'Pocket' kit, Pen E-PM1, Panny 14-42Z, 10 mm extension tube in another pocket. 'Light' kit, E-M5, Oly 14-150, spare battery in pocket. 'Field' kit, E-M5, Oly 14-150, waist bag with spare Pen body, 9-18, 12-50, 75-300, Panny 20/1.7, extension tubes, batteries, etc. 'Serious' in the field, E-M5 with 75-300, Pen with 12-50, both around my neck, all the other lenses, etc. in waist bag. The 'Serious' set-up is fairly new to me. I quite like it in the field where there are subjects both near and far. High quality lens coverage from 35 mm eq. 18 mm to 600 mm is something I might have imagined in my 35 mm days. One this small and light, I didn't even imagine. Macro of insect on flower one moment, close-up of dragonfly several feet away the next, panorama of land and sea next, and so on - Magic! Moose

"Having at least one lens that will do true macro (1:1, meaning the object image on the sensor is as large as the actual object in real life) is, however, still a valuable asset for many photographers, even generalists. Dedicated, specialist macro photographers might have more than one true macro lenses; for others, 1:2 is often seen as enough." This was all simple enough with 35mm, but can be confusing with smaller sensors. For example, in its 43mm macro mode, the Oly 12-50 (4/3 sensor size) enlarges to 1:2.8 (0.36x), which doesn't sound very close. However, if that smaller sensor image is enlarged to the same display size as a FF image, it is equivalent to a 1:1.4 (0.72x) image on FF. So in use, the 12-50 macro mode is like an 86 mm FF lens that focuses down to 1:1.4. Do I wish it went to an actual 1:1 eq. - or beyond? Yes, which is why I carry an auto extension tube. Moose

Much as I would like to finally get a Round Touit, I'm afraid that a lifetime's buildup of things left undone would kill me if I suddenly started tackling them all. Then again, with eight µ4/3 lenses*, plus a tiny hole with no glass in it, and more bodies than I wish to admit to*, I don't think I will get around to switching systems. One And One Third Moose * No, I'm not entirely sure how that happened. {;~)>

"Can We Declare Size a Solved Problem?" Generically, sure. Local and specifically, not quite. I've been looking for a new 'pocket', i.e. carry everywhere, camera. Such things seem come with choice of large sensor and fixed focal length or small sensor and a nice zoom. I'm not interested in being restricted to one focal length. While my S100 is a lovely camera, the sensor is small and suffers some of the consequences. I want it all! The solution I'm currently trying is an Oly E-PM1* with Panny 14-42/3.5-5.6 Z lens. Here, I've compared it to a larger Pen/lens combo and the Canon G11. Other images in this gallery show other aspects of the size. Although deeper than the G11 that used to be my small camera, it still fits in many coat pockets. The PZ lens has received some knocks. Well, it may be a little soft in the corners at 42 mm and larger apertures in the lab, but I'm not seeing it with my subjects. It seems to me that other less than stellar test results may be from the 'shutter shock' to which virtually all µ4/3 cameras are subject. Set the Oly 'Anti-Shock', deep in the menus, to 1/8 sec. and it all goes away. I've been getting some really excellent IQ from this combo. In use, it's more like the fixed lens on a compact camera, extending when the camera is turned on, zooming and focusing by pushing tabs. Then, so different from the fixed lens cameras, I can slip the Panny 20/1.7 on for dim places, or slip on a cheap, light, plastic auto extension tube on for getting close. Each of these alternatives is small, light, and slips easily into a pocket. As my 'big' camera is an E-M5, the 20/1.7 and extension tubes do double duty, and I could use any of my other lenses. Moose * The E-PL3 adds mode dial, tilt screen and extra buttons in return for 3 mm more depth.

