Inspiration: Michael Magin

His website: http://www.zeitautomatik.com/

What is it about: female portraits and minimalist landscapes. 

Has it been done before? Yes...well at the same time with photography it's probably been done before anyway. So is it stil worth showing? Yes, because although it's been done by many, he does it much better than most, and it's really pleasant to look at.

Notice that the ladies aforementioned happened to be lightly clothed if clothed at all. So if you are under eighteen run away. It's bad ! Click on that link if you want to see boobies, this is a clean blog (and I promise you that link has some great wild boobies images, the good stuff,  you won't regret it).

Anyway, it is very clean work, with few pictures I wouldn't keep in the portfolio. Mostly digital work with very very proper artificial (I believe) lighting, and some medium format. Gentle color treatment, refined and all. See for yourselves :)

Things are going the right way :-)

We are getting there, a couple more years and I believe we will have the digital camera that will really make photography easier: a compact full frame body that can take SLRs lenses, and that also comes with dedicated "pancake", compact premium lenses.

Canon is so far the closest to deliver that dream camera with the EOS M, and they are really close: the only thing it's missing is a full frame sensor. It takes Canon SLR lenses, it is small and also has dedicated high aperture pancake prime lenses. Last but not least...it come quite cheap.

My readers now I am a Nikon guy, simply because I believe it is factually, and with a significant margin, better in the field of SLRs (more solid, better metering, better lenses, better sensors). However, right now, I wish I had Canon gear to justify buying an EOS M ! Ok I won't, but when Nikon launches a competitive product, I'll be the first one to preorder.

Why would it be a giant step forward?

Well, there are a lot of ways to use a camera. Some include heavy support and steadiness, like shooting on the side of a football pitch. For those, actual full frame SLRs do great. But for most of us, when do we use our cameras? When we travel...and isn't it a pain to carry around?
Now I will suddenly address a much smaller segment of photographers, but one that spends a lot of money on gear: how many of you advanced SLR users who strive for quality photography went out without your SLR  because well,  it's a pain to carry, and missed great shots? Ever dreamt of that other body you could own, that would be like super small, and you could take this for travel, and the big one for when you do a wedding, or wildlife? Well that's a dream I make everyday and I'm sure many of you too. I need that camera to finally come out !!! 

The road so far

Since the introduction of digital, advantages over analog were pretty obvious: shooting in a virtually unlimited manner, at fix cost (almost...), easy post processing and share-ability as well as duplication are immediate and infinite. However, some things remained inferior at first: low light was crap (now it's amazingly good against analog), camera bodies were not exactly small. Also, manufacturers quickly segmented the market in two: the professional stuff, essentially SLRs, and the mass market cameras, back in the days simply called compacts. If you are a young reader, you have to imagine that none of the other segments (mirrorless, bridge, etc) existed. And very quickly, manufacturers started taking us for idiots: when the pros were being served large sensors and evolutive gear, the mass consumer was being sold pixels, big zooms and other BS that is totally irrelevant when it comes to photography. 

Bridge

Then after a while, the two segments sort of met: SLRs became affordable, and compact nearly as expensive as. The amateur wanted the SLRs feel but without the price tag (especially on lenses), so they launched the bridge: compact quality in a SLR looking body. Plain stupid. You get more inconvenience for nothing in return, expect that people standing 10 meters away think you have an SLR.

Mirrorless

Skipping a few steps, the same companies got a better sense of the market, and consumers refined their needs: it has to be compact, and some of us started to realize that maybe the lens was the key component for image quality, not the pixel count. Also lens changeability appears to look cool and pro (since SLR owners do it?). Well, they were not going to sell us more pixels anyway since they reached a plateau, so we got the mirrorless system. Here again, we have been taken for a bunch of raging morons: they sold us systems with the sensors and image characteristics of a compact (give or take), but for twice the price and...without the lens ! Ah the lens? Well good new everyone: there was this time more than one to buy, and nearly at the price of a good SLR prime lens. Not to mention that when a new format come out, it's all worth nothing more than a Facebook stock.

