Speaking Frankly

From The Keppler Files: January, 1989

Beware! SLR autofocus is just as treacherous as a built-in meter. Just point the camera at the subject, autofocus, and shoot. Exposure taken care of automatically; focus taken care of automatically.

But just as unthinkingly centering the meter needle may not produce the exposure you really want and need, focusing on the subject and shooting may not give you the picture sharpness you want.

Surprised? If the AF says the subject is sharp, isn't it? Yes, it probably is but how about the rest of your picture? How sharp should the foreground be? The background?

If you're a snapshooter, maybe front and rear sharpness don't matter at all (although posing someone in front of the Lincoln Memorial only to find the memorial quite fuzzy ought to upset even a snapshooter).

Certainly anyone calling himself a photographer ought to try to control sharpness as needed. But you can't do it by constantly autofocusing on your subject and letting an automatic program exposure mode do the rest.

From The Keppler Files: February, 1969

Yes, we are heading toward total automation. In 5 years there won't be a major SLR camera maker that won't have a fully automatic SLR with complete manual override at the very top of his camera model line. Why not? Given the choice of a manual-only camera vs. a fully-automatic and manual camera, why shouldn't you choose the additional convenience which you can turn on and off?

From The Keppler Files: May, 1967

While the main concern of any piece of equipment or sensitive material is the resulting photograph or photographs, inevitably a photographer suspicions that a friend's lens is sharper, another developer is faster, an alternative color film is truer, a black-and-white film is less grainy and so on. And if the photographer really wants with all his heart to believe that this is so, he will always come up with proof of it in negative, transparency or print form. I see plenty of "proofs" and 99 out of 100 are just as valid as a gold-covered lead brick.

Inside Straight: Digital for Duffers

Wary about diving into digital? Do it my easy way!

No, no, dammit, film is not going to disappear, so stop writing me scaredy-cat letters about how "we duffers are gonna fade away silently clutching the last rolls of Kodachrome to our breasts."

Silver-halide emulsion sales are at about 25 percent of their peak. New films are being introduced, oldies are getting tweaked. Some pros are sticking with film, others use film and digital. (One International Center of Photography Infinity Award winner recently declared at the award ceremony that he only shot film. Not one person in the photography-knowledgeable audience gasped.)

From The Keppler Files: May, 1994

You bought a 35-80mm f/4-5.6 lens, but on looking closely at our lab test measurements, it turns out to be closer to a 38-81mm f/4.3-6. We report it has a barrel distortion of over 3 percent at 35mm and pincushion distortion of more than 2 percent at 80mm.

The lab check of your camera revealed three quarters of an f-stop exposure inaccuracy at EV 14 in program exposure, but shutter speeds were right on the money throughout. And while the camera produces an image on film that measures 24x36mm, our test results show you only see 21x31mm in the viewfinder. Image magnification was measured to be only .70X.

Are you justified in returning your camera and lens for a refund, or are these findings within design of manufacturing tolerances?

Secret: All cameras and lenses are off spec to some extent, but some are off more than others.

Yes, there are tolerances. Every camera and lens maker has them for each product and specification. But these tolerances are as closely guarded as the crown jewels of England. Why? Here are a few reasons, but probably not all:

1. Some photographers might be horrified to learn that the camera and lenses don't perform just as they are marked and advertised.

2. Some owners may find the tolerances (shall we call it leeway?) far greater than they imagined.

3. A few individual camera or lens samples when tested by outsiders may indeed be beyond even camera and lens makers' specifications.

4. Some manufactureres' products might be so far off the mark that they wouldn't want consumers to know about it. (It might happen most often with cheapo point-and-shoots and off-brand SLR lenses.)