The first sniff test with the Sony RX10. Stills only right now.

VSL CEO gesticulating wildly at an advisory board meeting for the photography 

department at Austin Community College. Image taken by fellow board member during the "new camera pass around."

Claire knew that it was inevitable that I'd be buying an RX10 and deep down I knew it from the day of the first announcement. How could I not after having experienced nearly nine years of perfection from it's noble ancestor, the Sony R1? For those who've chosen to remain out of the new product loop I'll make a brief detour to flesh out what the camera is: Sony has taken the backlit 20 megabyte sensor from the RX100-2, put it in a body with a serious and uncompromising 24-200mm (equivalent) Carl Zeiss Sony with a constant f2.8 aperture (yes: all the way to 200...), designed in a very good EVF and added enough video feature sets to make most new school video artists very happy. 

They packaged all of this into a beautifully designed package with lots of button and dial controls, a snazzy and easy to navigate menu and the ultra cheap price of $1300. If it does everything it's supposed to do it will be a bargain. One video reviewer who was virtually salivating on his keyboard about the lens made the point that he would pay upwards of $2,000 if he could get just that lens alone for his preferred video system. My friend Eric summed the lens up yesterday by saying that if it performed as advertised it represented the "holy grail" of lenses for videographers...

I'll reserve judgement on the ultimate quality of both the lens and the files until I've had a bit more time with the camera. Today was my first day out with the new toy and of course it was a gray and rainy day (just what one of our UK commenters suggested I try only yesterday. 

So far I'm having glorious fun with the camera and I have not yet revved up the video half. The lens is a "power zoom" and it's "fly-by-wire" so it takes a little getting used to but it's well damped in it's action and doesn't exhibit any of the overshoot I used to get from the first version of Canon's 85mm 1.1:2 L series lens with its fly-by-wire manual focusing. 

The camera is light and agile and while you know you are using a contrast detect AF camera there's really very little focus hesitation or hunting, even in lower light situations. 

I set up the camera today by selecting Jpeg, extra fine, AWB, Auto ISO and I shot mostly in the aperture priority mode sticking to f-stops on the fast side of the dial. It's perfectly fine at f2.8 and I like the bountiful depth of field I can get at the 24mm equivalent when I stop down to f5.6.  I used the center focusing system in S-AF as I do with most cameras and didn't mess with stuff like HDR or fast frame rates. 

I played with the Sony RX-1 but I really played hard with the original Sony R1. A much under appreciated camera!!!!

So how is the Sony R1 at 1600 ISO? Not bad if you are willing to shoot raw...

One of my professional photographer friends was doing some last minute holiday shopping and he came upon the new Sony RX-1 at the local camera shop, figured he needed to get himself a nice stocking stuffer, and snapped one up. He likes it pretty well. We met for coffee a few days ago and I spent an hour or so playing with the camera and looking through the menu. I love 90% of the idea of the camera and, if I had about $3500 laying around I'd snap one up. Oh, you thought it was priced at $2800 US$? Well, only if you want a partial product. If you want a usable camera you'll need to spend six hundred dollars more to get the (vital) electronic viewfinder. Can you imagine buying a camera like this and having to use stinky-baby-diaper hold in order to operate it? Absolute madness.

Short review? The images are pretty amazing. Perfect color with lots of depth and sharp, sharp, sharp. The body is very nicely designed and the aperture ring around the lens is like addictive candy. Will I buy one? Not hardly. I'm not a 35mm focal length only fan and I'm not rushing out to buy a multi-thousand dollar camera that I have to use like a cellphone. 

So what are we talking about today instead? Well, it dawned on me that all these mirrorless cameras had their predecessors and as unlikely as it seems I think one of the progenitors of the RX-1, with its fixed lens, was the Sony R1.  A camera I've owned since it came out in late 2004, early 2005 and have loved using it. But even though I've had the camera for nearly eight years now it has become a new camera for me in the last two weeks. And I'm going to explain why.

R1. Juicy Files at ISO 160.

