The Demands Thought Digital

Much has been made of Mike Johnston’s call for a “Decisive Moment Digital” camera (see this link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/DMD.shtml for the original article, and here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html for additional discussions), but I would like to see a subset of this camera made: the “Demands Thought Digital”, henceforth the DTD.

What is the DTD?  And why is it a subset of the DMD?

The second answer is the easiest:  the DTD should have a large sensor and a fast prime.

It should be the “right” size, have a good grip and many of the other attributes of the DMD.

But it is where the DTD diverges from Mike’s vision that is important.

The DTD must have a fixed lens, with a focus ring and an aperture ring.  No autofocus, just a well damped manual focus ring with a tab, so that focusing can be done by ”feel”, and zone focusing can be simply set up.  In addition, there will be no auto anything, no aperture priority (hence the lens mounted ring), no shutter priority (just a shutter speed dial on the top of the camera), no “intelligent auto” or program modes.  Likewise, face recognition and “styles” will not be options for the DTD.  ISO will be accessed through a dial on the top of the camera.  Exposure can be set using the camera’s spotmeter and a readout in the viewfinder.

As you can imagine, the menu will be short and sweet.  In fact, except for reviewing an image, it’s unlikely you’ll need to use the rear LCD for anything (except formatting an SD card) after initially setting up your limited choices.

Let’s assume that the camera has a 12.3 MP APS-C sized sensor with a 1.5 crop factor.  Its 28mm f2.0 lens would therefore be the equivalent of 42mm in a 35mm film camera.  A boringly normal focal length, so using non-normal perspectives available with shorter or longer lenses to add interest to your photos won’t be possible.  You’ll have to zoom with your feet, compose with care, and use your brain to observe light and form to extract the most from your photos.  Oh, and occasionally you might have to deal with some moiré in your photos, because the sensor won’t have an anti-aliasing filter.  To conserve battery, and to reduce heat build-up, there won’t be any live view.  Heat build-up is a serious issue for large sensor compacts, but by eliminating live view and not trying to make a large sensor clock fast enough to provide fast autofocus, heat generation is minimized.

Most important, you will focus through a rangefinder.  This will allow you to see outside your framing, and will also require you to visualize the depth of field.  You will have to learn the camera, and how it sees, in order to get the best out of it.  Think of a digital Canonet G-III 17 (see: http://cameraquest.com/canql17.htm for details).

That means that to take a good photo, you will have to learn the camera and think about your composition, both of which require *effort*.  The reward?  Well, for most, there may be none.  It’s not a camera for everybody.  But for those who chose to let go of electronic crutches, and who chose to become a part of the photographic process, it might end up being their favorite camera.  Plus, with its manual controls, it would be a great camera for students and amateurs interested in photography who want to, or need to, learn the interrelationship of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.  If the DMD has taken many years to emerge, this camera may take decades, in spite of it’s simplicity.  Camera companies have moved on to become electronics manufacturers.  It’s unlikely a modern camera company will take the risk to pursue a DTD.  But I believe that there is a market for the DTD, and a profitable business can be built marketing it.

Thanksgiving Kitchen Discussion

Madrigal 2009

The Top 3 Divergent Camera Companies . . . and an Honorable Mention

I have talked in the past about divergence in the camera industry, that is a willingness by some manufacturers to follow philosophies and therefore product paths that diverge from the mainstream camera makers.  These companies do not necessarily pursue an anti-convergent product strategy, where convergence is defined as the trend of companies to combine video and still photo technology in a single camera.  Rather, divergence is defined as the willingness of the companies to pursue non-mainstream technologies and/or system packaging and design in their products.  In no particular order, here are my Top 3 Divergent Camera Companies.

Sigma Corporation

Sigma stands out for two reasons:  the Foveon sensor they use and the DP series of cameras.

The Foveon sensor directly captures all three colors at each photosite, unlike the Bayer sensor which captures either red, blue or green at each photosite, and then mathematically combines the information from adjacent photosites to produce a full light spectrum.  A fuller technical discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor .  

Regardless of the technicalities, expert observers have picked up on a noticeable difference between the “feel” of a photo taken with a Foveon sensor vs. a Bayer sensor.  There is a richness and depth to a Foveon image which seems lacking in an equivalent Bayer image.  I have seen this difference myself, and can only say that a Foveon image appears to have more density, or “chewiness” than a Bayer image.

