iPhone Camera Hype? Look — it's NOT a good camera!

I have a beef with the heavily marketed notion (by Apple, Canon and Nikon in particular and in that order) that every person must have some sort of camera at the ready at all times. The Nikon D700 mated with almost any modern lens ever made by Nikon, represents a pinnacle of technical achievement which leaves only the photographer at 'fault' for capturing poor light, poor balance, poor composition or boring subject matter. The D700 is a bit of a load and it's therefore not glued to my hip 24/7. Sometimes, despite my enthusiasm about photography in general, I actually wander around without a camera (gasp!).

Chase Jarvis' insistence (along with Ken Rockwell, Scott Kelby, Steve Simon and dozens of other respected photography proponents, all of whom earn as much of a living from the sales of books and instruction courses as they do from photography and product endorsements) that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is all well and good, but speaks to me of some urgent push to purchase an iPhone rather than any sort of genuine need to be in possession of a camera at all times.

Frankly, iPhone photos are mostly only marginally well focused, vaguely color accurate, and offer only limited dynamic range. The same is true for the vast majority of point & shoot cameras in conventional form factors. They're all perfectly useful in varying degrees of limited shooting conditions. So we snap shots, at every opportunity, of mundane things which catch our eye, and then spend yet more time sorting, approving, collating, cataloging and classifying hundreds (or thousands) more photos? For what purpose? To what end? Do we refine our photography eye in this way? Not with an iPhone.

Apple successfully promotes and supports a lot of surreptitiously effective marketing. "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is another example. I liken it to the widespread promotion and sale of MP3 music on iTunes and so many other music sites. MP3 files, even on the best reproduction systems, represent to me far too little of the originally produced CD or DVD. Given that even a cheap stereo system is capable of reproducing more detailed and accurate music from an original CD than any typical MP3 purchased through iTunes, what on earth have we accepted as a standard? MP3 is a huge step backwards.

Similarly, broad acceptance that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" motivates us to snap away at anything, secure in the knowledge that the average focus and average general image fidelity of a photo made with an iPhone is just fine because, well, everybody is doing it. Score another one for Apple.

The point is that a D40 will do just as well to extend our abilities as photographers as a D700. In my opinion, an iPhone will not. So we're being told what by Apple (through intermediaries such as Chase Jarvis)? That an iPhone is just as effectively creative as any dedicated camera on the shelf? Apple can and does do anything and everything it can to sell its products. So does RIM. So does Sony. So do all the others. But let's not allow reality to be warped by any arch notion that we should divide our precious time still more because we really should be looking at millions of 'wonderful' photos being made with iPhones.

The world is awash in digital photos, most of them being family photos (which are not at issue here). As usual, 90% (or more) of everything besides family photos is complete junk, of vague interest mainly to the photographer who saw something and captured it in some blurry, unbalanced or poorly composed way. But he got the shot! Thank you iPhone? I think Apple has done a successful job of making us turn our heads from time to time away from quality and toward mere convenience. The iPhone and its photos are like MP3 players and files - poor stand-ins for the real thing. We've even come to accept iPod audio quality which is measurably, and more important, audibly inferior to competing players.

Saving money, considering all the alternatives, then carefully choosing a fine camera (from a used Nikon D70 or Canon Rebel XT on up) with which to pursue the hobby, avocation or amateur pursuit of photography, is a wonderful process which almost always includes the gradual acquisition of more knowledge about the art and craft of photography. In my opinion the iPhone speaks to none of that. My BlackBerry Curve 8330 is capable of capturing the same absence of photographic quality as the iPhone, so its handiness is just as perfect for snapshots of things which need to be remembered (mistakes, wine bottle labels, notes, etc., etc.). It's only a creative tool if we force it to be. The only way to do that, it seems, it to spend so much time using it (to capture only softly focused shots of limited dynamic range) that we have no energy left for a walkabout with a camera that is capable of fully reproducing what we observe. In other words, we make an inferior choice.

Ken Rockwell, Chase Jarvis and many others would have us believe (in my opinion, mainly to drive retail clicks on their web sites) that as long as light and composition are just right, well, that's that - it's a great photo. Nonsense! Most of Jarvis' photos - indeed most of his iPhone photo collection - is just like an episode of Seinfeld: all about nothing.

Rockwell and Jarvis and many others would have us believe that we can rock our world with tiny point & shoots, iPhones and put away the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D MKII forever. But when the newest cameras and lenses are released, there are all the boys reviewing and writing madly and ensuring that B&H Photo and Adorama links are prominent all over the place. What self-serving nonsense they all promote! Of course they're entitled to promote their 'fortunes' and I think they do it well. But an iPhone is just another piece of semi-useful gadgetry to suck dollars out of our pockets and into Steve Jobs overflowing treasure chests.