The OMS is a very decent compact system, if it was a 24x36 (full frame) sensor I would own one already.

A new Hope, the X100

Then Fuji launched the X100. A mix between smart marketing, a good design and some significant improvement for the user. Of course the price was still a bit of a joke but well, God bless Fuji for opening that door: there is a market for someone who wants top quality image, with a lens and sensor that allows a lot of margin in manually setting up your camera. An APS-C sensor (same as a DX SLR), a prime 35mm F2 quality lens and a robust body...even for $1200 we were getting close to the real thing.

X100, not without flaw but damn, sexy !

Since then, other manufacturers jumped in, and electronic goods reviewers starting being a little more educated (or did the manufacturers change the pitch points and lead them towards it?): they finally started to explain that the 2 key components of a digital camera are :

1. the lens
2. the sensor, and when it comes to this, the bigger the better.

I won't list all the mirrorless systems that came out with a more decently sized sensor lately, there are plenty of good choices. However, they are just better enough to be an improvement over the previous generation, but not really to the point that it would satisfy the picky annoying mofo that I am. Some might say they are trying to sell an other generation of lenses that won't be compatible with the next systems...

The EOS M

I havent's tried it, I've only seen the corny Canon samples. All I know is that it is small, has a sensor that to me is "the minimum acceptable", it also has dedicated compact lenses and can take Canon SLR lenses. All the rest is futile, it is simply one last step away from what I have been waiting for: the full frame digital camera with a compact body. 

Still a long way to go

Not so much from a technology point of view, I'm certain many prototypes exist already. It's a business thing: the fact is, a 5D won't take better pictures than a EOS M with the same lens. No, it won't. It'll just be faster, maybe more accurate in some situation, more solid etc. I own an F5 and an FE, one is like the former D4 and the other is like the cheapest Nikon ever, with the same lens, trust me, same result. Difference is in the automation and extra features only. The problem is, some day, people will figure it out. That same day, the pros will still buy 1Ds and D4s, but the marketing manager a Canon will face a serious segmentation problem: why would anyone else still buy me an SLR?

Well here is my forecast: SLRs will be re-centered on what they really are for: the professional who needs reliability in extreme conditions, fast response time, extreme amount of shots taken, and good image quality in the weirdest situations (sports, war reporter, etc). Those cameras will cost $5000 because they will be produced in small amounts. Of course some show offs will get them to shoot bad portraits in weddings or to walk around heavy on vacations, but if they want to waste their money...

On the other end, the mass market and serious amateur gear will be a modern version of what the rangefinders used to be: smaller body with less extreme features but capable of the same images as an SLR. A range of lenses with good optical quality but that will be more affordable, probably plastic and China made. For those who will own pro gear, the pro lenses metal and Japan made will still be adaptable on those smaller bodies.

Manufacturers will sell those mirrorless systems for about the same price as the actual non full frame SLRs, simply replacing them for a product that makes a lot more sense. Because lets face it, when I see tourists with a entry level SLR, kit lens and flash open on full auto shooting the wing of the plane thru the window, I think to myself: "maybe they had to rob those people of their hard earned money, but at least they could have sold them something smaller to carry around".

Sensor rating: D800 VS 5D mkIII

By DxOMark, the most trusted sensor performance measurement institution. Don't comment with fanboy angry words, this is a factual lab measurement that leaves room for little comments:

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Nikon D800

Not only that is a huge difference, but since Nikon is beating Canon at everything single measurement, even low light performance, that is humiliating. FYI, the Nikon D800 is the highest ever at that benchmark. 

The Canon is pricier and supposed to perform better in low light...well not even there. And you don't even have the huge definition...ouch.

With digital, dynamic range is traditionally very poor (that's why I rarely shoot digital), and the Nikon is doing ok from ISO 100 to 400. The Canon EOS 5D Mark III doesn't. The relatively poor built quality of Canon VS Nikon is a well establish fact (take both in your hands and be honest with yourself), and since the 2 most important things for a good picture after the subject and the photographer are the lens and the sensor, we are left with one question: is Canon at least better at lenses?

