The Passing Parade

It's amazing how the international photographic equipment industry has changed since the 1960s. Back then, who'd have thought that by 2009 the following would be true:

• The Konica and Minolta brands would have disappeared
• Leica and Panasonic (the people who make transistor radios???) would effectively be in partnership to make cameras
• Sony (more transistor radios???) would be a leading camera maker
• Leading European camera brands such as Voigtlander, Contax et al would have effectively disappeared
• Hoya (the filter makers?) would own Asahi Pentax
• Photographer's darkrooms would have turned into desktop computers

.... and here's the big one

• Except for highly specialised people and applications there is effectively no such thing as photographic film any more

When digital cameras first appeared in serious numbers it is amazing how many photographers (who should, by now, be knowing better) predicted that they'd remain a frivolous toy - just like motor cars, aeroplanes, talking pictures, CDs, personal computers and everything else that entrenched minds have always failed to get their heads around. No one, however, predicted the suddenness with which film would finally die - except perhaps the folks at Kodak, who for years had been trying to diversify in something of a panic.

In the light of phtography's recent history it is fascinating to predict what is likely to happen in the near future. Someone who makes predictions every year about what will happen to the photographic industry and its leading playes is Thom Hogan. You can read his predictions for 2009 here: http://www.bythom.com/2009predictions.htm

Looking back over previous Thom Hogan predictive articles, it is fascinating to see how generally correct he has been. Of course, on this occasion he predicts that the international economic downturn will hasten the death of so many prominent photographic businesses including the passing of most specialist photographic retailers and the demise of almost all specialist photographic equipment manufacturers. Wow - let's hope not. A world without Nikon, Pentax, Olympus? What a bleak prospect that would be.

See my work at www.pbase.com/davidhobbs

Could Primes be Past their Prime?

Let me summarise what I meant to say in my last article. Given the power of current post processing software, lenses produced today by prominent manufacturers have probably ceased to be a significant constraint in our efforts to secure quality images.

Class by class, it probably doesn't matter whether your lens is made by Canon, Nikon, Leica, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Tokina or Tamron. All other factors being equal, any given image (except maybe resolution charts) will look much the same.

It is interesting, by the way, to see how all of the makers are lining up to define lens classes. Looking at APS-C sensor bodies, all makers seem to offer some entry level (or NEAR entry level) zoom versions of (circa)18-55, 18-120, 18-200 and 70-300. The 18-55s are often surprisingly good if flimsy, the 18-200s are fairly solid but optically iffy while the 18-120s and 70-300s are something of a compromise.

Then there are the 12-24s, and 70-200s. In both cases, the optical and build quality usually represents a major step up in class. Then too, there is a slight step down from this latter level to the often reasonably fast (circa) 17-70s.

Leaving specialised items like macros, fish-eyes and super telephotos out of the discussion, the really rugged up-market lenses (some new designs plus some scrubbed-up film era designs) seem to be reserved for the full frame bodies principally in the fast 24-70 sort of range.

Most new lenses (that aren't intended for stabilised bodies) seem to incorporate a form of optical stabilisation. Significantly the most professional full frame models often leave this latter feature out. Presumably the lack of such complexity may render the lenses in question more ultimately reliable, the limited focal length ranges make stabilisation less vital ... and then again, the potential users should have pretty reasonable hand held technique at their disposal, rendering its usefulness questionable.

To my mind, given my aforementioned observations on optical quality, the choice of lenses, probably comes down to two major parameters:

• How much does it cost?
• How well is it made?

If you are basically a keen amateur whose gear often sits for long periods in dark cupboards, you might easily be best served by something cheap and (if it comes to that) easily replaceable. If you work your gear on a regular basis during which jolts, bumps and even drops are effectively inevitable, maybe you are better off with something more ruggedly constructed.

Yes, but what about primes (i.e. fixed focal length lenses)?

Let me return to our macho types, pixel peepers and status chasers on the web forums. These people constantly complain about the lack of prime lenses - at least modern versions of same. A lot of these people own lens collections consisting ONLY of primes. They seem to think that such will bestow upon them some sort of professional aura and/or ultimate image quality. In reality, except for some highly specialised applications (dedicated portrait & macro advertising studios, high profile sports photo-journalism and papparazzi work perhaps) they are probably deluding themselves.

