The Online Photographer

How to Buy a Digital Camera

"I view 'cameras'—i.e. bodies—as consumables; the
film of the digital era."

—Gary Bliss

Picking a camera is really a matter of picking a system, and picking a system is really a matter of picking a lens line. That's where your more important investment is going to be. You're going to be replacing your digital camera body every 1.5–5 years, and the expense of buying digital camera bodies is like buying computers or cellphones or keeping a vehicle—an ongoing expense, like a tax you pay every so often to keep current and keep working. Gary Bliss (quoted above, from a comment he posted here on TOP) is right—bodies are the additive, ongoing expense of the digital era, like film and processing was in the film era. But your lenses might last twice to five times as long as your camera-buying cycle, and if you buy good lenses you'll invest more money in them than in any particular camera body. And you'll get more back out of them as well.

A good lens can inspire you, and reward you, every time you use it. And if you limit yourself well, you'll really get to know each of your lenses, learning their full potential, and you'll get more reward out of them that way too.

Most newbie consumers of interchangeable-lens cameras treat lenses as an afterthought. They shop for the camera, then economize, skimp, or compromise on the lens. I've done that myself a time or two, but that's backwards. Better to buy a lens you'll keep, and upgrade to a better body when you can.

Make a list
At this point there's another wrinkle. How do you know what you're going to want? Usually, experienced photographers pick lenses for two reasons—the first is because it's what we need for specific tasks we concentrate on, and the second is that they're what we're used to, and fit (or have come to fit) how we tend to see.

The more experienced you are, the less you'll need advice. You will already have learned your preferences. So what if you haven't had a lot of experience, and you haven't yet gravitated to certain kinds of work, so you don't really know yet what lenses you want to end up with? Well, that's a tougher question, and it assumes you're a total beginner. So that's a question for another column. We'll leave that aside for now.

Fortunately, most of us tend to use one "main" lens which we shoot with a lot, one or two secondary lenses with which we shoot a lesser but still significant amount, and one or two lenses we only use very occasionally but still need once in a while. For example (note well—this is only an example! I'm not saying this is what your own percentages must be), I used to use a prime (single-focal-length) lens in the 35–40mm (or -equivalent) range as my main "axe," an 85–90mm lens for portraits, and a wide-angle for tight spaces. Historically my usage pattern was in about these proportions: 80% main lens, 15% portrait lens, 5% WA.

It's very unlikely that your preferences will parallel mine. You might have learned differently, or see differently, or shoot different things.

So here's what I recommend: make your own list. Imagine you had to start over completely from scratch—all your equipment fell overboard or fell out of the airplane's cargo hold. (Don't get sweats, it's just an exercise.) You have to make a completely fresh start.

Write out what you think you might want and how much you need them. Do this as a theoretical exercise—don't be thinking of specific lenses. Don't look at any lens lines to see what's available. Just imagine it. Imagine what you really want/need, and write down what that would be.

Then, prioritize it. Put your "main" choice, the one you think you'd use the most, at the top of the list. Then go from there.

After you've written your list and put it in order, cut it off after four or five. Only pros need more than five lenses, and they can handle it because they do it full time. The rest of us are better off with four or five lenses or fewer. I recommend only two or three, but few people are that disciplined. For anyone, though, I recommend not planning to buy too many. You'll do better work if you have enough lenses, but having too many is often just as much an impediment to working effectively as owning too few. With one lens, you really learn how to see like the lens sees. (That's part of the revelation of a One Camera / One Lens / One Year [OCOLOY] project.) With too many lenses, especially if they're all zooms, you're more likely to end up in a persistent state of partial unfamiliarity. It's like driving a different car every week—you never settle into that kind of total old-shoe familiarity that allows you to operate the car like it's second nature, without conscious thought.

The less you know about yourself and what you care about, the harder this is going to be. If you're lucky enough to know already what your main lens needs to be, then it stands to reason that the lens line you choose when buying a camera should have a really good option, or even more than one good option, in that position. As for the other lenses you'll need, it's easy to prioritize—just imagine you'll buy them one at a time, and put them down in the order you'd buy them. Even if you don't actually have to buy them one at a time. Or, estimate the percentage of your work you'll do with each lens. The further you go down the list, perhaps the less you might need to spend on that lens, and the less important it is that the lens be an absolutely perfect match for what you want. So if you're a macro photographer, say, and do 85% of your shooting with two different macro lenses, naturally they'd both need to be very good ones and quite close to exactly what you want, and you'd be sensible to spend what you need to get the right ones. But if 2% of your shooting requires a macro lens—for an occasional product shot, let's say—then your macro lens hardly needs to be expensive or perfect; most anything close, that you can get for a bargain, will do. And if 2% of your shooting is with a macro lens, maybe you don't really need a macro lens at all.

Something to avoid: Some newcomers—more experienced as shoppers than as shooters—have the notion that you should "cover all the focal lengths." So they carefully shop for several zooms that go from very wide to very telephoto, sometimes even being obsessive about not allowing overlap! This is a common mistake, but wrongheaded and counterproductive. You are much better off doing the opposite—sticking to just a few focal lengths that are far enough away from each other that you can't use either for tasks the other is good at.

Now is when you start looking at systems
Lens list finalized, then you start looking at systems, to see what system has the lenses you're going to want to buy. For example, if your choices look like this (focal lengths given in 35mm/FF terms, but could be equivalents):

1. Super-fast 50mm, 50%
2. Ultra-wide-angle perspective-control lens for near/far landscapes, 30%
3. 200mm macro for insects and varmints including venomous arachnids, 15%
4. Slow but sharp 400mm for airshows, 5%

Well then, once you start looking at systems, you know you'd be well suited to Canon full-frame, because Canon has a 50mm ƒ/1.2, a 24mm TS-E lens, a 180mm macro (not an exact match but close enough), and a 400mm ƒ/5.6.

...And so forth.

And when choosing a system based on lenses, look at the whole system as it exists now. We have the convenience of "roadmaps" now (charts showing future planned product releases), which is an improvement over the pure guessing games of decades past, but a roadmap isn't a guarantee. Don't buy into any system based on a promise.

You'd think I'd be immune to this pitfall, after 36 years as a photographer and 28 years of writing about equipment. But a few years ago I landed happily in the Sony NEX system just as its lens line fell into benign neglect. The "main" lens I needed existed, and drew me in; the second one I wanted never arrived. Still hasn't. Oops.

If all systems satisfy your needs, or if you are not picky when it comes to lenses, then maybe this method won't help you much. Come up with your own list and see. Even if you already own a collection of lenses, perhaps try the exercise to see how close what you have really comes to what you want.

It's when you've settled on a lens buying plan that you'll know what camera line you want to be in, and from there it becomes quite a bit easier to choose a camera. But don't sweat the camera too much. If you're like most people you'll be replacing it in a few years anyway. It's the lens "arsenal" you're really investing in. Being able to own a fine selection of lenses that are ideal for your work is one of the nice things about being an amateur. And the lenses will have a big effect not only on how your files look, but on how you will learn to see with them.

Your collection of lenses is really the key investment. Choose wisely.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

KeithB: "As another datapoint you might be able to get your DAM software to tell you the percentage of use of various lenses and focal lengths."

Richard Newman: "There is sometimes another option. If you have lenses from one maker (e.g. Nikon) but you would like the capabilities of another body (e.g. Sony) you may be locked into the lens brand due to cost of replacing the lenses in a new system. Instead, see if there is an adapter that will permit your current lenses to work on the other brand body. These adapters are made by a number of companies, generally for less than $200. Try a lens on the new body to see if it works well before buying the new body. It may or may not satisfy you, but it has worked for me."

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): " If I was starting from scratch today I would be strongly tempted to keep the gear to a minimum with just a Sony RX100, RX10, RX1RII, Panasonic LC100, or other similar camera, depending on my need for focal length and/or carryable compactness. Costs aside, I'd make every effort to eliminate the lens-choice distractions between my mind/eye and the image. It's generally not productive."

Mike replies: Doesn't every zoom lens come with lens-choice distraction built in?

Gordon Lewis: "I generally find that the more specific your needs, the more you have to think about lenses first. For example, if you're into architectural photography, you're going to need a camera that accepts tilt-shift lenses. If you're into low-light photography you're going to want a lot of fast primes. If you're into wildlife or sports you're going to need long lenses, and so on. What's more, you're probably well aware of this, so you choose cameras and lenses accordingly. This decision is often harder for general-purpose shooters because they want one lens that can do 'everything.' A jack-of-all-trades wide-to-tele zoom may be master of none but can still be more useful and satisfying to the generalist than more specialized lenses."

