Field testing the Leica M9

 The first Leica I used professionally was the M2.  I still have it along with its original lenses, all of which I continue to use. Shooting with a Leica camera is an exhilarating, tactile experience akin to driving a fine-tuned, pedigreed sports car with a manual gearbox.  You really have to know how to handle your vehicle in order to coax the maximum performance from it.  
  
My favorite M Leica was the M4.  I have a black lacquer model with a Leica modification to the viewfinder so that it has six frame lines of 28/35/50/75/90/135 -- the same frame lines that have appeared in every Leica from the M6 to the M9.  It's black lacquer finish is brassing slightly, but otherwise it bears a striking resemblance to the new M9.

For those of us who have used Leica M film cameras for years, the advent of a full frame digital M body has been eagerly awaited.  The M9 will not disappoint.  When combined with the legendary sharpness of Leitz lenses, it may just be the highest quality digital camera ever produced. 

 Leica M9 with the first Leica, a Leica I behind it

Why Leica?

Many of my friends who shoot commercial stock have wondered why anyone would want a manual focus rangefinder camera in the easy-to-use DSLR era. I have to admit I gave this some thought myself.  I have been using the Nikon D3s, D3x cameras with their super-fast and sharp auto-focus zoom lenses ranging from 14mm to 400mm.  This is a convenient system that is hard to beat, particularly when shooting fast moving subjects.  But as stock photographers we do not all shoot the same subject matter.  Stock photo subject categories are myriad: lifestyle, travel, scenic, still life, architecture, animals, sports, etc.  Each of these areas requires its own optimal camera equipment requirements.  I produce stock in all these areas and more, and I try to optimize my output by using the most suitable equipment for each specific task.  

28mm Summicron, right into the sun -- a tough shot for any camera

The question becomes: What are the stock situations where this camera excels?  My first surprise was the manual focus.  I expected this to slow me down quite a bit and result in many soft images.  Instead the split-image rangefinder made it easy to pinpoint an exact focus.  I’ve become used to DSLR cameras with their tiny box-like focus spots.  But these are not always accurately placed, particularly on a model’s backlit face where you want the eye to be in perfect focus.  The split-image focus of the M9 allows you to choose an exact placement of the focus spot.  Couple that to the incredible sharpness of Leitz lenses aspheric lenses and the result is a super-sharp image.

 Panorama created in CS5 with two 35mm images from the M9

When I first took a RAW image for the M9 up to 100% on my 30” monitor I was blown away by its incredible sharpness and detail.  Frankly, I had never seen any camera as sharp as this.  A lot has to do with the Leitz lenses, of course.  Take a look at the hi res image of New York city at sunset.  I have shot this scene many times, but never have I seen anything this sharp.  In the original file I can clearly see the details inside office building windows.

click here to view a full resolution version of this image

The sensor in the M9 is a full frame (24x36) Kodak CCD with 18.5MP.  Kodak has been making digital sensors for quite some time.  They are of very high quality. 

Producing a full-frame sensor for a Leica is particularly problematic because Leica lenses work much closer to the film plane than do SLR lenses which have a mirror to distance them. This sensor solves the lens proximity problem of non-DSLR lenses by incorporating a microlens technology on the sensor itself.  ISO sensitivity range has been improved from the M8 and is rated at 80-2500 with 160 as the base. 

Lenses

A big question I had  for the M9 was how wide angle lenses would perform in the corners of the frame.  Super wide angle lenses have been the Achilles heel of full-frame digital sensors.  Most of the wide angle lenses I tried did produce some soft corners at wide open apertures.  This disappeared, however, when the lenses were stopped down to f/5.6 or more.  Nonetheless, this is an area Leitz will need to address in future lens designs.  It is especially important for Leica because photographers are attracted to the faster f/1.4 and f/2 speed of the Summilux and Summicrons and like to use these lenses wide open.

One of the thing I like about Leitz lenses is their ability to shoot straight into the sun and produce a dramatic star effect .  - 50mm Summicron

New lenses for the Leica are digitally coded so the camera knows what lens it has and can make some in-camera corrections.  The M9 will retro fit almost all older Leica lenses made since 1954.  You can send them to Leitz to have the coding added.  Coding supplies the image processor with lens information so it can make specific corrections for vignetting and other aberrations.  It also passes the lens information along to the EXIF data in the digital image file. 

