Lovely Rant! "I'd own both. Old, bad lenses and new, super-sharp, hyper-clinical ones. One for fun. The other for fun." Oh, I do I do. I also own some in between, for things the others don't do. That's fun, too. \;~)> ". . . you can use any lens you want to on a digital sensor . . . If it's a good sensor, it will merely capture whatever the look and properties of the lens happen to be." Not universally true. Some combinations of MF lenses designed for film and some digital sensors do not duplicate the look and properties of the lenses on film. I'm aware of several examples from friends and the web. Particularly true, it seems, of many (S)WA lenses. My particular example was a Tokina AT-X 150-500 mm lens. I had some good results on film. I was unable to get anything that didn't look like impressionism on Canon 300D and 5D.

The thing about 40 mm lenses for FF film SLRs is that they were the shortest FL for most camera designs that would clear the mirror without using a retrofocus design. The differences you saw between the 40/2 and 35 or 28 mm likely were due mostly to the big difference in the optical designs. A 40/2 will tend to draw/look like a wider 50/1.8, as they are both six element Double Gauss based designs.

"Culturally, we do seem to be involved in a project—the project of asserting that there's actually some sort of pot of gold at the end of the "technical image quality" rainbow." Thought experiment: You are a painter, perhaps one of those we now call Old Masters. Someone comes to you with a new pigment. You try it. Wow! You can now create that elusive color you've been unsuccessfully working on for years! You buy it, and make a painting that's been in your mind, but that you couldn't make before. Later, working on another painting, you discover this pigment, perhaps reacting with another color, perhaps in a new binder, does something on canvas that you had never before imagined, and which takes you to a new creative result. The movie Tim's Vermeer makes a good case for the idea that Vermeer's unique paintings were in large part the result of technological innovation, not technique superior to his peers. That's my angle on the tech changes - improvements of the digital era. There are many kinds of photographs that I wished to make, going back to the '60s, but could not. Quite a number of them are now possible. It works the other way, too. I've been working to create looks that are far from the kind of super IQ you talk about. Some quite specific in my mind, at least to start with. But they tend to slither along the way. A '60s Canon 58/1.2, some other pre computer design lenses and the Nikon Soft filters I was unaware of when they first came out have gone a long way toward my goal. Then, on the new tech side, a digital FF camera and contemporary image editing software have made the process of trial and error seemingly infinitely quicker and cheaper and allowed effects impossible before. The point is, one may look at technological change as driving the artist away from the point of art, as you posit above. Or as providing new tools that allow the creation of otherwise impossible art, or that may lead to the new and previously unimagined. The creative aspect of the unconscious is not always, perhaps seldom, permanently subverted by the preoccupations of the conscious intellect. You have your own idea of what our subconscious(es) should be creating. It/they may disagree.

"Canon has a long and distinguished history with superfast lenses." Long, certainly, with the 1961 design 58/1.2. Distinguished? I have the same glass in FL mount. If one is interested in sharpness and low aberrations, they are not to be found north of f5.6. Then again, it was the fastest standard lens made at the time of introduction. I love it for the soft look for some of my Alt work, but even then, f1.2 tends to be an aperture too far.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz * However, I am sometimes a compulsive reader, hence: "The adapter, which is built from magnesium alloy and is weather-sealed, also incorporates a 1/4"-20 mount on the base to provide a more balanced means for working on a tripod with longer, heavier lenses." Watch out for this one! I have a similar design adapter for different mounts. Excellent in theory. But, mount a QR plate on either body or adapter, one that protrudes the least bit beyond the thing it's mounted to, and the adapter can't be mounted or dismounted without removing the plate. Terribly frustrating! If I needed to use it more than once in a Blue Moon, I'd replace it with one sans tripod mount on the bottom. This one will be fine if using only F-Mount lenses, but if considering a mix of F and Z mount lenses, check your QR plates against Z body and adapter. Unfortunately, as with the P1000, there are no photos of the bottom of the camera that I can find on the web. ----------- * I do have an early '60s Nikkor-Q 200/4 F-Mount. Optically wonderful, but it's pre-AI**, fully non-electronic. ** When AI meant Auto-Indexing, for the exposure meter.

"But either way, it's not the salient point to me. I want photographers to be served with what would enable them to do good work more effectively. That's where I'm coming from." ". . . or with some other workaround." I take your point, overall, but it seems to me you've gone overboard in the effort to have a long list. What's a "workaround"? "Cameras that are radically simple and de-complexified;" Don't they all come with an "iAuto" Mode these days? Spin the dial to that, and just push the button to take a photo. Or in the other direction, they all come with full Manual Mode, as well; watch the exposure meter display and set speed and aperture. It's like my first real camera, a Nikon Ftn, or my second, an OM-1. I could even only change ISO every 36 exposures! "Cameras with built-in memory;" Huh? Just put a big card in and never look at it again. Have them do it in the store or have a friend do it, then forget it. I just checked. My Olys will work fine that way. Just plug in the USB cable to download the photos. Or use the smart device app to have them appear on your device and send them off into the ether. Slow and limited, to me. Downloading a few hundred files with a UHS II card and reader is almost infinitely faster. And I have been known to need to change cards in the field. But, really, it's a non-issue. "Cameras with modern sensors that have web-only resolution, i.e., two, four, six or eight megapixels; A camera or two with a square sensor...." "" Many contemporary cameras come with the option to set the resolution, in both number of MPs and format. No, OM-Ds don't, but at least many Pannys and Canons do, and probably others. Want a 480x480 pixel camera? Just have that friend or store clerk set it, or dive into menus once, and you've got it. "Cameras that dispense with JPEG modes and options to reduce menu and processing complexity;" Hey, it's a menu option, set once and forget. I never shoot JPEGs. I never use JPEG modes and options. I never think about them. ----------------------- Might That be the problem, head space? Is it necessary that the unused options Not be there at all? Oh, that sounds snarky. It's not meant to be. It's just that I don't "get" the need for dedicated cameras to do what most can be set to do. Set and forget, if one wishes.

"The question for me is, are there photographers out there for whom the small viewing screens of existing cameras aren't big enough, whose work would benefit from being able to see their subjects more clearly with a much larger viewing screen?" If so, and they don't have a solution already, they aren't paying attention. There are already several solutions on the market. Those I know best and have used are Oly Panny and Sony. Herewith the Panny app being used on an iPad Mini to remotely control a GX7. I could just as easily have used and Oly camera and their app. Both offer control over all exposure settings. I could also have used a larger tablet, such as an iPad Pro. The Sony app is a bit more bare bones, but does work reliably on my A7. I was just looking at the Nikon app, for a P1000, and it does look primitive, largely useless, hence the opportunity to sell a special IR remote control. (With receiver only on the front - stupid.) I have no idea how the Canon, Fuji, etc. apps work. Then there's the Arsenal camera remote control for ". . . most Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Sony DSLR and mirrorless cameras." It looks to go far beyond remote control, with its AI Smart Camera Assistant, and things like focus stacking on cameras that didn't come with it. I have no idea what remote control they may offer, but there are many large auxiliary LCD screens offered for video use. Speaking of taking a chance on an innovative product, how about the Olympus Air? This is a camera without a screen. 57 mm in diameter and 83 in length, with a lens. It's tiny, but has the same µ4/3 sensor as an E-M5 II. There's a simple, effective mount on the back to hold a smart phone, but it can easily work with any iOS or Android tablet. The wireless connection uses both WiFi and Bluetooth, and gives seamless viewing and control. Yes, the concept is flawed - with Oly's lenses; the camera is too small to include IBIS and it desperately needs it if used hand held. Fortunately, the Panny 12-32 zoom is the same diameter, tiny and includes OIS. The matching Panny 35-100 zoom also is a good fit with OIS. There were several reviews, here from Imaging Resource. BUT, someone tried making and selling it! And I tried it. It does work well. Have they flown off the shelves - no. Has it led to another product from Oly or others - not yet.

"Stop assigning godlike omniscience to corporations" Almost fell off my chair! I worked for a Fortune 500 company for 31 years. Any clue that top management had about consumers was rare, possibly accidental. Many moons ago, I managed a research dept. for them. One of our jobs was to estimate sales of new outlets. Our average was quite close to actual sales, but the standard deviation was poor. Mysteries remain. "The BMW 3-series has a long history of success**, so Lexus builds a nice 3-series clone called the RC-F. High-performance car, gorgeous interior; doesn't sell. Why? No one knows." Can you spell U-G-L-Y? I didn't pay much attention until I had the chance to test drive a Toyata Mirai fuel cell car. Whatever Toyota has, I hope isn't catching. their cars seem to only vary from pretty ugly to amazingly ugly. If your are going to clone a competitor, catch the look and vibe, too. "the upshot of which is that Sony has surpassed Canon and Nikon in U.S. sales of full-frame cameras, reportedly in both dollars and units sold" So glad to hear that! Not about the fortunes of those companies, though. I just couldn't figure out why people weren't migrating from DSLRs to mirrorless in greater numbers. Seems it turns out they are!

As Mr. Arthur points out, this is an example of Alces Alces, known as Moose in America and as Elk in Europe. They don't have the other sorts of NA Elk in Europe. So Soviet Era Russian, concrete and overly noble. Herewith an American, Maine moose, in both a more American pose and material - AND - it can fly!

"In the Wildfire portfolio, note especially photo #11. That's the overpass from which Ansel Adams took his famous picture "Clearing Winter Storm, 1935." Drat, ever the pedant. Not an overpass, the Tunnel View Overlook, parking adjacent to the east end of the tunnel on the Wawona Road. One may also use long lenses from this overlook. \;~)>

I love the juxtaposition. ". . . my 20mm ƒ/1.7. Optically it's still one of my favorite lenses, but it's remarkably slow to focus 20 mm, F1.7, 6/7, 55.5x20.5 mm, 55 g. "...But I'm still really GASsed out supine and stupid by the Olympus lens." 25 mm, f1.2, 19/14, 70x87 mm, 410 g.

Stan B took some words out of my mouth. Faced with a far less dramatic clearing storm than St Ansel, I turned around, walked up a few steps,and found this. Not as fabulous as Clearing Winter Storm, neither subject nor photographer in that league, but I'll bet the ratio of forward shots to this rearward one is in the realm of billions to one. \;~)>

May composition transcend motif, even, perhaps, cliché?

Lovely post!

Books I print myself or have printed only a quite small % of the images that go on my web sites. Another, somewhat larger % are printed in photo books. 100 images in 5/8" of shelf width. My personal experience is that friends, family, visitors, etc. relate in an entirely different, and much better, way to a book or books than to pile(s) of prints. I think it's related to a few things. First, there's the problem of handling the loose prints. If they perceive them as valuable, which is likely, they are hesitant to handle them much. Its hard to hold a print flat and at the right angle to the light. A book has a physical integrity that makes using it easier and safer (seeming). Second, there's something about the book form embedded in our culture that makes handling and looking at them different, more familiar, comfortable and pleasurable than other forms of presentation. ___________________ Then there's the effect on me of putting together a coherent, linear set of photos for a book. I never got ideas of discipline such as One camera, one lens one year. That would be torture for me. But I find the process of creating a book to be artistic endeavor, not arduous discipline. A not unpleasant process that results in a lasting sense of accomplishment. I suspect too that the process of selection into a limited space improves the quality of the content. As to PQ, I've been quite happy with the quality of the reproductions in high end photo book publishers. Those who view them often comment on the quality, both physical/sensual and visual. Are they individually as good as a great print? Mostly, I think so, and those that aren't are still quite good. I printed most of my books with MyPublisher, which has been absorbed into Shutterfly. My last big book was mailed from a different place than before, and packaged differently, which I assume to have been a Shutterfly printing plant, and was of the same quality. I've only done one small book directly with Shutterfly, and it was fine. I've seen AdoramaPix books that were excellent.