Will: "When you say that the lens you want still hasn't arrived, are you forgetting the 55mm FE Zeiss lens released with the A7 line? It seems like it meets your 85–90mm-e portrait lens requirements.

"But you're a Fuji man now, and better for it (as are all of us Fuji men).

"I found your column remarkably on point even if it isn't advice that I need. As a cinematographer, particularly one well used to budget production, I go through this process often. For me, it isn't a decision I make and then live with for two or more years, it is a decision I make and live with for at most a week. Does this commercial require a lot of wide angle work? Does this corporate video demand mostly portrait interviews? I often have the budget for only three lenses, but every project demands a different three lenses. And Zeiss and Cooke (really, my only choices, budget and preference-wise, though I'd love to try Leica's cinema glass) have really full lineups for many lens series. So if I go Zeiss Ultraprimes, for example, I know I'm ƒ/2 across the board, but I can choose from 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 40, 50, 65, 85, 100, 135, and 180mm options. That's a lot of choice, and very granular. Zeiss Master Primes (ƒ/1.4) have an as extensive but different lineup, and Cooke S4s (ƒ/2) have as extensive a lineup as well, but with a very different signature, lacking the clinical Zeiss sharpness and bringing in softer rolloff from sharp to bokeh.

"The point being that every project calls for a different 'look,' different aperture needs, and different focal length requirements. It kills me when a system lacks a ~65mm, because I find the jump from 50mm (always present) to 85mm (also always present) skips over (cinema is usually APS-C, remember) the kind of portrait focal length I like to use. 50mm is 70mm-e, which I hate, and 85mm is practically 135mm-e, and you've spoken well about the usefulness of that.

"At any rate, it means that every job begins this process anew. And it also means that I'm skilled enough at choosing APS-C focal lengths that I know that my Fuji system meets my needs, and also that my next lens will be in the 12mm to 14mm range."

Mike replies: You should rent the XF 14mm ƒ/2.8 before making a final decision. I'm just sayin'.

Doug Thacker (partial comment): "For paid work outside a studio (spot news, combat, events, travel, weddings), only the 'aristocracy' of pros have the option of relying on single focal length lenses. Parenthetically, in his (excellent, interesting, but too short) Autobiography, Helmut Newton tells the story of shooting Jodie Foster for Vanity Fair. He shows up on the appointed day with no assistant, and sends home her stylist, makeup people, etc. Then, with just the two of them there he does the shoot using the kit he brought: an SLR, a 50mm lens, and four rolls of Tri-X.

"I related this story to a pro-shooting friend of mine and enjoyed the horrified look on his face. 'You'd have to have balls of steel to do that,' he said. The idea hadn't occurred to me until he said it, but on reflection you know Newton had those in his kit, too."

When Jazz Met Photography Met Design

Written by John Kennerdell

Even if you don't share the view that jazz reached its high-water mark in the couple decades following World War II, can there be much doubt that the art of the album cover did? Those big square sleeves offered the perfect showcase for mid-20th-century graphics and photography, and the best of them still stand as small masterpieces of design.

To be fair, a lot of the most memorable covers relied mainly or entirely on illustrations or typography. But there was plenty of photography too, some of it famous, some all but forgotten. So here's a modest taxonomy of the postwar jazz album cover photograph, with what I take to be a prime example of each type. Not everyone will agree with my taste in either photography or music, but at minimum I'd say they're all worth a look and a listen even to non-jazz fans. Jazz people, you'll know most or all of them.

-

Chet Baker Quartet Featuring Russ Freeman, 1953. Photograph by William Claxton. That's Freeman at the piano and Chet playing his horn behind him. Claxton had begun photographing Baker in 1952 and was to make him a kind of personal project for the next five years. "After those first few golden years," said Claxton, "it seemed as though he was always on the run—usually away from the law, or else running to find a score."

The session shot
The session shot is what you think of when you think of jazz photography: the musician in action, all spotlights and cigarette smoke and chiaroscuro. In fact surprisingly few of the really good ones ended up on the covers of jazz albums, at least at the time. If you want a great session photo matched to a great record, the best I can do is Herman Leonard's glorious shot of Dexter Gordon on the saxophonist's Ballads, a compilation from 1991. But that's cheating.

Sticking to records from the period, perhaps most iconic (it even appeared on a U.S. postage stamp) is David Gahr's cover shot on A Tribute to Jack Johnson by Miles Davis. That would be a rather divisive choice though, given that it's a soundtrack album as well as, shall we say, a bit outside of many people's definition of jazz.

So I'm going with a dark horse: an early Chet Baker recording with a cover shot by William Claxton, a man up there with Leonard and Francis Wolff as the top session photographers of them all. In fitting with the West Coast cool of the music it's almost formally geometric in its lines, with the top of the grand piano angling down to create a background for the title. It wasn't surprising to find that Claxton did the design as well.

Chet has taken more than his share of criticism from some quarters, not least because his early popularity owed much to his absurdly photogenic looks, mainly as seen through Claxton's lens. But listen to this album with an open mind and you'll hear a wonderfully natural musician, relaxed and inventive and always expressive. You'll also get plenty of exceptionally tasty piano from Russ Freeman, one of the unsung masters of the instrument.

-

Sunday at the Village Vanguard, Bill Evans Trio, 1961. Photograph by Donald Silverstein. In his short life (1934-1975) New York-born Silverstein burned bright. He spent a few years in Paris with French Vogue and then moved to the London of the Swinging '60s, where he worked alongside Bailey, Donovan, and Duffy. Amid a busy career in fashion, advertising, and editorial photography he shot dozens of jazz musicians but is best remembered for a single 1967 session with Jimi Hendrix.

The studio portrait
While there were some fine studio cover shots of musicians holding their horns or sitting at their pianos or drums—I like the skinny young Ornette Coleman hugging his plastic sax on The Shape of Jazz to Come—more interesting things tended to happen when the photographer took the instrument away. You begin to see the person behind the musician.

This one was an easy pick. Silverstein's portrait of Bill Evans has an immediacy to it that I've never seen in another shot of the pianist. He looks serious and intense, as he always did, but also vulnerable, almost frail. His hands reach out as if for a keyboard. The frame numbers written on the one published contact sheet suggest that the photographer shot at least eight rolls on his Hasselblad. By the end, when this one appears to have been taken, poor Bill probably just wanted to get back to his piano. Knowing as we do the demons he would face over the remaining 20 years of his life, it's a haunting image.

A contact sheet from the shoot

As for the music, I admit a preference for Bill's studio albums, most of all Portrait In Jazz, but that cover shot isn't nearly as interesting. And as live piano trio recordings go, this one pretty much sets the gold standard: three musicians totally in sync, improvising with an emotional connection so subtle and spontaneous that it redefined the trio format. I've even come to like the background clink of glasses and the murmur of conversation, down in that Greenwich Village basement one Sunday all those years ago.

-

Ray Bryant Trio, 1957. Photograph by Esmond Edwards. Hired as a clerk and then photographer for Prestige just months before this photo was taken, Edwards went on to a long and distinguished career as graphic designer, composer, arranger, and producer. He eventually rose to head Verve Records, making him one of the first African-American
executives in the recording industry.

The location portrait
The location portrait has long been a staple of album covers, and not just in jazz. Think of Bob and Suze walking down that street outside their apartment on The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan. There's something intriguing about seeing a famous musician out and about in his neighborhood, as if you might bump into him yourself.

This cover, from Ray's first album as a sole leader, charmed me the moment I first saw it. Edwards' minimalist photo hints at the clean, open sound of the music inside, while Reid Miles, freelancing for Prestige from his main gig at Blue Note, has done his usual stylish job with the layout. And look at Ray. He’s quite the dude here, just 25 years old and on top of the world. By this point he'd already been house pianist at Philadelphia's Blue Note for years, playing with the greats of the day. Over half a century of virtuoso jazz still lay ahead of him.

For all that was to come later, there's a freshness and purity to this one that makes it my favorite. Ray's technique sparkles and he couldn’t stop swinging if he tried. Above all you hear his poise: he can launch into a phrase, take it somewhere fanciful, and then wrap it up so neatly you just have to smile. Anyone who can listen to "Blues Changes" here and not feel better for it is having a really bad day.

