Best Practices to Avoid Small Camera Movements and Microshake

If you’ve ever come away with an image that is nearly great but noticed when editing it that nothing is really tack sharp, the first course of action is usually to blame the hardware.

While it can be true that there will be a lens/camera combination that is not right, after offering micro-focus adjustment definition and programming for about 10 years now, I will say that in general, the bodies and lenses are doing their job very well and micro focus adjustment is rarely the true issue.

It can happen that a lens camera system will back focus or front focus to a nominal extent, however, unless one is working with zero depth of field, either through camera to subject distance, long focal length glass or super wide apertures, as a general statement, depth of field will take care of minor front and back focusing.

One of the reasons why more demanding creatives want all metal mounts, is that they tend to stay “true” longer, although when they are damaged, repair is more costly. In my own experience, I have seen clients have more issues with lenses that have non-metal mounts than those that do.

All that said, the issue of being out of focus is most likely happening behind the camera, meaning it is you and I.

There are number of reasons this can happen. Here is a somewhat comprehensive list of reasons

Shutter speed is too low for the focal length and weight of the camera lens combination

• User is depending on some form of image stabilization to use lower than safe shutter speeds in order to avoid increasing the ISO

• User is not using a stable shooting platform when needed

• User’s stance and or grip is poor

• Inappropriate shutter actuation

• User’s stabilization platform is inadequate

• User’s blood pressure or heart rate are elevated

• User is under the influence of a stimulant or physical trait that makes the user unstable.

• High megapixel sensors will show micro shake more

These are all solvable with zero or minimal cost and a bit of developed discipline. Sometimes we develop false expectations about what technology can do, or use guides as if they are rules.

Shutter Speed Too Low

There is a common guideline that the lowest safe handheld shutter speed is 1 over the focal length of the lens in use. It’s a guide only and frequently results in poor results. One also has to take into account the weight of the combination of camera and lens and how far from the body platform it extends. Also consider the commonality of zoom lenses. What the guideline says is 1 over the focal length, yet if I shoot with a 100-400mm zoom lens, with the focal length sitting at say 183mm, does this mean that the safe handhold able shutter speed should be 1/183th of a second? Casual consideration may suggest this but it is factually incorrect. While the angle of view captured is that of 183mm, the length and weight of the camera lens combination remains the same and so contributes to camera shake in the same way all the time. You may not see the evidence of camera shake as clearly at the wider angle of view, but that does not mean it is not impacting your image. The higher the number of megapixels on your sensor, the smaller the two dimensional surface area and the more impact there is. This in this example, all other considerations being ideal, the lowest safe handhold able shutter speed would be 1/400th of a second regardless of zoom focal selection.

Image Stabilization

We have amazing options today of both in lens and in camera stabilization but it is important to understand where they work best and how they can help you. For in lens stabilization there exists good documentation that show that stabilization works best at vibrational frequencies below 3 Hz (3 vibrations per second) and over 10000Hz. Practical applications might include shooting on a surface getting regular or transient slow vibrations, such as a concrete roadway or bridge at the low end or while shooting from a helicopter at the high end. In most cases stabilization does no harm, but rarely delivers what he manufacturer’s marketing says, and not that all makers add a caveat of “up to n stops” of shake reduction. “Up to” is mcmarketing speak for maybe but probably not. Sadly there is not at this time independent scientific data that shows the optimal vibrational frequencies for in body stabilization.

Unstable Platform

We are often fooled by claims about stabilization capabilities or our own egos about how slow we can go. The larger the sensor, and the higher the megapixel count relative to the sensor size, the more impact micro shake has on us. Standing on a road is less stable than standing 12 feet of the round on soft ground. Standing on a bridge or railway track while potentially dangerous is also unstable because the materials transmit vibration readily and for great distances. Seek a position as best you can where there is likely to be the least amount of vibration transmitted to your shooting platform which may be simply your own body. We also may think that we are steadier than we actually are. Go in presuming that you are unsteady and choose a platform to enhance things. That could be a tripod, monopod, wall to rest your arms on, going prone (long range precision shooters shoot from prone because it is more stable than shooting off-hand or from a kneeling position).

If you do choose to use a tripod, find a way to release the shutter with out touching the camera at all. Consider using the self timer or a remote release that is electronic. Also whatever external platform you choose, consider its native tendency to transmit vibration. The price of carbon fibre has dropped considerably and it transmits vibration at a significantly less level than aluminum. Better tripod heads also use vibration dampening materials in their construction. Even if you use a device like the popular Platypod, use the rubber tipped screw in feet for maximum isolation. Just for your interest, aluminum’s natural resonance frequency is 55.2 Hz, so it vibrates most at that frequency and multiples thereof.

Poor Body Position and Grip, Inappropriate Shutter Actuation

The best stance for photography is called the Modified Isoceles. This is feet about shoulder width apart, knees slightly flexed, torso not bent or twisted, elbows in tight to the body as best possible but not locked, camera raised to eye level, and never dropping the head or bending the neck to bring the eye to the camera. Always bring the camera to the eye, not the other way around whenever you can.

The grip places the left hand under the camera body with the thumb and fingers creating a V for the camera to rest in. All the strength that goes into holding the camera should be in the left hand.. The right hand exists only to provide the finger to release the shutter. There should be no real tension in the grip of the right hand, looser is better than tighter, unless you practice extensively to use what is called a contraction release.

