The Online Photographer

Open Mike: New Old Film!

Kodak Alaris, the imaging division of the old Kodak that was spun off to satisfy the demands of the UK pension fund, has continued to produce both black-and-white and color films. Recently it re-introduced the famous T-Max P3200 in 135 size.

Which makes me feel old—I remember when the film was brand new. In fact I remember it before it was brand new—I was an official beta-tester for the T-Max films before they were released to the public.

I don't claim expertise in very many areas, but I was an expert with P3200. Dick Dickerson was the head of B&W products at Kodak when it was developed, and Sylvia Zawadski was the emulsion scientist who led the development team. Dick and Sylvia became consultants after they retired, and I enlisted them to write articles for Photo Techniques magazine. Although the magazine has gone the way of all things by now, they went on to write many articles for it, most of them after I left. Sadly no longer online.

The first thing you should know about P3200 is that it never had an ISO rating—at least in the old days it didn't. It was never submitted for the protocol. Depending on the developer, it tested as either an E.I. 800 or E.I. 1000 film. ("E.I." is short for "exposure index," the proper term for a film speed that does not have an official ISO rating, or for a speed that departs from the official ISO rating. Used in a sentence: "I shoot ISO 400 Kodak Tri-X at E.I. 200." This is not conventional with digital but it's proper with films.) I preferred to shoot it at E.I. 1000. You'll get a little more speed out of it with T-Max Developer, and that works well, but I preferred straight (undiluted) D-76 because I liked the grain better.

Another thing you'll hear is that it has "huge grain" or "golf-ball grain" or other such clichés, but that's not true. Properly used it has visible but pleasant grain structure that can be quite moderate. It can look very nice and perfectly tolerable as long as the film is exposed, processed, and printed correctly. Yes, you can make the grain look excessive and/or ugly if you try, or if you just don't know what you're doing, but then, I could make Tri-X or even 100 speed films look grainy too if I wanted to.

You might also hear that it's not sharp because no grainy film can be sharp. Also not true (or, again, simply ignorant). That's confusing micro resolution with sharpness. Actually P3200 can have a very high subjective impression of sharpness and very good contrast. In fact, grainier films look sharper than fine-grain films, depending on your definition of "sharpness." It just won't resolve as well as a slower film. But the number of pictures that actually need high resolution to either function for their purpose or look good is very low.

Another tip: there's no need to store it in the refrigerator. Makes no difference. But keep it away from stray sources of radiation—the legend was that when Kodak first developed it, they stored the stocks in a disused salt mine to minimize the effects of background radiation! Unconfirmed. But I can tell you that if you pull a little bit of film out of the cassette and set one of the old radioactive Takumars on it in the dark, it will record fog within a few days. It does fog easily, so handle accordingly. Keep it in the can in the camera bag, don't let it roll around loose.

A few recommendations for use:

• Don't shoot with it at E.I. 3200.  :-)

• Develop it immediately after shooting. Silver halide crystals "migrate" in the emulsion after exposure, and many films that  are allowed to sit for long periods of time after exposure lose contrast and edge sharpness and the quality of the grain can become "mealy." This is especially pronounced with P3200. As a test, I shot two rolls of P3200, developed one within the hour, and let the other sit for a year (or was it two? Ah, memory) before developing. The difference was eye-opening. Many B&W films will look their best if processed very promptly—an advantage granted to pros and testers, the only two groups who routinely processed film very soon after exposure even if they didn't know they should.

• Don't bother shooting it in good light. It doesn't do very well outdoors in daylight—at least, I never liked it. Shoot with a slower film in good light and reserve P3200 for "available darkness," where it excels. 

• Be mindful that enlarger light sources can have a large effect on the appearance of a film. Roughly speaking, the range from collimated to diffuse goes: point-source, true condenser, partial condenser, dichroic-style, cold light (actinic/fluorescent). The test I did—and used to have prints for—was that I printed the same Ilford XP2 negative with a Leitz Focomat II (true condenser) and an LPL 4500 (dichroic style). The difference was not subtle at all—the two prints looked like they were made with two completely different films. I suggest light sources at the diffuse end of the range for printing P3200.

• Beware other peoples' developer recommendations—you never know what qualities other people are looking to emphasize. In particular, many people will recommend developers based solely on getting higher speed out of P3200. That's a bad strategy, in my opinion, and anyway it's completely moot now, when you can shoot a high-DR FF camera at ISO 5000 and get excellent B&W. Shoot P3200 for the joy and the beauty of it—it can be a lovely film if skillfully used—and shoot digital if you truly need high ISOs. Back to P3200, try a few developers with it and go with what looks best to you. Or at least I should say, if you try a recommended developer and don't like it, don't give up, try something else.

I'll probably think of a few other things to say as the day goes on, except that I have a full plate today. I'll edit later if anything else occurs to me. I might go out to the barn and crack open a few portfolio cases and see if I can rummage around and find some T-Max P3200 prints to show you. Don't hold your breath.

Oh, and, visitors, you do not have permission to copy this whole post and stick it on a forum somewhere. It's copyrighted and that's a violation of copyright law. You're of course welcome to link back to it if you care to—the URL you can use is:

https://tinyurl.com/y9dfrc92

Mike

"Open Mike" is the often off-topic, anything-goes editorial page of TOP, in which Yr. Hmbl. Ed. writes about anything he wants, and yes, this is sometimes indistinguishable from any other day. But that's the format and I'm stickin' to it, dang 'er.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

John Camp: "Interesting. Do silver halide crystals also migrate in slower films? What would this mean for the thousands of undeveloped rolls of film supposedly held by Garry Winograd's estate? Are they slowly degenerating, or is the actual problem low enough that it won't make any difference given his style of shooting?"

Mike replies: Actually that's an excellent example. The undeveloped rolls Garry left behind (about 9,000 if memory serves, although my memory for numbers is notoriously bad) when he died in 1984 were developed and proofed under the supervision of John Szarkowski of the Museum of Modern Art with the help of a grant from Walter Elisha of Springs Industries in the late '80s. John presented about two dozen of those pictures at the end of the book Figments from the Real World (the reprint is still available and not too expensive) and if I remember correctly (my copy is out in the barn, alas) you can see even from the reproductions the effects I'm talking about.

Snapshots

This panther brooch (brooch, n., an ornament fastened to clothing with a hinged pin and catch) by Cartier is for sale at M.S. Rau Antiques for $38,500, coincidentally just about exactly the median household annual income in the village nearest where I live.

• The great British author Virginia Woolf was a photographer—here's an article featuring her snapshots of the Bloomsbury Group.

• The most popular book by our friend John Camp a.k.a. John Sandford is Storm Prey (2010) according to Goodreads. It's #20 in the Lucas Davenport Series. I just met a local guy who could hardly believe I know John—he fixed me with an intent stare and said, "he's one of my guys. I read ev-er-y-thing he writes."

• Canon has introduced a new mirrorless camera. The new M50 has a 24-MP sensor, an electronic viewfinder, and is the first camera in the Canon's M series to include 4K video. It costs $899 with its compact 15–45mm kit lens and is available in white. It is said to be targeted to beginners.

• This is a snapshot no lover of photography (well, none who knows who these guys are, anyway) will fail to appreciate—William Klein and Daido Moriyama snapping pictures of each other at Akio Nagasawa Gallery in Tokyo, on Instagram.

• If you ever in a past life enjoyed smoking those funny marryjehoochie cigarettes, Master KK's latest "Up the Box" (NSFW, n.b.) will make you laugh and groovealong. Includes some super-rare tracks. You might enjoy it even if you are not, um, high. (And please, I know I've opened the door, but let's not discuss illegal substances in the squeaky-clean TOP Comments section. Thenk-yew, the Ed.)

• Yesterday saw the introduction of the Sony A7III, the third iteration of the basic level of the highly popular A7 series. B&H Explora has posted the launch. Sony typically does not stint in letting its best technologies trickle down, and the A7III loads into the sub-$2k (barely) basic A7 camera many of the advances of the A9 and A7RIII. It is not yet available for pre-order.

Provenance unknown, from a show called Gathered: Snapshots from the Peter J. Cohen Gift and Works by Carmen Winant and Luke Stettner, an exhibition from late 2016 that celebrated the gift of more than 200 amateur photographs from the collection of Peter J. Cohen to the Columbus (Ohio) Museum of Art. Although the body had its identity elided, doubtless the missing head was clipped out in order to be treasured in a locket or honored in miniature frame, so no need to mourn the headlessness of the anonymous subject.

• Speaking of detachable heads, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, one of the most remarkable masterpieces in Western literature, is celebrating (if that's the right word) its bicentennial this year. It was published on January 1, 1818. (The link is to the 1818 first edition text.) The book and myth is incredibly rich; it resonates with meanings that range from from slavery, to feminism, to the usurpation of God, to the heartlessness of science, to the emotion of revenge, to the experience of crushing loss and the longing for the dead to rise—Mary Shelley in her life was devastated by the loss of successive children, and she outlived most of her illustrious parents and her even more illustrious circle of friends that included her husband the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron.

• The China Institute at 100 Washington Street in Manhattan will for most of this year be showing Art of the Mountain: Through the Chinese Photographer's Lens:

Art of the Mountain will consist of three sections: Revered Mountains of China will introduce the geography, history, legends, and culture that are associated with Chinese mountains and will include photographs by Hou Heliang, Kang Songbai and Kang Liang, Li Daguang, Lin Maozhao, Li Xueliang, Lu Hao, Zhang Anlu, Xiao Chao, Yan Shi, Wang Jing, Zhang Jiaxuan, Zhang Huajie, and Zheng Congli. Landscape Aesthetics in Photography will present Wang Wusheng’s photography of Mount Huangshan, also known as Yellow Mountain, to reflect the renowned Chinese landscape painting aesthetic and its influence. New Landscape Photography includes the works of Hong Lei, Lin Ran, Lu Yanpeng, Shao Wenhuan, Taca Sui, Xiao Xuan’an, Yan Changjiang, Yang Yongliang, Yao Lu, Zeng Han, Gao Hui, and Feng Yan, who express their thoughts on the role of mountains in society.

Mike
(Thanks to Ned Bunnell)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Steve Rosenblum: "I first read "Frankenstein" as part of an undergraduate literature course on science fiction taught by Prof. Eric Rabkin at the University of Michigan in 1971 or 1972. It was a rigorous, wonderful course and I think that Eric may still be teaching it. "Frankenstein" was the first reading for the course. I had low expectations of it, and was totally entrhalled by what a wonderful book it is, as well as the amazing story of Mary Shelley, its writing, and the interlocking lives of Mary, Lord Byron, and her husband the poet Shelley. It is nothing like the movie made in the 1930's. Speaking of movies, I also highly recommend "Young Frankenstein" to anyone who hasn't seen it. IMHO the funniest movie ever made."

John Camp: "And Mary Shelley's circle also included John Polidori, Byron's personal physician. She, Percy Shelley, Byron and Polidori one night agreed to write 'ghost stories.' Hers eventually evolved into Frankenstein. Polidori's, published a year after Frankenstein, was called 'The Vampyre,' and is generally acknowledged to be the first vampire story and the model for the character Dracula (the Dracula story itself was written 70 or 80 years later by another guy.) The stories by the two famous writers didn't amount to much."

Geoff Wittig: "The 'Art of the Mountain' show sounds fabulous. While my ignorance of Chinese art and photography are profound, my understanding is that photographs and especially paintings of the iconic Yellow Mountain region of China are perhaps analogues to heroic 'Western' art in American culture. To my eye, archetypal Western landscape paintings by Bierstadt and Moran are very similar in their heroic motif to Ansel Adams' equally dramatic photographs. Traditional Chinese painting by contrast tends to be more gestural, suggestive and subtle. So too are the Chinese mountain photographs I'm familiar with. Wang Wusheng's lovely 2005 photo book Celestial Realm: The Yellow Mountains of China is full of delicate, moody fog-draped images. And it's still available new. Just sayin'.

"On an unrelated matter, is it just me, or is Canon's M50 the ugliest mirrorless camera we've seen yet? Fujifilm's X-T2 is a lovely piece of photo jewelry; Panasonic and Olympus mirrorless cameras look purposeful. But Canon's M50 and M5 are photo-Edsels. Lumpy, inelegant and dull. Maybe it works great, but it's so homely I'd be embarrassed to pull it out to take a shot. 'Course, it could just be me."

cdembrey (partial comment): "For me the most interesting recent announcement was Canon's new flash. From my POV, seen one camera and you've seen them all—YMMV."

