January 15, 2016, FujiFilm announced the X70, X-E2s, and X-Pro2.
The X-Pro2 got quite a few enhancements, but especially the new processor, new sensor, and weather-sealed body.
I avoided the X-T1 because of its laggy nature. If you think I'm wrong, you haven't used Olympus and Panasonic mirror-less bodies, which are extremely responsive--or you've been using a Sony camera body, which is less responsive than the FujiFilm bodies.
My first SLR was a Fujica ST-605 and I've been interested in having a new, digital camera body from FujiFilm. The X-T1 fit nicely, but it just wasn't good for me.
With the X-Pro2, we may see improved low light capabilities, especially if the new processor is better at careful noise removal, and of course, if the new sensor is using much better technology to offset the increased pixel density.
It may be a while before we see any note about a change to the typically waxy skin tones that FujiFilm bodies have been providing.
One thing I noticed that was not overtly mentioned was whether raw files can be used past the normal ISO sensitivity range. In the past, they indicated that files outside the normal range would be JPEG files. Considering that high ISO sensitivities could use more adjustment for files, it was frustrating that FujiFilm bodies would only provide JPEG files. If that has changed, it's a major step forward.
I hope that the new, higher resolution sensor doesn't cause more problems. Naturally, raw development software has to embrace the new files. Hopefully, they're great at decoding the files after a few years. FujiFilm labeled the new sensor X-Trans III but hopefully, decoding works the same. Phase One Capture One has been very good at processing the files, but hopefully, Adobe will become much better one day, since so many rely on their software.
Considering my Nikon D7200 has 24MP and a native ISO sensitivity range up to 25,600, I wonder how usable FujiFilm's files will be in lower light situations. Someone mentioned that the sensitivity numbers don't match between FujiFilm and Nikon. We obviously need a certified test to make certain we can move from brand to brand and body to body and get the same response within a small percentage of error.
All this makes me hopeful for the X-T1 replacement.
If the X-T1 replacement is responsive, flexible in usage, and a bit more powerful without being a problem for itself, I'd like one.
Update 2016.01.17: I was just looking at a comparison between the Nikon D500 and the X-Pro2, which made it look as though the X-Pro2 won. For me, the X-Pro2 is a good camera body for casual photography, such as travel photography, but getting work done is something that the D500 will do well. Considering the price, they're not that far apart but I see the X-Pro2 as an expensive competitor for the D7200, Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GX8, and possibly the Sony A7 Mk II, another casual camera body.
It's a most serious threat to Leica, since it does most everything that Leica bodies do well, and it saves you enough money that you can also buy lenses but it still has that emotional connection than a rangefinder would have, especially with the hybrid viewfinder.
Update 2016.07.11: The X-T2 was announced the other day. It looks really good. The dual card slots, battery grip that holds two batteries and that has a boost mode seems like they're ready to take on Nikon D7200. I wonder if I would have chosen to go there.
A couple of years ago, I looked seriously at the X-T1 and didn't want it because it was too slow, too weak. I'm not sure of the responsiveness of the X-T2, but if that has improved to dSLR or micro Four-Thirds levels, the X-T2 is an easy choice.
The difference with the X-T2 and the D7200 is all about inexpensive zoom lenses for me. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for $359.99 is amazing. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 isn't inexpensive but it also isn't expensive for what you get. On the other hand, the FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 is an amazing lens for the system--and you don't have to worry about third party incompatibilities.
Update 2017.01.01: It looks as though the X-T2 and X-Pro2 are very, very good, but the auto focus is still not quite right. They've both won a lot of praise, but some criticism for not being everything that they should be. It's odd to me that they can't get the AF nearer to 100%. That said, Panasonic really needs to fix theirs on the GH4 and GX8. It's still better at finding large objects like walls instead of people. Olympus does better since face detection is added to whatever AF configuration you're already using.
FujiFilm has a good handle on things but they really need to step it up if they're going to have more than a cult following.
Showing posts with label Fujica. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fujica. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2016
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Aperture rings and other manual controls
Someone made a comment a bit ago that all lenses should have aperture rings, just like in the good old days. That goes along with a buddy back around 2002 telling me how Nikon's G-series lenses were terrible because they didn't have aperture rings.
Seeing as how the FujiFilm X-T1 has really brought back manual control dials, I wondered if people would be enthusiastic to such controls on every camera body big enough to have them.
That first person was talking about the Panasonic lenses, as the Leica-branded micro Four-Thirds lenses have aperture rings but the others do not. I thought back to the inspiration for the OM-D series--the OM-system. They not only had aperture rings on the lenses, but just behind the lens, on the lens mount collar was a shutter speed ring, which made manual control very efficient.
While the OM-series bodies were slippery with a heavy lens, they were the most efficient when it came to quickly changing settings. You can also see the ASA-calibrated film speed dial, which required you to press and hold the small button next to it so you could turn the film speed dial. As I recall, FujiFilm had a lift-and-turn mechanism to keep the film speed from being accidentally changed, as it shared the dial with the shutter speed.
Oh, here is something you might not expect. The light meter was manually activated (you held down a switch in front, near the lens) on the Fujica SLRs to cut down on battery drain, and there was the On-Off switch on the Olympus OM-series SLRs just for the light meter. If you were good with settings, you didn't have to worry if the battery was dead.
I gave up all that when I moved to the Olympus E-1 dSLR in 2004. The aperture ring was on one of the unmarked dials and the shutter speed was on the other. That's all I needed to know. It drove me bonkers the first week, and then, it was just fine. Mostly, I just found settings that worked for the current situation and I photographed sports. I didn't worry about film, full stop. There was a PASM mode dial. Of course, that dial wasn't possible or necessary in the 1970s because auto exposure was something new. It caused Pentax to create a new mount and for FujiFilm to follow that mount, as they were both using a screw mount prior to that.