Step out of the hype for a moment and walk around without a camera. No D700, no iPhone, nothing. Find things - observe things, inevitably - which capture your attention. Return when it's convenient with the least expensive Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony digital SLR and almost any lens you can put your hands on to shoot the subject. Leave the iPhone at home (no phone calls to distract you). Carry the digital SLR and a small lens instead. You'll be much happier with the results.

I think that if a Nikon D700 (or even an old D70, D40 or P6000/P90) are all just too bulky or too much weight for you some days, that you're really not in the right mood to be making photos in the first place. Once again, step outside the Apple (and Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony) hype and leave both the iPhone and the digital SLR at home. The change will do you good.

Not to be outdone by any of the other guys, we're happy to push good cameras too. Our favorites these days are the Olympus EP-1 & EP-2, Nikon D300s, Canon Rebel XSi, Nikon D5000, Canon 7D, and the Panasonic GF-1.

Danger! Buying a Digital Camera from a Private Online Discounter

Horror stories abound, many of them true, about consumers who have been ripped off by private online digital SLR camera discounters. The usual entry point starts with an ad on a private discounter's web site offering a digital SLR for $50 to $100 less than the same model being sold by the big name online digital SLR camera dealers such as B&H Photo-Video, Adorama, Cameta, Henrys, Vistek, Camera Canada and so on.

The major online retailers originate mainly from major brick & mortar dealers. They are entitled to and take advantage of the best volume pricing breaks from the camera distributors. The majors also negotiate shipping deals with carriers such as the postal service, FedEx and UPS. So how is it possible for much smaller online retailers to undersell the big boys? The answer is obvious. Either the discounters are selling everything at a slight loss, or more likely, the discounters are making up the price difference somewhere else. That last part is the key.

Recently on the DPReview discussion forums poster named PixelDave asked "Have any of you ever used these guys [CentralDigital.com]? Seems like they have an OK rating on reseller ratings and are selling the D300 for $1629 - 4%. Just wondering if they are safe." I responded to Dave with the following (edited slightly here for context).

"You've really got to read their D300 info page carefully. Note that the so-called Starter accessory package includes the camera battery . . . for an additional $90. The Starter accessory package does not supply an extra battery — just the one that is supposed to be in the camera box. That means the camera box itself does NOT contain the standard (excellent) battery that is supposed to be there. CentralDigital is a complete ripoff in my opinion. The other items in the Starter accessory kit seem to be all garbage including what I'll bet is a useless/glacially slow no-name 4GB CF card.

$1629 + $90 (you NEED a battery for the camera) works out to $1739, but OOPS — B&H Photo is selling a real D300 package (complete with the proper battery, charger and cables as supplied by Nikon) for only $1699. I wonder if CentralDigital will also try to sell you the stock cables and the charger as 'extras' too?

Who knows what other additional charges CentralDigital might try to add to your credit card for packing, handling and shipping."

In the same thread, DavidH wrote to point out that "Amazon reseller, Ray M. supervisor $1650, have over 50 D300s in stock. (orig over 100 a few days back-all USA). We were leary of NY [discount online] camera stores, but trusted Amazon. Fast extra courteous service, no lip or hard sell. These guys want business and good reputation."

Okay . . . maybe. But if these units are grey market items without a Nikon USA warranty, it's not a deal for the US-based customer. If the units are in fact domestic market inventory and supplied with the full Nikon USA warranty then it's a good deal. The original poster has to compare warranty, shipping & handling, all the items supplied in the box, the total retail price and the return policy (in case he receives a defective unit) in order to do an accurate comparison. The major US and Canadian online retailers make it easy to sort this stuff out. The discount guys don't. Neither do Amazon and eBay with their rather limited amount of space for resellers, retailers and private sellers to list product details. On eBay, half or more of almost every listing is composed of endless disclaimers and threats to potential false or flaky bidders.

Adorama (on Amazon) currently shows what looks like a great Nikon D300 package which includes all the usual stuff in the box (camera, battery, charger, USB cable, A/V cable, manual, LCD shield) plus a value pack containing a 2GB CF memory card, a spare EN-EL3e Lithium-Ion battery, Lowepro holster-style case, Mack 3 year extended warranty, digital remote shutter release, and Nikon Understanding Digital Photography with Nikon SLRs DVD, all for $1829.

There's lots to compare, but it's clearly a better deal than anything offered by the private online discounters.

I don't blame or fault small businesses in any way — guys who are flogging excess inventories at low prices, legitimate small camera dealers who are cutting margins razor thin to try to build some market share and so on. But if any problems arise, I think consumers are often not as well served by the private online discounters because the discounters can't (and often won't) handle two-way traffic of any kind (returns, refunds, missing items). The hard sell you may receive from a private online discounter trying to force you to purchase a battery (sometimes at an inflated price!) that is supposed to be included with the camera, service delays or non-existent service (in the event of delivery problems or receipt of a defective camera) can end up turning what initially appeared to be a $50 or $100 'saving' into an aggravating mess.

If consumers insist on saving every possible dollar, good for them. But when dealing with private discounters, deal locally — or at least some place close enough to where you live so that in the event of problems you can reach out and touch someone.

Check every online digital SLR camera deal carefully. Use the well-established online retailers as a baseline.

1. Go to the camera manufacturer's web site to find out exactly what is supposed to be included in the package
2. Go to B&H, Adorama, Cameta, Henrys, Vistek and Camera Canada to find out how the big guys are competing on price.
   
3. Check the package contents list on each of the major sites you're using for comparison.
   
4. Check the shipping fee to your address. Note that the major online retailers don't charge any sort of handling or packaging fee.
   
5. Armed with all of the foregoing start comparing prices at the private discounter sites. Add any and all the 'extras' to the listed price to get to the real item cost. Then add the private discounters' typical packaging (that's right - some private discounters want to charge you for the shipping box), handling (again - some private discounters try to charge you a fee to actually pack the camera for shipment), and shipping fees.
   
6. Last, if you ever find a private discounter or a smaller corporate online retailer who can legitimately beat the big guys, visit reseller ratings and the BBB web sites (among others) to see if there have been any serious complaints.
   
7. When reading complaints about retailers, try to filter out the complaints which are obviously made by uninformed consumers or outright liars who tried to con a retailer but couldn't get away with it.

BIG IMPORTANT NOTE: A major digital SLR camera purchase can cost upwards of $2,000. That's a lotta dough. If you're going to spend 8-10 hours or more trying to sort out the best price online, ask yourself if the time will be better spent driving/traveling to the nearest major shopping city in order to personally visit a bunch of camera stores. Armed with your best legitimate online price, you may be able to get the retailer to meet or beat the deal. If so, you'll also be able to try out in-store the camera you're actually taking home.

The best way to set up a personal comparison shopping tour of local or regional camera stores is to get on the telephone and ask each store if the product you want is in stock. Check the store hours of operation, then use a map to set up the most logical route from store to store. Set aside some time for lunch. Smart consumers do everything possible to put their hands on the expensive item they're considering buying. In the process, talking to as many retailers face-to-face as possible and previously interacting online in some of the great discussion forums at DPReview and Nikonians (there are many others), you'll be able to make an informed confident, affordable purchasing decision.

Buyer Beware!

It's not the Camera, It's the Photographer

Make the statement "It's not the camera, it's the photographer" during any discussion or debate on the relative merits of one piece of camera gear over another and you will surely end up in some sort of argument. Really.

We don't advocate any attempt to use semi-operational used gear which only possesses the virtue of being cheap to acquire. We don't advocate throwing a top-of-the-line digital SLR (or any other top-rank SLR) at a novice photographer. We do advocate that photographers should educate themselves about the art and craft of photography at every opportunity, and regularly consider how well their gear is serving them. Buy the best you can afford, but buy only what you can afford.

Professional photographer Ken Rockwell posted an article on his web site about this subject. Professional photographer Michael Reichman posted a rebuttal article on his own web site. Unfortunately, neither photographer seems to be able to engage in the debate without resorting to hyperbole. So since I've been making photographs longer than Rockwell (but not quite as long as Reichman), it's time for a moderating opinion.

Pros, semi-pros and amateurs are working with Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Kodak and Sigma digital SLR bodies attached to all manner of lenses. All of these photographers make great photos with all of this equipment. Occasionally, even great shots taken with compact and so-called prosumer cameras manage to sneak through. Whether or not a photo is sharp enough and large enough to be creditably reproduced at some large size in a high-end coffee table book or on an art poster is not, in my opinion, the measure of its value as a good (or bad) photo, and the lack of gear to capture such a photo is not a measure by which to judge your existing equipment. Sorry Mr. Reichman. On the other hand, moderately attractive balances of composition, color and subject in moderately good focus during the brief and only time of day in which some cheap compact has any chance of capturing a decent photo is not the measure of a truly versatile camera or satisfying photography experience or a useful choice of gear. Sorry Mr. Rockwell. I think Reichman and Rockwell both use excessive amounts of what can only be described as hyperbole which serves to inflame the debate rather than qualify it. They're both doing a creditable job of attracting traffic to their respective web sites.

Using only the best gear you can afford has a very special effect on most people. As you engage in a photography experience which is based on an affordable start, it has the effect of bringing you closer to your gear in ways which make it easier for you to judge which exposure settings will achieve the best result. The longer you work with your chosen, affordable gear the more you'll find out about its flaws and the more you'll find ways to make better and better photos. Use that gear for a couple of years and you may never part with it. Ever. The reason? It's mainly because you will certainly use that gear at some point to make some photos which have deep and emotional meaning and value for you. Not meaning and value worthy of posting and adoring comments on photo.net or redbubble.com, but rather meaning and value for you personally. That's the wonderful thing about photography though — it can be shared or not shared.

Our quest for public approval of so much of what we do has extended to photography no doubt. The problem is that photography in and of itself is often a very personal experience. My father-in-law has posted a rather close-up photo of an elephant on his photo.net page. The photo is nice enough, but not great. It's just a photo of an elephant. But listen for a few minutes to my father-in-law's story about how the huge wild elephant surprised them by lumbering out of dense bush just a few meters away, how his guide and photography partner & friend reached immediately for the rifle in case the obviously tense bull elephant charged them, and how the situation diffused rapidly after the bull determined they were no threat and then turned to lumber down to a herd near a watering hole creates a different effect altogether. All of a sudden you turn to the photo and look at it with new eyes. Wonderful. The point is that the photo could have been taken with almost any vaguely decent camera, but you had to be physically in that location in Zimbabwe to actually make the shot.

That last point is what really separates good photographers from snapshooters. You have to go to your subjects — they don't come to you. Travel, drive, walk, ride or scoot to wherever and bring whatever gear will do the job. You don't bring a compact point & shoot to a landscape trip; you don't bring a huge lighting setup to a kid's party. Buying and using the gear you can afford never means buying the cheapest used gear that still technically qualifies as camera equipment. Rather it means buying the best gear you can afford which is also appropriate to your photography needs. After that, it's all you.

Start 2008 the Right Way . . . Buy Smart

On the DPReview discussion forums this week there was a hot thread about the variety and number of fly-by-night online digital camera dealers. One of the posters, Don Wiss, has done a terrific amount of cycling around New York City/Brooklin taking photos of the street addresses of dozens of online merchants. Some of the storefronts are shockingly awful. Dozens of online merchants are traced back to mailbox stores. Some of them trace back to false addresses. The general feeling among many of the respondents to the Don's post was simply that they'd rather see low prices on merchandise than merchants plowing money into nicer looking storefronts. Well boys, it doesn't work that way!

A well kept store demonstrates how much a storekeeper wants to present his customers with a pleasant place to shop. The effort that goes into a well kept store is also often reflected in the storekeeper's bookkeeping and, most important, his customer service. Most often too, the best kept stores are populated by owners and staff who are generally better informed. Smart, energetic and informed people generally want to work in a pleasant environment. Exceptions may exist, but those are the rules.

Any half-witted schmuck can create a snappy looking web site that leaves visitors with the impression that they're dealing with a serious business. The fact remains though that online purchasing can be a snake pit. The BBB and dozens of other consumer protection organizations are overloaded with screeching complaints from literally tens of thousands of customers who have been ripped off by horrible online merchants.

The best thing about shopping for quality & service rather than price alone is that it may force people necessarily into formal business relationships with brick & mortar local merchants. I think that's the best relationship to create if we want to ensure the best possible service and support from knowledgeable dealers. Some online merchants are safe, obviously, because they're big enough to carry the weight and overhead of exceedingly expensive online operations. Almost all the other online players are either kibitzers or outright thieves. Buyer beware.

We frequently hear complaints from ripped off consumers about the difficulty of checking out the quality and/or honesty of online merchants. My response is simply that absence of good quality information about any online merchant should be a big red flag in the first place. Don't deal with such a merchant. The better the ridiculously low priced deal, the lousier the merchant - another rule which applies 95% of the time. Figuring out which of the remaining 5% are legitimate deals is too much of a headache for most people, and the personal time consumed by people trying to figure out which witch is which is often worth more than any possible saving on a purchase. Buyer beware.