Yearly Archives: 2008

Bargain of the year

Canon 5D

The Canon 5D, that is.

The Canon 5D has now been on the market some three years. Mine, bought a few months after the introduction, cost $3,000 in 2006 money. Here’s B&H’s web site today:

Assuming 5% annual inflation (OK it’s really 15% but our government lies about it) I make that 40+% price drop, as the 5D Mk II replacement nears.

Given that, for this user, the difference between the Mark I and Mark II is a $10 sensor cleaning brush, given Mark I’s love of dust, that’s hardly a compelling reason to upgrade. After all, in the film days I made do with a 1960 Leica M3 for 30+ years, easily resisting the temptations of the M4/5/6/7 ‘upgrades’ which were less well made and cost a bundle. Sure, Mark II will have more pixels, but if I can get perfect large prints with Mark I why would I want one of these? The real enhancement digital sensors need is better dynamic range control and proper solution of that issue appears to be some way off yet. A smaller body like a Pentax DSLR would be nice, too, but I’m not holding my breath on that one. Recall that the small Olympus and Pentax film bodies – smaller than even cropped frame DSLRs today, were full frame snappers. I can only think that Macho Big outsells Chic Petite, hence the dearth of small DSLRs.

And for those looking to get into full frame digital at the lowest price, give Canon a short while to announce Mark II (likely identically priced as the new Nikon D700 competitor at $3,000) and you will be able to snap up a near mint used 5D for, what, $1,400 in the ensuing glut on the used market?

Just add $10 for that brush and you have the camera bargain of the year and large, sharp, grain-free prints to your heart’s content.


Bert the Border Terrier guards the latest batch of large prints from the 5D

Mark I shows every sign of being a decade-long keeper which, when you think about it, is an amazing statement given the rates of change in digital photography. It’s really that good.

Lest we forget

Photography

The Declaration of Independence needs to be respected again.


John Trumbull. Declaration of Independence, with timely annotations.

First, we shoot all the lawyers …. then move on to the bums running California.

I’m off to take some snaps. Let’s hope the Pigs leave me alone this time. Just in case, I’ll take a fistful of used notes. Dollar notes.


Pigs. Leica M2, 35mm Summaron.

This Pig asked for my roll of film. I gave him an empty one. Pig.

Motto: Always carry a give-away roll of film or CF card on you.

Ink and paper supplies

Printing

For heavy users.

I have made, and continue to make, many large prints on the Hewlett Packard HP90 Designjet printer. While it’s being phased out it remains broadly available if you do a Google search, typically selling for under $900. If you have priced other fade-free ink jet wide carriage printers, then you will know this is a superb bargain. Add a small desktop footprint and print quality to die for – and it works perfectly with Mac’s Tiger and Leopard OS – and you have a tremendous bargain. After some thirty months of use I would buy another at the drop of a hat if needs dictated.

Printers, however, are increasingly marketed using the Gillette razor model – give away the printer and clean up on the supplies. While HP has no need to give away a non-mass market device like the DJ90, ink and paper still take their toll on the budget if you make a lot of prints.

When it comes to consumables I have long been a believer in using the manufacturer’s recommended products. There’s little point in saving a dollar or two on refilled ink cartridges if the risk is that your printer heads clog up or the inks fade with age. With paper, I have found that HP’s Premium Plus photo satin is superb and maintains its surface sheen when the print is dry mounted at ~190F (88C) in a press. Much warmer than that and the surface looks less pleasant. While rumor has it that HP’s paper is made by Hahnemuhle in Germany, there’s little incentive to use aftermarket papers when each involves a tedious profiling and test session. So I stick with what works for me and now that I have digital’s dynamic range limitations under control, why bother with anything else? One more example where consistency takes out a complex set of variables from the equation. A good thing.

Given the need to have a spare cartridge of each of the six colors used in the HP (the printer uses ink frugally but you can bet you will run out when you least expect it), I found myself about to place an order at my photo retailer of choice, B&H in NYC, the other day. Then, what with the newly found need for frugality dictated by America’s total absence of an energy policy, I recalled that someone had mentioned a Florida vendor named Atlex. A quick click and comparison (3 ink cartridges and 40 sheets of 18″ x 24″ paper – $252 delivered to CA) disclosed that Atlex’s price was some 18% less than B&H’s. Now I like B&H and they have never let me down but 18% is non trivial. Loyalty to my pocket book wins every time. Atlex – their site claims they have been at it for over 25 years – also stocks Epson and Canon printer supplies, all original maker labelled, so what’s not to like? And, unless you live in Florida, you will be doing your bit by starving the beast that is government as you no longer pay sales taxes to the organized crime bosses masquerading as state government.

This is an opportune time to remind users not to mess with roll paper. Even if you have a proper roll paper holder and built-in cutting knife like in the HP DesignJet, life is simply too short to mess with severely rolled up paper supplies – just try to dry mount a print which prefers to roll up. I have tried. It was hell. Use cut sheets.

The bad old days

Photography

Things have never been better.

A fellow old car enthusiast dropped by the other day to take a look at some of my latest snaps and to choose a couple for display on his garage wall.

The selection process was a lot of fun and we spooled off a couple of 18″ x 24″ prints while we chatted. Conversation naturally centered around vintage racers and when my friend mentioned a certain old Bugatti it was a moment’s work in Lightroom to pull up the relevant snap in Lightroom and …. well, we must both confess to disappointment. It’s not that there was anything wrong with the definition of the older picture, taken 5 years ago, it’s that it was taken on film and it looked perfectly horrible on the big screen.

Here’s the two week old digital snap:

And here is a section that would make a 50″ wide print:

Now this is the older snap taken on film:

And a like section:

In neither case was the gear used in any way less than the best. The digital picture was on a 5D with the 100mm Canon Macro lens – maybe their sharpest. The film version was on a perfectly tuned Leica M3 with the greatest 90mm lens ever made – the Leica Apo-Summicron M. If you have used it there’s no need for further explanation. If not, trust me on this one. The scan was on a Nikon 8000 Colorscan film scanner.

So even on a small computer screen it’s clear that film cannot hold up at this size – grain beats down definition.

But wait for it – the 5D was set at 320 ISO whereas the film original was 100 ASA/ISO, making the comparison that much more damning for film.

Standards have changed and there’s simply no beating an A/B comparison – no memory, no imagination, just the facts. And there’s no denying digital’s superiority, assuming you know how to properly expose and process, once you have seen nice big prints from the 5D’s full frame sensor.

Great news from Nikon

Cameras

Finally an eyeball-to-eyeball competitor for the 5D.

Nikon has announced a full frame DSLR, the D700, priced at $3,000.

Like the 5D, this model drops the extra battery grip and bazzillion frames per second feature for realistic specifications that will work for all amateurs and all but sports-oriented pros.

It will not be lost on Canon that the D700 has sensor dust removal – the only gripe I have with the 5D. Oh! and a better LCD screen. And a built-in flash.

Will I upgrade to 5D Mark II which will have like specifications? Naaah. I would rather keep using the sensor cleaner and save the $1,500 the upgrade would run me.

Now let’s hope that the forthcoming full frame Sony DSLR (probably with the same sensor they sell to Nikon for their D3/D700 models) will drop the price to $2,000.