A trip to the dentist gives a pause for reflection

What have my teeth to do with photography?

Let me start with a recent couple of incidents which caused the needle to spike on the Pindelski BS meter.

I have my teeth cleaned every six months. I don’t know why it’s every six months. Maybe it should be a year? Two years? I floss twice daily, adhere to high standards of dental hygiene and try to preserve that most important of tools for success in America, a beautiful, toothy smile. I live with the six month frequency as it seems to me the related check-up will disclose any problems in a timely manner. The cleaning, on the other hand, seems like a waste of time and money, even if it makes me feel holier than thou.

On a related topic, I take my dog to the vet annually for his shots and they assure me he is in great shape. Like a cold nose in the leg every morning didn’t already tell me that.

Now both these ‘professionals’ tried to rip me off last week. The dentist decided I needed to come in every four months. The vet said the dog needed biannual check-ups. When asked why, neither could provide a reasoned, objective, statistical argument supporting their views. Rather, I got the usual BS about “We feel that….” and “In our opinion….”. Notice how fraudsters and monarchs (same thing, really) default to the first person plural when they mean ‘I’. A simple, if naive, attempt at the power of agency. If it’s ‘we’ then more than one person must be in on the decision, right? And who are you, Mr. Layman, to question us professionals? Further, whenever I hear the words ‘believe’, or ‘think’, or ‘in my opinion’ my default conclusion, absent evidence to the contrary, is that the speaker is either lying or ignorant.

This technique is most commonly used, of course, by car mechanics, the medical profession and every scumbag salesman in insurance. Fear sells. It’s why some believe in God absent no credible scientific evidence to support their delusion. It’s the ultimate fear sell. “Buy insurance (make a donation) now at the Temple/Church/Mosque because one day you will need it”. Each is levering the consumer’s ignorance to tack on gratuitous bills. “Trust me, your engine will last longer on synthetic oil” (even if it means I can charge you four times as much). Zero objective statistical evidence on that one, by the way, unless you believe the stuff the oil companies put out. “You need an annual check up” (even if I disclaim all liability for missing the golf ball sized cancer on your head). Statisticians are wise to these games, of course, and the smarter ones are publishing refutations of these frauds by the medical profession (whom you thought you could trust) and the car mechanic (whom you know you cannot trust).

The bottom line when it comes to any sort of insurance is, in the words of a great US President, “Trust but verify”.

So if the current weakening US economy is the true source of these fraudulent attempts at revenue enhancement (dentists, vets, doctors and car mechanics have sub-prime loans too), some consideration of failure curves is in order. Which is where the photographic bit comes in.

Those who are in the machine sales racket will tell you that preventive maintenance is de rigeur. But think a moment about failure curves and you will see that machines fail most often when very new and very old. One of the greatest frauds in American retail sales practice is the ‘Extended Warranty’. It’s offered on every car, computer, camera, gadget, you name it, on sale in the retail world. Doctors, of course, offer no such warranty on their work and neither do dentists. There’s too much money to be lost. But the retail vendor knows the consumer is, for the most part, a blithering idiot. He knows if that new camera is to fail it will do so right away or thousands and thousands of pictures later. Any failure in the first year (the highest risk one) is covered, free, by the manufacturer’s warranty. The late one is irrelevant as the extended warranty will have expired. Meanwhile the sucker who has just paid the extended warranty premium has contributed a like amount of pre-tax net income to the seller. Sweet!

Think it’s trivial? Let’s check the B&H website. These estimable, honest folks are not above capitalizing on victims of American public schooling (mathematics is not on the curriculum). Can’t really say I blame them – it’s a for-profit business, after all. Too bad I cannot buy their stock.

Here’s the warranty they offer on the $2,200 Canon 5D body:

Here it is on the $1,059 Canon 24-105mm L zoom, a natural partner for this body:

Now given that these are statistically computed premiums which assure the seller maximum profit, we can glean two things from the amount. The 5D is more likely to fail (the premium is 5.9% of the selling price) than the lens (3.8%). OK, so how likely is that failure?

If I was in this protection racket, I would expect to clear a 75% margin. For every $100 dollars of revenue a net profit of no less than $75. Now when that 5D blows, it’s going to be something big – the mirror fails, the motor burns out, the meter goes kaput. A $1,000 repair, but $750 to you, Mr. Retailer. So every 5D failing because of manufacturing error (use, of course, is not covered) costs the writer of the insurance policy $750. So if I want a 75% margin, the failure rate of Canon’s 5D can be seen from this Excel spreadsheet – I have used the Goal Seek function and show the input box for the variables:

Stated differently, for the policy writer to make his 75% annual margin, he can sustain no more than one claim for every 69 cameras sold.

Or, looked at from the perspective of the user, there is a 1 in 69 chance of the camera failing in the three year extended warranty period. And you are going to pay $129.95 to protect a 1 in 69 chance of a $1,000 cost?. Let me put this politely. If you answered ‘Yes’ I am going into the warranty writing racket.

You want the numbers for that fabulous Canon 24-105mm L zoom? Assuming a $375 repair cost to the insurer, the result is 1 in 112. I repeat. 1 in 112.

