I saw this rumor today that Fuji will release a mirror-less model that resembles the 1970s Fujica ST-series SLRs. More images here.
This hits home with me as much as Olympus with their OM-D line, as my first SLR was a Fujica ST-series body. In the photo shown, it seems that they're using the ST801 as inspiration, my favorite. There were others: ST601, ST605, ST901. All used the Pentax screw mount for lenses. With the AZ-1 (first Fujica with auto exposure), they switched to the Pentax K-mount that is still used in some fashion today.
As I've been saying, FujiFilm has been designing and bringing new and improved technology to market lately that is compelling to me. As far as I'm concerned, and you're welcome to disagree, they belong at the top of the interesting heap, along with Panasonic and Olympus, because they've made interesting usable.
Their X-Trans sensor, whichever version, has quite a bit more to offer than those made by Sony, Canon, or Panasonic. If they can bring down the cost of the sensor, they could inundate the market with something better. I'd also like to see if Panasonic and FujiFilm can work together to bring similar sensors to micro Four-Thirds.
In any case, creating an SLR-like body is what I want and using the ST801 as a template is great, as it fit me well. They need to offer more of a grip (the electrical contacts on the base are evidently there for a portrait grip) because, like anything from the 1970s, the ST-series was a bit slippery. (They show a bit of a grip, but I don't think that's enough and charging US$150 for an enhanced grip is just evil. They just did that for the X-Pro1 and X-E2.)
If the pricing is reasonable, I will likely stop using micro Four-Thirds before I really use it much (Do several hundred sports photos count as much?). Other things must be handled, though, such as the ability to use raw files at any ISO sensitivity. The current models only allow raw files to be used in the Normal range.
The company seems to be making excellent progress in bringing excellent equipment to the market but with a few quirks that hopefully, they'll eliminate.
Update 2014.01.24: The more I think about this, the more I'm interested. We'll find out January 28th, if we're not all frozen here.
The 56mm f/1.2 (especially after seeing the price of Panasonic's Leica-designed lens, no matter how good) and 10-24mm f/4.0 lenses have made a switch compelling, and this body make complete that feeling. I really, really want some lenses I can use for sports photography, and those aren't it. As most people are more concerned about casual or artistic photography, they're talking about the 18-135mm that will also be introduced. It has a good range and if it's weather-sealed, it's likely better than the Canon lens, but it's probably not for me. I'm skeptical of image quality in lenses with more than 4x zoom. I'm fairly sure than 18-135mm is longer range than 18-72mm.
The available long zooms have rather small (read consumer) maximum apertures, which won't give the performance I need. They have a 70-200mm (50-140mm, weather-sealed) f/2.8 equivalent on the road map but that just means that my current Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds equipment will have to keep going. Of course, this gives more time for FujiFilm to work out their firmware for raw files, and it gives developers of raw development software, namely the Phase One Capture One I use, more time to get the most from the images.
Update 2014.01.28: The X-T1 seems very reasonable, although hardly different than something in-between the X-E2 and X-Pro1. Being weather-sealed is important to me, so I'm glad to see that it's there, like the Olympus E-M1. It's also freeze-proof, like the E-M1, and the electronic viewfinder is apparently similar, but with a portrait orientation that thoughtfully rearranges the information for easy viewing. The information display reminds me more of the ST901 than the ST801 which used LEDs to signal the light meter reading. It also adds a sliding rear display.
The company is claiming a greater extended ISO sensitivity, up to 51,200--useful with JPEG images. Yes, the raw file range is still limited from ISO 200- 6400. I find this disagreeable. Do I work past ISO 6400? No. Might I need to do that? Maybe. Prior to Phase One Capture One, the ability to process raw files was limited. I could use the free software that came with the camera (if I had all day, since it was slow), or hope that Adobe Camera Raw wasn't nearly as buggy as Photoshop, but neither was a good solution. I suppose using a JPEG to get a low light photo wouldn't be the worst thing, if I really need the photo. They have supposedly re-worked the circuitry around the sensor for less interference and therefore, a cleaner image.
There is a clip-on flash, and two grip accessories. One is a portrait battery grip that allows the use of one extra battery.
The body is a bit small, comparable to the Olympus E-M1. It remains to be seen if the XF-series (higher quality) lenses will be much of a burden. Since my problem with the E-M1 is that it was meant to be used with the full sized lenses for Four-Thirds bodies, it isn't well-balanced most of the time.
Since the X-T1 won't be using similar lenses (FujiFilm doesn't have a K-mount adapter listed), there shouldn't be a huge imbalance. The only official adapter was for Leica M-mount lenses. I don't remember when the Fujica-series equipment went away, so I don't know if anyone would want to use their old K-mount (or for that matter, their Pentax screw mount) lenses with it, though Pentax makes a good range of weather-resistant K-mount lenses.
The lenses I would want are yet to be available, and all are in the XF-series and weather-sealed, so I have time to think about my direction.
Showing posts with label Fuji. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fuji. Show all posts
Monday, January 20, 2014
Saturday, December 28, 2013
FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens, a reason to switch camps?
There are occasions where I need wide angle photography and given that I'm using Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds at the moment, wide angle photography is limited to 14mm at the moment with native lenses. Something more might be achieved with one of the wider-faster adapters, but it seems that it would be less of a compromise to just buy into a new system.
The widest native lenses are the Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 or the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 but I'm not sure if I want to dig deeper into micro Four-Thirds. There are the Olympus 9-18mm lenses but I'm not really sure about the optics and f/4.0-5.6 tends to be darker quickly. The Olympus 7-14mm is the only one that really fits, as I can use it on my Four-Thirds bodies as well as micro Four-Thirds bodies and it is weather-sealed, but then, maybe I don't really need such a feature.
This new FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens seems appealing, especially with the X-E2 (or X-T1) body. (The X-Pro1 could use an update, don't you think?)
If the image quality is a match for the sensor, it should be a potent combination, more than a match for a dSLR using a same-sized sensor. How big does a 135 format lens have to be to cover 15-36mm at a constant f/4.0? Will a filter size of 67mm cover it? It's not likely.
The FujiFilm lens has to be slightly larger than the Panasonic 7-14mm and it's definitely heavier at 410 grams over the 300 grams for the Panasonic lens. I wanted to compare by filter size but the Panasonic lens, like the Olympus lens has a convex front element and therefore, doesn't allow filters. The filter size of the 10-24mm lens is 72mm, which seems large for an f/4.0 lens, but it really is (ultra-)wide at 10mm. The Olympus lens is substantially heavier at 780 grams but the image quality is what you'd expect for a premium, weather-sealed lens. Strangely, the Olympus lens seems to have been removed from the company's web site.
The built-in lens hood is both brilliant and frustrating because the whole front of both lenses precludes the use of filters, and there is no rear drop-in slot. Why Panasonic chose to duplicate the lens in such detail is beyond me, except that at 7mm, you need to take rather extreme measures to counteract distortion. Unfortunately, they duplicated the lens without the weather-sealing. The lack of weather-seals would also be a problem for me with the FujiFilm lens. I might do better to buy a cheaper dSLR and wide angle lens for as little as I might use it.
FujiFilm, with their great sensor are breaking boundaries again. I liked what they were doing when they were still doing dSLRs in Nikon bodies. However, at those speeds, the dSLRs were better in the studio than out in the world where speed would be an issue. They seem to be finding themselves right now, as Olympus and Panasonic did with their first few generations of mirror-less system cameras. Once FujiFilm finds their way, I suspect that Samsung and Sony won't have a chance in the APS-C market. If FujiFilm would put together a dSLR-shaped model, it would likely boost sales and cut into Panasonic's market, also, except for video.
