Reviewers

Posted on by
Reply

I have a problem with reviewers of photographic equipment.

Whenever they review inexpensive equipment, they intentionally portray it in the worst way possible, because if they actually put in an effort and tried to get the best possible results out of a camera or a lens, the results would most likely be excellent, far beyond the ability to discern between an expensive and a cheap lens, and then one would be justified in asking what is the point of buying that ten times more expensive lens, which wouldn’t sit well with equipment manufacturers who sponsor the reviewers. So, when they review an entry level camera, they make nondescript snapshots, and when they review professional-level equipment, they put in an effort and make very good pictures.

I actually did an experiment once, between 2012 and 2016: I used an entry level camera with an entry level lens, Olympus E-PL1 with the m.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 collapsible kit lens. This means I used it both hand-held and on a tripod, with a polariser and ND64, working with a very meticulous methodology for landscape photography. The results speak for themselves.

The problems arise when you want to print big, because yes, that lens is actually soft. However, you can obviously produce good results with it if you actually take photography seriously while using it. The problem is, apparently, that people don’t follow correct methodology when using cheap equipment, because “why bother”. As a result, you get reviews of kit lenses that produce pictures that look like shit, followed by a strong suggestion that a serious photographer should not bother with those, and should rather upgrade to “something serious”.

This has an unfortunate consequence of people overspending on equipment, and, if they don’t have the money, they feel they are missing out on “real photography” because they can’t afford professional gear.

This is an unexpected position from someone who actually has professional equipment; however, I know what I bought it for. When I went to the Plitvice lakes, I used almost exclusively the 24-105mm f/4 lens, and it worked great; everything was absolutely sharp. Getting everything sharp is actually super easy and inexpensive. The snobs make it sound like it’s some great achievement, but it’s not. For the most part, the expensive lenses are needed when you want almost nothing sharp.

For getting everything sharp, you need knowledge of theory, meticulous technique, and willingness to work very slowly and patiently. Yes, you need good equipment, but in this case “good” can be had very inexpensively. An old 4/3, APS-C or 35mm camera with 12MP of resolution or more. A decent kit lens. A tripod. A circular polariser and a ND filter. Wired release. Some money to go places where there’s something worth photographing. That’s it.

Sure, when you have specific things you want to do, there are lenses and cameras that answer those questions, but in order to even get to the point where you have those questions, just throwing money at the problem isn’t going to improve anything.

Weakest link

Posted on by
Reply

I (hopefully) just replaced the weakest link of my photographic system: the camera I take with me when I don’t feel there will be any pictures to be taken and I don’t feel like carrying a 1.5 kg rig for a walk for no obvious reason. It used to be this:

It’s Olympus E-PL1 micro four thirds camera with a collapsible kit lens, m.zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6. I stopped using it because it doesn’t have a viewfinder, the screen is terrible, the autofocus is terrible, and the camera is ergonomically so bad, that I almost gave up photography altogether, because of how much of a pain it was to use. However, when the iPhones started recording RAW, I replaced the E-PL1 with that; after all, I’m carrying the phone in my pocket every time I go out, and if it already has a camera that records 12MP RAW, why carry another camera that records 12MP RAW? The problem is, the 12MP number for the iPhone is a lie. The pictures are almost never good enough to make a sharp 4K wallpaper, which is somewhat more than 8MP. Also, they show signs of extreme overprocessing, regardless of the supposed RAW file. As a result, I took some very good pictures with a phone, that won’t magnify or print well:

The idea about replacing the Olympus with something modern with a viewfinder was in the back of my mind for years, and I considered Olympus OM-D E-M10:

This would work just fine, and could be purchased inexpensively used, but it doesn’t play well with my Sony system: different batteries and charger, different menu system to learn and be annoyed by, different (worse) autofocus to be annoyed by, and different lenses that can’t be mounted to anything else. Then my son bought Sony a6700 APS-C camera that fixes almost all of those issues, and I liked it a lot: the sensor is basically the APS-C crop of my A7RV, the menu system is either similar enough or the same, and it’s small and light enough. The problem: all the lenses would work in crop mode. This would mean buying APS-C lenses if I wanted to remain compact, or using my existing large lenses on a small body, which doesn’t solve anything. I liked the form factor a lot, and my thought was “if only that had a 35mm sensor inside”.

