The Online Photographer

Deluxe, Fixed-Lens Compact from Nikon

The new Nikon Coolpix A, just announced, is a small 16-MP point-and-shoot with a fixed 28mm-equivalent (moderate wide-angle) retractable lens and a large APS-C sensor. Signaling its aspirations of high quality is a high price: a cool $1,100 in black or silver.

It's Nikon's first Coolpix compact with a DX (APS-C) sensor, the same sensor size as in many Nikon DSLRs.

Coolpix A sample image

All the lit calls the lens "fast," but you should change that to "slow"—only ƒ/2.8. Although it can be argued that ƒ/2.8 is the new ƒ/2, given the continuously improving quality of higher ISO settings. No doubt the speed of the lens was chosen to keep the lens compact—and thus the whole camera pocketable—despite the generously large sensor size.

The price-point seems problematic on the face of it, given what $1,100 will buy in Micro 4/3. But the no-corners-cut quality it indicates will be welcome. And, if typical trends hold, the price will drift lower as the product ages.

(Know what I notice? Real strap lugs. I'm sick of those metal slots that don't allow the camera strap to move out of the way of your hands easily. I know, petty, but then we all have our "petty peeves.")

Hard to know exactly what inspired this. Is it a cheaper competitor to the Leica X2? Same sensor size and number of pixels. Somewhat wider lens, though 28mm-e is popular in Japan. An answer to the elegant, retro Fuji X100S? Similar price, but the Coolpix A isn't a retro styling exercise. Or is it intended to trump the image quality of the popular Sony RX100? It's only a little bigger than that wee bairn, despite having a considerably bigger sensor. None of the above seem to quite fit, although the X2 comparison seems the closest. Maybe a bit of all three.

Maybe it's meant as the perfect pocket camera to complement the new D7100. The Coolpix A supposedly sports the same sensor as the outgoing D7000.

A vulnerability of some of this camera's competitors is focus speed, and Nikon allegedly did a good job with that on its 1-series cameras (I haven't tried them). Focus speed on the Coolpix A will be one thing to watch closely...did Nikon get this right?

Coolpix A sample image

And with a fixed lens custom-matched to a big ol' sensor, a lot of people will probably be looking forward to learning more about the image quality.

By the way, that's not a control ring around the lens.

Other notable features:

• Built-in wi-fi [see Thom's featured comment —Ed.]
• No low-pass (anti-aliasing) filter. (Is that the fad o' the moment, or what?)
• Full HD 1920x1080p video with stereo sound
• 4 fps
• 14-bit Raw
• Weight only 299g (10 1/2 oz.)

Full specs are here.

And for a nice extra touch, there's this:

The optional matching DF-CP1 optical viewfinder, not yet available for pre-order.

Mike
(Sample images courtesy Nikon Inc.)

ADDENDUM: Our friend Kevin Purcell says "it's most likely the same Sony sensor as in the D7000, D5100, Pentax K01, K5 and the Fuji X-Pro1 (different CFA [color filter array] but the same sensor)." See the rest of Kevin's comment in the Comments section.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Thom Hogan: "WiFi isn't built in, it's a WU-1a add-on, which means it also is basically 'talk to iOS or Android apps.' It also doesn't have the Nikon 1's phase detect autofocus sensors, so no way it will approach those cameras in focus performance."

[Thom is the Web's leading Nikon expert. His site—which includes his initial reflections on the Coolpix A—is here. —Ed.]

Maggie Osterberg: "Oddly enough, as good as this camera potentially is, what it most does it make me all the more excited about the Fujifilm X100s."

Sid Lissner: "Nikon has made an APS-C version of a Ricoh GR-D IV."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Good for Nikon. But the Sony RX100 has put this category of high Q pocket camera to rest for me indefinitely."

Manuel: "As a commenter [Alan Fairley —Ed.] pointed out previously, this camera is aimed at the Sigma DP1 Merrill [which is on sale right now for $200 off, by the way. —Ed.]. Same focal length, same aperture, same sensor area, same compact body. Why Nikon felt the need to compete against the Sigma model is something that escapes me, but the latter must be doing something well to deserve Nikon's attention."

GRJ: "And why this camera instead of the Fuji X-E1 with the Fuji 18mm ƒ/2 lens? I don't get it."

Mike replies: In fairness, that combination is $200–$500 more expensive. Also in fairness, I might wickedly point out that when I saw the A, I thought, "hey, a camera with even fewer lenses than the NEX system." Heh heh.

Rick D (partial Comment): "Seems about as daring as the EOS M, which is to say not so much."

Mike replies: Except you can get an EOS M—which also has an APS-C CMOS sensor—with the 22mm lens for only $699 ($100 off at the moment), $400 less than the intro price of the Nikon Coolpix A. Just sayin'.

Barry Reid: "Unless the lens is utterly fabulous I can't see any reason to buy this over a Sony NEX-6 and Sigma 19mm which is cheaper, only slightly larger, has an EVF, hybrid AF and at least one other lens to choose from...."

New Nikon D7100 Announced

Nikon has announced its new D7100 as its new mid-level, APS-C flagship camera. Although outwardly similar to the D7000, the new camera is said to have substantially revamped innards. Most importantly, the all-new 24-megapixel CMOS sensor has no anti-aliasing filter, joining the Pentax K-5IIs.

Shipping in mid to late March, the new camera can be preordered now. It's also available for preorder bundled with the 18–105mm VR lens. Although we think it'd also be a good match with Nikon's swell little 35mm ƒ/1.8G.

Its 51-point AF system is also new and upgraded. It offers up to 7 frames per second, has a 100% viewfinder, and sports a nifty 1.3x crop mode that extends the effective magnification of focal lengths a little more (helpful for telephoto shooting. That 35mm ƒ/1.8G, for example, becomes a 70mm-e in crop mode). Its processing is derived from the D4, and it's as water- and dust-proof as the D800/E.

So why is this big news? Only because the D7000 (now available for $300 off) has been such a highly competent and greatly appreciated working tool for so many photographers, both amateur and professional—it's been the "judicious pick" in the lineup for many Nikonians, and has legions of satisfied users. The D7100 promises to bring incremental improvements in nearly every single parameter. That's maybe not gee-whiz exciting, but it's significant all the same—especially for those who passed on upgrading to the D7000.

Mike

UPDATE: Nikon has posted a few sample images at its D7100 page.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Frank: "Just what the world needs—another camera. What is the obsolescence cycle these days, three weeks?"

Mike replies: Two years and four months in this particular case. But I'm not sure the D7100 makes the D7000 "obsolescent"—I could still see choosing the D7000 on closeout now in preference to the D7100 at full price, and I'm sure many D7000 owners won't upgrade. Most peoples' normal upgrade cycle is once every two or three model replacements, so the D7100 might be most attractive to people looking to replace their 2008 D300's or D90's.

We can't really complain about development, it seems to me. The alternative is for the makers to not bring out new models, and that usually draws far more urgent complaints and causes far worse disappointment. (I'm still waiting for Sony's DSC-R2 and Epson's R-D2, for instance!)

Rare Nikon Lens Deals

Just one example: the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80–400mm—$350 off.
There are more lenses in the sale—18 in all.

Nikon is having an unusual sale on some of its very best lenses. I gather Nikon only very seldomly offers significant discounts on its premium lenses—especially its best fast primes—when they're not bundled in a package. I gather this is the first such sale in a number of years.

Here are all the sales pages. The unusual one is the first:

Nikon lenses

Nikon "buy together and save"

Canon "buy together and save"

The discounts are also being offered at Amazon.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

hlinton: "Could this sale have something to do with this?"

Why Is the Canon 6D so Hot?

The people who are responsible for the Chevrolet Corvette are worried about young people.

"We spend a lot of time talking about that," says Corvette Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter. "How do you get [i.e., sell to] younger people who think the Corvette is an old man's car, when every driver they see has white or no hair?"*

Personally, I think their problem is pretty basic. I have a soon-to-be 20-year-old son. We live in a pretty average Midwestern American town—neither big nor small, neither prosperous nor impoverished. We are neither prosperous nor impoverished, too. Maybe a third to a half of his friends have their own cars. (Somewhere in there. I haven't done a survey.) He himself drives a '98 Buick that was relatively pricey at about $6,000 used. His friend who is the biggest car nut in the group works with cars and drives a used but hotted-up supercharged Pontiac Grand Prix (red, naturally).

