The almost death of the telephoto/zoom lens

This column started out as a eulogy — marking the anticipated end for a long-time friend. But, even as the grave was being readied, word came that my friend was showing signs of a remarkable recovery.

Who is this friend? How did things get so dire? And what’s behind the potential recovery? Read on…

The story begins decades ago, as unboxed my first SLR (single lens reflex) camera: an Olympus OM-1. It was a big step up from the point-and-shoot cameras I had been using. For the first time, whatever I saw in the camera’s viewfinder was the same thing the lens was seeing. Further, I could adjust f-stops, shutter speeds, white balance, and much more. And, perhaps most critically, I could swap lenses.

Not wasting any time, I purchased my first accessory lens the same day I bought the camera: a 28-150mm zoom lens. With it mounted, I could easily shift from a decent wide-angle shot to 3X telephoto. Yes, the lens was bulkier than the standard 50mm one that came with the camera, but it was worth the bulk. By far, the most useful aspect of the zoom lens was its telephoto range. Until then, the most common frustration I had when taking photos was an inability to get close enough to the subject. Instead of capturing that gorgeous bird I saw in a nearby tree, all I got was a photo of a tree, albeit one that contained a barely perceptible blob of color that I presumed was the bird. A telephoto zoom lens changed all that. It not only got me closer but allowed me to experiment for the exact optimal magnification, without having to keep changing my position. Fantastic!

Flash forward to today. The telephoto lens is on its deathbed, as are zoom lenses in general. Hold on. Before you jump in to contradict me, allow me to elaborate.

Yes, there are still SLR cameras (now digital) that offer the same options as my old Olympus. But, back in the “old days,” every budding amateur photographer bought an SLR. These days, they are primarily the domain of the most serious hobbyists and professionals. Far fewer people use them.

It’s also true that a zoom capability remains in today’s consumer-focused compact fixed-lens cameras. In fact, the capabilities here are incredible. My wife, for example, owns a Canon SX700. This pocket-sized camera has a 30X zoom lens — and yet the entire camera is smaller and lighter than the 3X zoom lens alone for my old Olympus! Even so, sales of these cameras are also in a steady decline.

So what are people using to take photos these days? Their smartphones of course. Recent studies have estimated that well over 90% of the photos taken today are taken with smartphones. The trouble is that smartphones, including the iPhone, have no telephoto or optical zoom options. You can buy an add-on lens to get a 2X zoom; but it’s not practical; the lenses are too much trouble for too little gain. Very few people go this route.

My wife and I fit the typical demographic. Most of the time, our Canon sits on a shelf. The only time it gets any use is when we anticipate that a telephoto capability will be critical. And sometimes not even then. That’s because our iPhone 6 and 6S take photos (and video) that equal or exceed the quality of the Canon — at least to our eyes. Further, the iPhone is far superior to the Canon for any sort of media sharing. And we always have our iPhones with us, even if we have no intent to use a camera. If we don’t expect to need a telephoto lens, there’s no reason to carry around an extra piece of equipment.

So, here I am, decades later, back to the same inability to get an unplanned shot of that bird up a tree. Ironic. Most of the time, I’m okay with this. It’s the sort of trade-off that often comes with technological advances. You lose something worthwhile from the “good old days” in order to get a myriad of desirable new features that were unimaginable years ago.

Overall, if telephoto/zoom lenses were animals, they would be on the endangered species list. It was thinking about this that led me to pen my intended eulogy. Except a funny thing happened. The telephoto/zoom lens may not be as near death as I anticipated. The latest rumors (which seem increasingly solid) suggest that Apple is preparing a dual-lens version of the iPhone 7 Plus (due out this fall) — a set-up that would include a true optical zoom. At last! Other rumors indicate that single-lens zoom technologies may be arriving in Apple’s more distant future.

For now, if the iPhone 7 Plus camera turns out to be as good as the rumors suggest, it will be a happy day for me. It will also assuredly hasten the demise of most, if not all, consumer stand-alone cameras. Perhaps there’s a eulogy to write after all.

Posted in Apple Inc, iPhone, Technology | 1 Comment

Adieu to my Mac Pro

I finally did it. After months of internal debate, and many wild swings back and forth, the needle at last crossed the critical threshold. A decision has been made. I bought a new desktop Mac. It arrives next week.

For those interested in the tech specs, I purchased a top-end 5K iMac, with an upgraded processor, 16GB of RAM and the 512GB SSD. To handle additional storage requirements, I have an OWC ThunderBay, which will house the drives currently in my Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro in question is a “cheese grater” model from 2009. You heard correctly. This powerhouse has been my primary computer for the last seven (7) years! I’m using it right now to compose this article. This is, by far, a personal record. I haven’t kept another Mac on my desk for more than three years since I bought by first Mac back in 1984.

