Some Personal Thoughts on Photography

Also Ramblings & Opinions

Robert I. Sadler

Why DSLR’s Suck.

— July 2010 —

Yes, you read right. DSLR cameras are rubbish, designed with the sole purpose of extracting more money from our wallets. Harsh words? Read on and decide for yourself.

Many years ago, like in 1970-something, you bought a camera of a reputable brand, loaded some film and started shooting great pictures. These cameras very well made and usually came with an excellent 50mm f/1·4 prime lens that still outperforms modern optics. Upgrading was primarily done through buying the latest film.

Every now and then the brand would change mounts on you, thereby either leaving your existing lenses usable in crippled form (e.g. Asahi/Pentax with M42 to K-mount) or as nifty paperweights (Canon with FD to EF). But this wasn't so bad really, because these times provided great opportunities to re-evaluate your loyalty to the brand—since you had to buy new EF lenses for your new Canon EOS camera(s), why not switch to Nikon? Some brands have done better than others to ensure backwards compatibility—the Pentax K-mount springs to mind—but others really forced you to start fresh.

Was this really so bad? No, because nothing really forced you to buy the new gear. If your Spotmatic SP 500 didn’t break—and repairing it is a snap—then why replace it with a newer Z-20 or something? Heck, I used a Pentax S1a, manufactured 1962—1968, right up until about 2005.

Conclusion one is that camera manufacturers regularly broke compatibility when introducing new lines. Conclusion two is that the only real technological advances that mattered were in regards to film emulsions, and these were backwards compatible. Nothing prevented me from using AGFA Vista in my 40-year old S1a.

“Now what the blazes does that have to do with why DSLR cameras suck?” you may ask. Everything, my dear Watson, everything.

In the beginning, of DSLR’s that is, it was expensive and difficult to manufacture those CCD and CMOS thing’ums used to capture the image. Also, designing a chip powerful enough to process the sensor data was anything but elementary. So some bright spark suggested they make the sensor smaller, thereby also decreasing the raw processing power required for the conversion chip. Two birds with one stone, QED and such rot. And that is most probably how we got shafted with that wonderful APS-C sized sensor.

Now there's nothing really wrong with the APS-C sized sensor, but instead of following tradition and breaking compatibility with this new line of DSLR cameras, most manufacturers stuck it into there existing film series. Possibly they were unsure if digital would replace film. Whatever their reasons, they created one huge baling wire and chewing gum system.

All lenses for DSLR cameras are designed to be used with the tradition 135 (or 35mm) film, irrespective of what the designer says. The reason is the lens to film plane distance, which is the same for both systems. Yes, this makes it possible to use designed-for-film lenses on crop frame cameras, but it unfortunately introduces severe problems.

By not breaking with film cameras, we tend to still think in terms of “full frame”. Years of use have taught me exactly what to expect from a 50mm or a 28mm lens. Like a pro golfer, I can look at the lay (scene) and pick the correct club (lens). Only FoVCF cameras cause me to be like a right-handed golfer suddenly having to play the course with a left-handed set. My trusty 50mm is now magically the equivalent of an 80mm, tragically without the increased magnification factor. To get the FoV of a 50mm, I have to use either a 28mm or a 35mm lens, neither of which hits the mark, provides the same magnification factor and have totally different depth of field characteristics. And how do I get the equivalent of a 28mm lens? Well, by using a 17mm lens. Same as before applies, plus it is virtually impossible to design a distortion-free lens of such a short focal length for this lens to film plane distance.

What the manufacturers should have done is to break away from film, shortened the lens to focal plane distance and brought out a whole array of new lenses for us to buy. And if they were intelligent, they would have realised that you could also very easily make an adapter, with the required electronics onboard, to use “film” lenses on DSLR cameras. (Olympus and Panasonic cottoned on the idea when they designed the micro-Four-Thirds system.)

“So why don’t you then not just buy a full frame DSLR, like the Canon EOS 5D Mark II?” you say. Well, because the 5DII is probably at the top of the suckiest-cameras-ever list. Gosh!?

(Apart from my Takumar lenses, I have invested somewhat in Canon EF lenses. So I'll trash their DSLR cameras, and I sincerely doubt whether the other brand is any different.)

The main selling point of the 5DII is its full frame sensor. On everything else the entry-level xxxD jobbies beat the megapixels out of it. Sure its got a 21MP sensor, but did you know that that calculates to 156 pixels per millimetre? My 8.2MP EOS 30D has the same pixels per millimetre. This immediately makes you wonder why, if Canon can manufacture a sensor with 230 pixels per millimetre (EOS 550D), slap in an entry-level camera and sell it for substantially less, is the 5DII so expensive? Definitely not the sensor.