In regards to the amount of pros I know who shoot Nikon lenses on Canon with an adaptor, and the number of poor comments of premium Canon lenses (some like the 17-40mm are beaton by Tamrons). I'd said the conclusion is pretty clear: Canon has by far the best marketing department.

Now once again, you can be an awesome photographer with Canon gear, as well as with 40 yo gear. The camera doesn't do much, but the latest Canon I used (a 7D) was highly disappointing, the 2500€ lens I had with it was just has bad. I am more and more certain that for the time being, Nikon VS Canon is a no brainer. It has been the case for as far as I can remember actually (my F5 was already nailing competition in 1995). It just is unfortunately virtually impossible to get a Nikon D800.

Then of course if you like the real stuff, you don't care since you shoot Velvia or Tri-X on a medium format camera :D.

Canon 5D Mk III with price and 1st sample image

Peorder your 5D MK III on Amason :)

Essentiel characteristics:

• 22.3 MP sensor
• ISO 100-25600 (expandable to 102400)
• Full HD Movie (ISO 100-12800 (H:25600)
• 61-point high-density reticular AF (up to 41 crosstype points)
• 6.0 fps 
• Dual card slots (CF & SD)
• High Dynamic Range (HDR) Mode

I find it a little more versatile than the D800, the 22MP sensor + higher sensitivity will satisfy wildlife action shooter and others. That's on the paper.



UPDATE: 3500$. Ok, why? what justifies 500 more than the D800? 


UPDATE 2: samples are available. First of all, as opposed to Nikon samples, those pictures are actually kinda good. They much better show what the camera is capable off. Nikon, to sell a camera, the least you could do it have nice picture to illustrate it. I mean...you don't have a 85yo guy test driving a 911 in a sales video?

ISO 6400 : it's pretty clean. Cleaner than a D800 but you can get the same result from the D800 with noise reduction and reduced to 24MP. 

Questions I still have:

• Metering? Nikon has been ahead for 17 years now, we don't have much details here
• Video performance? Let's face it, those new machine are great for cost synergy if you shoot photos and videos. Let's wait and see. Canon is supposed to be ahead of Nikon on this.
• Built quality? Although not bad, the MK II was clearly not as well put together as the D700. What now?

Keep in mind that in the end, it's all the same. Images will hardly be impacted by the camera as much as by your skills. I like that it sort of complements the offer as it's not the same as a D800 feature wise. If you don't have any lenses yet, try both.

Open letter to Canon and Nikon fanboys

"You Nikon morons are so fucked. The D800′s ass is grass, and the 5DX is going to be the lawnmower. Prepare to are penetration!!!!!!"

An example among many of what you can read all over the web by Canon (in this case) and Nikon "fanboys".

Aaah fanboys. It's like the Apple ones. I just can't understand how someone can decide to fight for a manufacturer as if the honor of his own family was in peril. I mean, what the hell is wrong with you people? What is missing in your lifes that you need to take side so vigorously in a marketing rivalry between brands? They are manufacturers of stuff... I mean who cares? Can't you see how totally disconnected from reality you gotta be to argue around that? I think you need a cause, something to do, get in a charity or something, I don't know.

First let's get my own subjectivity out of the way:

I tend to speak about Nikon stuff more, because I own some. So when a camera comes out, I can try it, I have the lenses etc. I made a call one day to go for Nikon because it had my very subjective and personal preference. I tried both, extensively, and I preferred Nikon. I still do. Why I do is not even relevant, the only constructive reaction to this is  to do the same as me and pick what you like best. Period, it's as far as it should concern you. What is in other people's plate at the restaurant is not of your matter.

Now photography is one of those activities, like for some home cinema fanatics and high fidelity audio lovers, where an strange behavior can occur. The so called photographer completely focuses on the equipement, to the point that his enthusiasm is about upgrading, buying more, analyzing how whatever detail became so much better than with the previous gear. I am myself in a weird position, I shoot with old gear because I really am obsessed by the pictures and this old gear does the job well already. But I need to speak about gear in order for that blog to get some traction. Nothing bad in getting a little geeky once in a while I suppose.

