Shit Sandwich, or Just Plain Shit?

There's very little positive to say about the deal reach today, except that it's better than default, and it's better than other possible deals.  The details floating about earlier in the day were skimpy, but awful.  The final deal seems to be better, though there are conflicting versions.  It's not over yet, however, as one or both House caucuses might reject the deal.

Given a choice between shit or a shit sandwich, I think most people would take the latter.  But it's not really something anyone would celebrate.  Similarly, default is a worse option than the deal, but the deal is still bad in the absolute.  We need more deficit spending now, not less.  The economy is very weak, and the longer it stays weak, the bigger our long-term problems will become.  We shouldn't be making big cuts to domestic discretionary programs, because they are already insufficient.  We should be making more cuts the national security budget, and moving that money over to the domestic side.   And so on.

It's crazy that we are even having this discussion.

Update 2011/08/01: Also, not a grand bargain, but no guarantees that the hostage-taking won't happen again with the 2012 and 2013 budgets. And some of the language in the spin from the White House is horrid.

Picture This and That

At some point in the not-to-distant future, I plan to buy a new (or new to me) digital camera.  This time I think I'm going to step up to a digital interchangeable lens camera (ILC).  I have owned several digicams, but I've never been all that happy with the results.  My Kodak in particular seems to make very bland JPEGs, and the mode/off dial is very frustrating.

The digital camera market has become even more confusing than it was the last time I embarked on a pre-purchase research project. Back then, "bridge cameras" were the Big New Thing.  They are still around, as are digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras, but between those are two new categories - mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras (MILC, though for obvious reasons mirrorless system cameras (MSC) seems preferable) and single-lens translucent (SLT) cameras.  Arguably, the categories could be combined into a single category called electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens (EVIL), as neither has an optical viewfinder.  Cameras in the SLT category still have a mirror, but it is fixed and only the autofocus system uses the light coming off of it.  Most passes through to the sensor, and a rear LCD screen or an electronic viewfinder is used for image composition.  Cameras in the MSC category do away with the mirror altogether, and they don't incorporate a rangefinder-style optical viewfinder to replace it.  There are a few high-end cameras made by Leica that operate like a classic rangefinder, but those have existed for a while, and aren't considered part of the new MSC category.  They're also way too expensive for me.  Digital medium format cameras all have interchangeable lenses, but they are very expensive and are used almost exclusively by professionals.  Large format cameras have always been basically a kit of parts, and again are used almost exclusively by professionals.

I haven't made a final decision yet, but right now I'm leaning towards either a new Olympus PEN E-P3 or a used DSLR of some sort, preferably a Nikon D90 if I can find one cheap enough.  I have a few Nikon/Nikkor lenses in the basement that I might be able to use with a Nikon body, but I marked that model because it has racked up the most sales in the segment.  Below are some notes I made on the state of the ILC market right now.

Key acronyms - See the text above for details.

• MSC - mirrorless system camera
• SLT - single-lens transparent
• SLR - single-lens reflex

Major manufacturers - The duopoly of Canikon/Nikanon dominates the digital ILC market.  They were also the largest film SLR manufacturers before the switch to digital began.  Sony entered the DSLR market first by essentially re-badging Konica Minolta products.  It then purchased the product line, and has increased sales significantly since then.  The items in parenthesis are the types of interchangeable lens cameras the companies make, and their 2010 ILC market shares.

• Canon (SLR) (45%)
• Nikon (SLR) (30%)
• Sony (SLR, SLT, MSC) (12%)

Minor manufacturers - These companies offer smaller product ranges in the digital ILC market.  Panasonic and Samsung make only MSCs at this point.

• Olympus (SLR, MSC) (5%)
• Panasonic (MSC) (?)
• Pentax (SLR, MSC, medium format) (?)
• Samsung (MSC) (?)

Specialty manufacturers - These companies offer digital ILCs, but for various reasons their cameras have limited appeal.

• Leica (high-end, medium-format) (?)
• Ricoh (specialty packaging) (?)
• Sigma (specialty sensor) (?)
• Hasselblad (medium format, backs) (n/a)
• Leaf (medium format backs) (n/a) 
• Mamiya (medium format) (n/a)
• Phase One (medium format backs) (n/a)
• Sinar (medium format, large format, backs) (n/a) 

Former manufacturers - A number of companies no longer make digital ILCs.

