The 10% Rule

I love a good cigar. I live in Canada and therefore can buy Cuban cigars, unlike our neighbours to the south (although that may change soon). But I don't smoke Cuban cigars. Why? Tim's 10% rule.

I first thought of this while engaging in another passion of mine, watching baseball. The very best baseball players in the game have a batting average of 300. The very worst players in the game (the famous Mendoza line) bat 200. The difference? 10%.

And I developed this idea that the very best of something, say a Mercedes, is probably about 10% better than the very good of something, say a Honda Accord. But that last 10% will cost you.

After a game of golf many years back, my uncle, who collected good wine, was a few sheets to the wind and actually went down to his wine cellar and brought up a bottle of rare and expensive red for my dad and other uncle and I to taste. Was it good? Yes, very. Was it better than my favourite LCBO $20 bottle. Yes. About 10% if I had to put a number to it.

So my rule is a simple one - don't pay for the last 10%. It isn't worth it. You will probably be paying a minimum of 200% to 300% more to get that last 10% in quality. My favourite Dominican and Honduran cigars cost me around $12 - not cheap, but very much worth it. In a Cuban cigar, that would easily be $50. I've had those Cubans and they're good. About 10% better than my current Dominican favourite, I'd say.

So let's bring this around to photography. Read any article by any photography reviewer, or any professional photographer and I guarantee you you will hear the same thing; they use/like/recommend full frame cameras. Why? Mainly because they have less noise than cameras with smaller sensors.

So first of all, do they? In general, yes. But a full frame set up with say three good lenses, a kit that probably weighs 20 lb., will also cost you, easily in the range of $10,000 - $15,000. The same thing in an APS-C or 4/3 sensor system will not only weigh a third less, it will cost a third less. The difference in quality? About 10% :)

Here is an example. I've stolen two shots from an excellent review of the Panasonic 100-400 lens (getting up to an incredible 800 times magnification) by Bob Towery (an enthisiast!!) on Steve Huff's web site.

He had his friend join him for some shots for part of the review. This is the difference in the gear they used; on top, a full frame Canon set up that Bob calculated got his friend to about a 730 magnification factor. Bob (with the little 4/3 kit) showed some beautiful pics he had taken - his friend with the monster rig had nothing he wanted to share. Below is one Bob took of ducks from 100' (you read right - 100') away. Hand held yet.

The Panasonic lens isn't cheap - in the $2000 range in Canada. But that monster Canon lens? The 200-400 zoom is currently priced at B&H for$14,482 CDN. Ouch.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The enthusiasts have led the way to every single innovation in the last 20 years. What will be the next thing? I'm going to say it will be a move to smaller equipment at the pro level. The mirrorless full frame cameras are a start, but I think it will be some innovation, maybe in sensors or even processing, that let's the lenses get smaller as well. Let's watch and see shall we?