A contraction release is a joy once mastered, but for many people the roll release is simpler. The finger used to release the shutter rolls smoothly over the shutter release without pushing the shutter button with intent.. You get what is called a surprise break which after practice is no surprise at all. Never release the shutter by using the tip of a finger as this can result in serious micro shake because of the stabbing motion. Roll gently and you will be more successful. This skill requires some practice, so while at home sitting around practice firing off a few hundred frames of nothing every week to help forge the euro-muscular pathways to make this movement natural. We roll over releases or squeeze release. We never press a shutter just as we never pull a trigger, popular media’s depiction of either activity being wrong about 95% of the time.

You will see and may even catch yourself holding the camera with one hand on each side. This is massively unstable and allows the lens to move. There is no fix, over than to stop holding the camera this way. It’s wrong.

Personal Factors

While we may not want to acknowledge it, we shake more as we get older. It’s a reality so accept it and adjust accordingly. I am very grateful that cameras today do so well at higher ISOs because I can no longer hold narrow angle of view lenses at the same lower shutter speeds as I once could. Coffee and other stimulants, including medications can make you shake more. Even so-called relaxants can have debilitating effects on respiration rates, heart rates and blood pressure. Normal blood pressure, good breathing techniques and managing heart rate will all have a positive effect on reducing micro shake. Since most of our photography is not necessarily minute dependent, do what you can to slow your breathing and heart rate. Some calming breathing exercises can be very helpful. When making a shot, consider taking a breath in, release it halfway and roll the shutter before completing the exhale.

Sensor Size and Megapixel Count

We understand that a higher megapixel count on a standard sensor should deliver higher resolution, but the counter effect is that because each two dimensional surface area of each pixel is smaller, they are more likely to show the effect of micro shake. The smaller the sensor the less evident this is and the lower the megapixel count relative to the sensor size also reduces the impact of micro shake. Smartphones have very small sensors and so a smartphone 12 megapixel sensor is less likely to show evidence at normal viewing distance than a full frame 12 megapixel sensor. The shake is there, it’s just less evident and found less often because smartphone images are rarely edited at a pixel peep level or printed large. Just because we do not see the shake does not mean it is not there. To find it, we must look for it.

This is why many photographers come away initially displeased with their first foray into high megapixel sensors. The micro shake is more apparent. It is a fact unless the manufacturer does processing in camera to try to smooth it out. Some makers do this. Some of the earlier large megapixel cameras introduced micro shake evidence caused solely by mirror slap. I have a Canon 5Ds that is an example, and I have had to program a release lag into it to reduce this impact.

---

Do you have an idea for an article, tutorial, video or podcast? Do you have an imaging question unrelated to this article? Send me an email directly at ross@thephotovideoguy.ca or post in the comments.  When you email your questions on any imaging topic, I will try to respond within a day.

If you shop with B&H Photo Video, please consider doing so through the link on thephotovideoguy.ca as this helps support my efforts and has no negative impact whatsoever on your shopping experience. 

If you find the podcast, videos or articles of value, consider clicking the Donation tab in the sidebar of the website and buy me a coffee. Your donation goes to help me keep things going. 

I'm Ross Chevalier, thanks for reading, watching and listening and until next time, peace.

Why Not Buy a New Camera? With emphasis on "Not"

Yeah I know. It’s Boxing Week as I write this and COVID has made retail hell for smaller local stores and of course the manufacturers are all struggling so the advertising blitz is coming fast and heavy, so why would I say this?

I could be all socially minded and say it’s because I care about your wellbeing but we all know that would be a load of poo. How about I just share an alternative approach and you can follow it or trash it according to your own mind? Yes, that’s a better approach.

I’m going to presume that you already have a camera, and that if you are reading this, your interest in photography as a craft puts you in the minority that is not satisfied with images from your smartphone. If the rest is true, and you don’t have an interchangeable lens camera, might as well get one now, and if you do, go mirrorless since the DSLR has no future development and even if good, and it is, has already reached the end of its lifecycle.

Ok then. Why not buy a new camera?

Let’s start with a question. What can you not do with the camera that you presently own, that you NEED to do to take the next steps in the development of your craft?

If you cannot answer that question fully and in detail, there is no point spending a dime.

If you can, inspect your answer to determine if you are seeking a functional change or just because there is a new version of something or a feature that you don’t have. If so, is that new feature worth the hundreds / thousands of dollars you will need to spend? Is this a great hobby or is it your business? Is there a tax write off in there somewhere? Or is this sunk cash, knowing that there will be a newer sexier something or other long before you get full return on your spend.

Here’s the ugly truth. That new camera will not make you a better photographer. If you are good now, a different camera will not make you better. If you suck now, a new camera will probably make you worse because you’ll spend time playing with features and not working on your craft. Being able to use the newest hottest feature does not improve your craft. Put a 70 year old camera in the hands of a great photographer and he or she will still make great images. It’s the creator not the tool. Always has been, always will be.

So if a new camera will not make you a better photographer, what will? Same as anything else, training and practice. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am one of two moderators on the KelbyOne Community and one of the hosts on the KelbyOne Community Live! broadcast. There are many training venues out there, but if you don’t use any, I am going to recommend KelbyOne as a great place. They have classes that are self-paced on all elements of photography and post-processing. They also bring some of the best instructors on the planet to the game. Sure, like anything, there are some courses and some instructors that have not worked out for me, or for my students who subscribe, but your odds are way better than random ad stuffed YouTube videos. Some YouTube stuff is brilliant of course, but comprehensive materials and professional educators do not work for nothing. There’s a cost for quality. You spend money on all manner of kit, why not invest in yourself and some training?

