Today's issue of Time Magazine contains a portrait I took of author Jhumpa Lahiri. It's my first big national magazine, so I'm very proud. 3.5 million people get to see my work. Much like New Jersey, that's pretty awesome.

You can see a better copy of the photo and even read the article, if you're into those 'wooordz' things the kids are all on about, here on time.com

Large Group portraits are hard. Plus a couple smaller groupings. 
And they look much better BIG.

Here is a photograph of my friend and author Mary Elizabeth Williams in the Pinkberry on 32nd street.  As you can see, it's taken from outside, and through a dirty window.  It's also perhaps the worst photography of mine that you'll ever see, but I digress.

If you're not aware of Pinkberry, it may be because they currently only exist in LA and NYC.  It's a frozen yogurt place which as it turns out seems to be a knock-off of a Korean place called Red Mango. They seemed to have copied them right down to the color/fruit name and even the Cap'n Crunch topping (for those into Pinkberry, my sister Melissa is so addicted that she has created a blog about it complete with an AWFUL digicam shot of me).  But as New York Magazine said recently, 'pinkberry stinkberry', this is not about the yogurt or terrible pics of me, but rather the fact that they've got a big sign on the glass at the entrance of a camera with a slash through it and 'No Photography Allowed'.  It's right below the 'No Pets' and 'No Shoes, no Shirt, no Service'.

I can imagine a swanky restaurant saying "no photography", or inside a sensitive government building (whatever that means), or at a museum where the art is sensitive to light and stupid people don't know how to turn off their flash, but a frozen yogurt shop? This trend of silly photography bans has swung WAY too far to the right.

A few weeks ago I was standing on the platform for the F train at 23rd street and took a picture of the empty platform with my Leica and a guy behind me said, "You know you're not allowed to take pictures, right?"  And I said, "Actually I am, the subway ban didn't get passed" and he said that a few weeks ago he saw some guy get ticket for taking a picture.  I did some research last night and you are allowed to take pictures in the subway.  See Section 1050.9 (b) of the rules.

The problem is that everyone is ill informed, especially the police and security people.  So try to talk your way out of trouble by telling them you know the rules better than they do. As long as you have confusion on the subject, people are too scared to cross the line.

And now it extends to Pinkberry apparently.  Seriously, does anyone else think the world is going nuts, or is it just me?

OK, listen up.  The most important component of your camera is the lens.  If there is a place to spend the money, it's on the glass. I'd take a 5 year old 20D with a good lens over a top of the line 1Ds MkIII with a crappy lens any day of the week.  I can't tell you the number of people I see who have this all wrong. Last year at the Grand Canyon, I saw a girl with a high-end Gitzo tripod, 5D body, and some crappy consumer level zoom lens on the front.  Honestly, I almost pushed her over the edge.

There is a lot of talk about the mega-pixel race in digital cameras. I remember my first little 2MP digital Elph, and how I bought my father a little Kodak digital camera that I think put out only a 640x480 image and still cost $199.  We've gone from 4MP to 22MP in about 8 years, that's pretty nuts. The problem is that the number of pixels on the sensor is meaningless if the light that gets to the sensor is crap. And that means quality lenses, or in the cool photographer parlance "glass".

You can cut up the subject of lenses along many different lines, but I've chosen to start this discussion by dividing prime lenses from zooms.  For the uninitiated, a 'prime' lens is one with a fixed focal length, while a 'zoom' has a continuously variable focal length within a certain range.  So for example a prime might have a focal length of 50mm and a zoom 24mm to 70mm.

In the beginning, there were only primes.  Large format cameras only use fixed focal length lenses, as are most medium format lenses as well.  For decades, this extended into the 35mm world as well.  Through the rangefinder age (Leica, yum) and into the SLR revolution of the 70's.  While zooms had been invented and in use since the 1920's, it wasn't until their prices came down to earth and their performance improved that they invaded the photographic world.  I attribute that shift to the use of computers in their design. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 zoom for example has 16 glass elements in 13 groups, which all have to remain in alignment and perform well from wide angle to portrait and macro to infinity. I'm not sure about you but designing something like that without a computer sounds near impossible (cut to me getting screaming emails from optical engineers). Prime lenses are much simpler. Even the high-end 50mm/1.2 only has 8 elements, and all things being equal, the fewer elements that bend my light it's way to the sensor, the better.

In the recent past and for most people in the world, zoom lenses have been their bread and butter. In fact, many SLR owners only have one lens, it's a zoom, and it stays on the body at all times. This is fine for the parent who bought a digital rebel with a kit lens to take pictures of their newborn and whatnot, but you're not getting the most out of that camera.

