I have an image on my den wall of a rhodora bloom.

It is a flower that grows in the scrub oak barrens adjacent to my community here in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I have been told by naturalists that this is an anomaly, because it’s only supposed to exist much further north.

I shot that image with a 4 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 4500, which some of you may recall, was the final high-end iteration of the original twist body Coolpix. I have printed it at 8”x11” and larger, and love the image. It looks good to me even 7 years after it spit out of the Epson 2200 that I used in those days. And I have become very critical of images over the years.

Now I have owned a large number of compact and bridge cameras over the years. I printed and enjoyed many landscape images captured with non DSLRs in years past. Nowadays, I am somewhat unhappy with using a compact camera for this purpose, even the so-called “premium” compacts such as my Panasonic LX 5. I get many less images nowadays from small imager cameras that I would consider using, let’s say, in an exhibition, whereas in the past, I have used such cameras to confidently decorate gallery walls (and make sales).

Given some discussions I have been involved in various photographic forums, I have begun to wonder just how much better off we are , in terms of small-sensored cameras, than we were in the earlier period in the digital photography, when there were less pixels on small sensors than now.

I shot over the years with many “bridge” cameras in those days, sometimes side-by-side with DSLRs in the 6 MP range. My memory is, that whether it was a Nikon Coolpix, 900/4500 (3 and 4 megapixels respectively), my 4/5 megapixel Olympus E10/E20 or an Olympus C 5050, the files (I shot in those days mainly JPGs) were usable for landscape images, and that the images were pleasing to the eye, even printed at 11×16” or even occasionally at 13x 19”.

Now it seems to me small sensors seem lousy, not only relative to larger sensored DSLRs but even compared to older imagers with half the resolution. I can’t tell if I’ve become spoiled by the likes of my D 700, or whether packing those tiny sensors with as little as 10 MP is having a deleterious effect on certain,  intangible measures of image quality.

Obviously, this discussion should be limited to base ISO. Even a 2/3” sensor such that came with the Olympus E 20, was horrible above ISO 200. A Canon S 100, LX5 and certainly the new Fuji X10, would wipe the floor with them at higher sensitivities.

But I do wonder whether there are other advantages of bigger pixels, even big old technology pixels, have characteristics that make up for the advances that have come since.

This is a 100% crop of an image shot with my Olympus C 5050 from a kayak in 2004. It makes a nice 11’x 16’ print, like many others from that camera. And, it was shot in RAW at ISO 200, miraculous for a bridge camera of that era. My other cameras at the time included a Fuji S2 pro. I often printed and sold images from the Olympus, again limited somewhat  in size relative to the Fuji. In this image I particularly notice the lack of noise, and reasonable detail.

Here are two images: one from my 2005 vintage Fujifilm E 900 which at the time was considered a marvel at high-resolution, High ISO (800 ASA max) shooting in a compact

.

It sports the same size 1 1/6” inch sensor as the LX5 which I used to take the other image. These were shot at ISO 400 in raw format, had the same exposure settings at f4, were corrected with the same settings in ACR, and sharpened with the same unsharpen mask settings in Photoshop.

I’m not saying that there’s no difference. I think the Fuji noise is coarser, and there could be a smidgen more color noise. Detail seems about the same. Now the E 900 sensor is 9 MP and of the so-called “SuperCCD” design, so famous in the F 30/31 Fuji compacts These were the cameras that arguably started the craze toward lower resolution, higher sensitivity sensors ( I still have one). I do feel however, that given the 5 years between models, the differences are modest. I’m pretty sure that the E 900 would compete nicely with many other modern imagers.

It should also be said the ergonomics of the LX-5 are significantly better than the older camera making it much more usable. Oddly enough the E 900 may have the first compact that disappointed me with it’s image quality (maybe because the size of the megapixels).  I did get some keepers( see December 2013)

Now that having said all that, the Panasonic can render details nicely, if shot right. Here’s a 100% crop of an image I took with the LX5 recently, also at ISO 400 .

What’s my point? I ‘m not sure there is one, except perhaps that as photo gear enthusiasts, we are seduced by the power of industry marketing,  which is aided at times by enthusiast websites who are connected to photo gear suppliers. Imagers are getting better, but perhaps more slowly than we think.

If you’re going to buy a new camera or camera body, make sure it functions better for you. Test it against the gear it’s set to replace. If it’s not truly more functional, don’t be afraid to send it back. And make sure that you buy  from reputable dealers that will allow you the privilege.

Also once in a while, If you have an older camera on your shelf, pick it up and shoot it. Print an image. You might be shocked just how much you like it.

Several days ago, I received an envelope in the mail from Epson

It contained a  check from Epson for the amount of US $450, which is the precise amount of the rebate on the  Stylus Photo R 1900 that I purchased in December, thus reaffirming my faith in the integrity of multinational corporations.

I remember the comments of some of the posters on the original article that I wrote, suggesting that I would not ever receive the money. Well the check is here, and unless it bounces, I  have managed to obtain a new, and relatively high-end photo printer for about US$60.

Life is good.

Don’t worry, they’ll get me on the ink.

 

When I posted “A Rebate Tale”,  I was concerned that the topic would be:

#1 Too dull.

#2 To seemingly selfish.

I did actually post the story to be a warning so that could avoid the modestly annoying situation I find my self in.

I was unprepared for the response that this post has received.

I did post a link to several photography forums that I am known to frequent.

I  subsequently had the single day record for the largest number of visitors to the blog .

