A body and two lenses.

You would sling the camera over your neck with the short lens on the body. The other lens, the medium length one, went in the shoulder bag. And that little outfit would be all you needed to go around the world.

Back in 1973 it consisted of a Leica, 35mm and 90mm lenses. Changing from one to the other was second nature and you never messed with the silliness of lens caps – just another impediment to a swift lens change.

And I found myself reliving that experience the other day only this time everything was automatic, the lenses were zooms covering 28mm through 400mm (!) and my camera could take 600+ RAW images at a sitting at a level of quality and capability which leaves that lovely Leica in the museum where it belongs.

Lost in thought.

Lonely guy.

Copper sunset.

All pictures on the Panasonic G1 with the 14-45mm and 45-200mm lenses.

In a year or two it will all be in an even smaller package and the results even less dependent on technical skill. That seems right to me. Anything that gets in the way of the picture is a bad thing. Which means automation is a good thing – for what I want to accomplish.

Thanks to the US military

The US military may last have checked the ‘win’ column some 60-plus years ago, but not all is bad. This taxpayer got a bit of his own back by picking up a handy ex-military bag from the local Army & Navy surplus store. Have you ever wondered what happens to Air Force surplus, by the way?

The problem with most camera gear bags is that they scream ‘camera’, invariably being emblazoned ‘Tenba’, ‘Domke’, ‘Lowepro’ and the like – all brand labels beloved of the light fingered set. They are also invariably obscenely expensive – $75-150 for, let’s face it, some canvas and stitching, made in China. Neither issue arises here for this is an ex-Army canvas map bag, has no markings and costs …. wait for it, all of $12.

The three compartments hold the Panasonic G1 with either the kit lens or the 45-200mm, the other lens goes in the center divider and my mobile back-up drive goes in the front. If needed, the rear compartment will accommodate my netbook computer. In that case the camera with one lens goes in the middle and the other lens moves to a jacket pocket – the G1’s lenses are so small this is simply not an issue. The ‘ears’ keep the rain out and there’s even room for a sandwich and a bottle of water.

Check your local surplus store for any number of similar choices. I like that it looks so shabby and amateur (unlike our military), the last thing a thief would be interested in. It is also superbly effective (also unlike our military). Probably not made in China, which may well turn your crank, to boot. And you can always console yourself with the near certainty that the thing cost the US Army hundreds of dollars when originally procured from our patriotic military contractors.

Update April 3, 2010 – iPad day: My iPad fits perfectly in this bag. Forget the $120 asked for a piece of nylon with a logo – get one of these.

Celebrity endorsement trash.

Why would anyone think that celebrity endorsements make sense?

Will I be able to drive like Schumacher by buying a Ferrari? Ride like that shyster Lance Armstrong on a Trek? Play like Tiger with those clubs?

So I weep when I see a truly great actor like Kevin Spacey touting a camera in one of the most condescending ads made in recent memory.

The one thing we do not see is Spacey’s pictures. Why not? I mean, he is advertising a camera, no?

The inverted snobbery (“Don’t be a tourist”), the denigration, the put downs – it’s all about as wrong as you can get. Tell me that the camera is sweet and elegant like almost everything Olympus makes, fits in your purse or pocket, encourages you to take it anywhere, makes for glorious pictures, and I am there. Tell me I have a shot at being the next Doisneau or Cartier-Bresson with it and my check book comes out. Tell me it’s what Bailey uses before making out with his latest discovery and I’ll buy two.

But where, pray, Mr. Spacey, are your pictures?

Frank Rich of the NYT writes eloquently about the credibility of another celebrity endorser:

“What’s striking instead is the exceptional, Enron-sized gap between this golfer’s public image as a paragon of businesslike discipline and focus and the maniacally reckless life we now know he led. What’s equally striking, if not shocking, is that the American establishment and news media — all of it, not just golf writers or celebrity tabloids — fell for the Woods myth as hard as any fan and actively helped sustain and enhance it.”

Why, then, should I buy a camera from you, Mr. Spacey? At least Tiger can play golf, but I haven’t the foggiest idea if you can take a photograph.

Olympus, you can do better. Start by paying someone who can take pictures. I don’t much care if he sleeps around – that’s his business, not mine.