• Contax
• Kodak
• Epson
• Fuji/Fujifilm
• Konica Minolta (absorbed by Sony)

Major market segments - The MSC segment is considered to be below the DSLR segment, which is broken down into several tiers.  But increasingly there is overlap between MSCs and DLSRs

• Mirrorless
• Consumer DSLR (low-end/entry-level/beginner, mid-range, high-end/enthusiast)
• Professional DSLR (mid-size, flagship)

Body styles and image composition methods - While there is no need for MSCs to have any particular form factor, nonetheless they basically fall into two categories - pseudo-rangefinders and pseudo-SLRs.  The DSLR form-factor is still heavily defined by the mirror and eyepiece, even though there no longer is film behind the shutter.

• Rangefinder-style MSC (display - optional electronic viewfinders on some models)
• SLR-style MSC (display or electronic viewfinder)
• SLT (display or electronic viewfinder)
• Compact SLR (display or optical viewfinder - either pentaprism or pentamirror)
• Midsize SLR (display or optical viewfinder - either pentaprism or pentamirror)
• Large SLR (display or optical viewfinder - pentaprism only)

Sensor types - Most image sensors use an internal layout developed by Kodak in the 1970s, and use one of two technologies for actually detecting photons.  The latter are charge-couple device (CCD) and active pixel sensor (which are usually referred to as CMOS).  Each has advantages and disadvantages, but the most relevant one for high-end cameras is the higher speed of CMOS sensors.  There are variations in implementation of CMOS sensors between companies and over time, but the details are not all that important.  The exception to the layout pattern is the Foveon sensor used by Sigma.  It arranges the detectors into three different layers, which yields better color rendition according to the company, but at the price of lower resolution. 

• Bayer filter (CCD or CMOS)
• Foveon X3 (CMOS)

Sensor sizes - The sensor formats used in ILCs are much larger than in typical fixed-lens digital cameras, with one exception.  As time goes on, the sensor vendors have been able to increase the pixel resolution for a given size, but the sizes in ILCs have remained fixed (roughly, there are small variations) because of the relationship between the sensor size and the lens.

• 1/2.3" (8.1mm x 6.1mm, 58mm2, 6.7%) (Pentax)
• Four-Thirds (17.3mm x 13mm, 225mm2, 26%) (Panasonic, Olympus)
• APS-C (~22.2mm x ~14.8mm, 328mm2, 38%) (Canon)
• APS-C (~23.6 x ~15.6mm, 368mm2, 42%) (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Samsung)
• APS-H (28.7mm x 19mm, 519mm2, 60%) (Canon)
• Full-frame (36mm x 24mm, 864mm2, 100%) (Nikon, Canon, Sony)

Lens mount type - Each camera company has developed its own lens mount, though adapters are available that allow for some reuse across types.

• Alpha/AF (Sony/Konica Minolta)
• E (Sony)
• EF (Canon, fits on EF-S mount cameras)
• EF-S (Canon, won't fit on EF mount cameras)
• F (Nikon)
• Four-Thirds (Olympus, Panasonic)
• K (Pentax)
• Micro Four-Thirds (Olympus, Panasonic)
• NX (Samsung)
• Q (Pentax)

Lenses - just like there is no point in buying a $1000 receiver and $400 pair of speakers, there's not much point in buying a $2000 body and nothing but one basic photographic lens.  In both cases, the spending should be at least be balanced, if not tilted towards what might initially look like a less important item. Professional photographer and equipment reviewer Thom Hogan recommends a dedicated enthusiast have 5 lenses, (scroll down to July 22) with the most used one being of high quality.  I think first-time DSLR purchaser would want two zooms - a 28-85mm and a 105-200mm - unless they already know that they have specific needs such as low-light or macro.  Only after they find they are running up against the limits of their lens should they buy another. (Any focal lengths mentioned are 35mm-equivalent.)

• Extension tube -  mounts between a body and lens to decrease the focal length
• Fast - a lens with a large maximum aperture, generally considered to be f/1.4 to f/2.8 depending on the type of lens, but exotic (read: expensive) lenses can be faster
• Filter - allows only a certain portion of incoming light to pass through it; generally screws onto the end of the lens, but some lenses have a filter tray near the middle of the lens barrel
• Fisheye - a lens with a very wide field of view and exaggerated distortion
• Fixed-focus - typically used only on very low-end cameras
• Kit - a lens that comes with the camera, often a 28-85mm zoom
• Macro - a lens that allows for close-up work, with minimal magnification
• Macro filter - not a filter; mounts on the end of lens to allow close-up work
• Portrait - a slightly long-focus lens, with a focal length of 85mm to 105mm
• Prime - fixed focal-length lens
• Standard or normal - a lens that gives a field of view similar to the human eye, typically 50mm for 35mm cameras, with a range from 40mm to 55mm
• Teleconverter - mounts between a body and lens to increase the focal length
• Telephoto - a long-focus lens that enlarges distant subjects, with a focal length of 105mm or greater
• Teleside converter - mounts on the front of a lens to increase the focal length
• Tilt-shift or perspective control - specialty lens used by professionals
• Wide-angle - a lens that allows for a greater field of view, with a focal length of 35mm or less
• Zoom - a variable focal length lens

