Tick-Tock, Tech Talk

Time passes, unless Gödel was right, and shit happens. Shit subsumes private correspondence like this email to Neil. It's topical – he went to a photo expo.

Very interesting news from the show, thanks. You should read the dpreview test of the new Canon Digital Rebel or EOS 400D or whatever – annoying that cameras have a bunch of different names, presumably chosen to appeal to different markets. I guess Americans want to think of themselves as dangerous rebels – baaaaah, me da meanest sheep in da flock! Anyway, Phil Askey compares the Canon, the Nikon D80 and the Sony/Minolta/Konica/whatever/it/is. The Nikon had the least noise, the Sony the most. The Sony's main feature is its image stabilization. The Canon does a shimmy to get rid of dust at startup. The Nikon just sits there looking a little ashamed of itself. As you know, my own way of approaching these things is lens-first. If Contax ever had a booth at such shows, which I doubt, there would've been only two or three people there – the mothers of the reps. Their cameras were good but certainly not mainstream. Their lenses, too, were out of the mainstream, being non-autofocus and non-weather-sealed and non-internal-focusing. All they had going for them was exquisite image quality, plus being built like Jayne Mansfield. Likewise for Pentax. I was tentative at first, but it seems to be true that their "Limited" lenses are, like Contax/Zeiss, out of the mainstream, eccentric, retrograde, unsuited for professional use, but exquisite imagers.

In short, I moved from Contax SLR's to Canon DSLR's because of Canon's super lenses and super CMOS sensor, and from the Contax G2 to Pentax DSLR's with Pentax "Limited" primes.

Unfortunately last night it became clear I've caught Chris's cold, so I won't be going out with either camera today. But yesterday I did get to spend an hour or two in the woods with the Pentax, then made some photos of the cat's gaping wound with the Canon "L" zoom. Using the two in rapid sequence reminded me why the Pentax isn't used by pros, or by the "advanced amateurs" who hope to be mistaken for pros. The Canon simply focuses, instantly and silently, and when you press the shutter it goes Bang, and you've got a clean shot in the can. The Pentax works, but it's just adequate -- autofocus is noisy, in low light it hunts for focus or may not focus at all, and the shutter makes a floppity-flop noise that tells you what you're getting is a picture of a moment a third of a second later than the moment you chose. (The G2 had those faults too.) Plus if you're holding the lens with a finger or two you may be slightly shocked to feel the focusing ring turn. Antique city. But then the images, well... They're in the Zeiss/Leica class.

So why you don't got a Leica, Mr H? Yeah, well, when the M8 does come out you'll stand in line six months waiting for one, then have the joy of paying $8K for a body with one lens which is not autofocus.

Incidentally, you'll recall I said that Pentax is finally going to bring out ultrasonic lenses. But what about their vaunted compatibility? Well, the (still unmarketed) 10D will have a lens mount that supports their new USM connections. But to stay backward-compatible with earlier bodies, the lenses will be focusable via the ancient turning-screw connection used in current Pentax AF. And, obviously, the 10D will have a motor in the body to turn the screw of those earlier lenses – couldn't work otherwise. El-kludge-o.

Canon came to this cusp back in the 80's and (intelligently) went the other way. They designed the EOS mount for new lenses only. This orphaned all the older lenses and bodies, but it opened up a whole new market, and for a long time they were the only ones with silent, instantly-focusing lenses. Your perception of the difference in audience appeal between Nikon and Canon testifies to the wisdom of their choice.