Whether you choose K1 or something else, engagement is entirely up to you. If you just scan through a class and don’t practice what is taught, your return is going to be negligible. When you study anything, there are the basics and proper repetition is the mother of skill. I encounter lots of fine people who are scrambling about like headless chickens trying the next new thing or the next piece of gear and they still cannot explain why they chose certain exposure selections, why their composition is the way it is or even what their intent was before pressing the shutter release. If you cannot do that, all the gear in the world will not help you.

Stop. Breathe. Ask yourself why you are making the image. Understand your desired outcome and then focus your mind on achieving that goal. It will not be achieved by a 20 frame per second burst rate, or a 50 megapixel sensor or a $10K lens. A tool, used poorly, however magnificent the tool, will not make the work better, although it may make crap work faster and more of it.

Instead of lining someone else’s pocket, why not line your mind and heart by putting the time in to develop your craft? You might be stunned to discover what you can do with the gear that you already have if you just focus your mind.

Until next time, peace

---

Do you have an idea for an article, tutorial, video or podcast? Do you have an imaging question unrelated to this article? Send me an email directly at ross@thephotovideoguy.ca or post in the comments.  When you email your questions on any imaging topic, I will try to respond within a day.

If you shop with B&H Photo Video, please consider doing so through the link on thephotovideoguy.ca as this helps support my efforts and has no negative impact whatsoever on your shopping experience. 

If you find the podcast, videos or articles of value, consider clicking the Donation tab in the sidebar of the website and buy me a coffee. Your donation goes to help me keep things going. 

I'm Ross Chevalier, thanks for reading, watching and listening and until next time, peace.

Why Metadata only matters for a single image

Hello friends

I was at an online class today with the master Joe McNally. A couple of nice people in the chat were really concerned that Joe was using TTL flash and that he was not sharing the exposure information for each image.

I’ve addressed the TTL vs Manual flash question a lot, so pick what you prefer and move on. I will do what suits me and so will you. If you do not understand why the question exists, check the prior article on this site.

On to metadata.

What is metadata. If the image is the primary data, and it is, metadata is information about the data. While metadata data structures can be enormous, most editors throw most of it away like parsley at Fred and Barney’s Brontoburger shack. If that reference means nothing to you, I feel bad for you. One set of metadata that generates a lot more noise than it ever should is exposure metadata. This is the information about the exposure settings in a specific image including shutter speed, aperture, ISO, exposure compensation, the presence of flash, flash exposure compensation yada yada yada.

It can be useful in analyzing that image, but lots of folks seem to think that if they know the metadata for one image, and they use it for another image, that other image will look like the first.

We call these people either delusional or victims of being lied to. Most often it’s the latter.

Those settings worked or didn’t work for the image being questioned. They will have no more meaning to a different image than the size of the seeds in the mustard jar in your cupboard. Copying settings from one image to another is a fool’s game, unless the second image is taken at the same time, in the same place, with the same subject, the same light. Otherwise it’s just toro poopoo.

You can certainly look at one of your images and examine its metadata as a guide to what you might do in a similar situation vis a vis how much depth of field you will want, or how much freezing of motion you want. You might also use it to determine what are acceptable ISO levels for you and your camera. That’s useful learning. However putting those same settings into your camera for a different situation is pointless and probably will not generate anything near what you want.

Take the opportunity to learn from your images and use that information for experimentation in future images. Perhaps this will give you some guidance into what kind of shutter speeds you need to freeze a running dog at 20 feet away. Or maybe it will give you some guidance on choosing an aperture to give you the depth of field you want when photographing your child toddling towards you. To use it otherwise is wasting your time and propagating a foolish myth.

---

Do you have an idea for an article, tutorial, video or podcast? Do you have an imaging question unrelated to this article? Send me an email directly at ross@thephotovideoguy.ca or post in the comments.  When you email your questions on any imaging topic, I will try to respond within a day.

If you shop with B&H Photo Video, please consider doing so through the link on thephotovideoguy.ca as this helps support my efforts and has no negative impact whatsoever on your shopping experience. 

If you find the podcast, videos or articles of value, consider clicking the Donation tab in the sidebar of the website and buy me a coffee. Your donation goes to help me keep things going. 

I'm Ross Chevalier, thanks for reading, watching and listening and until next time, peace.

Think TTL Flash Doesn't Work? The Problem Might Be You

I’m a flash person. The first piece of kit in the bag after the camera and first lens is always a flash. Followed by a wireless controller to get the flash off the camera. Photography is all about managing light, and a flash is a sun that you control that fits in your pocket.

I’ve seen lots of posts extolling the benefits of “natural” light. This is a stupid statement. All light, regardless of the source is natural, it’s all electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps you say ambient light. That is a different thing and could be perfectly viable, although most of the time I find those who shout loudest about ambient light have never learned how to use flash at all. Hmm criticizing something you know nothing about… never seen that before.

Back in the olden days, flash was allegedly really hard. It actually wasn’t hard at all. Even flashbulbs had a little cheat sheet to tell the user what aperture to use for what distance with which film. The outcome was a huge number of properly exposed flash photos. Of course. today we know that reading is avoided by lots of folks and if they cannot just point and shoot, the model is defective. We call these people lazy asses.

Enter TTL flash. TTL stands for through the lens. For flash aficionados this was a brilliant option to use. I say option, because there are conditions where using a flash in manual mode is very effective, albeit perhaps less often than the pundits might suggest. Just as our in camera light meters work through the lens for ambient light, TTL flash works through the lens for flash exposure. It’s incredibly simple, and works because of the advent of integrated circuits. TTL Flash is a program. Today’s TTL flash is a very flexible and user adjustable program, but still a program.