How did my Mac Pro manage to survive so long? Mainly because of its superb and easily accessible internal expansion options (4 hard drive bays, 2 optical drive bays, RAM slots and PCI card slots). This far exceeds anything that Apple currently offers (Apple has essentially eliminated internal expansion from its line-up). Expansion capability has  allowed me to keep pace with the most critical technological advances. Over the years, I’ve upgraded the RAM, added newer higher capacity hard drives and an SSD drive. While still not as fast as current top-end Macs, my Mac Pro remains fast enough to comfortably move along as I do demanding tasks such as editing iMovie files.

Sure, it’s missing some niceties — no Thunderbolt, no USB-3, no Retina display. And it’s a relatively noisy heat-generating behemoth that can warm up my office better than a space heater. But it gets the job done.

As for software, Apple still supports this Mac Pro for running the latest El Capitan version of OS X. It doesn’t support every new feature; it won’t work with Continuity for example. And when I compare it to my wife’s 2014 iMac, it’s clear that the Mac Pro’s software/hardware combination is significantly more prone to bugs and glitches. But it runs and works very well most of the time.

On the one side, the thought of losing the Mac Pro’s internal expansion options held me back from upgrading. On the other side, the promise of forthcoming major hardware additions, such as Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C, similarly convinced me to keep delaying an upgrade. Plus, I was immobilized by indecision as to which storage option to choose: Fusion drive vs. one of the SSD drives.

But, in the end, I decided it was time to move on. The lure of the current new technology finally brought me to the tipping point. The speed and upgraded capabilities of the Skylake processor, the new super-fast SSD drive, the incredible Retina display — all packaged in an attractive compact lightweight design — I could no longer resist. Seven years was long enough. If a much improved iMac comes along later this year, I’ll worry about that when the time comes. I’m ready for a change now!

Still, I’ll miss my old Mac Pro. We’ve been together for a long time. So, before we part, allow me to bid the machine one last fond farewell: So long old friend. It’s been great knowing you. I doubt we will ever see the likes of you again.

Posted in Apple Inc, Mac, Technology | 10 Comments

After the Oscar boycott, then what?

Something’s rotten in Hollywood.

For the past two years, not one person of color has received an Academy Award nomination for acting. In protest, several prominent members of the film industry (including Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith) have called for a boycott of the Awards ceremony.

One could make an argument that the recent nominations don’t represent a consistent bias. You could for example point out that, in the years from 2001-2006, the Best Actor award went to a person of color three times (Jamie Foxx, Denzel Washington and Forest Whitaker). During that same stretch, Will Smith, Terrence Howard, Don Cheadle and Ben Kingsley were all nominated.

But that was more the exception than the rule. There hasn’t been anything close to that ever since. While the situation may not be as dire as some suggest, I believe a problem does exist.

Even if we agree with the motivation behind the boycott, some thorny questions remain: What are people hoping to achieve by the boycott? What specific changes would be required to call off the boycott or at least not boycott again next year?

The most obvious answer seems simple enough: Have people of color get the nominations they deserve.

But it’s not quite that simple.

It’s too late to change this year’s nominations. So there’s no chance that this will end the boycott. It’s also just about impossible to imagine the Academy saying or doing anything in the next few weeks that would be radical enough to get the boycott cancelled.

So…a boycott is almost certain to happen this year. Some people will be skipping this year’s ceremony in protest.

Okay. But then what? What can be done to prevent a recurrence of the boycott next year?

Perhaps a few people of color will get nominated next year. Will that be the end of it? Maybe. But, as I’ve already pointed out, there have been years previous where people of color were nominated. That didn’t prevent what happened these past two years. So, no matter who gets nominated next year, there is no guarantee that it signals a long term shift. So what else should be done?

I doubt that anyone wants an “affirmative action” solution — one that would require a certain minimum number of people of color be nominated each year — regardless of the relative quality of their work. That would be at least as unfair as what now exists.

There is also the danger of a slippery slope here. Once you start imposing such rules, where does it stop? Many people complained that Carol did not get a Best Picture nomination this year. Speculation was that this was due to sexism —  because women were in all Carol’s major roles. Is this answer here that the Academy be required to nominate at least one film that features women in the lead roles? I think not.

More generally, with Academy members voting via secret ballots, there seems no way to guarantee a desired outcome — any more than you could in a government election. The longer term solution, it seems to me, is to alter the composition of the Academy voters…which (as has been frequently pointed out) is currently made up predominantly of older white males. But this takes time, perhaps years.