Corvettes used to be "the working man's sports car." But American workers don't earn as much as they used to, and Corvettes used to be a lot cheaper, relatively, than they are now. Not only can my son not even think about a Corvette, but his father can't, either. (Not my style of car, but that wouldn't matter either way. Besides, I still have most of my hair, and it's not white yet.)

A new Corvette goes for $50k to $105k. As far as I know, only one of my son's peer group could theoretically afford a $50k car—a kid whose parents own a local Chinese restaurant. That kid drives a late-model SUV.

My theory is that young people don't think about the Corvette because it's just plain too far out of their reach. It's pure lottery dreamin'. Chevrolet is just out of touch with reality in America c. 2013.

So one thing I've noticed in the camera market is that the Canon 6D has been selling surprisingly well, and generating a great deal of interest from Canon fans and from camera buyers in general. I wonder if what's driving that is simply that the Canon 5D Mark III, at $3,500, is just too expensive for most people. It's not that they think it isn't worth it—it's just that they don't have the scratch.

The theory is that the high price of the 5D Mark III is driving peoples' interest into the waiting arms of the 6D. The 6D has a lot of the higher model's goodness, for such a big price cut that it tips the balance of most peoples' interest from the high-horsepower body to the more "sensible" model.

In other words, the Canon 5D Mark III isn't overpriced: it just costs too much.

And what America needs is a $25,000 Corvette.

Mike

*Quoted in Road & Track magazine, February/March 2013, p. 58.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Scott: "My photographer friends and I have a conversation going about the 5D Mark III vs. the 6D. It comes down to perceived value for a lot of us. For the extra money of the 5D Mark III we only really got a marginally higher sync speed with strobe. The megapixels and focusing differences didn't make much difference in our real world shooting. We're mostly working editorial photographers and not once has an art director asked about image size, color, or sharpness, or weather sealed cameras or any other build quality issue. The value doesn't seem there and the user experience is basically the same. No pride of ownership. As far as the Corvette, here in SoCal it's retired Navy and military that buy that car. The Subaru/Toyota venture or BMWs and Audis seem to rule the day. A new or used $25k car hits the sweet spot."

A. McLaughlin: "I read an article in the New York Times last year that said automobiles just don't have the allure they once had to younger people. Actually they don't turn me on any more either, but on the other hand a nice Fuji X100 is another matter."

Mike: "For me, the ability to change the focus screen to the Eg-S is the reason to buy the 6D. I manually focus 99% of the time and the fixed screen optimized for AF with slow lenses on the 5D Mark III is a total deal breaker."

Burt: "It's not just the Corvette they should be worried about; it's every car in the lineup. Turn back the clock and a few things were different:

• Cars were much less expensive. Base models are now $15k. In the '80s you could get a new car for half that. Wages haven't rises in concert wih the prices.
• Cars weren't boring. A Corvette may be exciting to some, but a $28,000 Camry is exciting to no one, and is prohibitively expensive to many. Kids used to want cars because they were cool. Now they're just commodities.
• Insurance. I'm 35 and have a great record, drive a ten-year-old car, and still can't get a policy for less than $1,500/year. I can only imagine what they'd charge a 16-year-old with a Corvette!
• Gas. Costs four times what it did 15 years ago.

"In short, cars nowadays are financially prohibitive and boring.  When you're making $7.75/hr you probably want a bit more for your efforts.

"As for the 5D Mark III, I shoot one for my assignments. It's a beast and it gets the job done. There's something to be said for that. But it's a $28,000 Camry all day long. When I want to enjoy my camera I grab the weird little Fuji X100!"

Roland: "The 6D is a very interesting proposition. I am just waiting for a review on the WiFi software. If it is possible to shoot Raw+JPEG and beam the JPEGs to a laptop or tablet, that would be fantastic.... The client, A.D. [ad agency art director —Ed.] and other people could look at large images directly and at their desks, instead of crowding around me and chimping at the tiny camera screen."

The Camera of the Year...for Less

Well, ain't that nice. Olympus has kindly introduced a series of rebates on the OM-D E-M5, our Camera of the Year for 2012.

Basically, you can get $50 to $100 off the camera or kit, and $100 or $150 off each Olympus lens purchased with it, for up to three lenses. The offer covers more than 40 lenses.

Here are the links for the OM-D body and 12–50mm lens kit, in black or chrome; the body only, in black or chrome; and the black body with the less expensive 14–42mm lens.

The offer is supposedly good through January 19th, which is a week from tomorrow, but don't forget that B&H is closed from Friday afternoon through Saturday evening for the Jewish sabbath.

Little beauty
Meanwhile, in related news, I've just gotten a Panasonic GX1 in-house to write a bit about. The GX1 isn't the most exciting camera of the X era, but it's quietly gone down in price enough to become a true bargain at only $449. (Here's the black one and here's the pewter-colored body that matches the color of the 20mm ƒ/1.7 lens.)

That's cheaper than the new Pentax MX-1, a fixed-lens, small-sensor digicam.

The Gx1 is the heir to the GF1 that was my most-used digital camera until the OM-D arrived on the scene. It should be interesting to directly compare the IQ of the GF1, GX1, and OM-D, all with the same lenses.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Benjamin R. George: "$450 sounds like a good price for a GX1, until you notice that the G3 (same tech generation, not that much bigger, EVF built in) is currently going for $250 (body only)."

Mike replies: That's because I actually bought a G3. Any camera I buy with my own money must depreciate much faster than average. Law of the mocking Universe.

JohnMFlores: "OM-D E-M5? That camera is so 2012!"

You Just Gotta Love Pentax

Here's what I say: even if you don't shoot Pentax, never have and never will, you still gotta love those people.

What do they do when everybody else is going "full-frame"? They put out a medium-format digital system camera based on the old 645 with the Albada finder (the latter invented in-house, by the way, by Akihiro Arai of Asahi).

What do they do when everybody else is making jewel-like little mini digicams? They make a super-tiny miniature system camera with a small sensor and interchangeable lenses, some of them marked "Toy" and priced well under $100.

What do they do when everybody else is making mirrorless cameras? They commission an generalist industrial designer to make a styling exercise that takes regular old K-mount lenses.

"Think different"? The people at Pentax put Apple to shame on that score, if you ask me.

So what have they done now? There's this retro fad going around. Fuji introduces a little camera that looks like a commemorative of the Leica M3 with modern innards; Olympus makes its retro OM-D E-M5 look like a stylized miniature OM camera from the '80s, complete with a none-too-subtle faux prism beak on it. I like 'em both, but then I've owned and shot with both the originals. The new Pentax MX-1 (to longtime Pentaxians, those two little letters are freighted with meaning—and of course there's that font), a fixed-lens, small-sensor digicam meant to compete with the Panasonic LX7, Olympus XZ-2, and Canon S100, has brass top and bottom plates meant to brass out....

You've got to be kidding me.

Dpreview calls the move "strangely endearing." Got that right.  Talk about ramping the retro up to 11. Is Pentax goofily daring us to use one digital camera for long enough to wear the black paint off, or shrewdly commenting that nobody will? Are they jumping in on the nostalgia fad, or making fun of it?

Maybe a little of all of the above. There are layers to this joke.

Now, you know there are going to be a lot of blowhards blowsing super-seriously on the tubes of the 'nets about how it should all be about the "imagery" (a term I can't stand) and how brassing doesn't matter to your "personal vision" (ditto), etc. To which I say: it sure doesn't. But lighten up. Unclench yer kisser and try having a little fun. The folks at Pentax obviously are.

Mike

Disclaimer: Pentax advertises on TOP.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Timprov: "My S90 is 'aluminuming' out, or whatever. I have to admit, it would look better in brass."

Kevin Purcell: "In the Comments below, roddy k said, 'After Sony's 1" sensor success(?), the MX-1's tiny, probably recycled sensor is pretty much a complete fail.'

"The MX-1 sensor is (almost certainly) the new Sony IMX144CQJ 12Mpx BSI CMOS sensor introduced in October 2012. It' s also used in the Olympus ZX2, Nikon P7700 and the Samsung EX2F. Nothing old or recycled there.

"It's the successor to the very successful Sony ICX685CQZ CCD sensor I've mentioned before (a favorite sensor of mine in the Canon S90/95, G11/G12, Nikon P7000/P7100, Samsung EX1). It's the sensor that made RAW 'enthusiast compacts' respectable.

"You also see this sensor levels the IQ of this part of the market, so lens design, UI and body styling are all important differentiators for selling a given manufacturer's camera. The differentator is the cameras in this segment cost about half as much as a Sony RX100.

