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?"
10 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
I particularly like the 4th image. Nice juxtaposition.
I probably have the same Panasonic 45-200 lens. Does it vignette on you at the long end?
Mine is the (deep breath) G VARIO 1:4-5.6/45-200 mega OIS, bought used some years ago, with an annoying tendency to "creep" when pointed down. I don't use it much, but haven't noticed any serious vignetting. I'll check it out. Probably does -- it's not a high-end lens.
Mike
And, yes, the rope in 4 makes it rather more special than the others, I think. Taken from about 65 meters (~70 yards) away.
Mike
Yeah, I've got the same lens. I use it quite a lot for stills, despite its creep and vignetting. I'm too cheap to buy something better. Instead I've got several of the Meike manual focus primes for video. Rather inexpensive metal and glass lenses that are actually pretty good.
Without a doubt, the rope adds that little bit of something special.
Not sure when you began, but also appreciated is larger versions of the pix. We're less worried about theft of images these days, aren't we? It's Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Apple who are hoovering them up now.
For some while now I've been posting them 22cm wide (or tall), 96 dpi, at high quality JPG compression -- large enough to see, but not too big to slow the download. I doubt anyone could do anything illicitly commercial with that. But then, why would they want to?
Mike
Too bad about John Blakemore. (From memory, he looked ancient in the videos I saw of him, though, so he probably had a fair run at it.) I have one of his prints, languishing in a box somewhere.
The era of 'Darkroom and workshop' you refer to seems to have been replaced by mini-breaks and group field trips — you would have to pay me to go on one of those, I think.
Cheers.
Yes, I've got a print somewhere, too, with that bizarre calligraphic signature on it.
Mike
Post a Comment