"—given that you have to balance three factors, 1.) telephoto reach, 2.) maximum aperture, and 3.) sensor size/IQ* potential, 600mm-e at ƒ/4 on a 1" sensor does sound like a nice, and useful, balance." I keep checking, as new models come out, 1" against µ4/3, using the wonderful DPReview comparison tool. Unfortunately, 1" still isn't there for me. Noise and pixel level artifacts even at base ISO. How about 600mm-e at ƒ/5.6 on a 4/3 sensor? A GM5 with Panny 100-300/4.0-5.6 is slightly longer at widest setting, but the same length as the RX10 IV @ 600mm-e. Sony is 1095 g., GM5 and lens, 731 g. Nope, not all-in-one, but significantly better IQ, even accounting for a stop more ISO needed for some shots. Being me, I have a bag with that combo, another GM5 with 12-60 and a 7-14. Then again, I also think 800mm-e @ f6.3 on µ4/3 is a good, useful balance. Photography has always been in large part finding the right compromise. \;~)> * "There is No Such Thing as Image Quality", TOP, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 - But I'm with Emerson on the consistency hobgoblin.

I LIKE long. I shoot 800 mm -e all the time with the PLeica 100-400. My 1 2/3" sensor 24-720 mm -e Panny ZS50 makes quite decent photos in good light. No one noticed anything wrong when I included one in one of my 8x10" photo books. The first two rows here are all ZS50, from 24-720 mm -e, mostly 720. RAW files were one reason I chose it; it really does make a difference in what I can get out of the camera. I stayed away from Nikon Super-zooms for the lack of RAW. Just pre-ordered through your above link.

"I'd love to see a photographer of major ambition sustain important work made with the Nikon P1000. That would be interesting. I'll believe it's possible when I see it." Would you define for me "important work" Who be the judge?

"Who needs a physical shutter? I admit though that I am completely ignorant of what-all's involved in such a design. It would be great if the camera could just snatch a still image from the video that the sensor is already apparently producing. No loud shutter. . . I am sure I am oversimplifying this." Many contemporary mirrorless cameras have full electronic shutters as an option. Some do the video frame capture thing. Some do shutter things well beyond that; anticipation, bracketing, and so on. There are technical limitations with image quality consequences such that mechanical shutters can't yet be eliminated for all uses.

". . . sometimes Japanese companies target mainly their home market, or women, or Japanese teens, and beardy grumpy white-male American and British enthusiasts argue over these products just like the development teams for those products gave a flip about their opinions. No no, Grampa." Olympus has been doing this with the Pen line from the beginning. Actual changes in underlying capabilities occur far less often than name and cosmetic changes.* The E-PL7 introduced real improvements. The E-PL8 is almost purely cosmetics and marketing. (more AF points?) Like some earlier iterations, the E-PL9 actually loses some function, while again looking, accessorized and marketed differently. (Added visual help for newbies, better video, even weaker pop-up flash, as the accessory shoe for the prior one is gone.) Both have a selfie LCD mode below the body, which can't be used with a tripod. I'm surprised the E-PL9 has a tripod socket; there is no mention of one on their site or in a couple of reviews, nor pix of the bottom. I had to do an image search to find out. I'm just happy to have an E-PL7. I am far from stylish enough for an E-PL9. Anyone here need a Protective Leather Lens Cover, for $45? \;~)> * Absolute rule: each new model must add, radically change or delete the finger grip.