Ken Tanaka: "I was delighted to see one of Peter Cohen’s found photos in this story! A good friend of mine, Peter has amassed one of the largest and richest collections of anonymous and found photographs anywhere. That’s how he enjoys photography. And it turns out he’s not alone, as there’s a very lively community of similar collectors out there. In recent years Peter has opened his collection to museum curators (The Met, The Art Institute of Chicago, The Columbus Museum of Art, et al) who have created some very unique and memorable shows from the collection. In 2011, for example, Michal Raz-Russo here at the Art Institute of Chicago created a show titled 'The Three Graces' after she and Peter noticed that so many of the snaps contained three women. In 2015, Mia Fineman, an associate curator at The Met, published a cute book titled Snapshots of Dangerous Women with images also mined from Peter’s collection.

"Yet another example of how photography and photographs can be enjoyed and used toward creative objectives...without using a camera."

Sunday Support Group: Panasonic Photographer

Hey, today's my birthday!

According to custom I should be four years from retirement, but, as I like to joke, "My retirement plan is to keep working." (That might not be so funny one day, but you know what they say: oh well.)

So how did your project go this past week?

I had a rocky week. I found myself procrastinating too often. But I didn't get discouraged. I kept after it. I'm finding that if I don't make progress on my 275 x 2 words every day, I make that much progress on average. I'll have an unproductive day or two, then bash out 2k words.

The resolution is still to "touch it every day."

Psychological resistance is a bear. If you resolve to spend just a few minutes on your project every say (set a goal of ridiculously few minutes—three, or five, or seven), it gets you over the obstacle of that initial resistance to getting started. How hard is it to do something for three minutes? So just do it.

TOP reader Ken White wanted me to see his presentation of a short documentary project he created. It's a video-based still-photo essay of Paul Cauthen and his band, and Ken's comments about a performance in Luckenbach, Texas. It's called "Sometimes Magic Happens" and I thought it was great. Only takes two minutes to watch.

My upstairs "workstation," where I work on my books.
It's a luxury to work on projects that are a stretch for me.

As long as I sit down at the upstairs computer every day and open a book file and putter for a few minutes, I forgive myself if I have an unproductive day. My resolution is to keep after it and not get discouraged.

I made a wise move in setting up a second workstation upstairs. I spent the money and took the time to set it up properly and I like it up there...it's a pleasant place to work. (I still don't have offsite backup, despite all the good suggestions, for which thanks. I'll work on that.)

Update from 'Weigh In'
By the way, I made a decision about the camera indecision—I decided to become a Panasonic photographer again for a while. Without deciding which Panasonic. I'm going to get either a G9 or GX9 or GX8, or maybe two of the three, or maybe all three. Maybe I'll put the 12–35mm zoom on a G9 and the 20mm ƒ/1.7 on a GX9. Of course, I can't afford to do all that at once...but then, you've got to have goals.

Forget your shortcomings—they don't matter
I enjoyed being sixty last year. The way I look at it, I was "extremely young for an old guy." Still true! Good thing I'm so young; I have goals this year.

Hope you made progress on your own goals last week. Take a few minutes to review. If you didn't make progress, forgive yourself and forget about it. A new week starts now. So get going!

Mike

P.S. Top illustration: Fuji X-T2 with 14mm ƒ/2.8.

iPhone 7+ version of the same shot, processed similarly:

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Trevor Johnson: "Retirement? Artists never retire."

Mike replies: That's a compliment!

JohnMFlores adds: "The only writer that I know of that retired is Philip Roth. He was prolific though, so it's understandable.

And I'm writing more and more precisely because I don't plan on retiring in the traditional middle-class sense; I don't like sans-a-belt slacks and find golf boring. Keep at that novel and Happy Birthday!"

kirk tuck: "Hi Mike, Happy Birthday!!! I have the same retirement plan. As I always tell my financial planner: 'If I take late retirement and early death I'll just about make the spread.' I'm jealous though. I'm 62 and I'm still hauling around lights, cameras, lenses, multi-carts, light stands, and more two or three times a week on day long shooting assignments. Video has added to the burden. I dream of a time when I can sit in a beautiful room in the rural wilderness and do my job with just my brain and my fingers.... At that point I'd probably stop using ellipses....

"Birthdays are great days for walking with cameras."

Rick Denney: "My 60th is this year, but procrastination knows no age. As I get older, though, I'm more likely to forget what I was procrastinating about, but that's another problem. In the music world, the most difficult thing is to simply take the instrument out of the case. A close friend teaches his students that way: Take the instrument out of the case. Sit down with it in your hands. Then decide if you are going to practice. That removes the pressure of accomplishment from the simple act of removing the instrument from the case. Of course, once I'm sitting with the tuba in my lap, I'm there for usually at least two hours. It becomes a greater burden to put it back in its case than to continue playing it. My problem with writing projects is that the thing is already out of the case, and when I sit down to it, I find more tempting modes of procrastination, this website not least among them. But, as with music, once I start, I find it difficult to stop."

RubyT: "Happy Birthday! I was going to congratulate you on being a prime, but then I have a weird preference for primes. :)"

Kent Phelan: "Happy Birthday Mike! I had a good week. Yesterday I finished Week 51 of my OC/OL/52 project. That would be: one camera, one lens, 52 weeks. I decided when I embarked on this gig to use my Fuji X-T2 with the 23mm ƒ/2 lens. I see in the 35mm FOV. Always have. I cannot remember all of the 35mm lenses I have owned. The little Fujicron was a natural for this. I have cheated a bit, however, in that during the project I bought an X100F with, as you know, the same 23mm lens. I have interchanged them since. One 'keeper' photograph per week has been daunting at times. Along about week 20 I thought 'Oh gawd man, what have you gotten yourself into!' Then came the changing seasons and winter here in the Pacific Northwest, which brings a steady stream of Zone V: rain-rain-gray-rain. Day after day; good thing the X-T2 is WR. Today begins Week 52. Feeling good."

Weigh In

Do you think I should get a:

1. Panasonic GX9 once it's available body-only
2. Fuji X-H1
3. Panasonic GX8 if/when it goes on closeout
4. Panasonic G9
5. Pentax K-1?

I know that last one's a ringer, but those seem to be the five that keep rattling around in my head. Man, I'm really having a hard time this time around.

Mike

P.S. Still plugging away on the Baker's Dozen. People really did not make this one easy for me at all. Or maybe I've just been feeling particularly indecisive lately.

P.P.S. I was thinking today about why you choose any given camera. The first imperative, it seems to me, is that you should like the look of the results and that you not get pictures that are spoiled or ruined by technical flaws or limits on printability (or usability, however you end up using them). This would include a consideration of the lenses you prefer. The second is that it be an object/possession that appeals to you and that you enjoy exercising (this would encompass your features and ergonomics preferences). The third would be that it make economic and practical sense for you, and that would include things like compatibility with lenses you already own, as well as things like affordability and the SAF (spousal approval factor).

[UPDATE: I've really enjoyed all the comments—thanks. I was negligent when I wrote this, however—I should have explained (again) that the thing I'm looking for that I don't have now is in-body image stabilization (IBIS). I've been writing about it for a long time, starting perhaps in 2006 here and here and elaborating more recently here and many other places. I shoot in low light a lot, and it's a non-negotiable feature for me in the next go-round. That's why I'm not going to stick with the X-T1 and X-T2, which in almost all other ways are superlative and exceed what a guy like me needs.]

 

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Geoff Wittig: "Beats me.

"Okay, I guess I should elaborate. For me, a camera system is like a marriage. I've been in the same ecosystem (Canon 'full frame' DSLR) since the original EOS-1Ds in 2002. So I'm still using lenses I bought 15 years ago, and it would take a lot to move me to a different system.

"If you need (or want!) access to a decently wide system of lenses, I think it's a no-brainer. Fuji has gorgeous native fast primes and zooms for their mirrorless APS-C bodies, and they continue to introduce lovely new glass every year. That would settle it for me. The Panasonic bodies have some really neat features, but that doesn't seem compelling enough. I'm probably betraying my ignorance but the Micro 4/3  universe by comparison doesn't seem robust enough. I don't think Ricoh/Pentax have a secure enough future in the camera business to consider them, no matter how lovely the K-1 is."

James: "OK, you must have IBIS. You must love at least the system 35mm equivalent lens. (Or is it the 50mm? [35mm-e —MJ]) You already love Fuji lenses. The X-H1 has the same sensor as the X-T2. Put the X-T2 you are foster parenting on a tripod and take a picture. Do you L O V E it? If so, try an X-H1 and see if you like the size/feel/handling. If you do, buy it. If you don't, go Micro 4/3. Easy."

Miguel Tejada-Flores: "The GX8. Because it's so beautifully proportioned and thought out. Because it just feels right in the hand, the way so few cameras truly do. Because of the new sensor which truly is head-and-shoulders above the previous generations. Because of the amazing EVF and its tilting capabilities which raise the bar a notch or three. But mostly because of the marriage of form and function. I know this is going to sound like heresy to many, but what could euphemistically be called the form factor of the GX8 is classic, elegant, functional and usable—in ways which very, very few other cameras I have ever used were. The Leica III. Some early Contaxes. The old Pentax Spotmatics. Yes, it's really that good. And with the currently discounted prices—it may be or become the bargain of not the year but the decade. But all of the foregoing really just boils down to one thing: because it's so fun to use. (The GX9 is cool in many ways but the tiny EVF, while usable, won't come close to the shooting experience of looking through the GX8's wonderful electronic viewfinder. The G9 is another story. It may be worth picking up at some point—but in relative terms of degree-of-satisfaction-vis-a-vis-degree-of-cost, its pricing, for the foreseeable future, puts it in a different bracket than the currently eminently affordable GX8.)"

John Krumm: "I think perhaps the Fuji. You want stabilization, and you like to shoot black-and-white, and you think Fuji has a mysterious something extra for black and white photos. Also, you have some lenses for it already. The Pentax is a good contrarian purchase, but you might become irritated at its DSLR quirks, and it's basically a Big Dragoon with IBIS and a flippy screen. Also we would be interested in a blog post or two on your experience with the new Fuji. And I personally would not want to listen to laments about your unused lump of Pentax with declining resale value.  :-)   "

Dave Stewart: "'I'd definitely go with the Ferrari 599.'" 

[See here. —Ed.]

Richard Man: "You are 'doing it wrong.' You're supposed to tell your readers what they should get, not the other way around.  ;-)  First: leave any 'not available right now' off. Otherwise, you will ask the same question later. Second, get the first one your gut tells you is the right one...."

Daniel K (partial comment): "In the tradition of people on the Internet not answering the question asked, just keep using your current one."

Gaspar Heurtley: "Although I’ve never used a K-1 (or will in the foreseeable future), you should definitely get one. It’s hard to explain, but Pentaxes have a way of convincing you to love their quirks.

"My wife snores and always (literally always) forgets something in the house when I’m waiting in the elevator, but she makes me immensely happy and can’t think of a life without her. Nikon? Hate their menus and couldn’t use them easily. Sony? Even worse. Canon? Unless you use a million dolar body those feather weight things seem practically hollow. And even if you do, whose idea was to put the control wheel right where my cheek is?

"And then there’s Pentax. Crappy-old interface. Weird looking. Super heavy. But then you look through that 100% viewfinder, put an old prime lens on and you can’t help but make a huge smile. If I’m lucky enough, I’ll spend the rest of my life in the elevator waiting for the Pentax."

Max Young: "Definitely Panny G9. I've had one of everything over the years and this is the best all-round camera I have ever used. Hands down. Panny 12–60mm ƒ/3.5, Oly 45mm ƒ/1.8 and you're set. Handheld shots at one or two seconds are a doddle. Amazing hi-res function. Huge viewfinder. Outstanding (and hugely improved JPEGs) and the handling eats Olympus alive. I was (and still am sort of) a Fuji fanboi, but this camera has completely sold me on the Micro 4/3 system. Max from Down Under."

Weather Weirdness

Two days ago the mercury soared to 66°F here, which blew past the all-time record high for February 20th for Penn Yan by four whole degrees.

Same thing yesterday. I actually saw a kid walking across the parking lot of our local grocery store dressed in flip-flops, athletic shorts, and a short-sleeved T-shirt. (No sunglasses, though. It was overcast.)

And now look at the view out my office window right this minute:

Winter's back.

For a little while, anyway. This has been a very weird February.

Here's another earlier snow picture I like for some reason:

It's just a section of my driveway after the only heavy snow we've had all Winter. I was playing around with the X-T2 after I got it.

I suppose this is as close to meaningless as a photograph can get, since there are doubtless 18 trillion gazillion plain ol' quasi-abstract snow-detail shots floating around the servers of the world. And yet I kinda like it. Oh well, I guess I'm allowed to like it just because it's mine.

Stay warm, or cool, or both, or whatever!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Pentax's Big News

Just announced: The Pentax K-1 II. But read on.