Back to that strange behavior. I first noticed it when younger, via my dad, when I got to meet guys that were so obsessed by high fidelity sound systems that they were spending the price of a fine car in it, borrowing different cables to see how the trebles are impacted; that kind of stuff. Those guys are only listening when sitting in a perfect triangle with the speakers, otherwise it's not respecting stereo rendering. Those guys however, never play a song in their cars, never sing along, or even go to a frakin' concert ! They buy 12 CDs a week and listen to them once just to see how whatever instrument sound on their system. Let me tell you as it is: that shit's fucked up. When I listen to Black by Pearl Jam in my shower, I scream along like a pig, I can't hear half the notes, but I runs through my veins !

If you find that pathetic too, think about it: when you pull your DSLR in the street, and some other "photographer" comes to you, where are they looking at? At the scene you're shooting, or at your camera trying to read what model it is?

Ah ah, that rings a bell doesn't it ! 

Well fanboys of all brands, let me tell you something: I could not give a damn about you, but your blind naive receptivity to marketing make it so that those same brands you worship, instead of focusing on what actually matters, focus on seducing you. As a consequence, the actual photographer doesn't get served and they keep promoting BS "innovations". In the end, you are shooting yourself in the foot. An other things or two: 

• We never needed 2000$ of electronics, us actual photographers, to take a good shot. 
• We dream of larger sensors to finally have large format image feel, with digital convenience. But this is nowhere close to happen with you guys getting all horny online about how many pixels, how many fps you can get. Brands will follow the herd, and we keep having small sensor with tons of crap around.
• When is the last time you took an actually watchable picture? I'm serious, I have seen so many times guys with more gear than you can imagine showing their images proudly, and not even realizing that not one shot was printable, not even by accident. 
• If I look for more of your comments online, will I even find one, just one comment about an image? How it made you feel, why you liked it?
• How come that when I post stuff on great photographers on this site, nearly every single shot was taken by what you would consider a crap camera?

Answers belong to you. 

This took me an old manual focus lens, a 35yo 100$ manual focus central spot metering camera. 

5D MK III / X updates

Seems like the 5D MKII replacement is on its way, and from the  most "credible" rumors, it appears to be a little more appealing on the principle than the Nikon D800 (and I am a Nikon user, and preacher of Nikon' technical superiority, so I mean it):

• 22 mp
• 61pt AF with DIGIC 4
• 6.9 FPS
• DIGIC 5 (Doesn’t say DIGIC 5+)
• Announcement February 28
• + with 3 lens
• Available April $2700

Less pixels (more versatile, good for large prints and wildlife) and all marketing features put aside a very similar camera...for 1300$ less. I say if you haven't opted for one of the 2 brands yet, wait until April. Might be worth the time in saved dollars.

Canon S100 or Fuji X10 ?

In my winter 2011 recommendations, I had the Canon S100 as the compact camera of my choice. I've also been following closely the new Fuji X line, and now that the X10 has been out for a little while, time for a comparison.

First of all, let's see what they have in common:

• bright F2 lenses, 24-120mm for the S100 and 28-112mm for the X10 , so pretty much the same here
• full HD video capabilities
• good under the hood software, both cameras process images pretty well
• both are from real camera brands, which means a proper experience in lens manufacturing
• 12MP sensors, but that doesn't really matter

Now let's have a look at the essential differences, starting with what's in favor of the S100 :

• It is significantly smaller, and the lens folds flat when off
• it has high speed video recording (240fps), a gadget surely but it can be fun if you shoot action with it
• Cheaper, but at least 100$
• better dynamic range on the paper

What does the X10 has for himself:

• larger sensor, leading to better low light performance
• bigger = better handling, I find the S100 a little too small for my long fingers. It's a matter of choice
• normal video recording is at 30 fps VS 24 fps for the S100
• 10 fps shooting
• much faster to operate, in particular shutter response time is significantly better
• built quality and looks, it does looks really good
• better battery life (although not amazing either)
• more manual controls

Looking at this summary, it looks like there won't be an obvious choice here. If the X10 seem to win in several areas, differences are minor. For example, ISO performance is better, but it's already very good on the S100 . 