-

Speak No Evil, Wayne Shorter, 1966. Photograph by Reid Miles. Despite designing hundreds of Blue Note covers, many of which he also photographed, Miles preferred his music classical and had little time for jazz. He relied on session notes from producer Alfred Lion to come up with his designs. 

The miscellaneous
This is my catch-all category for the rest, from cover photos inspired by the album title but unrelated to the artist (for example, Eric Dolphy's Out to Lunch) to composites like Speak No Evil. At least I think it's a composite. Like the music inside, it's an image that works in ways not necessarily open to logical analysis. There's Wayne lurking behind some kind of plant, looking his most sphinx-like. Blurred in the foreground, in best William Klein style, is his wife of the time, Irene Nakagami. The whole thing is toned a deep blue. Jazz album cover designers were big on toning photographs, often strongly and often, for obvious reasons, blue. Sometimes that could feel clichéd, but here it really adds something. Maybe because it's the color of night, somehow it helps prepare you for what you're going to find inside.

And just what is that? Speak No Evil has been called the “dark sister” of Herbie Hancock’s ever-popular Maiden Voyage, recorded about the same time with mostly the same musicians. While Maiden Voyage was the record you gave to a friend to get him interested in jazz, Speak No Evil is an altogether stranger brew. Not that it's a difficult listen, nor lacking in its own mysterious beauty. It's just that Shorter's tenor sax here seems to be operating on an instinctive level that might take some getting used to. He doesn't play many notes but what he wrings out of them is extraordinary. The rest of the band, especially the young Herbie Hancock and the veteran Elvin Jones, is brilliant. But Shorter, impossibly, is even better.

•     •     •

Those are my picks. I'd like to hear yours, even if it means doing a face-slap and saying, why didn't I think of that one? It was a time so rich in both music and photography that there are plenty of favorites to go around for everyone.

John

Bangkok-based photographer John Kennerdell writes two essays a year for TOP. His past contributions can be found under his name in the Categories list in the right-hand sidebar.

©2016 by John Kennerdell, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

s.wolters: "The Blue Note cover designs stand out by miles. Powerful and pure. The Cover Art of Blue Note Records: The Collection by Graham Marsh is probably the best book to start with. There is a nice book on the covers of Prestige as well, by Geoff Gans. There are two large anniversary books that are beautiful. One on 75 years of Blue Note, called Blue Note: Uncompromising Expression, and one on Verve called Verve: The Sound of America. Both by Richard Havers. There is also a book called Blue Note with only the photographs of Francis Wolff on his work for the label. Another favorite of mine is The Jazz Loft Project: Photographs and Tapes of W. Eugene Smith from 821 Sixth Avenue, 1957-1965. Roy DeCarava’s book The Sound I Saw is also stunning. The two greatest European jazz photographers are Jean Pierre Leloir and of course Ed van der Elsken.

"And finally: last year I surprised a friend with prints I made of downloads of photos from the Library of Congress. There are a lot of jazz musicians in that archive and the resolution and detail is quite good."

phil fogle: "I worked for Donald Silverstein as assistant from 1972–3. I still have a print on my wall that I did in '72 of the Hendrix portrait for Vogue. It's the inside gatefold from Electric Ladyland. Sadly, Hendrix died before I got a chance to meet him. This is the first reference I've seen to Don's work in decades, and it's very moving. Thanks for posting."

Bryce Lee: "33.3 RPM album covers, an era which is no more. The essay made me go over to the record rack (doesn't everybody have one of those?) and pull out all my Dave Brubeck albums and all those by Don Shirley. Brubeck's album covers were may I say, normal for the period. Shirley's however were dark, moody and mysterious, as much as his music. Given the topic, turned on the Dynaco tube amp, placed the disc on the turntable and am now listening to the following: Don Shirley with Two Basses. Released in 1958 on the Cadence Label, have to thank a late friend who willed me in 1990 his entire massive (over 700 albums) record collection of jazz and pipe organ music. My friend was an early adopter of magnetic recording and as a result the discs are almost mint; he would play and record them once, then carefully place them in their sleeves and return them to the rack. They lived on, played on his 15-inch reel Revox or Ampex machines, one after another. The albums remain, most now recorded to CD.

"There is a 'magic' looking at an album cover and listening to the contents, on a turntable with tube amp and a pair of unspoiled original Dynaco A25 speakers. May well spend this Sunday evening listening to a few other discs, sipping a single malt, and watching the amplifier tubes warm the room. Thank you for jogging my aging brain."

Fred Mueller: "Lee Friedlander: American Musicians. My favorite portrait book. He is not a one trick pony."

Kevin Crosado: "It's all a snare and a delusion.... Back in the round black thing era I was moved to buy several John Surman albums largely because I loved Christian Vogt's photos and Dieter Rehm's ECM cover designs. As time has gone on I've become steadily less convinced that this was a Good Thing. (Actually, I quite like bits of his album with Karin Krog—but more for Krog than for Surman's incessant noodling and vamping)."

Mike adds: Yes, sometimes judging (buying) either an album or a book by its cover is a trap, I agree. As for why I think so, lcome this way to my bookshelves and my record racks....  :-\

What's the Most Expensive Camera You've Ever Bought?

A comment from Josh Hawkins today brought this up. Josh is now a dad and living in Las Vegas, but back when I lived in Oak Park, Illinois, he was the manager of Oak Park Camera, which in those years was a lovely old-time camera store more or less around the corner from where I lived.

Josh mentioned that he might go look at a Leica M-Monochrom at CES, the International Consumer Electronics Show at the Las Vegas Convention and World Trade Center and several other locations in Las Vegas (halfway over—it's open today and tomorrow, if you find yourself in Vegas), except that it "seems like a pointless exercise in torturing myself."

I replied that the Sony A7RII is too expensive for me, so I'm obviously not in Leica's market space either.

That got me to thinking...what's the most expensive camera I've actually ever bought? Not counting lenses and accessories.

I believe for me it's a tie—this still makes me shudder, because I'm not rich enough to have bought either of these cameras once, never mind both of them, but I believe I paid $2,700 for the Sony A900 and about the same price for the Chamonix Whole-Plate 6.5 x 8.5-inch large format field view camera*, which I think is also the most exotic camera I've ever owned (unless you count actor Jack Lemmon's M6).

I think the Chamonix wins because shipping was $150 from China and the holders are not really accessories—they're essential, and go with the body. I don't know, would you large format folks count dedicated holders as part of the "camera body"? Anyway I bought three at $200 each.

Ironically, I used both cameras very little. That's the other half of the cost equation for a camera: part of the cost is how much cash you lay out for it, and the other half is how much use (and/or money) you get back out of it. You can make up the former with the latter, if you're diligent and chose wisely. The "cheapest" cameras I've bought this decade in terms of use-for-cost were the Panasonic GF1 and the Sony NEX-6.

What's the most you ever paid for a camera, do you remember? We won't judge you either way!**

Mike

[UPDATE: I'm wrong on both counts here. Forgot the Big Dragoon! I bought a Nikon D800 after it came out. Sold it at not too bad a loss so I don't think of it as a sunk cost. Can't remember the number but it was over $3k all in. Sorry for my poor memory! —MJ]

*This camera is still for sale, if you know anybody who might be interested. I can only ship to the US, though—my last prospective buyer was from the UK and the shipping cost turned out to be prohibitive.

**Do bear in mind that I ask commenters not to respond to other commenters unless they're being helpful—no criticisms of others, please!  :-)

TOP takes Saturdays off. We'll be back on Sunday with a sweet guest article from Contributing Editor John Kennerdell. I'm still working on my Sigma 35mm Art review, which will be entertaining, and we'll have a nice landscape mini-portfolio next week as well.

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Andrew C E: "My Nikon D810 is the the single most expensive thing I own, and that includes my car (which gets significantly less use than the D810). I think it was just shy of $4,000 CDN new after the sales taxes were included, and I haven't had a moment of buyer's remorse."

Mike replies: You, Sir, are a true Photo Dawg, and I say that as a salute.

KeithB: "My next one."

Michael Perini: "I bought a very early Canon 1Ds III in Nov 2007 when everyone was getting Full MAP (if you could get one) of $7,995 for the body. But it is still my main camera in 2016. I may or may not replace it with a 1Dx II which I hope will be cheaper."