Let's get the news out of the way first: The Pentax K-1 II is coming. It costs $1,997 for the body only, and with Pentax's remarkably sharp new 28–105mm lens for $400 more (a $100 discount from the cost of the lens alone).

Okay, cool. But the most interesting part is that if you already have a K-1 you might not need to buy the new one:

...In conjunction with [the announcement of the K-1 II] [Ricoh] also announced an upgrade service for current PENTAX K-1 users.

The upgrade service shows their gratitude to PENTAX K-1 digital SLR camera users and allows them to receive the advanced functions of the new PENTAX K-1 Mark II in their current K-1 cameras.

Here is an overview of the upgrade service:

• The upgrade service will be done for a limited time from May 21, 2018 – September 30, 2018.
• Upgrade cost: $550USD / $690 CAD
• Cameras will need to be shipped to Precision Camera (US) and Sun Camera (Canada)

What will be done to your camera?

The PENTAX K-1’s main circuit board will be replaced to add new functions featured in the new PENTAX K-1 MKII. Additionally the current SR logo on the PENTAX K-1 MKII [is that a typo? Surely they mean the Mark I? —Ed.] will be replaced with the new PENTAX K-1 MKII logo.

That's straight from the Ricoh website.

Very interesting. I believe that's an industry first, at least that I'm aware of.

It remains to be seen whether that's the best or cheapest way to get a K-1 II. We'll have to see what happens to used prices of the K-1. And perhaps there will be more residual value in a K-1 II than in a K-1 that's been upgraded. Still, it's a very interesting development, I think—and certainly an indication that Ricoh isn't forgetting the loyal K-1 owners out there.

Upgrade details
The primary change in the Mark II upgrade is an "accelerator unit" which improves noise suppression and high-ISO performance at the cost of a certain amount of battery life (760 shots per charge to 670 shots according to the specs). According to DPReview, Ricoh said the accelerator unit is already used in some other Pentax cameras but wasn't ready in time for the original launch of the K-1.

Also, there are some exotic-sounding improvements in stabilization abilities: Ricoh claims you will be able to do pixel-shift shots handheld, which sounds counter-intuitive but who knows, might work. One of those things that will have to be "seen to be believed."

Mike
(Thanks to Ned Bunnell)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Aaron: "This is so classy! I'm super impressed that an offer like this would be made and only endears me to the brand. Bravo Ricoh/Pentax!"

Ned Bunnell: "The forums are already awash in discussion if the upgrade make sense vs. just selling your K-1 and buying the K-1 II :-) "

Chris Kern: "Smart move—and motivated, I suspect, by the same marketing logic that has led Fuji to provide performance and functionality upgrades for older bodies through firmware updates: give the customer an inducement to stay with the system and he will keep buying lenses; give the customer enough time to accumulate a large investment in glass and he will will be reluctant to switch to a different system."

John Krumm: "I'm doing it. I suppose it might be smart to wait until the later part of the upgrade period to listen for horror stories and to let them work out the bugs, but I'm not much of a waiter. It seems quite worth it to me. This will also allow us to get any future firmware improvements that will only work with the new processor. Also there are some small changes, like more accurate greens (the K-1 is known for slightly over-the-top greens). I bet Pentax is more or less doing this at cost, considering labor prices."

Benjamin Marks: "I am wondering (out loud) what the actual profit to Ricoh is on the sale of a new K-1 to one of their retailers. If it was much over 20% of the cost to produce one, I would be surprised. I also wonder if this new model doesn't allow Ricoh to 'go back to the well' with their K-1 customer base and scrape a little more profit in on each unit already sold.

"If so, it would be a really interesting development in an already saturated marketplace. If it works, you avoid further saturating your customer base and the development of the robust used market we currently see in barely used electronics. Think about it: camera makers are currently not just competing against one another, they also are competing against their own previous sales success/installed base of barely-used electronics. Years ago, I naively thought that Leica would 'go digital' by creating a drop-in sensor and processor that would fit in their film cameras. Ricoh/Pentax's move could be like that. Update the heart of the camera every five years or so...much more like the subscription model that Adobe and everyone else seems to want me to participate in.

"Well, hats off to Ricoh for stirring things up. I bet this move's got other camera makers thinking!"

Mike replies: Good point. And picture the customer who scores a used K-1 for $1,200 and sends it in for the Mark II upgrade as a cheaper way to get a Mark II. Assuming Ricoh is making a profit on the upgrade service, that allows the company to monetize a sale on its own used market. Modestly, but still.

robert e: "Regarding the value of the upgrade, I think it's safe to assume that it involves a CLA, a typically $100–200 service that in many cases is worth more, and should be part of maintaining a camera of this quality anyway. It would be nice to have confirmation though. Another value question not addressed in the press release is whether the upgrade rejuvenates the warranty period."

JG: "Does this mean the camera industry will follow in the footsteps of the high-end audio industry when it comes to upgrading existing products? As I recall from my days in that industry—time flies, eh?—many manufacturers found offering upgrades for their existing products to be quite profitable, because it allowed them to take another bite of the apple and sell something to their customers in between their major purchases. This approach also kept many of their customers happy, because allowed them to stay current without having to pay the full price for a new component, plus it bypassed their dealers, so they kept all the money instead of just 40 to 50 percent of it! Perhaps this can help manufacturers maintain their profitability in the face of declining sales for new cameras? If so, then we'll be seeing more of this and, I suspect, new cameras will be designed from the start with the potential for future upgrades to be easily performed. We do live in interesting times, eh?"

Arg: "If you value your K-1's ISO-invariance, you might wait until reviews come in before getting the upgrade. I suspect that the 'pre-processor' is an analog front end (AFE) amplifier, which would signal (pun) the end of the ISO invariance."

Lorenzo: "Ah...it's news like this that keep endearing the good old Nikon brand to its loyal customers. One reads of such marketing initiatives, and wonders: why even dream of switching to brands like Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, or Pentax, when all they seem to do is innovate and pamper their user base (the horror! Even after purchase), when one could be masochistically ignored by Mother Nikon, recompensed for the long term commitment with 0 (zero) firmware-enhancing updates, preyed upon through an exquisitely rapacious and exceptionally implemented market segmentation that always leaves something missing in any camera of the lineup, and of course, left in total silence on the future (future?) of the many (many...) thousands of € of F-mount lenses one holds in the face of the forthcoming (is it, really? remember: mum's the word, here) mirrorless transition?

"I sincerely don't know how Pentax users feel about this. But, if I were one, I'd be very, very smug (Cheshire cat smug, I'd say...) at the news: being given the chance to keep up with the latest technology for an almost symbolic price (without the hassle of selling/buying new, not to be underestimated in many markets) would just ring to my ear like 'But of course: our customers matter to us.' I'd let Ricoh milk me for this 500€ and still feel very, very happy about how they deal with the customer base: I'm no marketing man, but I'd swear there's something to be said for the long-lasting effects of endearing your customers, rather than trudging upon them.

"Pentaxians might be thinking long and hard whether a K-1 II is better value than a K-1-updated-to-II, or whether this is enough on Pentax's part. As paying consumers, they have every right to do so. Me, as a Nikonian, I am just plain envious."

Dave New: "Pentax is doing everything that Canon should have done. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to 'discover' IBIS, PS, Astro-Trace, and a reasonably-priced, kick-butt full-frame 36+ MP body, with weather seals, to boot. Canon, where art thou? Since my current Canon bodies are getting long in the tooth (7D and 70D, and well, even a 20D), the glass is holding me back, and having just checked the price for my used Canon glass, I'm about to pull the trigger. There's another photographer in my local club that also shoots the same/similar landscapes I do. He changed over to the original K-1 a couple of years ago, and seems happy with it, and I've seen beautiful prints from it. I've got an inquiry in with him for feedback, pro and con, on his experience with the K-1."

Mike replies to Lorenzo and Dave: The answer is probably that Nikon and Canon don't need to. They're happy with their market share just as it is. Why change?

Open Mike: Happy Dinosaur

["Open Mike" is the often off-topic, anything-goes editorial page of TOP. It appears on Wednesdays. Please note that I will not be posting tomorrow, as I make a push to finish up the "It Must Be Color" Baker's Dozen for Friday or Saturday. Those take lots and lots of time. —Mike the Ed.]

-

I have to admit that it tickles me to be a "dinosaur" by remaining loyal to the old mechanical technologies current my youth and even earlier. I suppose it's partly "annoying armchair narcissism" (a phrase I read years ago and have always remembered, a fact that by itself makes me laugh), but it's also just because I'm charmed by mechanical solutions to various cultural problems.

That's not to say any of them are "better"—as I've noted many times, the human beings have a very strong tendency to assume you're making status claims when you talk about competing technologies, but that ain't it. It's just that I have a bit of an antiquarian streak (this was true even when I was a kid) and I find "real" mechanical things to hold a fascination that software and digital files don't. A vinyl record on a turntable is a delightful confabulated steampunk Rube Goldberg contraption compared to a simple, efficient high-res digital file run through a wee DAC, and sounds clearly worse in many ways...yet I just prize the old tech. It pleases me in a way that "just getting the job done" doesn't*.

Of course I'm mainly interested in the result—music—so most of my music is in the form of files and the unexciting, low-prestige but very effective and efficient computer audio setup you see here.

So it is with most of my dinosaur enthusiasms. Here are just a few:

Turntables and vinyl records—I have a 1970s example set up in the "den." I try to listen to one side of a record every day, and I fail at that, but when I pull it off it reliably improves my mood.

Roadsters and other light, little, agile, go-carty automobiles—an endangered species, now that almost all enthusiast cars are either muscle cars (even luxury cars are muscle cars now) or trucks (SUVs and pickups). Further automotive allegiances include RWD, hydraulic steering, and naturally-aspirated engines, and straight sixes—all but the last out of fashion now (straight-sixes are coming back now because they can be made on the same assembly lines as the turbocharged fours that are becoming ubiquitous).

TUBES! The modern thang in amplification is Class D, AKA switching amplifiers. But give me EL-34's and big iron transformers. I know, nobody needs tubes. But again, they just please me. (My tube amp—here's my review, c. 2009—is in mothballs here in my tiny house, a sad thing. And here's the best/easiest one to get, if you are thinking of dipping a toe. There's no way to buy one of those through my links.)

Oil paintings—I know, so, so passé. But there's something absolutely luscious and sensual about oil paint that I can enjoy even when I don't quite approve of the art. I drop in on local galleries from time to time just to wallow in the paint. Bugger all, I'm happy!

Books—ah, books. I have a fetish for all of the bookmaking arts that goes back to early boyhood. In my early 20s I hung out with Bill Hale, Larry McMurtry, and Andy Moursund at their respective antiquarian bookshops in D.C. Hearing bookish lore from those polymaths is a cherished memory. (I still have a binder's copy of the first Irish edition of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that was a gift from Larry McMurtry. The cost of having it rebound has always outpaced my earning power, and I suppose always will.) I've never had the wherewithal to collect books, either. But I've made up for it by reading widely in the "books about books" category and with an abiding love for the art of the printed book. (Here's one great read that you book lovers out there will adore—and here's the most esoteric title, which I loved too. But be warned, Henry Petroski is a hard habit to shake.) And before you ask, yes, I reliably read very roughly a book a week, year-in, year-out, and now almost all on my iPad and "Plus"-sized iPhone, to which I admit I'm very attached. My love of books has not, however, abated.

Black-and-white film—why, yes, the world changed over to color. But it used to be black-and-white (in UK English: monochrome) as Calvin and Hobbes had it. When film gave way to digital the world changed to color in a very big way. But there's something so satisfying and lovely about the old ways. I no longer have the leisure or the energy to practice it, but that doesn't mean I don't still love it.

Horses—I rode horseback in my youth. Yeah, I know it would be a nightmare if we all had to get around with horses now (although the planet urgently needs a replacement for their replacement). But I confess I love catching sight of the Amish and Mennonite buggies and buckboards common in my region of Upstate New York. Their presence somehow nourishes my soul.

Film noir—no comment. Off my lawn!

Prints—again, I know, of course, we look at pictures on screens now. But I love prints, and the craft of printmaking, with a passion.

Alas, my happy dinosaur enthusiasms don't extend to typewriters (although I loved the Adler electric my grandmother gave me when I entered my freshman year in high school) or dial phones. Or handwriting and penmanship. Certainly not slide rules. Or outhouses! Not everything old is charming. And yes, I know my dinosaurism is in part an affectation, though I insist it's not snobby. I do think it's amusing that younger people assume I personally remember all the old things I like. They think that's why I like them. Not so in many cases...my first amp had no tubes (just as the house I grew up in had no outhouse). Most film noir predates my birth. And people are still making oil paintings today.

But hey, my gentle armchair antiquarianism makes me happy, and isn't that half the battle?

