Kemal

Camera Review pt 1

2009-12-30T14:11:00.000-08:00

I have made a few attempts to review the new Pentax K7, with little success. I am at odds with the traditional review process that, unfortunately, micromanages technical aspects of the camera in question. I've found few reviewers that focus on any kind of philosophy or psychology or some kind of amalgam of ideas concerning photographic tools. It cannot be denied that photographs are possibly the most powerful medium for communication. No other medium can immediately circumvent language, culture, social/economic status with such speed in its creation and, now, propagation through the internet. Photographs have completely ruined the reputations of people once thought to be incorruptible, they've also done the complete opposite and elevated the image the most lowly person in society. Only ignorance would deny the very present power of photography. At the risk of being didactic, I'll avoid giving listing famous photographs and their immediate relationship to time-changing events. I would rather challenge you to prove the power of photography yourself by simply pulling out a camera in a roomful of people and watch what immediately happens. At the very sight of a camera, the behavior of people will change instantaneously. Some people behave as if they've just seen a loaded gun, some pretend nothing is wrong, some scrutinize the photographer as being everything from a criminal to a newly-found documentarian and eagerly await the camera flash.

With this in mind, what is important in a camera review? Typically, for most people, the sight of a semi-expensive camera is enough to think that its primary function is to create great images. While the sight of a cheap point and shoot may simply elicit a question as to how many megapixels the sensor has or if you bought the extended warranty. Both cameras are capable of helping create great images, it's the operator that makes the difference. Much like owning a sports car doesn't make you a great driver, having an expensive camera doesn't make you a photographer. The chief difference is that you can specialize specific requests of photography with a specialized camera.

For me, most of these technical requests are being met across the board- regardless of price ranges. ISO performance is indistinguishable from 100-400 and most people simply do not care/notice when it comes to high amounts of grain. In the absence of fast lenses, auto-iso can be used and only the most good-for-nothing measurebator will make an issue of things. The real question is: does the camera work? Does it consistently take pictures that are satisfactory to you? If it does, then it's a good camera.

My personal definition of a good camera relies on a few historical examples. Nikon had the F series, Canon had the AE-1, Pentax had the unforgettable K-1000. These cameras simply worked. You changed the shutter speed and made an according change to the aperture, then fired the shutter. These cameras were sturdy and reliable. But much like in the automotive industry where you could easily put your whole arm into a crevice of an engine and change a belt or remove a battery with ease- things have changed. Now engines are prohibitively cramped, where you may have to remove the battery just to get to the front tire. Similarly, cameras are now so filled to the brim with almost never-used technical junk it's difficult to know what you have in your hands. Most of the fault lies in our own need to broadcast being bigger and better to our friends, I've found this personality trait to be universal and directly stupid. There is no insight of what is important to your own needs- not to a reputation or what others think of your gear.

Pentax K-7

2009-07-01T13:50:00.000-07:00

One event I have been eagerly anticipating is the inevitable release of the Pentax K-7. I’ve been interested in a successor model to the K10D for a while now and since the K20D only offered a few incremental changes, it seems that the K-7 may be the way to go.

The K10D sufficiently offers me what I need (and more) in a camera. A few areas I think that could be improved upon are: auto-focus in low-light situations, high iso performance and a few viewfinder issues. This may be an individual gripe, but I could use a brighter and bigger viewfinder and one that has yet to suffer being smashed upon a rock in Northern Ontario. The auto-focus in low light is an obvious need and one that has been successfully addressed by other camera-makers. And it would be helpful to utilize a useable image at higher iso’s, it’s something that I’ve lately been running into. The sensitivity of the film works in conjunction to getting the appropriate shutter speed but this is sometimes at the detriment of image quality where the higher iso lacks detail and has an increased coarseness in grain.

I’m not entirely sold on the idea of cycling ownership of electronic devices every few years, when you presently have a perfectly fine product in your hands- but some of the new features on the K-7 have me interested. They’re simple yet useful features that caught my eye.