 Dublin at dusk - 28mm with the Leica M9

All Leitz lenses I tested on the M9 showed a remarkable lack of vignetting and rectilinear lens distortions. The images were clear and bright with exceptionally high resolution.  Take a look at the samples I am showing here.  Many were shot directly into the sun, and yet there is plenty of detail and contrast in the foreground subjects. 

Menu

The menu system on the M9 is simple – thank goodness. There is one menu page with everything listed out. In addition, there is an ISO button for quick changes.  Under this is an Info button that calls up an on screen display of important information.  Battery condition and SD card capacity are shown graphically in large bar graphs, while image count, shutter speed, and lens are listed below – simple, quick, and to the point.  

New Orleans, 90mm lens

With the multi-menu professional DSLR cameras I have to carry around a manual the size of a phone book just to keep track of the menus.  With the Leica it’s all intuitive.

ISO

Nominally the M9 has a top ISO of 2500.  I would recommend not going over 1250.  Keep in mind this review is for commercial stock shooters whose images must be of very high quality at a 50MB size.  Editorial shooters do not have the same restrictions. 

Of course using fast aperture Leitz lenses has an advantage over most DSLR zoom lenses that top out at f/2.8.  Using a f/1.4 or f/2 aperture has the same result as doubling or quadrupling the ISO.  Even better, it provides the extra sensitivity without the extra noise.  Using a DSLR at 6400 ISO while at f/2.8 would be the equivalent of using a 1600 ISO on the M9 at f/1.4.

Viewfinder accuracy

135mm f/3.4 APO Telyt, ISO 1000 - download hi res here

Camera lenses actually change their effective focal length as they are focused from infinity to close-up.  As a result, rangefinder viewfinders can only be accurate for a specific distance.  The M9 has its viewfinders frames set for a 1 meter distance.  This means that at 1 meter you will have an accurate representation of what the lens will take.  At infinity, however, the lens will include more than what you see in the viewfinder.  A 90mm lenses focused at infinity is actually taking a photo that is closer to what you would see with an 85mm finder than with the 90mm frame.  I’ve been using an old Leica 85mm viewfinder for the Summarex lens and it is a very accurate representation of what my 90mm Elmarit sees when it is focused at infinity.

Strongly back lit subject in natural daylight, shot with a 90mm Elmarit

It would be nice if Leica would make a variable focal length “Infinity Viewfinder” for those of us who like to compose tightly.  Such a finder would not even need parallax correction since it would only be needed for framing at infinity.  This would be especially helpful to travel photographers who shoot at infinity quite a bit.

Portability

My most compact travel outfit, the M9 with a Tri-Elmar 35-50-38mm lens and 90mm.

The Leica M9 is the world’s smallest full-frame camera.  It weighs in at 19.8 ounces (585 grams) with its battery.  By comparison a Nikon D3s weighs 44 oz (1240 grams) and a Canon 1Ds is 42.7 oz (1210 grams).  While a Canon 5D of Nikon D700 are lighter at 28.6 (810g) and 35.09 oz (995g), respectively, they still have to use much heavier lenses. My entire Leica M9 with a full assortment of lenses weighs less than the most popular Nikon or Canon zooms alone.  

 The dynamic range of the M9 is extensive.  Download the hi res sample to see
how it holds detail from the deepest shadows to the bright highlights.

Admittedly, this feature becomes more important to me as I get older.  I do find that I am more inclined to carry the M9 around when I would have left my bulky DSLR at home  The result has been that I have been picking up a lot of extra stock shots I would have otherwise missed.
I have two M9 “kits” that I use.  For ultra-portability I carry the M9 with a Tri-Elmar 35-50-28mm, and an Elmarit 90mm.  I don’t usually need a camera bag for this because I stick a lens or two along with a polarizer in my vest.

When I am seriously covering a travel location I have either a 21mm or 24mm lens along with a 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm.  The discontinued Tri-Elmar is nice for convenience but it does not approach the quality of the Leica primes.  

Another plus to carrying a Leica M9 system is its unobtrusiveness.  It is small and quiet --- very quiet.  You can travel unnoticed.