Be well, friends.

Mike

*"After all, CD players lack sport. You plug them in and have nothing to do! A beautiful turntable is a toy forever!" —Anthony H. Cordesman

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Patrick J Dodds: "I've recently taken to fountain pens—no going back. I look for excuses to write things down."

Joe: "I'm with you, Mike. And let us not forget pocket watches."

Mark Roberts: "Heck, I'm so old-fashioned I still have a digital watch on my wrist!"

David Fox: "A turntable sort of wears it's analogue technology, rendered mechanically, on the outside. The record spins and the needle can be observed in the groove as it works it's way towards the label. I can pick the needle up, or spin the turntable faster with a finger and immediately get feedback that confirms our understanding of the machine. It's charming. The modern high-tech equivalents are no less ingenious, in fact far more complex on the inside, but there's no way to inspect and appreciate them in any tactile sense because the engineering is buried away at a microscopic level inside electronic circuits that can't be understood in the same way. They also rob us of the physical rituals of putting on a record. But I delight all the same, knowing that the iPhone in my pocket contains engineering that would fill large cities, at turntable-scale engineering. I find it quite spellbinding."

Mike replies: I have to admit the iPhone is my single favorite-ever thing. That's not a very dinosaurish attitude.

Geoff Goldberg: "Perhaps modern thoughtfulness is the ability to appreciate both. In teaching, the push to all things digital a few years ago has given way to an appreciation for analog—students still like the feel of paper, the art of making. Too much screen makes the heart grow fond for other ways of seeing and learning. Living on both sides of the digital/analog divide can be healthy—it becomes a world of choice and selection, not a gloomy slide into only one way with the loss of the other. And it feels better to work with both. Some stuff is high tech (I’d be lost without Dropbox) and other stuff is analog (best writing with a fountain pen, the thinking is fluid and just tumbles forward differently). A morning read of the NYT on screen is followed by a lunchtime read of a paper edition, and it’s amazing the difference in the experience. One’s sense of hierarchy, finding the obscure, or even basic retention is very different depending on which version is read. Sometimes it seems they were issued for different days.

"So yes to the difference, and to each their own choices."

Steve Caddy: "We got our 9-year old a Polaroid camera for Christmas. She immediately took a photo of her younger sister, who came over, looked at the ejected paper and asked, 'But where's the picture?' 'Oh. It's still loading.'"

 Stan B.: "One of the coolest looking pieces of technology ever—a Sekonic L-398A Studio Deluxe."

And you can still get them! —MJ

Am I Crazy? My Camera-Buying Frenzy

Two facts for your consideration: Right this moment, you can buy a Canon 6D (with 12 months of Adobe's Creative Cloud thrown in) for $999 and a Fuji X-T1 (with a 64GB card and a spare battery) for $599. Or the super-cool and beautiful Graphite silver version for only $50 more. That would be close to the best $50 any first-world photographer ever spent on a gear-related purchase in my opinion.

Looking back on it, I think I experienced a kind of frenzy a few years back. I bought a Nikon D800 in 2012. "The Big Dragoon" didn't last long with me, and it cured my envy for large DSLRs*.

But within two years of the Big Dragoon's departure, I bought and owned a Sony NEX-6, a Panasonic GX7, an Olympus E-M1, and a Fuji X-T1. I never quite cottoned to the two middle ones, and off they went, but I still have the Sony and the Fuji (both have lost so much value now that there's no urgency to sell them. I used the Sony for three years and the Fuji, so far, for four).

It might have been the only time in my life that I've simultaneously owned as many as four cameras all bought new.

What was I thinking? Maybe, in 2012–14, I went a little, er, crazy. Camera-crazy, though, which is a benign and largely harmless form of insanity, for people of gentle natures.  :-)

The camera market peaked in 2012, and the boom was busting in 2015–17. So I lagged the peak a little but fit right into the economic pattern.

Nowadays I still love cameras, of course, but I feel I'm back to my essentially conservative habit of owning one camera after another, seldom more than two overlapping. I'm nearing my fourth anniversary with the X-T1**. I don't feel as much craziness any more.

Why?

I've tried to analyze the reasons why I'm more reluctant to buy new cameras now. Here's what I've come up with:

• Digital cameras have gotten more expensive.
• Many improvements lately have been on the "camcorder side" of these cameras' specs, and I'm a stills guy.
• TOP is making less money now and I'm not feeling so flush. (Gotta be honest with you!)
• There are now lots of digital cameras that I might want, but they cost more than I'm comfortable spending.
• There are now lots of digital cameras that are better than what I really need.

There's one more reason, too: I'm feeling chastened by the amount of money I lost (okay, a more frank word: wasted) on those cameras I bought in 2012–14. Digital cameras depreciate fast, especially when you buy them new and sell them without using the hell out of them, and it just doesn't make much sense from a frugality standpoint to buy just-released new cameras and let them sit around. I've got the "cheap gene," and it still galls me that I lost $800 after using the D800 for less than a year...and not using it very heavily, either.

In 2013, the year after the camera market peaked, I distinctly remember the feeling that the new cameras were just so wonderful that they were hard to resist. (How could I not own a GX7? It was just so enticing.) I don't quite get that feeling now. Yes, there's still an aspect of wonderfulness to the new products, but the things that tempt me cost a lot more now (the market would not have embraced a $2,000 Micro 4/3 body in 2013) and the increments of improvement for most cameras, on the stills side at least, have become less compelling for the kind of shooting I do.

So my question—for myself—is whether it might be time, or maybe past time, to consider modifying my buying habits.

For starters, I think I should extend the amount of time I own each of my cameras. I used to think of it as three years; with the Fuji X-T1 it's been four years, and I think that should maybe become the norm now. Or rather the target, since I haven't been strictly consistent about it.

But the bigger question is, is it time to start buying cameras when they're discontinued rather than when they're new?

I look at my 2014 car, and there's nothing really that would lead me to replace it. Still looks good, still drives well, and I like it more now than when I bought it. 

You know what else that describes? (Well, but for its lack of IBIS?) My X-T1. It's another frequently-used purchase that I actually like better now than I did when I bought it. The X-T2 is a better camera. I understand, and feel, the improvements. But, honestly, none of them really makes me despise the X-T1 by comparison. And at this moment in time the X-T2 is $1,000 more than the X-T1. No way it is $1,000 better than an X-T1. If it weren't for the lack of IBIS, which I've decided I need because of my declining steadiness of hand, I might not even need a new camera at all. In the same way I don't need a new car.

And just think of how much money could be saved (by, er, someone) in the long run by buying a Canon 6D or a Fuji X-T1 right now and using it for the next four years. Honestly, if it weren't for the IBIS issue, I really might buy a silver Graphite X-T1 and be happy for another four years. Until 2022. (The Graphite X-T1 might be the single best camera bargain in all of digital photography right at this moment.) Would my work suffer? I very much doubt it.

The radical question then becomes: should I buy a just-introduced Panasonic G9 or just-introduced Fuji X-H1...on closeout?!? That is, several years from now?

Wow. That thought makes me dizzy.  :-)

The times they are a-changin'. And it's possible my sanity is increasing...a little....

Mike

*Which, actually, I never preferred; I've been pretty consistent about this. My first SLR was a (small and compact) Contax 139Q, and when I bought an RTS II after taking a photography teaching job, I have to admit I didn't like it as well because it wasn't as compact. I didn't have to face that fact square-on because the RTS II was soon stolen from me, the second of two cameras I've lost to theft in my life. I then began writing an extended series of reviews of medium-format cameras, because that's what the magazine I worked for wanted, and those cameras were naturally larger.

**An X-T2 was donated to TOP, but I plan (with the donor's blessing of course, already granted) to sell that soon, after using it enough to write intelligently about it.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Dennis Mook: "It is quite obvious that your subconscious strategy was to buy a primary camera and then for insurance purchase three backup camera bodies. In photographic circles it is quite acceptable to have a camera body (or two or three) at the ready in case the primary one becomes nonfunctional or lost. I admire your extra cautiousness. Makes sense to me!  :-)  "

More On Video Reviews of Camera Equipment

Text vs. video is probably just generational, as Michael Mejia vividly explains. (Many values, beliefs, and cultural verities people think are eternal and unchanging are actually just generational, or shared by several generations but not necessarily by those before and after.) I haven't seen very many video reviews of cameras. I don't like watching them, therefore I'm not very familiar with the genre. I'm sure there are many good ones out there. I do appreciate David Thorpe. (He's probably closer to my generation!)

Also bear in mind that I'm a creature of the printed word, so what you're about to read comes from the standpoint my own bias. (That bias is dear to me, so I certainly don't apologize for it. The written word is fabulously rich and has given me great pleasure throughout my life, in many, many ways.)

The shortcomings of video reviews were stated succinctly by nextSibling:

The problem with video in general is it has very low information density and poor reference mechanisms, as information designers would say.

Bingo. A commenter also named Michael extolled the video Fuji X-H1 review by Palle Schultz (who, Roman points out, is not a fully independent reviewer, but, like Jonas Rask, is an official "Fuji X Photographer." Here's the list).

And actually, for me, Palle's video is a perfect illustration of what nextSibling complains about: it's mainly about the videography aspects of the X-H1, something that doesn't interest me because I shoot only stills. So I get 1/5th of the way into the video, and it starts to waste my time with details about what it's like to shoot video with, and then I get more and more impatient as I wait for the video-shooting segment of the review to end...which it never does, because the reviewer has shot a doc with it and it's almost entirely a discussion of his thoughts about the X-H1's video capabilities. Would I have watched the whole thing through if there was some way of knowing that in advance? No. But nowhere is the review labeled as what it is, and I have no way of knowing that most of the information I happen to want is not even there. I'm just following along blind, going wherever the guy who's talking wants to take me.

Upshot, for Michael: "No reason to view or read anything else." Upshot for me: almost entirely a waste of my time. (Nothing against Palle; his information seems good for what it is.)

Quick, find that
Reviews such as those on DPReview have very good "reference mechanisms" (the table of contents and the index in a printed book are reference mechanisms) in the form of a dropdown menu where pages are labeled with different topics. So if you want to find out about stabilization, say, you can go directly to where that is discussed. Great, except that a technical review has another large failing, which is that it repeats a great deal of the information provided by the manufacturer. I consider most of that to be redundant. I'm fully capable of finding the press release and going to the manufacturer's website (or B&H) and reading the manufacturer's claims for the product, all by myself. A review should contain judgements and opinions. I don't want it to be a substitute for, or a rehash of, the manual. So the only bits of a technical review that interest me are the little nuggets where the reviewer evaluates or critiques the manufacturer's claims or approaches those claims from the standpoint of actual use or experience. And those are sparse.

In that way, even a review that's "dense" with information actually has low information density, which has always been my problem with technical reviews. (I really don't even want all the nitty-gritty spec-sheet details on a product until I've 90% decided to buy it.)

And you are...?
A basic problem of many video reviews these days is that unless they're an established content provider and you're an established fan, you often have little idea of the qualifications and skill level of the reviewer. Take this to the bank when I say it: many people can talk a great game without having the skills to shoot their way out of a wet paper bag. When I write reviews, I take a lot of pains to let people know where I'm coming from and what my skill levels are—and I take pains not to lie about it. If I don't shoot video, say, or long lenses, or fast action, you'll know it, so you can evaluate the information you're getting from me accordingly.

Another obvious problem with reviews these days is that they are posted immediately, and they function mostly like company PR. Hey, look at this exciting new product, here's everything the manufacturer wants me to say about it, go buy it from my links! Right, we're all guilty of the latter, including me, because that's how sites survive these days. But that only excuses the practice, it doesn't make it a desirable trait in a reviewer. By far the most valuable reviews come from people who have used the product for weeks or months and have gotten thoroughly familiar with it through actual experience. (And who have gotten over the glow of "new toy" pride.) Not somebody who shot with it for an hour or just handled it at the company's booth at a show.

Unbeholden
This would seem to vindicate the practice of "beta testers" who receive pre-production samples and use them for weeks before the official rollout date. Except that's not a good practice either, because the best reviews are firmly independent and no beta tester can be truly independent, by definition, for the simple reason that they are dependent (note the word) on the manufacturer for the testing sample. So they're all "making nice." They know full well if they don't, they won't be getting the next new camera in advance. No matter how free they pretend to be, they are not free, because they always have to be mindful of their relationship with the manufacturer. They become de facto extensions of the company PR departments.

Another way this subverts impartiality is that the companies have learned to only give equipment to people that they know for sure are dyed-in-the-wool fanboys and highly unlikely to let slip a negative word. Leica is particularly guilty of this, but most of them do it. Why wouldn't they? They want PR. They do not actually want critical, fully independent reviews.