JG: "A Contax 645 with a Phase One P30+ back and a slew of lenses. I refuse to add up what it cost me in total, but I did buy everything used at very attractive prices. And as it turned out, it was absolutely, completely the wrong camera for the type of photography I was doing with it. Live and learn, eh?"

Don Davis: "Kodak DCS620, not purchased 'personally,' but by the newspaper for me to use. Ran close to $10k. A couple of years later, the aperture return lever failed. If it had been an F5, the repair would have been about $400 (including complete cleaning/tune up by NPS). Since it had to be returned to Big Yaller, it was $3,800, since they plugged a new Nikon body into the computer. Paper reluctantly paid, then we traded the thing...got $2,200!"

mike plews (partial comment): "If you consider camera cost in terms of percentage of net worth than the hands-down winner would be the Honeywell Pentax H1a I bought in high school for $169.50 which took me a year to pay off."

John: "It's probably the 1D X I bought last year, even though I bought it off eBay at around $4,000. That purchase pales in comparison to the big white Canon tele I bought a few months later, though. But the most painful purchase ever was a Rollei 6008i on eBay on which I lost a lot of money selling it because Rollei dropped its new price by $1,000 during the short time I owned my used one. I tend to think in overall ownership cost and actual use of the gear. Price is only part of the equation."

Walter Glover: "For me, the high point of price was back in the 1990s when I purchased a brand new Sinar P2 which was $12,500 AUD. No holders, no accessories. No extras. I do not know what the exchange rate was back then but in today's money that would be $8,300 US. And didn't that camera earn its keep over the years. Fascinating to see them going for less than two grand on Ebay today."

Richard: "I paid $1,500 for a Canon 10D. Only a month after that, the 20D was announced."

Ian Land: "Mine is also a Chamonix—an 8x10, with three film holders, and a 4x5 reducing back. I bought it a couple of years ago when I sold my house. I'd always dreamed of shooting 8x10, even though I was a bit worried it would be too heavy to hike with (I'd regularly hiked with a 4x5, but that's like hiking with a compact camera compared to 8x10). I've almost never bought a camera new, but I felt this was a big moment, and deserving of something pristine.

"I had to wait around two months for the camera to arrive, and then another few weeks before I had a chance to use it. It was not immediate love; I struggled with development and didn't like any of my initial images. I started to think I'd made a mistake. But then I worked out a tray development method which gave me consistent results, and noticed, as I used the camera more often, that it became more and more the camera I wanted to use, despite the size, the cost of film, and the general inconvenience. Now I get to use it once a month or so, and those days always seem to be the shooting days I most enjoy. I took it out last week and discovered the Copal shutter on my only shuttered lens for 8x10 is broken. I won't be happy until it's fixed and I can use it again."

Doug: "I'm not rich, I'm an average retired guy who's not afraid to spend money on my hobbies. I contend, after 50 years in the motorcycle hobby, that photography is inexpensive. Go visit a Harley shop and see what $3,000 buys you. Hint: Chrome for your $25,000 Hog. And that Harley will depreciate more in the first year than the entire cost of a new D810. People buy Harleys every day, buy Jeeps, jet skis, or even golf clubs, that cost much more than a fine camera."

Mike replies: Thanks for that. That actually made me feel better.

Josh Hawkins: "My biggest purchase, by almost every measure, was my Nikon D1h. A good but not great camera at the time. I can't remember the totals, but camera alone was about $4k, and another $4 or 5k on lenses and accessories. All at employee discount pricing. Took me about three or four years to pay off. Also got me from a job in photo retail, good job but not the right career for me, to a good career in photojournalism. A career I greatly enjoy and enjoy the benefits of to this day. I'd call that a worthwhile investment. And if you want to buy it, I believe it's currently covered in dust on the top shelf of my kids' closet."

Bill Wheeler: "My most expensive camera was a used Leica M7 and 35mm Summicron lens kit. I don't recall how much I paid for it or sold it for a year later. I did worry about leaving it behind somewhere or banging it against something. My fear of damaging this expensive camera ruined the whole experience of owning it and using for me. I know, I know: it's me and not the camera. Honestly, I was glad to sell the Leica and to replace it with a cheap used Nikon SLR. No regrets."

Sal Santamaura: "That's such an easy question, Mike. Here's my answer. A decade ago, when I was still an aerospace engineer pulling down fairly substantial bucks, it took months of deliberation before overcoming my inherent cheapness to buy that camera. Back then, it cost 'only' 73% of Ebony's current price. However, a dozen Lotus holders increased my total expenditure to 1.7 times the camera's 'base' price.

"Today, retired and on a fixed income, deliberations center more on how many boxes of 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 Delta 100 to buy during Ilford's annual special sizes order period.  :-)  "

Eolake: "Funny enough far from the most advanced. It was that Canon (10D?) which revolutionized the field just around the millennium by giving three megapixels for a much lower price than anything before. I bought it with a good zoom for hmm...about six grand in dollars, and paid cash. Created a bit of a stir in the shop."

Jim: "About a decade ago, a friend of mine bought a 4x5 for just north of $5k for the body alone. Probably paid twice that for the lenses etc. He used it only a couple of times. Today you can buy that body for $800. That's the bad news. The good news: he's decided to give it to me."

Herman: "If you relate the cost of a camera to your income, my most expensive camera was a Kodak Bantam that cost $14. I bought it in 1941 when I earned about $0.25 an hour working part-time after school."

Mike replies: Herman's website is always a fun and rewarding visit.

Jack: "Leica S2 when introduced for over $24,000 so that's easily the most expensive camera I have ever purchased. Cost per image taken was pretty low. Cost in relation to income produced was very low, as it paid for itself many times. Of course then I put the winnings into a Leica S (007)."

Mike adds: Friend Jack is a retired businessman who put his business acumen to work with his photography, and makes more money with photography than all but a handful of full-time pros I've known. Nice feller, too!

tex andrews: "Pentax 645Z, late May or early summer of 2014, one of the first available cameras on the east coast of the US—and this after having bought an A7R in January. Sheesh. Traded in a ton of gear, really stripped things down, including some beloved stuff, to get the price down to $5,500.00. I have used it a ton, the A7R much, much less. I also already had a nice core group of lenses for the Z, and was able to quickly score a bunch at ridiculously low prices, such that I am now better equipped with it than I have ever been with any other camera. So, in terms of overall cost, it was all a really good deal, probably more cost effective than many other routes, in terms of (big!) bang for the buck. And to top it off: It's kind of made me GAS-proof (with the exception of something truly small, like the RX1RII). It's not like I can top it at this time, IQ-wise, for anything I could conceivably reach without the Powerball win. I could happily use this camera until it breaks and never look over my shoulder."

Techfan: "As a teenager in the 1950s I worked as a caddie at the local public golf course to save the cash to buy a Leica M2 with a Summicron lens. It cost $600 used and I brought it at Grand Central Camera in NY. When my parents found out how much it cost they went ballistic. I just could not disappoint my mother and hard-working father so back it went. Enjoyed the camera for the 15 minutes I had it. What a wonderful masterpiece of craftsmanship!"

Mike replies: That's a tragic tale.  :-)  I notice that the current price of a used M2 body is right around $600 (considerably cheaper than the going price back in the '90s). Then again, $600 in 1955 adjusted for inflation is $5,313 now...which is more than the cost of a new silver MP at $4,395. I don't keep up with Leicas any more, but I wonder what the main differences between the M2 and MP are?

Robert Billings: "Nikon D3X, purchased used last year from KEH for $3,300.00. I use it professionally and as I'm nearing retirement it will be my last camera (yeah right!). My son calls it an elegant sledgehammer. I should have bought it sooner and paid more. It's that good!"

Ernest J. Zarate (partial comment): "Wish I could remember the exact dollar amount spent on these cameras/lenses, but, unfortunately, I suffer from a rare syndrome known as photographus dollarus amnesia that blocks out such details. However, I am most certain that the most expensive cameras I've ever owned (and used extensively) are, chronologically: 1) Leica M6 with 35mm Summicron; 2) Mamiya 6 with 50mm ƒ/4 lens (after I read Mike's glowing review of the camera, I could not resist—one touch, and I was sold!); and 3) Canon 5D Mark II with 24–105mm L lens...I never look back (part of the PD amnesia syndrome), always enjoyed the camera I was using tremendously."

Randall Teasley: "Mine would have to be the Nikon D2X purchased at $5,000 in 2005. I've since upgraded to the D800E but the faithful D2X still sees yeoman duty attached to a copy stand. At base ISO the files from this camera are still just dreamy wonderful."