But, you say, “TTL flash doesn’t work for me, or doesn’t work consistently.” Ok. Sad to say the problem is you.

Why?

Remember our mathematical friend, the Inverse Square Law. Simply it tells us that as the distance between a light source and its subject doubles, the amount of light required for the same exposure quadruples, the square of the distance change. If the distance triples we need nine times as much light. This is basic physics and wish as you might, be thankful it always works this way.

So why, you may ask does my TTL metering for ambient light work really well most of the time except when the scene itself is mostly white or mostly black? We know that the ambient light meter is averaging all the meter sensor inputs to arrive at an exposure that will result in an average brightness of middle grey. We accept that, because it works most of the time and when it doesn’t we can use exposure compensation, or shoot entirely in manual to ensure that we miss shots as we futz about with camera settings. It’s 2020. not 1920. The camera’s calculations and automation are better than you, 100% of the time, when it comes to getting to a neutral exposure. Shoot in manual if it makes you happy, I don’t care. but you aren’t making better images because you do, except in very specific situations.

I digress. TTL ambient metering works so consistently because the distance between the light source and the subject if for all intents identical. Whether you are metering your puppy in front of you, or a distant mountain range, the source of light is 93,000,000 miles away. Elevation or distance between you and the subject are irrelevant in the context of light source to subject distance.

Starting to see the potential issue?

With flash as the dominant source, the distance between the flash and subject could vary, requiring more or less output from the flash depending on flash to subject distance. Note that I say flash to subject distance as in this scenario, camera to subject distance is irrelevant.

Modern cameras have selective metering patterns and sometimes you can even tell the camera to have the meter reading follow the focus point in use. But what if you don’t? What if you use the general purpose meter pattern which measures light from all over the sensor and what if your subject and the background are some distance apart? How does the camera know what your intended subject is? Maybe it’s tied to the AF point, but most often is not. So if I make an image of my friend Gord and he doesn’t fill the frame and the background is an old barn fifty meters behind him, what meter reading is going to be right for flash? The inverse square law tells us that if the flash meters to light the background, Gord is going to be completely blown out, and the barn being so far away may be underexposed. If the flash meters for Gord, the barn is going to be darker. The reason is simple, it’s because the flash to subject distance is not the same.

Now if you follow the precept of my dear friend Mr. Rick Sammon, that “the name of the game is to fill the frame” you are less likely to run into these issues. If you use a smaller metering pattern and link it to the autofocus point, that could help, but since I avoid putting stuff dead centre, my normal mode of focus, lock, recompose, shoot may not be optimal. That’s another Sammonism by the way, “dead center is deadly” aka boring as shit.

At this point you may be saying well numbnuts, you just proved to me that TTL flaah is lousy so I will just shoot on manual. Ok do so, but you are going to be playing with the settings on the flash a lot, or playing with the settings on your wireless system a lot to get an exposure that you like. Consider instead using TTL and if the flash is too bright, use Flash Exposure Compensation to reduce the time that the flash is lit. If the subject is a bit dark because something in the foreground is telling TTL to turn the flash off too early, you could use Flash Exposure Compensation to try to get the flash to stay lit longer, although you’d be better to move to avoid having something glowing like a radioactive pool in the foreground, but hey, it’s your image.

Let me touch briefly on the subject of flash duration. This is something separate and not relevant to your camera’s flash synchronization speed. The sync speed is the shutter speed at which the first shutter curtain has opened fully, and the second shutter curtain has not started to close. This is typically between 1/60th of a second and 1/250th of a second. HighSpeed Sync is an entirely different species for another article, and leaf shutter lenses don’t have curtains so they sync at all shutter speeds. Flash duration is how long the flash is lit. With modern studio flashes, the duration that the flash is lit can be as short as 1/80000th of a second. For most speedlights, the lowest output setting provides a duration of about 1/10000th of a second with a full power duration of about 1/1900th of a second. If this sounds to you that even a full power pop is over long before the shutter closes you would be correct. See! No correlation between sync speed and flash duration at all. TTL works not by telling the flash what “power” to use but by telling the flash when to turn off. This is why the same TTL system will work with flashes of vastly different output capabilities.

Most cameras that support TTL flash have Flash Exposure Compensation capability built in, but entry models often don’t. It’s less of a problem than you think because any decent wireless system will put FEC in the transmitter. Even the very inexpensive and highly recommended Godox XT / XR series of radios do this. No need to spend a fortune on your maker’s own TTL wireless system. TTL is just a command language, it either works or does not work. If your transmitter/receiver system is inconsistent or doesn’t offer flash exposure compensation, spend $120 CAD and get a Godox kit and be done with it. You can spend a lot more, but don’t have to.

Flash Exposure Compensation does for flash what regular exposure compensation does for ambient light. It works, and with even a little diligence you can get to where you need to be in three test shots. Most of the time, it’s right on the first shot.

One of the big differences when using TTL flash is whether you are using the flash as your main source or as a fill source. A flash on camera for fill is not bad at all, because it is being fill, not the dominant source. If flash is the dominant source and fired directly from the hot shoe, it’s an odds on favourite to look like crap. Use your wireless system to get the flash off the camera. Tie it to a tree, put it on a light stand, bounce it off a white ceiling, use a light shaper, whatever it takes to get the light off axis so you get a more pleasing presentation of the light. Fill the frame and TTL is going to get you a great exposure, and if you don’t like it, you can change the flash duration with FEC.