Controls

Leica cameras are designed to be used instinctively.  You do not have to look at the controls. This is especially true if you have grown up in the Leica tradition, as I have.  You can feel the clicks in changing shutter speed and lens stops, all in half-stop increments.

Conclusion

2008-2010 may represent the time when professional digital cameras hit their stride.  It has taken about ten years to get here – many trial-and-errors, many false starts – but I have a feeling that we can safely say we have “lift off” on a new era of professional digital photography. 
The Leica M9 is a pinnacle of achievement making the transition from analog to digital complete.

In the words of the great Winston Churchill,  "Now is not the end.  It is not even the beginning of the end.  But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

For me, it’s nice to see Leica leading the way, as it has done since the very beginning of 35mm photography.

Nikon Professional DSLR camera system: D3x, D3s, D700, D300s – a personal review

Let me start by saying what this review is not: It is not a blow-by-blow description of camera specifications, or a limited field test. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can find that kind of information. Instead, this review is written from the perspective of someone who uses these cameras daily in a professional work environment shooting almost exclusively traditional stock images.

That said, you will want to know what criteria I require from a camera. I am a professional photographer who shoots mainly (99%) commercial stock images. My subjects are varied: lifestyle with models, scenics, still-life, travel, animals, sports – in other words, the gamut. My final images must be 50mb in size, in Adobe 1998 color space, with no artifacting or noise in the image. Needless to say, the images must also be sharp at 100% all the way into the corners. So when I review a piece of camera equipment, I am looking for these requirements. If I were not so demanding, my editors would reject my images -- something that is not very good for my bottom line.

When the Nikon D3 first came out I thought it was the greatest camera ever made -- and it was, until the Nikon D3s came out. First off, I applaud Nikon for waiting to bring out a full-frame camera until they had the lenses to support it. Full frame 35mm digital sensors put a greater demand on the optical system, particularly the wider angle focal lengths. Long lenses are not nearly so problematic. It’s easier to compute these, but the short zooms were so awful that on my earliest Canon 1Ds system, for instance, I abstained from shooting them until Canon finally replaced them with newly formulated short zooms. Nikon, on the other hand, introduced new 24-70mm and 14-24mm zoom lenses at the same time as the advent of the FX D3. These lenses are so superb with corner sharpness that they surpasses even prime lenses. Recently, Nikon has reformulated its 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom to improve corner sharpness that was apparent in the earlier model.

Another surprising innovation from Nikon was its adoption of a lower megapixel rating for its sensor. This flew in the face of the high megapixel trend. The D3 (and D3s) have 12.3mp sensors. This enabled the camera to work incredibly fast at 9 frames-per-second, and to shoot at very high ISO settings. And guess what? Once the image was interpolated up to 50mb, as it must be for commercial stock, it still surpassed the output from all other DSLRs on the market. This was coupled with a high buffer rate of 40 RAW images on a D3s (same with a $500 buffer upgrade on a D3). For the first time since digital photography began a digital camera not only met but finally surpassed what was possible from the top 35mm SLR film cameras. With film we had to stop to change rolls after 36 exposures. Now we could shoot 40 frames at 9fps, wait a few seconds, and do it again.

Why do we need this speed? The answer is obvious when shooting sports and animals in the wild. Surprisingly however, well done lifestyle photography often requires the same speed, especially if you want to take photos of people in motion. If you have ever attended one of my lectures, you have heard me say that an image where the model is in motion will outsell an image where the model is static. Lifestyle photography is at its best when the subject is animated. This is not to say that we need the subject jumping and running. A model laughing in reaction to another model is enough to create motion, particularly if the model is continually moving during the scene. This sort of spontaneity is very difficult to capture consistently. The Nikon D3s makes this job a breeze, and the rapid focusing Nikkor lenses keep every shot in focus.

In addition to the motor speed, the D3s has a very easy to use focusing grid in the viewfinder. The grid of 51 focus spots is widely spaced over the entire viewing area and is readily selected with a simple to use thumb wheel to the right of the rear screen. Nikon has standardized this system on all of its professional cameras making it easy to switch from one body type to another.

