No, I'm not robbing him

No, I'm not robbing him. He just lifted his arms as part of an animated lively discussion with the fellow next to him, and I got the shot. Nice to see some people still communicate in the analog way.
This is from my last trip to Copenhagen for work, spending my spare time in the evenings street shooting. What you obviously see is that I've played around adding false film grain to the structure. I've tried to imitate the Kodak Tri-X. If you are old enough to remember that film, what do you think? Do I get anywhere close?

Communicating 21st century style

Communicating. We do it more and more over tiny little machines originally only meant to talk in over distance. Now we one-way-communicate like reading news, watching television, listening to music and radio, as well as (more or less) two-way-communicating like texting, chating, skyping, blogging, face-booking and keeping track of all our real or less real friends in the ether. Will old style intake of information like reading a book, or old style communicating like talking face to face with someone get more and more into the background, replaced by the new habits? At least in this picture it looks like it. Recently shot outside the photographic museum in Stockholm.

AN EVIL MIRRORLESS THIN PENTAX K-MOUNT CAMERA WITH A MIRROR

Some camera forums are currently full of rumors of something EVIL comming from Pentax. Speculations rage back and forth about format, mount, size etc. As far as I've been able to figure out, this comes from some sort of interview with some Pentax representative who refused to exclude the possibility of a Pentax EVIL, and another interview with someone saying that IF Pentax launched an EVIL camera it would be different from the existing. These guys could be politicians! There may be little substance to this.

Three facts that speak against it is:

-Pentax is a conservative company.

-Pentax have been more faithfull to their SLR camera mount than any other company, keeping compatibility with the K-mount since 1975 up to date.

-More so, they have kept the same registration distance since the asahiflex in 1952 over their first m42 camera in 1957 to the K-mount cameras from 1975, 45.46mm, which enables the use of all lenses since 1952 with simple adapters without optical elements.

-No other camera company have been so dedicated to the interchangeable lens SLR camera. They practically invented the modern 24x36mm film SLR by combining the best from earlier German models, and they have produced SLRs in more formats than any other company: 24x36mm, 6x7cm, 6x4.5cm, 110 film, and in digital ages APS-C and the 44x33mm of the 645D.

I think with this background it can be excluded that Pentax would abandone the K-mount entirely.

But my last argument also tell us that Pentax in the past had the courage to run several systems in parallell (and now do again with the APS-C K-mount DSLRs and the 44x33mm 645D). And Hoya may be less conservative? 

But does that imply that an EVIL from Pentax would need to use a different mount and registration distance, one of their own, or the m4/3, NX or NEX? The deep registration distance inherrited from the early German m42 cameras have so far limited the thinnest Pentax film SLRs to about 50mm (see Why my digital Pentax bodies do not fit in my winter coat pocket?), and the DSLRs with sensors, SR system, electronics and LCDs to about 70-75mm, more than twice the tickness of the thinnest current EVIL cameras. It appears that the K-mount is not compatible with a thin EVIL camera.

Or is there any way around that?

I might have a crazy idea: An EVIL mirrorles thin Pentax K-mount camera with a mirror.

Keep the 45 degree mirror but make it fixed. It doesn't have to flip up for each shot. Move the sensor to where the focus screen is located on a SLR/DSLR. Add to this a EVIL viewfinder. In my dream concept version I would skip the back LCD in favor of a camera as thin as 35-40mm, and make the viewfinder interchangeable so that one can chose between a "traditional" EVIL viewfinder and a waist-level 2.5 inch LCD with shades that can be closed over the LCD. Perhaps other viewfinders could be added, like a swivel LCD? With the EVIL viewfinder we could get down to a size of 35-40mm depths and about 85mm height. Give the camera a width comparable to a traditional SLR to make room for batery, a good grip etc. What you would have would be a modern LX. And as far as I can figure out, there would even be roomframe sensor. It will also be silent (no mirror flapp).

Now you say that the mirror will cause image degradation. But of course it will have Pentax SMC coating, so it will not degrade the image more than an additional lens element, and it will be sitting behind the shutter, so it will not be exposed to more dust than the sensor. Some possible advantages will surface from this construction besides the possibility of a K mount on a thin body. 1) Mount the mirror in a similar way as the sensor and couple it to the SR system. This will enable the camera to move both the sensor and the mirror to correct for camera motions. That may be what the in body shake reduction (SR) system will need to catch up with the lens based systems of Nikon and Canon, with the advantage that moving the mirror and the sensor will not distance the lens from the ideal optical solution, which is what happens in the Canikon constructions. 2) As far as I can figure out, being able to tilt the mirror will turn every lens you have into a tilt lens.

Now, I realize that this is a dream camera, but the main point is that one do not have to abandone the K-mount and the 45.46mm registration distance to make a slim EVIL camera. All it takes is a mirror. And it gives some interresting advantages. A more realistc and modest camera would use this consept, but with a back LCD, and APS-C sensor and a fixed EVIL viewfinder. That would also be a cool camera and a small package that would be gorgeous with the DA limited lenses. A modern MX. And I wouldn't mind if Pentax build both of them.

Perhaps I've been too optimistic here and there about the millimeters, I'm not a camera tech. But the main idea remain. Keep a mirror in the EVIL camera and you can keep the K-mount and still make the camera slimmer than any other K-mount camera. It certainly would be different.