AF Assist Lamp: I cannot count how many times I’ve wished upon Satan’s grave for one of these. Standing in the dark with tripod-mounted LED flashlights that needed to adjusted for every move the subject makes in order to illuminate them and satisfy the cruel and bitter mistress of Pentax auto-focus technology- this process hasn’t always worked. The assist lamp would work infinitely better as it’s engineered specifically to work in conjunction with the auto-focus process within the camera.

HD Video: There are a number of nerds who purposely go out of their way to deny any benefit to the packaging of both video and still photography in a DSLR. Which I personally think is silly. The option is there to use video and does not, in any way, impede the function of still photography. What I do think is neat is the ability to shoot HD video and include a mic input with the K-7. Also, the multitude of lenses available (super-wides, fisheyes, macro, zooms) are readily available and would provide very interesting video if utilized correctly. Whereas, HD cameras are already cost prohibitive, along with the fact you may be stuck with one focal length instead of being able to switch lenses at will.

Electronic Level: Now this is a cool feature. The less time spent in Photoshop fixing a crooked horizon, the better.

5.2 FPS: This is a feature I have struggled to reconcile with my anti-measurebator sensibilities. A hotly debated topic, the issue of more frames per second seems to bring many opinions from the woodwork. For my own personal use, the 3 fps on my current camera was not used frequently but in the rare time I did use it- I was glad I did. When you need to capture a specific moment delineated by fractions of a second, any help is appreciated.

There are a number of other features that look neat and some that are standard PR BS that all camera-makers include with a new flagship model. Of course, the in-body shake reduction, weather-sealing, live view, 1/8000 shutter speed and new metering system are all great additions to the camera body.

Yet, admittedly, the application of all of these bells and whistles is a whole other topic. Very rarely has the increasingly growing laundry list of new DSLR features get used regularly- or ever. In the frantic moments of aligning composition, checking batteries, removing lens caps, smudging the eyepiece- I doubt that many of us have the time or the inclination to micromanage exposure compensation values or studiously reviewing the histogram for inaccuracies. It’s not that these features are never used or aren’t useful but the vast majority of the public might like the theory in these specs but rarely execute their application. It’s more important for the core functions of the camera to operate properly than appease the ever constant measuring contest of specs.

However, with all of the features in mind, the K-7 looks like it may be a pretty decent camera. Finally, a nice bonus is being able to power the camera with AA batteries that are placed within the grip, which would be indispensable if you were ever caught with a dead or missing lion battery. It seems the R&D people at Pentax tried to fit in a number of practical ideas into their product, I suppose time will tell if the checklist of features adds up to a great camera.

Brand X

2009-01-31T19:45:00.000-08:00

One topic that has lately got me thinking is the alleged importance of one digital single reflex camera over another. In this day and age, I’ve found that “brands” don’t really exist. One sensor is co-opted into a number of cameras, a series of lenses may be rebadged under another name and serve two different companies- then there’s the whole issue of post-processing.

If a sensor developed by Sony is in a Samsung camera, using a rebadged lens made by Pentax and then the image created in the camera is processed through Adobe Photoshop- what “brand” really lays claim to that final image?

So much is said of a Nikon D300, Canon 5D or Pentax K20D…or any other camera for that matter. Many people will swear by one system as having something inherently unique to it, when in fact, it’s really an amalgam of technology and talent across many brands and names.

With this in mind, I once again come back to that issue of post processing. After the image has been run though the guts of the camera and sits in the memory card, it may then be deposited to be once again processed in a home computer. Now, an entirely different engine written by a number of authors can bend and change that image into something else. Especially, if the image was shot in RAW format, where the entirety of visual data is saved within the camera and not compressed as a JPEG.

So with so many cooks in the same kitchen- does a Nikon, Canon or Pentax camera really exist? Can these brand names truly represent a unified effort under one name? Evidently, they do exist. Inevitably, I think out of necessity, a company may need outsource to other companies in order to achieve a better product.

It was only after looking at the process and planning that goes into manufacturing a camera did I wonder about these issues. How much really separates one camera manufacturer from another when the photo can be taken “once again” in Adobe Photoshop? And even further, where is the delineation when each manufacturer may borrow parts from one another?