In any case, the 10-24mm f/4.0 isn't due until March and I doubt we'll see any previews until just before it's ready, so it will be difficult to judge the image quality. I'm looking forward to it.
Update 2014.01.06: FujiFilm's 56mm f/1.2 lens has been announced with a price of US$999.99 and that's also compelling, if the lens is great. The company seems to be building a great reason to switch, and in a short time, is ahead of Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax in mirror-less offerings.
Update 2014.01.15: The company has brought out some new grips and DPReview has taken a look at them here. They look a bit ridiculous, as they don't fit into the design smoothly, but I'm sure they do the job, as well as take a chunk from your wallet.
Update 2014.01.31 Happy Chinese (Lunar) New Year! I've been looking at the X-T1 and, while it's rather small, I think I could live with the X-T1 and three lenses, for quite a while:
(I couldn't care less about the 18-135mm in the photo. It's over 4x zoom and that's more than I will use. Why? Image quality will suffer.)
Of course, these are rather expensive and in sports photography, the 50-140mm f/2.8 is the only one that will bring me money. My serious question is: Will FujiFilm continue or will it be as it was with Olympus? Olympus was brilliant in 2003 with the E-1 and the great lenses were coming quickly. There was quite a following, and then, Nikon and Canon became good with digital photography and Olympus slowed. Ten years later, I'm thinking about options, even though the equipment works quite well still.
I suppose I could eliminate the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens at first and continue to use my current equipment (especially the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8) for a normal view. Still, I don't believe any of these lenses are available until later in the year, so it's not a real concern yet--just thinking.
Update 2014.02.12: I just saw something about Olympus producing a micro Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 lens, expected in 2015. That has a lot of possibilities, and it's certainly a low light opportunist, compared to the current f/4.0 lenses, including the 10-24mm f/4.0 from FujiFilm. If it will be priced at US$999.99 (the Four-Thirds f/4.0 lens is US$1799.99, a bargain of sorts), it will make me more indecisive about where I'm going. Having a 135 format effective 14mm available at f/2.8 (over 15mm at f/4.0) says a lot about getting the shot, even in dim lighting. We still have to take into account how well each sensor and processor handle the image quality at higher sensitivities. Minimizing electronic and electrical noise from the image path is most important to ensure a clean image. Obviously, the X-Trans II sensor has the edge, but Olympus has achieved quite a lot of success, despite the hurdles of the sensor size. I wonder how different the image quality would be if the FujiFilm sensor had 24.x MP, so that the pixel density would be roughly equal.
Update 2014.03.03: I've really been thinking about the X-T1 body quite a bit, mainly because of the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8 weather-sealed lenses. I held the X-T1 body and found it to be sturdy but a little small, similar to the Olympus E-M1. Of course, the X-T1 has no need to mount huge lenses, as the E-M1 may, since there is no Four-Thirds equivalent, and the Pentax K-mount lenses for the Fujica AZ-1 from the late 1970s are likely in short supply, though there is no official adapter anyway.
The drawbacks of the X-T1 for someone like me, photographing sports, may be too much. Since the initial announcements, Olympus and Panasonic have really given me too many solutions. The GH4 has doubled the GH3's burst rate to 12 frames per second and 7.2 frames per second in tracking mode. If a familiar, comfortable Panasonic body is much better, why not stick with it, especially when Olympus is bringing great lenses, even without image stabilization?
Update 2014.03.05: I was looking at this article about photos of the real FujiFilm weather-sealed lenses. I could see that the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens seems to have a 77mm filter size and the 50-140mm f/2.8 seems to have a 67mm filter size. I'm surprised that the 50-140mm isn't bigger round the barrel. Both my 14-35mm f/2.0 and my 35-100mm f/2.0 have the 77mm filter size and, while they're heavy, they're manageable on a dSLR the size of the Nikon D7100, the E-5. I wonder what sort of balance (or imbalance) will be there with these lenses and the X-T1 since it's more the size of the E-M1. I found it a bit too small, similar to how I feel about the E-M1.
Update 2014.03.31: Reviews have been very positive for the 10-24mm lens. I'm not surprised. I still wish that it was weather-sealed, since you could be photographing a landscape and it might start to rain. Use an umbrella? What's that? I've never, ever used an umbrella for photography, especially since I don't have three hands.
The widest native lenses are the Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 or the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 but I'm not sure if I want to dig deeper into micro Four-Thirds. There are the Olympus 9-18mm lenses but I'm not really sure about the optics and f/4.0-5.6 tends to be darker quickly. The Olympus 7-14mm is the only one that really fits, as I can use it on my Four-Thirds bodies as well as micro Four-Thirds bodies and it is weather-sealed, but then, maybe I don't really need such a feature.
This new FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens seems appealing, especially with the X-E2 (or X-T1) body. (The X-Pro1 could use an update, don't you think?)
 |
| FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 |
If the image quality is a match for the sensor, it should be a potent combination, more than a match for a dSLR using a same-sized sensor. How big does a 135 format lens have to be to cover 15-36mm at a constant f/4.0? Will a filter size of 67mm cover it? It's not likely.
The FujiFilm lens has to be slightly larger than the Panasonic 7-14mm and it's definitely heavier at 410 grams over the 300 grams for the Panasonic lens. I wanted to compare by filter size but the Panasonic lens, like the Olympus lens has a convex front element and therefore, doesn't allow filters. The filter size of the 10-24mm lens is 72mm, which seems large for an f/4.0 lens, but it really is (ultra-)wide at 10mm. The Olympus lens is substantially heavier at 780 grams but the image quality is what you'd expect for a premium, weather-sealed lens. Strangely, the Olympus lens seems to have been removed from the company's web site.
 |
| Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 |
 |
| Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 |
FujiFilm, with their great sensor are breaking boundaries again. I liked what they were doing when they were still doing dSLRs in Nikon bodies. However, at those speeds, the dSLRs were better in the studio than out in the world where speed would be an issue. They seem to be finding themselves right now, as Olympus and Panasonic did with their first few generations of mirror-less system cameras. Once FujiFilm finds their way, I suspect that Samsung and Sony won't have a chance in the APS-C market. If FujiFilm would put together a dSLR-shaped model, it would likely boost sales and cut into Panasonic's market, also, except for video.
In any case, the 10-24mm f/4.0 isn't due until March and I doubt we'll see any previews until just before it's ready, so it will be difficult to judge the image quality. I'm looking forward to it.
Update 2014.01.06: FujiFilm's 56mm f/1.2 lens has been announced with a price of US$999.99 and that's also compelling, if the lens is great. The company seems to be building a great reason to switch, and in a short time, is ahead of Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax in mirror-less offerings.
Update 2014.01.15: The company has brought out some new grips and DPReview has taken a look at them here. They look a bit ridiculous, as they don't fit into the design smoothly, but I'm sure they do the job, as well as take a chunk from your wallet.
Update 2014.01.31 Happy Chinese (Lunar) New Year! I've been looking at the X-T1 and, while it's rather small, I think I could live with the X-T1 and three lenses, for quite a while:
 |
| 18-135mm, 16-55mm f/2.8, and 50-140mm f/2.8 |
- XF 16-55mm f/2.8 OIS
- XF 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS
- XF 10-24mm f/4.0 OIS
(I couldn't care less about the 18-135mm in the photo. It's over 4x zoom and that's more than I will use. Why? Image quality will suffer.)
