I’ll be developing marketing and distribution programs to broaden access to clean water for families living on as little as a few dollars a day.  Every year over 1.6 million people, largely children under the age of 5, die of diseases caused by unclean water and poor sanitation.

I really admire Jeremy for his can-do attitude, working on very important problems that are not at all close to home.  I invite all of you to follow along on his blog Clean Water For All and if you feel so moved to help them out.

Background on SLRs and DSLRs

(If you what “f-stop” means, feel free to skip ahead to the next section.)

SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex.  Practically speaking it refers to a camera where you can change the lens.  You look through the same lens that actually takes the picture, letting you put any lens from an ultra-wide angle fisheye to a telescope-length zoom lens.  You can also put filters on the front like star filters or color shifters or polarizers.  Imagine a classic 35mm camera — like what a P.I. would carry to snap pictures of your wife having an affair — that’s an SLR.

SLR’s require a mirror that physically moves to divert the light into one of two places — your eye, or the film / CCD. The mirror was important when the only technology for capturing images was chemical film.  But nowadays we have various electronic devices like CCDs that digitize an image.  DSLR cameras use a CCD to get many of the benefits of digital imaging, but still have the same physical form factor as an old chemical-film SLR.  They can use the old lenses, which is one of their big appeals.  But so many things about these cameras just don’t make sense.

The problems with DSLR cameras

First there’s the noise. The sound of the mirror slapping against its stops as it switches positions is very recognizable. We used to accept sounds like that as a necessary part of taking
pictures.  Today it just annoys me.  Especially when I’m at a small
event and some photographer is there making loud clicking noises all
the time while I’m trying to enjoy whatever it is they’re digitizing
with their dinocam.  In 99% of all use cases, it’s totally unnecessary.  CCDs can continuously capture images and display them on a screen, creating a digital light path that doesn’t require loud expensive mechanical assemblies.  These displays aren’t as good as what a human eye can pick out, so this doesn’t work all the time.  But if you don’t need interchangeable lenses, then the camera can have a second optical path just for the eye, which doesn’t need to be as good.

One argument against a separate optical viewfinder is that youc can’t put filters in front of the lens.  This is very true, but filters are also obsolete.  With few exceptions, everything that a physical filter does can be done later in photoshop with more control and accuracy.  Color tinting, sparkle, gradients, soft, mist, etc — these all used to be rendered in physical glass out of necessity.  Polarizing filters are probably the most important exception to this — since CCD’s don’t record a light’s polarization state, it can’t be adjusted later.  But for the most part, filters aren’t necessary anymore, meaning you don’t need the whole single-lens thing.

But what about interchangeable lenses?  Isn’t it useful to have the same camera body and be able to change lenses?  (I hear you cry.)  Yes, sorta.  There are definitely situations where one lens won’t be able to do everything you want.  But those situations are getting rarer and rarer.  And in the few exception cases, I’ll argue that interchangeable lenses aren’t the right solution.  The reason these cases are getting less and less common is that zoom lenses are getting better.  When SLR cameras first came on the scene zoom lenses basically didn’t exist because they sucked when they did.  You needed a different lens for each amount of magnification you wanted, so people had lots of lenses.  But with computers to help us design the lenses, and vastly improved manufacturing processes, zoom lenses are getting better all the time.  Nowadays a lens with a huge 10x zoom can even win accolades from camera snobs.  And lenses as versatile as 26x cover every situation most of us would ever want, and at a quality we’ll be thrilled with.  So for almost all situations, a single zoom lens is good enough today.

What about the situations where that’s not quite good enough?  Where you need that 14mm fisheye that captures people standing immediately to the left or right side of the lens?  Or that 8000mm super- long telephoto telescope?  It turns out in either of these challenging cases, getting the lens to fit the standard SLR form factor becomes the hardest part.