Well, in fact there is a thing with that form factor, but with A7RV 35mm sensor inside, and it’s called A7CR:

It solves the problem, however it’s very expensive and I’ve been considering it reluctantly, because lenses were always a greater priority than cameras, because they actually create the differences in images. It’s faulty logic, however, because if I keep taking pictures with an iPhone because I left my camera at home, I’m going to get iPhone picture quality, not A7RV picture quality. And I did keep taking pictures with the iPhone occasionally:

It’s nice, until you try to magnify it, and after you clone out the lens flare reflections from everywhere.

The new camera uses the same batteries and charger as A7RV, so no redundant clutter. It has the same menu system, same sensor, and same autofocus system as A7RV. For all intents and purposes, it’s A7RV hardware with worse viewfinder and screen, and less ergonimical body shape. However, it’s small enough to be pocketable in a big winter jacket; if I use a compact enough lens, of course.

And here’s where I had the second actual issue, other than the price. The only compact lens I have is the 50mm f/1.8. I then considered this, and decided that the 50mm will be just fine for what it does, but I do need a good compact wideangle to accompany it, so I got a Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN, which is very small and very sharp corner to corner, but at the cost of aperture, which I don’t care for in wide angle, since I mostly use it at f/8 to get everything sharp. I just want it to be optically brilliant, cheap and pocketable, and it is all those things. I also decided to get the Sony FE 28-60mm f/4-5.6 collapsible kit zoom, which is extremely sharp in the centre, but less so in the corners, but which will serve the purpose of an “iPhone replacement”; basically, if I could use the m.zuiko 14-42mm collapsible kit, which is optically horrible by all accounts, and this lens is certainly better, if somewhat shorter in range, it’s going to do just fine for things that would otherwise be photographed with my phone.

So, this makes a compact 61MP 35mm system with three compact lenses: 24mm f/3.5, 28-60mm f/4-5.6 and 50mm f/1.8, and I didn’t want to buy any more lenses before I’m sure I actually have a problem they are meant to solve, because longer lenses tend to be big, and if I’m bringing big lenses, I’m bringing a proper camera system as well.

The second use for the A7CR is to serve as a second body, which means it’s a legitimate part of my main system, not just a sidekick. If I need a macro lens on one body and a wideangle on another, this now works. Also, all files have the same colours and noise profile since they are made with the same sensor, and both bodies have the same autofocus system. Also, all the small lenses work on the main camera; they, too, are a legitimate part of the system.

So, this stupid bullshit is what I’m preoccupying my mind with while waiting for the world to end. 🙂

 

World War

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve seen multiple respectable analysts agree that we are in the beginning phases of World War 3.

I disagree. World War 3 started when NATO rejected Russian “non-ultimatum” in December 2021, and as a result, Russia went into Ukraine in order to protect itself, in February 2022. It’s just that the war itself was a very careful and protracted affair, because both parties tried to avoid things getting nuclear.

It’s not an unprecedented thing. From the formal beginning of the World War 2 it took years until the fighting started in earnest; the powers basically declared war on each other and then did nothing, as they were very cautious after the huge losses of WW1 that were still in living memory. This time, it’s about America trying to destroy all competition, but not wanting to be glassed by Russia, which is why they used dastardly and roundabout ways – basically, find some stupid bastards who can be convinced to hate Russians and kill them, the way they now attempted to seduce the Kurds into killing Iranians, but failed. They deceived Europe into destroying its economy by severing their connection to Russia, so Europe is now in a hopeless situation, on a steep downward trajectory. They tried to suffocate and starve Russia, but this failed so far, simply because Russia is too big and too essential. The plan is to destroy smaller disobedient countries first, and then attack China. Then, after they glassed China, they will isolate and starve Russia, until its economy collapses and it can be broken down into multiple weak, balkanised countries mired in corruption and dependent on the West for survival of their corrupt ruling class.

Iran is the last country in their way before attacking China. China must know they are next, but they probably have the same problem as Russia and India – a weak, amoral ruling class that would rather make a deal with the corrupt West than fight it. They all think American madness will stop before it’s their turn to fall. They are all mistaken.

So, it’s not that we are about to enter a world war. That’s already years behind us. What we are likely to enter now is the final phase of the world war – the phase similar to the end of the non-combative phase of the WW2, before the fighting started in earnest. Everybody is very reluctant to go there, because this phase consists of first nuclear use, then a small nuclear exchange, then a total nuclear exchange. Iran is now in a position where they are starting to understand that this is not going to end until they are destroyed, because Israel won’t allow it. They know that they will likely be glassed if they salt Israel, but as things are, they will be first weakened, and then destroyed and enslaved. A peaceful resolution is not a realistic option. They tried, multiple times; didn’t work. They might decide to go quietly into the night, or not. Depends on their leadership.