And ideally?
The best reviews, I think, would:

• Be fully independent*;
• Be the result of using the product over time;
• Be subjective, with the reviewer being completely forthright and forthcoming about his or her skills, affiliations, and biases;
• Keep fully in mind each reader's likely desire to skip over certain parts that don't concern, or pertain to, him or her;
• Keep the information you can get directly from the manufacturer and the manual to a practical minimum, instead reporting on independent experience and use and the results of independent testing, and things like look and feel and ergonomics**; and
• Mix text and very short videos (and other media, for instance graphs or sound files)—all well crafted, and each tailored to the information most suited to each specific media...
• ...With each of the separate video segments clearly labeled and short—of two minutes or less in duration. As the reference mechanism.

Is anyone doing ideal camera reviews these days, taking full advantage of the felicities of the Web but not falling prey to its commonplace idiocies? Not in my opinion***.

That's probably because no one can afford to. The competition from amateur reviewers and forum discussions is just too diffuse and widespread, and the pressure to provide fodder for peoples' initial curiosity is just too great, to focus sufficient attention on a professional, thorough, fully independent review that comes out weeks or months after the release date. Note that this is a situation that other industries exploit to the max; for instance, big ticket movies are now promoted specifically to minimize word-of-mouth publicity. Ad campaigns stir up interest in advance of the films' release in order to help make back the film's investment in the first days and weeks after release—even if the film actually sucks and the eventual consensus is that people don't like it. (That's why films' "first weekend" box office takes are reported so breathlessly, as if any moviegoer cares about that.) The parallel in our field is that people want to be first with the news—and the first owners of new products—because they get attention that way.

But here's the point relative to the post title: the best video review would probably be a string of separate very short video segments, each part labelled separately. That each part should be competently done and maximize video-specific forms of content, things that video is actually useful for conveying, while minimizing the annoying "talking head" stretches, should probably go without saying. Except that it does need to be said. (Have you ever watched a video review where the talking head is waving a new camera around and you just want to have a decent look at the darned thing? Like the guy who was waving around a GX9 for minutes on end while I still didn't know if the viewfinder was fixed or tilting, or whether the viewing screen was the flip-up type or the side-articulated type. That drives me nuts.)

I should add that I've been reviewing cameras since the 1980s and I'm a former editor-in-chief of a technical photography magazine. Just saying that so you know I know my way around the subject, even though I only infrequently write full, formal reviews any more.

Mike
(Thanks to many commenters from Saturday)

*For instance, I get review samples only from B&H Photo and LensRentals; I can be beholden to both those organizations without being the least bit prejudiced in favor of, or against, any particular brand of camera or lens. When I reviewed the Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 Art I had two of them here, one for the Sony A900 and one for the Nikon D750, but I didn't have any connection to Sigma or, in fact, any contact with them at all. All you saw was some nice words about LensRentals, which were not prejudicial.

**I always tried to keep in mind the interests of the person who would like to use the camera but couldn't. What would I want to know about it myself if someone else were telling me of his experience with it? It's very hard for inexperienced and amateur reviewers not to take things for granted.

***Roger Cicala comes closest, for this writer. Thom Hogan's and Kirk Tuck's are very good. I don't actually look at a lot of other peoples' reviews.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Ferdie: "tl;dr. ROFL!"

beuler: "Generally, text reviews are more informative than video (think of the typical spec table). Video reviews are more entertaining than text (think of ex-DigitalRev TV presenter Kai). Do I seek gear reviews to be entertained? Absolutely! Sue me.  :-) 

"Most video gear reviews will fall between the two extremes of production value. On one end of the spectrum there is just a guy sitting in front of the camera talking. Here is an example à propos. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is the voice over a multitude of imagery that helps to make the point. Here is an example of a one-man-show with high production value. And here is a video review of video review channels. [That last is excellent; thanks. —MJ.]

"In the end what really counts and keeps viewers coming back is engagement. The guy just talking to the camera can be engaging if he is a naturally gifted public speaker and the high production value video will engage if the eye candy is sweet enough—this is independent of the content/substance. In a similar way, the most expert gear connoisseur will not have a single reader for a blog post if he is a lousy writer. Any of you who are regular readers of the LensRentals blog can consider if you keep coming back because of the deep technical insights or because of the wit and lighthearted penmanship of Roger Cicala. Many of the readers here will no doubt watch videos occasionally if they are posted in the middle of a web page article. Just be aware that a huge chunk of Internet users will occasionally read a blog post if it is linked from a YouTube video."

Bill La Via: "I would say that Jonas does a pretty good job of making his biases known (see the second paragraph in his review). Not all sponsored photographers (from any of the brands) do so but I have always found him to be pretty transparent. I also find some genuine nuggets in his 'reviews.' I have found that one needs to read many reviews to triangulate a completely balanced view of a product, and that even then it’s only an approximation of reality; biased reviews are the norm rather than the exception."

Gordon Lewis: "For what it's worth, I tend to look at the video vs. text issue from the perspective of being a professional instructional designer for roughly 20 years. In my profession, video is perfect for showing how to do a procedure, or showing something that would take a lot of words to clearly describe. A procedure can be as complex as a total ankle replacement surgery to something as mundane as clearing a clog out of a dishwasher, but if the steps are visually clear enough, the need for verbal description is minimal.

"Even so, it's good practice to add time coded steps or sections, so that if I want to go directly to Step Three or some other important topic, I know exactly where to find it. Where video really sucks is when you have a talking head or disembodied voice that is simply explaining instead of showing. This is almost as idiotic as having a voiceover narrator read the exact text that's already printed on screen. Why do I need to look at you if all you're doing is talking while holding a camera?"

Keith: "Print vs video. Maybe it's because I'm old school, but video as a way of giving actual information is terrible. With text one can skim along thinking, 'I know this, know this, know this, aha! that's what I'm looking for,' and then start reading closely. It's easy to go back to step 2, and make sure you really do cut the red wire before attaching the blue wire to something. One can skim over the introductory text and dive right into chapter 6, because the table of contents says that's where to find what you're interested in. That can't be done on video unless someone has already posted a comment (if you read the comments) that says the review actually starts at 2:18. Plus,and this is a personal thing, I can't stand the way most videos start. 'Hey what's up, blah blah here for xyz, click on the like button,' and other such blither. Most of them have no idea how to get to the point, and once there, stay on it. Give me text any day."

Terry Letton: "This just reminds me the Chevy Vega was once Motor Trend Car of the Year. I bet MT would have liked that one back."

Wes Cosand: "Just a note to say thank you for your reviews. On the basis of your reviews of the Panasonic cameras and those of David Thorpe, I rented the Panasonic GX8 and its Olympus competitor and used them for a couple weeks. Then I gave my children all my full frame gear and ordered GX8 bodies and lenses, and have never derived more joy from photography."

Nicholas Condon: "As a 43 year old, I'm middling-young for a (now somewhat lapsed) hobbyist photographer. As an Internet content consumer, though, I'm ancient. And I just absolutely can't stand to acquire information (as opposed to entertainment) from videos. 'Hi, I'm Bob. Today, I'll be showing you how to use the <$FEATURE> of <$PRODUCT>. First, turn on <$PRODUCT>...' ...And with 30 seconds wasted without one single quantum of useful information conveyed, I'm done. In that amount of time, there's a good chance that, on a text-and-graphics instruction page, I could have already found the one small bit of information I was looking to obtain from the silly video to begin with. Meanwhile, my girlfriend's 12-year-old daughter would rather sit through a 45-minute video to obtain one sentence of useful information than find that one sentence in a well-written text-and-graphics article. There is either a severe generational divide here, or that particular 12-year-old has substantially more patience than this particular, grumpy 43-year-old."

Mike replies: Yes, it's somewhat interesting and ironic how common it is to say that kids today don't have any attention span, when actually they have a protean patience for videos that many older people don't have. I do wonder how they spend time to watch all that...but then, they would wonder how I have the time to read a book each week. I guess it's all a matter of priorities and preferences.

Rene Theberge: "The best review of a camera I've read in a long time is Kirk Tuck's recent review of the Panasonic GH5. It told me everything I needed to know about this camera in actual use."

Eolake: "Correction: MY generational ideas are wise and correct. Earlier ones are stuffy. Newer ones are silly and ephemeral."

Jim (partial comment): "I second your comments re video vs. written reviews or whatever, and that from someone who has created over 100 highly technical videos, mostly lectures, that have over 2.5 million views. I have two 30-something techie kids and know other age groups and I think the deal with video is 'CPA'— continuous partial attention. You cannot read an article and do much else, but you can watch a video with some attention and do other things. The bane of our existence is the CPA on phone calls when you can hear the clicking of a keyboard in the background."

Mark Roberts: "I greatly prefer written reviews to video, but so many video reviews fall far short of what they could be. Here's a checklist that far too many YouTube video makers have no idea they need. How to make a video:

1 — Write a script Write out exactly what you're going to say (verbatim) and what you're going to show. Then re-write it.

2 — Rehearse the script For crying out loud, practice a few times before you press Record.

3 — Edit Trim all the fat.

4 — Add voiceover narration in post Don't describe doing what you're doing while you do it. Adding narration in post lets you concentrate at one thing at a time and do it well.

5 — Edit again After you think you've trimmed as much as you can, watch your video again and see if you can cut any more. If you're honest with yourself you'll find more. I've given up on many videos because they were too long but never one because it was too short.

"Also: Keep the intro brief. I've seen some that go one for almost a minute with animation and music. Check out B&H Photo's videos for comparison. Their intro is five seconds long and contains little more than their logo."

Mike replies: I will add to your Number 5, Mark, that I'm more engaged with videos that move quickly. When my son did his videos when he was in high school, he researched the top video presenters and developed a fast and clear method of speaking (which he was very good at). One of my favorite video producers, Doug DeMuro, speaks very quickly and actually edits out many pauses. It's not that everything he says is essential, as that the video keeps moving quickly. I can stick with him for 18 minutes where I will leave other presenters much sooner simply because they talk slower and don't fill the time as well.

Also, your Numbers 2 and 3 go together somewhat...as you rehearse, edits will be suggested as you actually hear what's natural to say and what's not.

Ken Tanaka (partial comment): "Honestly, whether you’re researching a camera or a lens, renting/test-driving is THE best way to make the best-infomed decision about something costly."

Roger Cicala: "Another well thought out piece, Mike, that I enjoyed. I work with around a hundred 25–35 year olds and have this conversation with them a lot. I find video reviews inefficient and a waste of time; they find written reviews not very entertaining.

"Personally, I think video avoids constructive criticism. When I see someone writes something I think is wrong or incomplete, I send them an email, they can correct their article if they think it's appropriate in a few keystrokes. When the video is incorrect at the 15:33 mark, well, they aren't going to make a new video. And I've always wondered, if everyone is there to watch video because they don't like to read, who reads the 312 comments on the video page? What's the proper protocol, anyway? Shouldn't I make a video comment instead of writing?

"In this business, the one thing that has amazed me is how little investment from the manufacturer is required to get PR reviews. A few lenses, a trip or chance to lecture, being named an 'Ambassador,' and they have a friend for life. It's got to be the best return on investment they can get.

"I'm very lucky, I don't have to make my living doing this. I want to believe I'd write the same stuff if my livelihood depended on it. But I doubt that's really true; I'd certainly be more 'damn with faint praise' and less 'they really screwed this up.'

"You, Thom, Kirk, Dave Etchells and a few others are opinions I search out. I think, perhaps, what we all have in common is we're old enough to not care what the manufacturers think (very much)."

Sunday Support Group (OT)

Want to join me?

I thought I'd set up a "Sunday Support Group." Do you have any sort of incremental project for 2018 that you'd like a little encouragement with?

Photography projects are obviously welcomed, but don't feel obligated to limit yourself to any particular thing. I thought I might post an update every Sunday of my progress is on my book project(s). In comments, you can report your own progress on your project. Woodworking, organizing, exercising and diet, printmaking, online learning, reading...whatever.

Could be a nice way for us to encourage each other. A little encouragement never hurt anybody.

I've mentioned before that I'm determined to write the first draft of a book in 2018. I'm not going to be patient with myself after that; I'm either going to do it this year or stop dreaming about it.

My big rule is something I got from a writing teacher named Joni B. Cole: to "touch it every day." (Well, six days a week; I take Saturdays off).

To finish a manuscript within the calendar year I have to add 275 words of draft a day. Coincidentally, that was the exact word count target (assigned to me by the Editor) of the very first magazine article I ever wrote, in 1987 I think it was. It was accepted and published. I'm ahead of schedule so far...on not one but two books. I'm finding it amenable to my neuroses to switch back and forth between two projects. When I get sick of one, I just switch to the other. That's been working for me. An average of 275 words on each project every day is manageable.

