a strange location which they have no time to ‘learn’, and leave frustrated. You must make the return flight and have to make do with whatever weather is around at the time.

By contrast, the circle centered on your home, with a 100 yard radius, provides some of the best photographic opportunities. You know the area, are rested and have no deadlines. There is no return flight. And you can wait for the weather to come to you.

Here are a couple snaps, taken over the years, all within 100 yards or less of where my bed was the previous night. More to come over the next few weekends.


100 yards. San Diego, California. M2, 35mm.


5 yards. Templeton, California. 5D, 24-105mm

For more on this theme, please click here.

November 11, 2006

Leica’s Watergate

Filed under: Hall of Shame — Thomas Pindelski @ 4:33 pm

Just another case of a lack of journalistic integrity?.

When I trashed the Panasonic L1 I wrote positively about Michael Reichmann’s objectivity when he wrote about this camera on his web site.

I now have no reason to any longer think that Reichmann is an objective writer.

He has admitted (after clicking the link go to the bottom) that, in ‘reviewing’ the Leica M8 he pulled critical comments from his piece as requested by the Leica Company who had loaned him the camera. It is possible that many who based their purchase decision on his purportedly objective review would have refrained from buying the camera had these comments not been censored.

While he has since bought an M8, I assume using his own money, the reality is he allowed his objectivity to be irrevocably compromised, in this writer’s eyes, by the provision of a free loaner, trading it for self aggrandisement that comes from being one of the favored few to be graced with a pre-production M8. “Look how important I am. Leica gave me a free loaner.” Psychic payola, and good value, had it worked for Leica. They didn’t even have to write a check. In the event, collusion between manufacturer and ‘reviewer’ has, in this case, hurt both.

Had Mr. Recihmann published his adverse findings, explaining that Leica told him they had fixed the problem (they have not) that would have been quite different. In that case he could have stated that he would verify such claims in a follow-up to his review.

As long time readers of this journal know, there is no earthly chance that Yours Truly would ever be given anything free by any manufacturer to ‘review’, as a manufacturer’s publicity machine is not intended to spread truth, justice and the American Way. Rather, its sole intent, which is fine with me, is to sell products. Just don’t expect me to write manufacturer-censored reviews under the guise of objectivity.

You may check my ethics policy by clicking on my name in the left hand column.

The closing three sentences of Reichmann’s apologia are breathtaking and I quote – my underscore. I quote, in case they should one day disappear from his site – please read his whole piece to put these in perspective by clicking on the link in the third paragraph above:

“But, in the end I would do what I did again, simply because I felt that potential owners needed to know what I had learned in my testing, without delay. And, I would have held back again on the issues that I was requested to because that’s the proper way to deal with manufacturers, who one assumes will take their responsibilities to journalists seriously. Enough said.”

If you can reconcile the first and second sentences, please educate me by leaving a comment, below.

So now that you understand Mr. Reichmann’s “….proper way of dealing with manufacturers….” you will know better than to believe anything he ever writes again on his Luminous Landscape web site.

Mr. Reichmann, let me put you out of your naïveté. A manufacturer’s goal in a capitalist system is to get journalists to write what is best for the profitability of the manufacturer. A journalist’s goal is to write unconflicted truth as he sees it, pulling no punches with regard to material facts.

And here is what you really meant to write, and do feel free to copy and paste it into your column – no attribution needed:

“Dear Luminous Landscape readers – I made a serious ethical and journalistic error in withholding information regarding product defects in the new Leica M8. I did this at the request of the Leica Company who had given me a free loan of the camera. In doing so, I made a material misrepresentation to you, my readers. I have seriously compromised my journalistic integrity and accept full responsibility to all of you who bought the camera on my recommendation and now find that, had my findings been uncensored, they would have changed your purchase decision.”

Trust, once lost, Mr. Reichmann, is seldom regained. Print a proper retraction on the lines of the above and I will be happy to publish it here.

As for Leica, the company may have knowingly released a faulty product. If that is the case, the class action lawyers will take care of them, assuming there’s enough money left there to make the suit worthwhile. Why, even Mr. Reichmann would collect something in the settlement.

November 8, 2006

Balls

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:41 am

Well, ball heads, to be exact.

