ku # 624 ~ I can't get no satisfaction
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 09:09AM 
Tree branch w leaves overhanging Johns Brook ~ Keene Valley, NY • click to embiggenI have noticed (with a stunning degree of disinterest), that there has been a spate of new camera introductions of late. Canon, Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic (amongst others) have been dumping quite a bit of "new and improved" gear on the market over the past couple weeks. In particular, Canon has introduced a new flagship model for their "reduced-size sensor" camera line.
You got love the marketing wordsmiths (and their handmaidens in the gear review world) for their creative use of the language, i.e. - "reduced-size sensor". Now, in fact, with the surge of full-frame sensor cameras, APS-C sized sensor cameras could be considered to be a "reduced-sized" product, but ....
That nomenclature ignores the fact that, since APS-C-sized sensor cameras were once the largest sensors in the 35mm camera body segment, full-frame sensors are actually "up-sized" sensor cameras, but ...
There's nothing better for fanning the flames of desire than to label a product as "reduced-size" - a nomenclature that implies a sense of inferiority or, at the very least, not up to "full-sized" standards. The rather dismissive notion of "reduced-size" sensors, until quite recently, was reserved for sensors that were smaller than APS-C sensors - 4/3rds sensors, P&S camera sensors and the like. Now we have a whole new body of cameras (and a big body it is) that the soap sellers can label as "inferior".
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition, another fine way to separate the terminally unsatisfied from their money - what good news for the economy (please note that in the real world the phrase "good news for the economy" would be accompanied by the sound of a fart produced by sticking my tongue out between tightly compressed lips and expelling air).
Years ago, Henri Cartier-Bresson made a couple statements that are even more pertinent now than they were then:
I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects.
and
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
Then again, those 2 notions are not all that different from that penned and sung by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards nearly half a century ago:
When I'm watchin' my TV
And a man comes on to tell me
How white my shirts can be
But, he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarettes as me
Please hep me, hep me, I'm drowning.
Reader Comments (6)
"Sharpness is a burgeois concept."
I like that. I think it'll be the subtitle for the article on "The Myth of Perfect Focus" that I've been mulling about since reading various comments on Photo.net regarding the absolute imperative of the tripod...
It's not just sharpness, but sharpness at 100% as viewed on a computer monitor. Pixel peepers. Losing the forest for the trees.
Truth be told, I have the (new'ish) Olympus E-P1 and love it. Use it mainly with a Zeiss m-mount lens that is designed to explicitly not be tack sharp and to add a certain graininess to the picture. Used primarily underexposed in black and white.
And hey, since I've had the E-P1 my Olympus DSLR has been idle except for the rare occasions when I need its stronger horsepower. In my view these smaller cameras are indeed progress. And they offer increased flexibility in lens selection. Sure, a bit of consumerism, but it gives old lenses a new lease on life through the many adapters available. And you are no longer locked into a single camera/lens family.
On the other hand, having just received a box of old photos, many shot by my mother, there is something to be said for sharpness, centering, and other topics which are often maligned on this website.
Some of these announcements interest me, and some do not.
I travel for work a fair bit, and I like to take a camera with me. On any given trip, I might be able to take some pictures, and I might not. I already have to carry a laptop, and I do not want to check any bags. Security is a pita at the airport. Smaller is definitely better under those circumstances, at least for me.
For now, I am happy with my lx1; but I may find myself frustrated with its limitations at some point in the future, or I may break it. So smaller interests me.
I must admit that the new Panasonic small digital rangefinder type camera is the first camera ever to excite me. Since starting to photograph some ten years ago I have never felt one with a camera. They are tools, yet obstacles, in my pursuit of making good images. While most photographers seems to love the idea og big heavy cameras and lenses I've always felt the opposite (nothing new under the sun). If digital had one potential from the get go it was the ability to make things small, light and with great usability. All I crave is tiny camera, huge sensor, and light 28mm lens, so for once, I am excited!
The only new announcements I've been interested in are the Micro4/3rds ones, as they are actually about more than just some more features to get you to upgrade. It's really the first truly new innovation in camera since digital was introduced nearly 20 years ago.
I've been shooting with the G1 for almost 9 months now and am very impressed, it's a nice fusion of P&S size and DSLR features with the bonus of a large, high-rez EVF that actually doesn't suck. The IQ's a step down from the best APS-C cameras, but even that's only at high ISO's. I'm glad they're fleshing out the lineups, especially since small primes are starting to arrive (I've got the Oly 17 pancake and will be adding the Panasonic primes as availablility and cash allow)