Of course, these are rather expensive and in sports photography, the 50-140mm f/2.8 is the only one that will bring me money. My serious question is: Will FujiFilm continue or will it be as it was with Olympus? Olympus was brilliant in 2003 with the E-1 and the great lenses were coming quickly. There was quite a following, and then, Nikon and Canon became good with digital photography and Olympus slowed. Ten years later, I'm thinking about options, even though the equipment works quite well still.
I suppose I could eliminate the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens at first and continue to use my current equipment (especially the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8) for a normal view. Still, I don't believe any of these lenses are available until later in the year, so it's not a real concern yet--just thinking.
Update 2014.02.12: I just saw something about Olympus producing a micro Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 lens, expected in 2015. That has a lot of possibilities, and it's certainly a low light opportunist, compared to the current f/4.0 lenses, including the 10-24mm f/4.0 from FujiFilm. If it will be priced at US$999.99 (the Four-Thirds f/4.0 lens is US$1799.99, a bargain of sorts), it will make me more indecisive about where I'm going. Having a 135 format effective 14mm available at f/2.8 (over 15mm at f/4.0) says a lot about getting the shot, even in dim lighting. We still have to take into account how well each sensor and processor handle the image quality at higher sensitivities. Minimizing electronic and electrical noise from the image path is most important to ensure a clean image. Obviously, the X-Trans II sensor has the edge, but Olympus has achieved quite a lot of success, despite the hurdles of the sensor size. I wonder how different the image quality would be if the FujiFilm sensor had 24.x MP, so that the pixel density would be roughly equal.
Update 2014.03.03: I've really been thinking about the X-T1 body quite a bit, mainly because of the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8 weather-sealed lenses. I held the X-T1 body and found it to be sturdy but a little small, similar to the Olympus E-M1. Of course, the X-T1 has no need to mount huge lenses, as the E-M1 may, since there is no Four-Thirds equivalent, and the Pentax K-mount lenses for the Fujica AZ-1 from the late 1970s are likely in short supply, though there is no official adapter anyway.
The drawbacks of the X-T1 for someone like me, photographing sports, may be too much. Since the initial announcements, Olympus and Panasonic have really given me too many solutions. The GH4 has doubled the GH3's burst rate to 12 frames per second and 7.2 frames per second in tracking mode. If a familiar, comfortable Panasonic body is much better, why not stick with it, especially when Olympus is bringing great lenses, even without image stabilization?
Update 2014.03.05: I was looking at this article about photos of the real FujiFilm weather-sealed lenses. I could see that the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens seems to have a 77mm filter size and the 50-140mm f/2.8 seems to have a 67mm filter size. I'm surprised that the 50-140mm isn't bigger round the barrel. Both my 14-35mm f/2.0 and my 35-100mm f/2.0 have the 77mm filter size and, while they're heavy, they're manageable on a dSLR the size of the Nikon D7100, the E-5. I wonder what sort of balance (or imbalance) will be there with these lenses and the X-T1 since it's more the size of the E-M1. I found it a bit too small, similar to how I feel about the E-M1.
Update 2014.03.31: Reviews have been very positive for the 10-24mm lens. I'm not surprised. I still wish that it was weather-sealed, since you could be photographing a landscape and it might start to rain. Use an umbrella? What's that? I've never, ever used an umbrella for photography, especially since I don't have three hands.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
DPReview's most-clicked
For years, I've seen a list of DPReview's most clicked cameras. They have always included some mix of Canon and Nikon equipment, as though each faction will not let the other win.
On occasion, you will see Pentax or Olympus or Fuji or Sony sneak into the top list, and then, promptly be forced to the bottom and then, off the list entirely for a while. Sometime, they return, as when a preview turns into a review.
Amusingly, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 ended up their camera of the year in 2012, as to say to the Canikon crowd, "We've had enough of you!" Still, the most-clicked list has continued to have both Canon and Nikon equipment, until November 6th, when I saw this:
I'm not saying that it means a lot, but it is a surprising departure, and the list has not had a single Canon camera on it for several days. You have to wonder if the whole lot of them are at some Canon-sponsored event and can't be bothered to visit DPReview now.
Update: the whole situation is slowly going back to normal with a few Canon products on the list. I wonder if they somehow stopped counting the Canon products or banned them from the list due to "stuffing the ballot box" type of behaviour.
On occasion, you will see Pentax or Olympus or Fuji or Sony sneak into the top list, and then, promptly be forced to the bottom and then, off the list entirely for a while. Sometime, they return, as when a preview turns into a review.
Amusingly, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 ended up their camera of the year in 2012, as to say to the Canikon crowd, "We've had enough of you!" Still, the most-clicked list has continued to have both Canon and Nikon equipment, until November 6th, when I saw this:
I'm not saying that it means a lot, but it is a surprising departure, and the list has not had a single Canon camera on it for several days. You have to wonder if the whole lot of them are at some Canon-sponsored event and can't be bothered to visit DPReview now.
Update: the whole situation is slowly going back to normal with a few Canon products on the list. I wonder if they somehow stopped counting the Canon products or banned them from the list due to "stuffing the ballot box" type of behaviour.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Nikon Df, more retro in a bigger but smaller package
While I'm not exactly surprised by Nikon's announcement, I'm pleased to see that they've put together a 1970s-style camera body.
When I was selling the Nikon F2, we had a Nikkormat body, which was their less expensive, smaller brand. It was easily usable without the crane and tripod. Compared to the Olympus OM-1N, it was still quite heavy.
When I first got a dSLR in 2004, I wondered why they couldn't do something in the same size as the 1970s bodies. It seemed ridiculous to have a smaller sensor (APS-C or Four-Thirds) in a body larger than 135 format. Then, I mounted a longer, bigger lens and realized how much more comfortable these dSLRs were. The grip kept them from being slippery, too. Using a 4x telephoto zoom, and relaxing and holding everything with only fingertips on the grip says a lot of progress has been made.
So, Nikon brought a camera to market that looks very much like the 1970s, adding a couple of LCDs and a lot of automatic features. The price is up there, but not outrageous for what you get. At roughly US$2750, you get their top of the line 135 format/FX sensor. (If you think higher pixel density leads to better image quality, you need to think again.) Combine that with the D610's auto focus unit, a single card slot, and all the dials you can handle, and you've got a great casual shooter than wipes Sony's A7/A7R duo right off the camera shop floor, except for size, of course.
No, it's not likely that the same people are going to be driven to Sony and Nikon bodies, or anything with the retro look. I suspect a lot of people in their 70s will buy the Nikon Df, if for nothing than nostalgia, as they probably have an old Nikon body in the closet.
Why do I damn the Df with the word "casual"? You'll see that the first time you mount the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to it without a tripod handy. It's the same reason I call most of the micro Four-Thirds bodies casual--you'll need to take more care if you want to work handheld with an unbalanced pairing of body and lens. Thankfully, Fuji has been thoughtful with their X-series bodies and only provided an adapter for Leica M-mount lenses, which are small lenses. In the 1970s, it wasn't a huge problem because there weren't so many huge lenses, unless you were using Medium Format.
If you fit into that category where you take the time to take the shot, I suspect that you'll be richly rewarded by some very amazing image quality with the best lenses. If you dig the bottom of the barrel and come out with a 40 year old Sigma lens, you'll wonder why there was any fuss about the Nikon Df. Using high quality lenses with it will make you admire the D4 even more.