Having used the Four-Thirds mount Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 with aperture ring, there are times when I like the ability to control the aperture on the lens. It is helpful when working at a slower pace, being creative. (Photographing sports you have little time to be creative.) The problem is that the aperture ring only works on my Panasonic GH3, through the Olympus MMF-3 adapter. My Olympus E-1 and E-5 don't support the aperture ring in firmware, unfortunately, so I have to use the "A" setting on the ring. I was a bit surprised to find that Panasonic supported it through the adapter.
I'm 99.9% sure that Olympus has no desire to completely relive the past. They'd like to be quite popular again, as I'm sure FujiFilm, Pentax, and others would like also. I remember having choices and with mirror-less camera bodies, it's become interesting again.
Update 2014.04.04: Do we need a huge number of manual controls now? I don't. I want to set an ISO sensitivity range and leave it. I want a clearly-marked exposure compensation button that can be used with a general dial or alternatively, a dial just for exposure compensation. The trouble with the specific dial is that it may not have a large enough range, and I'll still need to dip into the menus to set up the steps.
I like what FujiFilm has done with the X-T1, but I think it's more for the hobbyist than for the professional. It's both totally wonderful and totally silly. Once again, I'm not the casual photographer and when I try to be, I don't take minutes to set up a photo. I check my mode, my aperture or shutter speed, my focal length, and focus and re-focus, and shoot. That's pretty much what I do while photographing sports, with less time to think about settings.
I could wish for a FujiFilm/Olympus/Panasonic/Pentax company with design from the best of each, leaving out the various weirdness that hampers usage. The combined company would likely wipe Sony out of the camera-making business while using their camera-component-making business much more effectively. They'd also likely put the hurt on Nikon and Canon. Consolidating the best players in the mirror-less market might not do too much harm, especially if they could convince buyers of their combined strength.
Seeing as how the FujiFilm X-T1 has really brought back manual control dials, I wondered if people would be enthusiastic to such controls on every camera body big enough to have them.
That first person was talking about the Panasonic lenses, as the Leica-branded micro Four-Thirds lenses have aperture rings but the others do not. I thought back to the inspiration for the OM-D series--the OM-system. They not only had aperture rings on the lenses, but just behind the lens, on the lens mount collar was a shutter speed ring, which made manual control very efficient.
 |
| Yes, the shutter speed only goes to 1/1000th |
While the OM-series bodies were slippery with a heavy lens, they were the most efficient when it came to quickly changing settings. You can also see the ASA-calibrated film speed dial, which required you to press and hold the small button next to it so you could turn the film speed dial. As I recall, FujiFilm had a lift-and-turn mechanism to keep the film speed from being accidentally changed, as it shared the dial with the shutter speed.
Oh, here is something you might not expect. The light meter was manually activated (you held down a switch in front, near the lens) on the Fujica SLRs to cut down on battery drain, and there was the On-Off switch on the Olympus OM-series SLRs just for the light meter. If you were good with settings, you didn't have to worry if the battery was dead.
 |
| The ST801 certainly didn't have many controls |
 |
| AZ-1 had Aperture Priority AE with minor compensation |
 |
| Film speed setting occurs in the window, lift and turn |
 |
| The X-T1 really is overloaded compared to the 1970s |
I gave up all that when I moved to the Olympus E-1 dSLR in 2004. The aperture ring was on one of the unmarked dials and the shutter speed was on the other. That's all I needed to know. It drove me bonkers the first week, and then, it was just fine. Mostly, I just found settings that worked for the current situation and I photographed sports. I didn't worry about film, full stop. There was a PASM mode dial. Of course, that dial wasn't possible or necessary in the 1970s because auto exposure was something new. It caused Pentax to create a new mount and for FujiFilm to follow that mount, as they were both using a screw mount prior to that.
.x.jpg) |
| Olympus E-1, practically perfect for 2003 |
Having used the Four-Thirds mount Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 with aperture ring, there are times when I like the ability to control the aperture on the lens. It is helpful when working at a slower pace, being creative. (Photographing sports you have little time to be creative.) The problem is that the aperture ring only works on my Panasonic GH3, through the Olympus MMF-3 adapter. My Olympus E-1 and E-5 don't support the aperture ring in firmware, unfortunately, so I have to use the "A" setting on the ring. I was a bit surprised to find that Panasonic supported it through the adapter.
I'm 99.9% sure that Olympus has no desire to completely relive the past. They'd like to be quite popular again, as I'm sure FujiFilm, Pentax, and others would like also. I remember having choices and with mirror-less camera bodies, it's become interesting again.
Update 2014.04.04: Do we need a huge number of manual controls now? I don't. I want to set an ISO sensitivity range and leave it. I want a clearly-marked exposure compensation button that can be used with a general dial or alternatively, a dial just for exposure compensation. The trouble with the specific dial is that it may not have a large enough range, and I'll still need to dip into the menus to set up the steps.
I like what FujiFilm has done with the X-T1, but I think it's more for the hobbyist than for the professional. It's both totally wonderful and totally silly. Once again, I'm not the casual photographer and when I try to be, I don't take minutes to set up a photo. I check my mode, my aperture or shutter speed, my focal length, and focus and re-focus, and shoot. That's pretty much what I do while photographing sports, with less time to think about settings.
I could wish for a FujiFilm/Olympus/Panasonic/Pentax company with design from the best of each, leaving out the various weirdness that hampers usage. The combined company would likely wipe Sony out of the camera-making business while using their camera-component-making business much more effectively. They'd also likely put the hurt on Nikon and Canon. Consolidating the best players in the mirror-less market might not do too much harm, especially if they could convince buyers of their combined strength.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Cameras for photographers, please, not just electronic devices taking photos
I've written a few times about checklist engineering. It's popular with electronics companies such as Sony and Samsung. It's generally popular with car companies like Chevrolet, Hyundai, and Honda. It's about building devices with the personality of a toaster.
