Category Archives: Photography

Computational photography

The new magic.

Click here for an index of all iPhone articles.



The latest nom de jour in photography circles is ‘computational photography’, which is a fancy way of saying that image control has been passed from hardware to software. This augurs poorly for the latest high end ILCs with their ridiculous 50mp and higher sensors, with attendant demands on computer upgrades to handle those behemoth files in something under a week per snap.

DP Review’s technical writer Rishi Sanyal does an excellent job of explaining just how software in devices like the Phone 11Pro is taking the lead from hardware in delivering the best image quality in small files using brains, not brawn. Sanyal writes:

“Newer, faster processors often mean increased photo and video capability, and the iPhone 11 is no exception. Its image processing pipeline, which handles everything from auto white balance to auto exposure, autofocus, and image ‘development’, gets some new features: a 10-bit rendering pipeline upgraded from the previous 8-bit one, and the generation of a segmentation mask that isolates human subjects and faces, allowing for ‘semantic rendering’.”

What shines through in his detailed exposition of the newest iPhone’s features is how all three of its cameras are used to deliver the best picture, along with brilliant technologies like storage of a depth information profile for an image which allows the application of selective focus, as an example, in post processing.

Some 13 years ago in a piece titled “It’s the software, stupid” I wrote:

“And who will be the genius designing these new ‘lenses’? It won’t be a god the likes of Max Berek or Walter Mandler in Wetzlar. It will be some kid who is really sharp at coding who happens to like a superb picture from the one ounce piece of plastic passing for a lens attached to his camera. The great days of optics are yet to come and their designs will emanate from the keyboard of some unknown master even now getting his lips around the teat on that plastic milk bottle.”

Like that milk bottle, today’s lenses are plastic, their unprocessed quality is garbage, and software does what plastic cannot. Say goodbye to big cameras, big lenses and big sensors.

The iPhone 11 Pro

Profound implications for camera makers.

Click here for an index of all iPhone articles.


Ugly as sin – Steve must be spinning in his grave.

Yes, the price of the new iPhone 11Pro, just introduced, is high. Yes, the ergonomics are as awful as they were with iPhone 1 back in 2007. The on/off switch remains opposite the shutter button, making sure you turn off the camera when you most need it. And yes, the absence of a proper viewfinder in bright light makes framing a hit-or-miss proposition. And yes, the device is sprouting ugly faster than the pig in the Oval Office, with its three clunky lenses and increasingly confusing menu structure.

But take a moment to read the specifications and compare them with your advanced MFT or FF camera:

And don’t forget the always on GPS so you always know where your snap was taken. And the cell phone. And the internet. And email. And Messaging. And Google Maps. And all those stupid games. Your camera does none of those.

When I started with MFT one of the primary appeals was that you could get close to FF quality without FF bulk. This was especially true when it came to the size of lenses, something which has always made a nonsense of the ‘in between’ APS-C interchangeable lens format whose lenses are scarcely smaller than their FF counterparts. I transitioned to MFT with the superb Panasonic G1 a decade ago. As a replacement for the film Leica M it was a street snapper’s dream. Better definition, finer grain, lots of images on one card, great lens range and size and bulk comparable to the exemplar of film rangefinder cameras. Later upgrades saw the Panasonic G3 replace the G1 and finally the GX7 which is the ultimate Leica M replacement, with its truly silent electronic shutter and Leica M form factor.

But now the iPhone, with its multiple lenses covering most of what a photographer needs – wide, standard, modest telephoto – looks set to obsolete the MFT system in a much smaller package. FF? At the high end for sports snappers and journalists needing ‘street cred’ (who is going to take you seriously if the iPhone is your camera of choice?) it’s likely to survive, albeit with a minuscule and falling market share.

Price of the new iPhone 11? $1,000 with 64gB, which compares with $600 for iPhone 1 in July, 2007, with its crappy 2mp camera. Inflate that at 4% annually and you get $960 and the new iPhone has a larger, better screen, eight times the memory and is several orders of magnitude faster. So while $1,000 sounds like a lot, I prefer to think that $600 back on 2007 was really expensive. I know. I bought one.