Sigma would have been in the final running for top three honors for the Foveon sensor alone, but what really clinched their placing is that they put the medium size Foveon sensor in a compact camera, becoming a leader in this product segment.  For the first time, one could put a camera in one’s pocket which produced images far better than any previous compact could.  It was revolutionary 2 years ago, and other manufacturers have now entered this market.  But there is no other place to get a compact with the remarkable Foveon sensor, and it’s unlikely that will change soon.

Ricoh

Ricoh is THE compact camera manufacturer in the world.  Sure, other companies make compact cameras too (and make lots more as well), but no one is as committed to producing serious compact cameras that are so highly oriented toward easy control by the photographer.  Most compacts are heavily weighted toward ease of use as a “point and shoot” camera.  Ricoh cameras can do that as well, but what distinguishes them is the straight forward ability for the photographer to access controls for aperture, shutter speed, manual focus and lens focal length, among other things, with ease.

And who wasn’t stunned by Ricoh’s recent announcement of the GXR, In which one doesn’t simply change lenses, but sensor and firmware as well when one wants to change lens focal lengths.  Honestly, I felt both wonder and horror at the announcement, mostly weighted toward wonder it’s true, but there is still a part of me that questions the wisdom of the design.

Be that as it may, the design they chose makes sense if your overall objective is to keep a camera compact.  A small, optically superior zoom and an APS-C sensor is not the ideal formula for a compact camera.  But if they could design the camera to have different sensors for different lenses, the compact requirement can be met.  So, I suspect we will see zooms and telephotos packaged with the small sensor, and fast primes and macro lenses packaged with an APS-C sensor.

One can argue the the pluses and minuses of this compact-first philosophy, but "C"for Compact is apparently not only Ricoh’s middle letter, but also their middle name.

Leica

In 1925, Leica made it clear they were diverging from the photographic mainstream with the introduction of the Leica A.  By 1975, with the tidal wave of Japanese-made SLR’s overwhelming the 35mm film camera market, Leica was looking decidedly old-fashioned.  But the rangefinder way of seeing the subject is still entirely relevant, and indeed an advantage in some circumstances, in the current camera world.

So through many ups and downs, Leica has persisted in making exceptional rangefinder cameras and equally exceptional lenses for those cameras.  As such, I believe they are one of the oldest and most persistent of the divergent camera companies.

Leica seemed to be falling victim in the middle of this decade to their legendary reputation for changing at a snail-like pace.  But the emergence of the flawed, but still useful, M8, and the improved M8.2, showed that Leica was committed to quality digital as well as 35mm film capture.

But it was 9/9/09 that showed that Leica’s owners and management are pursuing an enlightened and innovative path without compromising their long held core beliefs in quality and taking a long-term view of what makes a good camera.

They simply announced 3 groundbreaking cameras in one day, a 35mm-sized M digital, a medium format SLR, and a large sensor compact.  So, while reaffirming in a big way the soundness of Oskar Barnack’s 84 year old vision, they also launched products into segments still desperately in need of innovation.  

Leica is still the leader in taking a divergent path.

Honorable Mention: Panasonic

I have to mention Panasonic for their single-minded product development in their serious compacts (like the LX3) and in Micro 4/3rds.  They have brought a great deal of innovation to the camera world, have dealt quietly and persistently with their products’ shortcomings (remember when Panasonic was the leader in producing noisy images--it wasn’t that long ago) and recognized that new ideas brought problems that could in reality be an opportunity for improvement.  A good example of that is the fact that of all the camera companies in the world, Panasonic has made contrast detection autofocus work almost as well as the phase detection systems common in DSLR’s by importing expertise from their long established video camera group.  That is good stuff.