Camera controls - The two main controls on manual film SLR cameras were aperture and shutter speed.  Combined with the film speed, or sensitivity (as defined by an ISO standard), they determined if a shot could be taken, and allowed it to be manipulated.  Digital cameras have added many new twists to those controls, and offer far more automation than even the last generation of film cameras introduced in the 1990s.

• Aperture (depends on the lens)
• Bracketing (white balance, exposure, other)
• Drive (speed, count, buffer size)
• Exposure compensation
• Flash (built-in, hot-shoe, wireless, other synchronization standard)
• Flash mode (red-eye, rear-curtain, slow sync, etc.)
• Focus (autofocus method, points, modes, motor location, manual focus)
• ISO (auto, adjustable limit)
• Metering (mode, locations)
• Manual modes (full auto, program, aperture priority, shutter priority, other)
• Scene modes (action, landscape, portrait, close-up, etc.)
• Self-timer (mirror lock-up)
• Shutter (speeds, type, location)
• White balance (selectable)

Features - Over time, camera manufacturers have added many features beyond standard camera controls.  The latest craze is adding video recording capabilities that match those on video cameras.  Oddly, in my mind at least, built-in time-lapse capability is not yet universal.

• Articulated LCD
• Connectivity (USB, FireWire, WiFi, other)
• Dust reduction
• Face detection
• GPS tagging
• Image stabilization
• Noise reduction
• Remote control (wireless)
• Storage (internal, SDxx, CF, slot count)
• Time-lapse
• Touchscreen interface
• Video out (HDMI, other)
• Video recording (high-definition, framerate, stereo audio)
• Weather-resistant

Terminology - Here are a some terms that come up in reviews that don't fit elsewhere.

• AVCHD/M-JPEG/H.264/MPEG-4 - a variety of video compression standards and file formats
• Crop factor - too complicated to explain here
• Noise - spurious information that can show up in images due to sensor design issues and other factors
• JPEG - an image file format in widespread everyday use; the quality of in-camera processing from RAW varies between manufacturers somewhat
• RAW - generic term for image file formats generated by cameras; saves more information than a JPEG, but at the price of file size, and must be processed into a JPEG with software

Comparisons - One of more time-consuming things to figure out is exactly what models are comparable to each other.  I have made several mini-lists of models that are roughly equal in price and capability.  The links lead to side-by-side comparisons at one of the better known camera review sites.  The lists are not in any particular order.

• MSC, low-end RF-style - Olympus E-PL3, Olympus E-PM1, Samsung NX100, Sony NEX-C3
• MSC, high-end RF-style - Olympus E-P3, Panasonic DMC-GF3, Pentax Q, Sony NEX-5
• Beginner SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D3100, Canon 1100D/T3, Pentax K-x, Olympus E-420, Sony SLT-A35, Sony DSLR-A560, Panasonic DMC-G10, Samsung NX11
• Midrange SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D5100, Canon 600D/T3i, Olympus E-620, Sony SLT-A55, Sony DSLR-A580, Pentax K-r, Panasonic DMC-G3
• Enthusiast SLR/MSC - Nikon D7000, Nikon D90, Canon 60D, Pentax K-7, Olympus E-30, Panasonic DMC-GH2
• Professional SLR - Nikon D300s, Canon 7D, Sony DSLR-A850, Olympus E-5, Pentax K-5
• Professional SLR, full frame - Nikon D700, Canon 5D Mk. II, Sony DSLR-A900
• Professional SLR, flagship action - Nikon D3S, Canon 1D Mk.IV
• Professional SLR, flagship studio - Nikon D3X, Canon 1Ds Mk.III
• Other (for reference) - Pentax 645D, Leica M9-P, Leica S2, Sigma SD1, Sigma SD15, Ricoh GXR A12, Ricoh GR S10

And, finally, here is a list of cameras available as of July 2011.  Naturally, there is a certain amount of conflicting information on the net.  So some of the cameras in the list may no longer available from the manufacturer, and I've probably deleted a few that still are.   Retailers will sometimes have products on their shelves long after the manufacturer has discontinued them.  If you're desperate to buy a certain model as new, it still might be possible for months or even years after production has stopped.  The list is sorted by the price with a basic zoom lens (if available) and then by the body only price (buyers in the higher price ranges will select their lenses separately).  At the end are a few cameras that have been announced but don't have a "street" price yet.  That will change within a couple of months, at most.

