I continue to be intrigued by the Canon Zoom monocular. Somehow the combination of ultra-pocketability with a tiny sensor and a crazy zoom which result in hilariously bad JPEG files can nonetheless yield pictures that (with some artful post-processing) I, at least, find attractive. Although I've tried, I simply can't reproduce the same effect with "better" cameras and lenses. [1] The Zoom is not for everyone, obviously – no scope for boasting about "sharpness" here! – but in the right circumstances and with a bit of work it delivers images with certain pictorial qualities that, for me, outweigh the standard metrics of photographic excellence.
Sales of this unique device must have been poor, though, otherwise I'm sure Canon would have revisited it by now, and improved it somewhat. I mean, how much work would it take the engineers at Canon to knock off the obvious rough edges? Not much, but too much, it seems. Never mind, it's fun to use and, like any good puzzle, offers the sort of stimulating challenge that is more satisfying than being handed a result on a plate. Most of the time, anyway...
"But at the end of the day, there’s a lot of bits of paper in boxes," Blakemore laughed, smiling broadly. "And that’s a suitable end, isn’t it?"
2 comments:
Nice set of pix. These are all from the Canon "toy" camera?
Yes, all of them. As I say, they have some extra quality that beats their "deficiencies". It may partly be down to Canon's "colour science", buried beneath the crappy JPEG rendering -- I used to be a fan, before shifting to Fuji and micro 4/3.
Mike
Post a Comment