Re: Keppler and the *ist, *ist D

[Joseph Tainter]

I'm appalled by Kepler's piece, and think he should be embarrassed.

I usually enjoy his column, and find that I generally agree with him 
when he discusses gear, industry trends, or places where manufacturers 
shouldn't cut corners. This time I think I realized something new about him.

In some quarters he is apparently quite respected. I have wondered about 
his photography. What he shows of it in the magazine consists mostly of 
either (a) group or individual shots of friends at dinner, on Max 800, 
taken with the rtf flash; or (b) shots of buildings, sometimes taken 
during travel. I find his dinner shots quite mediocre, although no doubt 
they are meaningful to him and the participants. His building shots 
(such as are in this column) are a bit better, but nothing worth a 
showing, and little even worthy of PUG.

I think he simply understands little about digital. He is apparently 
slow to adapt to it. He shoots jpegs in the *ist D on a mediocre 
consumer lens. On the *ist he shoots a mediocre consumer film (Max 800) 
with a mediocre consumer lens. On the *ist D he used automatic white 
balance. He then took all files or negatives to a minilab, and wondered 
that his *ist D results weren't wonderful.

Combining this with the photographs of his own that he uses in the 
column, I now understand the man better: He is a snapshooter. He may be 
a long-lived icon in the photography business, but he is a snapshooter. 
I'm not sure that digital is for snapshooters yet, certainly not digital 
SLRs.

On a lighter note, remember "The Official Digital Camera of the 
Internet"? Well, guess what? It's a Pentax trademark.

Joe (the official Keppler commentator of the internet)