I'm old enough that I missed the whole Instamatic 'thing'; I was already shooting 35mm. The thing I would suggest about all those old, faded prints is to search out the negs. Although, as you say, the prints were over cooked, that was more the processing than the film itself. If you have a frame where the subject is more or less in focus, a scan from the neg may be revelatory as to color and highlight and shadow details that were never apparent on the prints. With good NR software, the grain recedes to more tolerable levels, as well. Deconvolution 'sharpening' is of use, too. Maybe someone can convince DxO to do a custom deconvolution profile for the standard, plastic Instamatic lens? In any case, my limited experience with other's 126 negs is that there is often much more hiding there than one might imagine. Then, there are caches like the endless snaps my first sister-in-law took when she spent a youthful year+ in Europe and No. Africa. Every one seemed to suffer from lots of motion blur. On top of paying no attention to subject motion, I think she jerked the camera in the process of pushing the shutter release. No hope for those. The truth is, not all old snaps with folders are that great. Many shots of my earliest years were taken with a Kodak 6x9 folder, using cut film and packs. As you say, many of the contact prints look pretty good. And my Mom kept all the negs, right under the prints, in the family album, on acid free paper. But, when looked at more closely, the combination of modest lens quality and speed, poor film flatness, esp. in the film packs, zone focusing and the relatively slow shutter speeds dictated by slow film and lenses all added up to very few negs that look much good larger than a contact print. Still, better than Instamatics. \;~)> Moose

That is how I find out what camera I really like. If I'm going away from home someplace where I expect to take pictures, for a few hours to a few weeks, and not specifically trying out a new camera, I generally carry three cameras. My current, rather small bag, can carry E-M5 with 14-150 attached, 9-18, 75-300 and either 12-50 w/macro or Panny 20/1.7, for speed, with a spare body, an E-PL2 in the side pocket with the batteries, cards, etc. The third camera has been a series of increasingly competent compacts that I also use as my "always have a camera with me" cameras. Canon S110 (old model), Fuji F10, F30, Canon A710, A650 (a G9 without the style, but with articulated screen) then a G11. The G11 seemed like the culmination of a series. It has just about everything I think I want in a small camera. I should still be using it. (BTW, I've only used four primary cameras in that time, mostly the original 5D.) Yet, somehow, an S100 (new model) found it's way here, and has sat on the shelf on the way to the front door beside the G11, both ready to go, for a little over 14 months. The G11 has not taken a shot outside the house in that time, and only a handful inside. Apparently, given equal or better IQ, size and weight outweigh more external controls and articulated screen. (I am among those who find the tunnel optical viewfinders on compact cameras a completely useless waste of size, weight and $.) The "The Out-the-Door Test" has spoken loud and clear. The G11, much as I love it in theory, will be needing a new home. Now, will the S100 have a serious rival in the test? I've acquired an Oly E-PM1, a tiny µ4/3 camera body, and the tiny Panny 14-42X lens. This combo is a different shape, but essentially the same bulk and weight, as the G11. Far fewer external controls, although completely controllable, much bigger sensor, with cleaner files, especially as the ISOs go up, better wide end, but shorter long end. I generally eschew protective filters, but a standard lens cap on a pocket camera is nothing but trouble for me. With UV filter on , this new rig fits into and slips in and out rather easily of most of my vest/coat pockets. Need something special, dim light, macro, and I can slip another lens in the other pocket. Which will pass the The Out-the-Door Test? Only time will tell.

Is it possible that some of your modestly dis-functional quirks are a significant reason we all stop by every day? I won't reveal whether I do so primarily to note what new thing you may have got up to - or to catch up with another who shares some of my, um, er, less obviously functional traits. {;~)> And no, I'm not going to reveal here what brand and line of cameras I seem suddenly to be accumulating and learning the small differences between, far beyond any use or sense. Moose

'The page linked-to by the 32 GB hyperlink now says "Discontinued Product" :-(' Looks like TOP continues to have a vast retail effect. {:~] Sorry you missed it, Mike. I hope others besides me got in on the deal. Moose

The 32GB cards are an even better deal, $34.95 for two, 55¢/GB vs. 78¢. I'd give a link, but I assume the above link gives Mike a few cents, too. Hope so, as that's what I used. Just search for the exact same item, but 32 GB. Moose

An Ansel Adams exhibit last fall at the Peabody-Essex in Salem is a good case in point, to Mike's essay and several prior comments. It seemed obvious to me that someone had decided that an Adam's show would pack the people in, as was true when I was there. However, they couldn't arrange, afford, whatever, an exhibit of originals of the iconic images. So, they staged a show with only, as I best recall, 2-3 originals of the real classics, some huge blow-ups, with poor technical photographic values, of other hits, a modest selection of what I would consider good work, much of which I had not seen, and a lot of original prints I had not seen that I doubt would ever hang in a decent gallery, were it not for the person who made them. perfectly good photographs, beautifully printed, but not standouts. I quite enjoyed the show. Getting to view such a selection of St Ansel's less than stellar work gave me a much better understanding of what he was working on and how the great ones likely came about. I also came away with the sense, which may not be accurate, that in doing his later work, he may have been feeling the shadow of his famous early work. I've also seen some of his very early commercial work, focusing on a college and its students. Absolutely technically professional, and lifeless. Moose