When we couple the D3s with the fastest focusing professional lenses on the market, we have a system that has reached a pinnacle of capture speed for digital cameras. I can also tell you that the focusing accuracy of this camera-lens combo almost always results in 9 fully-focused images per second. I don’t know of any other full frame camera that can do this.

When Nikon lowered the mega pixel rating to 12.3 means it meant that each pixel area was larger than, say, a 24mp rated sensor of the same size. That results in more captured information per pixel, which in turn results in less noise. This is the only camera I know that can be used at ISO 6400 and still produce an acceptable 50mb, 300dpi image. I’m not saying that you won’t need to run some noise reduction software to massage the photo. You will, but you won’t require a lot of tweaking. A routine run through Neat Image should do the trick. I have actually used the D3s as high as 10,000 ISO with complete success – and this is from someone who used to preach on the merits of Kodachrome 25. That said, I prefer to keep the ISO level to below 3200 on the D3s if possible.

The D3s has a completely different sensor than the D3. I am finding the new sensor to be a big improvement. In addition to the benefit of extended ISO range, the color palette is much more accurate and pleasing. I always shoot a gray card for every scene so I have a starting reference point for color correction. I rarely need to apply it with the D3s.

The Nikon D3s is a rugged camera, as are all the professional grade Nikons (D300s, D700, D3x). I have no compunction about taking them out in the freezing snow, in soaked environments, or excessively hot desert sands. In fact, I have done all of those things and more. These cameras can take a beating.

The original D3 sounds like a machine gun going off when you hold the shutter down. Nikon managed to dampen the sound considerably in the D3s so it is much quieter. I never minded the sound of the D3. If fact there is something perversely romantic about it. I recall a shoot I did out west of cowboys galloping over a hill top. While the frequent cry from other photographers yelling, “I buffed out”, was heard after only a few seconds of shooting, the staccato sound of my D3 shutter carried on until the cowboys finished their run.

A professional photographer never travels without a backup camera body. The high price of the top DSLR models adds a steep economic curve to this procedure. Thankfully, Nikon introduced the D700. This camera has the same sensor and image results as the D3 but without the speed and buffer. Adding the relatively inexpensive extra battery pack to the bottom of a D700 increases it to 8fps – fast enough to make it a good backup camera when speed is required. Without the battery pack the D700 is a much smaller camera than the D3 making it a nice choice for walk-around travel where you don’t need the speed or buffer. Hopefully, Nikon will introduce a D700s soon to complement the D3s. The one annoying thing I find for the D700 is that it does not have a 100% viewfinder.

The Nikon D3x is a whole other animal. After shooting with the 24.5MP D3x for awhile the results were so impressive that I sold off my medium format digital system and replaced it with this. My chief use for this camera is shooting scenics and still life.

Something you should know about this camera is that while it is rated at 5fps, this speed is only approachable if you have the camera in 12-bit mode. Nikon professional cameras can switch between 12 and 14 bit mode. Naturally, 14 bit mode contains far more information and will slow down the camera processing time. In most cases with the D3x this is not a problem because I only use it for scenic and still life shooting where speed is not a factor. If you do require the speed, however, be aware that this camera slows to a crawl in 14-bit mode.

Most of the time I use Nikon cameras in 12-bit mode. My decision for selecting one mode over the other depends upon the exposure range of the scene I am photographing. In a controlled studio or location environment where I am supplying the lighting, I use 12 bit. There is no reason to collect extended exposure data where none exists. Photographing a scenic environment on a bright day with deep shadows and extremely bright highlights is another matter. Here I switch to 14-bit processing. When the scene is very extreme I also process the image in Nikon’s Capture NX2 software. This takes full advantage of the Active-D lighting of these cameras.

Active-D lighting adds a dynamic range to the scene that is lot like HDR processing an image, but Nikon has the advantage of being able to do it in camera with one shot. I menu-set my Nikons with Active-D on “auto”. This gives me the option of applying it later with Nikon Capture NX2 software and selecting whatever range I find appropriate.

The D3x has a native ISO of 100 compared to a native ISO 200 for the D3s. While the D3x is rated to a high ISO of 1600, I never push it that far. In fact 99% of the time I use it at ISO100. I acquired this camera to exclusively shoot highly detailed images, similar in result to a medium format digital system. If I’m going to be pushing the limits of available light, I reach for the D3s.

