interchangeable lens

What's in a name? Pentax Ricoh to become Ricoh

From 1 August 2013, the Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company Ltd will be no more. Instead, it will be the Ricoh Imaging Company Ltd. It took a little while in coming, but a new name wasn't wholly unexpected after Hoya sold Pentax to Ricoh in 2011. The Pentax name won't be going away entirely, however; it'll remain as the brand name for dSLR and interchangeable lens cameras as well as binoculars. The Ricoh brand will apply to compact cameras and new technological innovations.

After Olympus and Fujifilm axed the lower half of the compact camera ranges earlier this year, Pentax/ Pentax Ricoh/ Ricoh is taking a slightly different tack. Rather than axing the line (something that might happen in the future), the cameras are being severed from the Pentax name. That's one way to maintain brand integrity!

Delving into the 'Skill vs Kit' myth

Taken with a point-and-shoot

A few days ago I found myself in the midst of an interesting Twitter conversation with a young photographer who has been debating upgrading to a dSLR from her point-and-shoot. However, she has read so many articles telling her not to bother that she wasn't sure if it were the right thing to do. Oh? People are actively saying don't buy an interchangeable lens camera? Really? This is what she told me:

I like photography and find my point-and-shoot limiting but everyone says to me better pictures is you and never the camera.

Oops! Something has definitely got lost in translation there, because I am undoubtedly one of the body of 'everyone' who extols photographic skill over camera prowess every time, but that's not at the expense of achievement. What I don't mean is that a young photographer should feel frustrated because she can't do what she wants to do with her camera and is scared of buying something new. You see, the key phrase in my correspondent's correspondence was 'find my point-and-shoot limiting'.

When we talk about photographic skill trumping your kit's capabilities, what we mean, on a most basic level, is that having the most expensive, all-singing, all-dancing   camera with bells, whistles, and a hotline to the President of the United States won't automatically make you a better photographer. You have to know how to use it. A couple of winters ago, my cousin wanted to upgrade from her Panasonic Lumix point-and-shoot to a Canon 5D Mk II. She asked me what I thought. I told her to save her money and buy something a bit lower down the pecking order; invest in some good lenses and some books instead. Bless my cousin, money burns a hole in her pocket and she couldn't quite understand this. Her response: 'But it'll take better pictures!' Not quite, of course, as she will be the driving force behind her camera, and the one responsible for taking better pictures.

Ultimately, a bad photographer with an expensive camera will still produce bad photographs.

A good photographer with a camera that doesn't allow them the control they desperately want will still take good photos, but they might feel a bit frustrated in the process. Give these frustrated photographers cameras where they can call the shots, and a whole new world opens up to them. It isn't so much about having a 'better' camera, it's about having a camera that allows you to do more.

In my early days with an SLR, I came into a bundle of money and decided that it was time to buy a new lens to augment the few I already had. Not really knowing what to buy, I asked someone with a lot more experience than me what he thought would be a good choice. His advice: 'Leave the money in the bank. When you can't do what you want to do with what you already have, then you'll know what to spend it on.' He was absolutely right. It's not about having kit for the sake of having kit; it's about having kit and knowing what to do with it.

So to any photographer who's frustrated by a point-and-shoot: do seriously consider investing in something that gives you more control and more flexibility. What you don't need to do is spend all of your spare pennies, and probably quite a few that aren't spare, on a camera that's in excess of your needs. Buy the one that fits the bill and spend the rest on a good prime lens. When you can't get in close enough to photograph wildlife, or realise that you love taking photos of teeny-tiny things, or that your kits lens is giving you landscapes that are a bit too mushy, then it's time to think about a long lens, or a macro lens, or a wide-angle lens. (And remember that it is always worth investing in good glass. Cameras might come and go, but lenses will last you for years.) Eventually you might find that you need a camera with better low-light capability or more extensive continuous shooting functions–it might even fall apart or meet a sticky end–it's about knowing what meets your needs and then working to push yourself past that point.

Good photography is always about a good photographer, one who knows what to do with their kit.

What happened with camera sales in July?

I'm sure that there must be more thrilling ways to spend a Monday afternoon than analysing the shipment and sales data of Japanese camera manufacturers–I don't know, rearranging all the books on my shelves according to some idiosyncratic and completely inexplicable system?–but that is just how I've spent mine. (Please don't believe that I'm too bats, American readers; it isn't a Bank Holiday here in England today, that was last week.) Whilst carefully tabulated figures arranged according to camera type, region, and date might've made my eyes go slightly gooey at one point, there are some interesting points that their contemplation has thrown up.