Thinking back a bit to the D610 announcement, I see where it makes more sense now that the update came about the same time as the Df, especially with the update to the Expeed 3 processor and faster burst rate.
Update 2013.11.11: Saturday, I was at a local camera store for a workshop, and I was discussing something later and I noticed a couple of the film bodies from the 1970s and 1980s, and they brought back a sense of nostalgia, having sold such equipment in my past. Unfortunately, most who spent US$500 aren't as likely to spend US$2750 for nostalgia, I expect.
Update 2013.11.24: Reading What Digital Camera's impressions made me smile when they said that the camera body was larger than expected, even though it's the smallest Nikon FX body. Nikon built huge camera bodies way back when. It was only after Olympus started to take business away that they responded with smaller bodies. The article was suggesting that the balance wasn't very good with zoom lenses. They should go back to the 1970s when none of the camera bodies had much of a grip at all. If you wanted stability, you bought a tripod.
Update 2014.12.18: I wonder if Nikon has sold more than a few thousand of these bodies. I don't see much about this body any longer. I suppose Nikon enthusiasts and professional photographers from the 1970s bought quite a few of them and that buying spree was over quickly. What value can you place on nostalgia?
When I was selling the Nikon F2, we had a Nikkormat body, which was their less expensive, smaller brand. It was easily usable without the crane and tripod. Compared to the Olympus OM-1N, it was still quite heavy.
When I first got a dSLR in 2004, I wondered why they couldn't do something in the same size as the 1970s bodies. It seemed ridiculous to have a smaller sensor (APS-C or Four-Thirds) in a body larger than 135 format. Then, I mounted a longer, bigger lens and realized how much more comfortable these dSLRs were. The grip kept them from being slippery, too. Using a 4x telephoto zoom, and relaxing and holding everything with only fingertips on the grip says a lot of progress has been made.
So, Nikon brought a camera to market that looks very much like the 1970s, adding a couple of LCDs and a lot of automatic features. The price is up there, but not outrageous for what you get. At roughly US$2750, you get their top of the line 135 format/FX sensor. (If you think higher pixel density leads to better image quality, you need to think again.) Combine that with the D610's auto focus unit, a single card slot, and all the dials you can handle, and you've got a great casual shooter than wipes Sony's A7/A7R duo right off the camera shop floor, except for size, of course.
No, it's not likely that the same people are going to be driven to Sony and Nikon bodies, or anything with the retro look. I suspect a lot of people in their 70s will buy the Nikon Df, if for nothing than nostalgia, as they probably have an old Nikon body in the closet.
Why do I damn the Df with the word "casual"? You'll see that the first time you mount the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to it without a tripod handy. It's the same reason I call most of the micro Four-Thirds bodies casual--you'll need to take more care if you want to work handheld with an unbalanced pairing of body and lens. Thankfully, Fuji has been thoughtful with their X-series bodies and only provided an adapter for Leica M-mount lenses, which are small lenses. In the 1970s, it wasn't a huge problem because there weren't so many huge lenses, unless you were using Medium Format.
If you fit into that category where you take the time to take the shot, I suspect that you'll be richly rewarded by some very amazing image quality with the best lenses. If you dig the bottom of the barrel and come out with a 40 year old Sigma lens, you'll wonder why there was any fuss about the Nikon Df. Using high quality lenses with it will make you admire the D4 even more.
Thinking back a bit to the D610 announcement, I see where it makes more sense now that the update came about the same time as the Df, especially with the update to the Expeed 3 processor and faster burst rate.
Update 2013.11.11: Saturday, I was at a local camera store for a workshop, and I was discussing something later and I noticed a couple of the film bodies from the 1970s and 1980s, and they brought back a sense of nostalgia, having sold such equipment in my past. Unfortunately, most who spent US$500 aren't as likely to spend US$2750 for nostalgia, I expect.
Update 2013.11.24: Reading What Digital Camera's impressions made me smile when they said that the camera body was larger than expected, even though it's the smallest Nikon FX body. Nikon built huge camera bodies way back when. It was only after Olympus started to take business away that they responded with smaller bodies. The article was suggesting that the balance wasn't very good with zoom lenses. They should go back to the 1970s when none of the camera bodies had much of a grip at all. If you wanted stability, you bought a tripod.
Update 2014.12.18: I wonder if Nikon has sold more than a few thousand of these bodies. I don't see much about this body any longer. I suppose Nikon enthusiasts and professional photographers from the 1970s bought quite a few of them and that buying spree was over quickly. What value can you place on nostalgia?
Sunday, October 27, 2013
FujiFilm's latest mirror-less cameras
A while back, I questioned the need/desire to design today's mirror-less cameras like those of 50 years ago. Fuji and Olympus were high on my list. These two have been my favorite camera companies since I was a teen. They have done some really impressive work over the years. I wasn't sure why they wanted to return to other decades for designs.
FujiFilm was big in the news industry, although most photographers wouldn't even know that. They still make some business-purposed cameras. Most people now wouldn't even realize that their 135 format SLRs were fairly popular in the 1970s with the ST 601/605, 801, and 901 models, plus the AZ-1, their first auto exposure model that also signaled their move from Pentax screw mount to Pentax K-mount. I knew a lot about them because I used to sell them, along with Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, and Canon. I started with an ST605 as my first SLR.
Today, they're a very different company, especially since film is almost gone.
They looked back to some rangefinder/viewfinder cameras and did something the other companies weren't doing with mirror-less--hybrid optical/electronic viewfinders.
The trouble I remember with rangefinder/viewfinder cameras was getting the focus right. Since you didn't look through the lens, you couldn't confirm focus at all. Some of the cheaper cameras didn't even help you any scale in the viewfinder to guide you as to what would be in the photo. Experimenting was expensive, but once you got the hang of it, you could remember what distance actually worked.
Today's Fuji X-series of interchangeable lens mirror-less rangefinders are much more helpful. The rear display can give you a good view of your photo ahead of time. The X-Trans sensors, for those bodies which have them, are quite adept at great image quality, surpassing other sensors of the same size.
What remains is the size and shape of the body and that polarizes most people. It's the warm and fuzzy situation. You're happy with the familiar and you don't want substitutes. I want a good grip and a size that I can hold easily while using longer lenses. Many people want something small that they can carry easily, especially when they can accessorize with a smooth leather case. You'd think that I was talking about women, but the majority are men buying these cameras.
I guess my problem is that I'm just not a casual type behind the camera. I take everything as a challenge! That's probably why I'm better at sports than portraits or street photography.
However, I really admire what FujiFilm has done. The latest X-E2's specifications look good, and the image quality will likely be slightly better than the X-E1. Many of the models are impressive. It doesn't surprise me that the company has gone their own way with the color filter. For a while, they were putting their own sensors into Nikon bodies, similar to the way Kodak was working in the market.
Their auto focus has become faster and more reliable. Their early problems with the sensors are gone. They've added lenses, not that there are many, but they are sufficient for the kinds of cameras that they are. I'm really thinking that they'll not be used for sports. If they had an ultra wide angle lens, I'd probably buy one for that purpose alone.
I could see Ansel Adams using one, although I suspect that he could do wonders with a cardboard disposable camera. He inspires me, and so does FujiFilm.
