De Cantine, Amsterdam Jan.21 '09

Photography is a lot like skateboarding in the way that kids now feel they have to start with varial flips before they've even learned to ride a board, in the same way a young photographer might feel he needs to shoot the next "Afghan Girl" after seriously picking up a camera. Photographers have taken some of their best works in their late 50's, and unlike skateboarding you can keep shooting until you're too weak to press the shutter. That's not to say I want to shoot a great image any less, but at least there's time.

Now with Leica finally bridging the gap between 35mm and Medium Format, we are coming ever closer to that ideal camera. Yet due to the concept of profit and probably a number of patents, we may never see it (I'm not a fan of Nikon's handling, but the D3 is one of the few exceptions). I've been eyeing the Leica M8.2, but it's still not full frame. And yet it's beautifully compact...

The S2 is also a very appealing system, but not enough so to replace my 5D. In practice the Sumarit line may not be half bad, but according to the MTF charts only the 180mm comes out anything close to what I would expect from Leica. I have already been disappointed by the optics Zeiss has brought out, and set my sites on purchasing the Canon's 85mm F/1.2 L instead. Calumet Photographic is making an appealing offer, now selling The Hasselbald H3DII-31 body for under 10,000 euros, or 300 something per month. But how much do I really do studio work, and I actually find the V-system much more tempting with its square format sensor. The 5D (Mark I), however, almost matches the resolution of that 16 megapixel sensor, so why spend all that extra money.

My initial problem was that I'm tired of carrying 15 kg's every time I travel. I quickly jumped to the conclusion that I should switch to Leica's M system, but really should just limit myself to 1 or 2 lenses, and leave off the battery grip. If I were to use the Leica M8 for instance, although useful with it's digital display, it would still only be practical to shoot with the 50mm. Shooting macro with the quite attractive Elmar 90mm F/4 seems like it may take some getting used to, maybe too much so.

Nevertheless, the M system always catches my eye. You have to take an M for what it is. The look is the way it is because of its limits/strengths. The images produced are often stronger, because they are habitually more thought out, and unique in perspective due to the build.

I subscribe to LFI and try to stay up to date with new products, but there is something that saddens me. The brand still has its reputation, but you see how it also is desperately clinging to the market. Although the S line is promising, why couldn't they throw better glass at it, especially when most lenses are primes.

As a consumer I'm tired of being pushed into a direction that has been set for me, just because it's the closest thing to what I want. And it would be fine if I knew that other people were happy with the selection, but too often it's all too clear that 1 ideal model has been split into 2 so that you buy the 3rd model, which might have the bit you didn't need, and still miss one of the elements you most wanted. In the end it's still great stuff, but why do we have to feel like suppliers are holding back...I know the money they make then gives us more options in the future, but still...

I'm not asking for more megapixels, I'm asking for tweaking. And why do the megapixels keep growing when most photographers are asking for more dynamic range, at least those shooting 35mm.

I enjoyed Indonesia, because I was taking photos. I also realized how little I checked for product updates on sites like dpreview.com. I guess being back in Holland where I have different priorities I try to satisfy my longing for photo ops by obsessing over equipment.

I do believe that equipment matters, at least to me. People often take a stance that it's not the camera but the eye, or vision. It's not always worth obsessing over, but I do think the right equipment can make a photograph. Not just its effect on the photographers, but the ability to create a specific image. Certain scenes will always be magical, and angles also play a role, but it's the right lens, body, or program that let the magic come out. Even if you choose to shoot with a pinhole camera, it's a choice and a style.

The possibilities of producing an image are much more varied than they were 50 years ago, and the public's expectations of a unique and stunning photograph have only gone up. As have my own. Clarity is something that is very important in an image, and often the more money you put into your system, the more clarity you can create with it.

It is true that these advancements can lead to better images, but it's not to say that you have to go running along behind it. It is however a real factor that I think about. Also I just seem to have an addiction to beautiful technology. Although I don't feel I need it, the Canon 5D Mark II (or something like it) is on my to buy list, because I really do enjoy the idea of getting back into video, especially with the "clarity" of some of the canon lenses and HD resolution.

I'm a bit sad that a good friend of mine, Maarten Visser, is working in Timor at the moment, because it helps to share these "little" addictions with someone who understands. Check out his work at: http://photo.mvisser.com/ (he uses a Pentax).

I believe that's enough about the tools, and far too little work on the new galleries. I really would like to get back to the image.