Brand	Model	Body style	Market segment	Sensor type	Pixels (MP)	Previous model	Body price	W/ kit zoom	Ann'ced
Samsung	NX100	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	APS-C	14.6	n/a	n/a	450	09/14/10
Olympus	E-420	Compact SLR	Consumer, low-end	Four-Thirds	10.0	E-450, E-410, E-400, E-330, E-300	400	500	03/05/08
Pentax	K-x	Compact SLR	Consumer, low-end	APS-C	12.4	K-m/K2000	n/a	550	09/17/09
Nikon	D3100	Compact SLR	Consumer, low-end	APS-C	14.2	D3000, D40	530	600	08/19/10
Canon	1100D/T3	Compact SLR	Consumer, low-end	APS-C	12.2	1000D/XS	n/a	600	02/07/11
Pentax	K-r	Compact SLR	Consumer, low-end	APS-C	12.4	K-x	640	625	09/09/10
Sony	NEX-C3	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	APS-C	16.2	NEX-3	n/a	650	06/08/11
Panasonic	DMC-G3	MSC SLR-style	Mirrorless	Four-Thirds	15.8	DMC-G2, DMC-G1	600	700	05/13/11
Sony	SLT-A35	Compact SLT	Mirrorless	APS-C	16.2	SLT-A33	600	700	06/08/11
Olympus	E-620	Compact SLR	Consumer, mid-range	Four-Thirds	12.3	n/a	700	700	02/24/09
Samsung	NX11	MSC SLR-style	Mirrorless	APS-C	14.6	NX10	n/a	700	12/28/10
Sony	NEX-5	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	APS-C	14.2	n/a	n/a	700	05/11/10
Sony	DSLR-A560	Compact SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	14.2	A500	650	750	08/24/10
Panasonic	DMC-G10	MSC SLR-style	Mirrorless	Four-Thirds	12.1	DMC-G2	600	800	03/07/10
Nikon	D5100	Compact SLR	Consumer, mid-range	APS-C	16.2	D5000, D60, D40x, D50	700	800	04/05/11
Sony	SLT-A55	Compact SLT	Mirrorless	APS-C	16.2	n/a	750	850	08/24/10
Canon	600D/T3i	Compact SLR	Consumer, low-end	APS-C	18.0	550D/T2i, 500D/T1i, 450D/XSi, 400D/XTi	700	900	02/07/11
Sony	DSLR-A580	Compact SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	16.2	A550	800	900	08/24/10
Panasonic	DMC-GH2	MSC SLR-style	Mirrorless	Four-Thirds	16.1	DMC-GH1	n/a	1000	09/21/10
Nikon	D90	Midsize SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	12.3	D80, D70s, D70	850	1100	08/27/08
Pentax	K-7	Midsize SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	14.6	K-20D, K-10D	960	1200	05/18/09
Canon	60D	Midsize SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	18.0	50D, 40D, 30D, 20D, 10D, D60, D30	900	1300	08/26/10
Nikon	D7000	Midsize SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	16.2	D90	1200	1500	09/15/10
Pentax	K-5	Midsize SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	16.3	K-7	1580	1500	09/20/10
Canon	7D	Midsize SLR	Consumer, high-end	APS-C	18.0	n/a	1600	1900	09/01/09
Olympus	E-30	Midsize SLR	Consumer, mid-range	Four-Thirds	12.3	n/a	1000	n/a	11/05/09
Nikon	D300s	Midsize SLR	Professional, high-end	APS-C	12.3	D300, D200, D100	1700	n/a	07/30/09
Olympus	E-5	Large SLR	Consumer, high-end	Four-Thirds	12.3	E-3, E-1	1700	n/a	09/14/10
Sony	DSLR-A850	Midsize SLR	Professional, high-end	Full-frame	24.6	n/a	1999	n/a	08/27/09
Canon	5D Mk.II	Midsize SLR	Consumer, high-end	Full-frame	21.0	5D	2560	n/a	09/27/09
Sony	DSLR-A900	Midsize SLR	Professional, high-end	Full-frame	24.6	n/a	2699	n/a	09/09/08
Nikon	D700	Midsize SLR	Professional, high-end	Full-frame	12.1	n/a	2700	n/a	07/01/08
Nikon	D3S	Large SLR	Professional, flagship	Full-frame	12.1	D3, D2Hs, D2H, D1H	5200	n/a	10/14/09
Canon	1D Mk.IV	Large SLR	Professional, high-end	APS-H	16.1	1D Mk. III, 1D Mk. II N, 1D Mk. II	5470	n/a	10/20/09
Canon	1Ds Mk.III	Large SLR	Professional, flagship	Full-frame	21.1	1Ds Mk.II, 1Ds	7410	n/a	08/20/07
Nikon	D3X	Large SLR	Professional, flagship	Full-frame	24.5	D2Xs, D2X, D1X, D1	8000	n/a	12/01/08
Olympus	PEN E-P3	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	Four-Thirds	12.3	E-P2, E-P1	n/a	n/a	06/30/11
Olympus	PEN E-PL3	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	Four-Thirds	12.3	E-PL2, E-PL1s, E-PL1	n/a	n/a	06/30/11
Olympus	PEN E-PM1	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	Four-Thirds	12.3	n/a	n/a	n/a	06/30/11
Panasonic	DMC-GF3	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	Four-Thirds	12.1	DMC-GF2, DMC-GF1	n/a	n/a	06/13/11
Pentax	Q	MSC RF-style	Mirrorless	1/2.3"	12.4	n/a	n/a	n/a	06/23/11