I saw the X-S1 in person the other day for the first time. For a point-and-shoot, ultra-zoom camera, it's huge. It was sitting between two Canon dSLRs and I didn't really notice it at first because it was a similar size. Granted, the lens has much more reach because the sensor is so tiny, but the body size and the price were consistent with the others, also. (Technically, it is mirror-less, but it's not a mirror-less system camera, so I just added it here.)
I just saw a rumor that Fuji make create a mirror-less dSLR-like camera body, probably grabbing the ST801 as a design reference. If we wear the right clothes, start the 8-track tape deck, and use our fake 1970s cameras, it should feel as though the 1970s are back.
Update 2013.12.19: This new Fuji 10-24mm f/4.0 lens makes the system look even more valuable. That, and an X-E2 or X-Pro1 would likely fill the rest of my needs for a few years. Of course, they don't do anything for sport.
Update 2014.01.28: Given my previous bits about the 1970s, I think the X-T1 looks good, especially with the 70-200mm 135 format equivalent lens (50-140mm f/2.8) that is weather-sealed. Maybe, they do sports after all. It's not exactly where I was thinking of going, but given the few alternatives, it might be the correct way to go. If anything, FujiFilm really needs to find a way to provide a raw file with an ISO sensitivity outside 200-6400. If images are usable past ISO 6400, a raw file would be preferable.
Update 2014.10.28: I tried the X-T1 in a store briefly and it was even more uncomfortable in my hands than the Olympus E-M1. However, with extensive use, the E-M1 has become better, though the Panasonic GH3/GH4 is extremely comfortable. FujiFilm has a grip accessory that fits on the front, as well as the battery grip.
FujiFilm continues to update their firmware and it's respectable. Olympus actually updated the E-M1 firmware to version 2.0, which seemed unusual. However, Olympus is selling quite a few bodies and FujiFilm is still working their way up. It's sad that raw processing software has made it difficult to sell their bodies with an X-TRANS sensor. It's getting better but hardly seems optimal.
In any case, FujiFilm seems to have created a Leica-like following of users. They need a dedicated following, though not those who should be committed, if you get my meaning. Their dedication to their users seems to have been met with dedication from the users.
FujiFilm was big in the news industry, although most photographers wouldn't even know that. They still make some business-purposed cameras. Most people now wouldn't even realize that their 135 format SLRs were fairly popular in the 1970s with the ST 601/605, 801, and 901 models, plus the AZ-1, their first auto exposure model that also signaled their move from Pentax screw mount to Pentax K-mount. I knew a lot about them because I used to sell them, along with Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, and Canon. I started with an ST605 as my first SLR.
Today, they're a very different company, especially since film is almost gone.
They looked back to some rangefinder/viewfinder cameras and did something the other companies weren't doing with mirror-less--hybrid optical/electronic viewfinders.
The trouble I remember with rangefinder/viewfinder cameras was getting the focus right. Since you didn't look through the lens, you couldn't confirm focus at all. Some of the cheaper cameras didn't even help you any scale in the viewfinder to guide you as to what would be in the photo. Experimenting was expensive, but once you got the hang of it, you could remember what distance actually worked.
Today's Fuji X-series of interchangeable lens mirror-less rangefinders are much more helpful. The rear display can give you a good view of your photo ahead of time. The X-Trans sensors, for those bodies which have them, are quite adept at great image quality, surpassing other sensors of the same size.
What remains is the size and shape of the body and that polarizes most people. It's the warm and fuzzy situation. You're happy with the familiar and you don't want substitutes. I want a good grip and a size that I can hold easily while using longer lenses. Many people want something small that they can carry easily, especially when they can accessorize with a smooth leather case. You'd think that I was talking about women, but the majority are men buying these cameras.
I guess my problem is that I'm just not a casual type behind the camera. I take everything as a challenge! That's probably why I'm better at sports than portraits or street photography.
However, I really admire what FujiFilm has done. The latest X-E2's specifications look good, and the image quality will likely be slightly better than the X-E1. Many of the models are impressive. It doesn't surprise me that the company has gone their own way with the color filter. For a while, they were putting their own sensors into Nikon bodies, similar to the way Kodak was working in the market.
Their auto focus has become faster and more reliable. Their early problems with the sensors are gone. They've added lenses, not that there are many, but they are sufficient for the kinds of cameras that they are. I'm really thinking that they'll not be used for sports. If they had an ultra wide angle lens, I'd probably buy one for that purpose alone.
I could see Ansel Adams using one, although I suspect that he could do wonders with a cardboard disposable camera. He inspires me, and so does FujiFilm.
I saw the X-S1 in person the other day for the first time. For a point-and-shoot, ultra-zoom camera, it's huge. It was sitting between two Canon dSLRs and I didn't really notice it at first because it was a similar size. Granted, the lens has much more reach because the sensor is so tiny, but the body size and the price were consistent with the others, also. (Technically, it is mirror-less, but it's not a mirror-less system camera, so I just added it here.)
I just saw a rumor that Fuji make create a mirror-less dSLR-like camera body, probably grabbing the ST801 as a design reference. If we wear the right clothes, start the 8-track tape deck, and use our fake 1970s cameras, it should feel as though the 1970s are back.
Update 2013.12.19: This new Fuji 10-24mm f/4.0 lens makes the system look even more valuable. That, and an X-E2 or X-Pro1 would likely fill the rest of my needs for a few years. Of course, they don't do anything for sport.
Update 2014.01.28: Given my previous bits about the 1970s, I think the X-T1 looks good, especially with the 70-200mm 135 format equivalent lens (50-140mm f/2.8) that is weather-sealed. Maybe, they do sports after all. It's not exactly where I was thinking of going, but given the few alternatives, it might be the correct way to go. If anything, FujiFilm really needs to find a way to provide a raw file with an ISO sensitivity outside 200-6400. If images are usable past ISO 6400, a raw file would be preferable.
Update 2014.10.28: I tried the X-T1 in a store briefly and it was even more uncomfortable in my hands than the Olympus E-M1. However, with extensive use, the E-M1 has become better, though the Panasonic GH3/GH4 is extremely comfortable. FujiFilm has a grip accessory that fits on the front, as well as the battery grip.
FujiFilm continues to update their firmware and it's respectable. Olympus actually updated the E-M1 firmware to version 2.0, which seemed unusual. However, Olympus is selling quite a few bodies and FujiFilm is still working their way up. It's sad that raw processing software has made it difficult to sell their bodies with an X-TRANS sensor. It's getting better but hardly seems optimal.
In any case, FujiFilm seems to have created a Leica-like following of users. They need a dedicated following, though not those who should be committed, if you get my meaning. Their dedication to their users seems to have been met with dedication from the users.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Silver lenses work on black camera bodies!
It's sad, but finding stores that have something other than Nikon, Canon (and possibly Sony) photographic equipment is difficult. Finding (micro) Four-Thirds equipment is close to impossible outside of New York City.
Yesterday, I had the chance to try the Olympus E-M5 body, 12mm f/2.0, and 75mm f/1.8 in three different stores. None of them had even two items.
First, I went to Cord Camera in the Kenwood section of Cincinnati. I was told previously that this store had plenty of micro Four-Thirds equipment and I should go there, instead of the store on the west side.
I asked specifically about the 12mm f/2.0 and the 75mm f/1.8. They didn't have them, but the salesperson made a call to the other store, and they had the 12mm f/2.0, so they held one for my inspection. In the meantime, I asked to try the E-M5, since they obviously had one.