Overall, the volume of sales of still cameras has fallen by roughly 22% this July compared with July a year ago. However, revenue from these sales has not dropped comparably; it's down by 8.4%. So we're buying fewer cameras, but paying more for them.

Most alarming for manufacturers will be the 28% drop in the number of compact cameras sold, and as a consequence the 32.3% drop in revenue from them.

For consumers, it's worth noting that we're buying marginally more interchangeable lens cameras; their shipment rates are up by 4.3%, but that manufacturers are generating more revenue from them. The value of this July's shipments increased 20.3% on last July's shipments. Furthermore, in the Americas and Japan, volume of sales has dropped, but value of sales has still increased. (In Europe, both volume and value of sales of interchangeable lens cameras has increased by roughly 21%.)

There isn't a breakdown of the sales of SLR cameras and EVIL cameras, however, and that I would be interested to see.

Still, what do these random figures actually tell us about the market? First, and not very hard to read: we're buying far fewer compact cameras. I'd hazard that it isn't just people don't feel the need to own a compact camera if they're happy with the camera in their smartphone, but that if they're feeling a bit cash-strapped, a new compact camera isn't necessarily high on the list of priorities.

Second, Europe might be keeping the numbers of interchangeable lens sales afloat, but for the manufacturers, their margins are in the Americas.

Third, if you compare the figures for July 2011 against 2010, compact camera shipments were falling then, but not as significantly as between 2011 and 2012. Furthermore, the volume of interchangeable lens camera shipments appears to be slowing down; they're up on last year, but not by as much as 2011's were on 2010's. The last 12 months has been generally bumpy for camera sales, not forgetting that the floods in Thailand had an impact on production and sales.

The world economy isn't in great shape, so no, people won't be buying as many exciting electronic gadgets and gizmos. People for whom cameras are a luxury, not a necessity, will make do (although not perhaps mend); maybe those of us for whom a camera is a necessity are being more discerning in our purchases? And maybe, perhaps, the camera market is reaching saturation point?

Data source: CIPA
Note: This article refers specifically to Japanese camera manufacturers. Full list here.

Design-led? Actually, I think the Pentax K-01 means business

The Pentax K-01

Pentax launched a new mirror-less interchangeable lens camera today: the K-01. It's bigger than we're accustomed to in this breed of camera - in size it's definitely no match for the cute and quirky Pentax Q, a camera that certainly had its stumbling points, but isn't being replaced by the K-01 - and the line is that it's a design-led camera aimed fashionable-types, and possibly a younger market. Given its looks, I'd certainly vouch for it being design-led, but I think that Pentax has a lot more going on with this camera than just a niche market of fashionistas and trendy-types.

First, there's the CMOS sensor, which measures 23.7×15.7mm. That's the standard measurements for an APS-C sensor, one with a 1.5 crop factor, as you'd find in a Pentax K-r, for example. This isn't some piddling thing that's about the size of a newborn baby's toenail. Sure, this makes the camera a whole lot bigger than the pocketable Pentax Q or the Nikon 1 series, but it's still 30% smaller than a K-r, and the larger sensor has its advantages. It also happens to have 16.28 megapixels of resolution and a sensitivity range of ISO 100 to 25,600 (when it's expanded).

Second, the K-01 is compatible with all Pentax K-mount lenses, including those produced for film cameras. (If you want to use your 645 lens on a K-01, you'll need an adaptor, though.) That's just made the K-01 a whole lot more attractive to anyone who's ever owned a Pentax interchangeable lens camera - provided that they still have their lenses, of course - and to people considering a mirror-less camera as stepping stone between a compact and an SLR, so that they won't be shelling out for even more lenses.

If we want to be really forward-thinking about things, let's consider the potential day when Pentax decides that SLR cameras really aren't where it's at anymore. With the K-01 technology in place, they might lose some photograhers who do still want their optical viewfinders, but they'll keep those who are happy with an electronic viewfinder, because they won't have to invest in new glass.

And it does all things that you expect of a high-end camera now: there's 1080p HD video (with a choice of frame rates: 30, 25, or 24 frames per second); there's an HDR function; a burst mode of upto five images per second; and let's not forget the toys.