For the longest time, great cameras were designed by photographers. A company would look at what worked for a person who didn't just snap photos, but wanted the camera to work each time, every time with consistency.
I never found rangefinders to be this kind of camera but people adored them. Although the old medium format viewfinders were rather odd with the upside-down image (so were twin lens reflex), looking down from the top of the camera, you were engaged in the process. Your imagination worked with reality.
Then, with the SLR, imagination wasn't quite as necessary. You could see almost how the final image would be, as you looked through the lens with which the image would be captured. Then, if you used the correct film and processed it well, you'd end up with an image that came close to your vision, your imagination of the scene.
Today, cameras are easy. You don't have to think at all. Auto-this, Auto-that are available. You can even set the camera to take photos at intervals and just leave the camera doing its own thing, so you don't have to be bothered.
What camera engages you? What equipment says "come out, and let's hear and see and find a story to re-tell people."?
For me, the Fujica series of 135 format SLRs from FujiFilm and the OM-series from Olympus were those kinds of equipment. The Olympus E-1 was another, more specific, more modern model, and certainly now, the FujiFilm X-T1 seems to pull at me that same way, even though I've yet to buy one.
Intuitive controls are important and the camera body has to feel like an extension of the arm (for me, at least). That sort of design doesn't come by starting by specifying internal components and working toward the outside eventually.
Look at the Sony A7/A7R duo. They might as well be called "The Committee" because that's who designed them. There was so little thought to the exterior that a 10 year old could have done it (with Lego?). It's a brilliant combination of parts inside but who but Sony fanatics will want to use it?
The FujiFilm X-T1 has the controls all over it, much like the Fujica ST801 that was so dear, or the Olympus OM-1, if they had been designed for the digital age. When the controls are where you want them to be and you don't have to access a display to make changes, you can be part of the process.
What I photograph with sports doesn't happen twice. There are no second chances. The camera body and lens have to work with me at all times. I don't need to go back to a photo and find that my nose touched the rear display (Why Olympus with the E-M1 and FujiFilm with the X-T1 think I want those displays out in the open, I don't know. The E-1 display was out in the open but it was off most of the time and had no touch capabilities.) I keep the rear display hidden usually. I don't need to find that a dial moves too easily, either.
The Nikon Df was made for people who care about such things, though I don't think it's for me. I've had enough experience with heavy, slippery Nikon equipment from way back when. The D800 (and the legendary, mythical D400) is better for me.
I've thought several times about gutting my Olympus E-1 and finding a way to put the Olympus E-5 or Panasonic GH3 equipment into it. The E-5 innards might be a bit overwhelming for it, but the GH3's insides might just fit. Matching the controls would be the problem, since I'm hardly a hardware engineer. Of course, doing video on a 1.8 inch rear display might be a problem, though I rarely mess with video--so far. However, getting photos in an intuitive environment would be wonderful again.
Mind, the Panasonic GH3 isn't a bad camera body. It was my first encounter with an electronic viewfinder and it wasn't a very good encounter and they've re-worked the viewfinder for the GH4. The problem is that it's not intuitive. They seemed to look at the Olympus E-5, miniaturised various aspects of the design, gave it some Canon appeal, and moved a lot of control to the rear display. Given what I've just written, you know that I don't have much love for the Olympus E-5 either.
The E-5 is a great tool. You could use it to pound nails into the wall. Like the E-1, it's possibly one of the strongest camera bodies from any dSLR maker. It ignores intuitive design, unlike the E-1. There is no mode dial, to provide space for a huge top display. What it has over the E-1 is a higher resolution, better balance with larger lenses, and image stabilization but it never feels quite right in my hands.
So, I ask again, what camera engages you to go out to re-tell a story?
Update 2014.02.20: I was in a camera store yesterday talking to a salesperson I've met in the past. I mentioned to him about the camera being an extension of the body and he just didn't get it. I guess people growing up in a world where electronics were everyday devices has changed the thinking. He suggested the Sony A7, but image quality alone isn't everything for me. It has to be a good shooter and the A7 is an ergonomic disaster, as are most of Sony's serious camera bodies, unfortunately. Apparently, the A7 is somewhat of a disaster to use, but is quite great at image quality. Landscape photographers are more likely to take the time, as are rangefinder users, that Sony is giving them.
Update 2014.04.10: I'm not sure exactly why but the FujiFilm X-T1 has become a big hit for the company. I think it's the overwhelming effect of all the dials. Yes, the image quality is quite good, but I'm not sure that's the driving force, as it's much the same inside as the X-E2. Is it a state of mind? The camera body, like the Olympus E-M1 is just a bit small and uncomfortable for me, but with smaller lenses, it would be a great casual body with enough physical controls to delight the best perfectionist.
For the longest time, great cameras were designed by photographers. A company would look at what worked for a person who didn't just snap photos, but wanted the camera to work each time, every time with consistency.
I never found rangefinders to be this kind of camera but people adored them. Although the old medium format viewfinders were rather odd with the upside-down image (so were twin lens reflex), looking down from the top of the camera, you were engaged in the process. Your imagination worked with reality.
Then, with the SLR, imagination wasn't quite as necessary. You could see almost how the final image would be, as you looked through the lens with which the image would be captured. Then, if you used the correct film and processed it well, you'd end up with an image that came close to your vision, your imagination of the scene.
Today, cameras are easy. You don't have to think at all. Auto-this, Auto-that are available. You can even set the camera to take photos at intervals and just leave the camera doing its own thing, so you don't have to be bothered.
What camera engages you? What equipment says "come out, and let's hear and see and find a story to re-tell people."?
For me, the Fujica series of 135 format SLRs from FujiFilm and the OM-series from Olympus were those kinds of equipment. The Olympus E-1 was another, more specific, more modern model, and certainly now, the FujiFilm X-T1 seems to pull at me that same way, even though I've yet to buy one.