Viewfinders

We have never had it so good.

My first ‘serious’ camera was a Leica M3. Originally marketed in 1953, it came with an optical viewfinder with a central rectangle for focusing. This rectangle superimposed a second image, its coordinates determined by the subject distance. When the lens was focused on this subject distance the two images fused into one and the subject was in sharp focus. The experience was binary – there was simply no doubt about sharp or unsharp, such was the genius of the design. Leicas had long used optical rangefinders but the one in the M3 was the first to incorporate the rangefinder image into the viewfinder and the first to have crisp edges to that rangefinder image. Heretofore, the finder on the earlier screw mount Leicas was separate and, frankly, pretty awful. The M3 added icing to the cake by including an illuminated frameline to accurately define the subject area.

There was but one thing to complain about and that was that the 50mm finder frame was too thick with rounded edges and did not disappear when 90mm or 135mm lenses were mounted. These actuated the relevant frame lines but the one for the 50mm remained stubbornly in place. An otherwise uncluttered finder lost some of its minimalist appeal. I suppose there was one other complaint which was that use of the ultimate street snapper focal length, the 35mm, required either a separate finder (ugh!) or a version of the Summaron/Summicron/Summilux with the attached ‘goggles’, an auxiliary finder set designed by Rube Goldberg and about as elegant as that man’s inventions.

So Leica went one better and made the Leica M2 which for decades was my street snapper of choice. The M2, conceived as a ‘bargain’ M body (maybe the ultimate contradiction in terms, because it was still exceptionally costly) absolutely nailed it. The finder was now 0.72x rather than 0.91x in magnification, the frame lines were slim, rectangular sidelines and the focal lengths were the more useful 35/50/90 combination. No auxiliary finder lens device was required with 35mm lenses and the body + lens combination now handled like a dream.

The ‘bargain’ M quickly became the photojournalist’s body of choice. Best of all, attach any of those three focal lengths and all you would see was the framelines for that lens and that magnificent central rangefinder focusing rectangle. This was a perfect as the Leica M finder got. Later versions added clutter with multiple framelines visible at one time and cheapening of the rangefinder’s design saw to it that the focusing rectangle would flare out uselessly into the sun. Try focusing an M6 against the light and you will see.



The left opening is for the rangefinder image, the central one is the
frame line illuminator and the finder itself is on the right. The cam
roller which actuates the split image is visible atop the lens opening.

Now the Leica’s viewfinder was useless for very wide or telephoto lenses, and the growing popularity of these optics saw to it that the SLR would wrest primacy from the Leica. You could mount 20mm, 18mm, even 15mm wides on your Nikon F SLR and see the image through the lens. And 200, 400 or even 1000mm telephotos were just the ticket. But for low light snapping with the fastest manual focus possible, no SLR challenged the Leica M for speed.

Then a couple of technological developments happened. Building on Leica’s Correfot autofocus system (developed in 1976, Leica abandoned it, to their eternal shame) the Japanese developed/stole autofocusing and suddenly the subpar focus experience of the SLR was no more. Point the central rectangle at the area of interest, half depress the shutter button and critical focus was assured. Low light shooting with slower lenses was now easy and the benefits of Leica’s magnificent optical viewfinder started to fade. Then in 2008 Panasonic introduced the G1 which abandoned the SLR’s flapping mirror and clunky pentaprism, opting for an electronic viewfinder. This was like a small TV screen inside the body and its benefits were immediately obvious.

First you truly saw the exposure for the first time in a viewfinder. Mount a manual lens on the body and as you cranked the diaphragm to ever smaller apertures the image automatically maintained brightness as the circuitry cranked up the gain. Just like the brightness control on your TV, but automatic. Now you could not only see in the dark, you cold also focus in it and I jumped at the opportunity.