When did you last bet on a 1 in 69 or 1 in 112 long shot? Because that’s what you are doing if you buy an extended warranty on your photographic gear.

So next time you are encouraged to have preventive maintenance on your car, body, teeth or camera, or someone tries to sell you an extended warranty, do the math. The rational amongst you will keep the money every time. The others need to beat a path to Pindelski Warranties Inc., cash in hand. And the smart ones will, of course, run the camera until it drops because that’s the lowest cost statistical probability.

Is there ever a set of circumstances under which a warranty makes statistical sense for your 5D? Check this database of shutter lives and you will see that the average life to failure of the Canon 5D’s shutter is some 217,000 actuations. Over 4 years (the extended and basic warranty periods in aggregate) that translates to 1,043 snaps a week. So, if you are a pro banging away at a higher rate than that, consider the warranty. But check the fine print. Chances are that professional use is not covered ….

The Nikon D3 is pushing the limits of complexity

I have never been a fan of some of the needless menu complexity of Canon’s 5D, my mainstay camera. So now that the estimable DP Review has started poking about the design of the full frame Nikon D3 I was eager to take a look how the designs compared.

First indications are not encouraging. The vast number of menu options is an order more complex than anything on the 5D and I have to wonder where all this is going. Worse, just like with the Canon, most choices have to be made after scrolling through options using the LCD screen on the back, rather than with knobs and dials on the body. Knobs and dials with fixed functions (shutter speed, say, or ISO sensitivity) are the preferred way to go. No hunt and peck. No squinting. It’s the sole superior feature remaining in film cameras. Any time a display provides for more than one variable, the user interface suffers.

So while I greatly appreciate that Nikon’s lens mount is backwards compatible with just about every Nikon F mount lens made, albeit with some compromise in automation with older lenses, I have to wonder just who needs all those hundreds of choices. Wouldn’t it be easier to relegate all of those to an application on your computer which would permit storage of the user’s selections when the camera is connected? Let’s face it, adjustment of variables is an 80/20 game – you want some almost all the time – focus, aperture, shutter speed, ISO – whereas most are accessed once in a blue moon.

There is, in reality, very little choice when it comes to effective tools

A friend in England, a fine landscape photographer who has had work published by the BBC, asked for upgrade advice relating to her 4 mp digital point-and shoot. Here’s what I wrote:

“I am, believe it or not, the worst possible person to ask about the right digital camera. I used film for the past 45 years and only went digital when Canon announced the large sensor-equipped 5D. It’s outrageously expensive, overpriced, and bulky, so I would not recommend it. However, as big prints are my ‘thing’, it was the only choice.

However, one site which I do read (it’s written by an Englishman, by the way) is DPreview. Though they take advertising dollars, they are very objective and never kow-tow to manufacturers, not hesitating to trash bad gear. Unusual for commercial sites.

They have a half decent ‘camera picker’ – click on ‘Buying Guide’.

What little I know is:

1 – Don’t get caught up in the ‘more megapixels’ craze. With the very small sensors in most digitals, once you have 6 or 7 mp, quality thereafter does not improve. You cannot get a quart out of a pint pot.
2 – Most digitals have zooms – only look for optical zooms. ‘Digital zooms’ merely electronically magnify the image resulting in simply horribly poor definition.
3 – Don’t buy small just for the smallness – it usually translates into cameras that are difficult to hold steadily.
4 – Look for an optical viewfinder. The LCD screen-only cameras (sadly, the majority) have screens that are very hard to see in daylight and, as you are holding the camera at arm’s length, will rob you of a steady hold afforded by a traditional v/f camera braced against the forehead. All digitals have LCD screens – few have an optical v/f.
5 – If you have ambitions to make larger prints (my standard is 18″ x 24″ but I would hardly advocate that) look for Optical Image Stabilization – motion sensors in the camera reduce the visible effects of camera shake which so take away from definition with bigger prints.
6 – Consider buying a small tripod and use the self-timer for vibration free pictures. With landscapes you are rarely in a hurry.
7 – Avoid ‘electronic’ viewfinders (a small, blurry, LCD screen you look at through the prism) found in many of the lower priced, fixed lens, SLRs. They are simply horrors to use.
8 – Forget about super telephoto zoom lenses. You don’t need them and they are of poor optical quality. Rather, with your subject matter, a really wide lens is far more important.

I ran the following parameters in the DPreview.com screen for you:

Wide lens at the short end of the zoom lens (28mm)
Image stabilization – Yes
Viewfinder – optical
Current model – yes
All other parameters – Don’t Mind

Only one camera came up!

Canon SD800IS. 28mm wide lens and a proper viewfinder, not to mention IS

This is what I would call ‘medium priced’ – $320 or so here.”

So with just a few rational parameters the choice comes down to one. How sad. When will digital camera makers start taking pictures with their mostly execrable creations and realize that what they make is not what the consumer wants? Or do they all reside in Detroit? Sure, the consumer does not know what he wants, but it’s hardly difficult to explain. Just use the came4ra you produce, and you will see just how bad it is.