Jennifer. Triathlete.
I'm sure you were dying to know this but the USMS (United States Masters Swimming) Short Course National Swim Meet is coming up in April in San Antonio, Texas. All members can sign up for as many as three events without having to meet qualifying times. You can sign up for up to five events if you have the qualifying times. The exception to the above is the 1650 yard race. You must have qualifying times to enter. It's done that way so that particular event doesn't go on forever.
In shorter races so much depends on getting off the starting block as quickly as possible while avoiding the dreaded, "false start." We all need to constantly work on our starts. The 50 and 100 yard sprints are won and lost at the walls so we all need to be working on our flip turns, our streamlines off the walls, and our underwater dolphin kicks. Finally, you need to finish strong all the way to the wall. Finishing strong is critical.
If your turns suck you might want to find a good coach and work on them NOW. Trying to perfect a turn in a new pool on the day of the meet is a fool's errand.
For more info on the event:
Can't wait to see you all there!
Photographers: Time to tune up for Spring photography. While the Corona virus is causing panic and havoc for many big events it shouldn't affect those noble souls walking through the streets of interesting cities and town with a camera in hand and intention in their brains. In fact, it's probably the best time to travel (by car) to major cities you've always wanted to photograph in because the hotel rates are already dropping faster than the Dow Jones average, and Open Table (online restaurant reservations) will probably go on vacation for the foreseeable future since there are ample open tables at even the finest restaurants.
Here in Austin we hold an annual festival called SXSW. So far, in the last two weeks, nearly every major U.S. sponsor and exhibitor for the show (Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, Amazon, etc.) has cancelled and will not be attending. Neither will their employees. With a local petition of 38,000 calling for the event to be cancelled Austin has all the earmarks of being a relative ghost town for two weeks. I wonder if wristbands will start being discounted and hotel room rates heavily reduced in price.
I don't think the people who own the festival can take a full year's cancellation and stay in business so I hope it survives in some form this year. I'm on hold for three days of shooting for a corporate client beginning next Friday but I have a suspicion that I'll be getting a phone call just outside that 48 hour cancellation period telling me the gig has been cancelled. I'm fine with that since it means more time at the pool, at the half empty restaurants, and on the phone with suddenly un-busy clients.
Mindless Photo Workshops. I saw a mindless ad for a laughable workshop on Instagram yesterday. The copy basically said: You are on assignment for a client. You are very excited about your assignment until you get to your location and find that the light there is ugly. What do you do? You can take Bob Smith's workshop that will teach you how to find beautiful natural light.
WTF? If you are at the point in your career where you are accepting assignments, taking a client's money to produce photography for profit, and working on various locations then why in all that's holy don't you know how to use lights? Yes, available light can be great but after years of doing this and earning a good living at it I'll tell you straight up that not every location will have ANY beautiful, naturally occurring light. And then there's mixed light. And then there is darkness. And then there is good light with bad backgrounds, and even worse locations. And just because the light is best over there by the dumpsters doesn't mean the CEO of Super Corporation wants to stand next to a smelly dumpster to take advantage of that crucial spot of available light.
If you are accepting a range of assignments from paying clients you need to put on your big boy pants and learn how to light with lighting instruments. Flashes, LEDs, movie lights, and so much more. Anything else is malpractice. Of course the ad was from a camera store and flashed on Instagram...
Doesn't anyone want to learn how to do the business correctly? Geesh.
Michael Johnston doesn't understand Leica. MJ recently wrote something that was so (intentionally?) opaque about Leica, and the idea that most photographers don't like rangefinders, that it led me to believe his newest diet fad is causing him some light-headedness.
I think the underlying issue is much the same as today's reader's response to the Sigma 45mm lens blog post (all lenses with the same focal length and aperture are commodities and interchangeable) which, reading into the comment was basically the question: "Why should I pay four times as much for the same thing?" Short answer: Because all lenses of the same focal length do not supply the same results...
MJ is wearing his finances on his sleeve and it's spilling over into his writing about cameras. If we can only be interested in cameras that fit into a very narrow price band then this hobby, profession and industry is going to get even more boring and homogenous than ever before.
Yes. I get it. Leica's are expensive. Very expensive. Not everyone can afford one. But that doesn't mean Leica shouldn't continue to try to be the best, to be different, to make a product that people who can afford it will love using and appreciate owning. It's like saying everyone should drive cars that cost between $24,000 and $36,000 and that anything outside the top of that range is meaningless, unattainable and wasteful; nothing but a ego purchase. (Don't get me started about MJ's outlier belief that people only buy SUVs because everyone else is driving an SUV...)