Why SLR’s cripple even the extreme lens cases

With ultra-wide fisheye lenses, the problem is the space reserved for that stupid mirror.  In this case, the focal length is very short, so as a
lens designer, you’d naturally want the focal plane to be very close to
the glass.  (Like about 14mm.)  But the place where the lens attaches to the camera body necessarily needs to be a certain distance away from the imaging plane.  That distance was determined by the size of the mirror, which was determined by the size of your chemical film — 35mm, which is more than you’d really want for a 14mm lens.  Even on today’s 2009 DSLR cameras, that distance is exactly the same as it was a generation ago in order to ensure backwards compatibility with old lenses.  The literal tons of carefully polished glass represent a very real barrier to improvement since people have invested lots of money in them.

So if you really want a camera that’s good at taking super-wide angle pictures, you don’t want your lens to have to be that far away from the imaging plane.  You’re better off with a specially built camera.  The lens will be simpler, cheaper and higher quality.  But super-wide starts to look funny, no matter what.  Funny meaning
distorted, because if your eye is more than a couple of inches away
from the reproduced super-wide image, then it won’t look right.  And it’s not super useful to capture 360 degrees in one shot — you can shoot a dozen pictures and stitch them together later in software, and it’ll look more natural.  This is all why people don’t pay a lot of attention to how super-wide lenses get anymore.

On the super-telephoto side of things, the SLR legacy is even worse.  To get a super-long telephoto lens you need lots of big glass.  This gets expensive quickly simply because it’s a large mass of carefully manufactured stuff.  The amount of glass you need for a lens is proportional to the cube of the length of your imaging plane, which for legacy chemical-film is 35mm. But CCD’s just don’t need to be that big.  On almost every DSLR they’re only about 20mm across, and on high-quality non-SLR cameras are as typically about 6mm across.  So that size legacy means you would need literally 200x  the almost 40x the amount of physical glass to make a good telephoto lens for an SLR vs a non-SLR camera.  This ridiculous discrepency is just going to get worse.

CCD’s are silicon devices, so they share manufacturing improves along with CPU’s and follows a Moore’s law-like improvement curve for performance.  A key way they improve is in pixel density, but also by simply getting smaller.  As they get smaller, high-quality zoom lenses get smaller and cheaper too.  But only if the lenses are specifically designed for the new smaller CCD’s.  With an SLR system they can’t be — the size must be fixed in order to maintain backwards compatibility.  So while sensor technology improves at Moore’s law speed, lenses for non-SLR cameras improve as well, but SLR lenses do not.  Expensive zoom lenses for modern cameras just don’t need to be that big or expensive — It’s like having to build a cell-phone big enough to hold floppy disks.

To illustrate this point, consider the popular Canon SX10IS camera which does not feature interchangeable lenses.  It features a zoom lens that goes from pretty wide (28mm equivalent) to really very far zoom (560mm equivalent).  Because its CCD is only 6mm across, it can do all this for under $400 and weigh in under a pound for the whole camera.  For comparison, a comparable SLR lens weighs in at over 11lbs and costs upwards of $7,000, just for the lens.  No doubt this lens can take better pictures than the tiny Canon, but a smaller lens built for a modern CCD could take pictures that are every bit as good for a fraction the price.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the noise floor on these sensors.  When the scene is dark, you need more light to get a good image.  A bigger hunk of glass captures more light.  This all makes intuitive sense and is mostly accurate.  CCD sensors can take more accurate pictures in low light when they are bigger.  But the limits here are electronic noise, which is also improving.  At some point we’ll hit some other barrier like the thermal noise in the sensor, although a piezo cooler could work around that.  Ultimately there’s the the quantization of photons, but if you’re taking pictures in a scene that dark, you probably can’t see what you’re pointing at anyway.  My point is that while there are advantages in low light for larger glass and sensors, technology is erroding away at those too.  We’re seeing ISO equivalents of 6400 as fairly common in cameras these days, with an economic competitive pressure to improve that.