With all the toys and gizmos that Pentax has put in the K-01, they're making it quite an attractive camera for anyone considering the leap from a compact, too. It does the auto-mode thing; it has 19 different scene modes, ranging from nighttime to backlit silhouette; its in-camera editing allows you to give images a cross-processed or bleach-bypassed look; and there are 19 different filters, for example miniaturisation, which can be applied multiply to an image.

But there's one final place where the K-01 is also holding its own: price. Body-only, it costs around £630. With the 40mm lens (which is the thinnest interchangeable lens on the market), it's £680; with the 18-55mm and the 50-200mm lenses, you're looking at £800. That's in the same ballpark as the Nikon V1 and significantly less than the Fujifilm X-Pro1. The chances are, this will come down after launch, too.

No, the K-01 isn't as pocktable as other mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras, but it is smaller than your average dSLR, and that 40mm pancake lens is tiny. In the K-01 you have the beginnings of a compromise between camera size and sensor size; between pocketableness and image quality. This incarnation might be design-led, but who knows where any more K-0 series cameras might lead.

Video on SLR cameras? Not for me.

I'm all for hacking your camera and computer equipment, but if you have to go to these lengths to make the equipment usable, I cannot help but think that there must be a better solution. And if there is none, there will be soon.

There has been a huge craze storming through the tech world for a while now: The ability of shooting high-end, high-definition video with a dSLR camera.

At first, it was a bit of a novelty, and people didn’t really know what the hell to do with it. Then, some photographers realised that it’s actually sort of nifty, and that you can achieve incredible results on a tidy budget. Then, finally it went all a bit silly, and a lot of videographers leapt on the bandwagon.

Personally, I think it’s a waste of time and a complete fad. I’ll tell you why.

What’s good about video with a dSLR?

There is a SLR camera in there, somewhere, but if you have to add several lengths worth of metal tubing to your camera to adapt it to be useful as a video camera, it is probably not a good sign.

Videographers have for many years been using dedicated video cameras, whether they are ones with high-quality lenses built in, or the high-end, interchangeable lens, 3CCD jobbies.

There are lots of reasons for using a high-end camera: The bigger sensor sizes make a huge difference to the quality of video you can record; multiple CCD makes sense to get better colour reproduction; and interchangeable lenses means that your camera body is perfect for any job.

The biggest problem with interchangeable-lens video cameras, however, is one of production volumes: By its nature, fewer people own video cameras (especially high-end video cameras) – and the kind of people who are willing to part with vast amounts of cash for the privilege of shooting with a top-of-the-line video camera are probably professionals who get paid for their work. Canon and Sony (who manufacture many of the high-end video cameras) know this, and price their products accordingly.

As such, the bodies are expensive, and the additional lenses you can buy for these lenses are obscenely expensive.

So, when the dSLR manufacturers started including video on their SLR bodies – first almost as an afterthought, later with some more planning and better integration – a lot of people perked up. SLR lenses can be had cheaply (a consumer SLR lens is often vastly superior to a much more expensive fixed-lens video camera lens, for a variety of reasons), and the expensive SLR lenses are on par with – if not superior to – their video counterparts, whilst being a lot cheaper.

Consequently, videographers creamed their proverbial pants, and ran out to buy camera bodies, whether full frame (Canon EOS 5D mk2 et al) or crop-frame (7D et al), and a whole load of different lenses.

Cinema-quality video output with home-video price tag? What could possibly be wrong about that?

The case against SLR video

In the hands of talented people – including the man who has become a bit of an icon of the SLR-as-video-camera movement, Philip Bloom, a lot of deeply impressive video content has been created. In the case of Bloom, however, we’re talking about an experienced videographer who understands better than most the advantages and downfalls of this sparkly new format; Whether through design or instinctively, he has found ways around the downsides.

I'm all for hacking your camera and computer equipment, but if you have to go to these lengths to make the equipment usable, I cannot help but think that there must be a better solution. And if there is none, there will be soon.

The biggest problem with moving images vs. still images is that you handle the camera in a fundamentally different way. Imagine, for a moment, that you are holding a camera. You’re probably holding your hands out in front of you, with your right hand supporting the camera body, your index finger poised over the shutter button. When you take a photo, you have to hold this pose, completely quietly, for 1/60th of a second. Click. Flash. Job done.