Intuitive controls are important and the camera body has to feel like an extension of the arm (for me, at least). That sort of design doesn't come by starting by specifying internal components and working toward the outside eventually.
Look at the Sony A7/A7R duo. They might as well be called "The Committee" because that's who designed them. There was so little thought to the exterior that a 10 year old could have done it (with Lego?). It's a brilliant combination of parts inside but who but Sony fanatics will want to use it?
The FujiFilm X-T1 has the controls all over it, much like the Fujica ST801 that was so dear, or the Olympus OM-1, if they had been designed for the digital age. When the controls are where you want them to be and you don't have to access a display to make changes, you can be part of the process.
What I photograph with sports doesn't happen twice. There are no second chances. The camera body and lens have to work with me at all times. I don't need to go back to a photo and find that my nose touched the rear display (Why Olympus with the E-M1 and FujiFilm with the X-T1 think I want those displays out in the open, I don't know. The E-1 display was out in the open but it was off most of the time and had no touch capabilities.) I keep the rear display hidden usually. I don't need to find that a dial moves too easily, either.
The Nikon Df was made for people who care about such things, though I don't think it's for me. I've had enough experience with heavy, slippery Nikon equipment from way back when. The D800 (and the legendary, mythical D400) is better for me.
I've thought several times about gutting my Olympus E-1 and finding a way to put the Olympus E-5 or Panasonic GH3 equipment into it. The E-5 innards might be a bit overwhelming for it, but the GH3's insides might just fit. Matching the controls would be the problem, since I'm hardly a hardware engineer. Of course, doing video on a 1.8 inch rear display might be a problem, though I rarely mess with video--so far. However, getting photos in an intuitive environment would be wonderful again.
Mind, the Panasonic GH3 isn't a bad camera body. It was my first encounter with an electronic viewfinder and it wasn't a very good encounter and they've re-worked the viewfinder for the GH4. The problem is that it's not intuitive. They seemed to look at the Olympus E-5, miniaturised various aspects of the design, gave it some Canon appeal, and moved a lot of control to the rear display. Given what I've just written, you know that I don't have much love for the Olympus E-5 either.
The E-5 is a great tool. You could use it to pound nails into the wall. Like the E-1, it's possibly one of the strongest camera bodies from any dSLR maker. It ignores intuitive design, unlike the E-1. There is no mode dial, to provide space for a huge top display. What it has over the E-1 is a higher resolution, better balance with larger lenses, and image stabilization but it never feels quite right in my hands.
So, I ask again, what camera engages you to go out to re-tell a story?
Update 2014.02.20: I was in a camera store yesterday talking to a salesperson I've met in the past. I mentioned to him about the camera being an extension of the body and he just didn't get it. I guess people growing up in a world where electronics were everyday devices has changed the thinking. He suggested the Sony A7, but image quality alone isn't everything for me. It has to be a good shooter and the A7 is an ergonomic disaster, as are most of Sony's serious camera bodies, unfortunately. Apparently, the A7 is somewhat of a disaster to use, but is quite great at image quality. Landscape photographers are more likely to take the time, as are rangefinder users, that Sony is giving them.
Update 2014.04.10: I'm not sure exactly why but the FujiFilm X-T1 has become a big hit for the company. I think it's the overwhelming effect of all the dials. Yes, the image quality is quite good, but I'm not sure that's the driving force, as it's much the same inside as the X-E2. Is it a state of mind? The camera body, like the Olympus E-M1 is just a bit small and uncomfortable for me, but with smaller lenses, it would be a great casual body with enough physical controls to delight the best perfectionist.
Monday, January 20, 2014
FujiFilm to release a 1970s style mirror-less camera X-T1, like the ST801 or ST901?
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.
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.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Pentax K-3, successor to the Nikon D300?
I've been dissatisfied with the available choices in dSLRs. I wanted a (mythical?) Nikon D400, but ended up buying an Olympus E-5 to replace/supplement my E-1. The E-5 was a great body for 2007, but it became available in 2010, replacing the slightly horrible E-3 that was two years late, which anti-aliased its photos to mush. The Nikon D300 was a great body for 2007, but was more-or-less replaced by the D300s and then, the D7100.
Unfortunately, the D7100 doesn't have enough buffer depth for raw files in burst mode, so you wait more than you should. That's what happens when you take a buffer from a 12 MP camera body, along with the AF module, etc. The price of the D7100 is great and the plastics in the exterior are reasonable to hold the price down and it is weather-sealed, but performance (for me) isn't negotiable.
Today, Ricoh (omg, Ricoh?) announced the replacement for the Pentax K-5 II, the K-3. (I'm waiting to see the follow-on bodies at lower levels since they had the K-50 and K-500--they already used the K-30 name.)
The K-3 puts a APS-C sized (the same sensor as the D7100, apparently) sensor into a body based on the K-7/K-5, reworks the auto focus, auto exposure, and video, and turns out a camera body seemingly as good as a D300 replacement would be, and for US$1299.99, US$100.00 less expensive than the Olympus E-M1.
They also use the in-body image stabilization/shake reduction to work as an optional anti-aliasing filter, since they've removed one from the mix. If you're dealing with a situation where moiré patterns will be a problem, you can enable the "filter" to smooth things. How this works at the same time with the image stabilization going is anyone's guess but it's great, unconventional thinking.
I normally have terrible things to say about Ricoh because they do some things that are beyond weird. In this case, the mix of Ricoh and Pentax seems to have produced a hellacious camera body that should be able to take on anyone. It certainly beats the hell out of the Canon 70D and 7D and puts the hurt on Nikon's D7100, and nails the coffin on the D300s. It also takes some of the shine off the newly-revised Nikon D610, which seems to have changed minimally.
Will anyone buy it?