Mike replies: Repurposing! Another good way to get more back out of a purchase. Thanks for the reminder.

Camera Size

I thought this was kind of amusing. My two favorite cameras from my youth, and the cameras I used for the longest stretches of time, were the Contax 139Q I went through art school with in the '80s and the Olympus OM-4T I used through most of the '90s. So take a look at the relative dimensions and weights of those compared to the X-T1:

135 x 85.5 x 50, 500g/17.6 oz (Contax 139Q)

136 x 84 x 50, 510g/18 oz. (Olympus OM-4T)

129 x 89.8 x 46.7, 440g/15.4 oz. (Fuji X-T1)

Pretty close. At least I'm consistent! Oh, and here's the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder I liked so much when I reviewed it (but never owned):

138 x 78 x 32mm, 500g/17.6 oz.

I guess the Fuji X-T1 is just the size and heft I personally happen to like, is all. It "feels right," and no wonder. Here's a picture of the model of camera and lens I carried 24/7/365 in art school. I wish I had one now to photograph next to the X-T1 and 23mm lens. I'll bet they're very close.

So maybe, for some of us, what we choose for personal photography (none of this applies to pros, who just buy what they need to do the jobs they have to do) is what we're used to. 

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Robert: "Makes sense. I started with and continue to use mid-sized DSLRs, so even with my small hands (uh, more compensation) I hold my D300+70–200mm ƒ/2.8 (It's almost 8!) loose in one hand with strap hanging until it's time to shoot. It snaps right up comfortably into my palm and the other hand goes right to the sweet spot on the lens. I don't feel it's big or that I'm going to drop it even when I'm moving around. I hold everything else, even small cameras, like I'm going to drop a baby, and I can never find the buttons."

Mike replies: I half wonder if that's not why the big pro cameras are always the same size year after year. It's just what pros expect, are used to, and are comfortable with.

Tom: "I can spend anything up to 18 hours lifting a D4 plus 70–200mm up and down from my eye. It's heavy, but manageably so. Importantly, they have nailed the size and proportions of the camera for me. It's never uncomfortable in the hand; the base of the battery compartment rests comfortably against my left wrist in use, and the whole thing will hang securely from the fingers of my right hand when not in a shooting position. The only time I notice the weight is when it's over my shoulder or in a case. For me, if Nikon could reduce the weight of the body I would still want the same overall silhouette, but being realistic the weight is not in the body, it's the lens. If you've ever seen a lens with the elements removed it weighs almost nothing. Glass is heavy. The smallest body I'm personally comfortable with is Leica rangefinder and even then it's because it's matched by the proportion of the lenses. Cameras like the little Fuji just don't sit right in my hands and I have to shuffle hands to press the buttons."

D. Hufford: "Not so sure it works that way for me. I started on an Olympus rangefinder in about the 10th grade. Then I got an OM-1 and used that for over 25 years until I started digital seriously with a D70. I still have the OM-1 and it is the most ill-fitting and hard-to-carry camera I own. I usually carry my cameras in my right hand (unless fitted with a lens longer than 150mm) and everything from the Fuji x100, to the Oly E-P3, to the Panasonic GX7, to the Nikon D300 feel much more comfortable to carry that way. The OM-1 actually feels heavier than any of those since it is just metal with no attempt to make it fit the hand. (I believe it is actually is heavier than any except for the D300.) I wouldn't likely choose an awkward to carry/hold camera like that nowadays, all else being equal."

David Cope: "For 35mm today I have a couple of OM-1n bodies with 28mm ƒ/2.8 and 50mm ƒ/1.8 Zuiko lenses. Can tote that outfit around 24/7 with no physical fatigue. Such a sweet spot for me."

Your Inner 10-Year-Old

Speaking as a camera user, not a writer about photography, here in visual form is my comment about the new Nikon D500:

Graphic courtesy the ever-useful Camerasize.com. (By the way, whenever you see that word "courtesy," it means "I stole it from them but I'm linking back to them so they won't mind")...which further goes on to say:

• Nikon D500 is 14% (18 mm) wider and 28% (25.2 mm) taller than FujiFilm X-T1.
• Nikon D500 is 73% (34.3 mm) thicker than FujiFilm X-T1.
• Nikon D500 [860 g] weights 95% (420 grams) more than FujiFilm X-T1 [440 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Somewhat surprisingly, I find I've actually withstood my recent bout of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). That's the disease that periodically afflicts photographers, especially guys, especially older guys, most especially older guys with beards (I used to have a beard), when they turn back into 10-year-olds and rilly rilly rilly rilly want a new toy please please please please please please please, usually whatever is new and whatever they think is cool and that the guys will think is cool. With me it's usually a Sony or a Nikon, such as for instance the Sony A7II or Nikon D500.

It's a very good thing when your affection for the gear you already have* actually ends up outweighing and overruling the never-satisfied natterings of the inner 10-year-old.

Mike

*Now what I'll worry about is whether the new 24-MP Fuji X-Trans CMOS III sensor in the Fuji X-Pro2 that's expected to be announced at 11:30 a.m. on January 15th** will have the same magic as the existing X-Trans sensor, and whether I'll be tempted to upgrade when the X-T2 comes out. They'd better make it compatible with all the X-T1 accessories!!

**These rumors courtesy FujiRumors.com. You see what I did there. (Have a look at the just-leaked pictures of the new Fuji X70.)

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Micro 4/3 Flexes Its Muscles

For reach-way-out-and-grab-it, nothing helps like a smaller sensor. It was one of the big arguments for 35mm back in the film era.

And few things in my life as a photo writer surprised me more than when I learned, at the dawn of digital, that photographers—most photographers—don't actually care.

You see, long teles used to be hot ticket—highly prized and heavily coveted by photo hobbyists. Mine was bigger than yours; you have a 400mm? Yeah, well I have a 600mm.

So when digital came along with its smaller sensors, I thought, wow, the gang is going to love this. You can get a 4/3 camera and double the reach of your teles!

...And nobody cared. As I say, big surprise. It turned out that most hobbyists liked long teles for the bragging rights—they were big, they were expensive, they were impressive. Status symbols. For every ten Photo Dawgs who owned or coveted big long glass, only one or two actually needed or used it.

But it's been an article of faith for a while now that if you actually are one of those photographers who needs long teles, you had to go to Canikon to get it.

And that's changing. Fast. The two 50% competing / 50% cooperating members of the Micro 4/3 consortium have both recently announced lenses with really long reach. The Panasonic/Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100–400mm ƒ/4–6.3 ASPH. Power O.I.S. ($1,798) (here it is on Amazon ) has a 35mm focal-length equivalency of 200mm to 800mm. Shazam, Batman. This is going to be the lens to have if you shoot critters.

And apropos our post the other day about the Fuji 90mm ƒ/2 being the sharpest lens ever, Olympus says its new M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm ƒ/4 IS PRO ($2,499) is the sharpest lens the company makes—which is a big claim. That one is a 600mm equivalent. (PanaLeica wins?)

Are the mirrorless makers starting to harass the remaining advantages of DSLRs like a swarm of angry gnats?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Geoff Wittig: "Not sure if long lens envy is entirely a matter of...compensation...but there's certainly an element of that involved :-/

Back in the prehistoric days of 35 mm film, my second lens purchase was a 70–210mm zoom, followed sequentially by gradually longer lenses (300mm ƒ/4, then 500mm ƒ/4.5, finally a 600mm ƒ/4) as I realized those birds and deer were smaller than I thought. If you really wanted to photograph wildlife, there was no substitute for more focal length. And given the reality of slow slide film, where K64 was 'fast' and K200 superfast with golf-ball sized grain, you really needed f:4 apertures to see or shoot in anything other than blinding mid-day light.

"The digital reality of high image quality at much, much higher ISO has changed things a lot more than longer effective focal lengths, IMHO. You can now get fabulous image quality at ISO 1600, which makes it possible to get photos you couldn't even imagine 25 years ago.

"The ƒ/6.3 zooms are still a challenge for aging eyes and optical viewfinders because the image is pretty dim, but I presume the electronic viewfinders in mirrorless cameras (don't use one myself) can compensate for that. The Olympus 300mm ƒ/4 looks fabulous, mostly because it gives you 600mm (equivalent) reach for about one-fourth the price of a modern 600mm ƒ/4 full frame lens. I still use a Canon 500mm ƒ/4 lens with some regularity, and it works great on a modern D-SLR; the higher ISO is just wonderful."