As for China, it’s watching, and it’s currently doing nothing. If Iran falls, they are next. After they fall, Russia will be alone, without allies, without Chinese manufacturing resources and market for their hydrocarbons, and they will die.

Israel

Posted on by
5

There must be some attractor placed around Israel. There are just too many flies gathered there for it to be an accident, or, as Jesus put it, “wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together”.

Also, the people who used to be bound to the American attractor are now perfectly happy to sacrifice America in order to do Israel’s bidding, which is indicative. I didn’t personally see the spiritual structure there, and I’m pretty sure I don’t want to, because I have more than enough on my plate already, but circumstantial evidence is pretty strong. I mean, a worldly thing or a place that presents itself as spiritual, there are not many of those. Varanasi for the Hindus, and Israel. Maybe Mecca for the Muslims, but I don’t see anything even remotely spiritual about it.

Iran war

Posted on by
11

America and Israel attacked Iran again, although it would be more accurate to say that Israel attacked Iran using America, again, because they weren’t happy with how it went the last time; basically, both Trump and Iran were happy to conclude the previous war as soon as possible, with token damage inflicted. So, it is my interpretation that this time, Israel convinced Trump that Iran will fold and disintegrate immediately if they kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. What they, of course, knew, is that the opposite will happen – Iran will feel honour-bound to escalate the war to the point where neither party will be willing or able to just proclaim victory and finish it.

So, what are the goals now? For America, the goal is some kind of a regime collapse in Iran, or disintegration of Iran as a state. Since this is extremely unlikely to the point of being impossible, this means America doesn’t have an exit strategy, at all. They will try attacking until they are left without ammunition. Inevitably, they will suffer some extreme loss, such as an aircraft carrier being sunk or irretrievably damaged, and then they will be forced to use nuclear weapons to finish it.

For Iran, the goal is equally unclear. Ideally, they would want Israel and America to be permanently and fatally damaged, to the point of finally fucking off and leaving them alone. Since they think this is unrealistic, they are trying to survive long enough for their enemies’ corpses to float down the river of time. This means they don’t benefit from a direct confrontation, but now they are being forced into it, and there is no obvious way out. I mean, there is – they could always “salt” Israel, make it permanently and completely uninhabitable using dirty bombs, but then nuclear weapons would be used against Iran as well, and they also probably have some kind of a religious interdiction against that. But we do need to have in mind that this is technically an option for them, and Israel exists only because Iran isn’t fatally threatened. If push comes to shove and someone uses a nuke against them, I’m pretty sure they will “salt” Israel, and then all hell will break loose, everywhere.

So far, Iran’s retaliation has more-less paralysed oil and gas supply through the Strait of Hormuz, and this, together with the rest of the damage to the Emirates and everything else there, will cause serious issues to the global economy, which will persist even if the situation were to normalise immediately, which it won’t. The price of oil is going up, and America will now have to try to tear it down. If they fail, both themselves and their allies will find themselves in an immediate economic crisis, while Russia will get an advantage; China won’t be greatly affected because they are plugged into Russian supply. This is damaging the West primarily. The liquefied gas supply from Qatar has also been stopped, and it would take half a year for that to be restarted in earnest. This means Europe is going to either restart their Russian purchases, which is unlikely because they made enemies out of Russia, which is unlikely to just let this go at this point, or they are going to have a serious energy crisis.

I am expecting global supply lines to be compromised for all sorts of reasons soon enough, which will limit availability of things, putting pressure on local sources, which will result in prices going up. Production of artificial fertilisers might be further compromised, with availability and price of food becoming an issue.

This, of course, assumes a gradual and linear escalation of things not much further than they currently are. However, if something really big happens, all bets are off. Big powers are already itching to use nuclear weapons because they are out of conventional options, and with some big escalatory event, the temptation might become too much.

So, what are my recommendations? I think it’s too late for prepping. The crisis is already upon us; gold and silver started their exponential takeoff, so they are probably too expensive to buy at this point. The time to prepare by putting money there was years ago. Spiritual preparations are another matter, which is why my new book exists, I’d say.