As I said, MJ was opaque and I couldn't tell where the honest opinion ended and the sarcasm began.
Rangefinders are an acquired taste. In a small range of focal lengths rangefinders deliver a bunch of real benefits. They are not good for use with long telephoto lenses and the viewfinders aren't optimal for shorter lenses, but in that typically critical 35-90mm range they totally rock and are incredibly useful.
Nope. A Leica M is not the camera you want to buy if you want to take tightly composed photos at your kid's soccer game. No, the M is not a great camera with which to do macro work. And, no, it's not good if you are one of those psychopaths who believe they need to shoot everything at 30 frames per second, all the time. But you can't pull stumps with a Miata, can't pull a horse trailer with your Vespa, shouldn't consider going off road with your Ferrari, etc.
What Mike misses is that true photography, as the gods intended us to practice it, was invented to be done with a German designed 50mm lens on an M body with a nice, big finder magnification and a bright rangefinder. Everything else is just functional heresy. Oh, and having to take the bottom plate off the camera to load film was implemented by design; to give photographers a moment to cool off between shots....
Buy yourself a great, digital Leica M, become disgusted with your inability to learn how to use the rangefinder, sell it while in existential despair so I can buy it from you for a song.
But not really. I'm waiting for the SL2 to become widely available. It's got all the hallmarks of a cult camera for the moment. That's the one I'm interested in.
That's all the opinionated vitriol I have for you right now. Stay tuned for a booster dose.
That's all the opinionated vitriol I have for you right now. Stay tuned for a booster dose.
24 comments:
This is vitriol? At least you could have mentioned the decisive moments you can capture with Leica M. That would have raised the sarcasm to recognizable levels :^)
Eagerly awaiting a booster dose...
I love that ending about staying tuned for a booster dose.
Ken
C'mon Kirk! Don't hold back, man. Tell us how you *really* feel.
MJ is like that old guy who sits on a bench outside the drugstore. He really wants you to stop and chat but after the first couple of times you avoid him because you just don't want to waste anymore time on wide ranging drivel. About once every couple of months he hits a home run but the signal to noise ratio is generally not good. Don't get me wrong he's a good writer, when he stays on the topic that most people want him to write about. Diets are definitely not one of them! I wish him all the best, he really is a good guy but I just think it's hard for him to stay on a winning course.
As a light tight box that focuses and holds a lens, the Leica is a good camera.
Eric
Kirk, please be nice to Mike. TOP & VSL are the only photo blogs I follow faithfully, and it's because I enjoy the writing, regardless of topic or POV. I learn things from both of you guys.
I understand that you may be a little bit "down" of late, but ... to quote a notice on this page, "If you disagree with something ..." [someone has] "... written please do so civilly. Be nice ..."
I like Mike. He's great. But I am still allowed to disagree with him on stuff. I think he'll understand.
In the meantime I'm getting into my (smallish) SUV and driving over to see the very good photo exhibition about the 1960's Civil Rights Movement over at the Bob Bullock Museum. Better prints from 60 year old Leica negatives than I generally see from current, high res digital cameras. Word.
Eric, While MJ and I have different ways of focusing on photography I'll have to come to his defense and say that his "Very Interesting" hit rate is far higher than you've given him credit for. If we could just get him away from pool and dietary stuff he'd be hitting in the high 80 percentile. I read him every day. Some days I read slower and savor, some days I speed read and drink my coffee faster. But I'm still there every day.
Dave Jenkins, Thanks but I don't think my readers are ready for an unfiltered dose of KT unleashed. We'll save it for that day when I feel like burning down the whole blog. May be sooner, may be later.
Just kidding, Kirk. I'm sure you know that your blog and Mike's are two that I check every day.
I will state for the record, though, that the piece you wrote about Leicas for photo.net years ago is the best I have ever read. (And I've read a lot.)
I, on the other hand, tried for 41 years to become comfortable using a Leica and never succeeded. I finally gave up and sold my last one ten years ago.
I have been weighing up the Leica SL2. Compared to the M10 with the 50mm Apo lens, the SL2 with the 50mm Apo lens, is almost £2k less expensive. And it's my birthday next week, so I would have a day off to play with all my M lenses on the L mount body.