Novoflex is a German company with a long and storied tradition of making camera gadgets. While their publicity machine in the US seems non-existent, the company for many years made a variety of adapters, bellows and follow focus mounts for Leica and other lenses which earned them a stellar reputation for quality and design. Indeed, for a while in the 1970s, you could buy the Leica 400mm and 500mm f/6.8 follow focus Telyt lenses from Leitz mounted either in the Leitz buttton release follow focus mount or in the Novoflex trigger release style.

The fact that their marketing in the US is lousy does not in any way minimize the quality of their products. Type in ‘Novoflex’ at the B&H site and you will be rewarded with no fewer than eleven pages of Novoflex products, from a $1,200 tilt bellows which can be adapted to just about any SLR made in the past fifty years, to a $19 plant holder clamp (no kidding) which can be affixed to a standard tripod screw.

Want an adapter to mount your Canon EOS lens backwards on the body for extreme close-up work? Novoflex has it. A nicely made, inexpensive, table top tripod? No problem. A forked joint, V-shaped tripod head to support the long barrel of an ultra-telephoto lens on a second tripod? You bet.

In other words, if specialty applications are your thing, there’s a good chance Novoflex makes it.

Having sold off a bunch of stuff left over from the old film camera days, I decided to reward myself with a toy. Something not essential, you understand, but nice to have. Now while I am not in any need of more cameras or lenses, having pretty much all I need, I do recall thinking that a really nice ball head for my Linhof tripod would be a good idea. Until now I have used a Leitz ball head which is very secure, the serrated ball locking firmly with very little force on the knob, but because I like to have both my tripod and monopod in the trunk of the car at all times, I concluded that one necessary luxury would be a second ball head. The Leitz could make its home premanently on the monopod, and the new head would live on the tripod. Like an old rather affluent friend who keeps mistresses in several of the world’s great cities. Luxury indeed!

Go to the Ball Heads section of the B&H site and you will find no fewer than nine pages’ worth. Phew! Sort in price order and the costliest, from Arca-Swiss, comes in at nearly $800. Now I like quality as much as the next man but I am not insane. Go down a few pages and you come across a truly funky one, suggesting that the folks at Apple are not the only ones who ‘Think Different’. It is, of course, from Novoflex, and is sold in three sizes (mine is the smallest – the ‘MiniMagic’). Here is how it compares with that inspired and ancient Leitz design:


The Novoflex MiniMagic ball head next to the full size Leitz one

In the above picture both heads are fitted with Manfrotto quick release tripod plates. The design of the Novoflex permits unobstructed rotation of the camera without having to locate the ‘90 degree slot’ you can see on the Leitz design. Some inspired designer at Novoflex has basically flipped the design and made the base of the head accept the camera, mounting the ball on the tripod. Genius.


Electric blue adds a nice touch of fun to the inspired design

Novoflex states that the head will support 11 lbs, which means three Canon 5Ds with the standard zoom lens fitted. That’s a lot of weight.


Flipped 90 degrees the nylon friction pads are revealed. Cleaning the ball could not be easier.

The head is fastened by rotating the large serrated protruding handle.

Novoflex makes two larger variants, capable of supporting 15 and 22 lbs., respectively, but for 35mm and medium format work the smallest seems more than adequate, weighing in at all of 11.5 ozs. The larger ones come with friction control, but it’s not something I need; for that matter, gently tightening the handle confers an adequate level of friction control with this model, should you require that to level the camera with small incremental movements. Also, realize that you would have to add the Novoflex Universal Panorama plate if you want calibrated, level rotation, but for panoramas I think you are far better off with something like a proper panoramic head with nodal point offset.


A toy, you say? Think again!

In practice the head is wonderfully easy to use, nothing ever gets in the way, and you can rotate the camera well past 90 degrees for those occasions where your tripod is not especially level. It looks just super on my old Linhof tripod. Recommended without reservations; even the price of $240 seems reasonable for something you will use the rest of your life. And that old Leitz head? Happy as a clam on the Manfrotto monopod, one of the best tools I know of to make your lens deliver its best.

Film or Digital

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 4:22 am

The answer to yesterday’s puzzle.

At the conclusion of the previous journal entry, I asked readers to determine whether film or digital was used to record the eight images included.