You might be wondering if I ever use manual flash? I do when I am in the studio. In that situation, the light position is pretty much fixed for flash to subject distance. The subject is typically on a mark and not changing flash to subject distance. So I can set the exposure once I have one that I like and forget about it. If my subjects are moving, such as dancers, or gymnasts or skateboarders, I use TTL and have a better ratio of keepers. Not because I am super smart or a really amazing photographer, but because I have invested in myself to learn how to get the most out of TTL Flash. You can too.

---

Do you have an idea for an article, tutorial, video or podcast? Do you have an imaging question unrelated to this article? Send me an email directly at ross@thephotovideoguy.ca or post in the comments.  When you email your questions on any imaging topic, I will try to respond within a day.

If you shop with B&H Photo Video, please consider doing so through the link on thephotovideoguy.ca as this helps support my efforts and has no negative impact whatsoever on your shopping experience. 

If you find the podcast, videos or articles of value, consider clicking the Donation tab in the sidebar of the website and buy me a coffee. Your donation goes to help me keep things going. 

I'm Ross Chevalier, thanks for reading, watching and listening and until next time, peace.

Why are new cameras and lenses so darned expensive?

Hi folks. My friend Dani who is a photographer in Uruguay posted this question to me recently. It’s a good question that bears some conversation. Let’s start by considering some factors impacting photographers and photography in general.

• The volume of photographic work in the market has been negatively impacted by COVID-19 restrictions

• Folks who enjoy photography as a hobby may have been impacted economically by the global pandemic

• Non-smartphone image capture is on a steep slide down

• There are fewer brick and mortar stores with either inventory or competent staff

• Product lifecycles are shortening because makers need/want buyers to upgrade to the newest and coolest

• Product makers are in at best challenging financial states and at worst leaving the business entirely

• Online selling is the defacto standard and more open to grey marketeering and white box breakup

• Makers have engaged in price fixing via Minimum Advertise Price (MAP) for years

• Smaller volumes for makers would mean less profitability

• A reduction in volume increases scarcity and thus higher prices

• Effective marketing has convinced existing users that they need/want a newer camera

• Most owners of non-smartphone cameras are not using the camera that they own to anywhere near its potential

• Powerful messaging exists that it is the camera that makes the image, not the photographer

It is perfectly fair to have an opinion that is contrary to these facts, so long one is ok with faking reality.

Will the newest hottest whatsit make a better photograph? Accurately it will not. It may provide tools that make things easier for the photographer to get a decent capture, including improved autofocus response, better handling of camera shake, better low light or bright light performance and greater dynamic range. These are fine things, but don’t make the image better, all the bullshit about AI software notwithstanding. Photography is a creative art that needs the human eye and brain. Even snapshotting, which I do not consider to be a creative pursuit needs the human.

So in the face of all these facts, why are new cameras and lenses so expensive, even more than the very usable cameras that they replace?

It all comes down to supply and demand. If the availability of a product is greater than its demand, then there is no sense of urgency to buy right now. If a maker limits market availability, through whatever means, be that poor forecasting, or intentional scarcity, demand goes up. This means buyers are willing to pay more money to get the new thing right now, whether it will make a difference or not. Makers successfully appeal to the egos of the buyer so that buyer will have a “better” tool than the next person.

We know that a skilled photographer can make a compelling image with pretty much any device but as the level of skill diminishes, more dependency is placed on automation and algorithms. Those with lesser skill, and perhaps no real desire to improve, outnumber the true creatives by orders of magnitude. Thus makers focus on the largest possible market with new tech in the hopes to convince the buyer that he or she is going to get better results with the newest hottest, which will be replaced by something newer and hotter in a short time.

Makers have also figured out that social media has made “stars” of myriad image makers. Some are truly talented such as Moose Peterson and Joe McNally. They are the exception as the majority of these stars are vacuous incompetents with a propensity to go about partially disrobed, or by convincing viewers that the only way to achieve true creativity is to buy someone else’s presets and slather them over one’s own images to make them “professional”. That this is a bigger lie than the made up statistics reported every day proves to be immaterial in many minds.

Why do the real stars do this? Because it generates income. If a really awesome creative photographer says that he or she accomplished this amazing product using an XYZ camera and ABC lens, that’s more than sufficient for many buyers. The maker makes money and can pay the professional to be one of their advertising modes. I do not blame the pros for taking the coin. They have businesses to run. Unfortunately many buyers miss that no matter what gear that they use, they will never make images like a Joe McNally, specifically because none of those buyers ARE Joe McNally. Talent and skill make an artist. Did anyone ask Rembrandt what kind of brushes he used? Were he alive today, you can be sure that there would ads and videos and forums where there would be ad nauseum bleating out what brush Rembrandt was using this week.

Price fixing, and let’s be clear, that is what MAP is, is a method to stop discounting, which reduces seller margins and impacts the seller’s buying power from the maker. The maker does not make more money per unit, but increases revenue by preventing a seller from making a discounting decision.

Makers do get pricing wrong. In the past, they would adjust pricing down after R&D expenses were recovered, typically in the first year. If they over forecasted sales, we would see a “special” often at their fiscal year ends to convert aging inventory into cash. Such events benefit both makers and buyers, less so sellers, but are becoming rarer as makers more aggressively leverage the principle of scarcity.