"Dear Moose, Sorry to tell you that you are likely doomed to a life of disappointment [s]." LOL! Not to worry, Ctein. My life is far too sweet for that! Every day when I get up just across the Bay from you, I go out on the porch and express my thankfulness for another glorious day in Paradise. I must admit to having had more than a little enjoyment in writing my post. Not that I disagree with anything I said, although my tongue may have slipped into my cheek a little in the serious tone. I do much enjoy your columns on photography, and find those on beverages and psittacines of little interest. Nothing wrong with finding a way to enjoy an otherwise dull post, and trying to improve the mix to my taste, I hope. {;~)> Marc, "But Ctein writes about a PHOTOGRAPH." and Paul "And the idea that a photograph is 'separate' from journalism, Moose, is hilarious. All the photographers I have ever worked with have been journalists too,", I believe there are inherent fallacies in your positions. First, imagine yourselves in the days before newspapers could reproduce photographs. The visual in question could have been a woodcut, similarly commissioned by the reporter, misrepresented in exactly the same way, and accompanied in the same way by plagiarized material. Or, rather than a visual, it could have been a falsified eyewitness description. The issues of falsification and plagiarization would be identical to those raised here, ergo, the fact that the falsification happens to be a photograph is irrelevant. Acting as though the controversy is about a photograph only obscures the true issue. Second, Paul, that your statement is a fallacy is easily seen if it is stated clearly: "All the photographers I know are journalists, therefore, all photographers are journalists." As it happens, I know many photographers. None are currently journalists, and only two were formerly in that profession. I still believe that it's not about a photograph, it's about lying, cheating and stealing. How very old fashioned. Moose

Oh, well, it was fun, useful and informative while it lasted. I got along without looking forward to Wednesday's column before it existed; I can again. I hope Ctein the photographer, printer and technical writer about those things returns one day. He is quite good. Catalogs use photographs to display their wares. Failings in choice of product, descriptions, layout, organization, quality of products and service have nothing to do with photography. Can you imagine a column about those things here? Journalism existed long before photography. It is a separate field, which happens to use photographs, along with interviews, documentary research, videos, surveillance, etc. There are no complaints that the photo itself is plagiarized, Photoshopped, of inadequate quality for its purpose, unclear as to its objective content, as opposed to who and where, etc. The issues discussed here are all about misrepresentation of the content and location of the photo and plagiarism in the words to which it was conjoined. For the purposes of the controversy, the photograph is irrelevant. It could as easily be a drawing, a video, an audio description of witnessing supposedly live events, a witness report ... There are plenty of other places to read about the ethical, moral, political, whatever, aspects of journalism. I come here to read and interact about photography. Forays into culinary matters of tea and coffee are unfortunate, a let-down. Jumping into this morass is really annoying to this regular reader of TOP*. News and commentary about misrepresentation in/of photographs that win contests are of little interest to me, but clearly about aspects of photography, and thus on topic for a photography blog and/or column. Op-Ed should be in another section. Moose * And buyer of Ctein prints here. Oddly enough, I was just perusing one last night.

My first ever new car was a 1968 BMW 1600, 2 door. (No it was not a 1602, as some references would have it.) The then new 2002 had a months long waiting list - and cost was a consideration. A wonderful car that never failed to get me where I was going. Things did go wrong over the years, but never so bad that I couldn't get home, then to the shop. I could go out on the Coast Highway and eat up the modest sports cars of the time, MGBs, Datsuns, etc. When I got a 911, the little red BMW went to an apparently good home, but was totaled only a few months later. But if I could have a new one today, would I want it? No. The cars of the time were so primitive in so many respects. I wouldn't want the '55 Chevy coupe with speced engine and close ratio 4-speed that preceded it either, except to sell. It's easy to remember the good parts of things in the past, and forget the less good. Try driving those little, rear wheel drive 2 doors with that rear suspension on snow and ice. Wheeeeeeeee ... Just driving up the grade out of Tahoe on I-80 when it started to snow, not all that hard. The car chose to do a graceful 360, ending up parked heading forward on the shoulder. Nothing to do but act to the other three people like I meant to do that, get out and start putting on the chains. Yep, even with four people and with their luggage in the trunk - squirrely. Best handling car I ever had, wet, dry, snow, was an Audi 5000CS Turbo Quattro. FAR better car in almost every way than the BMW. Moose

