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.

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.

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.

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?

Photokina 2012 and micro Four-Thirds

September 18 (my birthday!) to the 23 this 2012, Photokina will be happening in Köln/Cologne Germany.  It's probably the better world show for photographic equipment.  For some reason, I feel the Germans take the shows more seriously and less like a media circus.  That may be a mistaken assumption of mine.

Usually, Olympus announces their new products the Sunday before the show starts.  I'm expecting 2 new models to replace the current 3 Pen models.  There should also be a new OM-D series body, but knowing how Olympus can be slow about such things, it will probably be an announcement and the body will arrive around March of 2013.

I also expect that Panasonic will introduce their DMC-GH3 there with a few goodies and most likely, a new professional Four-Thirds video camera/camcorder.

During the show, Zeiss will likely introduce another new lens for micro Four-Thirds for later availability in 2013.

Strangely, I expect there to be a contingent of iPhone-ography accessories.  It's about this time that Apple will be introducing their new models, so it could be difficult timing if cases have to be revised to hold the accessory lenses.

I'm mostly interested in Olympus' new OM-D series model and Panasonic's GH3, as they're both to be aimed at a more professional market than previous mirror-less system cameras have been.  I suspect that they'll be a bit bigger to accomodate larger, heavier lenses, and bigger hands.  That doesn't mean they'll be as big as the Nikon D7000 but likely somewhere in between that and where the current models are now.

Olympus would do well to create a model that's like a slightly smaller E-1, rather than a somewhat bigger OM-4Ti.  As I learnt in the past, the OM-1N was rather slippery and heavy lenses were a problem but their IS-1 was quite manageable, and also the E-10/E-20 models.

As far as Panasonic goes, the GH3 can't help but be better.  They'd hired the firmware hacker that had been enhancing the GH2's firmware, so maximum performance should be expected.  Hopefully, they'll make it so that the GH1 and GH2 users would have no regrets in upgrading and the Canon 5D MkIII users will have more than a little video envy.

There should also be a surprise, but who knows if anyone will see anything out in public.

Update this week: the person in charge at Olympus has stated that they're working on a (not micro) Four-Thirds body to replace the E-5, to get the most out of those lovely HG and SHG optics that are too cumbersome to be used on the E-M5 and Pen series.  That's welcome news.  Hopefully, the body will be announced before or at Photokina and be available in spring 2013 at the latest.

Surprised by the Olympus E-M5

I'm jaded and cynical and anything else that would lead you to believe that I don't believe much anymore.

So, Olympus brings out a new series of camera bodies to supplement the PEN series: OM-D.  Yes, sure, the OM-system was amazing.  Olympus shocked Nikon into making smaller camera bodies.  You only need compare the Nikon F2 with the Olympus OM-1 to see why.

I used an OM-1N for years and it was quite good and the results were amazing.  I was more than pleased with lens quality, even though I didn't have the best of the best.  When the OM-1N failed and couldn't be repaired, I settled on an IS-series camera and it was adequate, but as a Zoom Lens Reflex (ZLR), it had to be everything to everyone and it wasn't.  Now, we have those SLR-like superzoom cameras that follow Olympus' lead.  The IS-20DLX that I had took photos that were good as snapshots.  It had scene modes and it was pleasant to use but it was a snapshot camera.  Ugggh.

Olympus even transitioned those into the digital world with the D-500/D-600, C-2500L (the first with TruePIC), and the E-10/E-20 pair.  The add-on lens was an interesting way to add capabilities, as long as you followed the rules.  Otherwise, you ruined film or had a digital shot to delete but you might have gotten a bit closer, hand you done things correctly.

When Olympus introduced the E-1, they said goodbye to the ZLR, and exclaimed that they had entered the world of the SLR again, after a long hiatus from the OM-4Ti.  I was so enthusiastic that I bought an E-1, the 50-200mm and 14-54mm lenses a few months after release.  (Version 1.0 isn't for me, generally.)

I was surprised that it worked so well.  I had tried various dSLRs and they were sluggish and gave poor photos and didn't seem worth the trouble.  In 2004, there just wasn't the software for processing raw files and Olympus' JPEG files were the envy of every camera maker.

Today, we have the E-M5.  It's about as close to the OM-4Ti as could be possible.  Unfortunately, they couldn't stuff a 24x36mm sensor in there.  Fortunately, they didn't have to do that.  Reading review after review, it seems that it works quite well.  In fact, for a lot of shots, it works better than the E-5 "professional" camera body.  This bothers me to no end because I bought an E-5 in November of 2011.  (Yes, yes, get over it.  I know.)  Of course, I just have to shoot sports and I realize that I'm not having a bit of trouble with the E-5.

I have a few reservations about the E-M5 for sports photography:

• it's slippery like the OM-series
• the lens quality is lower than what I have
• the ISO sensitivity values are apparently not close to accurate

There is an add-on hand/battery grip, just like the OM-4Ti had, so even if it's slippery or unbalanced, that hand grip will help.

The lens quality issue isn't going away any time soon.  Olympus was (and is still) knocked for the size and weight of the High Grade and Super High Grade lenses.  They've gone small with the micro Four-Thirds lenses and that means lower quality and smaller maximum apertures.  That doesn't work for me.

The ISO sensitivity values are apparently far from what they should be.  I've forgotten how far, but 6400 may only be 4000, as a non-factual example.  What I recall was much further off.  I've been complaining about ISO 1600 with the E-5 and if its calibration was off like the E-M5's is and I was seeing ISO 1000-quality shots for ISO 1600, I'd probably be thrilled, until I learnt the truth.  (I'm still not happy with ISO 800 on the E-5.)

Few people seem to have reservations and a lot of people have ordered.  Apparently, so many that Olympus are struggling to make and ship enough, for the first in a very long time.  Congratulations to them!  I'm glad for their success.

They've been talking about a professional micro Four-Thirds camera body for a while.  I'm listening for any news about it, but they have to provide lenses and somehow keep the detractors from saying "huge", "heavy", and "pricey" while providing the amazing quality that we've come to know from the HG and SHG lines.  I'm looking at Nikon every day and wondering if I'll take the plunge and switch.  Nikon hasn't proven anything much to me, though.  The D300S doesn't look much better than the E-5, especially considering the lens choices.

Maybe, the E-M6 will arrive quickly, or maybe, it'll be an E-7 since the bit about some quick changes to the E-5 in 2011 still haven't happened.  Maybe, Nikon will get with it, ditch the 1 system, and provide a blow out mirror-less system camera but that's not their way because it's not safe.

Update 2014.01.10: The time has come for the E-M5 to be replaced.  Supposedly, the replacement will be the E-M10.  As the name implies (think OM-1, OM-10), it will be slotted under the E-M1.  The E-M5 got some awards, including Camera of the Year from the most unlikely source--DPReview.  Hopefully, they'll fix the mushy buttons and replace the viewfinder with something similar to the excellent unit used in the E-M1.

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.