Note: this is another post that I'll probably edit a lot, at least for the next week or so.

Major update 2011/08/01: Added older cameras below.

2010 comparisons - the latest models available at the end of the year.  I've fitted the available cameras into the 2011 market categories for continuity.

• MSC, low-end RF-style - Olympus E-PL1s, Samsung NX100, Sony NEX-3
• MSC, high-end RF-style - Olympus E-P2, Panasonic DMC-GF2, Sony NEX-5
• Beginner SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D3100, Canon 1000D/XS, Panasonic DMC-G10, Pentax K-x, Olympus E-450, Samsung NX10, Sony DSLR-A290, Sony DSLR-A390, Sony SLT-A33, Sony DSLR-A560
• Midrange SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D5000, Canon 550D/T2i, Olympus E-520, Olympus E-600, Olympus E-620, Panasonic DMC-G2, Pentax K-r, Sony SLT-A55, Sony DSLR-A580
• Enthusiast SLR/MSC - Nikon D7000, Nikon D90, Canon 60D, Pentax K-7, Olympus E-30, Panasonic DMC-GH2
• Professional SLR - Nikon D300s, Canon 7D, Sony DSLR-A850, Olympus E-5, Pentax K-5
• Professional SLR, full frame - Nikon D700, Canon 5D Mk. II, Sony DSLR-A900
• Professional SLR, flagship action - Nikon D3S, Canon 1D Mk. IV
• Professional SLR, flagship studio - Nikon D3X, Canon 1Ds Mk. III

2009 comparisons - the latest models available at the end of the year.  I've fitted the available cameras into the 2011 market categories for continuity.

• MSC, low-end RF-style - none
• MSC, high-end RF-style - Olympus E-P1, Panasonic DMC-GF1
• Beginner SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D3000, Canon 1000D/XS, Olympus E-450, Panasonic DMC-G10, Pentax K-m/K2000, Sony DSLR-A230, Sony DSLR-A330, Sony DSLR-A380, Sony DSLR-A500
• Midrange SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D5000, Canon 500D/T1i, Olympus E-520, Olympus E-600, Olympus E-620, Sony Sony DSLR-A550, Panasonic DMC-G1
• Enthusiast SLR/MSC - Nikon D90, Canon 50D, Pentax K-7, Olympus E-30, Panasonic DMC-GH1
• Professional SLR - Nikon D300s, Canon 7D, Sony DSLR-A850, Olympus E-3, Sony DSLR-A850
• Professional SLR, full frame - Nikon D700, Canon 5D Mk. II, Sony DSLR-A900
• Professional SLR, flagship action - Nikon D3S, Canon 1D Mk. IV
• Professional SLR, flagship studio - Nikon D3X, Canon 1Ds Mk. III

2008 comparisons - the latest models available at the end of the year.  I've fitted the available cameras into the 2011 market categories for continuity.