Here are the technical data for the pictures:

Image #1: Canon 350D (my wife’s!), 17-85 Canon at 75mm (120mm equivalent), 1/50, f/7.1, ISO 100
Image #2: Canon 5D, 200mm Canon, 1/2000, f/4.5, ISO 200
Image #3: Canon 5D, 24-105 Canon at 58mm, 1/500, f/4, ISO 400
Image #4: Canon 5D, 24-105 Canon at 35mm, 1/250, f/5.6, ISO 250
Image #5: Canon 5D, 24-105 Canon at 73mm, 1/350, f/6.7, ISO 200
Image #6: Canon 5D, 24-105 Canon at 28mm, 1/6 (hand held and IS used big time!), f/4, ISO 800
Image #7: Canon 5D, 15mm Canon fisheye with ImageAlign used to ‘defish’ the picture (12mm equivalent), 1/750, f/8, ISO 400
Image #8: Panasonic Lumix LX-1, 6.3-25.2 Leica at 14mm (63mm equivalent), 1/1250, f/4, ISO 100

In other words, not a roll of film in sight. Properly exposed and processed digital is indistinguishable from properly exposed and processed film until the ISO gets over 200, in which case the Canon 5D beats film hands down every time.

All pictures processed (very little) in Apple’s Aperture.

How did you do?

November 7, 2006

Digital schmigital

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:45 am

There is no such thing as a ‘film look’ – only bad processing.

I confess to finding all the talk about the classical ‘look’ of printed images taken on film to be so much rot.

(Please note: The pictures in this journal entry are purposefully large to enhance screen quality, so they make take a while to load on slower connections.)

Unless you make prints from film using an enlarger – an all analog chain if you like – every image we see is to a greater or lesser extent digital. Film has to be scanned to be shown on your computer. That’s digital. The scanned image has to be printed on some sort of printer, be it ink jet, dye sublimation, laser, using pigment inks or dyes. All digital. And, obviously, everything seen on the computer screen, where, let’s face it, 99.9% of photographs are now viewed, is digital.

This journal entry was prompted when I read a piece on a chat board written by a fellow extolling the ‘Leica glow’ in images which, he claimed, only his film based Leica camera and lenses could deliver. No indication of the basis for this judgement or, indeed, anything about how he makes prints. The thrust of his poorly reasoned argument seems to be that digital looks ‘plastic’ (the English I learned suggests that plasticity is a good thing in an image, but I’ll let it go) whereas film looks real.

It’s unclear to me why some, like this person, still fight digital imaging. It might be that people who write on chat boards are like visitors to a hospital. They only go there because they have a problem, even if the disease is hypochondria. Part of it is, I suspect, that some practitioners have given digital a bad name through excessive sharpening, contrast, saturation and so on. That hardly exonerates poor practitioners of analog printing who loved garish excess, like Ansel Adams. The reality is that you will get lousy results with any process if you have a lack of skill, taste or both.

Another reason for proclaiming the superiority of film may well be that its defenders have invested such huge amounts in now largely worthless equipment that some sort of justification is called for. They are, of course, Label Drinkers. You buy a Rolls Royce and it has to be good, even if the thing breaks down constantly. How could you admit otherwise? Everyone knows it’s the best. Clearly, the resale value of gear is irrelevant, and all that matters is whether it helps you take good pictures. The only problem for these fellas is that they have to have the latest and greatest and, well, trade-in values on that M6 or M7 Leica just aren’t what they used to be. The ridiculous price of the digital M8 just compounds their problem. Here’s a $5,000 body (no lens!) which is not weather sealed, has manual focus, limited automation and no zoom lenses. Absent low light snaps, where it probably excels, it’s an overpriced, bulky, point-and-shoot (which is what Leica rangefinder photography is all about) far less capable for the most part than any number of $400 offerings from the far east. So economics become a prop for an ill reasoned position. Not the first time that has happened. Makes film a lot more appealing, though, if you are stuck with those old bodies.

Amusingly, the same psychology – it’s expensive so it must be good – comes into play when they finally spring for that M8, having dumped the M6 or M7 at a huge loss. They are now duty bound to proclaim that the digital Leica takes better pictures (!) than anything else out there. But of course.