Let me give you a non-photographic example. There is a company in the United States called AnalogMan that makes guitar effects pedals. The company is small and very quality driven so every pedal is hand built. One of their pedals called the King of Tone has a wait list of nearly two years. Unlike most makers, AnalogMan has not priced this pedal into the stratosphere. It’s actually quite an excellent deal for the deliverable. However even though AnalogMan limits purchases of more than one unit at a time and on a time interval, it is common to find King of Tone pedals on the musical sales service Reverb being sold as new for FOUR TIMES what AnalogMan charges directly. How does this work? Because the pedals are scarce and hard to get and this means that some buyers will go beyond logic to get one.

The recently announced Canon R6 is now backordered. Canon is very smart when it comes to marketing. Did they mis-forecast this badly? I do not believe that they did. I believe that they are using the principle of scarcity to increase prepaid orders and to encourage buyers to order right now even they do not need the camera right now. Good for Canon and for those who cannot balance need/want, serves them right. Does the R6 have nice features? I’ve never seen one so cannot comment but reviewers say it is. Many reviewers are entertained and provided equipment for review at no cost and will not urinate into the wind blowing back at the makers, lest they be cut off. This has happened when a reviewer did not say “best ever” in a review. If you assume all reviews are fully independent you are fooling yourself and perhaps should stop. In the case of the R6, they are available on resale sites right now for more than the MAP assigned price. Some idiot will pay that price and justify the scarcity model and the higher MAP price to Canon. The maker serves its shareholders, not you or I. Believing otherwise is delusional.

So why are prices so high? Because the makers can make them so and are supported by buyers who continue to buy even at prices far beyond the value return of the device. This is not new. A Rolls Royce is a lovely automobile, but is it completely better than another Luxo barge? Technically no, but that is irrelevant if the buyer thinks that it is.

In conclusion, expensive is defined in the mind (one hopes) of the potential buyer and in a logical world would be based on how the new purchase helps the creative be better and drive more satisfaction or revenue. The world however, you may have noticed, is a very great distance from logical.

---

Do you have an idea for an article, tutorial, video or podcast? Do you have an imaging question unrelated to this article? Send me an email directly at ross@thephotovideoguy.ca or post in the comments.  When you email your questions on any imaging topic, I will try to respond within a day.

If you shop with B&H Photo Video, please consider doing so through the link on thephotovideoguy.ca as this helps support my efforts and has no negative impact whatsoever on your shopping experience. 

If you find the podcast, videos or articles of value, consider clicking the Donation tab in the sidebar of the website and buy me a coffee. Your donation goes to help me keep things going. 

I'm Ross Chevalier, thanks for reading, watching and listening and until next time, peace.

Your next real camera should probably be a mirrorless

Hey folks. Nice to virtually see you all. The title of the article is not meant to be clickbait but if it works as such, I am ok with that. By real camera, I mean a camera with interchangeable lenses and the ability to control the exposure outcome in means beyond simply squeezing the shutter button or tapping the screen. Please don’t send me email or comments explaining how smartphones are real cameras, because however functional and usable they are, they limit your creativity, much like many point and shoot units. Of course creativity is a choice and one can happily go through life without doing anything particularly creative. Your choice and in the phraseology of Minnesota nice “good for you”

Why mirrorless? This is less a question of technology and more a question of economics. The technology is superb. The tools of photography evolve and for those who desire to leverage that evolution while maintaining their artistry, mirrorless technologically makes a lot of sense. No more mirror slap, actual what you see is what you get viewfinders, less guessing and more time afforded for the user to make creative decisions. My first mirrorless was a Lumix a very long time ago and it wasn’t really usable, despite putting out technically acceptable files. My current mirrorless is a Leica M240, not exactly new either and sans the benefits of autofocus and a really good EVF, although I do have an aging Olympus EVF that mounts to the camera. I get a smaller body, lighter weight, smaller lenses, silence and reduced camera shake.

Oh wait…

The initial precepts of mirrorless being smaller and lighter than a traditional DSLR are over. Look at the current crop of full frame mirrorless cameras and they and their lenses have the same weight and girth of their forebears. So why choose mirrorless if the initial promises are now invalid.

It’s the economy photographer.

The photographic industry has been in a downward spiral for years, long before the impact of pandemics. Many people are very happy with smartphones, orders of magnitude more than were happy in the old days of 110 and 126 film cameras. The majority of people have a camera with themselves all the time. The need for a separate pocket camera has been dead so long it has decomposed. So the revenues to the photographic industry whether in hardware or processing has not diminished, it has vanished.

While not yet gone, brick and mortar camera stores are on a greased slide into oblivion. Their only hope was to attract those who want to practice photography not snapshotting (as that is well and truly resolved by smartphones). The way to do so was to have the same price as an online reseller and the same stock levels as the minimum bar and then create value with intelligent and photographically competent staff. In my own studies I can say that the first goal is achieved, not by creativity on the part of the seller but by the introduction of Minimum Advertised Price created by and enforced by manufacturers and distributors. Can you get a better price in a camera store for a product than you can online? Possibly, but you will usually find that discount bound to your additional purchase of high margin stuff that you don’t actually need such as accessories of questionable quality and extended warranties that you will never use.

The second goal, that having inventory on hand is a fail. The more stores a company has, the more dead inventory that they have. Equipment must be on shelves for demonstration purposes and while they will try to fairly sell it as new, most buyers cringe at this even though the odds of getting a return or repack from an online seller are even higher. Manufacturers do not provide demo gear, the store owners much buy it, at considerably reduced margins, and take the hit on it when it finally is sold or sold off on a demo day. Walk into any brick and mortar store trying to survive on 22% margin and you will see less inventory of quality and more inventory of high margin junk.