Robert: "Until the Micro 4/3 bodies have continuous AF that really competes with Nikon, I'm stuck lugging around big(ish) glass on big(ish) bodies. The joys of compensation."

Two New Professional Cameras from Nikon

Great news! There's once again a proper body on which to use the wonderful AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17–55mm ƒ/2.8G IF-ED, one of my fave zooms.

Wait, that's not the news. The news is...

As anticipated, Nikon has announced the D5, the FX (full-frame) successor to the D4s. You don't want to hear about that one. It costs $64,969 and weighs 30.9 lbs.

As nobody anticipated (well, nobody I know, which I guess is not the same thing), Nikon pulled a fast one and duplicated the twinned D3/D300 announcements from back in 2007, and announced a smaller DX-format (APS-C) counterpart to go along with the D5—the long-, long-, long-awaited D300 successor! Wow. Finally.

 

The new reduced-format pro-level camera is called the D500. It's about the same size and weight as the D750 (slightly larger), costs $2k, will ship in March, has a 20-MP sensor, and is sleek and cool and hip and weather-sealed and equipped for connectivity and loaded for bear.

The two new cameras have more or less the same specs (more or less) except for those that relate to format.

Great. Way to go, Nikon!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Noons: "Hmm.... Thanks but no thanks, Nikon. Got tired of waiting for the D400 two years ago. Gone mirrorless all the way and a two-grand body is not my idea of an accessible price in this day and age. Pass."

Frank Lehnen: "'It costs $64,969 and weighs 30.9 lbs.' Ouch...you might want to move your commas to the left a bit."

Mike replies: Nobody appreciates my sense of humor.  :-(

Andy F: "And the ISO goes to 3,280,000! No really, it goes to over three million."

Mike replies: Good one!

(More seriously, can we all please switch over to DIN numbers?!)

Rob Smith: (partial comment): "I just got back from vacation in Costa Rica, the last real outing of my D300 which I have used, abused, and cherished over the last eight years.  It has seen all manner of weather and performed so well, I love it.

"But today I pick up my new Dƒ which is all the camera I want, plus I finally make the move to full frame which I've been putting off for a long time. The best part is that I got it for $2,200 CAD (which is about $1,600 USD) as part of a boxing day sale.

"The D300 was so well made and the controls so easy that I never did find anything to replace it with in all that time. Nikon really screwed up here. I know it will take me a while to get used to the Dƒ, but I'm getting older now, and I appreciate 'slow' photography, stars, portraits, landscapes etc.

"I'll finally get to see what the 85mm 1.4 actually looks like at its proper focal length, yay! I love the Nikon lenses I own, all FF bar one, that's why I'm sticking with that system."

Romain: "That D500 seems great. I'm sure pro sport photographers, as well as event and wildlife photographers will be very happy with it...well actually any pro might find very useful to have a second (or third) camera with a smaller sensor and extra reach wih the same controls and quality. As for me, I'm only hoping that the successor of the D810 will benefit from all these novelties.

"I've been to mirrorless and back. I love big, reliable DSLRs, and I'm glad to see Nikon being committed to this segment."

Pupdate: More Horror Movie Impressions

His many fans will remember that Butters, my white dog, likes to do classic horror movie impressions. You probably remember his Lon Chaney impression.

Well, here he is as Hannibal Lecter. This pup's versatility is second only to his charisma.

Butters has grown from an adolescent 45 lbs. to a powerful 70 lbs., and he enjoys chasing balls. He is a splendidly sweet and good-natured fellow. He is minding his manners better and better all the time as he nears adulthood. He is considering an acting career, but probably will opt to continue freeloading off his owner and second-best friend (he still likes Xander best). Acting, while rewarding, doesn't pay the vet bills.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Leann B.: "Absolutely love reading about this sweet boy. I miss him dearly, but my heart is so full knowing that he is in the best possible hands. Thanks for sharing, Mike!"

Mike adds: Leann helped us adopt Butters and was our trainer—and by "our" I mean dogs being trained to be good dogs and owners being trained to be good owners, both.

TOP Camera of the Year 2015

Despite a slowing pace of camera introductions (frankly a bit of a relief) and a declining market, 2015 was a very good year for cameras. Maybe even great. The market still has plenty of turboboost to fuel R&D, yet the technology is becoming more mature, with refinements taking over from basic leaps-and-bounds progress. That's what you want to see: leaps-and-bounds progress is great, and certainly exciting, but it basically means you're not yet near where you're going.

There can be little doubt that of all the introductions in 2015, none generated more interest, and few more admiration, than the second iteration of Sony's A7R, the Alpha 7R Mark II (A7RII).

Many years ago, following the introduction of the Canon EOS 650, the late Burt Keppler of Popular Photography magazine (or was it Jason Schneider? Burt was VP and Publishing Director, Jason Editor-in-Chief and a camera collector) noted that particularly successful camera designs tend to quickly sprout variants. The 650 certainly did.

Sony's original full-frame interchangeable-lens mirrorless camera, the A7, quickly spawned three very sensible and easy-to-parse tiers. In the middle there's the basic A7, now the 24-MP A7II ($1,700), the lowest-cost all-rounder with everything most photographers need; a lower-resolution "speed king" 12-MP A7S, optimized for low light performance and video, now also in its second iteration ($3,000); and the high-res variant for landscapes and product shots and anybody who wants the best image quality on offer. That's the A7RII ($3,200), at 42 MP the "resolution king" of this popular, well-regarded lineup.

With sales taking off, the Mark II variants of all three cameras got major improvements in the form of a redesigned right-hand side of the camera body including the grip and shutter release, and the addition of 5-axis in-body image stabilization (IBIS), plus various model-specific refinements.

Camera of the Year 2015

The A7RII, announced in June, got the biggest buzz of 2015. It was the most anticipated camera of the year, yet got remarkably little in the way of complaints and sour grapes after it arrived. The verdict when the smoke cleared was that Sony had successfully fixed pretty much everything anyone had disliked about the original A7R, including greatly improving autofocus with on-sensor phase-detection AF and adding a world-beating sensor that dpreview.com called "by far the largest backside illuminated CMOS chip to be released." Experts all around the web had glowing things to say.

Of all the interesting cameras that came out in 2015, and this wasn't the only one, there's no other sensible choice for Camera of the Year. That's the view from here.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

James Moule: "I started 65 years ago with a Graflex. Then I shot with Leicas for 25+ years. Then a Canon SLR. Then a succession of top-of-the-line Nikon DSLRs. The Sony Alpha 7R II is the best and most fun camera I have ever known by far. The reason: image quality."

fws: "A2 [~16x20" —Ed.] prints are as large as I will ever want to go within the limits of available wall space. And given the incredible detail I can perceive at close inspection, I don't see that I will ever want (or at least need) a camera with more IQ than my A7 Mk II."

Mike replies: Right, that's why I called the A7II "the lowest-cost all-rounder with everything most photographers need"—and why I would probably buy an A7II myself if I bought any A7[x] camera.

Jake: "OK, so maybe a Camera of the Year for the less well-heeled plebeians among us?"

Mike replies: Well, first of all, TOP is a utopian classless society. Nobody in here but us shutterbugs.

Second, a CotY for the less well heeled is kind of...crossing purposes. The CotY is not necessarily meant as a buying recommendation, or certainly not for everybody. It's more like it's for the camera that made the biggest splash, or that embodied where things seem to be going, or that engendered the most enthusiasm or garnered the most gossip. The "talk of the town" as the New Yorker feature puts it.

For a down-at-heel buying recommendation, here's what you do. 1. Pick the lens line you want to be in (making sure all the lenses you really want are available). 2. Find a camera in that lens mount that's just about to be replaced. 3. Buy that and one lens for now (usually normal-ish primes are good and also not too expensive). 4. Add lenses as you can till you have three or four, and 5. Start saving up toward a future body replacement in a few years.

(One caveat: I'd say to only buy the lenses you really want. That's your longer-term investment, so don't get into a bad habit buying stop-gaps and then wasting money when you replace lenses you don't like with ones you do.)

For example, let's say you want to start building a kit of Fuji lenses. So right now you might buy a Fuji X-Pro1 because it's about to be replaced and it only costs $499. (I think it was $1,699 when it was new in 2012.) It won't focus as fast as the new model and the sensor is not the absolute latest thing, but then it ain't shabby either, and you're saving a lot of shoe money.