I've set up a separate workstation in my bedroom, which is actually the most beautiful room in the house if the sun is shining. I got a 21" iMac with the smallest SSD (like this one, but used), for quick startup; Time Machine backs up to a new 1TB WD My Passport hard drive; and I make separate backups every few days to a 60GB SSD outboard drive from OWC. I'm also planning to set up offsite backup (in case the house burns down or a thief steals the computer and the drives, God forbid), but I don't actually know how to do that or what service to use. I've never used offsite backup.

I don't have anything on that computer but the "Writing" folder. Not even email.

Have you got a project you want to make progress on in 2018? Do tell. How is it coming along? Tell us how you're doing and what your daily goals are, and whether you're meeting them yet.

Hope this helps...both of us!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta get upstairs.

Mike

UPDATE: Happy to report that I added 1,400 words to Book 2 this afternoon. So, a good day.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Lowest Prices on Canon Full-Frame

More specifically, the lowest price ever on the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Canon 6D. (I believe this is the final closeout for the original 6D, so chop-chop, get your order in fast. It's now or never.)

The 6D deal is for the original 6D (shown), not the recent Mark II
update. But the price is less than that of many mirrorless cameras.

Another nice price: The lowest price yet on the Panasonic GH5.

Thought you might want to know—

—Mike never works on Sundays so this must be
from someone else

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The Fuji X-H1: Links for Pre-Ordering

Fuji's new uberkamera, the X-H1, is now available for pre-order from B&H Photo and Amazon. It occupies a place in the lineup above the formerly top-of-the-line rangefinder-style/SLR-style pair, the X-Pro2 and X-T2.

Reviews are beginning to pour forth from media outlets the cameramaker blessed with pre-release samples (TOP doesn't accept those and hence it's been a long time since there's been an offer). Some of them are the usual mix of competence and incompetence, spec listings, superficiality spiced with driblets of insight, faux-PR pseudo-salespeak, and filler. Plus the occasional good one rising above the rest. As an aside, it just beats me why the public now prefers video reviews to written ones...most of them just bore me to tears and it tries my patience to the limit to have to slog my way through them all. I guess I'm better at scanning written matter quickly and extracting what I need. I prefer text reviews (which do you prefer?). But maybe Bob and I will start making movies for TOP.

But back to the camera. The upshot? Precision seems to be the byword, if you burrow down beneath the heaps of video fluff. Fuji had to build the X-H1 to a standard of precision it had not attempted before in a consumer product. The results are impressive.

Plus, I hadn't noticed till Jonas Rask pointed it out (in his text review...ahhh) the strong family resemblance between the X-H1 and the medium-format GFX-50s. On the grip side especially they're quite similar. We obviously have some sort of calibration mismatch...Jonas's product illustrations look almost pure black on my monitor, and the objects can't be seen:

Even with my NEC PA272W set to "Full Bright" I couldn't see much detail in his illustrations (I normally keep it set to sRGB while working). But I downloaded one into Photoshop and slammed the exposure and shadows sliders:

Don't know what's up with that. I haven't had that problem with any other site. See his review for yourself—he has good things to say. But anyway, his point—notice how much the X-H1 and GFX resemble each other.

I also ran across this video yesterday, comparing A2 prints made from a Fuji X-T2 vs. a Nikon D810. Interestingly, the photographer, Nigel Danson, finds very little difference and decides to jettison his Nikon gear (then tells you to ignore reviews. Confession: I skipped parts of his). I suspect you need to make larger prints before the D810's higher spec begins to show decisively.

Also wanted to report that I now have the XF 23mm ƒ/2. Yes, that means I have both the ƒ/1.4 and ƒ2 lenses in the same focal length. When did I ever claim I was sensible? I have to tell you, though, the X-T2 and 23mm ƒ/2 is as nice a combination as I've ever held in my hand. Delicious and delightful. Everything about it is right.

That's all for now, I'm supposed to be taking today off.

Mike
(Thanks to Stephen Scharf)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Greg: "Text by far. Some subjects are helped by video, but as you say you can read and skip and go back at your own pace."

Imre Karafiath: "Re 'it just beats me why the public now prefers video reviews to written ones.' I agree 100 per cent. I can read and comprehend what I am reading a lot faster than you can talk. If you try and talk as fast as I can read then I can't understand you."

Stephen Scharf: "Having read all of the written and almost all of the introductory videos on the advent of the Fuji X-H1, it's become clear to me that the X-H1 is the first model in an entirely new line of of cameras for Fujifilm, hence the designation '1' after the letter H. Everyone thought the 'H' stood for 'hybrid,' but in Fuji's own promotional content, Fuji uses the term 'Hyper,' short for 'High Performance.'

It's important to think about how a camera system is developed from a systems engineering persepctive. The Fuji X/XF line of cameras and lenses has achieved considerable consumer and professional success in a little over five years, and represents a very impressive engineering and product development achievement.

"But, Fuji knew that if it was going to truly be able to penetrate the 'hard-core' professonal ranks, it would have to develop a completely new series of products, e.g. long, fast, prime telephotos, equivalents the to the 300mm, 400mm ƒ/2.8, etc. pro telephotos used universally by photojournalists and sports photographers, as well as products able to support professional video applications i.e., with their new line of Fujinon MK Cine lenses. Here's an example to put things into context from a systems engineering perspective: when asked back in early 2017 whether they would make a 200mm ƒ/2 or a ƒ/2.8 lens, Fujifilm engineers replied that specifically making a 200mm ƒ/2 lens would 'require an entirely new camera body.' Fujifilm ultimately decided to develop a 200mm ƒ/2 and, as can be seen, this is a big, bad boy. This meant, as they stated back in early 2017, they would need to develop a considerably more robust and professional stills camera platform, as well as one for suitable for professional video use with their newly launched line of MK Cine lenses (which have been getting rave reviews from videographers).

"The result of that is the X-H1. This engineering diagram from Fuji shows how much stiffer and stronger the X-H1 body is than an X-T2.

"Rather than the term 'precision,' I would say the operative terms for the Fuji X-H high performance line are 'professional, rugged and robust,' which is confirmed by this quote from Fujifilm engineers:

The product planner requested the developers to make the body more robust so that new devices could be installed and the expected camera performance could be realized. In order to make the body more robust, the frame, which is made of magnesium alloys, needed to be strengthened by adding extra thickness. The frame is 125% thicker for X-H1, meaning that the frame has almost doubled in volume (1.25 x 1.25 x 1.25 = 1.95). The strength of the frame is almost twice as strong.

"The X-H1 is the first model in Fuji's new fully professional line of cameras. This is why it resembles the GFX more than the X-T series; why the grip is larger: to accommodate larger, heavier telephotos and Cine lenses. It has a completely new leaf-spring based shutter button and mechanism to improve shutter responsiveness, 100 frames/second EVF and an electronic first curtain shutter to reduce viewfinder blackout times when shooting sports or in the studio. It has IBIS to allow stabilization for video and stills photography when using non-OIS pro lenses such as the 16–55mm ƒ/2.8, etc. It has a submonitor on the top deck in place of the comp dial, just as on the GFX, because in professional applications and use scenarios, it's much more important to have a display that can be specifically configured for stills or video-specific information. Regarding 15 minutes of recording time: that's true for the base body, but the X-H1 is really designed to be used with its battery grip, which triples the battery capacity and can be configured in Boost mode to considerably increase camera responsiveness and performance (if you've never used an X-T2 with its Vertical Power Booster grip, you've not experienced at all what that camera is really capable of).

"So, its clear to me now that the X-H1 is not, as originally thought, a 'hybrid X-T2.' Nope, Fuji pulled out all the stops, as it did with the GFX. The X-H1 is very clearly the Canon 1DX of the Fujifilm mirrorless line. Fujfilm has now created three fully differentiated and distinct XF-mount lines of cameras in exactly the same manner as Canon: the X-H1 is equivalent to Canon 1D-series, the X-T series equivalent to the Canon 5D series, and the X-T20 equivalent to the Canon 80D series.

"I don't think that X-T users, like me, need worry: the line of X-T series bodies will continue as it has, with the X-T3 scheduled to be announced/launched some time in Q3/Q4, 2018.

"So in summary: not everyone needs a Canon 1DX, in fact, most people don't. But, many professionals do, and the new X-H1 is Fujifilm's new camera line and peripherals solution for 'hard-core, working pros.'"

Mike (always the Editor) replies: Thanks Stephen. My only quibble is that Fuji can't decide "hyper" means "high performance." It's a standard prefix in English, from Greek meaning literally "over" or "beyond," and the standard meanings as a standalone word are "extremely excited or nervous," or "having a lot or too much of a stated quality" (Cambridge Dictionary of American English). It works in the context, in a sorta advertisement-speak kinda way, but by itself it's not exactly synonymous with "high performance."

The Collector Effect (Happy Birthday, Edward Curtis)

Deluxe reprint of Edward Curtis's The North American Indian,
a fabulous bargain at $28,500

A recent episode (Season 2, Episode 8) of "The Grand Tour," Amazon's new reboot of the old "Top Gear," featured two rather odd cars: an exact duplicate (not replica) of a 1957 Jaguar XKSS, handmade by Jaguar, that sells for about a million pounds; and a near exact duplicate (it has modern brakes, among other things) of a 1959 Aston-Martin DB4 GT Lightweight, built by Aston Martin Works in the same Newport Pagnell factory where the original DB4 was built.

Why? Presenters Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Hammond explain:

Jeremy: Now we should explain why Aston Martin and Jaguar have suddenly decided to start making cars from their back catalog, and really it's...well, it's secondhand values isn't it.

Richard: Well, basically, yeah. The last genuine original XKSS to sell went for over twelve million pounds.

Jeremy: Was it really twelve million.

Richard: Twelve million.

Jeremy: So anyone who buys that [indicates new/old XKSS]  for a million is getting the bargain of the century...

Richard: Yep.

Jeremy: ...And Jaguar's making more profit on that than it would from selling...

Richard: ...A hundred XE's.

Jeremy: Exactly. I wouldn't be at all surprised if other car makers don't start doing this. Ferrari, Maserati, Lambo....

And that's how one can arrive at the rather odd contention that buying a 60-year-old automobile (granted, in better than perfect condition) for a million UK pounds (about $1,400,000) amounts to "getting the bargain of the century."

Shaded Dogs
I first encountered this "Collector Effect" with vinyl records. In an era when CD had taken over and garden-variety new vinyl records were selling for $8–15 or thereabouts, a few enterprising entrepreneurs noticed that collectors were competing fiercely for original copies of famous classic records on the used market—"Shaded Dogs," original Blue Notes, etc.—and paying anywhere from $60–300 for them, or even more. So they started producing fine reissues of famous old records, lovingly reproduced, often pressed on "virgin vinyl" (as opposed to the partially recycled and adulterated vinyl commonly used in pressing plants back in the day), newly mastered from the original tapes lovingly fished out of record company vaults. The effect was the same—they could sell a new record for a higher-than-normal price, with a handsome profit margin, yet at the same time still be giving the record buyer a relative bargain. If you wanted "Saxophone Colossus" by Sonny Rollins (Prestige 7079, 1956) or Richard Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra" by Fritz Reiner and The Chicago Symphony Orchestra (RCA Living Stereo 1806), you had a choice—you could buy a used original for hundreds of dollars or a pristine reissue for $30 or $35.

Today, several businesses cater to record buyers, offering thousands of such reissues of famous records.

Happy 150th
And that explains why Christopher Cardozo's deluxe 150th Anniversary Custom edition of Edward S. Curtis's The North American Indian can be a wonderful bargain at $28,500. (And why the more affordable Complete Reference Edition with the same content put plainer bindings is useful, but not quite as much a bargain, at its price of $5,200 until May 15th and $6,500 thereafter.) It's because single volumes of plates of the original publication sell for ten to fifty thousand dollars, and the last complete set sold went for more than $1 million. The reprint, you see, is cheap (i.e., inexpensive).

Today, Friday, February 16th, 2018, is the sesquicentennial of the birth of the hardest-working photographer in history, Edward Sheriff Curtis. Salut, sir*. You can buy the bargain books here.

Mike
(Thanks to Mattias Jennerholm)

*And don't forget the great book about him, Timothy Egan's fine Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher. I think it's quite possible that no one will ever work as hard at being a photographer ever again.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

hugh crawford: "That's about $1,120 retail per volume and a project like this can't be that big a seller. A handful of collectors and some institutions. I would imagine that if I were in charge of a library that held an original that I would get a copy to reduce wear on the original. Seems reasonably priced in that context.

