"micro Four-Thirds is just a generic term."

I was a bit surprised to hear this the other day.

I went into a chain store that has locations all over Ohio, Dodd Camera.  This location was near the Dayton Mall near Miamisburg, OH.

They advertise this location as having all the goodies in the Dayton metropolitan area.  Back in 2006, Dodd Camera bought Click Camera and this is one of those Click locations.  I went to Click once way back in the 1980s and wasn't impressed.  I had been selling cameras and their people seemed to know less than I did and I certainly didn't consider myself an expert of any sort.

So, when I went to the store the other day, I figured I'd see what they had in micro Four-Thirds equipment since they actually advertise that on local TV.  There were two women and one man working in the store.  It was small but no smaller than the Cincinnati store, and bigger than the other two stores I'd visited in the Dayton area.

A woman to the right welcomed me, and asked me if there was something specific I wanted to see.  I responded with "micro Four-Thirds equipment", so she took me to the Sony case, and started talking, and i tried to interrupt, but she ignored me.

She then, took me to the Nikon case, to show me the Nikon 1 system and said that they had the J1 in stock there.  As she paused, I explained again that I wanted to see micro Four-Thirds equipment.  I tried to remind her that Panasonic and Olympus are responsible for the format and she replied "No, micro Four-Thirds is just a generic term." and I said "No, it isn't.  You're talking about micro Four-Thirds as if it's all of mirror-less."  So, she went over to the computer and started looking for Olympus equipment, to which I said "Don't bother." and proceeded to walk towards the door.  She ignored me.  The man working there said "Thanks for stopping." as if everything was just fine.

I'm sure she blames me for being stupid, as in "why doesn't he know that it's all micro Four-Thirds?" sort of question.  It's sad.  Would you trust your money to someone who can't even make a simple distinction?  Update 2014.12.02: the store had been closed some time in 2014.

Update: Apparently someone at the new Polaroid thought the same way.  Here is the micro Four-Thirds (or Four-Thirds depending where you look) mirror-less camera from Polaroid:

Oh, and Nikon just filed suit against Sakar over this model: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/15/nikon-sues-sakar-inc-for-infringement-with-polaroid-im1836-android-camera?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_2

Update 2016.04.05: It's interesting to me that many people confuse ratios (4:3) and fractions (4/3) when talking about micro Four-Thirds.  The sad thing is that the sensor's ratio happens to be 4:3, like 6x4.5 film and it's roughly twice the size of the 2/3" type sensor that Olympus was using in the E-10 and E-20 Zoom Lens Reflex cameras.

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.

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.