"Is Sony selling its type 1 inch sensor to anyone else? It's not in Sony Semiconductors catalog. I suspect Sony Imaging have exclusive right to it for a year or so (just like the Nikon 1 sensor from Aptina); then it may appear in other cameras (along with the Aptina type 1 inch sensor). Or perhaps it's such an advantage they'll keep it even longer. The business folks will decide which approach makes more money for Sony.

"Given the lead time in camera development, even if Sony is selling the type 1 inch sensor to other camera makers you won't see other similar cameras until late 2013 or early 2014. (Just in time to get PDAF on sensor too.)"

TOP Camera of the Year 2012

"Best of" awards have always annoyed me because of a principle I'm highly aware of, yet which doesn't, to my knowledge, have a name. Namely: the closer to equal two things are, the less important it should be to rank them, but the more important it seems to be to humans to do so. So if two DACs (digital to analogue converters) are almost indistinguishable from each other, you won't see people saying "ah, just get one or the other, it doesn't matter." More likely, you'll see people arguing strenuously over why one is great and the other is crap. If two Olympic skaters skate hell bent for leather for three minutes and one of them crosses the finish line .02 seconds sooner, that one gets a "gold" medal and the other one gets a "silver" medal, even though it might have come down to where their feet were in their motions at just the critical moment. Whereas to me, what an .02 second difference means is that each of them is just as good as the other. The difference is simply below the threshhold of significance.

Basketball is completely annoying in this respect. Extremely close basketball games are decided by such contingent and capricious factors that some of them might as well be decided by a coin toss.

I concede that the "rankers" can have their way with objectively quantifiable races. One skater does cross the finish like "ahead" of the other, even if fractionally, so, fine, that person "wins." Have it your way, stupid humans. Whatever.

But where our primate ranking obsession becomes really silly is in subjective awards and contests. It's just not meaningful to have a photo contest, say, where there are 15,000 entries and one picture is called "the grand prize winner" and another is called "the runner up." Things like that are so utterly arbitrary.

Take American football right now, for instance. This year, they (and I don't even know who "they" are, I confess) will give out an award for "Rookie of the Year." This year there are at least five rookies who could have won this award in any other year, but, especially, there are three quarterbacks who have done utterly remarkable things—most notably Robert Griffin III at Washington and Russell Wilson at Seattle. Why is necessary to call one of them Rookie of the Year and the other one chopped liver? It's ridiculous. I think they ought to give Rookie of the Year to as many people as truly deserve it. One, two, three, four, five, whatever.

This is inhuman. Literally, in that it's not how primates tend to think and act. It's not what satisfies us. We're driven by competition. We want a winner. And losers.

And then, apparently some sportswriters think it's important to determine which player should be annointed "Comeback Player of the Year." (Again, my ignorance: I have no idea if that's actually an official award or not. School me, please.) Should it be Adrian Peterson, running back at Minnesota, who came back from a full ACL tear, an injury that causes some running backs to retire, yet became only the seventh back in NFL history to rush for more than 2,000 yards in a season, and came within nine measley yards (the running back equivalent of .02 seconds) of the all-time running record? My doctor brother says some people would not even be walking again one year after a full ACL tear, "much less acting like Walter Payton." Or should it be Peyton Manning, who sat out all of last season while undergoing either three or four operations on his neck (different sources give different numbers), and who was given the gold watch and the back side of the door in no uncertain terms by Indianapolis, the organization where he'd spent his whole career—and who then signed with the Denver Broncos and had his second-best season ever as a quarterback, leading the team to a 13-3 record, including a #1 seed in the playoffs and an 11-game winning streak that's still going?

Tell me, how in the hell are either of those two players not the Comeback Player of the Year? They're two of the greatest comeback stories in the history of the NFL, is what they are.

Okay, too much preamble. Sorry. Let's review:

Sony RX100—Brought the new 1" sensor size (13.2x8.8mm) to a very small, easy-to-use all-in-one fixed-lens compact with particular success, due in no small part to a spectacular sensor that takes gorgeous pictures.

Olympus OM-D E-M5—First pro-level Micro 4/3 camera, again with particularly wonderful image quality, distinctive if controversial retro styling, and a host of leading edge (for Micro 4/3) features, including particularly successful implementation of IBIS. All in a small, portable, yet easily handle-able package.

Nikon D800/E—With 36 MP, first "full frame" (i.e., 24x36mm) sensor camera to make true inroads into the territory formerly dominated by medium-format backs. With—yes—extraordinary image quality.

Fujifilm X-Pro1—Satisfying market requests for an "interchangeable-lens X100" with remarkable alacrity, Fuji creates the first truly viable competitor to the Leica M as a digital rangefinder-style camera. Includes a marvelously innovative viewfinder and, no surprise, wonderful image quality that has users very pleased.

Each one has weaknesses. That's because they're all cameras. With literally tens of thousands of attempts since 1839, there have been no perfect cameras so far in history.

And I'm supposed to pick a winner. Okay.

Ta-da!

Drum roll, please: Russell Wilson and Adrian Peterson.

Just kidding.

No, my pick for Camera of the Year 2012 has to be the Olympus OM-D E-M5. I gave most of my reasons for liking it in a previous post. I'm currently more enamored of the D800, and I actually think the best all-around camera that came out this year might have been the Canon 5D Mark III, even though it didn't make the top four because it doesn't break any new ground, and because Canon chose moderate, balanced features instead of extreme ones. (I'm going to rent one so that I can write about it. I enjoyed that when I did it with the D800E, although the exercise ended up being very expensive for me.)

But when it comes right down to it, the best pictures I took this year were mostly with the OM-D. The image quality of which this camera is capable makes it worthwhile putting up with its almost perversely overcomplicated controls. It's also the Comeback Camera of the Year, because of Olympus's very serious and high profile troubles.

I love Micro 4/3 because I love lenses, and there are just more tasty lenses that you can stick on a Micro 4/3 camera than any other kind. And the OM-D E-M5 is the true coming of age of the whole Micro 4/3 category.

It's the Camera of the Year of 2012 for me.

Mike

P.S. Oh, and by the way: I will absolutely be glued to my TV this weekend when Washington plays Seattle. I'm a primate too, after all.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stephen Gillette: "When I purchased an OM-D some months back, I immediately realized something was missing. Buyer's remorse. As the months have passed, I have not experienced a minute of it.

"Listen: I have owned many cameras over a period exceeding fifty years. I still own too many cameras. My favorites have been either small gems (starting with the Rollie 35) or compact but fuller-featured SLR's (starting with the Pentax ME).

"I had acquired both a NEX-platform camera and an MFT (Panasonic) before Oympus birthed the OM-D. With the acquisition of the OM-D, my camera lust is, for the first time, quelled.

"Peace in the valley. Ah....

"Now, Mike also picked up the OM-D, but without quite the 'Eureka! I have found it!' experience that I had. He did, after all, go on to invest in that big (and beautiful) Nikon full-framer. But then, Mike is younger and thus more impetuous than I. Even so, it seems that given the proper amount of New Year's introspection, he concedes the laurel wreath to the little camera that could. Hear hear!!"

jim r: "Again no love for the K-01  :^)  Just think of it as a fully manual camera that can shoot in the dark and costs $320; that's amazing. In the last two months since the price drop it's a clear Comeback contestant, at least for those imagers who think art comes from somewhere other then the external appearance of a camera. Oh well—for the price maybe I'll take two."

Mike replies: No love for the K-01? That's not quite true. My brother Scott wanted me to recommend a good digital camera (his first), and I bought him...yes...this Pentax K-01.

Ben: "Because you picked my camera I can put away my knives and comment on what an eminently sensible person you are to have arrived at the only possible answer. There is absolutely no need for vicious character attacks and inflammatory arguments as long as everyone agrees with me. Kidding aside, I really wish I could try out the D800E and the 5D Mark III just for kicks (no camera rental services here in Costa Rica that I'm aware of). But I know from experience that if I were to buy them they would end up left at home after the initial purchase euphoria had worn off. Then I'd be back to carrying around my EM-5."

Mike replies: Er...well...ahem...I...uh...[tugging at collar, gulping nervously].

Michael Barkowski: "Belatedly, I nominate the 808 Pureview. Not too many controls, great image quality for the size. Yet once again I feel that Canon deserves to win all the awards, for giving sensationalism the finger and just making better cameras."

Camera of the Year?