Approaching Nor'Easter, Westminster, VT

Mill Woods Skateboard Park

Landscape Workshop

Many thanks to Patrick Zephyr for his patience, excellent teaching skills and inspirational leadership over the weekend!  Patrick's website is here: http://www.patrickzephyrphoto.com/

One Active Couple

Adirondack Weekend

Southern Vermont

Convergence vs. Divergence

Convergence has become a buzzword in the camera world. The simple definition in this specific case is the convergence of still and video capabilities in one camera. This excellent article by Michael Reichmann on the Luminous Landscape fully explains this trend:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml


Convergence has been adapted by the major manufacturers in a big way. Except for the top of the line cameras, both Canon and Nikon are introducing live view and HD video in their DSLR’s as they are upgraded. A Panasonic GH1 is being used for a full length movie. Nikon and Canon DSLR’s have been used for music videos and advertisements. So convergence is already at a point of acceptance. Where it exactly goes is still uncertain, but new and exciting areas will develop in the future.

However, just as important for the camera world is what I choose to call divergence. Divergence is where the camera companies develop camera formats or platforms that increase diversity or differentiation in the camera market.

The digital age has seen extensive contraction in the industry. Minolta, Konica, Contax, Bronica, Polaroid, and Rollei are gone, either absorbed by another company or simply going out of business.

To help vitalize the camera industry, the manufacturers must choose different development paths, to differentiate their products to appeal to various market constituencies. Without this push for platform innovation, rather than innovation inside a platform, the industry will continue to contract.

Fortunately for the photographer, divergence has already started to happen.

Divergence occured first in small sensor cameras. It has started to happen in the medium, full-size and medium format markets.

Sigma stuck their neck out and started the trend toward divergence by introducing two large sensor compacts, the DP! and DP2.

Panasonic and Olympus have introduced their micro 4/3rds cameras

Most important, Leica, with their newly announced products, have reaffirmed their M camera, and have introduced two new products in divergent categories. See theonlinephotographer.com:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/09/leicas-back.html

All these things are happening at the top of the camera product world. Plenty of products are available in small sensor cameras, but this divergence is happening at the top of the market, which is important.

Why is it important? Because it offers still photographers more choice.

The camera industry has been driven by divergence.  From the very start, innovation has been driven by changing camera formats.  It's really only been in the past 50 years that one format came to dominate: 35mm.

Digital capture changed that. Small sensors originally ruled due to the limits of the technology and expense of producing large sensors. As volumes increased, prices decreased and the technology was improved. APS-C cameras were introduced. Now full-size 35mm equivalent sensor cameras are reaching prices that were once unimaginable. And sensor sizes continue to increase in in the medium format segment as well.

Photographers have found small, medium, and full size sensors all offer advantages and disadvantages, and each draws differently. Small sensors provide large depth of field and allow for pocket size cameras that produce reasonable quality. APS-C and micro4/3rds cameras provide better quality files than small sensor cameras. Full-size sensors offer better than film quality and the file size to allow large prints. Sensor and camera platform maturity means the manufacturers can tackle the “edges” of the camera market. Examples of “edge” cameras are the Olympus EP-1, Panasonic GF1 and Leica X1. All this can only be good for camera consumers.

This divergence/differentiation which we see now will continue. Samsung has unveiled their APS-C-size sensor compact. Larger sensors WILL become cheaper. Someday there may be a full size sensor compacts like the Leica M that WON’T cost $7000. Someday, not that far away, the small sensor camera markets will be fragmented and reduced by the use of increasingly better camera phones. New products and sensors will be introduced that will render obsolescent what we are just accepting as mainstream. Bring them on!

To the Campground

Corey Ledet

Bags and Blouses

Why Bling May HAVE to be the Thing that Ensures the Future of the DMD

In a previous rant published on The Online Photagrapher, I hinted at the problems small volume manufacturers face competing in an open market.  In that context, Mike Johnston's Decisive Moment Digital will never be cheap.  Ever.  Cheaper?  Yes.  But in today’s dollars, a new DMD will never be cheaper than an entry level digital SLR.  

Why?  

Low production volume.  The market for the DMD is small. I’m guessing of course, but I believe the total market for a DMD is no more than 2% of equivalent DSLR sales.  The CIPA figures for 2008 indicate sales of approximately 9.7 million DSLRs.  That means sales would be a bit less than 200,000 units.  In a generous mood I might accept a figure of 500,000 units per year for the first year or so.  We might use as an example the Leica/LeitzMinolta/Minolta CL which sold approximately 85,000 units over three years in the mid ’70’s.  Given double the world’s population, and a wealthier world population, lets quintuple that figure, at which point we end up with 140,000 per year.  So the 200,000 figure seems reasonable.  The important point is that the DMD demand is really for people who want a DMD.  Many potential buyers will opt for high end compacts such as the Canon G11, the Panasonic LX3 or a superzoom.  And others will prefer an entry level DSLR because of it’s better image quality or a clearer upward mobility path for lenses or for simply the prestige value of using an SLR.  In sum, the market for the DMD is limited.