First I guess I should bring readers up to speed about the R1. It is an antiquity now. In 2004, when the camera was announced, there were no bridge cameras with APS-C sized sensors. Electronic viewfinders had just hit the market a few years earlier but had never been used on a high end camera. Sony engineers must have been sitting around goofing and doing what if???? over too many rounds of drinks, but they finally came up with a strange idea. What if we take basically the same incredibly detailed sensor we sell to Nikon for the D2X and put it in an "all in one" camera?  Yes, yes, the best low ISO sensor on the market today....sounds good!!! But why stop there? Let's get Carl Zeiss to design the world's best 24-120mm equivalent zoom lens and have them optimize it exactly for that wonderful sensor!  Yes, and let's include an electronic viewfinder and give some lucky photographers a preview of the future of photography.  Just to be totally wild let's price the whole shebang under $1,000. What the heck? IQ performance that rivals the $6000 D2X at one sixth the price....and then we throw in one of the world's best zooms just for free? Let's do it. And then the bars closed and they all went to work and created an incredibly interesting camera---

The Sony R1.

So what did they end up with? It's an all-in-one camera with a 10.2 megapixel APS-C sized sensor, an LCD panel and EVF which both offer full time live view, flash sync to 1/2000th of a second. Almost entirely silent shutter operation, a brilliant (and widely praised) lens, of which the reviewers at DPReview said, "the lens alone is worth the price of the whole camera.."

The downsides? Tiny buffer. Shoot two frames of raw and then wait 9 seconds for the buffer to clear.  Low res screens (typical of 2004). The lens is slower at the long end: 4.8 versus 2.8 wide open. An odd body design. Noise above 400 ISO.  That's about it.

The good stuff: Great battery life, great optics, a very good low ISO sensor. The first decent EVF on the market. All in one design means no choices to make; just grab it and go.

You're probably wondering why I moved on to other cameras for my work and why I'm just reassessing the camera at the end of 2012 but stuff changes all the time and some of the stars that would have made this camera tremendous on its initial release have lined up now.

When I used the R1 back in the "old days" of 2005-2006 storage was more expensive, both for the cameras and in computers. The R1 created uncompressed raw files that clocked in a 25 megabytes apiece.  Not only did the camera write those files slowly but the "big" cards of the day filled up quickly. At the time I was doing nothing but portraits and events and the write time for raws was a killer. The camera was also tough to use with studio flash because the "framing mode" was so noisy. While the raw files out of the camera were really good it was never a perfect jpeg camera and, well, I moved on to more flexible solutions.

But tellingly, I could never bring myself to sell the R1.

What changed between then and now? Let me count the ways:  Raw converters have improved by leaps and bounds. The conversion magic juice for the R1 in the latest rev of Lightroom (4.3) is astoundingly better. There's even a wonderful lens profile that makes the Zeiss lens not only perfectly rectilinear but also eliminates any sort of CA or vignetting. The files are night and day better than what we were getting out of the Sony raw conversion software.  Now you can see just how good the lens and sensor are.

Memory is now dirt cheap. Fast eight gig CF cards run circles around the cards I was using in 2004-2005. Hard drive space seems infinite in comparison. And I've become a more patient shooter.....  All that adds up to a new willingness to shoot the Raw files.  Especially for the wondering around downtown snapping unrelated stuff that I like to do.

The biggest bonus is the way the raw converter in Lightroom now handles noise. When I shot the camera in Jpeg in 2005 the files became too noisy for me at 800 and too noisy for most people at anything over 400 ISO. Now I'm happy to shoot raw at 1600 ISO because the noise is no longer the color speckle sort. It's sharp and demure monochromatic graininess that looks very photographic.

How good is the sensor when shooting in optimal conditions? It's great. Especially with raw processing. And that's not surprising given that I know professional shooters who are still doing great studio and landscape work with Nikon D2X's which share the same sensor basics. (Thank you Sony...).  But if it were just a question of good sensors the camera would be interesting but not particularly relevant today. What makes the camera important (at least to me) is the combination of the sensor with a really good lens.

As I was walking around the new Federal Courthouse the other day I spotted this one million dollar bill on the ground. This is the full frame shot, handheld, of the bill.