The third goal of having intelligent photographically adept staff is a non-starter. For minimum wage, you aren’t going to get a lot in the way of competent photographic or video skills. Those folks can make more money with a crappy YouTube channel. Moreover, some chains think that shopping is a social experience and try to convolute buying a camera into a lifecycle model. One can agree or disagree, the numbers speak for themselves., Camera shopping is not a lifecycle thing, without the added value of photographic knowledge behind the counter, there is no value add, no reason to climb into the car, deal with traffic and head into stores, presuming of course that one actually venture into a store.

These economic realities say that there are very people “selling” cameras and most organizations just taking orders for cameras. And that’s why you are going to go mirrorless.

Manufacturers are in trouble. Some are being sold off, some are shutting down their camera divisions, all are being sustained by other more profitable lines where they exist, and some are in pretty dire financial straits.

This means that no company can long afford to maintain two completely distinct lines. The build out of a DSLR and its lenses is a very different build out of a mirrorless and its lenses. One is based firmly in the past and one has an opportunity for the future. If you are the operator of a publicly traded company, responsible for shareholder value, you have only one option. That option is mirrorless.

Consider what companies are still making DSLRs in any kind of volume. The last orgs standing are Nikon and Canon. In the last year, both have released more mirrorless systems than anything else and worked hard (yet delivered poorly) with tools to protect the investment in lenses of their longer term customers. Yes both have released very high end DSLRs this year, very expensive products of excellent capability built to handle sports and high speed action in hostile working environments. Everything else of note is mirrorless. Nikon is already into the second generation of its mirrorless camera line that does full frame, and Canon is finally shipping the second iteration of its R line which is an improvement on the original in a number of ways. We still don’t see a mirrorless under $1000, and the promise of smaller and lighter is now completely dead. When you can build and ship fewer units, your cost per unit is higher, and so is the price, thus the economic factor means prices have gone up for the new products. This makes it harder for more people to engage, and if the numbers tell the truth, more people are caring less about doing photography as a craft anyway. Look to most camera clubs, or photography shows before they died, and you find most users in middle age and greater. While there are some truly talented young creatives out there, very few of them are prepared to or able to tie up thousands of dollars in camera gear.

If you make less money and can make fewer things and your audience is limited to those with some remaining disposable income, you are going to build more expensive mirrorless bodies and lenses. I don’t expect to see an inexpensive Nikon or Canon mirrorless ever. Panasonic appears to be getting out of the business and Olympus has been sold. Sony has been mirrorless for a very long time, but they abandoned the old lineup in a ditch and all their work has been in the a7 family which while excellent is not inexpensive.

The other economic factor to consider is that video has failed to be the future of creative photography. As an educator, camera club operator and moderator for the KelbyOne Community, interest in video is minimal at best. All the time, money and work put into making the latest generation of mirrorless strong video performers has paid back not at all. Serious video is more than just recording. It is rendering, and storage and bandwidth and cooling and unless you go to a pro level dedicated video camera, you get very little in the current crop of mirrorless cameras. And that numerically is probably ok, since the buyers of these cameras don’t care about video anyway.

The conclusion is simple. If you are a still photographer with the desire to pursue photography as a serious hobby or as your craft, your next camera in all probability and best approach will be a mirrorless. And when you do, do not trade the benefit of better quality high ISO performance in exchange for optically slow lenses. A standard lens of f/4-f/7./1 maximum aperture is a slap in the head with a cold dead fish and those who market that as a good solution should be fed to a larger toothier fish.

---

Do you have an idea for an article, tutorial, video or podcast? Do you have an imaging question unrelated to this article? Send me an email directly at ross@thephotovideoguy.ca or post in the comments.  When you email your questions on any imaging topic, I will try to respond within a day.

If you shop with B&H Photo Video, please consider doing so through the link on thephotovideoguy.ca as this helps support my efforts and has no negative impact whatsoever on your shopping experience. 

If you find the podcast, videos or articles of value, consider clicking the Donation tab in the sidebar of the website and buy me a coffee. Your donation goes to help me keep things going. 

I'm Ross Chevalier, thanks for reading, watching and listening and until next time, peace.

Some Thinking on the Subject of Camera Bags

My currently most used bag

It’s a not uncommon topic. What camera bag is best and how many do I need really?

Many of us are afflicted with a case of CBAS, or Camera Bag Acquisition Syndrome, a very specific kind of GAS. Sometimes we are referred to as bag sluts. Ok, rude, but accurate. I admit to owning nearly one of everything that the nice folks at ThinkTank make, at least up to what they made as of a couple of years back and I sometimes wonder (others wonder more often) what the heck I was thinking.

It all comes down to this. While I might want to take lots of gear into the field whether for a field shoot or an on premises studio shoot, I simply cannot manage all that weight and all that kit. The more I carry, the more tired I become and the more likely to not get a shot because I am spending too much time futzing with kit.

If it’s landscape work, I can probably take more stuff because if I have done my prep work, I will have a bit more time. If I am shooting sports, I need to go with as little gear as possible.

Then there are the days where I don’t have a specific plan and want to be prepared but also not knuckle under to bulk and weight.

Lots of folks tell me that if I dumped the DSLRs and went all mirrorless it would be easier. I’ve probably humped more mirrorless gear into the field doing tests than a lot of mirrorless owners have and in my experience the statement that mirrorless bodies and lenses are smaller and lighter is bullshit. Good kit weighs. I’d rather pay the weight penalty for metal than have a multi-thousand dollar piece of glass housed in an all plastic tube. That’s me, other’s mileage will vary.

