Working the skies

This is the kind of photo that I want to take. This is actually a photo that I took some while ago. I used to have a Tamron 17-35 f2.8 but when I was dumping some kit a while ago, I took it along to see how much it was worth and found it had something called the Schneider effect which was slowly destroying the glue that held the front element on. I thus sold the lens and resolved to replace it with something better. This lens had a problem with soft corners too.Thus, I have been looking at several options. The first is a wide lens such as the Rokinon 14mm f2.8 which goes new for $275-$299. I don't often see that lens going secondhand, sadly. As far as I've seen, it's OK wide open but has a slight barrel distortion effect in the center.

I've looked at various oprions. Since it seems f2.8 and 1600 ISO is the minimum needed to get night sky images such as the one above, the options are either a new lens at $275-$299 or a new camera with a higher ISO that'll use my current F4 lens. To do that, the ISO would have to be 3200 or higher. Another alternative would be to get a different camera system. Looking into that, the Olympus system seems to be quite good with a decent f3.5 lens at 14mm. That's approximately the same coverage as the 14mm on my Canon system. Now that comes in (new) at $299.

The interesting thing is that just about every option seems to come it at around $275 - $300. Looking at secondhand cameras, the cameras seem to be $150 and the lenses are seprate at $100 . So, to get great sky photos it looks like a $300 expenditure. Meanwhile, my existing Canon cameras really haven't had that much use. I checked and the shutter count is around 8,700 on one and 5,000 on the other. I'd be really uncomfortable selling cameras that were so costly for the low sums they would go for. Literally, they have depreciated about 95% but still take phenomenal images.

So, the question is whether I spend $300 and gain extra gear or sell everything I own for next to nothing to part-subsidise a kit that is nowhere near as comprehensive. I notice that my existing stuff has 0.5 stops more dynamic range than the best micro four thirds for example. It's all really rather frustrating and confusing. I see the phenomenal photos that others take using their kit of night skies using ultra-high ISOs and fast apertures. It just annoys me that my kit won't allow me to do that.

There really isn't much solution that I can see that doesn't involve money. I waver from one solution to another. I certainly like the idea of a smaller camera such as those offered by Nikon and Olympus. The problem is I am unsure just how much I'd use them. As an example, I haven't gone out with my camera since March of last year when I went to the zoo. That's not the kind of thing that really merits spending money. On the other hand, the reason I have not is because my cameras are just bulky - so bulky they put me off wanting to use them. A smaller, more pocketable system is much more desirable. Hence, I take many more photos with my smartphone. 

To date, all the photos of my bus have been done with my smartphone. There's a reason for that - instant upload and instant editing. I can take the photo with my smartphone then head to my tablet and the image is ready online to insert into my blog. All I need to do is to write the entry.

With my older model cameras, uploading is a royal nusiance. I have to connect the camera to the tablet then I can upload solely JPEG images. I cannot process RAW images. Thus, I'd have to use a computer which is where there's a problem. My Macbook is almost 10 years old and the battery desperately needs to be replaced. The screen keeps going black because of it. In addition to that, it needs a new hard drive as the one in it must surely be about to fail. As it's an older connector, the cost is high. I'd be looking at a minimum of about $400 to replace the battery and the hard drive and would at the end of all that still have a 10 year old macbook.

I definitely do not recommend living in South Carolina where it's almost impossible to find real work. I've been stuck in ass-end jobs that don't pay a worthwhile living for the last decade. With the income I have, all these desires will probably be unfilled 10 years from now. If enough people clicked one advert on this site, I might get a dollar or two but nobody will do that.

In terms of income, I notice this site makes between 0 and 2 cents a day from the adsense advertising carried. It's getting to the point where I'd consider going ad-free. The advertising just doesn't seem to produce any worthwhile income at all these days - pretty much like work.

On that depressing note, I'll run off to bed and wish probably my only reader, good night.

Why it's a silly idea to buy a new camera

As my regular readers will know I possess a Canon XT. I've had it since it was new for which I paid probably $800 - $1000. Today I looked at the secondhand market and eBay seems to be selling plenty XTs for $45 or frequently less. Considering I have taken less than 10,000 photos using my camera over the past 10 years, it works out as really rotten value. In 10 years, had I used film, I would have taken less photos and been more mindful of the cost of the photo. That's not hard to do either. I haven't taken any photos for several months with my XT. I've taken a lot of photos with my phone though.

Checking my phone, I've taken 42 photos this month so far and that's a low number. I expect when I work on my bus project tomorrow I'll take a further dozen photos. My phone is something I need anyway and the camera on it was free. Currently phone cameras are way better value than DSLRs.

Looking at the resale value of cameras - you will certainly want to sell your camera at some point in order to take advantage of later developments - they're a huge money pit. Back in film days when cameras didn't change much from decade to decade they retained their value. That meant it was worth buying a camera because it could be reliably sold for about 75% of what it cost. Now because cameras and lenses are overproduced and oversold, the resale value is negligible. $1,000 for something that'll be worthless in a few short years is a pointless waste of money. Better to stick with a cameraphone and just agree that it won't be great for the more specialised photographic disciplines.

Secondhand, it's well worth buying a camera. The technology won't be the latest but if you can live with that, it could well be worthwhile. I'd like to take night sky photos but am stuck. I either have to spend $300-$400 on the cheapest suitable lens, $300-$400 on a camera with an ISO high enough to use my existing lenses or $175 on a secondhand camera and lens from one of the newer mirrorless systems. It looks obvious - sell the existing stuff and go for the mirrorless solution. There's a problem though - the mirrorless cameras have slightly less dynamic range.