Anyone choosing a "Camera of the Year" for 2012 has a tough task ahead of them—this has been a stellar year for cameras. The Sony SLT-A57, SLT-A99, RX100, NEX-6, and RX1; the Canon 4Ti, 6D, and 5D Mark III; the Nikon D600, D800/E and D5200; the Leica M, M-E, and M Monochrom; the Pentax K-30 and K-5 II/s; the Sigma "Merrill" cameras, including the DP1 Merrill, DP2 Merrill, and SD1 Merrill; the Fuji X-Pro1 and X-E1; the Olympus OM-D E-M5; the Panasonic GH3; and the Samsung NX210 all helped make 2012 the best year for cameras since the crash of '08.

Realistically, although many of the cameras named above (and some not even named) are excellent, the leading contenders are probably the Canon 5D Mark III, the Nikon D800/E, the Fuji X-Pro1, the Sony A99 and possibly RX1, the Leica M, the Olympus OM-D, and the Pentax K-5 II/s.

Sony's gorgeous new flagship DSLR helped make 2012
a banner year for cameras.

It seems to me that the M Monochrom and the Sigma SD1 can be counted out on the basis of low market penetration—innovative as they are, they're not mainstream enough. Derivative "evolutions" of existing designs are at a disadvantage; in this sense, though, the 5D Mark III, K-5 II/s, and Leica M type 240 are still strong contenders, because each are extensively updated to the point that they're substantially new cameras with familiar forms and names.

The 6D and D600, likely fan favorites, can hardly be expected to outpoint their bigger brothers for a symbolic honor like CotY. A "Tebow Award," maybe?

Entry-level cameras such as the 4Ti, K-30, and D5200, no matter how good, seldom have the daydream potential to walk away with a win.

A dark horse is the Sony RX100, which brought the 1" sensor size to pocket point-and-shoots, potentially a momentous development. It also scores on popularity.

And the camera behind the curtain? The Sony RX1, a genuinely different and remarkably interesting design exercise and a legitimate first—the smallest-ever full-frame camera.

Unusually, I also bought not one but two of the contenders—the OM-D and the D800. Does that mean I should disqualify them, to avoid conflict of ego?

We'll announce our Camera of the Year soon, but please bear in mind, no one cares!  That is, no one outside of TOP's legions of erudite, intelligent, and enlightened regular readers. TOP's endorsement doesn't bring fame and riches showering onto the heads of the lucky winners, nor does it mean big bumps in sales for the fortunate annointee, nor does it make news. As usual, we're simply having fun here. Always good to keep in mind.

More soon.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dillan: "My only opinion is to stand in opposition to the notion of the iphone becoming camera of the year. It's a high-functioning point-and-shoot. Yes, phones are the most used cameras in the world, but that does not mean that I am ready to embrace them as cameras. I am not yet 40, but I feel old when people suggest that. I think I'll be one of the old codgers who clings to his retro DSLR like a badge of honour. Hell, I might go back to film just to underline my stance."

Rick in CO: "Although just available, and therefore possibly not in contention, my new Canon 6D gets my vote. It has all of the improvements I wanted to my 5D MkII (better focus points without going overboard as in the 5D MkIII & built-in lens distortion correction) plus smaller, lighter, better dust protection, and it's less expensive! Simpler controls make it more usable, while GPS and WiFi make it techno-savvy. Canon just got it right in my humble opinion."

Carsten Bockermann: "The Leica M might be the camera of the year. The year 2013, that is. My dealer over here in Germany tells me that there are some delays, so he doesn't expect to see it before May or June."

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "The Sony RX100 is a no-brainer winner. At a time when the pocketable point-and-shoot camera seems to be facing extinction, Sony has single-handedly and unexpectedly reestablished a raison d'être for this style of camera by raising its engineering and performance standards while keeping the price in volkscamera range. The RX100's '1-inch' sensor and its excellent Zeiss-designed lens have benched nearly all my other cameras for candid photography. It's that good."

Stephen Scharf: "For me, it's undoubtedly the Fujifilm X-Pro1. Why? In addition to its way-cool looks, innovative hybrid optical viewfinder and mind-blowing image quality (and with excellent Capture One raw support coming early in the new year, providing even higher image quality), the most important thing this camera did was get a huge number of pro and advanced amateur photographers excited about getting out and doing real photography again. When is the last time you've heard of a camera system that has so many pros dumping their pro Nikon and Canon kits? With its 'hands on' user experience forcing you to intellectually re-engage with the process of creating compelling and interesting images, the X-Pro1 takes the photographer on a journey back to their roots of learning and mastering the craft, and that journey is ever so fulfilling and beguiling."

The Dragoon Goes a-Partyin'

Two brief D800 observations from our traditional Wigilia at Mary and Ed Noyszewski's beautiful brick bungalow in Berwyn:

1. I'm rather astonished at how badly it autofocused. Clearly operator idiocy (er, error) is not ruled out, but it seems that with a single focus point activated the camera isn't very happy in low light. A number of times I half-pressed the shutter button only to be met with—nothing; only a cretinous quietude, as the camera waited passively for me to ask it to do something it could actually do. Granted, the lights were low. But am I right in suspecting that the new mid-level Nikons need all their focus points up and working to work their best?

Spontaneous posing in the kitchen: Mary, Teresa, Mari, Charlie, Christy, and Basia. This group started out as just two people, and then more before my wondering eyes did appear.

2. In the Stealth/Blatancy Dept., a new wrinkle: my relatives found the D800 not intimidating in the least (probably because they find me not intimidating in the least) but something amazing and new happened: when I pointed y^e Big Dragoon at people they magically composed themselves into groups for a picture. When I pointed it at small groups, people voluntarily added themselves without being asked, or with just slight encouragement. This is a new one on me. It would not have happened with small, less serious-looking cameras; I speak from experience.

The results, when I managed to successfully mimic someone competent and the camera managed to focus, were outstanding.

(By the way, if I ever build a dream house—I won't, because if you build a dream house it ceases to be one—it's going to have slaved flash units in all the light fixtures. An experienced pro correspondent who goes by the handle "extrasalt" tells me these are called "practicals" in British professional lighting parlance, and also that "Roger Deakins is a master of practicals.")

If you celebrated over the past several days, I hope you had a nice time too.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Richard Alan Fox: "I use one point, center, focus and recompose on the D800E and all my other cameras. I keep the focus assist light on and have no problems in low light and my almost always used lens is the 24–120mm ƒ/4. With the 28mm ƒ/1.8 I would think focus would be better, but maybe you have the little light turned off. I don't use flash. Prefer ISO 6400 ambient light to the little built in strobe."

Mike replies: Ach, forgot about the little light. And to think, last time I needed help figuring out how to turn it off....

Tom V: "'Practical' is a film (cinema) term. I.e. light that appears to be coming from a light fixture or other 'natural' source, even though the bulb has been replaced by a 300W photo-flood, augmented by off-frame spot, etc."

Bruce Alan Greene: "Just to clarify Tom's comment: A 'practical lamp' is any lamp that is part of the set and photographed in the scene. Usually they do little to light the scene beyond the immediate area of the lamp. Sometimes it works out to be able to use the light coming from the lamp that appears in the shot to illuminate a more significant area of the frame. I believe this is what the quote about Mr. Deakins is referring to. I suspect that Mr. Deakins does this less often than it seems. He may be just very good at making the movie lights look convincing. :-) "

[Bruce is a Director of Photography and Camera Operator for film and television —Ed.]

robert quiet photographer: "Skin tones, light and focus...what I like in this photo is that they all are happy!"

Stocking Stuffers

Is the Nikon AW100 the ultimate stocking stuffer for the helpless photo fanatic? Waterproof, shockproof, sand-proof Nikon, perfect as a beach and vacation cam, marked down from $319 all the way down t0 $219, and with free overnight shipping thrown in, so you can get it by tomorrow or Christmas eve eve.

Available in orange, black, blue, or...

...Camo, for the rugged outdoorsman (or -woman) on your list. Take a gander.

[UPDATE: B&H is closed now until tomorrow evening, but Amazon has the same offer—the orange AW100 for $219 and the camoflage version for only $197. —Ed.]

Mike

P.S. There are some other nice deals on cameras with free overnight shipping, too, including the D600 deal which has been extended, a nice Canon D60 kit, that Canon 35mm ƒ/2 IS I was slavering over which has just arrived at B&H (must not succumb...must not succumb...), and the ultra-popular Sony RX100, for the time being the ultimate all-in-one digicam. Oh, and I almost forgot the Swiss Army Knife of small-sensor digicams, the Canon G12.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Karl: "Everything, and I mean everything, looks better in camo. Cameras, Jeeps, cargo shorts, tank tops on women, you get the idea."