When you've worked with lots of different cameras, and when you have a short camera attention span, you sometimes forget about the good stuff you were able to accomplish with older gear. I'm just now remembering shooting a brochure for very high end office park here in Austin. I pulled a printed sample out of the filing cabinet and I'm still impressed by the 24mm (equivalent) focal length and how well it rendered architecture (both interior and exterior). 

Anyway, I snapped the bill on the ground and left it there for someone else to find. When I got back to the studio I pulled up that file and took a peek. It was nice enough. Then I pixel peeped at 100% and I was impressed. That file is right below....

100% crop of million dollar bill.

And the lens is sharp across the range of focal lengths. I'm not sure I've really ever owned a better zoom lens but it's pretty impossible to compare across systems since we can't remove this one from its body. One lens I remember that was in the same ballpark was the Olympus 4:3, 14-35mm f2 but it was hobbled by a much poorer sensor implementation when I was shooting it....

The new Federal Courthouse building. Austin.

Why am I re-hashing all of this when there's not a ready supply of the cameras around and there's so much other great stuff in the marketplace? I guess it's because we (as a photo culture) tend to be so focused on what's next that we never really stop to appreciate what we already have in our hands. Many sites on the web (Thom Hogan & DPReview, for example) have proclaimed the Olympus OMD EM-5 to be the camera of the year but so many people are already anxious for the next upgrade. Waiting for the "professional" version to come out. Kind of crazy considering that they have an incredible tool in their hands already.

I think we've hit interesting times as image makers. Digital imaging tools are now hitting the point where the potential of the cameras and (to some extent) the lenses far exceed the patience for good technique that most people are willing to spend. At this point any improvements in technology, for most users, are just theoretical. If many of the people who begged for higher megapixel counts just stuck their cameras on a tripod they would (right now) probably see a doubling of "real" resolution. Really.

I like what the Sony R1 does. It's not magic, it was just a well designed and pretty well implemented camera for its time. I think it was my exposure to the Sony RX1 that got me thinking about it again. That, and the RX100. While both of those cameras do interesting things and yield good image quality there are so many compromises that the original R1 stepped right over. All cameras that aim for diligent and detail oriented users should have eye level finders. Yes, you can add one to the RX1 but at a economic and ergonomic cost. The RX100 works well for shooters with perfect close vision but for anyone who needs reading glasses (a lot of my readers) the operation of the camera is fraught with compromise.

The R1 was on the right track. I wonder how well Sony would do if they were able to put the same sensor they use in the a99 and RX1 into an "all-in-one" camera like an R1. A camera with a state of the art zoom lens specifically designed to work optimally with the sensor. No mirror anywhere but a great LCD and an even better EVF. Put the whole shebang on the market for less than $2,000 and you might just end up with the ultimate DLSR market killer.

And you'd never have to make a choice about cameras and lenses as you headed out the door to do art.

Finally, I guess the message I take away from my latest user experiments is that a camera is now only part of the equation. Even older tech is boosted tremendously by the continuous improvement of processing software. Converting files in Lightroom 4.3 is a tremendous step forward for an already good camera. Now maybe I'll look a bit harder at the software side of the equation next time I have the urge to upgrade. I've been testing the latest Capture One software with my Sony a99 lately and it's an instant step up as well. It's a lot more complex these days than just choosing a body and a lens. Our physical gear lust sometimes blinds us to that reality.

Hope you are having a fun New Year's Day. 

Considering smaller and smaller cameras.

Life became more interesting for me a few years ago when I bought a Sony R1 camera. It was what is commonly referred to as a "bridge" camera. Not really a point and shoot and not really an SLR. But 10 megapixels and continual live view. A fun, articulated finder that could be used as a waistlevel finder, ala the old Hasselblads. But at its heart it is a point and shot. The viewing is done on screens, both on the back and through the viewfinder. But what made it fun is that you and your subject are not likely to take the camera that seriously....

So why am I writing about this? Two reasons: 1. Canon has just announced a camera that I think will have a profound effect on the bottom end of the professional photography market and maybe the entire market. And, 2. I've just done a few jobs wherein I used point and shoot cameras to supplement my traditional DSLR's with good results.

Let's start with the Canon announcement. The camera is called a G11 and will replace the Canon G10. The 10 is an emminently usable gem of a camera that packed 15 megapixels onto a small chip with really convincing results-----as long as you shot your photos at ISO 80 or ISO 100. When you sauntered off to higher ISO's you got more and more noise as the density of the sensor started working against low noise.

Everyone who has used the G10 loves it except for the noise. They love the form factor and the very good image stabilization and the very high resolution. But almost to a person they remark that Canon would have made the perfect camera if they had resisted the "megapixel race" and just kept the sensor at 10 megapixels. Apparently Canon listens. The G11 will have a sensor with 50% fewer pixels and the pay-off is a promised two stops increase in performance vis-a-vis sensor noise.

So, in a matter of weeks you'll have access to a small camera with these benefits: 1. A fast, sharp lens. 2. A very quiet operation. 3. Low noise up to at least 400 ISO. 4. A professional hot shoe for all kinds of flashes and flash triggers!!!! 5. Raw file capability. 6. Fast shutter response. 7. A flash sync capable of going all the way up to 1/2500th of a second. And finally, 8. A solid metal body.

Assuming that your style of photography is the "captured moment" or "street" photography or even work in the studio with continuous or electronic flash lighting you could do a ton of work with one of these cameras......all for the princely sum of less than $500 (US).

I've used a Canon G10 for many photographs. For a while I made it a habit to shoot professional work with both a D700 and, if time permitted, the little guy. And sometimes the G10 worked better. More depth of field, easier to use live view mode, etc.

If you've read my ramblings over the past few months you know that I am continuing to explore the idea that, as we go further and further into the web as the outlet for our photographic work, the concept, execution, lighting and subject rapport will trump the physical superiorities of expensive professional cameras. Content will finally become about content instead of being about craft.

The barriers to entry into professional photography have always been multi-tiered. The first line of defense in the preservation of the professional space has always been the myriad complexities of operating the machinery. But the real magic has always been the ability to think and be different from everyone else and to be able to express that genuine eccentricity in your work. Craftsmen seek perfection, artist seek expression. The craft used to be the country club dues that allowed one into the inner circle where opportunity lay. Now it lay all over the place but because the barriers are falling, one by one, the entry level "craft" intensive work has become commodified and adhering to the laws of supply and demand the market is consistently lowering the cost to the final user.

But, and this is important, the price of creativity has not become commodified because there is no way to replicate it. Art and vision is like a virus that replicates itself each time mankind in general find a "solution", a "formula" and a way of making current art a commodity. That's the magic of it all. People will pay for vision before they pay for craft. If you can combine them both without letting craft set oppressive boundaries you'll have chance at the winner's circle.

Coming full circle I see the G11 (and all the copycat cameras that are sure to come) to be a change that reduces the weight and structure of photography making the process more transparent. The hope is that this will push down the formalist restrictions of the process and free up the vision of the user.

I used to be a camera snob until I set up some lights and a 14 megapixel SLR in a mixed light set up and looked at the previewed image on the back of the camera. One of my clients took a shot with his iPhone. The iPhone snapshot looked better. Now I'm up for anything that works.

I mentioned a project I worked on earlier in the year using a point and shoot camera. It was for a client who need some landscape imagery for use on a web site. I shot wild flowers and roadways and overpasses and landscapes. One day I shot everything with a Canon SX10 camera. The 28mm equivalent lens on a 7mm sensor gave me sharp and detailed focus on flower right in front of my face and kept the monolithic road constructions a hundred feet away very sharp.

I shot with the P&S because the work was supposed to be used only on a website. The client called and got permission to use them in another project. My client is a ten year veteran of the business and can read files as well as I do in PhotoShop. Her monitor is as well calibrated as mine. If she looked at the image at 100% and found it usable I certainly wasn't going to question her judgement. Bottom line? The image looked great on a spread in an annual report printed on glossy stock. Really great.