Does that help?

John Lehet: "The body is compelling enough that I've gone through a few lust-cycles this year. My Olympus Micro 4/3 gear has me spoiled with stabilization, focus peaking, and dynamic range indicators ('blinkies'). When I pull out the D800E, in terms of these aspects of usability, it feels eating like last month's leftover mac and cheese (though of course there are compelling enough reasons that I carry the heavy bag with the DSLR along with the Micro 4/3 bag).

"The problem with this Sony comes down to your advice above: 'Pick the lens line you want to be in (making sure all the lenses you really want are available).'

"Every couple of months since it came out I go through a cycle where I think, 'Maybe I'll sell one of the Porsches and buy that Sony now. Yes. I'll do it! And for lenses I'll get....'

"Then I spend two hours (again) looking at all the lens options. The normal zoom is not that great. The other zoom is not that great. The Sony primes are good but expensive, and limited. The Batis lenses look excellent.

"Mind you, I've only decided to sell one Porsche. I decide the D800E and a couple of nice primes will do me just fine for now."

Mike adds: We kid a lot around here, and sometimes it's not clear to everyone just what's serious and what's not. Just to be clear for those who don't know him, friend John has no Porsches. Except for the 1953 550 Spyder under the tarp in his barn in Vermont, which he keeps only because it was hardly ever used. But most of the rubber bits on that one are rotted and it's been ages since it even started up.

Paulo Bizarro (partial comment): "Now, how about recommending the SOTY (system of the year)?"

Mike replies: For my money—literally, as it's what I've spent my own money on most recently—that would have to be Fuji X. But perhaps Micro 4/3 actually ties or even pulls a little ahead, because of the large number of options.

The Fuji XF 90mm ƒ/2: Sharpest Lens Ever

The World's Best three-wheeled car. You will love
yours! The several times you drive it!

I'm currently shooting Fuji, although my weakness for IBIS is exerting a gravitational pull back toward Sony that I might not be able to resist forever. Fortunately, 2016 promises to be a good year for Fuji, what with the X-Pro2 and X-T2 rumored to be on the way.

And anyway a Fuji lens is garnering plaudits Webwide as the best lens of 2015. Didn't one of the big review sites name the Fujifilm XF 90mm ƒ/2 R LM WR ($949) as the sharpest lens it has ever tested? I can't find that. (By the way, I don't know what "LM" stands for unless it is followed by an "AO." "WR" stands for "I would never take my expensive lens out in the rain, but I could.")

I've always had this problem in photography, in that a photograph can be infinitely technically perfected, to a minute and hyperfastidious degree, yet still not be, well, a good picture. Port the same idea metaphorically to lenses and you have my problem with the Fuji 90mm ƒ/2.

...It's a 135mm focal-length equivalent.

Has anyone ever really needed a 135mm? Used a 135mm as a main go-to lens? Done more than a little good work with a 135mm?

I only know of one person—my cousin Chris. She took very nice pictures with just a 50mm and a 135mm. I don't know of anyone else. [UPDATE: All right, and Don McCullin. Of course I'm no Don McCullin! —MJ]

Fuji X-T1 with XF 90mm ƒ/2 R LM WR

135mm lenses earned what popularity they have because they were the longest telephoto focal length that could be fitted on 35mm rangefinders. That's why they existed. That's why every good gearhead had to have one back in the days when everybody loved rangefinder cameras, a.k.a. the 1950s. The legacy of that is why they were considered a mainstream focal length in the early days of 35mm SLRs, before everybody bought a 200mm or a 70–210mm zoom and it began to grow on them how useless their 135mms (back at home) actually were.

Short teles are (apparently) the easiest lenses for designers and manufacturers to optimize, so, over the years, there have been many great ones...if you consider "great" to mean optically perfected to a minute and hyperfastidious degree. Over the years I've had many friends and known many photographers who bought absolutely glorious high-performance 135mm lenses to leave at home. They loved them. In principle. They never did much shooting with them, because the focal length is kinda worthless. But they could have. The Fuji 90mm ƒ/2 is like the world's best three-wheeled car. How good can it be? It's only got three wheels.

So is the Fujifilm XF 90mm ƒ/2 R LM WR the Lens of the Year? Could be. Tell you what—you buy one and then you tell me. You'll probably love it, all several times you use it. If you've already bought one, hey, great. Use it up.

The way I look at it is, however good a 135mm-e lens is, it's only got three wheels.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

dd-b (partial comment): "I know a bunch of Canon photographers who swear by the Canon 135 ƒ/2 ('L,' I guess)."

Mike replies: Sure, because it's perfect. I'm not saying people don't swear by them, I'm saying they do swear by them. They're amazing lenses. I had a friend once who swore by his AIS 135mm ƒ/2, which was his most gorgeous hunk of glass and a prized possession. He had even used it three or four times.  :-)  Mostly it was too heavy to carry along.

John Krill: "In 1966 my Dad sold me his Nikon F with a 28mm, 58mm, and the 135mm. All kit lenses. I ended up using the 28mm most of the time. Never used the 58mm, and used the 135mm only three times. I went to the Cam-Am races at Laguna Seca three times in '69, '70, and '72. It turned out the 135mm was the perfect lens for that course. Still is. Never used it anywhere else. Ever again."

SeanG: "Did you fall and injure yourself this holiday season? This has to be the silliest post I've seen on this site. Seriously."

Mike replies: Just playin'. So have you gotten your XF 90mm f/2 yet? You're going to love it, it's perfect.  :-)

Dave: "I wish you would've written this eight years ago. You see, back in 2007, after having my APS-C camera system stolen, I had to decide how to spend the insurance money. Should I replace my crop-sensor body and kit of zooms from 17mm up to 400mm? Or, should I upgrade to full frame and just one or two lenses?

"I opted for a Canon 5D classic, 24–70mm L, and Canon 135mm L. At the time, I talked myself into the 135mm by telling myself I was splitting the difference between 70mm and 200mm. Who needs a zoom when you've got feet? And then there were all those reviews extolling the magic of Canon's 135mm L.

"What a mistake...I've carried that brick everywhere for the better part of a decade trying to justify the purchase and I haven't yet taken a single portfolio-worthy shot with it. Yes, it's sharp with pretty bokeh, but that doesn't matter because the focal length is worthless. Last year, my wife bought me the much less expensive, non-L, Canon 85mm. I love the 85mm, use it all the time, and took more good pictures with it in the first two weeks of owning it than I ever took with the 135mm."

Andreas Weber: "You know, it's not the length but how you use it.  ;-)  I only got the Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135mm ƒ/2 in April 2014—and since then it accounts for pretty exactly three-fourths of my shots with interchangeable lenses. ...And yes, it's optically perfect as well!"

Dana Thomas: "Hey Mike, 'LM' means linear motor which a few of the Fuji lenses have such as the 90mm ƒ/2. This type of motor allows for very smooth and nearly silent operation of the moving optics. This is a good thing and does help the Fuji cameras improve focus."

Mike replies: Thanks Dana!

Herb Cunningham: "I shot a distant landscape with a 135mm on Canon full frame, got it in a few shows, won a prize or two. Sold my Leica 135mm to a dealer and now plan to buy it back from him. They have a place 5% of the time."

Carl Weese: "Yes, when I had a busy commercial/editorial photography business I had Nikkor prime lenses in every focal length from 20mm to 300mm, with one exception...never got a 135mm."

Dragan Novakovic: "The 135mm is one of Don McCullin's favourite lenses. (See here, and here at about 11:25.)"

Mike replies: Augh! YouTube!  :-)

Joseph: "This post nailed my experience with the 135mm focal length. Shortly after getting the original Canon 5D, I found myself lusting after the 135mm L lens that everyone raved about. It was ridiculously sharp and had almost zero distortion, something that I felt was important at the time (before lens profile corrections and such in camera raw). I purchased the lens and remember using it exactly twice. Once it felt too long (for portraiture) and the other time it was much too short. After a few months, I sold it and fell in love with the 70–200mm ƒ/4 IS lens. And now I'm much more of a 28mm/35mm focal length guy for my work. It's a strange thing how these preferences develop."

Sven Erikson: "Apparently it was SLR Gear that said the Fuji 90mm was the sharpest lens they've ever tested."