Bill: "The precision of my wireless mouse is lacking. Probably needs new batteries. I intended to click on the 'Stocking Stuffers' link but accidentially got the previous link to the Leica S. Bit of a shock when I thought you considered the red dot camera to be a stocking filler!!  :-)  So I suggest fresh batteries in all stockings."

The Best Camera in the World

People who have followed my writing for a long time know that there is no particular love lost between me and Leica. I don't have anything against them, it's just that I haven't drunk to Kool-Aid, and, to the worst of the snobs that any luxury brand will attract, if you ain't fer 'em you're agin 'em*. (There are a lot of nice folks that shoot Leica too, of course.)

However, I freely admit one thing: The Leica S—that's the name of the new version, which just became available for preorder yesterday—is the best camera in the world. It just is. It has the best lenses, a 30x45mm sensor that does a very good job recording the image of those lenses, and—almost alone in the entire photographic universe—Leica had the courage and the confidence to make it reasonably simple. Consumers have a plethora of choices when it comes to cameras these days, but cameras that embody the considerable virtues of intelligent simplicity are almost absent amongst our options**. (When I handed the Big Dragoon—the D800—to my friend Jack, who shoots with an S2, he said, "I'm not used to all the buttons and dials.")

The naming convention, notoriously, has changed. It's now just the "Leica S," like the Corvette is just the Corvette or the iMac is the iMac. Why not? Leica fans will have to tell me what the agreed-upon specifier for this camera is going to be, if indeed they've worked that out yet. The 2013 model, maybe?

The 2013 Leica S

It's expensive, yes. Very expensive. Not everybody has $21,950 to spend on a camera body (well, not everybody has $21,950 in their bank account, period, but you know what I mean). The slightly long (56mm-e) normal lens shown above will set you back an additional $4,995. And Leica has just introduced three news lenses with the new S: the Leica Super-Elmar-S 24mm ƒ/3.5 ASPH. super-wide (19mm-e), the Leica Vario-Elmar-S 30–90mm ƒ/3.5–5.6 ASPH. zoom (24–72mm-e), and the Leica TS-APO-Elmar-S 120mm ƒ/5.6 ASPH. tilt-shift lens (96mm-e). (I'm providing the links just to be consistent, but I don't think anyone has ever bought a Leica S through our links. You cheapskates! Just kidding.)

But those who take the plunge aren't just being brand snobs. There really is only one "Best Camera in the World," and the Leica S, in my opinion, is it.

Mike

*The phrase, worded here as per Pogo, originated with Jesus, in Matthew 12:30. It's been a popular form of coercion ever since. Many Biblical scholars, attempting to sift what Jesus might actually have said from the words St. Paul or others put into his mouth, agree that the phrase is most likely not an authentic quote of Jesus. Logically it is a form of false dilemma, "a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option" (Wikipedia).

**This despite the example of the late Steve Jobs, who was almost obsessive about simplicity and elegance. I only wish the Leica S designers had anywhere near the same category-wide influence.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

raizans: "Someone should make a mirrorless camera with the same control layout. It's the best I've ever seen on a digital camera."

Michal Daniel (partial comment): "Best for what? Low light photography, given it tops out at measly ISO 1600? Nope. Best in terms of all around use? Weighs a ton, is bigger than a tank, so nope. Best when one needs long lens/zooms? Nope. Best bang/buck? Absolutely nope."

Mike replies: It doesn't weigh a ton, and it's not bigger than a tank. According to the specs at B&H, it's smaller and only 2 ounces heavier than the Nikon D3X and smaller and 10 ounces lighter than the Canon 1DX, both of which have smaller sensors. And it's smaller and 5 ounces lighter than the Pentax 645D.

It's actually quite reasonably sized and surprisingly handy for a camera with such a big sensor. (Its lenses are heavy, though. But perhaps not excessively so, considering their quality. The 70mm normal lens is only slightly bigger and heavier than the Nikon 35mm ƒ/1.4G prime, for instance, and I didn't find that lens intolerable when I rented it.)

Kenneth Tanaka: "An interesting proclamation. What is your basis for this declaration?"

Mike replies: If you guys are trying to provoke me into reviewing this camera, forget it. Even if I could get one to review, which I doubt.

Kevin Purcell: "The proper specifier is the type number. The 2012 Leica M is Type 240, the 2012 Leica M-E is Type 220. Leica has already said that's the 'official' way to differentiate the Leica M models. The type number should be engraved on the hotshoe. The 2012 Leica S is Type 006."

PWL: "The best camera in the world? Piffle. As far as I'm concerned, the best camera in the world is whatever camera I happen to be using at the moment...."

Mike replies: That might well be true for you, and I wouldn't presume to argue, but with 25 years of working for and with photographers, students, and enthusiasts of every description under my belt, my considered opinion is that in the vast majority of cases the truth is the exact opposite of that. That is, utterly regardless of what camera they are using, photographers will discover and complain about its shortcomings, bemoan the lack of the accessories they want, nitpick about feature and design choices they wish were different, and ultimately find the camera they "happen to be using at the moment" to be disappointing and/or inadequate. That includes me, I should admit.

That's purely empirical, of course, based on nothing but long experience and lots of interaction with people who love photography.

The only consistent exceptions I can think of are people who use wooden folding flatbed field view cameras, Rollei TLRs, or film Leica rangefinders, especially the ones without built-in metering. I can think of several examples, for each type, of people who have used the same camera for years and years...and no other example is coming to mind just at the moment except Jim Hughes. Jim used the same camera for many years; I just can't recall offhand what it was. A Retina, perhaps?

That's not exactly fair to digital, because digital has been a moving target so far in its still-early evolution. To say that no one I know of has used a digital camera for more than about half a dozen years isn't an indictment of digital cameras per se, it's just an acknowledgement that digital is evolving quickly and hasn't stabilized yet (if it ever will, I don't know). I will say that at least four very smart people told me that the Leica M8 would be the last digital camera they were ever going to buy, and none of the four still own their M8's.

Stephen Best: "I don't see how anyone could settle for a lesser camera than this. Don't people take their photography seriously enough? I mean, when you're taking pictures of your dog on the back porch (and posting 800px wide images to your site) don't you want every molecule to stand out? Maybe galleries could enforce some standards here and only show work taken with this camera (and approved lenses, of course). Photography has clearly gone to the dogs when people are allowed to use just any old camera for the job."

Mike replies: Whole lotta sour grapes here, but that's all you. Nothing you've so sarcastically ridiculed is stated or implied in my post.

JohnMFlores: "I think that I'd have performance anxiety using that camera. The whole time holding it I'd be saying, 'I am not worthy. I am not worthy.' Even worse, I'd agonize over finding worthy photons to capture with it; it would be kind of a waste to use it on cat pictures for Facebook."

Armand: "You have to use it to believe it!"

Thor: "'Best anything' is always subjective, even in the best of circumstances, but, urm, Mike, you've not even laid hands on the Leica you've so acclaimed, have you? Talk about iffy, if not a bit out of character, especially to those of us who have been following your blog for a while."

Mike replies: True, but I've laid hands on the S2, and my leap of faith is in assuming the new camera isn't worse. Then again, I'm always saying that with cameras you should never assume....

R. Edelman: "I've handled the original model S2 version, and it was wonderful. Well balanced, with a great viewfinder, and controls that had no play yet moved with perfect smoothness. It is a beautiful camera. It's handling, size and weight makes it appropriate for wedding as well as studio photographers. The images that I have seen from the S2 have a wonderful quality about them. I am no Leica fanboy. I admire some, but not all Leica equipment. The S model is expensive, but it is very good, and I would love to own one."

Stephen Scharf: "Nonsense. The best camera in the world is the (now, my; muhahahahaha) Fujifilm X-Pro1."

MartinP: "The costs of hardware, within the price-range of such cameras as the Leica S, are not a huge concern—because they are business expenses and are calculated to be worth only a residual amount after five years (or seven, depending...). The size and design of the S is just about the same as the S2, which I have used, briefly, and the simplicity of use was such a relief. It's a very well thought out, simple, practical design to actually use for stuff. And it is pretty small too."

Hottest Deal on the Internet

I'm not really up on this stuff, I admit, but the way I hear it, Amazon had a super-low price on the Canon 4Ti and EF-S 18–55mm IS lens, but only for delivery after Christmas; and B&H Photo responded with an even lower price, has the kit in stock, and is including free overnight shipping.