Can you try them out? I tried various readers of friends and family. I found I preferred the Nook Touch. I'm still happy with it, months later. It's a personal, ergo-eye-dynamics thing. Reviews and specs don't tell all. Moose

"I suspect I won't be able to tolerate it, but then I'm the fellow who can't even tolerate the line in the bifocal fields, and most people adapt to that just fine." Everybody is different. I used to have bifocals as back-ups to contact lenses. Never did get used to them. Good progressives are much better - for me. Moose

My situation is similar, 20/10 in right eye, 20/20 in left, after correction for both. Myopia onset at about the same age. I occasionally cover the right eye and marvel at how soft the world must look to most people. Monovision contacts, with glasses over them for distance and computer worked very well for years. Then, as the lenses in my eyes got even stiffer, a middle ground developed where neither eye focused well. I tried progressives. Cheap ones from Lenscrafters (a mistake on their part when I ordered back-up bifocals) were awful. Dizzy and with eyestrain. Fancy ones with double aspheric surfaces worked wonders, and still do, many years later. "Progressive lenses? Then I'd never have the entire field of view sharp, just some portion of it. That would drive me nuts even faster than uniform blurriness. " I think you may misunderstand, or misinterpret the consequences of, one aspect of human vision. We only see clearly in a quite narrow angle of view. The rest of the visual field is filled in with what we perceive as detail, but is really a construct of the mind mixing recent detail data, as we move our eyes and/or head around, and the very soft peripheral vision. Do you think we only make up data for the foveal blind spot? So the deal with good progressives is that many/most people easily adjust to moving the visual field where it needs to go almost entirely with small head movements, rather than eye and head movements. And it's no longer necessary for most of us to buy exotic, expensive progressives any more. My first pair had to be ordered from Japan. My latest pairs are from Costco. I bought a pair as back-ups for the anticipated Zeiss or other high end lenses and to wear while the 'real' pair were obtained. (I did lots of research, mostly confusing.) I couldn't find anything at all wrong with the cheap ones, so I had another pair of lenses put in my favorite frames. Happy vision. Because of the angle at which I view my computer screen, I also have a separate pair of single vision lenses that live on my desk. Oh yeah, they are also good for trimming my beard. Moose

57 Presidential Inaugurals! That would make you at least 225 years old. And you don't look a day over 200. `/;~> I remember Ike. Young Moose [It's been just short of 224 years since the first one in April 1789. We consider ourselves 237 years old, though, since we date our nationhood from the Declaration of Independence. But we didn't have a President then. --Mike]

This whole business is making me nervous. I bought an E-M5* this year. As you say, not perfect, but as close to perfect for me as exists at present. But now it's receiving various Best of Year awards. Does this mean I have to get rid of it and get something quirkier, less, well, mainstream? Couldn't you have picked something bigger, or even something silly? [Like the Fuji, to my mind.] Ah well, I can be strong. I survived 5 years with the original 5D as my primary camera ... Moose * Olympus clearly intends 'OM-D' to designate a class of camera bodies, of which the E-M5 is the first. The same idea, silly or not, as the 'Pen' series, now comprising E-P1 through 3, E-PL1 through 5 and E-PM1 % 2.

"The evidence of all the gospels (canonical, apocryphal, gnostic—you know, things like Marcion of Sinope) make it very evident that Jesus firmly believed the "Kingdom of Heaven" was due any day, and would certainly happen within his lifetime." Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21 NVT Other translations say things like 'among you' or 'already within some of you' Elsewhere, Jesus answers two questions about the Kingdom of God: When? Now. Where? Within you. I'm no expert, and take no position here about apparently conflicting ideas about what Jesus said or meant. I'm simply surprised at your blanket statement, in light of contradictory statements directly attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels. Gospel of Thomas #70 also says individual destruction or salvation comes from within the individual. Moose