My impression: too small, though the grip made it less slippery than my OM-1N. It felt reasonable with my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. They only had the economy lenses, so I didn't bother with those. I wanted to take a few shots but it didn't like my 32 GB San Disk Extreme Pro card from my Panasonic GH3. I even tried to re-format it, and it didn't want to work with it at all. Except for that, I found the body to be agreeable, even though the size is a problem for me.
After this, I spent a bit of time at the Kenwood Towne Centre mall and didn't find much interesting, even in the Apple store or the Microsoft store--at opposites, as the Apple store was difficult to navigate with all the people, the Microsoft store had five employees, and no one else to navigate.
As I left the mall, I happened upon a store I'd been trying to find: Dodd Camera. In the state of Ohio, there are two of their stores with medium format equipment, and this was one of them. Of course, I didn't ask, but they had a bit of everything, including the Fuji X-series cameras in a jewelry case. They looked quite precious.
Here, I tried the 75mm f/1.8. Even though it's very small, I found it agreeable and very sharp. My micro Four-Thirds experience has been rough and the 75mm lens was a great surprise. Whether it's worth the price, I'm not sure. I can mount my Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and get amazing results. Would I spent close to US$1000 on a single focal length that has been covered multiple times in my equipment bags?
The people at both stores were very gracious and made no rude remarks about the format. I'm so accustomed to brand fanatics, and their lack of discipline that I'm always pleased (and amazed) to find stores without them. I suppose I could be considered a brand fanatic since I currently only have Olympus and Panasonic equipment, but I believe "the right tool for the job" is what you need to do the work.
As I had the west side Cord Camera store holding a lens (with no obligation!) for me, I went to see that one. They moved the store--in the same strip mall. It says "Don't Panic!" but as Douglas Adams knows, people panic first, ask questions later.
The rather friendly people at Cord Camera brought out the 12mm f/2.0. Both this and the 75mm reminded me both of jewelry and scientific equipment. They're also like 1950s photographic equipment, especially the German equipment.
The 12mm lens was quick to focus, but not quite as quickly as the 75mm on my GH3. After a few shots, I removed it, and then, remembered the Clutch/Pull to enable manual focus functionality. It immediately showed "MF" in the viewfinder as I enabled it. As much as I've complained about using manual focus on the too short Panasonic 35-100mm lens I have, I had to make a special effort to focus the tiny 12mm lens.
One thing you'll be glad to know: silver lenses work on black camera bodies. You can do it! (The 12mm f/2.0 I tried was silver, not champagne color, as with one I tried years ago. Why does Olympus have 3 variants of silver?)
My opinion stands that Olympus has a few good lenses: 12mm f/2.0, 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8, and Panasonic has the 7-14mm f/4.0 and 8mm f/3.5 fisheye. If these focal lengths appeal to you, you'll get some really amazing shots, I'm sure. (I could say that the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 are good lenses, but my 35-100mm f/2.8 makes me feel that I wasted my money on a lens that's only worth half the price.)
Update 2014.02.17: I was looking at recent combination deals and while they had a black 17mm f/1.8, a black 45mm f/1.8, and a black 75mm f/1.8, the company refuses to produce a non-limited edition 12mm f/2.0. I saw it with a US$200 price reduction and it was still way too expensive. After the Kowa announcement, I've seen people refer to the "panda" lenses as something they didn't want to put on their camera bodies because they weren't a single color.
Update 2015.08.15: The black 12mm f/2.0 lens is now standard, but of course, without an included lens hood. Thankfully, the "PRO" lenses include lens hoods. The 8mm f/1.8 fisheye has the built-in lens hood, as does the 7-14mm f/2.8. Olympus has really improved their lens selection, and so has Panasonic.
Yesterday, I had the chance to try the Olympus E-M5 body, 12mm f/2.0, and 75mm f/1.8 in three different stores. None of them had even two items.
First, I went to Cord Camera in the Kenwood section of Cincinnati. I was told previously that this store had plenty of micro Four-Thirds equipment and I should go there, instead of the store on the west side.
I asked specifically about the 12mm f/2.0 and the 75mm f/1.8. They didn't have them, but the salesperson made a call to the other store, and they had the 12mm f/2.0, so they held one for my inspection. In the meantime, I asked to try the E-M5, since they obviously had one.
My impression: too small, though the grip made it less slippery than my OM-1N. It felt reasonable with my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. They only had the economy lenses, so I didn't bother with those. I wanted to take a few shots but it didn't like my 32 GB San Disk Extreme Pro card from my Panasonic GH3. I even tried to re-format it, and it didn't want to work with it at all. Except for that, I found the body to be agreeable, even though the size is a problem for me.
After this, I spent a bit of time at the Kenwood Towne Centre mall and didn't find much interesting, even in the Apple store or the Microsoft store--at opposites, as the Apple store was difficult to navigate with all the people, the Microsoft store had five employees, and no one else to navigate.
As I left the mall, I happened upon a store I'd been trying to find: Dodd Camera. In the state of Ohio, there are two of their stores with medium format equipment, and this was one of them. Of course, I didn't ask, but they had a bit of everything, including the Fuji X-series cameras in a jewelry case. They looked quite precious.
Here, I tried the 75mm f/1.8. Even though it's very small, I found it agreeable and very sharp. My micro Four-Thirds experience has been rough and the 75mm lens was a great surprise. Whether it's worth the price, I'm not sure. I can mount my Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and get amazing results. Would I spent close to US$1000 on a single focal length that has been covered multiple times in my equipment bags?
The people at both stores were very gracious and made no rude remarks about the format. I'm so accustomed to brand fanatics, and their lack of discipline that I'm always pleased (and amazed) to find stores without them. I suppose I could be considered a brand fanatic since I currently only have Olympus and Panasonic equipment, but I believe "the right tool for the job" is what you need to do the work.
As I had the west side Cord Camera store holding a lens (with no obligation!) for me, I went to see that one. They moved the store--in the same strip mall. It says "Don't Panic!" but as Douglas Adams knows, people panic first, ask questions later.
The rather friendly people at Cord Camera brought out the 12mm f/2.0. Both this and the 75mm reminded me both of jewelry and scientific equipment. They're also like 1950s photographic equipment, especially the German equipment.
The 12mm lens was quick to focus, but not quite as quickly as the 75mm on my GH3. After a few shots, I removed it, and then, remembered the Clutch/Pull to enable manual focus functionality. It immediately showed "MF" in the viewfinder as I enabled it. As much as I've complained about using manual focus on the too short Panasonic 35-100mm lens I have, I had to make a special effort to focus the tiny 12mm lens.
One thing you'll be glad to know: silver lenses work on black camera bodies. You can do it! (The 12mm f/2.0 I tried was silver, not champagne color, as with one I tried years ago. Why does Olympus have 3 variants of silver?)
My opinion stands that Olympus has a few good lenses: 12mm f/2.0, 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8, and Panasonic has the 7-14mm f/4.0 and 8mm f/3.5 fisheye. If these focal lengths appeal to you, you'll get some really amazing shots, I'm sure. (I could say that the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 are good lenses, but my 35-100mm f/2.8 makes me feel that I wasted my money on a lens that's only worth half the price.)
Update 2014.02.17: I was looking at recent combination deals and while they had a black 17mm f/1.8, a black 45mm f/1.8, and a black 75mm f/1.8, the company refuses to produce a non-limited edition 12mm f/2.0. I saw it with a US$200 price reduction and it was still way too expensive. After the Kowa announcement, I've seen people refer to the "panda" lenses as something they didn't want to put on their camera bodies because they weren't a single color.