In terms of functionality the 5DII also sucks. Only a 9-point AF system? Geez, people, we had 45-points in the EOS 3, which dated from 1998! Plus eye-control. So it is definitely not the features.

“But it has HD movie capabilities,” you say. Well, maybe. But if that is what is chasing up the price, then how about bringing out a no-movie version—that should shave about R5K off the price?

So why then is the 5DII so expensive? Because it has a full frame sensor. You pay for that fact and that only, not for the actual sensor. And don’t believe the story of how expensive it is to make the sensors. We’ve passed that point on the technology road, especially with the sensor of the 5DII which is no better than old technology.

But why, apart from the 1D range, do all their other cameras cost significantly less, although more feature-rich? Competition.

In my opinion the marketing departments are taking us for an extended ride. FoVCF cameras are useless on the short focal lengths. Solution? Either a crap zoom (and even the über-expensive EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II falls in this category, see my review here) or a full frame camera that cost more than shooting film. At the other end, the myth is now firmly entrenched that FoVCF cameras have increased focal lengths, which is why the masses in their desire for bigger, yet cheaper, are lapping it up. Manufacturers are milking the current craze in DSLR cameras—and bundling them with inferior kit lenses also helps increase sales of mediocre zooms. Two birds with one stone.

Camera specifications dictated by the marketing dept. and unusable short focal length lenses, that is why DSLR cameras suck.

Here’s a tip for the marketing guys... offer us a full frame DSLR, without movie capabilities, that uses defunct lens mounts. Hot cakes, I tell you, hot cakes.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I’ll be buying an EOS 5D Mark VI.

P.S. The furniture over at OutdoorPhoto informed me to shape up or ship out. Anchors aweigh!

Equipment Updates and a New Hangout...

— March 2010 —

Equipment-wise, I’ve sold the Canon EOS 3 along with the abysmal Sigma lens, and bought a Canon EF 24mm f/2·8 and a Canon EF 50mm f/1·8 II lens.

The EF 24mm f/2·8 lens is the perfect lens for a 1.6x FoVCF camera. The equivalent field of view is that of a 38mm lens and trust me, this is enough. Distortion is also practically non-existent and the lack of USM not noticed.

Another thing that pulled me towards the 24mm was the fact that there are just, in my opinion, too many EF 17-40mm f/4·0L USM lenses on the secondhand market - if it was really such a good lens. Those who are selling theirs complain that the 40mm end is just too short for this to be an all-round lens (I told you so!), and about the vignetting at the wide end on full-frame / film cameras (unbelievable! I thought this was L-glass!?).

I also bought a used EF 50mm f/1·8 II, aka the “nifty-fifty”, for use on the EOS 300v as its standard lens. I haven’t tested the optical quality yet, but the construction is, although acceptable for the price, really mediocre and cheap. This brings me to a very interesting thought, the “nifty-fifty” was (note past tense) an excellent and cheap point of entry for beginners into the wonderful world of prime lenses. Now that cameras have a FoVCF, this lens is somewhat out. Personally, I see the EF 28mm f/2·8 as the rightful heir and therefore feel Canon should lower the price substantially on that member of the “Ugly Ducklings” or produce a cheaper new EF 28mm f/2.8 II lens.

I’ve also started to hang out at OutdoorPhoto (as “Sella174”). It is a very interesting site, but unfortunately also very clique’ish - you have to do things their way or they’ll simply ignore you. They’re also very quick to reply with “RTFM”, but in-depth questions on subjects like the new iFCL metering system of the Canon EOS 7D go unanswered. And whatever you, don’t critique the pros!

The Leap into... Digital!

— February 2010 —

Humbly I confess that the temptation was just too much... I bought a used Canon EOS 30D camera! And sold all my Pentax K-mount lenses, K1000 cameras and have the rest of my film gear on auction. (Although I’ll keep the EOS 3 for those “nostalgic” moments, because it probably won’t sell.)

I’ve already shot the equivalent of ten rolls of film and it is great! Not to mention convenient. I’m currently shooting straight to JPEG, using a custom “Picture Style” and loving it. Maybe I’ll explore RAW later on, but for the moment I can’t see the benefit of wasting time post-processing images that the camera already makes exactly how I want them. Besides, I’ve got heaps of negatives and slides that still need to be scanned and processed.

The EOS 30D allows me to push my photography in ways that film was just too cumbersome, which is totally awesome. I did mention that I'm loving this? Yeah, just like a million times already!

So, my camera kit now consists of:

I’ve thought about getting another short lens, because the 1.6x FoVCF of the EOS 30D turns the EF 50mm f/1·4 USM into an 80mm lens. (Not really, but that’s how people understand it.) I looked at the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4·0L USM, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2·8 IS USM, the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3·5-5·6 IS USM, the Canon EF 20mm f/2·8 USM, the Canon EF 24mm f/2·8, the Canon EF 28mm f/1·8 USM, and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2·8 XR Di II.