I can honestly say that the way Canon has overproduced and oversold their cameras and lenses is exceptionlly shortsighted and has quite probably ruined the market. I know for sure that if the rate of release had been a lot slower - say one camera every 5 years instead of every 18 months and cameras with real differences rather than notional differences then the bottom would not have fallen out of the used camera market. What difference is there between the XT and the XTi? Simple - 2 megapixels. That is so negligible it's not worth mentioning. What is the difference between 8 megapixels and 16 megapixels? Not much - the extra 8 sounds phenomenal but in actuality means nothing. You will not see a difference on a 10x8 print nor on a 20x16 print.

As a consequence of Canon's overproduction and overselling, the market has been utterly ruined for new cameras. Who on earth is going to buy a new camera when they can buy a secondhand camera that's had hardly any use for peanuts? If I went for a mirrorless camera then I'd get secondhand and certainly not new! Indeed for the night sky photos I'd like to take, it might even be worth buying a secondhand mirrorless then simply selling the Canon stuff due to its redundancy. Honestly, I just can't see how the $300-$400 cost of a wide prime (even a budget model) can be justified when the mirrorless equivalent is so much less. In terms of modern technology, even a $175 camera comes with higher ISO than my XT and a zoom lens that's almost as fast as the budget prime. 

Buying a camera, these days, is pointless unless it has WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS and NFC built in. It's equally pointless to buy a big camera when the market is clearly favoring smaller cameras. Its certainly not possible to get smaller than a phone camera! So, the question is - how is Canon etc going to manage to sell their overpriced junk? Seriously, if the camera is going to be worthless in 10 years or 5 years then what's the point in buying it? Better to spend the money on hookers and have some value out of it! I certainly don't feel I've had good value out of my Canon camera. And before you go on about my needing to use it more, I've had a phone camera for 3 years and have already taken 6,000 photos with it. That's  way more than my DSLR in 10 years!

The ideal camera?

Thinking more about yesterday and the pro photographer that commmented about camera manufacturers loading equipment down with worthless features just in order to charge more. In the example of the 580EX2 flash for example, all that's wanted is a flash with ETTL and manual control. Auto-zooming, strobing, remote control etc is just extra stuff that's pure garbage. Canon's $600 flash is $60 of flash and $540 of absolute trash that could be stripped off easily! Nikon etc do exactly the same thing. And people are amazed that photographers use cheaper Chinese flashes and avoid using flashes altogether. Indeed, I used to have several Canon flashes but I sold them all. Their value was plummeting and the amount they were used was minimal. They were one of the worst purchases I ever made!

In terms of cameras, the same abuse of the consumer has been going on for years. Ever funkier focussing and metering systems. Ever more funky modes. Dozens of un-needed, un-used and un-desired features. Megapixels have been trickled out appallingly slowly. Indeed, the camera companies have been operating as a cartel for the past 20 years, ensuring nobody offers more megapixels or more ISO than anybody else. The companies pretended to be in a race to megapixels but it was all planned down to the minutae. Now that everybody has adequate megapixels, their pretend competition is over ISO. Both could have been done at exactly the same time. The technology hasn't changed in a decade.

Now we get to the nitty gritty of what we, as consumers, need. We don't need LCDs on the backs of cameras - why would a professional be wasting their time looking at a screen when they should be concentrating on the next image? Similarly, amateurs think the screen is invaluable. I never use mine - total waste of space and battery power. What about all those funky modes? As far as I'm concerned, I use manual or aperture priority. I don't do shutter priority, program or any other funky mode. Total waste of time for companies to put them on. What about ISOs? Well, I have used 1600 and would use 3200 if I had it. I would like more of an ISO range but it's not a killer for me.

Things that have vanished from cameras that I miss badly are the hyperfocal scale on the lenses, which was very useful, the aperture ring from the lens barrel which I also miss badly. I miss the split screen focussing aid and the optical view of the aperture as well as the shutter speed indication.

In terms of controls, push buttons and touch screens just don't cut it for me. Give me old fashioned dials where I know what I'm doing in the dark without a flashlight. The Canon 580EX was absolute garbge in this respect - I needed a manual and a flashlight just to be able to use the bloody thing. The same with current Canon cameras.

Give me a flash that has ETTL and manual modes and a camera with control over ISO, shutter speed and aperture priority. I wouldn't want to be bothered with anything else. White balance could easily be auto and file format solely RAW. Photographers want to take pictures, not fiddle around with pointless settings on miracles of technology that are really camera companies waving their dicks at each other!

The ONLY camera that is solely a photographers camera is the Sigma SD10 though it is very lacking in higher ISOs. I do like the Foveon sensor though it badly needs higher ISOs. The Bayer sensor gives higher ISOs but lacks color layering.

So, camera companies - dump your ridiculous cartel and get cracking on a real camera that I alctually want to buy to use. I have an XT and I sufffer its stupidity. I have yet to see a modern camera that's as good as my Nikon FM was.

Yet more

Well, it IS a photography blog and it has been short on photos but long on text. I'm really not sure which people prefer - text, photos or whether anybody actually looks at my blog.



As you can see, I went to the zoo! Generally, on my Canon camera I found a 300mm lens worked well for animals. I do wonder though still about changing systems.