Kube

2008-12-10T20:59:00.000-08:00

If you’d try to name your top 5 movies of all time, your list will be absolutely wrong. You’re always wrong. Unless, of course, your list includes films by Stanley Kubrick. His work is unlike any other filmmaker. His work demands your attention as it slowly zooms and pans to impeccably composed scenes that just seem to soak with intensity. His whole catalog of work is really great. My favorites, which stand out, are: The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is so much symmetry and color in his composition for each film. You can see the level of craft and perfection in each scene. The W I D E angle lenses he uses give a vast impression of a scene that both dwarfs and highlights the actors while they speak. Or don’t speak. My favorite thing about Kubrick films is when actors speak to each other and let their lines sink in with moments of silence. I love those scenes- and just about ever Kubrick film I’ve seen has many of these moments. The camera stays on Tom Cruise or George C. Scott after they’ve delivered a simple line of dialogue and just reflects on them for a moment. They almost look zombie-like but, at the same time, very much alive. There really is a lot to say about his work but I can confidently state that nobody has made a movie quite like him. Here are some of my favorite parts from The Shining:

Jack Torrence & Delbert Grady Bathroom Scene

Lloyd The Bartender part 1

Lloyd The Bartender part 2

Kindness

2008-11-23T03:33:00.000-08:00

“One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those who touched our human feelings. The curriculum is so much necessary raw material, but warmth is the vital element for the growing plant and for the soul of the child.”

–C.G Jung

This quote by Jung is one of the chief reasons why I like him so much. I’d clarify that both children and adults benefit from a loving approach from a teacher. And that the terms “teacher” does not necessarily refer to the traditional image of a school teacher- but anyone that can provide guidance.

I look back fondly and clearly on teachers that made an environment conducive for learning by “touching our human feelings”, which sounds a bit over-the-top, but remains true. There are so many factors contingent for learning and so many distractions that can take place. And I clearly remember teachers that, to this day, I think of because of not only their ability to properly teach lessons but also their ability to make students feel good.

Regurgitating “necessary raw material” provides a very mechanistic and cold approach to things. And while it is very functional, I would confidently state that without the element of caring and creativity- the situation is lost. There have, lately, been comparisons between Chinese and American students in terms of cognitive development through education systems that may favor reason over creativity. Avoiding a didactic style of instruction in favor of a more dialectic approach yields favorable results.

However, there must be a happy medium between the two approaches, of course. Many North American students lack very basic skills in terms of language and arithmetic yet value creativity. While many Asian students are extremely proficient in science and arithmetic but are unable to utilize any of their heightened skills to their full potential with the absence of creativity.

I remember being hopeless in a certain math class. And one teacher approached with a certain demeanor that saved me from failing altogether. There is a clarity and honesty that is present in a situation where someone may care for you and, somehow, you reciprocate in light of their efforts. This is not to say that a harsh lesson may not be as effective, but I’d sure as hell try honey to catch a bee before using vinegar. It sort of puts the onus on both educator and student in achieving a goal, rather than using the threat of failure and a half-duplex direction of data.

Even in his own practice, as a doctor, Jung had removed the typical arrangement of sitting opposite and out of view of his patient while he or she recounted details while lying on a couch. He had flaws, of course, but his approach is documented as one that endeared him to his patients first and that approach usually prepared the patient for a successful return to normality. A kindness is available in him, which, to this day, is visible in videos recorded by the BBC and available on YouTube. Alleged complex ideas would never come near me, had they not have been delivered in his gentle and thoughtful way of speaking.

This is my new website! Again!

2008-11-20T15:40:00.000-08:00

Well, this is the newest reincarnation of my website. I grew sick of the hassles in editing .html and repititive ftp sessions. I had picked up a nice flash website with a user-friendly front-end for content organization. So far, I like the look.

I’m using this place for textual content along with other visuals that I won’t put on the flash site. Inevitably, there will be some articles on C.G. Jung placed here. And I anticipate other topics will migrate to this space as well.

I’m in the process of organizing a few things already but I have to find yet another gallery system for this side of things, rather than using the other site for displaying certain content.