And I can get an awful lot of heavy photo gear, (like the SL2), into my SUV....
I find myself reading both your blogs daily for 2 reasons even though in both cases your photographic styles are very different from my own. First, you both have engaging writing styles and secondly you’re both concerned with photography for the joy of it rather than the breathless gear reviewers who are in it for the page views and seem to have no more photographic talent than the average Yanomami tribesman. I think MJ’s pool writing is as interesting to me as your (swimming) pool writing but I read both because of the quality of the human behind the sentences. I especially value your blog because of your unbiased writing about cameras like the FP which I am tempted to add to my arsenal. Mike’s disdain (which he unconvincingly denies) for Leica I find annoying (I have owned Leica but don’t currently).
Maybe it is because the (American) English language for me is a foreign one, but even
after reading twice and searching between the lines:
I could not find one bad word about Leica or rangefinders in Michael's little treatment.
Isn't the essence of his text, that (in my words)
"there are good, maybe even better cameras from other companies, but if you want to go rangefinder, choose a Leica?" Nothing about dentists, only a short bit of Veblen-talk.
Me, since years stumbling around with a M2 on my stomach, did in no way not feel offended.
I think your term "opaque" sums up the Mike Johnston piece on Leica. After reading it twice, I don't know what the hell I just read. Chalk it up to my lack of familiarity with the cameras discussed. Or to fad diet lightheadedness on the author's part. There are times when I consider ending my miniscule Patreon contribution because I feel guilty subsidizing the spread of diet quackery. Then I reconsider, realizing that the diet content is basically benign and that the reader is free to take it or leave it. One can place only so much credence in healthy eating advice from a guy who also reports he is sick for a month at a time.
TOP remains a daily touch point, though, much like your writing, because it generates a certain illusion of connectedness. Two very different paths, one trod by a full-time photographer who is also an exceptional writer. The other by a (mostly) full-time writer who often admits he is not a photographer. Yet, they both lead to the same place: an opportunity to keep in touch. With cameras nearby.
I like that Mike has created a nice community. I love your description of me...
I think everyone should follow my diet and exercise plan. A couple of sick days a year are proof of concept. But I'm more inclined to think we should leave everyone to their own devices about everything but cameras. In that arena it's all chaos anyway.
Kirk, yours is the only blog of any sort I check on every day. I use to check on Mike's every day as well. It almost seemed like a bit of an online pilgrimage. Something that one should do out of respect and showing support for our chosen interest in photography. An icon who must be respected and listened to. Now I check in maybe twice a week and pick out the articles I feel interest me. One advantage Mike has is his ability to write pieces that interest many different photographic POV's. By being a generalist he captures a wider audience. More flavours to choose from so to speak. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
I don't have a bone to pick with MJ. It's just that I have chosen to spend much less time on the computer and the time I do devote to it I want good quality grade AAA meat. I could never do what you and MJ do. It's a gift you both have and it's to our benefit that you both choose to share your insights and intellect.
Eric
Hi Kirk,
I'm holding a fundraiser so we can get you a close italics tag. :-)
I'm agnostic about Leica and rangefinders in general, but am happy they exist and would welcome a donor copy into the Gear Vault. Serious People take some Seriously Nice Images with them and that's enough proof that they can do the job. Don't know whether I have the patience to adopt the skillset to master one.
I last pondered an M when looking at the Contax G 3-lens kit and decided on that, rather than the M body the same amount would net my dollars (who needs lenses, anyway?). Today, of course, the residual value lever tilts menacingly to the Leica side of the ledger, given what happened to the lamented Contax. But the G kit took amazing images with the tiny Zeiss gem lenses, and those images are the only thing of lasting value one needs from a camera.
I have a IIIc rangefinder (no red dot can be found anywhere, so is it really a Leica?) that I ran a few rolls through for the experience--a primitive process but a somewhat charming and quirky one. It produces images but I can't say they're special nor that the process made ma a more contemplative photographer. Certainly a slow one. Also have a couple treasured mechanical wristwatches, which I consider little marvels on par with handbuilt cameras. Funnily, I'm wearing [checks wrist] a Garmin wrist-top computer. It knows when the sun and moon rise and set.
I suppose as one contemplates why Leica still exists in an industry landscape littered with dead camera makers and a few deeply threatened survivors, there's no logical answer. No-holds-barred and quirky is an interesting business plan and so long as the well-heeled buy them, they'll probably stay afloat. Porsche sells out their 911-series production (all cost six figures) but makes their nut selling SUVs. Leica warms over some Panasonic point-and-shoots but I doubt that keeps the doors open for them.