When you’re filming video, you’re essentially doing the same thing, but 30 (or 25 or 24, depending on what format you are video’ing in) times per second. Suddenly, the device which has evolved from being a photography creation device is no longer as comfortable.

Of course, crafty aftermarket equipment manufacturers came up with loads of solutions. There are geared wheels for pulling zoom and focus. There are eye-cups, grip straps, etc. And then it all got a little bit silly: You can buy an elaborate ‘DSLR-Marksman shoulder support’ rig, at the same price as you originally paid for your DSLR body; cages for your dSLR so you can strap lights and microphone rigs to it, etc.

To me, the fact that you have to buy a camera body and then have to invest the same (or more) amount of money again can mean one of two things: 1) it’s a very flexible and modular system; the best thing ever to have come to the world of digital videography. Or 2) the whole SLR form factor is simply not fit for purpose, and is a stop-gap until something better comes along.

I know that a lot of the SLR-Video crowd feel passionately that option #1, above, is correct, but I’m willing to bet that a lot of them know, in their heart of hearts, that what’s going on in the DSLR-video world is weird and not all that helpful: Your viewfinders suck. Sound recording is haphazard at best. The video files are inflexible.

So, what’s going to happen?

Panasonic recently launched this hideous-looking beast. It has one saving grace: it uses four-thirds camera lenses, which means there are lots of lenses available, from many different manufacturers.

To me, it seems that dSLR video has two advantages over other way of shooting video.

1) SLR cameras use SLR lens mounts. That means you can buy awesome lenses for not-a-lot-of-money.

2) SLR cameras have huge sensors, compared to their typical video equivalents, which gives a ‘look’ which is much closer to Hollywood than America’s Funniest Home Videos.

Don’t get me wrong: Both these points are golddust, and great reasons for shooting with SLR cameras. But it’s not going to last. Why?

The camera manufacturers are watching closely; I know that many of the prominent members of the SLR-video world have been approached by camera manufacturers, who want to talk to them about exciting new developments.

Sony is catching on too, with more affordable camcorders using consumer-grade (and potentially more exotic) lenses.

It’s only a question of time before Canon, Nikon and the rest of the gang cotton on, and start releasing proper video cameras – with a form factor that makes sense, proper audio capabilities, better file formats, decent viewfinders, and controls more finely attuned to the task at hand – whilst keeping the things we’ve grown to love about DSLR cameras: The lens mount and the sensor size.

I’m impressed by what people have been able to do with SLR cameras, and I admire the willingness to ‘hack’ the camera systems to be more suitable. As far as I’m concerned, it’s unfinished technology, poorly implemented, and not fit for purpose… But I’m willing to bet that’s going to change in the next 12 months.

Where'd my mirror go?

The Olympus Pen has an optional viewfinder attachment, turning it into the bastard lovechild of a SLR camera and a rangefinder. Which might not be such a bad thing, actually...

It’s early autumn so everyone has leapt aboard the Christmas juggernaut, God help us. Christmas isn’t just celebrating half-a-dozen similar but morally incompatible festivals of religious and secular nature.

If you create electronic equipment, it’s also (not to mention ‘mostly’) about making berkovets of cold, hard cash.  


Needless to say, the photographic world conforms to this standard. This week alone, four camera manufacturers released five different cameras. Nothing unusual there, then (however much I wish the festival frenzy was restricted to seven days immediately prior to 25 December). But take a second look at these cameras, and listen to the rumours coming out of both Canon and Nikon, and you’ll notice that there’s an interesting trend emerging: A movement away from the angelic (D)SLR – or (Digital) Single Reflex Camera we all know and love, and an elegant hop towards mirror-less, or EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) camera bodies.

Trend? Whatyoumean trend? I see no trend!?

Some trends come in oddly-photographed packages

The observant amongst you will have spotted that only one of the five new cameras that were launched this week was of the mirror-less variety: namely the Samsung NX100. That’s hardly a trend, is it? Well, no. But some other interesting things have been going on. Olympus’ E-5 is its new flagship camera, but as I said over on Small Aperture, I don’t think that they’ve done justice to the camera that is supposed to be heading up their range. Nothing about it makes me go ‘Wow!’ and reach for my credit card. As a self-confessed camera geek, that’s pretty much the reaction I’m expecting when new camera equipment gets let loose. The Nikon D7000, released the same day, is far better value for money than Olympus’ new flagbearer.

It’s not just the uninspired E-5 that suggests Olympus will soon be ceasing production of SLRs, but squeaks from within the camp are saying something similar.

Quite apart from the retro-tastic tiny swivel-scrreen, the Pro90 used an EVF - or Electronic Viewfinder.

If the murmurings from ‘the other’ manufacturers aren’t convincing enough for you, listen to the rumours from Canon and Nikon. Neither of these behemoths of the optical world have produced current-generation mirror-less cameras yet (although both Canon and Nikon have created ELF – Electronic View Finder – cameras in the past, with varying success. Photocritic editor Haje notes that he had a Canon Pro90 about 10 years ago, but ended up trading up to a ‘true’ SLR, because it was ‘pro’ only in name – not in actual fact), but perhaps that could be about to change?

The intergoogles are awash with images of the Canon EVIL, and its prospective range name: EIS. There’s a strong hint that Nikon will announce a mirror-less camera, Q, at Photokina this month. So I’ll say it again: mirror-less cameras.

What is this mirror-less camera you speak of, Miss Bowker?

I should probably begin by saying that in a way, ‘mirror-less camera’ is a bit of a misnomer, after all, compact cameras do not have mirrors either. But the problem is that no one has been able to settle on a name or even an acronym for this other breed of magical-picture-making-machine that benefits from interchangeable lenses but doesn’t have the bulky mirror fandango of the SLR. You might hear them referred to as Mirror-less Interchangeable Lens Cameras (MILCs); Digital Interchangeable Lens cameras (DILs); Micro cameras; Single Lens Direct view cameras (SLDs); or my personal favourite: Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens cameras (EVILs). In the absence of any generally agreed term, I’ll stick with mirror-less camera.

In order for the mirror to be able to flip out of the way, there has to be a gap between the imaging sensor and the lens. Mirrorless camera designs do away with this gap.

Anyway, if you want to know how a mirror-less camera works, you need to know how an SLR, or single lens reflex camera, works first. It’s pretty simple, actually. When you take a picture, you need to be able to see what your lens is seeing otherwise you’ll be decapitating your portrait subjects and accidentally omitting the most interesting feature of your Italian vista. With an SLR, there’s a mirror that redirects the light seen through the lens to your eye, via the optical viewfinder. When you press the shutter release button, the mirror flips out of the way and the sensor (or film, if you’re feeling retro) is exposed to the light and therefore the image. Tah-daa, there’s your picture.

As the term ‘mirror-less’ so aptly reflects, these cameras don’t have mirrors to redirect the image through to your eye via an optical viewfinder. Instead, you see the image on an LCD screen, or an electronic viewfinder, if you’re really lucky. The lack of the mirror malarky reduces the size of the mirror-less camera when compared to an SLR, yet you still get all the goodness of the flexibility of interchangeable lenses and a big sensor.

‘Awesome!’ people might be thinking. Muchly-flexible, muchly-smaller camera. Well, not quite.

Drawbacks of the mirror-less camera

We use SLRs because they give us so much control over the pictures that we shoot. It’s not just about the range of lenses, because, hell, the mirror-less cameras are offering that. It is about the mirror-less camera not autofocusing as fast and having a slower frame rate than an SLR. In addition – at least in our SLR-accustomed eyes, it is about the mirror-less camera being less comfortable, and less intuitive to use when composing pictures using an LCD screen.

In your SLR camera, you'll find the pentaprism in the 'hump' at the top of your camera, just by the eye-piece. It adds to the bulk of your camera (which is bad) but enables you to 'preview' what you are photographing, literally at the speed of light (which is good). If camera manufacturers instead had used a mirror (which would have taken up less space), you would be looking at the world upside down, which would have given a mighty confusing photography experience.

That screen adds an extra layer of communication between you and your image. If you’re a sports or wildlife photographer – or indeed a photographer with any interest in action shots – a mirror-less camera is just not going to be fast enough for you. With a mirror, you are optically connected with your subject, and you get the information you need at the speed of (dare I say it…) light. In other words: you need that mirror.