This is the big question. The Canikon fanatics don't seem know about other brands, in general. If they have anything to say, it's that the other brands are inferior, even if they use information incorrectly. Pentax has for a long time, been a forgotten brand.
I sold the Pentax ME and K-1000 (and the Auto 110 SLR!) and they were very reliable camera bodies. Given the other choices at the time, Nikon, Olympus, and Fujica/FujiFilm all had better and more interesting equipment. Pentax' claim to fame at the time was the Gallium Arsenide sensor for the light meter, while Fuji was using something called Silicon Blue, and the others were less advanced. Pentax were well known for their 6x6 and 6x7 cameras and commercial work beyond what an enthusiast's camera like the Nikon F2 could do.
Does the Pentax name have enough recognition now to climb out of the hole first dug by the *ist? Barely, I believe. When I've been out photographing sports, I've seen a few Pentax models. That's a big change. Of course, it's easy to see the Canikon equipment but I think people are realizing that they have to buy higher up with Canikon to get what they really want. From what I see, you need to buy the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk III to get full-featured models. Everything below them is cut-rate.
There seem to be quite a few modern lenses now, and with three levels (two of which are weather-sealed) of bodies on which to attach them, they look to have a sensible line. With Ricoh's imaging (all those copiers have to do something, don't they?) enhancements, it looks quite a bit better. Certainly, the Hoya people weren't doing a lot for Pentax, except dishing the money.
Barring some weirdness, Pentax/Ricoh seems to have a winner on their hands. It may be my next dSLR. Hmm...try to find a Pentax dealer these days. There might be some medium format Pentax dealers, but no one seems to carry their dSLRs in a physical store.
What happens if/when Nikon responds with a D7200? Will it correct the buffer issue?
Update 2014.01.11: Apparently, there is some weirdness that could be corrected by firmware updates. Whether there will be corrections, I wonder, as this is one of the reasons I haven't jumped to Pentax time and again.
As far as the Nikon D7200 goes, Nikon USA tweeted about the D3300 the other day and I replied, asking where the D400 or D7200 was. I realize that they want to sell the D610, but they need a real replacement for the D300/D300s. The Pentax K-3 and 60-250mm look like a good combination for me, but I'm just not sure.
Update 2014.04.10: I have to laugh at DPReview's rather late review. In particular one line caught my attention that they wanted to downplay the K-3's importance in the US$1000 to $2000 sector:
I realize that they don't want to offend their Canikon users, but please, tell it like it is. They have no trouble complaining about the variable focus speed of various Pentax lenses, but they can't say that there is a problem where the Nikon D7100 has to write and write and write to clear the buffer and the photographer has to wait and wait and wait? Do all Nikon-made (or Canon-made) lenses focus at the same speed? I thought that they had differing focusing technologies, as well.
It reminds me of the preview for the Olympus E-M1 where someone slipped a line like "but we don't know if the sensor can go beyond 16 MP" even though we don't know if APS-C sensors can go beyond 24 MP, either. The line was removed for the review, but it was obvious that brand fanatics often write what they want to defend.
Update 2014.04.29: Seeing Imaging Resource's K-3 review and test images, I'm thinking that Pentax (by Ricoh) have made some odd mistakes. The images at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 show the Olympus E-M1 to be better, which seems damned odd, even given that the sensors have a similar pixel density. I really would have expected better performance. Perhaps, it's still possible to re-work the firmware. Right now, I wouldn't recommend it, sadly, even though Nikon don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the D7100's buffer issues.
Update 2014.12.25: It's unfortunate that there is always a bit of weirdness in Pentax products. Adding Ricoh to the mix didn't push things toward the center, but thankfully, it didn't made things worse, as Ricoh products are usually more weird.
I wish there was a standard visual interface for cameras. Pentax makes very desirable products let down by their firmware. Back in their film days, products like the ME Super and Auto 110 SLR were great.
Pentax could really use a boatload of firmware developers who could put things right. They should be selling loads of equipment.
Update 2015.03.03: Since Nikon has introduced the D7200, the hope for the Pentax K-3 is diminished. The K-3 is a very good product, hampered by its firmware. The company really needs to hire better firmware developers to take a fresh look at what they're doing and remove the quirks.
Update 2015.04.27: The K-3 Mk II is now out in the open. Regardless, it doesn't seem as much is known, at least, as how the camera body will work in real life. What I see are good, but minor changes made to a very good body. What probably hasn't changed is the quirkiness of the firmware and operations.
About a week ago, I got a Pentax K-50 and I'm attempting to familiarize myself with the Pentax way of doing things, which isn't like any other experience I've had so far, except maybe for Canon. No, I believe it's quite unique.
I hope that Ricoh, the company in charge of Pentax products, will find a way to make things very easy to use. If they can make the operation of the K-3 Mk II as smooth as Nikon or Olympus, they should be able to gain many customers and make them very happy with their photos and even, their video.
I'm finding from the K-50 that it's very good for still image quality, and it looks as though the video is quite good, even if it's not as great as the Panasonic GH3. The GH3 is formidable in its video abilities but is a bit lacking for still photography. Pentax, like Olympus, excels in still photography, not video.
Since the Nikon D7200, there is an answer to the US$1000-$2000 range that was left open by the D300/D300s' retirement. Is it enough? The D7200 isn't a huge leap over the D7100, which wasn't a replacement for the D300. The D7200 is good, but is the K-3 Mk II better? In general, I think that the K-3 Mk II is better but are the lenses there, and will the firmware be a problem?
Update 2015.07.27: While the Pentax K-50 was very good, I ended up giving it to someone who had their camera stolen. I looked to buy lenses that could be used with the Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 and the possibilities didn't seem so good with the availability of K-mount lenses or the adapters.
I bought the Nikon D7200 and I'm taking some time to learn how to use it best. Even small things are a pain to learn. Given that I have not used Nikon SLRs since film, it isn't a real surprise. The controls don't exactly seem logical, even compared to the Pentax K-50. It definitely feels good enough to replace the D300, though.