"The original Jaguar XKSS was built by taking apart unsold D-Type racing cars and rebuilding them as the XKSS. Then the whole thing ended badly when the factory and, more importantly, the raw supply of D-Types burned to the ground. All of these new-old cars are made possible because the manufacturers generated a lot of paperwork and titles for cars that were either never built or had multiple serial numbers applied to the same car. Thus the old jokes about cars where '25 were built and only 70 survive.' Anyway, the original manufacturers have titles to cars that don't exist that would be worth millions if they did, and the resources to correct that problem. For another altogether more interesting approach to the reproducing old cars, google 'pur sang argentina.'"

Mike replies: ...And "Superformance," which I believe is in South Africa. Here's a nice video about the Pur Sang.

Howard: "An original XKSS resides in Clydes Restaurant's Race Bar in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Fun Fact is that the Bar is located in the basement and the car was placed there prior to construction."

Stan B.: "It was amazing to read how he evolved over the course of his work, and how dedicated he remained to his subject matter."

Gavin McLelland: "You may like this story about the Czech record plant enjoying a profitable period on the back of the vinyl revival."

Mike replies: Reminds me of a quote from the late Ian Brightman, then the owner of Beseler: "In a down market, the last man standing makes out like a bandit."

'Edward Hopper and Marshall's House' by Bob Burnett

Edward Hopper and Marshall's House from Bob Burnett on Vimeo.

This morning, the first public unveiling of my friend Bob Burnett's new short film, "Edward Hopper & Marshall's House." Bob undertook this as a personal project after encountering the subject of one of Edward Hopper's most famous watercolors several years ago, an experience he wrote about on TOP.

"From 1930 until 1967, Edward and Josephine Hopper spent summer seasons in South Truro, Massachusetts, painting the local landscape and taking advantage of the unique Cape Cod light. The neighbors, the Marshall family, have owned their home since 1913—spanning five generations. It still looks remarkably similar to when Edward Hopper painted it more than 80 years ago. This film presents how the concept of family and an artist’s work can reach beyond the confines of a period in time."

Directed and filmed by Bob, edited by Jay Salbert, with sound design by Alan F. Jones. The photographs used, in addition to some Hopper family snapshot images that are part of the Whitney Museum collection, include portraits by Hans Namuth and Arnold Newman, and a Corbis Historical portrait by Oscar White.

In addition to being an independent filmmaker, Bob creates documentary and media productions for a wide range of foundations and public policy organizations. For example, a few years ago he created the videos that introduced the MacArthur Fellows to the world. He has received more than 150 film festival and industry awards for his work. His previous film, "The Art of Richard Thompson," was screened at film festivals worldwide.

"Edward Hopper & Marshall's House" reminded me of my beloved childhood art teacher, Gerald Landt, who loved Hopper's work, and it put me in mind of the similarities between Hopper and Winslow Homer, from an earlier generation, and Andrew Wyeth, from a later one, engaging deeply with the spirit of a particular place, its land, and its light. I found Bob's new film enjoyable and moving and I hope you enjoy it too! Big thanks to Bob for picking TOP's audience—you—for today's reveal.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

James McKearney: "Big thanks to Bob Burnett for this beautiful film and to TOP for making it available here. I am very pleased that Marshall's House still retains the peaceful and pleasant look it had when Hopper painted it. Seeing some of the inside of the house is a great bonus. In the second edition of her book entitled Hopper's Places, Gail Levin presents some present-day photos of the places that Hopper painted on Cape Cod and many other locations. Years ago while driving on back roads in Truro and Wellfleet on the Cape, I had the feeling that I saw what appeared to be the site where Hopper painted 'The Forked Road' (1934). After some research using old railroad maps of the area, I was convinced that I was correct. Seeing some of the places that Hopper painted is always rewarding, especially so to discover another on one's own."

Adam Carlberg: "It amazes me how I can sit through a two-hour feature film and not be half as entertained or enlightened as I was when watching this seven-and-a-half minute gem. Well done, Mr. Burnett."

Dennis Whitehead: "Well done Bob! As someone posted, you've packed a big beautiful story into a perfectly crafted small space. Great work!"

Paul Richardson: "I was in Truro last summer, on vacation, and decided to look for Marshall's House, thinking it would be simple to find. It wasn't. I used Google maps, and kept getting wrong directions and driving in circles, and so I went to the public library, figuring that getting directions there would be a snap, as they'd probably dealt with this request a thousand times. Well, again I was wrong. Nobody there seemed to know what I was talking about, and while they tried to be helpful, I didn't get anywhere. I finally found the right road (I think) but still couldn't find the house. Finally I simply gave up. But this summer, I'm going to try again. I'm more determined than ever after this post. I know it's there somewhere."

It's Valentine's Day

Lillian Gish in a still from the D.W. Griffith short film
The Mothering Heart, 1913. "She is tender hearted, demonstrated by
her appreciation of the flowers and the rescuing of a puppy." (Wikipedia)

Happy Valentine's Day to everyone! 

[Forgetful males, this is your reminder: it's today. Don't go home empty-handed. Especially, don't go home not knowing what day it is. That way lies trubba. Ye have been alerted!]

An inventive (and really quite odd) V-Day promotion fished from my inbox.

Hope you have a serene and loving day, with nary a harsh word spoken or thought betwixt sweeties of any description.

Domestic harmony and peace to you, brothers and sisters—

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Michael Mejia: "Thanks, Mike; we're all in this together!"

Open Mike: New Traditions

A long time ago, I taught for a few years at an exclusive prep school. One of the many delightful absurdities of the place was that the "powers that be" were forever designating things as "new traditions." As in, "We're starting a new tradition. From now on, there will be a pep rally before every field hockey game" (or whatever).

That seemed absurd on its face. How could something be called a tradition before it had become traditional? How can something be "inherited, established, or customary" before it has even been tried once? The proof of the objection was that most of the "new traditions" at the school were things done once and then abandoned. But it was a traditional school, you see. The word "tradition" gave any proposal some weight.

We've just been through a period of great upheaval in photography. A fairly settled practice had evolved not just standard techniques but cultural appurtenances: the gallery show, the monograph book, edited articles made into finished presentations by practiced hands, the building of reputations steadily in increments that could be compiled on a resumé. The inevitability of the print as the core form. Certain conventions in law, and in the conventional philosophy of the medium, such as it was. Even the tracing of its history seemed to have a certain orderliness, although some of that was borrowed from art and never quite fit.

That's all assumed to still exist, but I wonder. Increasingly, the staid institutions responsible for the old orderliness cling to outmoded customs and older artists who practiced in the old manner. They still trade in prints, which is beginning to seem quaint. As if we can save the culture by publishing every scrap Robert Frank ever created, and stave off the JPEG hordes by showing 4x5 C-prints in galleries. When the concept of the print itself might not even be traditional any more. Prints might now be not the real thing but records of the real thing—the real thing being a file flickering on a screen, with a fugitive existence that can't be traced or fixed. Or bought and sold—really, just the fact that most photographers no longer produce prints is a revolution all by itself, isn't it? The "photographers" (digital imagers, really) of the future are probably all Vivian Maiers, every one.

Will posterity make sense of this period? Can there ever be art-historical agreement about the dozen most significant photographers of the twenty-teens in any given country? Seems unlikely. I've just been tearing through a 500-page tome about the 17th century in England—a swift overview history, light on its toes, but far more than I've ever read about the Jacobean, Civil War, Protectorate, and Restoration periods before—while feeling weak and ill; so maybe I'm just tiring of conceptualizing chaos. (England in the 17th century was a remarkably tumultuous and ill-governed country—reminds me of the U.S. lately, a bit.) Still, it seems that someday there will have to come a reckoning—a reckoning that takes stock somehow of what "photography" has become, one that realizes the old cultural norms are passing, or withering into something smaller and more modest than we once tried to make them seem. We can't hoist the enfants terribles of the last days of film onto pedestals forever, and then pretend that higher pedestals are all that's needed to make sense of now.

What we need are some new traditions!

Mike

["Open Mike" is the editorial page of TOP. It appears, as everyone knows, on Wednesdays.]

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

John Krumm: "Your post immediately made this song play in my head.... And I do think that healthy traditions come from a strong community. In the photography world, our community has moved online, so the 'new traditions' are online. Being online, it is mostly a weak and vaporous community, and our images have become more vaporous as a result. A Snapchat world is the new normal, where things disappear after a few seconds, even if only metaphorically. Okay, time to go make a print!"

Bruce Walker: "As I collected two new photo books delivered from Amazon to my doorstep yesterday (Albert Watson, UFO; and Arthur Elgort, The Big Picture) I was thinking this very thing: for how much longer will photographs even be printed into books like these? One of the few remaining used bookstores in Toronto—and my main source of used and even rare photo books—is closing this summer (the lease is up and its proprietor is in his seventies) and there is nothing to replace it. I almost never print my images, though I have a vague goal of someday printing my absolute best work large like Helmut Newton and decorating my rooms with it. It remains only vague, though, like my other goal of making a photo book of my own work. I am starting to give consideration to an electronic frame for my dining room to try that idea out, but somehow I doubt it will work for my wife and I here in my home. So how do photographers become the Elgort or Watson of the future? By counting likes on Instagram and Facebook? It's looking more and more like that. Ewww."

Ken White: "I was never a traditional photographer having started with a digital camera around the turn of the millennium. My working life was spent in the digital world developing software for microcomputers. Like traditional photography, my digital platform of work is largely ancient history. To me there is no loss in moving forward to use photography in new ways. Looking backward is comforting to some but even now when I’m in my late-mid-sixties moving forward is an exciting prospect. To that end I’ve spent much of the last year working with Adobe After Effects and other similar tools. At first I didn’t see much connection between AE and still photography. Gradually I’ve found some interesting ways to build presentations such as video based slideshows combining images, narration and music. The work is a satisfying creative endeavor for me. Craft is not exclusively bound to the darkroom or physical prints. There are exciting ways to present photographic work in a digital context that are as meaningful as traditional prints and physical presentations."

Don: "What's the 500-page tome and is it any good? It's a period of English history I need to learn more about."

Mike replies: Rebellion by Peter Ackroyd, part of a multi-volume history of England. (Called Civil War in the UK, no doubt retitled for the US market because "Civil War" would overpoweringly suggest the War Between the States to us.) I read English (and Roman) history like most people watch soap operas—for entertainment, retaining relatively little. But although I've read dozens of books about the Tudors and Plantagenets and earlier, for some reason my reading has usually stopped at James I. (After that I pick European history up again in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era.) So this era was mostly new to me. I've never read a single book about Oliver Cromwell or the English Civil War before this, for no reason I can name. But we're off the topic!

Kenneth Tanaka: "Having spent the past five weeks almost exclusively printing, nearly every day, this swipes a sore subject. I love print-making, I absolutely love attempting to master its nuances in this digital age, and remain among those who believe that a print represents the ultimate lasting expression for photographic presentation and preservation.

"Nevertheless, I also recognize that printing has become rather old-fashioned. How many people have ever seen any of my prints? Perhaps a few hundred. How many have seen my images online, either on my web site or on Instagram? Thousands. So if getting one's work in front of as many eyes as possible is your goal, printing ain't the way to get there.

"But, separately and more broadly, photography's undergoing a much more tectonic shift than chemical-to-digital or prints-to-screens. The era of worshiping and endlessly studying, or even remembering, photography's greatest names is drawing to a remarkably rapid close. The books have all been written, often many times. The retrospective shows have been done, sometimes to death. The great public and private collections of 19th and 20th century photography are relatively stable and set. The ranks of dealers in photographic art are thinning more quickly than my hair. Photography's history is being shelved under a 'Legacy' title. Its future, as an art form, is rapidly merging into 'contemporary art' which is where I believe its future 'traditions' have already found homes. (But that's a bigger topic.)

"Meanwhile where will the photo hobby traditions go? Probably about the same as now, just smaller. Thirty years from now few people will have ever used a dedicated camera gadget of any kind."

Gordon Brown: "New tradition reminds me of all the events described as first annual. An event cannot be annual until it has been held in two successive years, according to the Associated Press Stylebook. (Yes, the AP considers stylebook to be one word.)"

Oskar Ojala: "Without doubt there is a huge change going on in photography. But what leaves me wondering about the future is the way we consume digital photography online, mainly how the consumption is directed towards the seasonal trend, our daily feed, where the presentation is controlled by the platform rather than the photographer. It does not seem conceivable to work for a long time to make a series of images in the online space, where new photographs are consumed daily and presentation is shifted by the whims of corporations. Given this background, online photography is akin to newspapers and magazines, meant to shorter term consumption, whereas books are meant to last longer. But I can't think of a digital equivalent of the book. I'm not willing to believe that our collective attention spans are going to be too short for more contemplative work and its presentation, so I'm expecting that the changes we have seen for the past two decades aren't finished."

