http://qctimes.com/news/local/former-mayor-pleads-guilty-to-theft-charges/article_b5a86eba-d7f9-11e1-be68-001a4bcf887a.html

Its not every day, in every city, a former cop/ former mayor gets to plead guilty for theft.     Not only theft, but while working for a pawn shop in the downtown area....  Not only for a pawnshop, but falsifying records for fake pawns, then pocketing about 10k in cash.    Yeah.  Thats a Quad Cities kind of day.  Keep it classy out there folks.


Hello Quad Cities!!!!

[M]uch ado about [M]irrors

Earlier this week Canon officially announced its newest eye-porn, bank drainer; the EOS-M.   This is M for mis-nomer, M for more money, and M is for moniker.


 From what I experience, people seem to think removable lenses yield better results [image quality].  Secondly people want smaller, lighter products that are less to man handle.   I get that too.  I get tired of dragging 40 pounds of gear with me at times. Lastly we all want sexy.   So camera manufacturers must make it sexy.   So what do we do?  If we're the camera industry we find a way to marry the two ideas, and give you neither of what you want, but make it look drop dead sexy.   Enter the mirrorless, and Canon M platform.


I'm a Canon-ite.  I openly admit this.   I love their gear.   Its not what I learned on, but I've made the switch for many reasons; and one of which is the availability of glass.  Canon of course makes great glass for their own systems.  The difference is the availability of OTHER manufacturers glass.  Huh?  Competition.  Back in the dark [room] ages, lenses were not interchangeable, and were unique mounts mainly because of the intricacy of making a system operable.   Focal lengths to the image plane had to very widely with the unending sizes of film available; as well as the ridiculously small apertures people were shooting through.  Add in the 35mm film cell standard, and 40 years of mechanical intervention, and we start to see some realy thought and technology invested into the platforms.   Competition isn't far off now, is it?   So all the other manufacturers learned image quality was half film/recording state, and half [or more] optics getting that light to the image recording plane.  So while making your own lens was nice, it became a revenue stream.  And where there's money, there is people willing to make money.  So some manufacturers decided to start working their products fit onto other manufacturers products; or simply quit the camera business and focus on the optics portion of the game [remember, we'd standardized to 35mm film by this point, and the film companies we not pressed to re-invent the film until the needs existed], so as glass quality went up, so did the demands on film.  Rangefinder style cameras had to go away nearly over night once they met the might 35mm slr platforms that started gaining popularity in the late 1960's.   Especially by the time of the calculated program metering 1970s and 80s hit, glass was king.  Now the camera did much of the work of evaluating exposure, and to do it correctly it had run the light through the glass you were using to make the evaluations.  Sounds great, who gives a fuck?

That pushed out those precious rangefinders.  Rangefinder camera systems did not use the light coming through the lens to make calculations; and if they did [read late 1970s, and modern digital Leica platforms] you still weren't able to see what the lens saw.  All of the field of view was approximated.   Slr's used a flipping mirror action that routed light to your eye to see what the lens saw, then flipped to let light pass through to the film / recording plane.  All of that wonder and splendor added a mechanical contraption that is prone to failure and excessive mechanics.  Keep in mind, if its not light tight, pictures are ruined, image evaluation is faulty [at best], and you get a frustrating day of not taking pictures.   For what they were worth, rangefinders were still mechanically simpler [even if drastically difficult to reassemble yourself], with fewer failures, in a smaller package, and gave slightly sub par, but similar performance to slr's.  But to improve on their photographic value, few manufacturers spent time developing glass for the rangefinders, and moved into the revenue stream of making new slrs.  Those that did remain, come with cumbersome bayonet and screw threads to detach lenses from the body, and were very limited in angle and aperture.  Slr's took all the development, all the cookies, and your piggy bank.

Come to the modern era.  Now that film is gone, why does it matter if the same light is brought through the lens to your eye?  For several years we have had great success with live-view systems, where the light hitting the sensor is displayed on the digital screen on the back.  I use it frequently for critical focus and metering myself.  Why is that damned mirror still there?   The industry first tried removing it about 8 years ago with the micro 4/3rds platform.    Which took a smaller sensor, a smaller overall physical product, and added industry standard mounts so anyone could make glass for any platform.   Lens makers could make lenses.  Camera makers could make cameras.  Digital sensor engineers could work their magic.  For companies like Nikon, and Canon, this was a no go.  Wheres the piggy bank at when you don't sell your own lens?  Its in someone else's pocket now.    But just like 40 years ago, people still desire a simple alternative to take better pictures, with limited means of adaptability.  

Whats killing the micro 4/3rds platform is the lack of big names.  Canon and Nikon.  So they sit and wait.  Now we are the present.  With Nikon running out its own platform last year, Canon plays catch up this year with its own.  This new toy starts out with a proprietary lens mount.   Why?  Because consumers want that!  Bullshit.   I don't.   Nikon and Canon want that.    People want to get better image quality than a cellphone and point and shoot; so we'll brand this new toy with the EOS moniker.  Why?  Because we will steal the sensor from the slr line, thats why!  So now people have the quality of the slr, but how do we make it smaller?   We gut the mirror.  So now we have our sexy M moniker, mirrorless.   We've made half the battle up at this point.

To get the money M in there, we can just shrink the mount by 5 millimeters, and make it electronically different.   Poof.   Since no one else can make glass, we make money.   So its about money.  Isn't it?  Noooo  this is cheaper! Its simple.  Its small.  How can it cost more?   Well with a lens it will set you back 900 bucks.   You can buy the same slr they ripped this image sensor from, that weights about 1.5 times as much, and is an inch thicker, with available and varied glass, for half of that price.  Its about money.  The EOS M:oney model is born.  

Notice, I haven't even touched it.  I don't care to.  I love my rangefinders.  I love my slr's  But I love them for two different reasons.   I don't want a complicated lens system and changing bag for my rangefinder.  I want a streamlined, analog, approach that isn't always laser precise.  I want my slr for a bag of options, for ways to solve challenging lighting, with precision.  I don't want the peanut butter in my ice cream.  Canon is betting I don't.  Its a complete mis-nomer to have a small, lightweight system; that necessitates a bag full of glass to get anything done.   Besides which, to gain the complexity of control over the image sensor overly complicates the experience for someone that wants to make quick photos.  But its selling you the idea that this is better than a point and shoot [minus that its MORE encumbering and expensive], and looks like its equal to an slr [it isn't] in performance.  Quite the misnomer.   Then the loyal Canon buyer either gets to play with a limited amount of expensive lenses [2 as of right now] that are of questionable quality [definitely not up to the L glass standard!], or buy a stupid mount adapter that will affect your image quality.  $hit.

People are floored that I'm mad about a new Canon product.  Its just so pointless.  Its a category that doesn't really make sense, but will make some money for Canon.  But it runs the risk of alienating consumers [by the complexity and price tag for essentially a point and shoot], and limiting the creativity by limiting the lenses available.   Make a damned micro 4/3rds mount instead.   Show off your optical resolve that way.  Make consumers flock to you to buy your glass, instead of giving them a reason to go somewhere else.   The only reason you have with the M platform: no one else makes any!