Some photographers have wondered why I added a Nikon D300 (now D300s) to my overall system. After all, it is a DX camera with a smaller sensor. Why would I use it when I could have the D3s instead?

The reason is simple: I use it because of its frame factor. The D300s is a 12.3MP camera with the same sensor as a D3. HOWEVER, both cameras produce exactly the same RAW image size. That is the key. A D300s has a magnification factor of 1.5x. For example, a 400mm lens used on a D300s is equivalent in focal length to a 600mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. I find this very handy when doing animal photography. The D300s is better than carrying along a tele-extender. It serves to dramatically increase my focal length without sacrificing the image sharpness or aperture of the lens. Physically it has the same body type as the D700.

The D300s takes the same extra battery pack as the D700 that boosts the motor speed from 7fps to 8fps – more than enough to capture fast-moving, telephoto action.

I don’t push the ISO limits of a D300s, rarely using it over 400ISO. It already begins life with a smaller frame size. That doesn’t provide as much wiggle room as the image from a full frame sensor.

The D300s has a 12.3MP sensor, and the D3s, and D700 have 12.1 MP sensors all resulting in about a 35MB image size. As mentioned above, I require a final 50MB image for professional commercial stock. That requires interpolating the image up from its original size. I bring most of my RAW images in through Photoshop Bridge (except as noted above when I use Nikon Capture NX2) where there is an option to save the image at plus one or plus two size. After trying many software solutions for image interpolation, I have found that Adobe Bridge produces the best results. Plus one brings the image in as if it were a 17.4MP size, which is almost a perfect 50MB tif file. When I compared these images to those of 35mm digital cameras that actually produce that size, I detected no difference at all. The only camera I found that produces a superior image is the 24.5MP Nikon D3x, and for stock uses that image has to be interpolated down to 50MB.

The bottom line here is that Nikon has produced a professional camera system where each body works as a complement to the others in the series. Because of the extreme variety of my subject matter I use all four cameras – each for a different purpose. Nikon might have been a little late to the party with a full frame sensor, but it instantly became queen of the ball with its impressive, integrated lineup.

50 x $200 = 200 x $50

This rather obvious formula is indicative of the reason behind the plight facing contributors to stock photo industry today as it transitions from a high-priced print usage system to a high-volume digital system of economics. Stated simply, it means that a stock photographer today needs to adapt image output to mass marketing at lower prices – something easier said than done. A stock shooter makes the same amount of return from making 50 sales at $200 apiece as making 200 sales at $50 apiece. This begs the question: Is this equation in marketing transition actually occurring?

Although the transition to digital marketing began over ten years ago in the stock industry, it is only recently that its full impact has produced a turmoil of new pricing models. While we have been focused on obvious culprits, such as the proliferation of image glut bought on by easier entry to the market for first timers due to the simplicity of digital cameras along with the appearance of cheap marketing through microstock agencies, the real culprit is the switch in image usage from print to digital output.

Newspapers and magazines are dying at a rapid rate, and along with them the high image pricing that was commensurate with this medium. While we would expect the image usage in outlet to make its appearance someplace else in the digital media, the full transfer has not taken place and therein rests the conundrum. It means that the income the photographer is losing in print, is not fully being made up through current internet sources. The internet, as a commercial media outlet, has not evolved to a point where its revenue stream is fully developed. It is important for a stock photographer today to realize that this is occurring and to begin taking tactical steps to make a smooth transition.

Bucking the inevitable trend indicated by the formula above by seeking only large individual image sales will only result in frustration through failure for stock shooters. The trend is inevitable. Photographers will have to adapt or die. Already Getty, the largest stock agency in the world, is adapting to the re-pricing structure by tiering its prices and including a full range of lower price ranges. The problem is that the market for the lower priced imagery has not fully matured to where its volume is profitable enough to completely supplant the former print market so we are left hanging onto an archaic business model that is rapidly moving to oblivion.

A positive result of the transfer to internet usage of images is the mammoth global market it opens up. This is much larger than the reach of the former print outlet. The question is when will this new market reach critical mass so that it not only replaces but ultimately supplants image usage in print. Another positive aspect is that spreading marketing over a larger customer base results in a more stable income stream. This is because it is easier to absorb a few sales dropouts from 200 potential sales than from 50.