Emotion versus logic. Cameras are perfect for that conundrum.
Some times MJ's writing is too clever/cute by half. Other times his nebulous thinking leads to fuzzy output that is incomprehensible too many. Often it is both.
Mike promotes a lot of quackery, all of which I'm sure he truly believes. Reading someone who is befuddled by their beliefs does nothing except raise my blood pressure. I gave up reading TOP several months ago.
Krik, I've read MJ's Leica post twice after reading your post here and I don't read anything in it that implies what you've stated. He states very clearly that if you want a rangefinder - Leica is the best: "Leicas are the best and all Leicas are Leicas. " from his article. As to rangefinders - I do think most people prefer AF cameras to those that use rangefinder focusing. I take your commentary as somewhat tongue in cheek in particular the "...as the gods intended.." could be used for all sorts of Special Interest topics.
As to his advice on diet and other off topics - one thing to consider is genetics. No matter how healthy the life style, including diet - sometimes the genetics are stacked against you. I know first hand from a family member suffering some debilitating issues, inspite of a very healthy lifestyle. Your off topics are technically no different than Mikes and are equally entertaining to read - some more so than others. One of the reasons I read both blogs daily is for the excellent writing on all topics covered - don't change!
As to SUV's - I know several people that have stated their desire for an SUV for the very reason Mike stated - because they can't see around the SUV's they are surrounded by on the road. Maybe its a midwest thing.
The joy of reading various blogs is having the ability to know when to ignore items that do not hold interest - the rest is pure fun.
I read two blogs almost every day; MJ and KT. But credit to where credit is due: The Comments.
I have read this post and Mike J.'s post and have read the various comments for the last few days while I have been ruminating about them.
I followed your link for the short course nationals and think that I might get close to the qualifying standards for the 70-74 age group...next year. There is still a lot of technique work to be done. Watching some of the races at the pro swim meet in Des Moines the last couple of days just reinforces the importance of good starts and turns.
I have a variety of thoughts on range finders generally and Leicas specifically. I am actually a member of the rangefinder forum. My first camera was an Argus C44. Lets just say I have no nostalgic feeling for it. I did have a Canon Canonet QL 17 for a while that I liked. I have also had the opportunity to play around a bit with various Leicas and had a friend who had a CL that I was able to use quite a bit. For me, and your mileage will vary, the viewfinder/rangefinder of the M2 and M4 would be the reason to have a Leica. My guess is that I would find the ability to see outside of the frame to be very useful in street types of photography and a non issue in more contemplative work. I haven't had the opportunity to look through one of Fuji's cameras that have a hybrid viewfinder but would be interested to see if I would find it useful for me.
To sum it all up, I enjoyed this post and also Mike's. And as far as getting off tangent, I also enjoy both your and Mike's comments on other subjects. The discussion here about swimming reinforces my decision to get back into the pool and now I want to build a new room on the house to to hold a snooker table.
I've owned a fraction of the cameras Kirk has but I have owned three Leica film cameras. At the time I owned them I also owned a couple Pentax film cameras with several of their limited series prime lenses. Yes the Leicas are well made and a joy to use but I was never able to see an image quality difference between the Leica and the Pentax primes that justified the enormous difference in price.
Kirk writes "Oh, and having to take the bottom plate off the camera to load film was implemented by design; to give photographers a moment to cool off between shots...."
I think you overstepped in your assumption there Kirk; or perhaps you can back that statement up? My understanding is the body was designed that way for more structural solidity.
Dear Anonymous Poster. The quote about the bottom plate was (I thought, obviously...) made tongue in cheek. Which in more literal terms means I was joking or kidding. Attempting humor by exaggeration. Your understanding was correct; the solid body and removable bottom where designed for maximum strength and rigidity.
The price difference between Leica film cameras (and lenses) and Pentax film cameras and lenses was much less extreme in the film days. And Pentax lenses were very good. Now it's a much, much different story.
Fred, for some really great videos about better swimming go see: Effortless Swimming on YouTube. It's an Australian series I've been following for the last three or four months and every tip I've learned has helped me swim better and drop times. Should be required watching for swimmers....
All the best, Kirk
P.S. Snooker? Sounds weird. KT
Post a Comment