• MSC, low-end RF-style - none
• MSC, high-end RF-style - none
• Beginner SLR/MSC/SLT - Canon 1000D/XS, Nikon D40, Olympus E-420, Pentax K-m/K2000, Sony DSLR-A200, Sony DSLR-A300, Sony DSLR-A350
• Midrange SLR/MSC/SLT - Canon 450D/XSi, Nikon D60, Olympus E-520, Panasonic DMC-L10, Panasonic DMC-G1, Pentax K200D
• Enthusiast SLR/MSC - Canon 50D, Nikon D90, Olympus E-30, Pentax K20D (Samsung GX-20), Sony DSLR-A700
• Professional SLR - Nikon D300, Olympus E-3
• Professional SLR, full frame - Canon 5D Mk. II, Nikon D700, Sony DSLR-A900
• Professional SLR, flagship action - Canon 1D Mk. III, Nikon D3
• Professional SLR, flagship studio - Canon 1Ds Mk. III, Nikon D3X

2007 comparisons - the latest models available at the end of the year.  I've fitted the available cameras into the 2011 market categories for continuity.

• MSC, low-end RF-style - none
• MSC, high-end RF-style - none
• Beginner SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D40, Olympus E-330, Olympus E-410
• Midrange SLR/MSC/SLT - Canon 400D/XTi, Nikon D40X, Olympus E-510, Panasonic DMC-L1, Pentax K100D Super
• Enthusiast SLR/MSC - Canon 40D, Nikon D80, Pentax K10D (Samsung GX-10), Sony DSLR-A100, Sony DSLR-A700
• Professional SLR - Nikon D300, Olympus E-3
• Professional SLR, full frame - Canon 5D
• Professional SLR, flagship action - Canon 1D Mk. III, Nikon D3
• Professional SLR, flagship studio - Canon 1Ds Mk. III

2006 comparisons - the latest models available at the end of the year.  I've fitted the available cameras into the 2011 market categories for continuity.

• MSC, low-end RF-style - none
• MSC, high-end RF-style - none
• Beginner SLR/MSC/SLT - Nikon D40, Olympus E-330, Olympus E-400, Pentax K110D, Samsung GX-1L
• Midrange SLR/MSC/SLT - Canon 400D/XTi, Nikon D50, Olympus E-500, Pentax K100D, Samsung GX-1S
• Enthusiast SLR/MSC - Canon 30D, Nikon D80, Pentax K10D, Sony DSLR-A100
• Professional SLR - Nikon D200, Olympus E-1
• Professional SLR, full frame - Canon 5D
• Professional SLR, flagship action - Canon 1D Mk. IIN, Nikon D2Hs
• Professional SLR, flagship studio - Canon 1Ds Mk. II, Nikon D2Xs,

Pre-2006 comparisons - Camera bodies built before 2006 are mostly historical artifacts by now, though they can still take better (though not higher resolution) photos than most current point-and-shoot cameras because they have better lenses attached.  Pre-2006 lenses are still perfectly good, though there may be some instances where a new camera doesn't support the lens' electronic features even if the mount is compatible.

Under the Hood: June 2011 Extended Edition

Here's a few more graphs on where the auto market is right now.

Sales are up from the crisis year of 2009, but still below 2008.

This graph shows market share by brand home country (as opposed to country of manufacture).  The Japanese share fell in April and May, probably because of the effects of the tsunami on supply chains in Japan.

In this graph the decline of the Japanese brands can be seen again.  Despite the impact of the recession on the industry, the same five brands still dominate sales.

Lasting Relief

I had been planning to write a post on the end of the Space Transportation System (STS), a.k.a. the Space Shuttle once the Atlantis landed successfully.  But mistermix beat me to it, hitting all the points I was going to make.

• Thank FSM it's over.  Ever since the Challenger disaster, and even more so after the Columbia disaster, I gritted my teeth during each flight.  The STS program ended up being the most deadly manned program in history (not counting related on-the-ground accidents), killing 14 astronauts, vs. 4 during the entire course of the Soviet Union/Russian program.
• It was a Frankenstein.  I don't know the history of how the program evolved, so I don't know if the Shuttle could have been designed better.  But the additional weight of a man-rated reusable vehicle made launches of satellites and robotic missions much more expensive.  The Shuttle was approximately three times heavier than its payload capacity.
• Ease up on the jingoism.  The pride element of objecting to using a Russian rocket is silly.  They have a reliable launch vehicle and space capsule, so it makes sense to use it now that there is no requirement to launch large ISS components.
• Kill the ISS already.  The International Space Station is the most expensive thing on Earth built by humans, and is unlikely to yield scientific or technological results that will come anywhere close to justifying its immense cost.  It should be flown into the Pacific Ocean.  But because it's an international program, doing the sensible thing won't happen until at least 2020.
• Crowds are no fun.  Money is always an issue, and the extraordinary expense of the STS and ISS probably crowded out a lot of more rewarding robotic missions.  The caveat is necessary because there is no way of knowing if any of the money spent on the manned missions over the past three decades would have been spent otherwise, but I think it's likely that a good portion of it would have been.
• It ain't over 'til its over.   Space is still out there, and there are incredible things yet to discover.  The gee-wiz factor of putting men into space is gone, at least for the time being.  But robotic mission can yield fantastic results, as programs like Voyager, Hubble, and the Mars Rovers have shown.  There's no reason to equate the end of the Shuttle program with the end of space exploration.