Reading through all these entertaining comments, I am reminded of another story. When Columbia enticed Bruno Walter to record with them for the last part of his career, they offered to hire any orchestra in the world that could be bought. He turned all that down for Hollywood, where he said the best musicians in the world were playing studio gigs. He had them set up a big, empty warehouse space, where he split up the musicians he choose into separate spaces where they could see him, but their sound could be tuned and recorded separately. That was the credited "Columbia Symphony Orchestra". I think those recordings are some of the greatest by a great conductor. Others may differ. (But they'd be wrong about the Brahms Double Concerto. {;~)> ) I assume he had guest conducted the Hollywood Bowl, where the HB Orchestra is a pick up band of the top studio people. Another story, told to me by someone who was in that orchestra at the time, is of the very intense European conductor who was twisting himself into knots trying to say what he wanted in his tortured English, and mightily frustrated that he wasn't getting it. Someone in the orchestra, tired of all this, piped up. "Who do you want us to sound like, Berlin, London, New York, Amsterdam, Chicago, who? Just tell us, and we'll do it." Moose Tellin' Tales

"And then there's aesthetics. If you don't think aesthetics affect taste and palatability, ..." Not enough to make the green sludge I was offered from a formal Japanese tea ceremony palatable. I would probably enjoy the ceremony more now than as a callow youth in 1960, but I'm pretty sure the tea would still be undrinkable. When are we going to get into Water, source, time of year, recent and historical weather patterns, methods of capture, packaging, storage, delivery, opening, pouring, glass, and so on? Water is my hands down favorite thing to drink. I prefer a particular domestic spring water. And it's a shame they switched to plastic bottles some time ago. Although I'm not sure it changed the taste, I'm told the plastic must be doing something bad to me. OTOH, the screw tops mean fewer spills ... I still have a case in glass stashed away. Ctein could cross the Bay, sample in beautiful, hand made glasses (perhaps vs. French cafeware, vs. domestc crystal?), and render an opinion. [;-)> And also, on Topic: Overall, I think water provides more photographic opportunities, as well. Tea, water, beer, wine, etc. don't come in rain, falls, surf, sleet, snow ... Simple Pleasures Moose

LOL! You are right on. I had the displeasure of hearing Isaac Stern butcher the Beethoven Violin Concerto. Yet his recording with Bernstein and the NYP is wonderful, my second favorite. He was, of course, well known for ups and downs in live performance. Then heard a Russian I'd not heard of do a first rate job a few months later. A year ago or so, I heard George Lopez play The Goldberg Variations at a free concert at Bodoin College. Great performance - and he only talks, quite engagingly, when not playing. \;~> We have friends who love play live gigs, and feel that recorded music has had a large negative effect on music and musicians. And yet, I prefer listening to them recorded, or at least with my eyes closed. Terrific musicians, poor stage presence. I videoed them a couple of months ago, and they were shocked when they saw it. One is lively and visually engaging. Two are like stone, and the forth scowls rather frighteningly (but almost always sings on key these days). Moose

Dear Moosie ------------------ Only the path matters. And of the path, only this step. Nothing lost, Nothing found, Nothing taken, Nothing gained, Nothing held, Lasts There is no beginning. There is no end. There is only now, And the story unfolding. Love the story. Live the story. Love what is, And feel joy. Love what was, And feel pain. Love what is to be. And feel nothing. JOY! © Moose, 2008

"... doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." I've been reading TOP long enough now to have 'seen' a few cycles of great excitement, followed by silence, then disposal. You just posted the end of one a couple of days ago. And if the 'sell everything' idea were mine, it would likely be a way to end more than one experiment at once without admitting it to myself. I know whereof I speak, for myself, simply because I've done the same thing, both with photography and other things, innumerable times. Mostly I haven't done it in public on the web, although those on the Oly List have seen at least a couple of my cycles. /;~)> Are you, or are you likely to become, a serious digital darkroom worker? Have you determined that images right out of the D800e already have your sort of tonality? I have a web friend, a fairly well known pro, who has a new Leica MM. What I see coming out of that camera just doesn't 'speak' to me tonally. And not just web images, I've been given a few Raw/DNG samples to play with. Nice resolution, low noise, smooooth tonal transitions, but the tonal distribution just leaves me cold. OTOH, I have another friend who sells prints out of a small studio and a few other venues, whom I consider a master digital printer. Over the last couple of years, he's moved into B&W work. He's getting some amazing tonalities in his converted, large, B&W prints from a D3. But it's not the camera, it's the time spent in learning to use software to massage what comes out of the camera to realize his vision on paper. His magic happens in the digital darkroom, not the camera. 'Just sayin' Moose

It just doesn't matter. If folks like them, then your opinion-Judgement means nothing. If folks don't like them, they will sink without a trace to mark their passing - other than your rant. Moose