Shorter and shorter.

I used my Leica M3 for some 35 years. It had everything I needed in a street snapper, being small, quiet, sharp and fast. Add a lens or two and you had enough to travel the world. I mostly used it with the 35mm Summaron with those ghastly viewfinder ‘spectacles’.

My M3

My Rollei 3.5F made it through 10 years. Truth be told, I seldom did it justice, never getting comfortable with the reversed waist level image (you were always looking up at people’s chins) but the large negative was nice and the camera even quieter than the Leica.

My Rollei 3.5F

It’s successor was possibly the most accomplished medium format film camera ever, the Rollei 6003 Pro. The designers obviously took pictures and the choice of shutter or aperture priority automation was better executed than anything before or since. The lenses were to die for and the controls near perfect. Too bad it weighed several tons. Five years.

My Rollei 6003 Pro

One other attempt at medium format came and went in a year. The Pentax 6×7 was so loud that there was basically no environment in which I cared to use it.

It made the sound of a gun when the button was pressed

By contrast, the diminutive Pentax ME Super with its sweet 40mm Pancake lens was a dream and served me well on the streets of a tough New York during most of the decade of the 1980s when I lived there. It started as a ‘steal me, I don’t care’ substitute for the Leica and ended up my daily snapper. I left it behind in New York when I moved to Los Angeles. Street snappers were safe there as no one walked.

ME Super with pancake in place – as good as 35mm SLRs got

But my all time favorite of the film years was my Leica M2, which I bought in very sad shape in 1993. I got a dozen very hard years out of it and it always made me regret having bought the M3 back in 1971 when I really should have got the M2. The 35/50/90mm viewfinder was just what the doctor ordered and no bespectacled bulky 35mm lenses were needed, just the wonderful 35mm and 90mm Asph Summicrons. Parting with that one really hurt when I sold it.

My Leica M2 with the 35mm Asph Summicron

My general drift here, however, is that there are no more 5, 10 or 15 year cameras. The rate of change in technology is so startlingly high right now that if you were to tell me that I would be using my Panasonic G1 as my “go to” tool of choice five years hence I would laugh myself silly.

No sooner do I write that, though, than I am given pause by the superb Canon 5D. I see no earthly reason to upgrade to the Mark II as the images seem every bit as perfect as anything from medium format film and maybe it will just enjoy a double digit anniversary here. Provided it doesn’t blow and die for lack of digispares. I have recycled a couple of the poorer lenses made by Canon for this body but the rest soldier on as sharp as the day I bought them and newer arrivals preserve backward compatibility so far.

Life’s too short for brand loyalty. I wonder what the Panasonic G2 will bring? Or the Samsung XYZ3? If it works for me you will find it around my neck or, more likely, in my pocket.

“Rich sod” I hear you thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. My M3, bought in 1971, was the results of My years in retail. The Rollei 3.5F was a real beater which cost very little. Now, film Leicas and Rolleis are super collectible, of course. Pretty much everything else was from trading gear, and I never bought new until digital came along. The reasons are simple. ‘Used’ and ‘digital’ equals ‘obsolete’, as in parts are not available no matter how competent the camera, and repairing them makes little economic sense. Further, digital gear is so much cheaper than the machines of old that it has become very affordable. That $650 G1 would have cost some $100 in 1971 currency when I got that Leica M3. It never ceases to amuse me that the proceeds of my M2, M3 and a small handful of lenses paid for everything I use today. Like with investing, timing the exit right makes a big difference. And loyalty is for dog lovers.

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.

Trust your eyes, not charts.

Frequently one sees performance of digital cameras compared using JPG images. This could not be more useless. Different sharpening algorithms in the cameras being compared render such comparisons meaningless, compounded by the poor dynamic range of the JPG file format. JPG is the fastest way of making a fifty dollar camera out of a thousand dollar one. Add to this technical ‘analysis’ the fact that different lenses at different price points are being used and what you end up is so much noise.

Some try to counter these issues by comparing unprocessed RAW image output. Even worse.

All digital images require anti-aliasing – the process of removing ‘jaggies’ from image details. For example, when the Leica M8 was first ‘tested’ reviewers gushed over the native definition of the RAW images produced by the camera, comparing these favorably with Canon, Pentax and Nikon DSLRs’ output. Chalk and cheese. The Japanese cameras use a strong anti-aliasing filter, placed in front of the sensor. The Leica M8 (and M9) uses none, preferring in-camera software to do the same thing to images rendered with its previous generation Kodak sensor. To get the best out of the Japanese cameras’ RAW images substantial sharpening must be applied in Lightroom (or whatever you use) to get the best from the original file and make a proper comparison.

Reviewers would have it that this makes the Leica image superior as no sharpening is needed, conveniently disregarding the fact that sharpening has been done in camera. They will then compound this misinformation by comparing a fixed focus lens on the Leica (because that’s what they were given to test and are too lazy/ignorant/conflicted to do it right) to a lower quality zoom on the Japanese competitor.

As I have pointed out many times here, the 5D I use – depending on the lens used – mostly needs a sharpening setting of 40-60 in LR. This works fine for the 24-105, 85/1.8, 100 macro and 400/5.6. The 200 f/2.8 ‘L’ is so sharp that it needs a setting of 20 at most. The 20.8 and 50/1.4 I owned (both sold) needed 70 or more at wide apertures. The Panasonic G1 uses so little in-camera RAW processing that it needs even more sharpening – my default import setting for the G1 with the kit lens in LR is 90.

So what’s the right answer to the question : “Is this camera capable of delivering the resolution/speed/handling/whatever that I need?” I’m afraid that, with the host of variables in the digital process, and the broad range of skill sets and needs among users, the only right answer is “Try it and see”.

After all, would you trust a surgeon who never operated before to work on you? Because that’s what these reviewers are – hardly a one of them can take a picture to save his life and what works for you will differ from what works for the guy working for ‘click-through’ advertising dollars using free gear from the manufacturer. He’s not about to bite the hand that feeds him.

So for the reader who asked here the other day “Should I sell my LX-3 and get a G1?” there’s no right answer to that question. How can the needs of, say, a street snapper, compare with those of a macro or sports enthusiast? Depends what you want to use the camera for – there are no Swiss Army Knife solutions.

By all means read the technical reviews to get a sense of the gear but don’t waste your time on comparisons with other makers’ equipment by those unqualified to pontificate. Try it yourself.

Expert camera reviewers. G1, 14mm, f/4, 1/2000, ISO 100

An online camera review reader having just finished yet another mind numbing twenty page special: