If you think, as I do, that all cameras are really good these days then now is the time for bargain shopping.

Or, how to make your hobby (or business) less of a financial drain...

Olympus OMD EM-5 with 17mm 1.8 lens, and hand grip.

Can we talk? You and I love to buy cameras and lots of other photographic stuff. I actually write about new gear on my blog all the time so you'd think I'd be racing to the poor house with my incessant gear purchases, right? Well, maybe not so much. You see, I like to wait for everyone else to buy the gear first and work out the bugs, then use it for a while and figure out the best workflows. Then I kinda hang around until they get a whiff of the newest stuff and get the urge to upgrade. At that point I get interested in the gear and buy it used. Never for more than fifty cents on the dollar.  If I don't like it I can almost always sell it a bit further down the road for more or less what I paid. 

Now, I don't always work like this. I ran out and bought the new Panasonic GH4 when it came out because I had specific video projects that I knew I wanted to use that camera for (and make money with) and, being the first real user 4K camera on the market it's not like I had older, cheaper options to consider.

But more often than not I try to love old cameras more than the latest cameras. Especially the ones that earn universal kudos before they are put out to pasture. One of my favorites was the Sony a850. It was an almost identical copy of the a900 full frame, 24 megapixel camera but in came out about a year later, cost $1999 instead of $2799 and was the absolute cheapest way to get into a full frame and 24 megapixel cameras at the time. I probably had a sales associate pull one off the shelf twelve times so I could play with it and even though I wanted it I knew I didn't "need" it. Not at the full price. 

Early last year I found one in great shape for around $850. Now this was before the launch of the Sony A7 cameras and, for a Sony user, the full frame choice of the moment was the a99 at $2799. I bought the a99 and paid the new toll but I couldn't see paying that again for a back up camera. If you aren't a professional user you might not need a back up. I do. It's total paranoia on my part but I can't go out on a shooting assignment without one. My brain just won't let me. Too much liability...

So I finally plunked down money for the a850. It was a great camera. The used one I bought was half the price of a new, APS-C, Sony a77 at the time. It was an amazing bargain for a studio photographer. When I bailed out of the Sony stuff this year the a850, used for another year, brought me exactly the same amount of money back when I sold it. Even Steven. I basically got to use, play with and leverage a fun, full frame and very professional camera for a year----for free. 

I don't always make such good bargains but then again I generally only lose money if I need the new technology (thought I needed the a99 for video---I was wrong) or if a camera is so lasciviously captivating that I can't extinguish the flames of desire and have the money in the bank. I lost as much money when divesting of the a99 as I initially spent on the a850. That's the price of having the camera of the moment. 

If you look back two years in the VSL archives you can read my high praise of the Olympus EM-5. I think it's the camera that really made mirror less cameras legitimate in the eyes of the center of the Bell curve consumers. But I was over equipped at the time it was launched with various Sony cameras and couldn't justify paying the "opening season" premium for the camera and the requisite lenses. Since that time I've watched legions of photographers gush about the quality of the files, the colors and the incredible in body IS. I envied them but I bought practical stuff like the Panasonic GH3's that I've used for a dozen video projects and nearly a hundred still shoots. I also knew I needed the video capabilities of the GH4 before I needed the particular attributes of the EM-5 for my style of business shooting but I never lost my admiration for the product and the engineering. 

A friend recently upgraded to a brace of EM-1 cameras, and a GH4 to keep his GH3 company. Feeling a bit overstocked he was ready, after two years of  EM-5 ownership, to lighten his inventory and sold me the two cameras at an amazing price. Less than half of the new price and paired with some great accessories which further sweetened the deal for me. Wow. These are great, low mileage cameras and I'm enjoying them as though they were brand new to me. 

Essentially what I'm getting at is that we've pretty much reached the consensus that cameras have hit a point of quickly diminishing returns. The stuff that was on the market two years ago isn't just half as good as today's products it's something like 98% as good as today's products and in some cases (many cases?) you'd have to be practicing pretty damn precise and careful techniques to see the difference. So----why pay for incremental improvements you are hardly likely to perceive?

I was motivated to write this after a trip yesterday to purchase a cheap lens at Precision Camera. There I saw several fervent photographers getting ready to trade in Nikon D800's and D800e's in order to purchase the new Nikon D810. Now, I know that the new camera sports the same number of pixels and most of the same features as the cameras it is replacing but I also know from reading what smart, experienced shooters have posted about how small and incremental the actual, visible quality differences are. Most will be obscured by lenses that aren't of high enough resolution to resolve those differences.

How old is the oldest D800? Is it two years old? Has anything in the 35mm format come out that trumps the performance by a discernible amount (and I mean discernible to mentally healthy people...)? Not that I know of. So I marveled at the folks who would willingly lose about $800 to $1,000 on the trade. What is it that they are seeing that I don't get? Doesn't matter. If they can perceive the difference, and value it, that's all that matters. 

But going forward here's my suggestion for truly enjoying the gear end of the practice of photography:  Buy stuff used! There are tons of used lenses and used bodies that are wonderful to work with but have been replaced by newer models, most of which don't add much to the spec list. 

I was combing the web and looking at bargains last week. Here are some I found:

The Fuji EX1 with the 18-55mm zoom lens (the fast one), in almost new condition for $600.

The difference between the EX-1 and a new EX-2? The finder is a bit better in the 2 and the screen on the back is two tenths of an inch wider. The sensor and the imaging pipeline, as well as the lens, are identical. And both of those camera have the identical sensor and imaging pipeline you'll find in the Pro-1.

You need a faster, more traditional body with class leading performance? Smart guy, Thom Hogan tells me that there's only 22% difference in resolution between a Nikon D7000 at 16 megapixels and the newer D7100 at 24 megapixels. His take? Not enough discernible difference for most people to care about at the final file sizes 99% will use. A new D7100? About $1100. A lightly used D7000? About $500. The difference in operation? Minimal. 

If you are mostly a mirror less shooter or APS-C shooter but you've always wanted to play around with the full framers (not for the resolution but because you know that perspective and depth of field is different) you could ante up for a D610 or a 6D from Nikon and Canon respectively or you could pick up a lightly used original Canon 5D for a whopping $600. My friend Paul and I were fondling one yesterday at the camera shop and it looked as though it had just been taken out of the box for the first time. The tariff? $600.  All the depth of field magic with the nasty depreciation already sucked out of the camera. 

The 17mm Olympus 1.8 lens above retails for around $500. The one I bought is in great condition and cost me less than $350. It works just as well as the new ones. 

We could go on and on but it's not like the old days where the jump from three to six megapixels was amazing and career changing. It's not like the days when Nikon and Canon jumped from six to twelve and then to 22-24 megapixels. The changes are a lot more subtle and they are happening at a slower pace. For all intents and purposes we're at the point where skipping generations of our favorite products doesn't make us feel like we're falling behind. 

Just a few thoughts on keeping the passion affordable. Now, who's got a lightly used Leica S they'd like to sell me at half the going new price? I might want to take a look at that...

Musician's Dog on Sixth St.

 Dog in a guitar case.

I don't remember exactly when I took this shot. I know which camera I used but it really doesn't matter because the exif info tells me I shot the image at f7.1 with a modern kit lens and I doubt a better (or worse) camera or a better lens would have made any difference at all. I was at loose ends and I was walking around with a camera in my hands looking for interesting stuff to photograph. 

I smiled at the owner, dropped a buck into his case and asked him if I could photograph his dog. "Sure."

I was happy to see that the dog had a fresh cup of kibble just to the left of his (or her) head and a collapsible bowl of clean water just outside the guitar case. I also was happy to see that the owner was using a harness instead of a collar. Studio Dog says that's her preferred rig because if they make a fast break for a squirrel and come up short on the leash it doesn't put stress on their necks. 

I wish I'd made a few different photography decisions but I'm happy to have the photograph. 

The camera I used to take this is long gone but the image, and its attendant memory for me is still right here.

Reading the Austin Chronicle on a sunny afternoon.

Jaston Williams (of Greater Tuna fame) in costume for his upcoming one man play: Maid Marian in a Stolen Car.

Jaston Williams as "Maid Marian"

Camera: Samsung Galaxy NX

Zach Theatre will be presenting Jaston Williams' one person play, Maid Marian in a Stolen Car, at the end of August. I spent a couple hours with Jaston shooting promotional photographs for print collateral, the web and the transilluminated posters that front the theatre on Lamar Blvd. and I can ensure you that it will be absolutely funny. When we did the shoot that yielded this particular shot and several hundred others I was in a big experimental phase with new cameras. I'd been bringing two or three bodies, sometimes from two or three different manufacturers and shooting the all to see how they were different and how they were alike. 

We had fun shooting with the relatively bizarre Samsung Galaxy NX because we were able to compose on a five inch LCD screen on the back of the camera. The art director and I were standing side by side in low light while Jaston performed in the high light levels of the modeling lights on the flashes I was using. This allowed us to see the rear screen with no glares or reflections. Nice feedback loop between photographer/trusted art director/animated talent. 

It was also great to be able to move the focusing point around with a finger. Something I also like to do on the Panasonic GH4. The Galaxy NX camera had some operational quirks and I stopped using it much after getting the newer and more streamlined NX 30.

Recently I've been going though thousands of shots from hundreds of shoots and trying to find fun new stuff to stick into a portfolio. I came across this one and, after playing with it for a while in PS I realized that while the camera and I didn't make a happy couple from a UI perspective the sensor and lenses were very, very good. It will probably be lost to the small file size on the web but the sharpness is high, the noise low and the colors are great. Always interesting to discover attributes in a camera that you didn't appreciate the first time around.

Fun stuff. 

The Photo Fiction/Action Adventure Novel 

of Summer 2014.

The frames between the frames.

Samsung Galaxy NX camera. 60 mm macro lens. 

Photography, as we practice it at the Visual Science Lab, is hardly ever deadly serious business. For the most part I chose this career because when I was working at an ad agency back in the 1980's the people in the ad business who seemed to be having the most fun were the photographers. They'd show up with a retinue of assistants, set up magical lights and fill the room with glorious energy. Once they got the perfect frame they played around some more, until they got bored or ran out of time. 

The fun thing; the wonderful thing is that the images we all loved and wanted to use in the ads were mostly the ones that came in the moments after the serious shooting. Those were the moment where everyone involved felt free to just play. Like kids. 

I'm all for photographers getting their technical ducks in a row but in a business like this, with all the budget cutting, uncertainty and competition, there's no reason to be in it unless you are actively having fun with the actual process of taking the pictures and making your art. 

I shot this for Samsung. Gloria was a wonderful model. We have tons of frames of her looking seriously alluring but the ones were we break away from the expected seriousness and play around with no seriousness involved are the most fun. A photo with the joy of the experience showing through is the target we're aiming at. You get there by letting go. You get there by sharing the fun.

A photograph from The Gospel at Colonus. Zach Theatre. Austin, Texas 2014

A shot during dress rehearsal. There's really nothing else to say.

Camera: Sony a99. Stage lighting. 

Meeting young Richard Linklater.

Richard Linklater, Director. 

© 1992 Kirk Tuck, All Rights Reserved.

I got a call from an art director at Elle Magazine. "Would you take some portraits of a young, Austin director for us?" he asked. This was way back in 1992. I told them that I'd be delighted and asked for a little direction. They gave me very little direction.  The art director said, "Just something casual." and then they gave me his telephone number. 

Richard had already done the movie, Slacker, and was in pre-production for a new movie called, Dazed and Confused, but he still answered his own phone and we made a date to meet at the apartment he was renting just off campus and to walk around shooting some photos. I talked an aspiring young actress named, Renee, into coming along with me to help carry a flash. There were no publicists involved, no fashion editor from the magazine, no entourages.

Richard's apartment was one of five or six that had been carved out of an old house just on the corner of 24th street and San Antonio St., a block over from the venerable and famous Les Amis Café and only two blocks from the University of Texas. When we got there he was sitting out in front on the steps waiting for us. Richard, Renee and I talked for ten minutes or so and discovered that we had all been in the English department at UT at one time or another. 

We walked down the long alley behind the main drag where we found this wall that all of us liked and we took a bunch of photos in that area. Richard even agreed to do some shots in a little brick area made for trash cans. The pictures of him laying on his side in a glamor pose are still funny.  

Everyone is very buttoned up now when it comes to things like make-up and costuming/wardrobe but on that day Richard was carrying a couple different shirts in a backpack and if we wanted to do a costume change he'd just pull off one t-shirt and pull on another one. It was Austin. He'd directed Slacker. Everyone was quite laid back. 

My favorite images from the shoot were taken with the Varsity Theater in the background. The vaguely out of focus murals in the background were of movie stills. It was cool. I've moved a couple of times since I shot those and I'm still looking for that box of medium format transparencies. I know they are here somewhere.

We ended up shooting some soft box lit portraits back in the studio but I think we all (including the magazine) knew we wanted to use the outdoor shots.

The magazine selected their favorites from six or seven rolls of 120mm transparencies. That's about 70 different 6x7 cm images in total. The image ran big enough to be decently credible with my peers and I enjoyed telling my women friends that I had a shot running in Elle. It was cool.

I shot with two different Pentax 6x7 cameras. One had a normal lens and one had a short telephoto on it. Almost certainly the lens we used was the 165 mm f2.8. What a wonderful lens...

I shot the whole collection of images handheld with ISO 100 transparency film and I can see that by today's standards the details in the images are a little soft. The main reason was that the Pentax 6x7 camera was the ultimate granddaddy for what we are now calling, "shutter shock." Back then we called it "mirror slap" but it all in the same category: unsharpness caused by camera vibrations.

Richard's newest movie, Boyhood, has opened to rave reviews from ...... everyone. And it's an amazing project done over twelve years. It's a small town here in Austin, the actress who plays the younger girl (11 or 12) is the daughter of a videographer whom I have worked with on many projects, for decades.  Another friend and one time writing partner spent part of that year as the official chaperone on the movie set of Richard's second feature.

It's fun to look back at where currently famous people started out. I will remember Richard as being one of the least pretentious and most accommodating people I've worked with. And it was nice of him to hire my assistant for a part in his next movie. It is obvious that his current celebrity was fairly and well earned.