There's also a very good price on the same camera with the 18–135mm lens.

Hottest deal on the Internet? Has the look of one of those mini-price wars to us. Might be something to look into if you are an especially generous stocking stuffer. Or have just been procrastinating.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Tasty Panasonic Lumix Blowout!

Amazon's Deal of the Day today consists of a selection of newly discontinued Panasonic mirrorless cameras for more or less half price.

Click here to check out the selection.

Just passin' the news along, as I do when Amazon's Gold Box deals concern photographic yummies; this is not a recommendation for these specific cameras per se (even though I own two Panasonic mirrorless cameras currently, one of which has been my main camera for the past three years).

Note that Amazon's camera deals are "while stock lasts" and generally don't last all day.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Manish: "I wish such deals were available in India. Sigh!"

New Products: COMING SOON!

  The Sony NEX-6 begins shipping mid-week, according to B&H's website. I think this is going to be a killer camera, a less expensive and more modestly balanced version of the excellent and appealing NEX-7, but with the advantages of the lessons Sony's learned from its big brother—trickle-down technology at its most promising. I love the way the bigger NEX handles. Can't tell for sure until they're out, but I wouldn't be suprised at all if this one vaults to the very top of the list of recommendable small cameras—and that would be saying something, these days.

The small-sensor true-pocket-camera niche has been torrid for several years now, with the outstanding Canon series culminating in the current S110 leading the way, closely followed by the third-gen Panasonic, the LX7, with its Leica lens and addictive IQ. The Olympus XZ-1 wasn't as popular (possibly because it overlapped with Olympus's notorious corporate troubles?), but people who used it thought it was just as good. Olympus has moved the next-gen XZ-2 upscale a bit, without leaving the pocketable niche. No word as to when this is due; it was originally scheduled to begin shipping yesterday.

Another trickle-down model that might even improve on some ways (diopter correction, for one) on its older big brother, the Fuji E-X1 is another camera whose arrival is imminent (Nov. 10th) and intensely anticipated. Alas, the little brother lacks the signature switchable EVF/OVF of the wonderful X-Pro1, but it's complete as an alternative to the NEX-6. People love the good looks of the Fuji X cameras, but it's not just skin deep—the control layout is also among the best. Surely the E-X1, available in both silver and black, is even better looking than the other handsome recent Fujis.

Also due to ship imminently is Olympus's Pen Lite, the E-PL5, the higher-spec'd of the two pen cameras. Not only does it sport the sensor and processor from the OM-D E-M5, but it's rumored to be the only Micro 4/3 camera with no low-pass (anti-aliasing) filter. That's making heads turn.

Mentioned here just yesterday, the new Canon EF 35mm ƒ/2 IS USM joins its image-stabilized 24mm and 28mm brethren. Targeted mainly toward video users, there's a cadre of still shooters who will also like these options. It's true that the days of high value "mass market" basic primes are gone—these are high-priced lenses—but the counterbalancing advantage is that the lenses can now be made to a higher standard; cost cutting is no longer so important for market success.

Also newly available for pre-order is the 24–70mm ƒ/4 IS USM zoom. Although intended as the "kit lens" (if you can call such premium equipment "kits") for the new EOS 6D, the new lens will also likely be an excellent all-rounder for any of the 5D series cameras as well.

The forthcoming Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm ƒ/4G ED VR telephoto zoom is also a useful utilitarian lens for many full-frame shooters. According to assurances it will be a very high-quality lens, but with a useful balance of size, price, weight and maximum aperture for many shooters to whom the ƒ/2.8 pro version is overkill.

The Canon 6D is also available for pre-order. Although it's not due until a little more than a month from now, it should ship in time for Christmas. The sleek and elegant 6D just reeks of design that's been evolved and refined over multiple generations. A less expensive offering to replace the outgoing 5D Mark II, the 6D will counterbalance the rising price of the 5D series cameras for full-frame shooters. Another thing this implies is that, like many of the other cameras in this post, it will be a sensible "trickle-down" model incoporating many of the lessons learned from its more cutting-edge siblings.

Probably the quirkiest product here, the diminutive Sony RX1 is also the furthest off on the horizon, not being due to ship until mid-December. You can get in line now by pre-ordering, which might be wise if you want one—while we can't imagine these will sell by the bushel (the price is high), supply will probably also be severely limited at first. The full-frame Rx1 is tiny, but will have a premium captive lens and a very high pixel count. It will be unique in the marketplace when it gets here, and thus not easy to place in context. It looks suspiciously like a labor of love on the part of somebody in power at Sony.

We love "thinking different," however. The more variety in the marketplace, the more photographers who will be well served by something. And that's a good thing.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stephen F Faust: "I think Sony really misjudged their target audience with the RX1 by not including an integrated viewfinder—even an electronic one would have put it on my lust list and probably got me to dump my Fuji X100 just in time for Christmas. Otherwise it hits ALL the right marks for me—full frame sensor, fast, high-quality 35mm lens, compact chassis. But no viewfinder = no sale. Guess I'll stick with my well-loved X100 and save myself $2800. Maybe next time, Sony."

Mike replies: There I have to disagree with you, and pretty strongly. Surely offering the choice of the FDA-V1K optical viewfinder and the FDA-EV1MK electronic viewfinder—and the ability to either choose which one you prefer or interchange them—was an "integral" part of the design brief of the camera from the very start. I've used Zeiss optical add-on viewfinders, and they are really glorious. Also probably really pricey, because they are essentially little lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA-V1K cost $500 all by itself.

JonA: "Boy it sure is good I don't have money to spend with all these great cameras and lenses out there. On the other hand, I like things simple and there is just way too much choice out there. A glut of options but so many how would you pick one?"

Bambang Indrayoto: "The beauty of RX-1 is that I do not need to buy a single lens...."

I Had Better 'Fess Up

Illustration courtesy camerasize.com

About that crack I made about selling all my cameras: I'd better 'splain.

It's very tempting to keep this quiet, but, to paraphrase David Vestal, I'm "in the disclosure business," so I might as well take a deep breath and blurt it out. The truth is: my old colleague Harold Merklinger has been writing about the state of the art in digital B&W (Harold, former Chief Scientist of the Canadian Defence Research Establishment Atlantic, who retired as that agency's Director-General, wrote one of the original articles about bokeh that I published in Photo Techniques in 1997) and he feels that the D800E is a breakthrough for digital B&W. I've been relentlessly researching everything I can about the D800E's B&W capability online, and I think I've quickly arrived at the point where I just need to try it for myself in order to find out more.

When I published the "poll question" the other day, I got lots of  relatively legalistic responses to what I thought was a very straightforward question. Few people intuited that it simply described an issue I happen to be wrestling with myself! The Nikon D800E is very much not my kind of camera—not what I want to shoot with, not what I want to carry, not what I want to pay for. But on the other hand, while I've seen some decent digital B&W here and there (often, curiously, from the original Canon 5D), I've never been happy with what I've been able to produce myself. And what else am I going to spend my money on? Unless you count coffee, I have no other vices. (Well, maybe a touch of gluttony, according to the needle on the bathroom scale. Burp.)

It seems fair to conclude from the evidence that I'm the victim of some persistent delusions when it comes to my own photography. For instance, every time I buy a new camera, I truly believe that I'm going to use it for the rest of my life and will never have to re-sell it. This flies in the face of all of a huge body of evidence to the contrary (somewhere in Vegas, Josh Hawkins is ROTFLHAO—Josh is a photojournalist who used to be the manager of Oak Park Camera, around the corner and down the street from my loft condo in Illinois). Another of these persistent delusions is the idea that I'm going to return to my first love, B&W film photography. Any day now. As Bill Cosby (as Noah) would say, riiiight. I've sunk a fair amount of money and effort into that phantasm: I've bought too many film cameras, and even built a darkroom, which, with everything else that's going on in my life, gets used only sparingly, despite my excitement about it when I built it and despite my fond intentions. More's the pity; but it's like walking when you own a car—you do it a few times when the weather's nice, but mostly you're in a hurry and you just want to get the errands done.

I've been very excited so far by what I've seen of the D800E's B&W output. Unlike most D800/E shooters, I wouldn't buy a D800 for resolution; 16 megapixels in Micro 4/3 is already plenty of resolution for me. But something about Nikon's new sensor really seems to do B&W in a way that I imagine (or that I fantasize, as Scott Adams would say) could satisfy my standards.