The stock photographer today needs to adapt to the shift that is taking place. The new marketing form requires a new business model. There are several possible steps to take. One is to diversify the stock subject range covered particularly into more specialized areas where you have an edge over other photographers. I know of one photographer who derives considerable income from photographs of butterflies because it is a subject he knows well and excels at producing superb images. The market for butterfly images might not have been extensive during the print era, but the internet era opens up far more potential outlets for this material.

Another way to adapt is to find ways of widening the exposure for your stock images. The past few years has seen the advent of a new type of agency model called “stock networks”. These are aggregators of images. They serve as a conduit for stock photographers into the widest possible global network for stock sales. Companies like Tetra Images, and Blend Images submit images to a vast stock agency network throughout the world. It would be virtually impossible for the individual shooter to attain this range of exposure. The stock networks add value to the images by having them pre-edited, pre-keyworded, and run through quality control so they are market-ready when they are released into the agency network. This is a huge saving for the agencies and results in higher return rates to the stock networks. These higher rates are passed along to the contributors in the form of higher royalty rates.

Stock photographers also need to explore image uses that did not exist before or were not previously lucrative. Print sales is one such outlet. This is an emerging market as cultural acceptance of photography as a decorator art form expands. When you go to a hotel today you are more likely to see photographs appearing on the walls than in prior times. Photography usage is also proliferating on things we use in daily life – mugs, tee-shirts, calendars, cell-phones, wall paper, etc.

The successful stock photographer of the future will bear little resemblance to a stock shooter of ten years ago. It is time to re-examine the stock business model and, without prejudice of relying on archaic marketing concepts, to understand and align ourselves with the new, emerging market. To be sure, this will be a bumpy road until dedicated highways are paved into it. Waiting it out will not ease the process. Seeking the means to adapt now will serve to make the transition smoother as the shift inevitably occurs.

Help is on the way for micro submissions

A major problem with Micro stock submissions is that they are very labor intensive -- particularly if you are making submissions across 5-10 agencies, all with different needs and criteria. Recently, I tried running a submission of a hundred plus images through the beta version of a new micro facilitator company called, LookStat (www.lookstat.com). Once I signed up, I was able to upload my jpgs, model releases, and a list of the micro agencies where I have accounts to their ftp site, and they took care of the rest. They performed all the keywording and uploading of images. And if there were any problems with the submission, they took care of those, too.

Sure there is a fee involved, but when I factor in the savings of time and aggravation and apply that time to producing even more pictures, I probably come out ahead of the game. Plus, the guys at LookStat know their stuff, which makes things even smoother for having images accepted.

There is a free analytic dashboard service on their web site that provides you with personal sales data for your micro sales in select agencies. Currently it is set up with iStock and Dreamstime, but other agencies are planned to be added in time.

Service provider companies, like LookStat, are an indicator of the growing micro outlet. Any one submitting to micro stock on a regular, professional basis will need to add either in-house staff to handle the increased load of work, or find a service like LookStat to do it for them.

For me, the service is money well spent.

Don't Blame Micro

Microstock is often blamed as the cause of the lower prices and high levels of competition that have crept into the stock photo industry this decade. I happen to believe that microstock is not the cause of the turbulence, but merely one of the results of a process that began awhile ago. The seeds of change go back over ten years, before there was a microstock. What we are witnessing today – including the emergence of microstock -- is a series of aftershocks from the massive, catastrophic change of events that took place ten years ago.

At that time the stock universe as many of us old timers knew it imploded into a black hole, which then exploded to create a new universe of the stock internet. The dispersed matter from the planets that had been big agencies (Image Bank, Stock Market, Photodisc, etc. ) in their own right now formed together into new planets called Getty, Corbis, and, a few years later, Jupiter.

Today microstock is at the forefront of every traditional shooters mind. But it is not, per se, the cause of the current decline in the traditional stock market. Microstock is merely one of the results of the egalitarian use of images brought on by the pervasiveness of the internet in the global design community, and one of the aftershocks of the internet. Computers became easy to use. Digital cameras, which themselves can be construed as nothing more than image computers, made it easy for anyone to take a correctly exposed photo suitable for at least low level design -- and there is currently a lot of low level design out there, also due to the prevalence of the internet.