In summary, the problems with the SLR format are that it ties its owner to a physical legacy that denies them the advantages of advancing technology.  There are cases where specialized lenses are still important.  But those cases are dwindling.  Personally, I’m going to be happier carrying around a full featured small camera that can transform itself into whatever I want without needing interchangable parts than a bag full of bits that were standardized before email.

When I was on vacation recently I realized I was close to being put into a similar situation.  When traveling abroad, I’m always keenly aware of what happens to me if my stuff gets stolen or otherwise lost.  I always follow a best practice of keeping my passport, plane tickets home and cash very close to my body in a place that’s not easily accessible.  On this last trip I realized that if I were left with just these things I would likely have no way to contact my friends and family back home.  Where we were, there wasn’t much internet.  Just about the only phone numbers I have memorized were those of my traveling companions.  Mom?  Dad?  Best friends?  Nope.  They’re in the phone.  And the phone could easily get lost or disabled.  (I should be so lucky as to have to replace that piece of junk.)

When I realized this, I copied down some key phone numbers onto a piece of paper in my money belt.  Not a big deal, but an interesting realization about how much of my working set has been externalized.

Normally I preach that network time is so much more reliable than manual, independent clocks that drift.  But today is totally different.  I’m trying to figure out what alarm I can set to wake up in time to get to the airport.

I can’t trust my "smart" cell phone.  No way that thing’s gonna get the time change right.  It’ll probably start spewing smoke at 2am tonight, based on its crappy behavior at the last DST switch.

I can’t trust the alarm in my Sonos, which usually wakes me up to KUOW.

I spent a while racking my brain to figure out which of my alarm systems was actually disconnected from the net.  It took me a while to remember, but my good old clock radio is disconnected.  As we approach the singularity and the world slowly wakes up, this problem is just going to get more pronounced.  Which is why we need to move to central configuration for things like this that can be changed by policy.

My advice: don’t trust any reminders coming from devices running on network time for the next 3 weeks.  If punctuality matters to you, double check everything against your wrist watch.  Unless you got one that runs windows.  (Sucker.)

The idea behind this saying is that times of rapid change are generally quite painful.  Historically interesting times are those involving wars and revolutions — things where lots of people die.  Growth and improvement have only come through very slow gradual change.  But in today’s China, this is anything but true.  Right now is one of the most interesting times in China’s long history, and for the majority of the country, it’s fantastic.  (If we all work hard, that kind of intersting time might be behind us.)

We read about how the Chinese economy is glowing red hot.  Their sustained GDP growth rate would make any head of a western central bank terrified.  In any established economy, a 9% annual growth rate would last maybe a couple years before it turned into inflation, recession or both.  But a very clever set of communist economists are managing to ride the bleeding edge of rapid growth far longer and further than I think anybody outside the country would have believed possible.  I’ve been reading these cold dry numbers in the same places you have.  But being here in China now, these numbers are very real.

Consider Shenzhen, just across the psuedo-international border with Hongkong.  Today Shenzhen’s greater metropolitan area has over 10 million people.  But just 28 years ago when Deng Xiaoping decided to start developing this city, it had but 25,000.  Imagine that — a city nearly the size of LA or NY that was consciously willed into existence in less then a generation.  It almost defies belief.

Having just left Shenzhen, I’m currently in Xiamen, which is the closest mainland city to Taiwan.  On a clear day like today, you can see outlying islands that are politically controlled by the Republic of China, the Taiwanese government.  There is a large and famous sign here pointed out towards Taiwan that reads "One Country, Two systems, Together One China."  The Taiwanese have a similar sign on the other side.

NPR recently aired a story about the northern border of North Korean.  There’s a theme park that is constantly empty and a small family whose job might be simply to picnic under an umbrella to demonstrate to the outside world how happy and successful the closed communist system in North Korea is.  Possibly for similar reasons, Xiamen also has a theme park on the coast facing Taiwan.  But its big roller coaster is occupied until 4:00 AM every night.  On weekends happy local families fill the beaches with their families.  I came here for a holiday 5.5 years ago during Spring Festival.  There are so many new buildings and bridges and tunnels and freeways that I hardly recognize it now.  Real estate prices boggle the mind in a way that only Manhattenites could imagine.  There is also a huge new "trourist ferry terminal" under construction here.  Its stated plans are for ferry service to Hong Kong and to host cruise ships.  The obvious long-term purpose of this project is in the fulfillment of that big red sign. 