I don't know that it can; note that most film photography doesn't meet my standards, and film is much more gifted with monochrome than digital. You can only learn so much online, from others. Photography is a "see for yourself" pursuit, and I accept that there are just some things you need to try for yourself, so that you can "demystify" them for yourself on your own terms. (My friend Oren Grad was the one who turned on that particular lightbulb for me.) That's really why I'm not sorry for having bought the Chamonix: I felt I needed to try it for myself. That justifies it in my mind.

I really don't know that I'll do this. I had zero interest in the D800 until I saw what it can do. Really, the D800E is not my cup of tea as a camera at all. Consider that the three digital cameras I like best on the market right now are the OM-D, the NEX-7, and the Fuji X-Pro1, not necessarily in that order—and I imagine I'll like the NEX-6 and the Fuji E-X1 just as well—and, despite having never seen one, I love the Panasonic GX1, since it's the successor to my GF1, which is the camera I've used by far the most since 2009. (In the last three years I've probably used the GF1 more than all other cameras, film and digital both, combined.)

My brother Scott, a wise and thoughtful guy, once observed that I'm far better at giving other people advice than I am at figuring out what to do for myself. He was talking about stereo equipment, but I think the same thing holds true for photographic equipment as well. It's possible that I simply lack the crucial ingredient of objectivity when it comes to myself.

Someone in the comments to the previous post made the snarky, verging-on-nasty comment, "I give him six months before he's on to the next shiny object." That does bring up what's always been a significant complication for me, which is that I move on to the next shiny object for a living. Or as part of my living. To do a better job as the majordomo of TOP, I should really use far more digital cameras than I do, not fewer, and I should probably stop dithering around with film cameras altogether. I'm sure MR at L-L or any of the guys at, say, Imaging-Resource have hands-on experience with far more cameras than I do. The obligation to stay current with many different camera models is not conducive to settling down with the one thing that's best for your work and ignoring everything else. That's a luxury many amateurs take for granted that I haven't had for many years now. I've been reviewing cameras professionally since 1988, and this is a perpetual conflict. Really, I ought to be more like Ken Rockwell, and I know it.

Perhaps that gives better context to the "poll question" from the other day: to get the results you want, would you use a camera you don't like? The D800E is not my style, and I haven't owned Nikons since Reagan was President. But to do really nice B&W...that particular seductive siren is screaming in my ears.

That snarky commenter should come back in six months. Maybe he'll find he can buy a D800E cheap. That's okay, I guess. I suspect I'll have learned something in the interim. 

And if I struggle with a D800E for a while, you'll probably get a few entertaining posts out of it to boot, don't you think?

Mike

ADDENDUM: But on the other hand...(read mouseover text):

Hat tip again to the very useful Camera Size.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A product of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Josh Hawkins (partial comment): "Mike, I'm still amazed you have owned a camera, the same camera, for six months straight, at least once. The times are a changin'. (In all the years I dealt cameras to Mike I don't think I ever saw him own a camera for more than 6 weeks.)"

Mike replies: C'mon, Josh, it wasn't that bad. You knew me in my OM-4T period, and I used that camera exclusively for four and a half years, admittedly a modern record. And I used Nick's M4 for a whole year, maybe even 14 months, albeit with two different 50mm lenses. Granted, I didn't keep that Leitz Focomat IIc enlarger more than a few weeks, although that was entirely because I didn't like the results I got, not due to fickleness. Those Konicas didn't last long, and I was conflicted about the R4...and about the CLE, and...okay, I'd better shut up now.

Nicolas Woollaston: "Could it be that the kind of people who take the trouble buy and carry D800s are also the kind of people who take the trouble to own and use the very best B&W conversion software and take the trouble to really learn how to use all that technology and are the kind of people who don't stop striving until they are achieving the very best of results? Maybe some of that other stuff is actually more important than the initial image capture device. Hey, maybe even a Leica M Monochrom would be just about as good ;-)"

Mike replies: Many people have made one of two points: 1) that technique might be as important as the camera or more so, and 2) your point, which is that I might be being misled by the fact that the people who own D800E's are people whose technique is very good, and that's what I'm responding to. Both are excellent points. Both might be true. But I also think both just support what I said when I said "I've arrived at the point where I just need to try it for myself in order to find out more."

dogman: "Years ago, I bought a new XXX camera when they were first released and I hated it almost immediately. It did not feel right to me at all. Compared to other model cameras of the same brand, it felt like a toy. It was also unreliable. When it worked, I got results as good as what I was getting from the other models of that brand that I already owned. One infuriating day, following an assignment in which the XXX malfunctioned for the umpteenth time, I walked to an unoccupied area of the street and smashed that damn camera to pieces. It was an act most people would later regret. Instead I felt nothing but relief to be rid of it and I've never had any regrets.

"Since then, I've been a little more reserved when I came across a camera that I didn't like to use and/or one that just wouldn't work properly. I've sold them. Mike, your situation appears to be unique because, in your view, there is only the one camera available that will give you the results you want. But it also appears you really don't particularly like this camera to begin with. Sounds like a marriage forged in Hell. Requires more thought. Don't be impulsive."

MHMG: "Mike, I've now owned my D800E for just about 3 months. Here's my take. 1) I hate this camera. 2) I love this camera. 3) I really hate this camera. 4) I really love this camera. 5) I really hate to say it but I love this camera! Get the idea?...'cause that's what you're in for if you buy one!

"P.S. It eats good lenses for lunch. It demands exceptional glass and very careful technique, and when you finally nail a great image technically and artistically with the D800E, then you'll be wanting a 44" printer!"

Steven House: "I'm tempted by a D800 or E as well. I'm using a D700 at the mo' and I'm happy with that, but I'm already looking forward to your wranglings. That's what the site is about I thought. I don't come here for incessant camera reviews I come here for an insight into photography. Changing cameras once in a while is part of that. Whether as a result of changing technology or changing focus [sic] is neither here nor there."

mcomfort: "I think the secret sauce is pretty simple; Incredible resolution + incredible DR = fantastic B&W potential. The textures, detail, and the ability to push and pull those tones like Atlantic City taffy is a real treat. I've been shooting more B&W with my D800 than all my previous cameras combined."

...The Single Use Device is No More of Use

Alas, it has come time to man up, face facts, and move on: I ain't a view camera photographer. I knew this, but photography for me is all about seeing for myself, and this is a lesson I apparently have to relearn once every couple of decades or so. Large format is amenable to some personalities and skillsets, but I am not one of the lucky ones.

(In fact, I might be selling all of my cameras.)

Self with WP in the pride of new ownership (and
the flush of unrealistic ambition)

I've enjoyed owning this, albeit more in theory than in practice. Fortunately for the next owner, that has left it largely without signs of wear. For sale: one very lightly used Chamonix Whole Plate folding view camera, complete with three gorgeously hand-built holders, several lensboards, an Arca-style QR plate, and two new black Tamrac cases into which said equipment fits like the proverbial glove. I would say each holder has been in the camera no more than three or four times. The camera is used, but doesn't look it.

I also have a 210mm Apo-Sironar-S, but that's more eBayable.

I don't need to get top dollar for this, but I do need to sell it with the holders, boards, and cases, which will raise the price somewhat. If you're interested, please contact me and I can work up a fair price.

Also, if you frequent the kinds of places where large format folks are known to e-loiter, please pass the news along, would you?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kirk Tuck: "Dump them all and start over. It's purging and fun and drives all the linear thinkers crazy when you divest of gear in one big cathartic bang. They want generally want to do stuff in drips and dabs. Just pull the lever and go."

Jim Simmons: "Responding constructively to self-awareness epiphanies is a sign of maturity. We change but often struggle to admit it. If you can accept who you've become now and act on it, life will advance and you will be happier. That's just how it works.

"I am a big time pack rat, but every time I do a purge, I end up smiling like crazy. I was a happy one camera, one lens guy for 25 years (Leica CL/40mm) but then the Internet and eBay came along and fueled the same disease that many of my fellow photographers have suffered through these past few years now. But unlike you, Mike, I've discovered a particular joy in each of the formats I've picked and consequently own and use one model of each—4x5, 6x7, Micro 4/3, stereo 120, and iPhone. The one camera I rarely use is the Leica! But that's my lover, and she will be buried with me."

Panasonic LX5 Closeout

The late, great LX5. Wasn't so long ago that your $500+ would have gone begging. Now you can snag one for half that.