My airport bag but be careful about what plane is being used. Will fit on Embraers, fill not fit on CRJs

I break bags into three families. Rollers, backpacks and shoulder/slings. I have lots of each. I do not include chest harnesses because they are a pain in the butt, belt and holster systems because they are a superb way to bash stuff and I’m not Batman, plus I spent many years with a firearm and magazines around my waist and my back still reminds me decades later. If you like this kind of stuff, cool, but I am going to recommend against any and all.

I bought rollers specifically because airports put gates as far as possible from wherever you are. Then I had to downsize because what was an acceptable overhead bag, suddenly became unacceptable, although it appears that a giant green duffle weighing 900 pounds and requiring 30 cubic feet of space is still acceptable or at least was when I stopped flying due to the pandemic. Rollers are reliable, protective and convenient for travel and mostly useless in the field. Rollers are the ultimate travel bags but don’t go so big as so your gear has to go in checked luggage. If you do, odds of seeing your gear again dissipate. Thieves are also onto putting your nice big camera bag into a piece of crap luggage. They figured this out a long time ago.

This 36L backpack is brilliant, but easily overloaded. Think more about your shoulders and hips than about carrying everything that you own.

I have rollers where the wheels come off, and where the roller can also be a backpack. I like backpacks because they keep my hands free and so long as I do not overestimate my own endurance, I can take a fair bit of kit with me, or use it for my walkabout work which is a body, a small strobe and 2-3 lenses. I also have a backpack specifically for sports that takes the body with the long glass mounted with a pocket for a 16-35, and a place to strap on a monopod. I would never survive a football game where I am moving up and down the field without this pack. I have other backpacks that are not specialized, useful when I need more gear, or where I am taking multiple strobes. I have no personal shreve. He is me and strobes means light shapers and stands and other stuff. I don’t want to take this stuff far, but have discovered that many of the places I need to work with lights, have no elevators or an abhorrence of anything with wheels.

Since I avoid flimsy tripods, the thought of strapping a tripod to a backpack never enters my mind. I find this capability to be mostly mcmarketing.

While all my Retrospective are version one units, i have them in multiple sizes and colours. For a long while they were not seen as camera bags, but since everyone and their cat started copying ThinkTankPhoto the illusion of not sticking out has been terminated. Nice long straps for cross body work

I lived for years with shoulder bags, starting with a now ancient Domke canvas bag (still have it), then an original Greg Lowe CME Magnum 35 and since then all Think Tank Photo bags other than one manifestly unsuccessful foray into Kickstarter and Peak Design. They’re all great for what they are, but as my shoulders slope more with age, I need the straps to go cross body and while nothing I own is festooned with badges and labels, they still look like camera bags and because they slip and slide, are more likely to get put down and then stolen. Theft is a serious issue, and why I nearly never use a shoulder bag any more.

Too small for any of my DSLRs but perfect for my Leica, three lenses and Metz flash

Slings are the bastard children of shoulder bags and backpacks. I use one for my Leica because the camera and lenses are small and light. My other cameras are full size and I can never get what I want in a sling so while it is convenient to wear and carry, that I cannot hold what I might want makes them a non-starter. Despite lovely marketing, I do not find them so convenient to get stuff in and out of quickly either.

Thus at current course and speed, I am using backpacks, and the one I use most is the Streetwalker model from Think Tank that has wheels. For me it’s the most versatile although I must be disciplined to not overload it with crap that I don’t actually need and be willing to zoom with my feet more.

Do be aware that many Euro carriers don’t allow carryons AT ALL, which sucks and blows simultaneously. In this case as I carry medical equipment (a Sleep Apnea machine), I put the body and one lens in this bag and thus far have been ok. Air travel is a consistent pain in the ass and is not getting any easier.

On a related topic, regular reader Wilf made a comment that many makers advertise their bags as not only being perfect for your camera gear, but also for your keys, wallet, passport, phone etc. I cannot more loudly caution against this. Thieves know what a camera bag looks like and even if you do as I do and put gaffer tape on the bag to cover logos and to make it look like it’s been through a war, you are a target. I have been robbed (in Barcelona where all my gear was taken in seconds) and the last thing you want is to lose your keys, your passport and your wallet. Keep those things in hidden pouches on your person NEVER in a camera bag, unless you are perfectly ok with having them vanish.

Finally, if you do travel, or even if you don’t get rid of the strap that came with your camera that advertises the make and model. Who are you trying to impress? It’s a great way to attract thieves and no one else actually gives a shit that you have the newest hottest whatever. Whether you prefer a narrow strap (I do), a hand strap on the body, or a wide strap that lights up and can be seen from outer space is up to you, but stop marking yourself as a theft target.

All the images are of bags from ThinkTankPhoto. This is the ONLY brand that I recommend. You should buy whatever you like. I don’t look at or care about fashion bags, function is all that matters to me, so distressed leathers, shiny buckles and bags that look like 1890 Africa Safari stuff are never in my personal wheelhouse.

---

Do you have an idea for an article, tutorial, video or podcast? Do you have an imaging question unrelated to this article? Send me an email directly at ross@thephotovideoguy.ca or post in the comments.  When you email your questions on any imaging topic, I will try to respond within a day.

If you shop with B&H Photo Video, please consider doing so through the link on thephotovideoguy.ca as this helps support my efforts and has no negative impact whatsoever on your shopping experience. 

If you find the podcast, videos or articles of value, consider clicking the Donation tab in the sidebar of the website and buy me a coffee. Your donation goes to help me keep things going. 

I'm Ross Chevalier, thanks for reading, watching and listening and until next time, peace.