Update 2015.08.15: The black 12mm f/2.0 lens is now standard, but of course, without an included lens hood. Thankfully, the "PRO" lenses include lens hoods. The 8mm f/1.8 fisheye has the built-in lens hood, as does the 7-14mm f/2.8. Olympus has really improved their lens selection, and so has Panasonic.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Olympus, Fuji, and Style
I am one of the few people, it seems, who believes that the output from the camera has more importance than the way it looks to other people while I'm using it.
A few years ago, a friend in Singapore was telling me how great the new Sony dSLRs (new from Minolta at the time) looked and how he just had to have one. I commented that they weren't very good technically and that Minolta was always a mediocre brand and it seemed that Sony was aspiring to mediocrity lately, so they fit.
It didn't matter--the camera body looked great to him. He later bought the thing and, as he wasn't expecting much, it didn't disappoint.
More recently, when Olympus brought out the new Pen and OM-D series, they took bit styling cues from their film-laden past. The film Pen series was quite popular and the OM series of SLRs was extremely popular, even with professionals. I noticed a change in the forums I visited. Suddenly, people were worried about cases and straps and the colour of the lenses that they bought more than they were worried about the photos. Odd, that.
I suppose it's different coming from one box, a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, and feeding it rather large film with small hands, looking through the viewfinder at an upside-down image and learning to compose a shot with thought. Then, I had a Polaroid instant camera of some sort that took Type 88, 107, or 108 film (The Convertible, I believe) and I had control over the exposure. My dad's heavy Polaroid Land Camera actually had the numeric exposure values that you could choose. I'd be comfortable with those now, but the plastic Polaroid camera had it set to a medium setting and you could twist the dial in the light or dark direction. I could never remember which did what, so I rarely messed with it. The inbuilt light meter really didn't help much, but I suppose it kept me from ruining all 8 prints in the pack.
All this time, I was concerned with getting the shot right. I walked forward and I walked backward. I leaned and I would sometimes lie on my back in order to get the shot. I was never concerned about how the camera (or I) looked.
So, I was also recalling people who would buy a dSLR because they wanted to look "professional", whatever that is. They didn't know how to work it and they only had the kit lens and their photos weren't very good, but they felt no ridicule in using the camera completely on automatic settings because they looked professional.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Olympus' latest micro Four-Thirds camera, the E-P5 harkens (ha! I never have used that word) to a simpler time and the Olympus Pen F half-frame 135 format camera. It has some good upgrades like the 1/8000th of a second shutter speed through better mechanicals and less time for shutter power saving to boost the performance. It bodes well for the end of the year announcement of a professional body to replace the E-5. This may or may not be a mirror-less body with some sort of modular lens mount that will allow both Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds lenses to be used. (Update 2013.12.11: How reality can smack you when you've read too many rumors! Rather than a modular camera body, the E-M1 is a micro Four-Thirds body than requires an adapter to use Four-Thirds lenses.)
In any case, the announcement seemed slanted more toward accessories with new leather half-cases and wood grips. They even had a country club theme to the announcement venue. Seriously odd, that. However, people worried about image more than image quality might aspire to being seen as someone who should be recognised for whatever reason.
Fuji has been busy too, with their X-series of rangefinder cameras. They even have a zoom lens. If you remember how to use a rangefinder, you might remember making guesstimates of distance for focusing. You had to take time to plan each shot. It was a wonderful process that people are re-learning. Considering that Fuji was having a terrible time with auto focus on their early releases, I'm sure that people were learning a lot about manual focus and taking time. I had a chance to handle the Fuji X10 yesterday and it seems a fine piece of work. It was next to a Canon Powershot G1X and I have no doubt that the X10 was better in most every way. It wasn't enough for me to put money into it, though. Given that I've seen Panasonic's GX1 body for sale for US$199 recently, why not spend less and be compatible with lenses I already have?
Given the dearth of lenses, many people have bought simple adapters and learned to use lenses from the deep, dark past when auto exposure and auto focus had not been available. Two rather beloved (and expensive for the mirror-less cameras) lenses come from Cosina/Voigtländer and feature no electronic connection at all but the very lovely f/0.95 maximum aperture. It's amusing that people will reject a camera body because of the auto focus speed but will use a very, very manual lens. They must take the time to learn what works. Maybe, they even work the numbers in their mind. The thought of thoughtful photography and composition is wonderful. Instead of the "professional" pointing at something and holding the shutter release for seconds, we have someone setting up a tripod, walking to and fro, moving the tripod, setting the distance, working out the aperture, and finally after minutes of work, taking the photo. It's progress!
Update 2013.12.11: With some of the Fuji bodies succeeded with faster processors and newer sensors, FujiFilm keeps showing us the alternative viewpoint of how a digital rangefinder could be done. I don't particularly care about the style, one way or the other, but the processing speed is better than adequate now, and the image quality is far better than average. Still, I'm not that patient.
A few years ago, a friend in Singapore was telling me how great the new Sony dSLRs (new from Minolta at the time) looked and how he just had to have one. I commented that they weren't very good technically and that Minolta was always a mediocre brand and it seemed that Sony was aspiring to mediocrity lately, so they fit.
It didn't matter--the camera body looked great to him. He later bought the thing and, as he wasn't expecting much, it didn't disappoint.
More recently, when Olympus brought out the new Pen and OM-D series, they took bit styling cues from their film-laden past. The film Pen series was quite popular and the OM series of SLRs was extremely popular, even with professionals. I noticed a change in the forums I visited. Suddenly, people were worried about cases and straps and the colour of the lenses that they bought more than they were worried about the photos. Odd, that.
I suppose it's different coming from one box, a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, and feeding it rather large film with small hands, looking through the viewfinder at an upside-down image and learning to compose a shot with thought. Then, I had a Polaroid instant camera of some sort that took Type 88, 107, or 108 film (The Convertible, I believe) and I had control over the exposure. My dad's heavy Polaroid Land Camera actually had the numeric exposure values that you could choose. I'd be comfortable with those now, but the plastic Polaroid camera had it set to a medium setting and you could twist the dial in the light or dark direction. I could never remember which did what, so I rarely messed with it. The inbuilt light meter really didn't help much, but I suppose it kept me from ruining all 8 prints in the pack.
All this time, I was concerned with getting the shot right. I walked forward and I walked backward. I leaned and I would sometimes lie on my back in order to get the shot. I was never concerned about how the camera (or I) looked.
So, I was also recalling people who would buy a dSLR because they wanted to look "professional", whatever that is. They didn't know how to work it and they only had the kit lens and their photos weren't very good, but they felt no ridicule in using the camera completely on automatic settings because they looked professional.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Olympus' latest micro Four-Thirds camera, the E-P5 harkens (ha! I never have used that word) to a simpler time and the Olympus Pen F half-frame 135 format camera. It has some good upgrades like the 1/8000th of a second shutter speed through better mechanicals and less time for shutter power saving to boost the performance. It bodes well for the end of the year announcement of a professional body to replace the E-5. This may or may not be a mirror-less body with some sort of modular lens mount that will allow both Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds lenses to be used. (Update 2013.12.11: How reality can smack you when you've read too many rumors! Rather than a modular camera body, the E-M1 is a micro Four-Thirds body than requires an adapter to use Four-Thirds lenses.)
In any case, the announcement seemed slanted more toward accessories with new leather half-cases and wood grips. They even had a country club theme to the announcement venue. Seriously odd, that. However, people worried about image more than image quality might aspire to being seen as someone who should be recognised for whatever reason.