Compare a mirror-less camera to a high-end compact camera and you’ll notice that perhaps a mirror-less camera isn’t as small as you thought it was. Sure, there’s no more bulk from the mirror, and the pentaprism is absent, but the lens is going to add something significant that the compact does so well in hiding away. You’re never going to be able to pocket a mirror-less camera the same way that you can a Canon S95. This ‘smaller, more portable’ selling point is probably going to have to be re-thought.

In addition, I’m not completely convinced that sensor- and monitor technology is as far advanced as we need it to be. If you have a current-generation dSLR, you may have a feature known as ‘live view’ – this flips the mirror out of the way and lets you use the display on the back of the camera as a viewfinder. For some applications, this works great, but, well, not always.

“I decided to try shooting using only Live View on my 550D for a whole day”, says Haje, editor of this fair blog, “But I gave up after about an hour. I know the 550D probably isn’t the pinnacle of Live View / Electronic Viewfinder technology, but for the technology to become even remotely interesting, it has to be drastically improved. In three years, perhaps. Right now, I’ll stick with the speed of light, thanks.”

Positives for the mirror-less camera

Despite me clattering the mirror-less camera ideal, it does have at least one noticeable positive: lens flexibility. Historically, photographers have bought into a brand because they favour their lenses.

Canon lenses fit Canon bodies and Nikon lenses fit Nikon bodies. (Yes, you can buy generic brand lenses, too, but the mount will still be brand-specific.) Cross-over only happens with the use of an adapter, but the adapter can place the lens too far away from the body and that presents focusing problems. However, the smaller size of the mirror-less camera means that the adapter doesn’t place the lens so far from the body and focusing is no longer a problem. Say hello to lens cross-over, in the style of the moderately successful Four Thirds standard, where Kodak, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sigma, and, (with a camera manufactured under licence by Panasonic) Leica have joined forces to try to create an universal lens mount and pool their imaging sensors.

The Olympus Pen has an optional viewfinder attachment, turning it into the bastard lovechild of a SLR camera and a rangefinder. Which might not be such a bad thing, actually...

There are a few other cameras out there that do similar things. Digital rangefinders, like the Leica M8 and M9, for example, don’t have mirrors; they rely instead on a different camera design and educated guesswork to get the images the way you want them. Rangefinders, however, are usually met with a Marmite-like effect: You love them and you’ll sell your firstborn to be able to afford the ridiculous price-tag for a Leica M9, or you can’t get along with them, simply because they aren’t SLR cameras.

The mirror-less cameras may be at an advantage by taking the good things about rangefinders (the fact that the lenses can be closer to the sensors because there is no mirror between is a huge benefit, optically) and SLR cameras (much cheaper components, great, well-tested sensors, and an enormous range of lenses available), and merging them in a lovely, uniform package.

What does this mean for photographers?

You know, I don’t think that mirror-less cameras are going to have some great revolutionary impact on the industry or on photographers. Not really. They’re not efficient enough for some types of photography and they’re not small enough to present a serious challenge to high-end compacts. And I don’t think that lens cross-over is a big enough selling point on its own.

There probably is a place for mirrorless cameras in the photography landscape, but I don't see guys like this making the switch in the foreseeable future. (photo by Mike Baird, click to see full size)

Olympus might be leaving the SLR market behind, but if it does, it could well be that it is keen to try to carve itself out a niche after the brand has recognised – after a long and valiant battle – that they simply can’t compete with the rest of the marketplace.

Regardless of Olympus’ strategic direction, I don’t see Canon or Nikon abandoning SLR technology in a hurry, and neither do I see photographers deserting SLRs in droves. What the mirror-less camera does do, is to give consumers more choice and the manufacturers the impetus to push the boundaries with compacts and SLRs. Either way, I think it’s safe to say that mirrorless won’t be the revolution that’ll reduce the our humbe SLR servants to a niche equivalent to where we see film photography today.

And honestly, if the manufacturers want this one to catch on, they have to settle on a universally recognised name. Marketing is all about your consumers being able to identify with your product. At the moment, consumers can’t even make sense of what the product is, much less where it fits into their photographic arsenal.

This post was written by Daniela Bowker, who normally serves as my trusty side-kick as the editor of the Small Aperture photography blog, with a lot of input and second opinions from myself.

Do you enjoy a smattering of random photography links? Well, squire, I welcome thee to join me on Twitter -

© Kamps Consulting Ltd. This article is licenced for use on Pixiq only. Please do not reproduce wholly or in part without a license. More info.