It is December, I’m busy with school work, the weather is a bit less cooperative with attempts to get out and do photography. One way I cope with this is to spend time going back over photographs I shot earlier in the year, but which did not then strike me as being the best images. Sometimes I find what I regard as real gems that I had overlooked, either because I didn’t notice them while focused on other images or because I simply had not yet figured out how to make these shots work.

The process is, frankly, a bit less fun and a bit less rewarding than going through brand new photos at the end of a trip. It involves viewing literally thousands of images on the computer, looking for something that might work that I skipped over earlier. When I spot something interesting I open the file and work on it for awhile, and often I end up simply closing the file and not saving the changes. I’d rather spend time on something that turns out to be a dead end than miss something that might be good, so I often open and work on quite a few images that turn out to go nowhere. However, among these I do find some that seem interesting enough that I’ll devote some time to them.

Some of the images that I’ve posted rhere ecently (and more that will come soon) fall into this category – interesting and worth (to me, at least) exploring a bit. Seeing what I can find and then get out of these images is a type of practice. The result may not be what I regard as my best images; instead, if you follow these pages (and dan’s outside) you’ll see me working through some “problems” that may or may not result in great final images – and learning from the process.
—–

The Online Photographer has an interesting thread on “dream cameras” right now. (Click the title of this post to go there.) Mike Johnston writes:

I don’t really care for the camera as an object or an operating experience –well, with the exception of the much-better-than-average viewfinder… I’d have to know that a replacement [for my current camera] could do at least as well in terms of color accuracy and tonal scale and practical features before I’d be willing to jump… – Mike Johnston [The Online Photographer]

I’m with him on the camera-as-object-of-techno-lust thing. While I appreciate a well-designed instrument as much as anyone, some people go over the top about the sensory experience of using the camera – sometimes at the expense (both literally and figuratively) of photographic results.

Give the kind of shooting I do today and the way I do it, if someone handed me a blank check and said “go buy a camera” today – and I had enough discretion to resist a $40,000+ MP digital system – I’d get a Canon 5D.

That said, I’ll take the bait and describe my three future dream cameras, at least as of today:

***DSLR

– I shoot a lot of landscapes and I like to print them, so pixel dimensions do make a difference for me. However, with currently available lenses – at least the lenses that I’m likely to own and use – I think there is an upper limit to real usable pixel dimensions on a DSLR. In addition, I’m often on foot and away from my car when I photograph, so weight and size are also important considerations. Depth of field (e.g. smaller apertures) matter to me, so a larger sensor is a good thing. I generally do not do a lot of high-speed action sports photography, so extreme burst rates and a deep buffer are not a big issue.

With all of that in mind, my ideal DSLR would probably be a 16MP successor to the Canon 5D or something similar. It should be no larger than the current 5D, and smaller would be better. Of course, a camera without lenses is worth nothing. If that blank check would also cover lenses, I think I might want the following. Two basic lenses for general use: 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS. Sometimes 24mm is not wide enough, so I’ll keep my 17-40mm f/4 L. I might occasionally want a longer lens, perhaps the 100-400 zoom. I also want some primes so (since someone else is paying) I’ll get the following focal lengths: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm (or 100mm macro?), and maybe one longer lens like a 135mm (with the 85mm) or 200mm (with the 100mm). Oh, how about 24mm and 45mm T/S lenses?

There, I think I’m happy now. :-)

(At the risk of wading into the “you’ll never need more than 6MP” vs. “I need 100MP” argument, I’ll raise the question of whether 16MP will really be enough in the long term, especialy when 24x36mm sensors with greater resolution become available. I don’t know the answer to this for certain, but I have a hunch that we are going to reach a point of diminishing returns with higher pixel densities on 23×36 sensors. There are lens-related reasons for this including the fact that quite a few lenses may not be able to resolve beyond the 16MP level and that creating really big enlargements from very small originals leads to problems with DOF. At this point what you really need is a larger sensor, which leads me to…

***MF digital camera with movements

– This is definitely a future dream since there is no way I could afford it today and the precise camera I would want may not even exist. It would function as a small digital “view camera,” with tilt/swing/rise/fall adjustments and, due to the larger format, permit smaller apertures for sharper images with greater depth of field.

It should be relatively small. It should be back-packable, though more likely on day hikes than on actual pack trips. I’ll need a few good lenses, but I would not need to cover the same large range of focal lengths that I’d expect to cover with a DSLR. Wide is most important, perhaps going to only moderately long.

The sensor would be, say, 48×48 or larger (remember, we’re talking about the future here) and provide images of 35-40MP or so. Oh, and the cost would be not completely out of reach of any photographer who was serious about ths format – perhaps comparable to medium format film equipment before the bottom dropped out of that market.

Yeah, this bit of photographic nirvana is a ways off yet.

Of course, sometimes carrying around a ton of gear is not possible or you may actually miss a shot with this stuff because it takes so long to set it up and get everything adjusted, which leads me to…

***Small high-quality rangefinder camera

– This could be something like the new M8 though, frankly, I think someone can produce very good version of such a camera at a cost much lower than that of the Leica. It will probably be a crop sensor camera, to keep the costs lower and to keep the camera size and weight small. A very good 10MP APS-C sensor would do nicely.

It would be extra cool if it came with an excellent zoom lens covering about the 17-85mm range (equivalent to 27-135 on full frame). Removable lenses could be a good thing, especially if a few very small primes are available – though we can negotiate on this… ;-)

I wrote “rangefinder” camera, but I would actually be interested in such a camera even if it only had a very high quality back panel digital monitor. It should have this in any case – and both a viewfinder and a monitor would be best.

The camera does not have to be “pocket size.” In fact, it probably cannot be so small. However, it should be small enough that I could carry it in my hand comfortably or put it in a small packpack or sling it around my neck.

There. I think I’m set now… :-)

—–

From The Online Photographer, a photography blog that remains in my daily Must Read list:

The Online Photographer offers a steady and interesting flow of posts about the art, the people, and the technology of photography – good stuff for sure! (I was pleased – and slightly surprised – to see that I made it onto their list of contributors… ;-)
—–

I gave the landscapist permission to attach on of my photos (better version here) to a piece describing my comments on an early post and photo by Dwight Jones. I related a story – that I hear is familiar to many photographers – of getting an interesting shot by means of some combination of accident, whim, and intuition.

If you follow the link, take a moment to check out the rest of the landscapist and, as I have, subscribe to their RSS feed.
—–