Update 2016.05.16: Since the K-3 has been revised and there is a new 135 Format K-1, the company has done well for itself. They've also addressed the lack of familiar focal length lenses with the help of Tamron. I suspect that they'll still end up a distant third (Sony isn't really involved in dSLRs or APS-C any longer) in the minds of people. However, the price of the K-1 at around US$800 or $900 lower than the Nikon D810 has raised some eyebrows.
The fact that Nikon has brought to market the D500 pushes the D7200 and the K-3 Mk II further away than they were, if you have the extra money for it and then, only if you don't want the K-1.
Unfortunately, the D7100 doesn't have enough buffer depth for raw files in burst mode, so you wait more than you should. That's what happens when you take a buffer from a 12 MP camera body, along with the AF module, etc. The price of the D7100 is great and the plastics in the exterior are reasonable to hold the price down and it is weather-sealed, but performance (for me) isn't negotiable.
Today, Ricoh (omg, Ricoh?) announced the replacement for the Pentax K-5 II, the K-3. (I'm waiting to see the follow-on bodies at lower levels since they had the K-50 and K-500--they already used the K-30 name.)
The K-3 puts a APS-C sized (the same sensor as the D7100, apparently) sensor into a body based on the K-7/K-5, reworks the auto focus, auto exposure, and video, and turns out a camera body seemingly as good as a D300 replacement would be, and for US$1299.99, US$100.00 less expensive than the Olympus E-M1.
They also use the in-body image stabilization/shake reduction to work as an optional anti-aliasing filter, since they've removed one from the mix. If you're dealing with a situation where moiré patterns will be a problem, you can enable the "filter" to smooth things. How this works at the same time with the image stabilization going is anyone's guess but it's great, unconventional thinking.
I normally have terrible things to say about Ricoh because they do some things that are beyond weird. In this case, the mix of Ricoh and Pentax seems to have produced a hellacious camera body that should be able to take on anyone. It certainly beats the hell out of the Canon 70D and 7D and puts the hurt on Nikon's D7100, and nails the coffin on the D300s. It also takes some of the shine off the newly-revised Nikon D610, which seems to have changed minimally.
Will anyone buy it?
This is the big question. The Canikon fanatics don't seem know about other brands, in general. If they have anything to say, it's that the other brands are inferior, even if they use information incorrectly. Pentax has for a long time, been a forgotten brand.
I sold the Pentax ME and K-1000 (and the Auto 110 SLR!) and they were very reliable camera bodies. Given the other choices at the time, Nikon, Olympus, and Fujica/FujiFilm all had better and more interesting equipment. Pentax' claim to fame at the time was the Gallium Arsenide sensor for the light meter, while Fuji was using something called Silicon Blue, and the others were less advanced. Pentax were well known for their 6x6 and 6x7 cameras and commercial work beyond what an enthusiast's camera like the Nikon F2 could do.
Does the Pentax name have enough recognition now to climb out of the hole first dug by the *ist? Barely, I believe. When I've been out photographing sports, I've seen a few Pentax models. That's a big change. Of course, it's easy to see the Canikon equipment but I think people are realizing that they have to buy higher up with Canikon to get what they really want. From what I see, you need to buy the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk III to get full-featured models. Everything below them is cut-rate.
There seem to be quite a few modern lenses now, and with three levels (two of which are weather-sealed) of bodies on which to attach them, they look to have a sensible line. With Ricoh's imaging (all those copiers have to do something, don't they?) enhancements, it looks quite a bit better. Certainly, the Hoya people weren't doing a lot for Pentax, except dishing the money.
Barring some weirdness, Pentax/Ricoh seems to have a winner on their hands. It may be my next dSLR. Hmm...try to find a Pentax dealer these days. There might be some medium format Pentax dealers, but no one seems to carry their dSLRs in a physical store.
What happens if/when Nikon responds with a D7200? Will it correct the buffer issue?
Update 2014.01.11: Apparently, there is some weirdness that could be corrected by firmware updates. Whether there will be corrections, I wonder, as this is one of the reasons I haven't jumped to Pentax time and again.
As far as the Nikon D7200 goes, Nikon USA tweeted about the D3300 the other day and I replied, asking where the D400 or D7200 was. I realize that they want to sell the D610, but they need a real replacement for the D300/D300s. The Pentax K-3 and 60-250mm look like a good combination for me, but I'm just not sure.
Update 2014.04.10: I have to laugh at DPReview's rather late review. In particular one line caught my attention that they wanted to downplay the K-3's importance in the US$1000 to $2000 sector:
The Nikon D7100 is a safer bet in this respect, too, though it is somewhat hobbled by its small Raw buffer - 7 images, rather than the K-3's 23-or-so.3.x to 1 is "somewhat"?
I realize that they don't want to offend their Canikon users, but please, tell it like it is. They have no trouble complaining about the variable focus speed of various Pentax lenses, but they can't say that there is a problem where the Nikon D7100 has to write and write and write to clear the buffer and the photographer has to wait and wait and wait? Do all Nikon-made (or Canon-made) lenses focus at the same speed? I thought that they had differing focusing technologies, as well.
It reminds me of the preview for the Olympus E-M1 where someone slipped a line like "but we don't know if the sensor can go beyond 16 MP" even though we don't know if APS-C sensors can go beyond 24 MP, either. The line was removed for the review, but it was obvious that brand fanatics often write what they want to defend.
Update 2014.04.29: Seeing Imaging Resource's K-3 review and test images, I'm thinking that Pentax (by Ricoh) have made some odd mistakes. The images at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 show the Olympus E-M1 to be better, which seems damned odd, even given that the sensors have a similar pixel density. I really would have expected better performance. Perhaps, it's still possible to re-work the firmware. Right now, I wouldn't recommend it, sadly, even though Nikon don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the D7100's buffer issues.