Stephen Scharf: "It was Imaging Resource that found this to be the sharpest lens they have ever tested. Even sharper than the much-heralded Fuji 56mm ƒ/1.2. These test results confirm something I've consistently experienced in my three years of shooting the XF series of lenses: not only were they excellent when they started, but they are getting better and better with every release."

Lory: "Mike, thanks for the post: I finally feel less lonely (and less guilty) in feeling no attraction whatsoever to 135mm as a focal length!  :-)

"And  also, I now feel I'm in the right company to confess....

"Brothers, forgive me for I have sinned, but I have purchased one year ago the Zeiss 135mm ƒ/2 Apo Sonnar, literally mesmerized by its optical quality and lured by visions of acknowledgement of my quality as a photographer thanks to the images I was certainly going to make with it.

"A few shots with it, and I was sold: never, ever I had seen a similar image quality before in my life. Very expensive, manual focus only (yuck!), but what was money and manual focus compared to its brilliance and the promise of great pictures? I left the shop chock-full of enthusiasm and confidence, and with a heavily sedated conscience that I still could hear nagging me from a sidereal distance but wisely (?) chose to ignore.

"I shouldn't need to say more, but long story short: yes, it is a fabulous lens with no peer (just the new Otuses, apparently); it produces incredible image quality, and of course it is the least used lens in the cabinet, having resulted in literally zero portfolio images made with it. And to add insult to injury, it's proven even difficult to sell where I live without taking a massive hit! It sits there, hidden by other lenses, and I just know it's there waiting to remind me mercilessly of careless shopping and naïve enthusiasm!

"Sure, part of the blame goes to manual focusing. Working on a D750 or D810 and their non-discriminating viewfinders is a frustrating exercise. But the reality is: I just like 85mm and 200mm more, by a bunch, and they not only help me produce better images consistently, but also offer the pleasure of more interesting perspectives through which to look for images. So, the 85mm and the 200mm enrich my portfolio. And my expensive 135mm stays home....

"So, thanks for the post: knowing I'm not alone in this idiosyncratic detachment from 135mm, and also not alone in having collected an expensive mistake, truly has made my day!  :-) "

Mike replies: That's why I wrote this post. Because I know that people naturally get "mesmerized by...optical quality" when they read reports like those the XF 90mm ƒ/2 has been getting. I'm just saying: "think twice," that's all.

P.S. The similar mistake I made was with a Hasselblad 100mm ƒ/3.5.

BH: "I agree with Herb Cunningham. The 5% (1%?) of the time a 135mm is the right focal length it can't be beat! I owned a 135mm ƒ/2L and despite its limited use it's one of the few lenses I've gotten rid of that I actually miss. When you nailed a shot it was magic.

"Truth be told I feel this way about any focal length longer than about 50mm. For me they're all specialty optics. Sometimes I'd really like to have the longer focal lengths covered, but they just sit on the shelf."

Open Mike: One and Done

Just for the record, my New Year's resolution is to never binge-watch YouTube videos. If somebody sends a link to me, or if I have to, then just the one. One and done.

I can never get back all the time I spent on Bugdom and Angry Birds, but there is still hope for all the time I will probably waste on YouTube in 2016. I mean, there is stuff like this on YouTube. How insane is that? That is fantastic.

Yes, I know it's hopeless. But it's something to aspire to. And isn't that what New Year's resolutions are for?

Mike

"Open Mike" is the often off-topic Sunday editorial/personal page of TOP, where we allow our editor free rein. He almost wrote about Bill Cosby this morning, so count your blessings.

UPDATE Mon. Jan. 4: Really, I am going to have to beat my own brains out with a stick some day. Why? Because I drive myself crazy, that's why. In a nutshell, here is my life: yesterday—yesterday—I said it was my New Year's resolution to stop wasting time on YouTube. So what did I turn around and do? Rather than writing the Camera of the Year post like I was supposed to, I procrastinated all day...by watching more things on YouTube that very day than I probably ever have in my life. The entire Don McCullin Canon infomercial (for the second time); an hour on "The Making of Seinfeld" (why, Mike, why?); about an hour and a half of European jazz concerts from the 1960s, which I had to watch, not just listen to, because the visuals are so great; a recap of the 1973 Indianapolis 500 (got to that because I was researching the Offenhauser engine, and I cannot reconstruct why I was doing that); and half of a marathon snooker tournament match. Among other things. It seems the best way to get myself to do things is to decide not to. To thrash the famous John Lennon quote to shreds, my life in the end will amount to everything I've done while putting off all the things I ought to have done.

Yeesh!

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Dan: "Impossible. Russian dash cam videos are like crack...can't...not...watch...."

TOP Books of the Year 2015

Sally Mann, Hold Still: A Memoir with Photographs
(Little, Brown and Company)

Sally Mann's memoir is one of the great literary books ever written by a major photographer. It's also one of the best books I know of written by a non-writer.

I knew Sally in the 1980s when I lived in Washington D.C., and I have a number of letters from her, so I've long known she's a gifted writer. I'm of the opinion that everyone should write a memoir of their own life, to witness their own stories and their life and times, but I'm particularly happy that Sally did. One reviewer said the chapters almost stand alone as individual essays, and that's because it's probably how it was written—I remember suggesting to her many years ago that she should write a book, and she said—I'm paraphrasing—that it's too hard to write anything much longer than a long letter.

It's both more and less than a photographic memoir—it's the memoir of her life along with her stories of many of the people who've touched her. But then Sally's work itself has always been mostly about life. I've always claimed that her photography is closer to Southern fiction than it is to most other photography, and her memoir stands up to other fine writing about the South. Beautifully written, rich, and entertaining. It doesn't matter if you get to this this year, but put it on your life list.

Amazon US
Amazon UK
Book Depository (international shipment with no shipping charge)

Here's the link to other Amazons (Germany, Canada).

Keith F. Davis and Michael Torosian, Multitude, Solitude: The Photographs of Dave Heath (Hall Family Foundation in Association with the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art,
distributed by Yale University Press)

The Internet is happily ferreting out great photographers from the 20th century and hauling them out of obscurity. some to greater acclaim than others. In my humble opinion Dave Heath is a better find even than Vivian Maier, strange and ultimately wonderful though her story is. His work is more deliberate and intentional, better redacted, more expressive, and richer with meaning. This book would be a major publication in any year, and is bound to be the central work on Heath for the foreseeable future. It hits on all cylinders—as a wonderful retrospective monograph, as a written introduction, as a careful scholarly appraisal of his work and his working methods. It incorporates in its entirely Heath's A.D. 2000 Lumiere Press book A Dialogue With Solitude which, like all Lumiere Press books, is unobtanium.

I'm a little self-conscious that Amazon is featuring my gushy earlier comments on its sales page for the book, but hey, it's true. (Not least because, thank you Lord, it's not someone I'm already familiar with. After many years in this racket, everything gets familiar.) I'll have more to say about Dave Heath's work itself after my planned road trip to Philly to see the show. It is among many other things an object lesson on the ways photography can be expressive and reflect creative intent in the face of the rampant "camera pointing" that's part of what's been called "the digital tsunami."

One of the most rewarding photography books of recent years. Don't let this one go out of print on you; if nothing else, you can keep it in your library for a handful of years then sell it at a profit. Its importance isn't going to go away.

Amazon US
Amazon UK
Book Depository (international shipment with no shipping charge)

Here's the link to other Amazons (Germany, Canada).

Monday, our Camera of the Year 2015. Despite slowing sales and fewer new introductions, 2015 was an outstanding year for cameras.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Andrew Molitor: "Sally Mann's book is more than I bargained for. It's not just a memoir, it's also a meditation on race in America, a particularly salient topic in these times. Hidden away in there is some of the most thoughtful writing on race and the issues surrounding same that I have ever read, anywhere. And there's a few other things, too. Death, Life, that sort of thing. Surprisingly little about photography, but in a good way."

Eliott James: "I saw an interesting documentory on Sally Mann a year or so ago but only recently ordered her book Immediate Family. I enjoyed many of the photographs then discovered what upset so many people. Much to my surprise some of the photographs offended me. I didn't expect that nor thought it possible. As a father first, I could not have taken photos like that of my children. She may be a wonderful writer, and a fine photographer, and no doubt an interesting person but I cannot imagine the decisions she made in including those intimate photos."

Hugh Smith: "I have been fortunate to see Sally Mann's work in exhibition. Her subjects, treatment and tone are incredible. Even more so when one considers they are silver gelatins. This is a book I will have to buy. Mi dos pesos."