Sure, the G1 abandoned the 24mm x 36mm full frame of the Leica, substituting the seemingly minuscule 12mm x 18mm instead, but the quality was more than adequate and later sensors and electronic finders only made matters better, so much so that now EVFs are the happening thing in both FF and MFT bodies. Response times continue falling and we are now close to the point where EVFs can serve as well in live action ‘pan and scan’ snapping as the Nikon F of yore.

When it comes to finders, photographers have never had it so good.

My street snapper of choice is the now obsolete Panasonic G7, updated with the latest 12-35mm pro zoom. It mimics the body shape of the Leica M in an even smaller package and the electronic shutter is truly silent when activated. The only sound is the slight susurrus of the diaphragm stopping down if the lens is not at full aperture, and only the photographer can hear it. I have no use for the rear screen ‘finder’ or for the traditional focal plane shutter with all its attendant noise. Perfection.



The ultimate street outfit. Two Panny GX7s, 12-35 and 45-200
zooms, along with an inexpensive and excellent Rokinon fish-eye.

Apple. Stupid.

Greed redefined.

You can get a top quality BenQ 27″ monitor, with stand for $600:


The 27″ calibrated BenQ monitor.

Apple however Thinks Different and has determined that not only will its new monitor sell for $5000 (likely using a regular LG panel) but wants you to pony up an extra $1000 for the stand ….


The $1000 stand for the $5000 monitor.

Either Apple has concluded that their professional customers base is, you know, stoopid, or they need a new CEO. Heck, they have needed a new CEO, someone who occasionally has an original idea, since Steve passed.

As for myself, I use a 30″ Apple LCD monitor in its elegant aluminum case which I bought used 5 years ago for $400. It calibrates nicely using a puck and is a joy to behold. And yes, it came with a stand included.


The elegant 30″ Apple LCD monitor.

Mac Pro 2019

Function over form returns.

For an index of all my Mac Pro articles, click here.


Meet the new Mac Pro, same as the old Mac Pro.

Solidly aiming at their right foot, Apple managed to disenfranchise a huge chunk of its professional user base with the idiotic ‘form over function’ Mac Pro 2013 which looked like a trash can. Designed to show off your fingerprints and collect dust and detritus in its open cylindrical center, the ads showed this wonder unconnected to any peripherals, devoid of the clutter of wires that so spoils the work aesthetic of the modern hipster. Of course once you added the required external storage and so on, the thing started looking like the mess it was:


2012 vs. 2013.

The result of this design disaster saw two results. AV and music pros started abandoning the Mac Pro for competent HP workstations running newly reliable versions of Windows. Those trying to stick with the Mac Pro applied a variety of upgrades to this wonderful modular chassis. These included faster CPUs, more and faster memory, fast SSD boot and system drives, and tons of storage, the latter easily accommodated inside the Mac Pro’s big box. The truly masochistic even upgraded wi-fi from 802.11b to 802.11n, masochism being the required mindset in securing those minuscule antenna wires. I have done many and the 50th is no easier than the first. The results were fine, the machine newly speedy and every bit as bog reliable. And in the event something failed, a rare occurrence, the bad part was easily replaced in minutes. The massive 980 watt power supply saw to it that there was always ample current available for all those internals and the truly enormous CPU heatsinks made for the most reliable computing platform ever.

So Apple determined they should throw away their base and the attendant goodwill in place of the joke that is the Trash Can Mac Pro. Of course there was always the overpriced MacBook Pro for ‘power users’, the only problem being that when real computing power was required the notebook would throttle back its CPUs lest they melt under the strain. The MacBook’s cooling was never its forte compared with the myriad fans in the big Mac Pro.

Now, after a 6 year hiatus with an offering that was never updated and had already obsolete graphics when it came to market, Apple has realized the error of its ways and introduced a large, modular Mac Pro chassis. Or is that ‘reintroduced’, for sticking with the original box with later CPUs and memory would have been trivial to do, and that large base of power user advocates would not have been largely lost?

You get faster CPUs with more cores and lots of options, faster memory and vast capacity, and a bill for some $10,000 if you max it out.

But, for heaven’s sake, why did they make that grate so ugly?