Even here, a knotty problem remains. Since the Academy members are drawn from the people who do the work of making films, getting an increase in minority, female and younger members would likely require an increase in the number of those people working in films (and I don’t mean just actors here). Adding more knots, membership requires a recognition of one’s status by the very (potentially biased) people who are already in the Academy. As stated in the rules for actors as potential members:

Membership shall be by invitation of the Board of Governors.  Invitations to active membership shall be limited to those persons active in the motion picture arts and sciences, or credited with screen achievements, or who have otherwise achieved distinction in the motion picture arts and sciences and who, in the opinion of the Board, are qualified for membership.”

If the Board is biased, due in part to the current composition of its members, it will be hard for the Academy membership to change under the current rules. Perhaps there should be more objective criteria for membership, not so dependent on the “opinion of the Board.”

Still, the ultimate cause is higher up the chain. If the power structure in Hollywood is predominately white male, it likely makes it harder for people of color (and, to a similar extent, women) to achieve positions of power. This, in turn, likely makes it harder for people of color to get hired for the best acting roles. This is similar to the point that Spike Lee has made: you can’t give an award to a black person who never is given a chance to be cast in a role for which they might have won. You can’t give a Best Picture award to a movie that features black actors if that movie never gets made.

Even if you believe that the best actors this year were the ones that got nominated and there was no bias in the award selection process, the probability remains that a bias exists due to hiring decisions that trickle down from the very top.

Until the power structure in Hollywood changes, it’s difficult to see a happy ending here. Unfortunately, this is another thing that isn’t likely to happen with great haste. Many other industries, such as the tech industry (with which I am more familiar) are still struggling to resolve similar issues — such as how to get more women in positions of executive power or get jobs as entry level engineers. It hasn’t been easy.

So…by all means boycott the Academy Awards this year. But while you’re doing that, give some thought to what might realistically be done to make the situation better…so that there isn’t a reason to have another boycott next year. If you have a good idea, now’s the time to speak up.

Posted in Entertainment, Movies | Comments Off on After the Oscar boycott, then what?

Presidential debates, stock markets and basketball announcers all go off the rails

A trio of unrelated snippets, each one not long enough for a solo entry but still worth noting…

The Close But No Cigar award has been announced

About a month ago, I told my wife: “I’m gonna wait till after the end of the year and then pull most of our money out of the stock market. I’m worried that the market is headed for trouble.”

If only I had said “I’m not gonna wait…”

Just when you think things can’t sink any lower, Trump and Cruz find a shovel

Last night was another Republican “Presidential” debate. If you can call it that. I mean, really? In a debate by one of our two major parties, an event that could have a significant impact on the future of the entire nation, the most notable moment is several minutes of bickering between Trump and Cruz as to who is or is not constitutionally eligible to assume the office of President. I half expected Cruz to spurt out “And so’s your mama” before he was done.

It’s both sad and scary that we have sunk this low. Today’s New York Times column by Frank Bruni comes closest to my personal reaction to the debate.

I find it hard to believe that either one of these candidates believes most of the crap they spew. They say it because they know it will play well with their supporters. Its veracity is, at best, of secondary concern. These two are at the forefront of our march toward a post-truth America, where even after a candidate’s lies are clearly exposed (and I mean huge lies, not merely self-serving exaggerations), they have no negative impact on the candidate.

I wish I could take comfort in the thought that all of this will make a Democratic victory a certainty this fall. But I am no longer confident of this. A potential Trump presidency is no longer a dark fantasy.

As someone who was born in Brooklyn, and grew up just outside New York City, I suppose Cruz would say my attitudes are due to my “New York values.” If so, I’m proud of them. And of New York.

Last night’s Preparation H Irritation of the Game (basketball)

I have a love-hate relationship with television play-by-play and color commentators. On the one hand, most of what they say is redundant to what you are seeing on the screen. I mean, do we really need to hear someone say “And the basket counts”? On the other hand, with their enthusiasm, they can add an enjoyable emotional tone to the game. And, when things on the court get confusing, the announcers can help sort out what’s going on. At their best, they also provide useful background context.

What they definitely shouldn’t do is chatter endlessly about stuff that is irrelevant to the game in progress, while the viewer is left wondering why that last foul was called or whatever. It’s worse than if they were just silent. It’s distracting.

That’s why, while watching last night’s Warriors-Lakers game on TNT, the announcers drove me up a wall. They went on and on for minutes, reminiscing about Kobe’s career or interviewing Jerry West or whatever other inane thoughts were on their minds — all while the players continued up and down the court. For crying out loud, you’re there to cover the game. Do so!

It got so bad, I had to hit the Mute button for long stretches of time.

 

Posted in General | Comments Off on Presidential debates, stock markets and basketball announcers all go off the rails