I wasn't on top of this, but there are still a few hours left in Amazon's fire sale of remaining Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5's. Final price (you have to click on "View Gold Box Offer" to see it) is only $249.

UPDATE: The Amazon Gold Box Deal is over (so I removed the link), but B&H Photo is continuing to offer the same deal...at least as of 8:30 Central time: the Panasonic LX5 in black for only $249.95. They also have the same camera in white for the same price. I don't know how long this offer will be good for, but give it a shot.

Remember when demand had stomped all over Panasonic's production capacity and you couldn't get one of these for love or money? Wasn't that long ago, either. Now it's been superseded by the LX7.

The LX5 is a small-sensor pocket compact that competed with the Canon S100 and the Olympus XZ-1 (also on closeout now, for $200. Canon = Big Dawg, don't need no steeking closeouts).

The window on this segment might be beginning to close, what with new competition from 1" sensor cameras like the brilliant (but more expensive) Sony RX100.

Mike
(Thanks to Bill Mitchell)

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

adamct: "One advantage that the Panny LX-5 and the Olympus XZ-1 have over the Canon S100 and the Sony RX100 is the fact that they both have hot shoes. The S100 is fine for outdoor daytime pictures, but without a flash small-sensor cameras just aren't the right choice for indoors in most cases. I suspect the RX100 is better than the S100, but I really don't understand why Sony didn't include a hot shoe. If they had, I would have bought one immediately. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the next iteration!

"P.S. In case you're wondering, the Sony apparently can't be easily used with optical slaves either, since the flash cannot be manually controlled to eliminate pre-flashes. There are time-delay optical slaves available, but at some point the whole exercise becomes too tedious."

Eric Rose: "I have one of these LX5's. The IQ is outstanding."

I Get to See the Mahvelous Fuji X-Pro1

The outfit Art bought.

My old friend Arthur stopped by yesterday, and I got to see his new Fuji X-Pro1. (He had dropped his X-10 into a river—oops—and, like any good photo enthusiast, used the insurance check as an opportunity to rationalize a step-up purchase. Good show, Art.)

Short take
What a lovely, lovely camera. The people who get to use these are lucky b*stards indeed. The camera has an utterly marvelous feeling in the hand, and the quick presto-change-O between EVF and OVF is no gimmick—it's a seriously nice feature. We compared the X-Pro1 physically to a Leica M7 with a 35mm Summilux ASPH I have here, and they are very close to the same size—a bit different in this way or that, but as close as makes no difference. But the Fuji is so much lighter. In fact the weight of the Fuji relative to its size is one of its most impressive characteristics—it's just dense enough to feel solid, and yet it's light enough that it feels oh-so handy and fast.

Comparison courtesy of camerasize.com

I loved it. I weighed Art's X-Pro1 and 35mm ƒ/1.4 XF R lens on my coffee scale, and it tipped in at a little less than 23 ounces. We both guessed the Leica was twice as heavy. It wasn't, but the Fuji feels perfect. I mean perfect.

Of course, it seems a touch hesitant to focus now and then—it's not like it's bad, but Art had a spot of bother several times in my not-so-light but not-so-dark kitchen where we sat drinking fresh-roasted (well, roasted Friday evening) Nicaragua Dipilto Cielo Azul. Maybe that's a feature too—Fuji is wise enough to know it needs to give owners something to gripe about online, otherwise they wouldn't be completely happy. And besides, if somebody actually built a totally perfect camera, the world would have to explode.

But oh, yeah, I liked this. I liked the ergonomics, too—everything just seems to fall to hand just so, from the on/off switch onward. And the lens has (gasp!) an aperture ring, with third-of-a-stop click stops. There's a reason why classic design has evolved the way it has over the years. Obviously a lot of thought went into this.

All this camera needs is, I don't know, say a 23 or 24mm lens of ƒ/2 or faster, and this camera would be a giant-killer. Too bad the system doesn't have one. Eh, what's that you say?

And I wonder if this camera has decent ISO 1600 performance? Eh? Eh?

Just kidding. I know it does. And I've seen the roadmap.

This is the second nice surprise I've gotten recently when it comes to premium small cameras—the NEX-7, although quite a different beast from the Fuji, also struck me the same way, as a particularly successful design that would be a pleasure to use and an absolute treat to own.

Mike

P.S. I'll be gone today—GO BEARS!*—so comments won't be posted until tonight or tomorrow. Hope those of you in or near the storm path stay warm, dry, and powered.

*My second-favorite team, loyal cheesehead and former Chicagoan that I am.

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Gene Lowinger: "My first outing with my X-Pro1 and 18mm lens was at the New York Easter Parade. When I loaded the raw files into my Lightroom catalog and began to review and keyword the images I had the wind knocked out of me. The image quality was superior to my D700/24–70mm ƒ/2.8 combo, about a quarter of the weight, and less than half the size. And for high ISO? What noise? Whatever there is, is very manageable. I'm so happy I splurged on this camera, and didn't wait for the X-E1. The optical viewfinder is a pleasure to use. Fuji has done a great job on these cameras!"

Barry Reid: "This column is truly the last thing I need to read...."

JRF: "Great Camera! But horrible to deal with RAW files. As of now you need to use Fuji's RAW converter. No Capture One or Lightroom RAW converter. This is awful for anyone that has a workflow based on Lightroom or Capture One."

Semilog: "My X-Pro1 was stolen a week ago—with a 21mm ƒ/2.8 ZM Biogon mounted. I'm now trying to figure out what will replace it. The kind folks at my local camera store let me borrow a NEX-7 and a Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 for a couple of hours yesterday, so I incremented the shutter count on the demo by a couple of hundred and spent this morning looking at the files.

"I am a Sony sensor partisan, and to my surprise, I like the output from the Fuji XTRANS sensor better. Yes, the workflow is not quite there yet, but I have never seen a sensor that delivers such film-like results. I also played with a D600. This is a 'small' DSLR? Bloated bastard of a camera. A small DSLR would be no larger than an F3 or a Pentax LX. I'll be getting another Fuji, then. Probably an X-E1...."

ashok (Mumbai, India): "I completely agree. Just got a X-Pro1 body from Adorama and tried to buy the announced 18–55mm zoom. Fuji India promised delivery of the first supplies this week, but so far no luck. I prefer to wait and get the zoom instead of the 60mm which is my next option. It's indeed a fantastic piece of engineering and from the reviews the picture quality is excellent. Pity about the eyesight correction not being included in the camera...can't wait to try it out...."

lith: "Quintessentially Japanese, no? Take the spirit of German camera making...and make it more practical, high-tech, and affordable."

The Panasonic G3 and the Olympus XZ-1

There are a couple of great closeout deals on Amazon right now—the Panasonic G3 for only $329.99, and the Olympus XZ-1 for only 199.99.

Just passing the news along.

Mike
(Thanks to Rob Morris and several other tipsters)

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

 

Fuji X100 Price Drop

Taken with the Fuji X100, in Madison with Ctein and Laura

Well, this is what a lot of people have been waiting for—the undyingly popular Fuji X100, with its super-duper lens and superlative image quality, not to mention Leica-like looks, for less than a grand. (You knew the day would get here, you just didn't know when.) The price drop takes it from $1,199 to $999, and is good until Nov. 3rd.

Jerry telling a story, taken with the Canon 5D Mark II (two-frame panorama)

And on the screaming bargain front, B&H is closing out the still very nice Canon 5D Mark II (in favor of the new 6D) with the kit to end all kits—the camera, the very nice 24–105mm image-stabilized all-purpose"L"  zoom lens, and a Pro 9000II printer, along with a few other goodies, all for $2,199. The page says the offer's good till the end of the year, but don't count on that—it's probably good for as long as Canon can supply the cameras. Of course you can buy just the camera and lens if you want to...for $300 more.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rob L: "I've seldom loved a camera more than my X100—sure, it's frustrating, but all great things are (try changing film on a Leica in a hurry). But the results outweigh the growls. And the looks honestly don't feel like a put-on, but an honest attempt to match form with function."

Mike Boudreaux: "Well, a $999 mistake would be better than the $1299 mistake I made when I bought one."

Bob (partial comment): "...Personally, I need much more for a massive ONE THOUSAND QUID!!!"

Robin Dreyer: "I'm so happy with my X100, I don't even resent this price drop. As others have said, it's worth taking the time to thoroughly learn this camera. Which isn't as daunting as learning a lot of other cameras because there are lots of (mostly silly) things that the X100 doesn't do, so there's not as much to learn."