Fuji has been busy too, with their X-series of rangefinder cameras. They even have a zoom lens. If you remember how to use a rangefinder, you might remember making guesstimates of distance for focusing. You had to take time to plan each shot. It was a wonderful process that people are re-learning. Considering that Fuji was having a terrible time with auto focus on their early releases, I'm sure that people were learning a lot about manual focus and taking time. I had a chance to handle the Fuji X10 yesterday and it seems a fine piece of work. It was next to a Canon Powershot G1X and I have no doubt that the X10 was better in most every way. It wasn't enough for me to put money into it, though. Given that I've seen Panasonic's GX1 body for sale for US$199 recently, why not spend less and be compatible with lenses I already have?
Given the dearth of lenses, many people have bought simple adapters and learned to use lenses from the deep, dark past when auto exposure and auto focus had not been available. Two rather beloved (and expensive for the mirror-less cameras) lenses come from Cosina/Voigtländer and feature no electronic connection at all but the very lovely f/0.95 maximum aperture. It's amusing that people will reject a camera body because of the auto focus speed but will use a very, very manual lens. They must take the time to learn what works. Maybe, they even work the numbers in their mind. The thought of thoughtful photography and composition is wonderful. Instead of the "professional" pointing at something and holding the shutter release for seconds, we have someone setting up a tripod, walking to and fro, moving the tripod, setting the distance, working out the aperture, and finally after minutes of work, taking the photo. It's progress!
Update 2013.12.11: With some of the Fuji bodies succeeded with faster processors and newer sensors, FujiFilm keeps showing us the alternative viewpoint of how a digital rangefinder could be done. I don't particularly care about the style, one way or the other, but the processing speed is better than adequate now, and the image quality is far better than average. Still, I'm not that patient.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Viewfinder cameras and enthusiasts
When I was little, I took my mum's Kodak Brownie Hawkeye in hand, looked through the viewfinder on the top of the camera, moved back and forth and side to side to frame my upside-down image. Once perfect, I pressed the gray shutter release to hear a click, and proceeded to advance the 620 format film to the next shot. Thankfully for me, there was no focusing and I didn't get any medium format quality images from the very plastic camera, even though the film was quite large.
That kind of camera doesn't work in the current, instant-gratification-seeking world. We don't want to think about the image, we just point and shoot. Indeed, that's what made Polaroid's instant photography more than an indulgence, and how digital photography (however bad, has wiped out film photography.
However, there is a market for enthusiasts' cameras and FujiFilm is up to their third model in the X line with the X-Pro1. It's a compact rangefinder camera with a total of 3 available lenses.
The great thing about rangefinder cameras was that you could get amazing image quality, at some high equipment cost, once you were able to guess correctly.
Yes, i said "guess". As with viewfinder cameras, you could never be certain you had things in focus. You could use a tape measure to get the distance and set the lens accordingly and that worked fine for portraits. Remember the photographer at your school having you sit on a chair or a box and he pulled the tape measure to you?
So, this lovely FujiFilm X-Pro1 is the type of camera that involves you in the process of photography, which is why it's an enthusiasts' camera. No one just taking snapshots would want to deal with the mess. It has auto focus but their X-series auto focus hasn't been all that reliable. When it is, you're golden. When it's not, you're wondering why you spent so much money. You're probably wondering how to make better guesses in order to do the focusing yourself.
I found myself thinking about such cameras and the nostalgia. I thought about the Mamiya 645 small medium format camera and can remember when it had an SLR-like viewfinder and fast shutter speed. Time has passed and digital versions of medium format cameras start roughly at US$10,000, which considering what's below them, they might not be so expensive, although the market has changed recently.
However, more people seem to be entering the enthusiasts' market, thanks to mirror-less camera bodies, and some sharp lenses needing adapters. Since the lenses don't have electronic contacts, they don't work closely with your camera and you have to be involved in almost every aspect of your photography.
I'm seeing people, who would normally just pick up a dSLR with the kit lens and take a shot, thinking about the shot. Using fixed-focal (not zoom) lenses, they have to walk forward and backward until they frame the shot. Then, they have to adjust the exposure and they're thinking about the depth of field and they're really enthusiastic in a way that the dSLR in auto everything mode never pushed them.
It's amazing to me and hopefully, the prices will decrease once these higher quality cameras reach commodity status. We had 135 format point-and-shoot cameras way back when in the 1980s and 1990s. For US$50, you could get good quality shots that surpassed the 126 format and 110 format film from years ago, mainly because of the size of the negative, but they found other ways to make the experience inexpensive, even with disposables.
I'm hoping that all these pseudo-professionals carrying a dSLR and kit lens will become enthusiasts and actually become engaged in the photography. Is it really fun if you just let the camera do everything but point? FujiFilm, with their X-Pro1, is inadvertently pushing their enthusiasts a bit further and that's a good thing.
That kind of camera doesn't work in the current, instant-gratification-seeking world. We don't want to think about the image, we just point and shoot. Indeed, that's what made Polaroid's instant photography more than an indulgence, and how digital photography (however bad, has wiped out film photography.
However, there is a market for enthusiasts' cameras and FujiFilm is up to their third model in the X line with the X-Pro1. It's a compact rangefinder camera with a total of 3 available lenses.
The great thing about rangefinder cameras was that you could get amazing image quality, at some high equipment cost, once you were able to guess correctly.
Yes, i said "guess". As with viewfinder cameras, you could never be certain you had things in focus. You could use a tape measure to get the distance and set the lens accordingly and that worked fine for portraits. Remember the photographer at your school having you sit on a chair or a box and he pulled the tape measure to you?
So, this lovely FujiFilm X-Pro1 is the type of camera that involves you in the process of photography, which is why it's an enthusiasts' camera. No one just taking snapshots would want to deal with the mess. It has auto focus but their X-series auto focus hasn't been all that reliable. When it is, you're golden. When it's not, you're wondering why you spent so much money. You're probably wondering how to make better guesses in order to do the focusing yourself.
I found myself thinking about such cameras and the nostalgia. I thought about the Mamiya 645 small medium format camera and can remember when it had an SLR-like viewfinder and fast shutter speed. Time has passed and digital versions of medium format cameras start roughly at US$10,000, which considering what's below them, they might not be so expensive, although the market has changed recently.
However, more people seem to be entering the enthusiasts' market, thanks to mirror-less camera bodies, and some sharp lenses needing adapters. Since the lenses don't have electronic contacts, they don't work closely with your camera and you have to be involved in almost every aspect of your photography.
I'm seeing people, who would normally just pick up a dSLR with the kit lens and take a shot, thinking about the shot. Using fixed-focal (not zoom) lenses, they have to walk forward and backward until they frame the shot. Then, they have to adjust the exposure and they're thinking about the depth of field and they're really enthusiastic in a way that the dSLR in auto everything mode never pushed them.
It's amazing to me and hopefully, the prices will decrease once these higher quality cameras reach commodity status. We had 135 format point-and-shoot cameras way back when in the 1980s and 1990s. For US$50, you could get good quality shots that surpassed the 126 format and 110 format film from years ago, mainly because of the size of the negative, but they found other ways to make the experience inexpensive, even with disposables.
I'm hoping that all these pseudo-professionals carrying a dSLR and kit lens will become enthusiasts and actually become engaged in the photography. Is it really fun if you just let the camera do everything but point? FujiFilm, with their X-Pro1, is inadvertently pushing their enthusiasts a bit further and that's a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)