Please note, this is not a rumor. I have no inside information from Pentax. I'm sure someone will use this to start a rumor, that is how internet works. But it is just an idea I had all by myself.

NO SPACESHIP LOOKING FOR HIM

The weather is now about the same in Stockholm, as when this was shot a year ago. I am greatfull I do not sleep outdoor this time of the year, that a warm bed awaits me at home, food and familly. I was on the streets of Stockholm for a while this past weekend, almost a tourist, and saw quite many beggars, most of them I presume without a real home. Twenty years ago when I first moved to Stockholm and roamed the streets with my cameras, I rarely saw homeless or beggars. They are of course not as common as in truly poor cities, but they are far more common here than in the past. If you ask me, the first large change came in the the mid to late 90's. Now I think it has increased again the last couple of years. Is it an effect of the current policy to let sick and unemployed people fall out of the well fare system? Open begging gets more and more common, but people have alsa learned to ignore them, and walk by. There is no space ship looking for these people if just they can send an S.O.S. to the stars.

HUNTING BUTTERFLIES

What you need to shoot butterflies? A camera, a macro lens, butterflies (obviously) and patience. There are is course rules that apply. Macro work results in thin depth of focus (DOF). Actually so small that you are going to want to close down the lens as much as possible or else you wont be able to fit a whole bug within the DOF. On the other hand, bugs move, so you can't shoot with as long exposure time as you may do with a still object, like a flower. Longer lenses results in thinner DOF, but it also change the distance you can work at. Supposedly, the same framing should result in the same DOF at a given apperture. Longer lenses makes it more difficult to hold the camera steady enough to get a sharp shot. Shake reduction has partly changed this, but the same rule applies, except that you now can shoot sharp at about two steps longer exposure time than before. But there is another rule that over-rules all these optical rules:

The relationship between the lens and the amount of patience you need. Most butterflies are shy and will leave if even your shadow touch it. The relationship is approximately 

Patience = 1 / (f x f)

where f is the focal length. So a 100mm lens requires only 1/4th of the patience you need to shoot butterflies with a 50mm lens. A 200mm lens would make do with 1/16th of the patience.

However, the really long macro lenses are rare and usually more expensive. Pentax made two 200mm macro lenses, the SMC Pentax-A*200 f4 macro 1:1 (manual focus) and the SMC Pentax-FA*200mm f4 macro 1:1 (autofocus). The "*" denotes Pentax highest grade or professional serie. These are both considered among the best long macro lenses ever made, partly because of a high ability to produce a smooth bokeh that helps isolate the subject. Unfortunately both are out of production and a high demand on the second hand market and because these lenses are rare, results in high prices. The FA*200 was supposedly only made in 1100 copies for the whole global market, and some copies are for sure living a useless life among collectors, and others have been converted for use on Canon's EOS bodies. The only current lens in this class made for Pentax are the Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro 1:1 lens, but Sigma has problems producing enough copies, and the queue to get one is long. So what to do? When I sneak around with my 35, 50, 90 and 100mm macro lenses the butterflies and dragonflies escape before I get enough of them in the viewfinder, or I end up cropping too much to maintain quality. Sitting for hours at a popular flower waiting for a butterfly to land there do work, but that is where the "patience-equation" comes in. Sometimes I have patience enough, sometimes not, and to complicate things, even if I do, my wife or kids may not (and I don't blame them).

Until now I've been playing around with converters on my 90 and 100mm macro lenses (resulting in a manual focus 180mm f5 or a 170mm ~f4.8. Optically compromises, as always with converters, even dedicated such as in the case of the Tamron Adaptall 2 SP 90mm f2.5 macro 1:2, and rather slowis/darkish. So what to do? I don't have the budget for an A* or FA* macro.

The two first images are of a small tortoiseshell ("nässelfjäril" in Swedish) feeding on an oregano flower. Like the rest of the photos of this post, they are shot with a 200mm macro of another brand, on an adaptor, a lens corresponding to the manual A*200mm. We are talking about the Canon FD 200mm f4 macro 1:1 lens. As Canon totally abandoned their FD mount when going into autofocus with the EOS mount, the prices are much lower than corresponding Pentax lenses (partly because these are still fully compatible with the Pentax digital SLRs). I'm mounting the Canon lens with help of a SCOPTIC made FD-K mount adapter that can be baught on the web very sheap. To maintain infinity focus it has an optical element that "enlarge" the picture a factor ~1.4. This makes the lens a ~280mm f5.6, and cause some optical degrading (see this thread on the Pentax forum). But the lens element is easy to remove, and while I loose infinity focus, it focus up to severall meter away, which is enough for macro work. I lose inifinty but gain speed and quality, and the lens remain a 200mm f4 lens, though it is now capable of a little bit more than 1:1 macro (the adapter and the difference in registration distance between the K mount and the FD mount act as were they small extension tubes). I've either shot on manual with flash or on Tv and the lens stopped down to f8 or f11 in  natural light.

Below follows a Cabbage butterfly (large white or in Swedish Kålfjäril) and a common brimmstone (citronfjäril in Swedish) feeding on a Silene chalcedonica. I've also got unprocessed with this lens shots of a silver-washed fritillary (silverstreckad pärlemorfjäril) and the European peacock (påfågelöga) that I may add to this post later on. More shots in my flickr and in a Pentax forum thread.

BOH!