Do you remember the video of Tom Cruise (since hosted by Gawker here) that was removed from YouTube? The one that prompted global protests against Scientology?

A key point to remember here, the salient point, is that the removal of a newsworthy video sparked protest.

Well. The same thing has just happened to Mark Bunker of XenuTV fame (the guy that released the Jason Beghe video):

Mark Bunker’s statement.

I didn’t photograph the last anonymous protests in London because I had bad guts and third demonstrations are less interesting than first and second demonstrations. People are usually bored by the third demonstration (see second London demonstration pics by me here).

Removing Mark Bunker’s videos is an almost guaranteed way to reinvigorate the protests and bring in even more protestors.

Heck, even I feel like protesting (rather than just taking pictures) and I don’t even feel that strongly about Scientology. As for YouTube: This is yet another example of how they’ll cave in at the first opportunity rather than give their users the respect they deserve.

Web 2.0 is about making money from the talent of your users and showing them little or no respect over profits.

If this sort of thing is tolerated it could happen to you next. Send Mark Bunker’s video, as linked above, to people. They should know.

I heard an impassioned debate about those lens in a shop today. I don’t quite get it.

Last few weeks I’ve been doing some reading about photography and have had the pleasure of consulting a few experts. Pro-photographers, by and large, have a few requirements that casual(ish) photographers don’t have: specifically lens build quality, auto-focus speed/accuracy, and lens speed. If they miss a shot it costs them money and they operate in environments like sports venues, or hanging around waiting for some female celebrity’s tit to pop out. Ergo there is sound economic value in professionals spending upwards of £1000 on a lens.

In the world of home audio there are a group of people commonly referred to as audiophiles. Some audiophiles think things like $7250 audio cables produce higher quality audio than cables costing a fraction of the price. Even though it is highly improbable they do. Lenses can’t be directly compared to that situation, but there’s a point to be made nonetheless. With lenses things can be measured (see here). However, the real-world differences, on a standard sized photographic print, or even on a standard LCD monitor, may be difficult to distinguish unless the viewer is a photographer or familiar with the lens. Unless it’s a truly terrible lens.

For instance certain types of lens tend to have greater variance across price brackets. Often, but not always, the differences among zoom lenses are more apparent than fixed focal length lenses. Although that is a bit misleading: as ever the biggest factor in any photograph is what you are photographing. An interesting photograph taken with a mediocre lens is still interesting, while a boring photograph taken with an excellent lens is still boring. Fixed length lenses are interesting in terms of cost/performance.

Case in point 50mm prime (=fixed focal length) lens for Canon and Nikon digital SLRs (DSLRs). As looked at in the forum post linked above. Here’s the Canon prices:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MK II < £75
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ~ £250
Canon EF 50mm f/1L USM ~ £1000

Here’s the Nikon prices:

Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D ~ £80
Nikon AF 50mm f/1.4D ~ £250

The build quality between the cheap lenses and more expensive lenses is quite pronounced. Particularly with Canon’s F/1 from their top of the line L range. I question how many casual DSLR users require that sort of build quality. Ardent casual photographers may benefit from the lenses in the £250 bracket. But I question whether that is clear cut. If, at a guestimate, the cheaper lenses break twice as often as the ~£250 lenses, and presuming it happens outside of warranty (making lenses that often break down during the warranty period makes no sense) , buying another cheap lens (or even having a spare or two) works out cheaper than the original cost of buying the ~£250 lens. That’s a scenario, quite frankly, pulled out of my arse, but a big question is how often the cheaper lenses break down under the usage of an average DSLR owner. I don’t know. But I wouldn’t place a bet either way whether the cumulative life of three cheap lenses (costing less in total) would outlast the ~£250 lenses or vice versa. MTBF info and the like is difficult to find.

There is a stop difference between the ~£250 lenses and the cheap lenses. In some situations that could be the difference between a sharp shot and blurred shots in low light conditions. On the other-hand it’s an issue somewhat mitigated by camera burst mode and acceptable ISO-300+ exposures on DSLRs. The +3 stop images stabilization of newer Canon (IS) and Nikon (VR) shake reduction is an indication of what is considered significant in terms of gaining stops in the age of DSLR/sensor based photography.

So I guess it’s nice if you’ve got the spare cash, but to hear the argument I overheard today you’d think a lens was the only factor in taking a photo. I’m no expert, or even a serious amateur, or even that good a photographer, I’m a hobby master, but I’ve listened to enough people to know that lens quality beyond ‘acceptable’ isn’t the most important thing about taking a picture. And that some pointless arguments go on in camera shops and that there’s a lot of unnecessary snobbery and lusting after lenses among amateur photographers. Check out this comparison with a $5000 vs. a $150 camera.

See also: My views on Scientology.

And more pictures here: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Jack.Toerson