So people may talk about the latest 22MP Canon monster (which I'm totally salivating over) or the fabled 24MP Sony sensor that's in the wings.  However, all these sensors are going to show is the limitations of most of the lenses you put in front of them.  Now, I'm not one of those people who says that the 22MP sensor 'out-resolves' the available lenses.  It probably bests some of the lower-end and consumer glass, but it will certainly show weaknesses that got lost in the past.  Camera shake, inaccurate focusing, vignetting, and yes, at wide apertures, especially on zooms, they will not be sharp enough.

So what's the answer.  Well, first, better technique.  Second, Primes.

As a Canon user I've got all the good zooms.. 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L (and I had the 24-105L for a time).  But you know what?  I rarely use them anymore. What I do use are my primes. A 28mm, a 50mm, and a 100mm (the last occasionally). They're simpler, smaller, lighter, sharper, require less light,  are more contrasty, and by using them I've gotten much better at visualizing shots before I ever bring the camera to my eye.  Less versatile? Perhaps, but if you need to zoom, zoom with your feet.

If you only have zooms, do yourself a favor and go buy or borrow a decent prime lens.  Canon makes a 50mm 1.8 that's less than $100 and other companies have good deals as well so you've got no excuses.  If you own primes but have fallen into the habit of using your zooms all the time, take another look.  Your pictures will be sharper with more contrast, your viewfinder will be brighter, and you will be less likely to hurt your back from carrying it around.

More thoughts on "glass" to come...

Tell me what you see in them.  It's a little test.

So I'm in the mental market for a new camera.  That means that I don't have my credit card out, but I'm doing pros and cons in my head.  My scrappy 5D which has been my faithful companion for over two years is getting a bit long in the tooth.  I love that camera, it's like a good friend. Just think about all the photos I've shot with it, including at least 330 of the 365 Portraits last year. All the places it's been in Europe and across America and the people I've met with it, like my hero James Burke.  <sigh>

I added it up and estimated that I shot about 100,000 frames last year, plus what I shot before 365 and after, and that's on a camera who's shutter is rated for 100,000 cycles.  So I'm working on borrowed time here and I can't afford to have it break down on my on the job.

So, basically it comes down to 3.5 options.  Buy a 1Ds Mark III ($8K), switch to a Nikon D3 ($5k) to get the supposedly great high iso performance, or wait for Canon to release their new 5D ($3-4k).

First the Canon/Nikon question.  I've used Canon since my first SLR, in fact it was an Elan7 film body.  And I've got a half dozen Canon lenses in my kit, so I lean towards sticking with Canon.  But that's not my only problem with switching to the D3.

First off it's 12MP so, I'd pay $5k to get no upgrade in resolution, which seems a bit silly.  I never shoot continuous so more frames per second are of no use.  I'd like the high iso capability but I'm not sure it's worth switching just for that.  Plus there is the lenses.

I've found myself using 2 primes lenses for a lot of my work.  A 50mm and a 28mm.  And the 28mm is the problem.  Nikon doesn't sell a good one anymore.  They did, about 5 years ago, but for some reason they took it off the market.  It was fast too f/1.4, and from all accounts had exceptional image quality.  It's so good in fact that used ones on Ebay go for $4000.  I wonder why they stopped selling it, but that's another question for another day.  Anyway, I'm not going to spend four grand on a used prime lens on top of the five grand for the camera. And then still be at 12MP, that's just silly.  If I was a Nikon user, it's a no brainer, the D3 is the first camera they've put out that really competes. It's a winner.

Ok, so that leaves us back in the Canon court. And I've been waiting for the new 5D successor (probably called the 5D Mark II) for a long time now.  Rumors say it'll be 16MP, better high iso performance (which is already pretty good on the 5D), 14bit Raw files, and maybe even weather sealed.  Nearly perfect for my needs. But how long can I wait?  I need a backup body and my current 5D would be great for that role.

Plus there are a few things that I'd love to have the 1Ds for.  First off it's 21 megapixels, which is just crazy stupid.  Enough to crop half the image away and still have a 10MP photo.  It's also, however enough pixels that focus and lens quality become CRITICAL to getting high quality photographs. Not to mention the fact that it's built like a brick; as one review said 'if you need a camera that you can drive nails with, this is it'.  However, the big thing that draws me even more than the resolution is the viewfinder.  It's huge and bright and it shows 100% of the image you're going to take.  Something I've gotten addicted to on my Leica (even seeing beyond the framelines on the rangefinder).

The other half option is to just buy a cheap or even used Rebel XTi for $400 or so and use that as a backup on the off chance my 5D fails.  And then just wait and see how good the new 5D Mark II body is.

So many choices, so little time.  It may sound like I've just got a camera fetish and that I'm a gear whore.  But I don't think anybody can claim that I don't use my cameras.  I really am looking for the tool that'll be in my hands for the next couple years of my life.  It's a big decision and a lot of money, and I thought that putting it on paper might help clear away the cobwebs in my head. If anyone's got anything to add to the conversation, comment away.