Shenzhen is thriving as a psuedo-port for the reunification of Hong Kong.  I have no doubt that within 10 or 20 years, Xiamen will be doing the same with Taiwan.  All polluting factories have been ordered out of Xiamen in order to clean up the air.  The communists clearly want to make Xiamen attractive.  I used to buy in to the American political ideas that we must protect Taiwan from China’s oppressive government.  Taiwanese certainly used to look at it this way — a friend grew up there singing songs about how they would liberate the mainlanders from the communists.  But taking a longer term view of the situation, if I were a Taiwanese resident today, I would look forward to reunification with the world’s largest economy.

Again, talk about economics can easily obscure what’s really happening here.  Millions of people are graduating from poor subsistance lifestyles up to the comfort and safety of a working class life.  Or up to the relative luxury of a middle-class life.  Or even to the genuine luxury of being able to buy whatever they want — it’s not that uncommon here.  The difference in the quality of life of my friends and the other people I see here is obvious from just 5 years ago — be it having hot water in every room of the house, owning a car, or kite-surfing in their spare time.  These huge cities are physical manifestations of people’s lives being improved on a grand historic scale.  The excitement is palpable.  Positive energy infuses everything.  A note to Naomi Klein: this is what sweat-shops do to people’s lives.  These certainly are interesting times, and I feel priveledged to be able to experience them first-hand.

I think of myself as a dilettante polyglot – I have or have
had a smattering of many languages – Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Japanese,
Russian – but little command of any except English and Mandarin. My friends sometimes tell me that I have a
talent for languages. I think I’m just
determined and study hard. But if I put
my mind to it, I can pick up useful skills in a new language in a couple of
weeks. One of the reasons I love
traveling is this intellectual challenge and the cultural opportunities that
are exposed by overcoming it. So over
the years I’ve consumed a great many books on foreign language self-study. It’s one of the largest sections on my
bookshelf. When I’m studying at home, I
find value in a great variety of tools – thick dictionaries, audio lessons,
conjugation books, children’s books, etc. 

When I’m actually traveling there’s only one book I want
with me: The Rough Guide
Dictionary/Phrasebook. They’re
published for just about every language you might want. These aren’t your typical phrasebook filled
with a collection of pre-selected sentences and mock conversations organized by
subject like “getting a hotel” and “at the train station.” These frustrate me because if finding
something that doesn’t exactly fit into one of their scenarios is nigh
impossible.

In contrast, the majority of each Rough Guide Dictionary/Phrasebook is an English/Foreign
and Foreign/English dictionary. They’re
quite small, but the vocabulary is well chosen, so for most things you want to
say, look it up and it’s there. It’s also
much better than a typical pocket dictionary because Rough Guide tries hard to list just
one translation which is the most useful. This makes study a lot easier than if you have to decide which of the 3
or 4 translations you want to try using and remember. If there is ambiguity they’ll generally use
the word in several example sentences. And for a few key words (like Hotel or Telephone), they will have sample
conversations. One of the only downsides
is that their English is really British, so sometimes I have to do an extra
translation step to find what I want. (i.e. How do you say cookie in British?) 

Each book also include a couple dozen pages of grammatical
reference which are actually enough to get you going from nothing if you have
any experience with linguistics. There’s
usually sections dedicated to menus and signs, but I haven’t found much value
in them personally.

So if you have or want to have even a moderate grasp of a
foreign language, cast off that Lonely Planet or Berlitz pulp – grab a Rough
Guide Dictionary Phrasebook and you won’t be sad.