I'm buying two of the G11's (cameras should always travel in pairs.....) and I intend to use them for any professional job I come across that would be improved by their unique properties. In fact, with the exception of jobs that call for very narrow depth of field looks I can think of few instances where the cameras would not be competent.

Finally, I sat with a photographer this afternoon who has done much work in Europe for National Geographic Traveler. He was showing me a story about shooting London with cameras that cost under $1,000. His camera of choice (this was a few years ago) was a Sony V3. His work was wonderful. Street shots full of movement. Challenging lighting. Interior shots. Even great dusk shots.

He had hedged his bets by shooting some shots with a Canon 1DS camera (state of the art at the time). While the bigger camera was better at very high apertures most of the street scenes and general images were equally good on either camera.

It's a brave new world. It's time to be brave about separating our perceptions about cameras from our intentions about art. I'd love to hear from people who are shooting professionally with cameras like the G10.

Free Versus Free.

It's that time of the year again. The Austin director of the Kipp Schools would like me to donate time and energy to help them with their annual report. Their AR is one of their principal fund raising tools. We've done the last four, won some Addy Awards and some local awards and generally helped move their game forward. The Kipp schools are non-profit charter schools that serve an incredibly important function. They provide a top quality, college prep education for children with brains and talent who are underserved in public schools. According to a huge article in the New York Times the people who do the Kipp schools have achieved amazing results. Given the opportunity the kids excel. They match the test scores of kids from affluent neighborhoods. Amazing stuff.

The job will take a couple of days of shooting on location. A couple days of post processing and a few meetings. They would like me to donate my services and I will. I'll do it because it's an educational cause I believe in, the economy has provided me ample free time, and it's a nice showcase for my work. Does this mean that I believe in doing free work as a means of promotion? No.

I've been following a thread on the web wherein the original poster complained about Google asking professional (meaning established, working designers) to submit spec designs for material that would be used on various websites. If accepted there is no other payment than the implication that one's work would be seen by millions of viewers.

This follows on the heels of various posts on the web that contend the only way to break into New York's closed circle of fashion magazines is to offer to work for free. Many people rushed to protest this point of view. And there is a an obvious disconnection.

Supporters of the "work for free" theory suggest that it will bring in massive amounts of commissioned work at highly profitable rates. They further suggest that this the paradigm of the future for artists so we should stop whining and get with the program. They point to photographic luminaries such as Joe McNally and David Hobby as examples of people who are giving away their photo knowledge and prospering. And here's the disconnect: David and Joe have products to sell that are different than photo commissions. They are selling books, DVDs and workshops. Their rationed release of information, and Joe's scintillating stories from the field have as their goal to sell product. Their blogs are not aimed at clients, in fact, if we are to be honest our advertising clients have little interest or time to cruise photographer's blogs. So while David and Joe are prospering by offering free samples they are prospering by selling intellectual property through these vehicles and not art.

For large companies to leverage their reach and their resources to exploit and extract time, intellectual property and art from single person businesses by making vague insinuations about the value of exposure is unethical and immoral. Helping out your family or your favorite cause is part of our common pact with each other and with civilization. Helping a major corporation become wealthier by becoming a "scab", and a free one at that creates inertia that pushes artists further and further away from being able to survive financially in this world.

There are those who argue that they have no obligation to support artists. I agree. The market will decide which artist succeed financially and which will fail. But I would argue that a person supported by his or her profession who muddies the waters of the creative markets by placing the aggrandizement of their ego over the welfare of society in general and, by extension, the fate of the arts, is making choices that will make our culture coarser and less compassionate. I think that's sad. If you are good enough to do the work you should be paid for it in real currency.

Here are my ground rules for donating my services as a photographer: The cause must be good. The entity must be a non-profit. The use of my art must conform to best industry practices. The final piece should have a clear goal and a clear set of metrics with which to measure success.

If you are a full time doctor, lawyer, IT guy, etc. and you are giving work to corporations for free that they would otherwise pay for you are disrupting a system that supports imaginative thinking and creativity. That's all.