Update 2014.12.25: It's unfortunate that there is always a bit of weirdness in Pentax products. Adding Ricoh to the mix didn't push things toward the center, but thankfully, it didn't made things worse, as Ricoh products are usually more weird.
I wish there was a standard visual interface for cameras. Pentax makes very desirable products let down by their firmware. Back in their film days, products like the ME Super and Auto 110 SLR were great.
Pentax could really use a boatload of firmware developers who could put things right. They should be selling loads of equipment.
Update 2015.03.03: Since Nikon has introduced the D7200, the hope for the Pentax K-3 is diminished. The K-3 is a very good product, hampered by its firmware. The company really needs to hire better firmware developers to take a fresh look at what they're doing and remove the quirks.
Update 2015.04.27: The K-3 Mk II is now out in the open. Regardless, it doesn't seem as much is known, at least, as how the camera body will work in real life. What I see are good, but minor changes made to a very good body. What probably hasn't changed is the quirkiness of the firmware and operations.
About a week ago, I got a Pentax K-50 and I'm attempting to familiarize myself with the Pentax way of doing things, which isn't like any other experience I've had so far, except maybe for Canon. No, I believe it's quite unique.
I hope that Ricoh, the company in charge of Pentax products, will find a way to make things very easy to use. If they can make the operation of the K-3 Mk II as smooth as Nikon or Olympus, they should be able to gain many customers and make them very happy with their photos and even, their video.
I'm finding from the K-50 that it's very good for still image quality, and it looks as though the video is quite good, even if it's not as great as the Panasonic GH3. The GH3 is formidable in its video abilities but is a bit lacking for still photography. Pentax, like Olympus, excels in still photography, not video.
Since the Nikon D7200, there is an answer to the US$1000-$2000 range that was left open by the D300/D300s' retirement. Is it enough? The D7200 isn't a huge leap over the D7100, which wasn't a replacement for the D300. The D7200 is good, but is the K-3 Mk II better? In general, I think that the K-3 Mk II is better but are the lenses there, and will the firmware be a problem?
Update 2015.07.27: While the Pentax K-50 was very good, I ended up giving it to someone who had their camera stolen. I looked to buy lenses that could be used with the Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 and the possibilities didn't seem so good with the availability of K-mount lenses or the adapters.
I bought the Nikon D7200 and I'm taking some time to learn how to use it best. Even small things are a pain to learn. Given that I have not used Nikon SLRs since film, it isn't a real surprise. The controls don't exactly seem logical, even compared to the Pentax K-50. It definitely feels good enough to replace the D300, though.
Update 2016.05.16: Since the K-3 has been revised and there is a new 135 Format K-1, the company has done well for itself. They've also addressed the lack of familiar focal length lenses with the help of Tamron. I suspect that they'll still end up a distant third (Sony isn't really involved in dSLRs or APS-C any longer) in the minds of people. However, the price of the K-1 at around US$800 or $900 lower than the Nikon D810 has raised some eyebrows.
The fact that Nikon has brought to market the D500 pushes the D7200 and the K-3 Mk II further away than they were, if you have the extra money for it and then, only if you don't want the K-1.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Joys of a Fixed Focal Length Lens
A few months ago, I bought a new Four-Thirds format lens: a Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4. As it has the Leica name, it goes for a premium, but since it also has the Panasonic name, it's a discounted premium. It's roughly US$1000, which is probably double what Nikon and Canon charge for their normal f/1.4 lenses and about half what Leica charge. Of course, for Four-Thirds, you have two choices for fixed, normal lenses: the abysmal 25mm f/2.8 Zuiko Digital pancake or the superlative Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4. The latter has been in short supply for many years and I'm glad I finally got one.
When I was young, you didn't have much of a choice, you generally used a fixed focal length lens and you learned to walk to get the photo you wanted. Zoom lenses were bulky, expensive, and quirky. They generally had small apertures and weren't much good in low light situations.
The other day, I took the 25mm out for a ride and I started shooting. I would start to shoot something and would go to turn the zoom ring and it wasn't there. I needed to foot zoom. As I was thinking about what I was shooting, I turned the exposure setting to manual for the first time since using the Olympus E-5 body. (It's not very convenient because there is no PASM dial. However, it's not a choice you're going to make frequently.)
I started to think more about everything in the area, including reflections and shadows and my perceptions. I was almost drawn to thinking about using Ilford HP5 black and white film again. Amazing stuff, that. (No, I didn't say "stuff that".)
When I first worked with 135 format, I had a Fujica ST605. Then, a Minolta SRT Super. The ST605 was a very basic, economy body with only 1/750 top shutter speed but it was small and light like the Olympus OM-1N of the time. The SRT Super was a clunker. It was the opposite of super, actually, and really wasn't as good as the ST605, except that the top shutter speed was 1/1000. Minolta was always the choice for people who didn't know anything about cameras but since it was a gift from my friend's father in Japan, I couldn't say much.
For years, I used the ST605 with just the 55mm f/2.2 and a Vivitar 135 f/2.8 that had much better image quality than the kit lens. I was intent to buy the Fuji Super EBC 50mm f/1.4, but it was 3 times or thereabouts the price of the ST605 at US$500. If I'd been using the ST801 or ST901, it might have made sense, but an enlarger and a better body seemed more important than the 50mm f/1.4 lens.
For several months, I'd been selling cameras at a department store and tried everything Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, and Minolta had to offer. We didn't have much Nikon equipment because it took up so much room. Olympus fixed that with the OM-system being so tiny. Canon had the craptacular, gimmicky AE-1, while Pentax had the ME/ME Super.
Years later, I got an Olympus OM-1N and was reunited with what felt like manual camera heaven. The controls and the viewfinder seemed just right and the images were quite good. I look back on the image quality of the 1970s and wonder how the lenses were actually good when chromatic aberration, etc. were fairly common, even with Olympus and Nikon. It's just a good thing that film was so flexible and resilient.