The point I’m trying to make is that what stock photographers are experiencing right now is not something that just happened yesterday. It happened over a decade ago ,and a decade ago – not now -- was the time to begin implementing and sticking to a plan dealing with the new universe of stock photography. Why is this important? Because change is disruptive, and constant change is even more disruptive. Devising a master plan and sticking to it is more conducive to success. Ever see someone constantly changing highway lanes in bumper to bumper traffic? They get nowhere faster, but they do increase their anxiety level. It’s the same thing here.

I’m not saying that a stock photographer shouldn’t make course corrections along the way. These will always be necessary as the new universe continues to cool down and coalesce – to refer back to my initial metaphor. But we should never lose sight of the initial plan. Constant, violent changes in reaction to every dip and dive of the stock photo market will make you crazy and probably render you impotent for producing and selling real money making content on a steady basis. When I lecture, I always warn new stock shooters that the biggest pitfall they face is being lost in the fun house. There are just too many options constantly popping up in stock photography leading to complete paralysis on the one hand, and over-reaction on the other. Steady as she goes is the name of the game.

This begs the question: How do we measure the success of our strategies in these turbulent times? RPI is the obvious answer, but here, too, we can be fooled by a number. In today’s universe it is less important to have a high RPI, than it is to have a steady RPI number. When your number is steady, you can perform sound business planning. When it is high but fluctuating wildly, you can’t. This is one of the reasons I like the RF distribution agencies like Tetra, and Blend. They are aimed at producing a steady RPI through a wide, global distribution of images. In the recent financial crisis I noticed that in the beginning the U.S. was suffering the most from the downturn while income shifted more from the European side. As the U.S. results began to improve, Europe went down. This helps smooth out the curve of my returns.

This gets me back to microstock and what we should do about it right now. The RPI from a quality image placed with all of these agencies averages around $5-8 per month. This has held fairly steady over the two and a half year period I have been examining the market. I should add that the micro photographers who have been involved from the get-go are reporting to me that the image life in micro diminishes rapidly – far, far faster than it does in traditional stock, from what I can see.

Since this RPI is higher than a photographer can expect from other stock agencies except for Getty , Tetra, and Blend, and perhaps other distributor agencies, you might wonder why I don’t jump in whole hog producing for micro. The answer to that is more complex and involves what I said about micro being just one step (aftershock) in a continuing evolving universe.

Without strong traditional shooters capable of spending a hefty amount on image production, micro will flounder. It will have to stay right where it is serving a low level client with cheaply produced images– or it will have to raise its prices. The micro world is already showing signs of shakeup with some agencies going out of business, while the smaller ones are no longer able to gain new ground, and new competition as the big agencies -- Corbis and Getty -- jump into a low price model. The gap between the five largest micro agencies is widening so that, here too, change will occur. Right now a micro shooter can achieve a decent RPI because images can be placed over a number of agencies. What will happen when one agency takes such a prominent lead that it can demand exclusivity from its contributors? Think it won’t happen? iStock is the largest micro agency, currently out-pacing all the others in growth, and is owned by Getty. Think again.

So what’s a shooter to do? If you had a solid plan that began 5 to 10 years ago and it is still working, stick with it. Keep a wary eye on what is happening around you, but don’t jump ship in panic. My own strategy began forming almost ten years and was solidified nine years ago when I left Comstock and all my analog photos behind me to begin anew in the digital age without a single image. I realized that the largest planets in the new universe, Getty, and Corbis, as well as the agencies that survived near death with the black hole would all need a new form of digital product for the digital age. I subscribed to the advice I give anyone starting out in stock, namely to find around three or four solid outlets for your images. Firstly, I formed Tetra secretly in a quiet corner of the internet, for I knew that project would take at least three years to get to launch with only me doing partial shooting for it. Secondly, I joined a few major agencies in an effort to find which one would be best and winnowed the list down. Thirdly, I jumped on the Blend bandwagon, for his plan already dove-tailed with my newly formed philosophy of marketing in the internet age. Blend was a brilliant move during this business climate, and remains so today.