Thirty years ago there may have been some point in all this. The quality of zoom lenses was pretty dismal. At the same time, most accumulating dust finding its way onto light sensitive surfaces in the camera was whisked away with every turn of the film winder.

These days, if you have to change lenses every couple of images, your digital sensor will soon be caked in muck, more than negating any alleged optical advantage offered by primes. More importantly, with all of the fooling around, you will more than likely miss vital shots. Anyone will tell you that the good (but technically less than perfect) image of the perfect composition/subject is a long way better than the technically ultimate image of the perfect composition/subject you just missed.

I am inclined to think that, for most general use at least, prime lenses may have had their day.

Modern Lenses are Fantastic

I thought I'd leave off talking about post processing for a while and air some hobby horse issues on the subject of lenses.

You see it all the time. People post forum messages on dpreview or other such sites, declaring their dissatisfaction with this lens or that lens. They complain primarily about "softness" or perhaps about distortions or maybe about mechanical aspects of the lens like autofocus or how smoothly the zoom ring operates. They rabbit on about lack of manufacturing quality control and how they obviously got a bad example - which they are about to take back to some poor long suffering retailer, for exchange.

The first thing is that few of these people are really qualified to comment on such things. They simply don't have the experience or skill to make the evaluations they presume to. Examining the pictures in question it usually appears that the perceived "softness" has little to do with lens quality. It almost always has much more to do with depth of field and camera shake. The posters complain about edge softness, completely forgetting that objects on the periphery of an image are often much closer than objects in the centre. A lot of the time, they are simply out of focus.

The other thing which is very often true, is that few people know how to hold a camera competently when they shoot. Nor do they seem to "get" the fact that there are certain shutter speeds they should not fall below in field use. I know its old but the traditional hand held rule still applies. At 120mm focal length, use a shutter speed higher than 1/120 sec. At 50mm use a shutter speed higher than 1/50 sec etc.

In lower light, you might well be using "vibration reduction" or "image stabilisation" and you may well be braced against doorways, railings and tree stumps but if you want to make sure you get the shot nice and sharp .... use the rule. It's that simple. In my experience, the difference between the perceived resolution of a (so called) poor lens and a (so called) excellent one is almost always LESS than the actual resolution difference between poor and excellent field technique - believe it.

Lens reviewers make a lot of the need to stop a lens down for best results or they harp about "refraction" softness due to the use of very small apertures. I am certain that resolution charts reveal the shocking truth on a regular basis but I tend not to shoot pictures of resolution charts. Differences in sharpness between f8 or f11 and wide open do not often intrude upon my consciousness with respect to REAL subjects in the REAL world.

Manufacturers of quality cameras and lenses face stiff competition today. They quite literally cannot afford to be marketing sub-standard gear. In fact, in my humble opinion the optical standard of modern lens designs is far and away better than it has ever been. There is no doubt that the quality of modern zooms is good enough for them to effectively replace prime lenses for most people. The lack of speed is more than made up for by the on-going high ISO improvements in image sensors. We used to be thrilled to use f1.8 at a film speed of 64 ISO. In reality, f3.5 at a perfectly acceptable ISO 400 is a good deal faster all up. To be sure, throwing subjects into stark relief against out of focus backgrounds is a little harder ... but we'll manage. Why not use longer focal lengths and try standing back a little?

Yes but what about distortions? ...... It's called the lens distortion routine in Photoshop or Elements. Barrel distortion has always accompanied wide angle lenses. Pincushion distortion has always hounded telephoto. The difference is that today we can push a slider across the screen and straighten everything up. We can also remove chromatic aberration fringes, intrusive vignetting etc In the final analysis, if we really think that an image is too soft we can use some light Unsharp Mask treatment. If the image was fundamentally sound and we don't overdo it, the softness problem goes away.

Then at last there are the moans and groans about how one lens autofocusses faster than another. The plain simple fact is that basic autofocus technique turns almost ANY lens into a "quick one" if we do it right. From day one of the autofocus era I learned to "find an equidistant edge" and immediately recompose. Works everytime and fast - no matter what the lens (well almost) It beats the hell out of 51 active focus points, which in the heat of the moment could be fixating on ANYTHING.

The pixel peepers, macho shooters, forum hawks and resolution chart obsessionists notwithstanding, if your pictures look soft, it almost certainly means it is YOU who fouled up - not the lens.