I have not eight, but tens of AA and AAA rechargeable NiMH batteries. I don't think I've reached 100, but they are spread out in many devices, so I don't really know.* I've had a La Crosse Technology BC700-CBP charger for over nine years, and am pleased with it. It does some tricks other than reliably and fully charging my batteries, but I don't remember what they may be. It's significantly less expensive than the Powerex. I've also been very happy with the second choice you offer, the Panny BQ-CC17 Advanced individual cell charger. The early Panny charger was poorer, charging only in pairs. That doesn't work well with batteries mismatched by brand or age/use or with the many devices that use one or three batteries. I've done no testing, other than recharging and using many batteries many times. But batteries charged in the Panny, then put in the La Crosse show as fully charged on the LCD display. The Panny does no tricks, but I think it does its task of safely and fully recharging low discharge NiMH batteries very well. My batteries are mostly Eneloops, with a significant minority of Amazons. Eneloop invented the low discharge battery, and were for some time the only, then the only first quality brand, which is one reason why I have mostly Eneloops. I'm trying to remember if I've ever had to throw one away. That I'm not sure says it all. The Powerex batteries look to be comparable, although with a slightly poorer customer review profile. I rather suspect that several brands are essentially the same in quality. * I see 22 here in little plastic cases of four waiting in reserve, to re-serve.

A number of DIYers have attached flatbed scanners to various bellows and lenses over the years. I believe Canon LIDE scanners were preferred for their modest size and light weight. 8x10" @ 1,200 dpi is 115 MP. I don't really recall the quality of the results. I suspect it was more the potential than progress to date that interested me back when.

"Essentially a "black box" test like we used to do with B&W film.) I found that on the exposure with the sunlit white cladding barely holding, the interior still dipped too far into ugly noise—and with the interior just barely holding, I couldn't recover quite enough highlight detail." Taken with the earlier sensor and processor in a GX7: 100% "So I agree that the proper exposure is important with the GX8, and when the subject brightness range (SBR) is as high as you'll encounter in daylight, a single exposure won't quite hold all parts of the range." The degree to which this is true is quite dependent on the digital darkroom software and operator. The second and third images above are indeed the first, processed. The white in the left windows and just above the water on the right are not blown. The fine mist/fog of the Pacific marine layer diffuse the light of the sun, which is just out of frame, top left. The subject is not ideal for showing noise, as it can be easily confused with the surface texture of the fresco and the way the paint interacted with the wet surface when applied. Whatever combo it is, it's perfect for a print.

"but FF photos look nicer. I dream of a mirrorless FF camera with a large cellphone sized display. " With Sony, Panny and Oly, the WIFi connection allows remote control with cellphone or tablet, including viewing on the cell LCD. I imagine that's true for all major brands of mirrorless cameras. Upside down Gx7 being controlled with iPad Mini. There are, of course, endless variations on mounts of phone to camera using hot shoe or tripod screw. At other extremes: The Oly Air-01 has no screen of its own, and a mount for cell phone on the back. There are many separate viewscreens made, primarily for videographers

". . . not just the accuracy of the colors and the impressively easy way it has with dynamic range." It's not easy to make good web illustrations of camera/lens qualities. Folks like me will all too easily see the anomalies 'tween word and image. The daffys clearly have badly blown highlights in the posted JPEGs. Red channel is obvious, but Green is also slightly clipped. One consequence of clipping difference between channels is inaccurate color in those areas. Where those highlights got lost is impossible to tell from here. It's exceptionally easy to overexpose red/yellow flowers in direct sun, but also easy to clip highlights in post and/or in conversion to sRGB JPEG. Not that I think the A7III doesn't have good/great DR, but one still needs to watch auto exposure and average or center weighted exposure. That's why there is a big EV compensation wheel just above your right thumb. That's why they have 'sparkly' EVF warnings for over/under exposure of small areas available. My original A7 has good DR, but I still would have shot those flowers @ -1.3 and -2.0 EV. Then 'ya gotta pull up the middle, where the very forgiving files shine. (Then again, I feel the same way about my µ4/3 files.)