 So what should NASA be doing in the near future?  This is how I see it:

• Minimal support of the ISS.  Because it is an international program, keeping the ISS alive is necessary for political reasons.  But the US should do no more that meet its obligations.
• Minimal development of COTS capsules.  Currently, three different unmanned supply vehicles are available to take cargo and fuel to the ISS: the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the Russian Progress vehicle.  They have completed 2, 2, and 46 trips respectively.  Since there is no immediate need, NASA should provide limited funding to American companies for developing similar capabilities, or manned capsules.
• General spaceflight research and development.  This would be NASA's slush fund for interesting but not immediately applicable technology development.  One specific goal I would recommend is to find a way to capture and de-orbit space debris.
• Aeronautics research and development.  The first "A" in NASA is usually an afterthought.  But given how important air travel and freight are, some effort should be put into research applicable to atmospheric vehicles.  The emphasis should be on fuel efficiency.
• Robotic exploration.  This should be the main focus of NASA for the next decade.  While there have been mishaps, the list of successful missions is much, much larger.  The missions can be divided into three categories
  1. Solar system exploration.  This includes missions to planets or other bodies, and Sol observation.  Dawn and SOHO are two such missions.
  2. Earth observation.  Any mission to observe the Earth not undertaken by NOAA or the military falls here.  The Aqua/Terra satellites comprise one notable program.
  3. Astronomy and physics.  The Hubble is the most famous example of this type of mission, but there are many others.  The James Webb Space Telescope is the next big one scheduled for launch, but it may be canceled due to budget cuts.
• Heavy lift development.  This is admittedly the most dubious item in the list.  As of 2011, the Atlas V HLV is the largest available launch vehicle, with a claimed capacity to LEO of 29,000kg.  In contrast, the Saturn V was able to launch 118,000kg into orbit.  The STS was able to launch as much as 109,000kg to LEO, but most of that was the Shuttle itself.  There has been talk for years about developing an unmanned launch vehicle from the STS components, and NASA appears to be on the verge of announcing they intend to do just that.  But no one has identified a need to lob anything that weighs 70,000kg or more into orbit, either right now or in the foreseeable future.  So there are reasons for putting the program on hold.  To me, there are two arguments for the program.  One is that nobody else is likely to do it.  Other space agencies and various commercial organizations have slowly raised the capacity of their systems over the years.  But a much bigger rocket would have to be designed from scratch, and I think it's unlikely that anyone but the Chinese government would be willing to make such a huge and largely speculative investment.  The other is that most of the components are already available in the US from the existing Shuttle infrastructure.  They would have to be re-integrated after a new fairing system is designed, and then tested.  But if NASA plans and executes wisely, it should be able to have the new system ready in less than a decade and for a reasonable-ish cost (leaving aside the issue that it is pointless right now).

No discussion about NASA is really complete without noting that it still receives indirect support from the Department of Defense.  The two programs are largely separate, but they often use the same contractors and the same launch vehicles, which reduces NASA's costs over being the sole customer government customer.  Occasionally there is some direct cooperation, though its nothing like what took place in the 1960s.  In addition, NOAA is in charge of a satellite fleet, but they are purchased, not built in-house, and are launched on commercial rockets.

Et vos, Italia?

People have been talking about Italy's problems for years, but about two weeks ago they suddenly burst into the news for some reason - due to either a coordinated attack by speculators or squabbling within the governing coalition.  And the by now predictable response: an austerity package, passed on Friday.  Early in the week an important part of the bond mafia indicated that the markets would be reassured by such budget-cutting moves.  But that wasn't the case in Ireland or Greece, so such declarations seem premature.

As in Greece, and Ireland, and the other countries in trouble, there are real problems in Italy.  The net national debt is currently over 110% of GDP.  The current Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, manages to combine all the negative aspects of Rupert Murdoch, George Bush, and Anthony Weiner in one human body.  The country is easily the most corrupt major EU country; only Greece ranks lower out of the 27 countries in the union.