Unless you are taking pictures in very challenging lighting, requiring fast lenses and low noise, high ISO sensitivity, and you need to make really large prints, then there is simply no difference in the image taken with costly gear like the top Nikons, Canons or Leicas and the $300 point-and-shoot. Digital or film, it makes no difference in regular prints. Up to, say, 8″ x 10″ in hard copy prints or up to a 30″ computer screen, it all looks great. I was reminded how terrific some 6 mp images taken on a Nikon looked, when I examined them on the 30″ Apple Cinema Display the other day in the Apple store. The only reason I know they were Nikon digital originals is because that’s what it said on the file information. You simply could not have asked for a better image – dynamic range on the screen greatly exceeding anything a print could offer. Like looking at projected slides in days of old.

Reverting to that chat board thread, one correspondent confidently stated that he can always tell which images on his computer screen are digital (whatever that means – I suppose he is referring to the original being snapped with a digital camera) – which left me laughing helplessly. Anyway, for that expert and fellow travellers, here’s a selection of my snaps from the archives wherein I invite you to guess which are digital and which film. Meaning, in my world, which were taken on a film Leica as opposed to a digital Canon 5D. And don’t go guessing by aspect ratio – both my Leicas and the 5D share the same native 3:2 image ratio and I crop away depending on my mood. All will be revealed tomorrow. Oh!, and by the way, I hope you enjoy the pictures!

By the way, there as those dogs again….


Image Number 1. Filoli Mansion, Bay Area.



Image Number 2. Autumn from Jack Creek Road, central California.


Image Number 3. Alleyway, San Francisco.


Image Number 4. American Bull.


Image Number 5. Devotion.


Image Number 6. Lunch. Ashland, Oregon.


Image Number 7. Cayucos. “Wanna date, love?”


Image Number 8. Hats. Moonstone Beach.

November 6, 2006

Withdrawal symptoms

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:57 am

Well, just one Leica left.

Be under no illusion. Selling off the last of my Leica equipment was emotionally wrenching. These may be mass produced machines, true, but when something has been a part of you for more than a third of a century, well, parting is not easy.

I cannot but reminisce about some of the wonderful optics that made their home on my Leica and Leicaflex bodies. And, in truth, there were more optics than one could recall without saying, in the same breath, that he was privileged indeed to have enjoyed so much that was wondrous. For whatever their future, Leica can claim, without any fear of exaggeration, to have made most of the best lenses that have graced any camera. Ever.

Some stand out not so much for their optical prowess as for the results they delivered. And if I sound a bit like Woody Allen reciting his favorite things on this earth, towards the end of the beautiful film that is Manhattan, well, so be it. Favorites in the early years were the 90mm Elmar – small, modest, unpretentious, yet always willing. The perfect match for that stroke of genius we know as the M3 viewfinder. On those trips to Paris it ceded primacy to the 35mm f/2.8 Summaron. The ‘eyeglasses’ this needed to frame properly with the M3 were not the most chic of Leitz’s designs, but the lens was superb in every way, certainly more affordable to this impecunious student than its f/2 Summicron stablemate. Suffice it to say this optic saw more use on the M3 than anything else during my monochrome London years.

As affluence raised its head after a year or two in the world’s greatest democracy, the M3 was joined by a Leicaflex SL with the ne plus ultra 50mm Summicron-R.

Hard to do anything wrong with that combination. Certainly, the svelte style of the M3 was missing from this bulky pair, but the camera came with the best viewfinder and focusing screen ever built into an SLR – a fact that remains true to this day – and once that body was mated to the superb 180mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R, well, this photographer had found his Chateau Lafite Rothschild of landscape equipment. Throw Kodachrome into the mix and you have maybe the finest equipment the twentieth century ever made available to an aspiring photographer. With but one exception, read on below, this was the best lens I have ever owned.

After years of providing for old age, a process that common sense dictated was something you would be foolish to trust to government, the photographic ethic saw a return to the M and its street capabilities. The so-so 50mm f/2.8 Elmar gracefully gave way to a lovely Summicron, the last model with the removable lens head, and the increased contrast and lovely tonal rendition of this masterpiece, now used exclusively for color, was a joy to behold.

Small, fast focusing, it has moved to a good home. It served me faithfully for the best part of two decades.

The 90mm Elmar gave way to a Leicaflex design mounted in an M mount, the 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M. Nowhere near as compact as the old Elmar, its lens element did not rotate as you focused, so the apertures were always clearly visible on top. Almost worth the trade off in size and weight, and the jump in definition and resolving power was out of this world.