And since then? Since then, I have remained steady to the course, making only minor corrections along the way to adjust to changing winds. I have been fortunate to see income increase steadily every year -- yes, even this year despite the downturn -- since the inception of this plan with good prospects ahead. I have aimed most specifically for a steady RPI, not just a high RPI. This has taken me into some esoteric topics and strange areas of agencies, but allows my growth plan to remain steady. I keep a lookout up on the masthead at all times watching for dangerous shoals, such as microstock. I have purposefully kept overhead low, a thing I find important in a rapidly evolving global climate, such as the internet. This involved out-sourcing instead of hiring, and running a virtual office instead of over-spending on rent.

We can look at the stock marketplace as a glass half full or half empty. An important thing to keep in the forefront of your thoughts, however, is that there is always water in the glass – meaning there are always people buying stock photos. They may not pay what they did in the past. They may not buy the way they did in the past. But they are buying images every day, in every corner of the world. I don't think I have to go out on a limb here when I say that I do not see this changing in our life time. So the real question you must ask yourself is how do you stay in the water part of the glass.

New Nikkor 70-200mm lens announced

Nikon recently announced the a completely redesigned version of its 70-200m lens. This is the third lens in the lineup of professional zooms created to deliver the maximum quality with the digital FX cameras -- the D3x, D3, and D700. A 14-24mm f2.8, and 24-70mm f/2.8 were introduced concurrent with the advent of the D3 camera. The Achilles heal of digital full frame lenses, particularly wide angles, has always been the corners of the frame where they often go soft. These lenses have a breathtaking sharpness edge to edge. The wide zooms do exhibit spherical distortions, but this is easily corrected in post-processing software, whereas edge softness is almost impossible to overcome.

The older Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G-AFS-ED-IF lens, while very quick to focus and dead-on sharp in the center, did exhibit corner softness on FX cameras, particularly at 200mm. The new AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II is purported to deliver edge to edge sharpness, 7 (instead of 5) ED lens elements, better contrast with Nano Crystal coated elements, a quieter motor, and an improved vibration reduction system, VR II, claiming to be steady up to 4-stops. What's there not to like?

Add a 200-400mm f/4 lens to this zoom threesome and you increase the continuous range of your focal lengths from 14mm to 400mm.

Nikon re-took the lead in professional cameras when it introduced the FX bodies. This complement of zoom lenses complete the package, making it the most perfect camera system I have ever seen.

I have my order in for a new 70-200m as soon as they become available in November.

RM attitude

In the current downturn in stock sales, shooting what I call “me-too” images won’t make the cut. To be successful a stock photographer will have to go back to RM roots to produce unique images. It doesn’t matter if the images are intended for placement in RF or micro. It only matters that they are produced with an RM attitude.

I used to tell potential RM stock shooters that they needed to picture the sales process involved in the selling of their images. The selling price of an RM image is negotiated between a salesperson and a client. If the image is unique, for whatever reason, the salesperson could demand a high price and stick to it. On the other hand, if the image was good but something similar could be procured elsewhere, the negotiation process would stagger and the sales person would have to back down. Both the sales person and the client know the uniqueness of the images. That uniqueness is the crux of the negotiating process. Successful RM is a unique image.

Most images today are sold in an RF fashion – meaning no negotiating. Nonetheless, image glut (i.e. The over stuffing of similar images into the image marketplace.) has put severe downward pressure on image sales. The majority of image purchases do not need a “unique” image. In such cases micro has provided an almost free alternative to buying an RF shot. There is a lot of “me-too” imagery out there, particularly in micro.

Stock photographers who will survive the current financial debacle will need to understand and shoot to an RM standard. And the keyword, as mentioned above, is uniqueness. When you are looking through the viewfinder, ask yourself: If a salesperson was on the phone with a client, would he/she be able to ask top dollar for my image because it is unique -- or is it similar to one of a thousand others available elsewhere? If you can’t answer the question, you are in the wrong place. If you can’t answer it in the positive, you may need to rethink your career.

These are tough times. I am not being pessimistic here, just realistic. Quality, now more than ever, will out. Despite the doomsday attitude prevalent in the current financial crises, sales of stock images will not go away and some stock photographers will continue to make substantial sums, but an RM attitude is absolutely necessary to a "go-forward" successful career.