I’ve been thinking about the recent, apparently insane product releases from Apple – an iPhone that doesn’t have a headphone jack although a significant usage case for an iPhone is to play music from iTunes, a Macbook that has only one port, for both charging and data, and that port is basically incompatible with the rest of IT industry unless you use adapters, and a Macbook Pro that has only those incompatible ports, has less battery capacity, doesn’t have an SD card slot although its supposedly main target user group are the creative professionals, like photographers and videographers, who use SD cards to transfer images and video from their cameras when they are in the field and don’t have a cable with them.

To add insult to injury, all those products are more expensive than the previous, more functional generation.

I tried to think of an explanation, and I came up with several possible ones. For instance, although Apple pays formal lip service to the creative professionals, they don’t really make that much money from those. When Apple actually did make most of its money from creative professionals, somewhere in the 1990s, they were almost bankrupt and Microsoft had to rescue them by buying half a billion dollars of non-voting shares, and Steve Jobs was re-instated as iCEO (interim-CEO, which is the likely cause of him deciding to i-prefix all the product names). They then started to market to a wider audience of young hipsters, students and wealthy douchebags (as well as those who wanted to be perceived as such), and soon they started to drown in green. Yes, they continued to make products intended for the professionals, but those brought them increasingly smaller proportion of their overall earnings, and were deprioritized by the board, which is basically interested only in the bottom line. And it is only logical – if hipsters who buy iPhones bring you 99% of your money, you will try your best to make them happy and come back for more. The 1% earnings you get from the professional photographers and video editors are, essentially, a rounding error. You could lose them and not even notice. As a result, the Mac Pro got updated with ever decreasing frequency and was eventually abandoned by the professional market which is highly competitive and doesn’t have the time to waste on half a decade obsolete underperforming and overpriced products.

Keeping the hipsters happy, however, is a problem, because they want “innovation”, they want “style”, they basically want the aura of specialness they will appropriate from their gadget, since their own personality is a bland facsimile of the current trends. They are not special, they are not innovative, they are not interesting and they are not cool, but they want things that are supposed to be all that, so that they can adorn themselves with those things and live in the illusion that their existence has meaning.

So, how do you make a special smartphone, when every company out there has something that has all kinds of perfectly functional devices, within the constraint of modern technology? They have CPU and GPU that are slammed right against the wall of the thermal design, they have superfluous amounts of memory and storage, excellent screens… and there’s nothing else you can add to such a device, essentially, unless there’s a serious breakthrough in AI, and those gadgets become actually smart, in which case they will tell you what to do, instead of the other way around. So, facing the desperate need to appear innovative, and at the time facing the constraints of modern technology which defines what you can actually do, you start “inventing” gimmicky “features” such as the removal of the headphone jack and USB A sockets, and you make a second screen on the keyboard that draws a custom row of touch-sensitive icons.

And apparently, it works, as far as the corporate bottom line is concerned. The professionals noise their displeasure on YouTube, but the hipsters are apparently gobbling it all up, this stuff is selling like hot cakes. The problem is, the aura of coolness of Apple products stems from the fact that the professionals and the really cool people used them, and the hipsters wanted to emulate the cool people by appropriating their appearance, if not the essence. If the cool people migrate to something else, and it becomes a pattern for the hipsters to emulate, Apple will experience the fate of IBM. Remember PS/2? IBM decided it’s the market leader and everybody will gobble up whatever they make, so they made a PS/2 series of computers with a closed, proprietary “microchannel” bus, trying to discourage 3^rd party clones. What happened is that people said “screw you”, and IBM lost all significance in the PC market, had to close huge parts of its business and eventually went out of the retail PC business altogether. And it’s not that PS/2 machines were bad. Huge parts of the PC industry standard were adopted from it – the VGA graphics, the mouse and keyboard ports, the keyboard layout, the 3.5” floppy standard, plus all kinds of stuff I probably forgot about. None of it helped it avoid the fate of the dinosaurs, because it attempted to blackmail and corner the marketplace, and the marketplace took notice and reacted accordingly.

People like standardized equipment. They like having only one standard for the power socket, so that you can plug any electrical appliance and it will work. The fact that the power socket can probably be designed as better, smaller and cooler is irrelevant. The most important thing about it is that it is standard, and you can plug everything everywhere. USB type A is the digital equivalent of a power socket. It replaced removable media, such as floppy and CD discs, with USB thumb drives, which can be plugged into any computer. Also, keyboards, mice, printers, cameras, phones, tablets, they all plug into the USB socket, and are universally recognized, so that everything works everywhere. Today, a device without a USB port is a device that cannot exchange massive amounts of data via thumb drives. It exists on an island, unable to function effectively in a modern IT environment. It doesn’t matter that the USB socket is too big, or that it’s not reversible. Nobody cares. What’s important is that you can count on the fact that everybody has it. Had Apple only replaced the Thunderbolt 2 sockets with USB C sockets, and kept the USB A sockets in place, it would be a non-issue. However, this has a very good chance of becoming their microchannel. Yes, people are saying that the USB C is the future, and it’s only a matter of time before it’s adopted by everyone, but I disagree. The same was said before about FireWire and about Thunderbolt. Neither standard was widely adopted, because it proved more easy to just make the USB faster, than to mess with another standard which basically tries to introduce yet another port that will not work anywhere else. There’s a reason why it’s so difficult for the Anglo-Saxon countries to migrate from Imperial units to the SI. Once everybody uses a certain standard, the fact that it is universally intelligible is much more important than its elegance.

Recognize those ports? Yeah, me neither.

Yes, we once used the 5.25” and 3.5” floppy drives and we no longer do. We once used the CD and DVD drives and we no longer do. We once used the Centronics and RS-323 ports for printers and mice. We once used MFM, RLL, ESDI and SCSI hard disk controllers. We once used the ISA system bus and the AGP graphics slot. What used to be a standard no longer is. However, there are standards that are genuinely different, such as the UTP Ethernet connector, or the USB connector, or the headphone jack, or the Schuko power socket. USB and Ethernet and PDF and JPEG and HTML are some of the universal standards that make it possible for a person to own a Mac, because you can plug it into the same peripherals as any other computer. It makes the operating differences unimportant, because you can exchange files, you can use the same keyboard and mouse, you can use the same printer, you can plug into the same network. By removing those standard connections and ways to exchange data with the rest of the world, a Mac becomes an isolated device, a useless curiosity, like the very old computers you can’t really use today because you can no longer connect them to anything. Imagine what would have happened if Apple removed the USB when they first introduced FireWire, or Thunderbolt – “this new port is the future, you no longer need that old one”. Yeah. Do you think an Ethernet port is used because it’s elegant? It’s crap. The plastic latch is prone to failure or breakage, the connection isn’t always solid, the dust can get in and create problems – it’s basically crap. You know why everybody still uses it? Because everybody uses it.

As you already know if you follow me on g+, I got my new Sony A7II camera from ebay a few days ago.

I’ll spare you the detailed equipment review and just show the pictures I made with it so far:

I love it, it’s great.

I’m now going to write about something I usually don’t write much about, but which makes possible all the stuff that I publish online. Hardware.

Why I don’t write about it, well, because I just assume it implicitly. Computers, cameras, lenses, they are tools. If they work well, I don’t give much fuck about them. When they fail or become a pain in the ass, I have to think about them and do something. Such as now.

This is my main camera, Canon EOS 5d dSLR which I bought in 2006. I used it to record a huge number of photos, including majority of stuff used on a photo exhibition and in my commercial work (corporate and private websites).

This is the second time the mirror fell off. The first time I glued it back with superglue. The second time I did the same, but I no longer have that much faith in the process. There’s a factory recall for it, and of course I could have it professionally serviced, but the problem is, it’s 10 years old. Technology did manage to advance significantly in the meantime and while worth fixing, it’s not worth keeping as my main camera. As in, I need a new camera body to put my Canon lenses on.

This is my secondary camera:

It’s the Olympus E-PL1, a micro four-thirds body that I use to mount legacy Minolta lenses and macro extenders. It creates excellent images, almost on-par with the Canon 5D.

The problem is, everything on the camera except the sensor is a pile of shit. It’s the most awkward, uncomfortable, unergonomic camera imaginable and despite great image quality it made photography a huge pain in the ass for me, especially since it’s usually my walkaround camera of choice, being small and light. It also doesn’t have a viewfinder so I can only take pictures holding it at arm’s length, like a phone. This doesn’t help with image stability. Also, you can’t see shit on the screen during strong sunlight, which happens to be when there’s best light for translucent motives. Essentially, I put it on the floor, guesstimate the focus and pray. That’s not how you’re supposed to do things. On a tripod, of course, it’s great, but having the smallest possible camera and then taking a tripod along that’s several times the weight and bulk of your proper camera, that doesn’t make much sense.

The Olympus has one absolutely great quality: it shows you exactly what the sensor sees, including 100% magnification, which is great for manually focusing with precision that’s completely beyond any autofocus system that I’ve tried. This means you can really nail the sharpness, if you work slowly of course. Which I do. Also, you can overlay the live histogram on the display, very accurately nailing exposure without retrying. Also, it has in-body image stabilization, which is incredibly helpful for hand-held work in low light, which is about 50% of everything I do. Those things are so helpful that I’ve found myself neglecting the Canon for the Olympus, with the result of not being able to use all the Canon lenses that I have.

What can Canon do, that Olympus can not? This.

As a result, I figured out that my ideal camera would be something that has live view with the articulated screen (so that I can put it in the grass, and tilt the screen upwards to see what I’m doing), a quick high-resolution viewfinder, 35mm sensor with the same image quality as I have on the Canon, to be small enough not to be bothersome when I take it with me for a long walk, it needs to have sensor-based image stabilization (because none of my lenses have IS) and it has to be able to work with lenses adapted from both Canon EF and Minolta MC/MD mounts, so that I could use everything I already have because it’s good and I don’t feel like wasting money on duplicating optics.

As it turns out, such a camera exists: all three Sony A7 second-generation models fit all my requirements. Since A7S II is specialized for video (which I don’t shoot) and too expensive, and A7R II is too expensive, I decided to get the A7 II. Advantages: not too expensive, and has the same goodies as the other two, minus the super-fancy viewfinder and the super-fancy backside-illuminated ultra high-res sensor from the R model. I decided I can live without those for the benefit of costing half the money and being identical in all other regards. As for the resolution, I shoot at 12-13 MP and from that I routinely make B2 sized prints. 24MP will be just fine. Yes, I’m competent enough to actually utilize the R-model’s 42MP sensor, but for the difference in price I can get all the lenses I would want, and those are worth more to me.

I recently bought a used Sony R1 for my kid, and I tried taking pictures with it myself. The image quality, when used properly, is so similar to Canon 5D that it looks like two shots taken with the same camera and different lenses. It has gorgeous image quality on low ISO, paired with a lens that is excellent when stopped down properly.

The problem is, it’s a perfect camera for slow tripod work and shitty camera for hand-held work, especially in low light. No image stabilization of any kind, very noisy above base ISO, and very difficult to focus accurately due to shitty AF and very low resolution viewfinder and display without any indication of in-focus areas. Also, the lens is not sharp on close focus, especially wide open, which is how I use it for more than half of my photography. Also, it only has that one lens, so no macro extenders, and no extreme wide angle. Not good for me. Great for my kid to learn photography, though, so it’s still a big win.

Regarding lenses, I have a love-hate relationship with the “mid-range zooms”. I had several excellent ones – Minolta MD 35-70mm f/3.5 and Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, for instance, and also Canon EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5. The last one isn’t really appreciated but I made most of my closeup and landscape shots with it.

EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 “shit lens” with macro extension tubes

It’s a pathetic-looking creaky plasticky thingy that makes jaw-dropping pictures if you know how to use it. So it’s obvious why I like this type of lenses. The reason why I hate them is that when I have one, I tend not to take it off my camera because it’s convenient, and so I end up using it in places where it sucks and it degrades the quality of my work. Especially when I use the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 on the E-PL1, which is optically my worst lens and is just fucking terrible in all ways but one: it’s small and light, and so I end up using it instead of proper, albeit heavy pieces of glass.

So, of course, I got a mid-range kit zoom for the Sony, the 28-70mm thing that everybody says is soft and has low contrast. The problem is, the alternative is the Zeiss 24-70mm which has better contrast and it looks nicer, but most copies seem to be soft and can be actually worse than the cheaper kit zoom. So I said, OK, let’s get the plasticky cheap one because it was almost free (the kit with the lens was barely more expensive than the body alone), and I can use it on a tripod stopped down to f/13-16 which is where I take most of my tripod photography on 35mm, and it better be tack sharp there. But if it’s any good, I’ll have one light walkaround autofocus lens if I just want to have something better than my phone with me and not carry several kilos of gear, and if I want sharp, I have lenses that do just that. The 24-70mm Zeiss, it’s simply too expensive for me to buy without testing the specific copy extensively prior to purchase; it’s a thousand-euro lens, for fuck’s sake. For that kind of money, it better give blowjobs and make great coffee. But according to all reports, it’s optically sub-par, and if I want a really sharp one in that range, I’ll probably try something from the Sigma’s Art series, like the 24-105mm. If I want light, I’ll have the plasticky cheap one, and if I want something that’s both light and good, I’ll get the 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss. That one is almost pocketable, it’s really sharp, and it can still cut the depth of field well enough for my uses. Also, 35mm is probably my favorite focal length for landscapes, because anything wider usually grabs telephone poles and similar stuff that I want to omit in normal situations, and is still wide enough to make sense. I also love how the other Sony-Zeiss prime, the 55mm f/1.8, draws, but that one is more of a specialist tool. It does portraits and closeups excellently, but for those I would actually prefer the 90mm f/2.8 macro. For walkaround photography, the 55mm is too long; my walkaround lenses are usually the 17-40mm or the 15mm fisheye, and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if I end up using the fisheye as the mainstay on the Sony.

Someone will say, what about the lack of autofocus on the adapted lenses? Honestly, I usually work slowly and turn the damn thing off anyway in most cases. The only thing for which I really prefer autofocus are the portraits, because with manual focusing it’s really difficult to get the eyes critically sharp on as shallow depth of field as I prefer it to be, because the model’s breathing motions are usually all it takes to bring the iris out of focus. Accurate focus confirmation, however, might be enough for me to get accurate focus with MF lenses.

Olympus E-PL1 with Minolta MD 50mm f/1.7, manual focus

I anticipate the question: why do you whine so fucking much when it’s obvious that you manage to make similarly good pictures with any kind of equipment you get your hands on? Because the process of making the pictures is supposed to be fun. If something is painful to use, I will stop using it. Some pieces of equipment had the result of making me turn away from photography almost completely. Equipment is important in the sense that it can either feel nice and wonderful to work with, or it can feel like having your nails pulled with rusty pilers. I tried both, I don’t have to tell you what kind I prefer.

Anyway, it’s just me thinking out loud about it. You’ll see the pictures when the actual camera arrives. If the Americans don’t cause a nuclear war first.