The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4·0L USM is an obvious choice and within a stretched budget. Problem is the long end of the focal range is a bit short in my opinion for an all-round zoom lens, even though it would be equivalent to 64mm on the EOS 30D. The maximum aperture of f/4·0 also means that this lens cannot be the workhorse it is aspiring to be, as the whole object of zooms are to minimise lens changes. I get the feeling this one will leave me a little like Oliver wanting just a bit more, please.

The Canon EF 28mm f/1·8 USM would be equivalent to a 45mm lens on the EOS 30D and, since I do not really like zoom lenses, is a lens that deserves further investigation in the future. Or, as Rincewind would say, “let’s keep track of that.”

The Canon EF 24mm f/2·8 is another lens to keep track of, although lacking USM and a bit pricey.

The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3·5-5·6 IS USM or the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2·8 IS USM is probably the lens to get if I had the money. Problem is that it includes my current EF 50mm f/1·4 USM in its focal range, so that might make the prime lens somewhat redundant. I also cannot see the use of IS on a lens with such a short focal range, especially since digital makes it so easy to up the ISO to 800 or even 1600 and still get acceptable images. (Perhaps I can persuade Canon to bring out a non-IS version?) If buying a new EOS 7D, definitely get the kit version with the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3·5-5·6 IS USM.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2·8 XR Di II is a definite candidate, as it is apparently of good quality (if you get the Japanese version and test it out in the shop before paying) and is heaps cheaper than the equivalent Canon lens. The lack of IS is not a problem, seeing as I nearly always work in bright sunlight at more than f/8 (and one can always bump up the ISO to a ridiculous 3200 on the EOS 30D). The snag is that nobody seems to carry stock, which means a gamble on quality and very little after-sales service. Too bad, Tamron.

Well, I have been using the EF 50mm f/1·4 USM on the EOS 30D and must admit that I like the “80mm” effect, which is in retrospect not strange, as I always did prefer a 55mm over a 50mm lens. I haven’t yet used the lens in-the-field, so to speak, so will only make a final decision once I’ve photographed some locomotives. I have also thought about acquiring a good manual focus lens for the few times a wide angle is needed, like one of the excellent Asahi Takumar 28mm f/3·5 lenses, but then the Canon EF 28mm f/1·8 USM or the Canon EF 24mm f/2·8 might just be a serious option. On the other hand, the Canon PowerShot A620 has roughly a 35~140mm lens, so that covers the short end better than the Canon primes and most of the zooms.

A Foot in Each Pond.

— December 2009 —

The past two months have been hectic in terms of obtaining direction regarding the kit to use for photography. I bought a Pentax MZ-M, as a primary camera with the K1000 as a backup; tried to sell my whole Canon EOS kit; and acquired a Canon EOS 3 for next-to-nothing. Now to figure out this mess.

It seems that here in South Africa nobody is interested in film SLR’s. I tried to sell my Canon EOS kit (EOS 300v, two lenses and accessories) – asking price was R3000,00. This was slightly less than the price of a new Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5·6 III USM, which was included in the bundle for sale. No takers. None whatsoever, even though more than 130 people viewed the auction on www.bidorbuy.co.za.

Meanwhile I bought a Pentax MZ-M – as I have only one "in good condition" K1000, but several K-mount lenses.

Some serious research turned up the fact that Pentax, as a digital SLR manufacturer, is probably to cease business. This meant that it was pointless to stick to Pentax as a camera system, as it has no future. As I have no experience of the Nikon system, that left Canon as the only viable option. So I not only decided to keep the EOS 300v, but ordered a Canon EF 50mm f/1·4 USM lens for it.

And then on www.bidorbuy.co.za an auction came up for a Canon EOS 3 – starting price R1000,00. Seems the owner tried to sell the camera several times at “market-value”, but since no-one wants a film SLR was forced to drop the price each time. This was an opportunity not to be missed, especially since I had already bought the EF 50mm f/1·4 USM lens. The main reason for acquiring this camera is the spotmeter; everything else is a bonus.

Right, so my photography kit consisted of:

What a mess: six cameras and three different systems. Here's what I did...

The S1a and K1000 is now shelved, along with the Pentax Espio 738G. All three can be returned to work, if the need ever arises. The K1000 would be a great backup camera on archaeological digs and anthropological expeditions, both situations where digital is way too cumbersome, fickle and sometimes downright impossible to use.

The Canon PowerShot A620 is my digital camera and is used for macro-photography and irrelevant, immediately available pictures. It is also my carry-everywhere-I-go P&S, as digital is much easier to manage than film regarding single photos taken on the spur of the moment.