The most important part being the lens, both are a really good choice since both lenses are about equivalent, and smart. They avoided the ridiculous X72 zooms that ruin image quality and are totally useless.

Be sure of something: YOU WON'T TAKE BETTER PICTURE BY PICKING ONE OVER THE OTHER. It's purely a matter of ease of use, preference in regards to ergonomics. I'd say try them in store and pick the one that comes in hand best. However, you didn't read all of this to be told "go see in the next Best Buy". So here is my personal call:

I have DSLR, SLR, Medium format gear. If I am to buy such product, I want a pocket fitting camera for mountain biking, skying, etc. I also wouldn't like to put to much money in it. I would still pick the S100 . Differences are so little that the size and feature / $ ratio wins.

If It was to be my only camera, it would be the X10 . Because it reacts much faster, and having a delay between pressing the shutter and the picture being taken sucks big time. It also offer more manual controls, which for experimenting is nice. It's overal a little better, and looks much prettier which as irrational as it is, would matter a little. I also do have a little preference for the way it processed dynamic range: photo with heavy contrast tend to come up a little more flattering on the X10 for my taste, even though the S100 has in theory better dynamic range.

Be sure you don't make a mistake buying any of those 2 cameras. Also know that ergonomics and software on the X10 is better than on the $1200 Fuji X100!

 An other good trick: the S100 and S95 are the same. It's like getting the 2012 car instead of the 2011. It's just a marketing thing. So go find a S95 for cheaper :)

What Compact for Christmas

Readers of this blog know how much I have a hard time calling most compacts a proper camera. However I selected a few that are worth a look if like me also, you can't walk around with a 6 pounds block of metal everytime.

Any of those camera will be a good choice, this is a can't go wrong selection. Bare in mind however that they all have different advantages from one another.

Fuji X100 / the great but too expensive one (1200$)
Pricey, but offer the sensor of a DX DSLR, a great 35mm equivalent lens, superb built quality. Not flawless but will satisfy the hardcore amateur. ISO performance is excellent and compares to the best DSLRs...however a little pricey for a backup camera.

Canon G12 / Nikon P7100 plenty of functions but a small sensor (450$)
Those Nikon and Canon pack all the cool stuff you might expect from a premium brand. Video modes, f2.8 max aperture lenses...Have them in your hand to see which one fits best to you, because that will be pretty much the only significan difference. The images won't match the ones of a X100 as the sensor is much much smaller, that explains the price difference too (about twice cheaper than the X100)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 / A bright lens (370$)
It's main strength lays in the F2.0-3.3 lens, really good aperture figures for a compact. It mean decent low light performance and potential to play with depth of field, even on a small sensor. Cheaper than the previous ones, I would tend to prefer it to the G12 /P7100. I think the value / dollars is better.

Canon Powershot S100 / For those who care a lot about size (440$)
This is a very good product for those who don't want to care about anything but point and shoot, yet with a good picture quality, the all thing fitting in your pocket. I got this for my mother last XMAS (the previous version), it works great. FYI the S95 is about 100$ cheaper and is the exact same at 95%.

Sony NEX 5D / Large Sensor, interchangeable lenses (500$)
A good product, pretty much the same as the GF2 (sensor a bit larger). If you offer or get that, you have one of the 3 best compact around. Why is not my winner? Because with lenses, it's not a compact anymore !!! It just gets too big.

Panasonic GF2 / My favorite choice even over the X100 (500$)
Why is it the winner? Because it combines 3 of the most important features:

• It has a large sensor (APS C, much bigger and all of the above appart from the X100)
• You can get it with a really good multpi purpose prime lens (20mm 1.7) like the Fuji X100
• It cost half a X100, which should be the max price for a compact.