Of course, that's not the whole story.  While the Italy has a high level of debt, it has been able to sustain it for over a decade now.  Because the country has had a relatively high savings rate, the debt is mostly internally financed and its net foreign investment position is nearly neutral.  Despite pervasive corruption and a political culture that is a complete mess, it has still managed to raise its citizens' (adjusted) per capita income to over 30,000 dollars, and it is a top 25 country in the Human Development Index.

I would say that like America, Italy's problems are mostly politi-cultural.  But that doesn't mean that market forces can't force a crisis.  Italy is a relatively populous country, and its bond float isn't trivial.  But it doesn't necessarily take that much money to move markets.   So the "crisis" is likely to continue as long as bond traders are able to exploit the market for personal gain at the expense of taxpayers.

Update 2011.07.22: Calculated Risk reproduces a Bloomberg chart that illustrates the futility of bailout packages (which included austerity measures) in other countries.

Update 2011.08.06: The Economist said it better.  And it turns out that Italy has the third largest sovereign bond market (or sub-sovereign, because Italy doesn't issue its own currency).  However, the amount that is likely to be traded could be much smaller.

Under the Hood: June 2011 Edition

It's been a while since I've looked at auto sales.  As should be expected for a number of reasons - a weak economy, the end of housing-bubble induced wealth effect, and perhaps even a slight trend away from driving - sales haven't recovered to their pre-recession levels.  The spike caused by the Cash for Clunkers program is pretty obvious.  But the falloff in the first months after the program ended was less than I expected.

The data for registration lags by over a year, so it's too soon to tell if the downtick in registered vehicles is actually a trend.  But this article from a few months ago suggests that the number of cars on the road has continued to decline.

Fleet Street Cheatsheet

Most Americans probably don't realize that the newspaper ecosystem in the United Kingdom is quite a bit different than in the US.  Except for the specialist-oriented Wall Street Journal and the McPaper, US newspapers are tied to a city or metropolitan region.  In much smaller England, the national newspapers (which are all based in London) dominate.  These are divided into three separate groups according to their perceived level of journalistic standards: quality, mid-market, and tabloid.  Something else for Americans to note is an odd tradition (to this American) of having a mostly separate staff for the Sunday edition of the papers, most of which also have different names.  In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, most of the English national papers run regional versions, and there are also a few regionally significant papers.  Here's a rundown of the national titles ordered by circulation as of March 2011 (or Sunday circulation where appropriate).

Daily Title	Sunday Title	Format	Market segment	2010 election endorsement	Circulation daily / Sun.	Owner	Notes
The Sun	n/a	tabloid	tabloid	Conservative	2,817,857 / n/a	News Corp.	Murdoch; soon to launch a Sunday edition
n/a	News of the World	tabloid	tabloid	Conservative	n/a / 2,664,363	News Corp.	Murdoch; defunct as of July 9
Daily Mail	The Mail on Sunday	tabloid	mid-market	Conservative	2,039,731 / 1,888,040	Daily Mail and General Trust, PLC
Daily Mirror	Sunday Mirror	tabloid	tabloid	Labour	1,155,896 / 1,063,096	Trinity Mirror
Daily Star	Daily Star Sunday	tabloid	tabloid	Conservative	699,216 / 293,489	Northern & Shell
The Daily Telegraph	The Sunday Telegraph	broadsheet	quality	Conservative	626,416 / 481,941	Barclay brothers
Daily Express	Sunday Express	tabloid	mid-market	Conservative	620,616 / 533,192	Northern & Shell
n/a	The People	tabloid	tabloid	none	n/a / 477,185	Trinity Mirror
The Times	The Sunday Times	tabloid / broadsheet	quality	Conservative	446,109 / 1,031,727	News Corp.	Murdoch
Financial Times	n/a	broadsheet	quality	Conservative	381,658 / n/a	Pearson, PLC	Financial focus
The Guardian	The Observer	mid-size	quality	Liberal Democrats	261,934 / 296,023	Scott Trust	Not-for-profit
The Independent	Independent on Sunday	tabloid	quality	anti-Tory	181,934 / 153,183	Alexander Lebedev
“i”	n/a	tabloid	mid-market	anti-Tory	171,415 / n/a	Alexander Lebedev	downsized version of the Indy
Morning Star	n/a	tabloid	mid-market	none (tactical for Labour)	15,000 (?) / n/a	People's Press Printing Society	Voice of the Communist Party of Britain

Note 2011.07.15: A lot of people consider the now-defunct News of the World as the Sunday edition of The Sun. I've kept NotW separate because it is being wound up (or down), and the staff let go instead of being moved to The Sun.

Update 2011.07.15: Added the Morning Star, which is national but very small.