The chap selling the EOS 3 also had a SIGMA 28-70mm F2·8 lens available, which he could not get rid of as it doesn't work on digital bodies. Reviews of this lens are good, so I bought it to replace the Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5·6 II recently sold. It works on the EOS 300v, and after I've tested its image quality, have decided to provide this camera and lens to my father for when we’re on photo trips. Maybe I can get him back into photography?

The Canon EOS 3, with the EF 50mm f/1·4 USM lens, will be my main camera. As we are both on the EOS system, my father and I can then share the EF 75-300mm f/4-5·6 III USM lens and any others that I acquire.

This just leaves the Pentax MZ-M. This will be my “ASA 400”-body. I can use the PENTAX-M 28mm and PENTAX-M 50mm lenses with an ND4 filter and the Tokina 500mm and Pentax 400mm on this camera.

Now if I should find a Canon EOS 300X...

A Turning Point or the End of the Road?

— October 2009 —

Over the past few years I’ve become very frustrated with my photography — colours are not good, composition is mediocre and overall quality is lacking. So I decided to take a seriously hard look at the hobby to find out what the cause of the problem is. Here is the result.

Looking at my photographs of the past fifteen years, I noticed that after the initial learning period I was quite good, and more importantly, happy with the hobby, up until about 2004. During that period I mostly used AGFA film and a Pentax S1a, a Pentax Spotmatic SP and a Pentax Espio 738G. Colours were good, negatives were sharp and compositions great. I took my time taking a photograph. I walked about for the best angle, taking into consideration available light, desired depth of field and background. I had to with using either a 50mm or 55mm fixed-focal length Takumar lens.

In 2001 AGFA HDC was replaced with Vista (at least here in South Africa). I remember not being very fond of it, but in retrospect AGFA Vista was quite a nice film to work with, especially since it digitizes well.

In 2004 the local AGFA shop became a Kodak shop. I now basically had two choices of film: Kodak and Fuji. Neither really appealed to me, but I chose Fuji 100 for a big trip to the Northern Cape. (I feel it is necessary to mentioned that at that time my budget did not afford me the luxury of the “professional” films.) The Fuji film performed abysmally, but not entirely due to its own fault. The cameras I used on that trip was my trusty S1a and a Pentax K1000 I had recently acquired to replace the Spotmatic SP, which had broken a pinion shaft. It seems the K1000 was not very accurate in shutter speed, as it was well-used. After that trip, however, I swore off Fuji and stuck to Kodak Gold.

Soon thereafter, I bought a Canon EOS 300v — my first modern SLR camera. Thinking about it, this is were things went even more downhill. The EOS 300v came with an EF 28-90mm f/4-5·6 II as standard kit lens. The zoom lens meant no more walking about to frame shots, which meant that I did not explore all possible angles and did not take pictures of these possibilities anymore. The zoom lens meant that I now usually just took one or two pictures of a subject, instead on the half to even dozen as I did previously. The lens is also not very sharp, which meant that considerable detail was lost and enlargement basically out of the picture.

A Canon L-series lens or even the EF 50mm f/1·4 USM was quite out of my budget range, so I bought an M42-to-EF converter in the hope of using my old Takumar lenses again. It works well, but the lack of any focus assistance from the camera is a drawback. Currently the EOS 300v is paired with an Asahi SMC TAKUMAR 1:2/55. Film still remains a problem.

In 2006 I replaced the terrible Pentax Optio 60, bought six months previously to replaced the Espio 738G, with a Canon PowerShot A620. This marked my entry into digital photography and in retrospect another distance downhill. Don't get me wrong, digital photography is great, especially in the point-and-shoot segment. But it again takes too much control away from the photographer. The A620 can be used in a very manual fashion, with Tv, Av and M, but automatic is much easier. I have found that I take many more pictures with the digital that should have been taken with the film camera. Reasons being instant availability, less thinking and instant availability. The A620 doesn't have the depth of field required for certain shots and the manual operation is too cumbersome for ordinary use. The difference in quality is very obvious. It is, however, a nice point-and-shoot and is excellent for macro-photography when used with the Canon 250D close-up filter / lens.

A year or three ago I acquired another Pentax K1000, this one in excellent condition. I've passed a roll or two through it, but shelved it in favour of the A620. One of the decisions I have taken as a result of my introspection into the hobby, is to use the digital point-and-shoot less. This K1000 has now been brought out of the cupboard, dusted off, and is being used again. Sunny-16, compose, focus, check the lightmeter and click! This is what photography is about. It feels great!

As of this writing, I am still unsatisfied with the films on offer. I am testing the new Fuji Superia 200 and will soon do the same with a few rolls of Fuji Reala 100. I am happy to see than Ilford FP4 is still available and I am thinking of getting a few rolls, some ID-11 developer and returning to my roots... B&W.