But the M3 lusted after something better still, and before you knew it the Elmarit-M was joined by a brand, spanking new 90mm Asph Apo-Summicron-M. The only new Leica lens I ever owned and there are no words in the vernacular to describe the capabilities of this optic. It is as if the M3, released in the early ‘50s, had finally found a lens to do it justice some forty years later. Suffice it to say that it simply intimidated me every time I mounted it on the camera, for the knowledge was certain that there was simply no way I could do it justice. Without a doubt the best lens I have ever owned.

But that was far from the end of it. Like the poor kid who grew up lusting after Ferraris but never dreamed he would own one, I chanced upon a new 400mm f/6.8 Telyt.

This lens had always fascinated me when I was a kid, just like those Ferraris.

The lens had been owned by a collector (Ugh! A lawyer to boot, as if that was a surprise) for twenty years and never taken out of the box. Sacrilege! The lubricants in the trombone focus action were dried up, the schmuck lawyer’s protestations notwithstanding, making focusing about as much fun as a root canal, but a quick trip for relubrication saw another example of Leitz’s genius mated, with the appropriate adapter, to the Leicaflex. The design may only have used a couple of glasses but, goodness, was it sharp. The thing was a foot and a half long, making for a discomfiting feeling in later years as everyone was now watching everyone else, but it cranked out some great pictures despite the perceived threat to life and limb of all and sundry.

Reverting to the streets, where I had pretty much grown up as a photographer, called for something really wide, so why not the best? The late ‘90s market was booming, everyone was an investment genius, money was cheap and, so it seemed, was the outrageous 21mm Asph Elmarit-M.

The third best lens I ever used. Sure, the clip on viewfinder was simply lousy, plastic casing and all, and the lens hood was consigned to the garbage can as soon as I looked at it, but it replaced a bizarre, if cheap, Russian 20mm Orion (a design that Comrade Stalin appropriated from Zeiss) and showed this user what a super-wide was really about. This one really became a part of me. I find it hard to believe that the coverage and micro-contrast of this very special optic will be exceeded at this focal length.

And finally, because I simply had more money than sense at the time, why not a 135mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-M?

I already knew what the magical combination of apochromatic glasses and Telyt design could do, so the 135mm replaced a long string of 135s – the Hektor, the Elmar, and the Tele-Elmar. It badly embarrassed all of its predecessors.

There were many others, of course. Like old girlfriends, you never forget them. (There were, I hasten to add, more lenses than girlfriends, in case my wife reads this). Each had its genius. Each its faults. All were loved. And remain so to this day. (Lenses and girlfriends).

So now I have one Leica left. My M2, with what is perhaps the ultimate street snapper’s lens, the 35mm Asph Summicron-M. Yes, another gift courtesy of the Internet Bubble. The pairing is on extended loan to a fine English photographer, and will probably return home sometime in 2007. That Summicron replaced a very modest 35mm f/3.5 Summaron which, despite its unprepossessing looks, was as good as you could wish, at any aperture. Indeed, with the sole exception of the 50mm Elmar my M3 started life with, all those wonderful Leica lenses never much cared what aperture you selected, for they were equally good at anything the lighting conditions dictated. And the 35mm Asph is maybe the only design where Leica finally got the lens hood dead right.

So, will I sell both? Well, the M2 body must move on. I am simply not returning to the drudge of film/processing/scanning/dust removal that digital obsoleted. Further, I have little interest in cropped digital sensors, especially at the outrageous price Leica is asking for the M8, so unless the House of Leica comes out with a full frame sensor, affordable M9 (as likely as finding integrity in a politician), and stops making all those darned excuses about technology, the 35mm Asph will go also. Modern point-and-shoot digitals get better daily at prices, compared to the M8, that represent impulse buys. They also permit cost effective annual upgrades, something no M8 owner will like to contemplate after a mere twelve months of ownership. And that, by the way, is why I think Leica’s M8, after the honeymoon is over, is doomed to fail.

Complacency is easy. Change hard. Neither negates the fact that technology marches on.

November 5, 2006

Late sun

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:52 am

What’s not to like about the evening sun?


The hat

Compare with the previous snap. Here, color does the trick.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress