Angry Sascha is angry.

So you really did it, eh? Flick the bird to what’s up nowadays, and asking for a € 1000 premium, too? Fine by me.

So you think a rehash of a 30 years old lens design it worth a couple of thou more than what you’ve toted the best there is™, the ultimate sharpness in 50mm™? Fine by me.

Because I don’t really care.

I enjoy black-and-white photography, a lot. I also enjoy the Summicron even more; it’s reasonably fast in a small package. But dudes! What were you thinking!

I guess your thinking went along these lines:

“Well, they cough up no matter what we ask for, so, eh.”

But that’s the approach that killed Loewe, Grundig, Braun, and many other manufacturers. Their brands to be gobbled up by multinationals betting on sales due to “traditional” names.

But then, not to worry, you have not one, but two Hermès special editions at the ready! No Panasonic or Minolta will take you over, na, you‘re too cool for them sharks! You pamper your audience with calfskin leather, after all. Or Hermès is, for that matter. For people less inclined to Bling you make sure to feature the launch with a renowned BnW-only photographer. And Mr. Liefers, because Wagnerian TV pathologists are Teh Real Shit™.

(I should mention I really like what @JanJosefLiefers does, especially music- and Tatort-wise, but that’s just me.)

I might not care for your new products, but I do care about where you seem to be headed. I’m all for solutions that are out there, no worries. But, seriously, Leica – there’s a limit to bullshit even proverbial milk cows will take. And, personally, I won’t go moo just because you tell me to. Even though I love your stuff. Bugger.

You paid helluva lot for that wide-aperture lens, so you’re going to use it. What’s the point in shooting at an aperture that complements an image’s composition, its message, and your personal understanding of documented reality?

Oh, wait. You just paid helluva lot for that wide-aperture lens, hence you damn well see the world at f/1.4 or below, so that’s fine. Pinpointing what matters™, highlighting it in gloriously shallow depth-of-field. After all, there’s the Bokeh to consider, the creamier, the better. Unless you bought a cheapo lens and the out-of-focus areas are kinda hard, in that case that’s the statement you truly wanted to make. The harsh reality outside of what normal people perceive. The human condition, rendered in two inches of sharpness, the rest in uncomfortable blur. You even got an ND filter to make sure you won’t get tempted to stop it down in brighter conditions. Because the shallowness is what it’s all about.

For example, how could the following photo profit from a stopped-down lens? Juxtaposing the mercantile marketing world represented by the discarded Coke can to newspapers ready for disposal? As a somewhat ironic comment? Are you bloody kidding me?

Yeah, that’s what you need f/1.1 for. Exactly this.

Na, the message is: the “% sodium” label sits in the same focus plane as the twine on the right. Because that’s what you can do with this fucking lens, that’s what it’s there for and what you’ve paid for. It’s huge, it’s heavy, it’s expensive. It’s irritating the manufacturer still bothers with aperture blades! Such lenses are made to be shot wide open, so you’ll do your damnedest to only use it wide open. Always. No exception. The Bokeh will make it a good image by default. No?

So after a Sandisk Extreme SDHC 30MB/s* or whatnot decided to die on me right in the middle of shooting a bloody fireworks (this one) I just shrugged my shoulders and went all, well, you know? Shit happens. Get over it. Smile. Then I kicked that table and now my toes are numb.

It was the second, rather expensive, Sandisk card to go belly-up on a job, the third in total. In different cameras, but all of them after about two months of usage. So I donned my spy hat and investigated. That is, searched on Google. The shit I found made me wonder about quality control – not necessarily on Sandisk’s part – just as much as about internet culture as a whole.

There’s camera manufacturers trying to tweak their firmware to accommodate Sandisk cards. There’s a shitload of people going all “never had any problem with them, so don’t buy cheap copies on eBay”. But at least in my case, I bought them cards in two different legit, brick-and-mortar shops. And they both failed on me rather spectacularly. The cards, not the shops.

My ages-old Transcends still work. My Panasonics still work. And not cards from the lowly levels of classmanship, no, we’re talking speedy Class 10 shit here. For half the price, without the marketing bullshit telling me how awesome their new SD cards were, plus a funky brand name and an arbitrary MB/s number next to it.

But still I’m told by too many people: “Well, don’t buy pirated copies and stop bitching”. Mine aren’t knock-offs. Or rather, if they are, two of the largest Swiss retailers buy from the Chinese Mafia. Or something.

Which would make some sense considering their corresponding corporations are at each others commercial throats. And at least one of said corporations doesn’t seem to mind cutting corners.

Hrm.

I think Terry Pratchett said it best when rhapsodising on the “injustice of the boot”: People who require good shoes for their job often can’t afford The Best™ and need to buy a new pair each and every year. And those who are better-off usually don’t need boots this sturdy, as their soles mostly grace carpeted floors. But shelling out 10x as much, one time, can tide them over until the grave. That is, with one pair of boots. In the end, well, ending up having spent less on shoes than those who can’t afford proper shoes, but would be perfectly served with the best the market provides.

Much the same can be said about photography. But for some reason many hobbyists – in above metaphor the carpet grinders who are not really dependent on their tools – choose to buy cheap, repeatedly, again and again. Even though they would have saved lots of moolah if they just went with what they really wanted to begin with. Not what they needed, as hobbyists are beyond such petty concerns. Still, in dilettante photography, burning money seems more common than thinking about what one’s after, and then going for it, within reason.

This has to stop. Seriously.

Dudes and dudettes, you’re indulging in a hobby. It doesn’t matter whether you can write off your gear when doing your tax returns. It doesn’t matter if you can justify the expense to anybody other than yourself. It’s your hobby, and you obviously have the funds: Otherwise you couldn’t replace camera bodies once a year or shell out a grand for a speciality lens you’ll use three to four times before storing it in The Closet. Next to all that other gear you procured on a whim and never use again after your great-aunt’s 80th birthday party.

You know you enjoy photography. You also know what you’d really like as a tool to this end. Still, you start with compacts, bridges, then a crop camera. Then another, better one, with higher ISO or faster auto-focus. You invest thousands of quids in lenses for said cameras – while in the back of your head there’s this tiny voice screaming about full-frame or middle format or whatever. But 6k sound too expensive, not reasonable.

So you settle for camera bodies for € 1.000, a couple of lenses for another couple of thou, and yet a refresh of the same body every couple of months/years. If you’re really into photography, it will take you about one year to spend more on gear you don’t really enjoy – rather than biting the bullet and going with your dream to begin with. Even if this means you’ll need to save up for it.

Is it GAS? Perhaps. Maybe gear acquisition syndrome is what drives Canikosonic camera sales. You’re enjoying shopping for The Best Bang for the Buck™ more than rationally looking at the numbers and accepting you’ll end up with The Best no Current Expense Spared™ in the end anyhow. It‘s the new shiny toys that drive you, and you rationalise the expense by telling yourself: This will make my photography easier / better / whatever, and it’s a reasonable upgrade. Again and again, again and again.

Remember, it’s your hobby, it’s a dream, something to indulge in because you can afford it, both money- and time-wise. Otherwise you collected stamps or dried horse manure or something. Buying boots each year, for many years, rather than getting that one pair that will serve you a lifetime is not sane behaviour for a dilettante. It’s often a necessity for a professional, but please – you’re not. So for bugger’s sake stop this nonsense, for your own sake and peace of mind of your spouse.

On the other hand, this makes the after-market more interesting for those who know what they want or need. Hrm. The jury’s still out on that one.

You like what you see on the cam’s display? Sure you do. Great colours! The contrast – w00t! You enjoy working with your camera, getting the shot right™ while framing it, hate the idea of post-processing. And anyways – them colours! Woah!

And then you switch to RAW because somebody told you that’s professional, JPEG isn’t. And then you wonder why this funky RAW software thingy you need to actually see what you’ve shot delivers such lame-ass pictures. No oomph. And what the hells, I made this picture in black and white! It’s in colour now! This software sucks!

No it doesn’t. You have to take RAW literally: it’s a collection of the raw information captured by your camera’s sensor. Without all that funky stuff happening inside your cam like Virtual Films or Art Filters. Or the less funky stuff that happens internally so you can actually look at a picture on the camera’s screen. Sometimes, RAW even ignores your choice of aspect ratio as the sensor captures everything anyways. The horror, the horror, etc.

It’s like the difference between getting photos developed and shooting negatives you develop yourself. Later on, in the dark-room with a bottle of Whisky nearby and the tingly sensation of chemicals on your skin. In this case, chemicals are replaced by (sometimes) expensive software while the booze remains the same, if hopefully of Irish provenance.

You like to control your pictures on-site? You don’t want to meddle with Burn, Dodge, different virtual “chemicals” and whatnot just to hold a decent picture in your alcohol-stained hands? Then shoot JPEG, save a lot of time, and stop complaining. The software can’t read your mind, and as long as camera manufacturers stick to proprietary RAW formats and settings, i.e. until the sun burns out, it also can’t know what “Vivid” or “Art Filter No.43” means.

Fine, you changed “Contrast” in your camera’s settings. And how exactly should third-party applications such as Lightroom or uvraw know what +2 Contrast in your camera relates to? The file might be readable, but the JPEG engine inside the cam that interprets +2 Contrast is a heavily guarded, copyrighted, and patented secret.

Get real. And take your pick. JPEG is perfectly fine if you like your camera’s results and won’t go all wonky colours later on. It’s neither more nor less “professional” than shooting in RAW. But please, baby Jesus please stop bitching about the status quo of RAW developing and stop expecting the impossible from manufacturers who don’t have full access to your camera makers’ intellectual property. Or, better choice, do something about that IP thingy by voting for the right™ parties next time round. Okay? Thanks.