And the robust readership continues several days later.

The responses which occurred in the forums were varied. Some people ridiculed me for not being careful enough and failing to fully understand the terms of the rebate.

Others told me of their similar predicament regarding the Nikon D-7000, and the Epson rebate.

Still others mocked me, for moving from pro-level Nikon bodies to what some see is an “advanced amateur” body (I continue to believe that a “pro” camera is any camera you can make money with).

Most interestingly, there was a theme among some posters that the whole issue of product rebates should be viewed with suspicion, if not outright distrust as many rebates legitimaty applied for, are never realized by the consumer.

I had a fascinating post on the site from Helen Oster who is the “Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador”. She works for a (the biggest?) competitor to B+H Photo, where I purchased the merchandise in question. She suggested that I contact Henry Posner, who is her opposite number at B+H. What a classy thing to do.

Henry was waiting for me. He already knew who I was and understood my predicament. Apparently he has the ability to scan the web for mentions of his employer and to intervene when necessary to protect the fine reputation B+H enjoys. And he found my little blog from two mentions in text, of his store. It’s a little scary.

We had an extremely pleasant conversation. He offered to check with his camera buyer to get read on when I might see the Nikon delivered (two weeks, as it turned out). He also extended he window when I may return the printer. He explained that the rebate business has been at times a problem, as companies like Epson often use outside contractors to process their rebate applications. The quality (and motivation) of those contractors affects how many rebates are issued (my summation, not Henry’s exact words).

I also talked the person in charge of rebate issues at Epson. She told me that all that needed was the invoice from B+H with the Camera and the printer shown as purchased. She reminded me that Epson has no way to track other manufacturers serial numbers, or UPC codes anyway.

I don’t trust this. Apparently the “contractors” processing claims tend to be stringent about applications or they kick them out. I also know that having the physical UPC code cut from the box prevents multiple rebates on the same purchase. I’m not going to bite on this one.

If I do get to apply for that refund, the application will be letter-perfect, with all the requirements met. It will be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

Meanwhile, but the box is still sitting here. It’s getting a bit dusty now, but remains otherwise untouched.

Unlike me this year, it may be taking a trip back to NYC for the holidays.

 

The Box (Nikon D700, Nikkor 50mm f1.8)

 

I’m sitting in my photography office.  I’m staring at a box which contains some brand spanking new photo gear. But I can’t open it. It sits on my floor almost taunting me.

 “Open me” it seems to taunt me, lounging provocatively in front of my couch. “You know you want me”, it seems to say, its sleek, seductive, cardboard flanks emblazoned with phrases such as: “A new standard in vivid uniform glossy prints”, or “dramatically improved facial tones”.

 But, I can’t open, it no matter how tempting it seems. I have to wait. Wait until the big brown truck stops once again at my door with another package.  

It will be my brand new Nikon D7000.

 I’m in an unusual and slightly frustrating situation. I’ve been following the reviews of this new Nikon, a new mid level DSLR with excellent specs that even rival more pro level offerings from Nikon. The D7000 is smaller than other most other Nikons yet of metal construction and yet fully weather-sealed. It has 16 Mp of resolution, and surprisingly good low light capability for a high resolution DX (smaller) sized sensor. In other words, it is an ideal photographic tool for use while hiking or skiing. It so far well reviewed.

And, because of all of this, it’s very hard to obtain one.

I was going to hold out while demand died down (my usual strategy in these situations), until I became aware of a deal offered by Epson, maker of my favored line of photo printers. Turns out that who with the purchase of certain new printers along with new DSLR, Epson will rebate to the buyer, $450 dollars.

Now I have two photo printers in my studio, an Epson Stylus Photo 3800, an A2 sized (17”inch carriage)  pro level printer, and smaller, 13” carriage, Epson R 1800. The latter, is very versatile, and particularly adept at printing on gloss paper. Both printers use pigmented archival inks and suitable for printing gallery prints.

  The Epson R 1900, the replacement model for my smaller printer is one of the printers feature in the rebate. It is said to be even better, particularly suited to printing skin tones.  It sells for around $500

So buy a camera, get a excellent photo printer for fifty bucks?  I wasn’t really in desperate for a new printer, as the R1800 works well, but for the money, it’s a no brainer. I put my order in through B+H Photo in NYC a week ago. I did call them to confirm that the rebate would not be affected by the availability of the camera. They confirmed it.

In usual B+H style, a large a box arrives in my office the next day. It’s the printer of course. The Nikon is backordered, delivery date unclear.

So I print up the rebate coupon from the Epson website. The purchase deadline for the rebate is December 31, which I’ve already met. There are two other wrinkles:

One, the other deadline is thirty days from the date of the order. Not a big deal.

The other though is a problem. I need a serial number, and UPC code from the camera. The one that’s really hard to get.

Uh oh, B+H was wrong. I should have called Epson.

So now I sit with a large box in my studio. I can’t open it as it wouldn’t be as returnable (no reason to jerk the retailer around). If it gets to 28 days or so without receiving the camera, I’ll have to wrap it up and send it back (or pay $500 for a printer I don’t need).

I tell this tale not to elicit your sympathy (though I’ll take it if offered). I tell it to remind the dear reader, and fellow buyer of electronic and photo gear, to make sure you know the actual terms of rebates offered, especially when the money back offer is the difference between buy, and no buy decision.

So, for now, I wait.

  Addendum:

 Today the UPS truck delivered the extra battery for the D 7000, but still no camera itself.

 They’re obviously teasing me.