In any case, I stepped back into those days, thinking about the scene, the distance, the surroundings, and the settings. The heft of the camera body and lens did nothing for the photography and remembering the Nikon F2, I would be hard-pressed to have found it enjoyable when being creative. It belonged on a tripod in a studio. The fact that I was using something not entirely tiny came to linger in my mind. If it didn't weigh so much, I wouldn't need to have image stabilisation, would I? If I needed a slow shutter speed, I could stand against a tree or a wall to steady myself.
Al of this took me back to Olympus' new OM-D series that's begun with the E-M5 body. It's slightly smaller than the OM-system bodies. It's also very light. (Why they can't fit a 135 format-sized sensor in it is beyond me. They should find a way. Of course, it would double the price.)
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd like to have a simple performance camera body. I don't want to make movies and I don't care if I have Live View. I could do without the image stabilisation, also. Give me great ergonomics, an above average sensor that doesn't have to be huge, and some fine optics. That's where I was in 2004 with the Olympus E-1, but it's 2012 and nothing has all 3. If I had Olympus working for me, they'd take the E-1 body, put the 16.x MP sensor from the E-M5 into the body with the latest TruePIC VI processor and be done with it. I could slap the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 on it and go. Of course, for my sports shooting, I'd still need my 50-200mm but too many gadgets have spoiled photography. Let us be free and enjoy being creative again.
Oh, I was amused to see the TIPA awards for 2012. They included the micro Four-Thirds 12mm f/2.0 lens as "Best CSC Fixed Focus Lens". Please, laugh with me. The judges are supposed to understand photographic terms. The lens is a fixed focal length lens, but has variable focus. I certainly wouldn't pay US$799 for a fixed focus lens, even if NASA built it.
When I was young, you didn't have much of a choice, you generally used a fixed focal length lens and you learned to walk to get the photo you wanted. Zoom lenses were bulky, expensive, and quirky. They generally had small apertures and weren't much good in low light situations.
The other day, I took the 25mm out for a ride and I started shooting. I would start to shoot something and would go to turn the zoom ring and it wasn't there. I needed to foot zoom. As I was thinking about what I was shooting, I turned the exposure setting to manual for the first time since using the Olympus E-5 body. (It's not very convenient because there is no PASM dial. However, it's not a choice you're going to make frequently.)
I started to think more about everything in the area, including reflections and shadows and my perceptions. I was almost drawn to thinking about using Ilford HP5 black and white film again. Amazing stuff, that. (No, I didn't say "stuff that".)
When I first worked with 135 format, I had a Fujica ST605. Then, a Minolta SRT Super. The ST605 was a very basic, economy body with only 1/750 top shutter speed but it was small and light like the Olympus OM-1N of the time. The SRT Super was a clunker. It was the opposite of super, actually, and really wasn't as good as the ST605, except that the top shutter speed was 1/1000. Minolta was always the choice for people who didn't know anything about cameras but since it was a gift from my friend's father in Japan, I couldn't say much.
For years, I used the ST605 with just the 55mm f/2.2 and a Vivitar 135 f/2.8 that had much better image quality than the kit lens. I was intent to buy the Fuji Super EBC 50mm f/1.4, but it was 3 times or thereabouts the price of the ST605 at US$500. If I'd been using the ST801 or ST901, it might have made sense, but an enlarger and a better body seemed more important than the 50mm f/1.4 lens.
For several months, I'd been selling cameras at a department store and tried everything Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, and Minolta had to offer. We didn't have much Nikon equipment because it took up so much room. Olympus fixed that with the OM-system being so tiny. Canon had the craptacular, gimmicky AE-1, while Pentax had the ME/ME Super.
Years later, I got an Olympus OM-1N and was reunited with what felt like manual camera heaven. The controls and the viewfinder seemed just right and the images were quite good. I look back on the image quality of the 1970s and wonder how the lenses were actually good when chromatic aberration, etc. were fairly common, even with Olympus and Nikon. It's just a good thing that film was so flexible and resilient.
In any case, I stepped back into those days, thinking about the scene, the distance, the surroundings, and the settings. The heft of the camera body and lens did nothing for the photography and remembering the Nikon F2, I would be hard-pressed to have found it enjoyable when being creative. It belonged on a tripod in a studio. The fact that I was using something not entirely tiny came to linger in my mind. If it didn't weigh so much, I wouldn't need to have image stabilisation, would I? If I needed a slow shutter speed, I could stand against a tree or a wall to steady myself.
Al of this took me back to Olympus' new OM-D series that's begun with the E-M5 body. It's slightly smaller than the OM-system bodies. It's also very light. (Why they can't fit a 135 format-sized sensor in it is beyond me. They should find a way. Of course, it would double the price.)
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd like to have a simple performance camera body. I don't want to make movies and I don't care if I have Live View. I could do without the image stabilisation, also. Give me great ergonomics, an above average sensor that doesn't have to be huge, and some fine optics. That's where I was in 2004 with the Olympus E-1, but it's 2012 and nothing has all 3. If I had Olympus working for me, they'd take the E-1 body, put the 16.x MP sensor from the E-M5 into the body with the latest TruePIC VI processor and be done with it. I could slap the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 on it and go. Of course, for my sports shooting, I'd still need my 50-200mm but too many gadgets have spoiled photography. Let us be free and enjoy being creative again.
Oh, I was amused to see the TIPA awards for 2012. They included the micro Four-Thirds 12mm f/2.0 lens as "Best CSC Fixed Focus Lens". Please, laugh with me. The judges are supposed to understand photographic terms. The lens is a fixed focal length lens, but has variable focus. I certainly wouldn't pay US$799 for a fixed focus lens, even if NASA built it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)