Lack of shared components across multiple product platforms. The GF1 shares some components with the G1/GH1(the Olympus shares none, or very few with its siblings), but cramming the same components into a smaller package is more, not less expensive, because a new, smaller, more highly “packed” design is necessary to accommodate the original components and special considerations must be made to effectively remove heat generated by those components.  Since the DSLR body is inherently larger, swapping components, or migrating technology down the product line, is easier due to fewer design constraints.

The current manufacturers of DMD type cameras lack high priced and high margin platforms that would otherwise make large contributions to the camera division’s bottom line.  Canon and Nikon can rely on higher profits from their upper end DSLRs to cushion the lower margins of their entry level products.  Conversely, Olympus and Panasonic must create higher profit margins with the EP-1 and the GF1 than might otherwise be the case if they had a larger portfolio of high margin products.  When Olympus and Panasonic fill a niche market, it cannot be done at a lower margin.  They cannot pad the product line with a lower margin item simply designed to enhance the overall brand image, the way a Nikon or Canon might be able to do.

So why may “Bling have to be the thing”?  Because the bling factor of the retro cool EP-1 and the color kaleidoscope GF-1 may attract a significant percentage of the 110 million buyers of compact cameras (2008 figure from CIPA), or even cellphone photographers, that want to upgrade to a better camera.  And if that happens, the production volumes of our DMD’s will be kept up. With that, the costs may eventually come down some, and perhaps the viability of the DMD will be secured.  It seems Olympus was wise to this issue, because the #1 feature listed for the EP-1 in their global press release was “A dignified exterior design”, and of course Panasonic has a variety of colors for certain markets.  So even if you prefer basic black for your DMD, be happy with those who feel bling is the thing.


Note: after writing this I found a press release from Panasonic that pegs GF1 production at 15,000 units per month, or 180,000 per year.

Sigma Envy

On Saturday, Mary and I were at the Rhythm and Roots Cajun/Zydeco Festival in Rhode Island for a bit of dancing and music.  I took the Sigma DP2 along to take some snaps, with the hope of an occasional decent shot.  

My photography was average at best, but I was surprised by the amount of Sigma Envy I basked in throughout the day.

At each stage there were photographers, mostly using Canon DSLR's with the 70-200 zoom in white (that combination is like a badge that says "I'm a serious photographer").  Well, in order to get close I had to get close, real close, and I naturally, but politely, pushed myself past the Canons.  Man, did I get stares.  Or rather my camera got stares.  It's a bit pimped out with the filter barrel and the lens shade, and the hulking, bug-eyed Voightlander VF.  Also, the Franiec grip covers the Sigma label, so it's BLACK!  

But twice, while standing by the stages, 2 different photographers who were inside the lines (!) asked me to come back with them to get a better shot.  One knew it was a Sigma and asked if it was a DP1 or DP2, the other simply asked what kind of camera it was.  Both asked to take a look through the VF, and both asked what I thought of it.  Although long conversations were difficult because of the volume of the music, both guys made it clear they thought it would be more fun shooting with the Sigma vs. their Canons.  

Oddly, I thought if I were getting paid I'd take their 5D's with the 70-200 instead, but that's another story.

The Price of Being Small and Taking Risks

Mike Johnston, corporate president of The Online Photographer conglomerate, was foolish enough to publish a rant of mine.  It's here:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/07/the-price-of-being-small-and-taking-risks.html

Rocky Bed

Goldenrod

Just Plain Madness

Weed Fireworks

Sunrise, Clark 5 East, Pomona College

I can't decide which version I like better.

Rob, Jake, Zach

Emily, Zach, Hannah

ISO 3200

Gate 11, BDL

Clark 5, Pomona College

The dimensionality of this photo surprised me, especially the plants at the base of the right-hand wall.

Passing Iris

Color and B & W: both are fine with me.