Incredibly useless.

It takes quite an effort to accomplish all of these design criteria:

• Make the ugliest camera since digital was invented
• Equip it with a microscopic sensor in a body the size of the MFT competition
• Trash your reputation and an expectant, loyal user base

Nikon, with its new mirrorless V1 has accomplished all three at the highest possible level of failure.

Nikon V1 – camel as camera.

It’s said a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Well, the V1 is a camel of a camera, doubtless with lots of costly market research thrown in. Steve Jobs has famously stated that Apple uses no market research. Rather, it gives the consumer what Apple thinks they need – the Next Great Thing. But had you told Nikon to listen to their user base and give them something useful, like an APS-C camera with an EVF and a range of small, fast lenses, they would doubtless have deferred to the committee. And you would still have ended up with a V1.

The funniest part? They will make an adapter which will allow use of gargantuan Nikon-mount lenses on this piece of crap.

At least Fuji’s equally worthless X10 is pretty to look at. And if you don’t think looks matter, how do you feel about your picture taking chances when you have to fight the gag reflex every time you pick your camera up?

For those looking for portability and other uses for their pocket camera, get an iPhone 4 or, better, next month’s iPhone 5 with an 8mp sensor.

Bloomberg nails it.

Bloomberg has an interesting piece on how Nikon and Canon are missing the boat by not offering a mirrorless DSLR.

Click the picture to read the article.

As an early adopter and buyer of the first EVF interchangeable lens MFT DSLR, the Panasonic G1, I tend to agree that it’s the future. The EVF will only get better, it’s cheaper to make than the prism/mirror combination used in old tech, and there are no moving parts and no need for complex retrofocus lens designs to clear flapping mirrors.

While I tend to take this quote – “Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales in the country in July, surging from 5 percent in early 2009, according to BCN.” – with a bushel of salt, there’s reason to believe that mirrorless DSLRs are gaining market share. Apochryphal data are mostly useless (just because your local bookstore is full does not tell you whether it’s booming or having a going-out-of-business sale), yet I constantly read that big DSLR owners are dumping their heavy gear for something they actually will take along on the next trip. I know, having done likewise with my (quite superb, I hasten to add) Canon 5D outfit with no fewer than eight lenses, in preference for the Panny G1 with but three compact zooms. Yes, it almost always goes along with me, not something that could be said of the 5D.

Still, I keep hoping that someone at these two dominant gear makers is working on an APS-C or full frame EVF design with a silent shutter and fast focus – things now found in several models in the Panasonic range. The disappointing Fuji X10, with its miniscule sensor almost got it right. What’s needed is a fast lens with a 28-90mm zoom range, compactness, silence, no shutter or focus lag and a proper sensor, not some nail clipping. The lens doesn’t even have to be removable. Price it at $750 and you will be rich. Canon and Nikon – are you listening?

What a scam.

It’s five years since I sold my first – and last – Leica and sadly the former German masters of design have given me no reason to regret that decision.

You thought $7,000 for a camera body with no lens, no autofocus lenses available and a sixty year old viewfinder design, allied with a noisy shutter was a lot?

You are a piker.

Because for a mere $1,000 extra you can have the 2 cent red paper dot on the front (you know, the one that says you are rich and screams ‘steal me and my owner’s wallet’) removed and the word ‘Leica’ engraved in script on the top plate like they used to do twenty years ago. And lest we forget, Leica has made the LCD glass tougher than the one made of pure cheese on the ‘base’ model. Such a deal.

Here’s the latest blurb from the antiquarians at Leica Camera:

Hey, but “Hang on a minute”, you say. I get one of the smallest cameras out there. The factory says so.

Uh huh. And for a bit less you can get a Panny G3 whose modern sensor will rival the M9′s dated Kodak one (so much for a ‘lifetime camera’), offers auto everything, is super quiet and comes with a great choice of lenses, some even branded (if not made) by Leica. No red dot at those prices, though. But you do get a pro-quality movie mode to compensate. As a point of reference, the red outline of the M9 is superimposed on the G3 body below.

And you can buy 13 of those for the price of one M9P or a mere 11 for the price of one regular M9. That way, when your Panny blows after 50,000 exposures you recycle it and pull the next one out of its box. Better still, get smart, buy one, and upgrade to a G4 in 18 months. It will be even better.

As for logo removal, my roll of black electrician’s tape should last the next five generations in Dr. P’s lineage.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

Aptly named.

Some wag at Pentax must have named their new forthcoming toy camera, for the ‘Q’ designation is nothing less than a loud Question as to who on earth needs this?

The Pentax Q. Or is that Q?

It’s truly depressing to see Pentax make a camera with a minuscule digital sensor and interchangeable lenses. The very thought of the mistaken market research that went into the decision to commit significant amounts of capital to engineering and producing this camera and its five lenses for a market which does not exist boggles the mind.

Look at the specs. The sensor is one eighth the area of the MFT ones found in Panny and Oly offerings. The lens still sticks out a lot. There’s no eye level finder but you can blow another $250 on top of the $800 for the camera to buy a bulky optical one, limited to one focal length. To make matters worse, the standard lens has a full frame equivalent length of 49mm – way too long for most snaps and the zoom alternative destroys what compactness the body offers.

This is what happens when you design cameras by committee and market research – both functions doomed to report the past and incapable of encouraging original thought. Heaven forbid that Pentax might actually ask photographers what they want. That advice would be free and on point. The folks at Pentax obviously do not read their Santayana, denying the wisdom of “Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it”, having made an almost identical error with their short lived, overpriced and ill considered Pentax 110 film camera. This was another toy, using a truly ghastly film format but engineered at a level way in excess of the capabilities of the medium. And while I’m at it, who on earth designed that execrable extending flash in the Q? My boy can do better with Lego bricks.

Pentax’s previous exercise in stupidity, the 110 film camera.

If I were Pentax, a business on its last legs and likely not here for the long term, I would take one last great risk and return to my roots of truly original design. Spotmatic or ME Super, anyone? Forget the me-too DSLRs, Pentax. You have little to offer there. You are RC Cola to Coke, doomed to remain on the lower shelf, scraping for pennies. What Pentax could have done, given the company’s undeniable design skills, is take a hammer to Fuji’s poorly executed, over-priced and over-engineered X100 and made a fixed focal length APS-C or MFT snapper, with a proper EVF or optical finder, a speedy wide angle f/2 or f/1.4 lens and sold the thing for $500. Don’t these people realize that there is an enormous demand from decent photographers (meaning they can take good pictures, not that they are moral!) who are sick and tired of lugging bulky DSLRs around and just want something small, sharp and super-responsive, at a reasonable price?

Pentax Q lenses – two ‘Toys’, a fisheye and a bulky zoom, plus the standard one.

To compound their silliness, Pentax is offering two self-described ‘Toy’ lenses where you will be able to pay hundreds of dollars when you could just buy a piece-of-crap Holga for $10. Better still, forget the $10 and mess up your image in Photoshop. Why, you don’t even have to wait for the processed film to come back that way.

And finally, they are making a fish-eye which, I predict, will sell no more than a dozen world wide. Sure, every snapper really needs one of those.

The picture below shows the size of the Pentax Q (red rectangle) superimposed on the Panasonic G1 (my current snapper) and G3 (on order) – you get a picayune sensor in exchange for a very small reduction in bulk. The thickness dimensions vary little:

Pentax Q outline superimposed on the Panasonic G1.

Pentax Q outline superimposed on the Panasonic G3.

That equation does not solve for this photographer.