Ernest Zarate: "I'm nearing the end of the excellent biography on Leonardo da Vinci by Walter Isaacson. When I saw this post, I recalled a simple, toss-off sentence Isaacson made on page 4 regarding the more than 7,200 pages of da Vinci's own writings and access to them: 'Paper turns out to be a superb information-storage technology, still readable after five hundred years, which our own tweets likely won't be.' I'd certainly add to tweets the rest of the digital domain most photographs and other contemporary works 'exist' in today.

"I teach beginning digital photography at a local community college. The students range in age from their 20s to my age (60+). One requirement of the class is to produce a portfolio of 10 photographic prints. Many of the younger students are less than enthusiastic about that: can't we just turn in a jump drive with our images on it? Nope. You have to make prints (the college has excellent, calibrated and controlled pro-level printers for the students to use). The odd thing is, when those students see the prints of their photographs, they are all, without exception, entranced and captivated by the 'thing' they now possess. Taking the ethereal and ephemeral of the digital and making it concrete and substantive as a print is a magical experience for them. (It brings back the magic I experienced in high school decades ago in the darkroom making my first print.) They leave the class imagining the possibilities."

Update

Will Wright wrote:

What happened to the Baker's Dozen 'It Must Be Color?' did I miss something?

There are more than 200 entries to sort and sift. Sorry for the delay—I've been a bit sidelined by a surprisingly persistent virus that's been hanging on and on. A few days ago I had to take not one but two naps, and that after a good night's sleep! I've been in very good spirits, though, I must say.

Coming along sometime soon....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Panasonic GX9 Arrives

My good buddy Gordon Lewis likes to joke that when I'm 90 and on my deathbed, I'll read about the introduction of an upcoming camera, croak "That's it! Just what I wanted! Finally!"—and then expire.

Yes, Gordon is a wiseass. "Sardonic"* would be the real English word.

New Panasonic GX9, with the kit lens it will be bundled with at first

The new Panasonic GX9, hastened to market to combat the mostly unfair but still lingering charges of "shutter shock" leveled against the GX8 (now $848 in the less popular silver color), has just been announced.

It's a curious pastiche of existing and past models, betokening a further morphing of the Panasonic lineup, which changes as often as the platforms of political parties.

The GX8 was positioned as the "top stills camera," the GH5 being the top video camera.

But now, the new G9 has taken its place as the top stills camera. (And the GH5s has arrived as an alt-GH5.)

So then where does the GX8 lineage go?

Apparently, the GX85 (GX80 in Europe) and GX8 lines are being merged, and the new GX9 is now being positioned as the "top street-shooting camera"—a light, handy, slimmed-down and pared-down rangefinder-styled ILC without all the bells and whistles and extreme features of the G9.

So the GX9 is not a GX8 II—it's a mashup (the real word is "amalgamation," but I'm trying to be hip) of the existing GX85 and GX8.

Current GX85 vs. GX8. The new GX9 is almost exactly the size
of the camera on theleft, within a few millimeters in every
dimension. Comparison from Camerasize.com.

The GX8 got blowback for being too large (I thought it was perfect, but I have biggish hands), so the new GX9 is much closer in size to the smaller GX85 (or the older GX7). The deep handgrip is now optional—the camera has a slight vestigial bump of a grip molded in, but there will be an add-on handgrip offered separately.

The articulating video-shooter's screen has been replaced with a flip-up viewing screen, often preferred by street shooters. (And by me.)

However, the 90° tilting eye-level VF, Dual I.S., and 20.3-MP sensor have all been retained from the GX8. Of course it'll have the shutter from the GX85, so no more talk of "shutter shock."

Screenshot from Wex Camera video showing the tilting viewfinder and flip-up
screen, the two features I personally most wanted in a GX8 successor.

About the only misstep from the point of view of the model's stated purpose is that it's not weatherproof, something street shooters might have appreciated. But oh well. Street shooters do tend to shoot out of small shoulder bags, generally. Or just keep large Ziploc baggies in their back pockets for when they get caught in the rain.

And it's going to be priced lower than the GX8, too—initially, $999 with its 12–60mm kit lens, which probably means $799 or less when the camera is eventually offered body-only. (If it ever is. Panasonic likes to sell you a lens with its lesser bodies. I assume the kit lens is optimized for the Dual I.S., something not all Panasonic's lenses are.) A large rubber eyepiece and deep add-on handgrip are accessories.

So, Gordon, does this mean I'm about to kick the bucket?

Nah, I think I'll stick around. I would enjoy this.

Available in March.

Mike
(Thanks to John Ironside and, he said sardonically, Gordon)

*Disdainfully or skeptically humorous: derisively mocking (Webster's).

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Anders Holt: "Still prefer the Olympus Pen-F.  ;-)  "

Mike replies: Understandable. It doesn't give up much if anything to this new one, save perhaps the tiltable EVF. I've been more of a Panasonic fan since the GF1, though.

Gordon Lewis: Don't worry, Mike. According to the grim scenario I so puckishly portrayed, your passing on to The Other Side will be imminent only when you believe that such as thing as 'the perfect camera' has been introduced at last. As long as you continue to believe that your creator has a master plan to deny you said camera, you may live forever."

Mike replies: In that case, I'll continue to find something wrong with every camera that comes along.  :-)

Andrew Molitor: "I now imagine a camera company executive, once trivially slighted by Mike, driving his team to create the perfect camera with the express intent of hastening the death of his hated enemy. He pets his cat and grates out, 'No. Smaller. And it has to be black-and-white only. Sooooon. Soooooon my precious.'"

Frank Mueller: "In Japan it will be called GX7 Mark III, just like the GX80/GX85 was called the GX7 Mark II. A clear sign of heritage. Too bad...I was hoping for a GX8 with 5-axis stabilization and G9 tiltable EVF :-) ...let's wait for the GX10. :-D "

Mike replies: Won't that just be a GX7 Mark IV? I should have pointed out, very mournfully, that the GX8 is...so far...orphaned, just as I feared. Alas, GX8, we hardly knew ye.

Kalli: "I joked earlier today about Panasonic just launching new camera models to spite me. That since I bought the G80 at a very attractive price last summer, before an upcoming trip, because I reasoned that a 20-MP Micro 4/3 camera suitable for me and at a suitable price wouldn't show up for a good while. Then the GX9 arrives. And Panasonic is indeed just doing this to spite me. Not weather sealed? Regrettable, but not a deal breaker. Not an articulated rear display, but one that flips? No big deal. I could go on, but after reading about half a page on DPReview's first impressions article I came across the words 'field sequential.' Field sequential EVF. Never mind. Not interested anymore. [Here's a poll asking whether photographers have been bothered by effects from field sequential EVFs. —Ed.]

"I do agree with you regarding the size. The battery capacity looks to be way down, too, which is another strike against it. That accessory grip looks nice, but Olympus and Panasonic need to stop making stupid (non-battery) grips that block battery access. I mean, is that just bad engineering or is it some sort of a Leica fetish? Also, regarding the shutter unit in the GX9, it has a higher X-sync speed than the electromagnetic shutter unit in the GX80 and G80."

Sigma's New Ultra-Wide-Angle High-Speed Zoom

Sigma's new 14–24mm ƒ/2.8 DG HSM Art lens, just announced

I've been trying to think*...in all my former years as a CLN (certified lens nut) I don't think I ever once used or tried a true ultra-wide-angle zoom. The closest I ever came was a AF-Nikkor 24–50mm (1987–94) that I owned only briefly. In those days, 24mm was considered the gateway, the high end, of the "ultra" wide angle category, and "normal" zooms that went all the way to 24mm at the wide end were rare. (Of course, in those olden days, too, Sigma was the only lens brand I felt secure in making fun of. Its products were cheap, all right, but brother, were they cheap.)

Now 24mm can be at the top end—the narrower angle—of zoom ranges. The newest Sigma Art lens is something at which to marvel. Not only is it of a specification that would have seemed impossible those few decades ago, but Sigma already has a 12–24mm ƒ/4 lens in its lineup.

Sigma 12–24mm ƒ/4 DG HSM Art lens

And that estimable lens weighs two and a half pounds and costs $1,600. Yet Sigma felt for some reason that it needed a one stop faster alternative that weighs the same and costs...what? Hasn't been announced yet. Fourteen millimeters at the wide end as opposed to 12mm is apparently the technical cost of that additional stop.

Who needs the new lens? What additional purpose does it serve? A hint might be in the fact that, for an additional charge, Sigma will remove the petal lens hood and replace it with a circular lens shade that doesn't shade, as seen in the picture up top. The press release states:

Front Mount Conversion Service for Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art
Addressing the rising popularity of multi-camera productions, especially using ultra wide-angle lenses in shooting virtual reality (VR) content, Sigma has introduced its Front Conversion Service. Converting the petal-type hood of the 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art to an exclusive round component allows for the lens to be used in various VR scenarios without the risk of interfering with other lenses in the VR rig or undesired shadows in the content.

The availability of this fee-based service for Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 Art will be announced at a later date.

I'm going to pretend I know what that means, even though I don't. (I'm tryin' to think!) I had not heretofore been apprised of the rising popularity of multi-camera virtual-reality shooting. It is apparently a thing.

Nikon has a stalwart in the pro-oriented AF-Nikkor 14–24mm ƒ/2.8G ED, same spec as the new Fuji, for a cool $1,900 (a pro price, too). Doubtless it is the target of the new Sigma. Canon brackets the Nikon's spec, with the less expensive EF 16–35mm ƒ2.8L II and the more expensive and even more radical EF 11–24mm ƒ/4L USM, which, at $3k, wins "coolest overall UWA"—although it's on sale right now for $300 off. I think I'd own that one just for bragging rights and that awesome semi-hemispheric globule of gorgeous glass at the business end. The UWA zoom for Micro 4/3 that I've heard friends (well, just one friend, Ken) extol is the Panasonic G Vario 7–14mm (14–28mm-e) ƒ/4 ASPH. And Fuji has the XF 10-24mm (15–36mm-e) ƒ/4 R OIS, although I don't think I've ever heard anyone say so much as a peep about that.

Front view of the Canon 11–24mm. Surrender Dorothy.

Clearly, though, the WA zoom category is one which has seen major improvements in recent decades. Improvements in CAD programs, glass types, and production methods are making possible lenses that not long ago would have seemed like fantasy. And from Sigma, even, which is now a very different company than it once was, competing head to head, as it now does, with the world's best makers.

Mike

*Curly of the Three Stooges: "I'm tryin' to think...but nothing happens!" Winnie the Pooh: "Think...think...think...."

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Bruce: "I took the 9–18mm Olympus to Everest Base Camp last year—light and sharp and relatively cheap. Before the trip, I didn't think I'd use it that much, but EXIF files show it shot 60% of my Micro 4/3 pix. For my real estate shoots back home the Canon 10–18 ƒ/4.5–5.6 is remarkably good on my 7D, and is cheap and light. Lightroom has profiles to automatically correct the (relatively high) distortion, and at ƒ/8 it is terrifically sharp. If you want to go wild with Micro 4/3, try the manual focus 7.5mm ƒ/3.5 Fisheye. Very sharp, even wide open. And one of Sigma's profiles in Lightroom corrects the fisheye distortion to linear superwide quite well for small blowups. All the above are cheap, effective products to enter the wild wonderful wide-angle world."

Speed: "Several years ago I was between planes at Chicago O'Hare when a professional-photographer-looking-man and an official-United-Airlines-looking-man walked up to the gate. I asked the photographer-looking-man who he was shooting for. The New York Times. I was impressed. I asked what lens he was using (on his Canon camera). 16–35mm ƒ/2.8. Why not the less expensive 17–40mm ƒ/4, I asked. Because I need the extra stop, he said, in a tone that told me the conversation was over.

"He then turned into a chimpanzee jumping from seat to seat, standing on seat backs taking high angle shots of people streaming off the airplane on their way to Thanksgiving turkey. The official-United-Airlines-looking-guy looked on. He'd seen it before. I still have my 17–40mm ƒ/4. I don't work for the New York Times. I don't need the extra stop."

Richard Jones: "Re 'Clearly, though, the WA zoom category is one which has seen major improvements in recent decades': You can include Sony's FE 12–24mm ƒ/4 G.

12mm is wonderful for tight spots indoors:

And outdoors, here in the Sequoia National Forest, California:

Moose: "Re 'The UWA zoom for Micro 4/3 that I've heard friends (well, just one friend, Ken) extol is the Panasonic G Vario 7–14mm (14–28mm-e) ƒ/4 ASPH.'

"As is common in Micro 4/3 land, there are multiple AF choices from the two major makers. The Panny 7–14mm ƒ/4 is an older design, using 16 elements, only a few of which are 'exotic.'

"The Oly 7–14mm ƒ/2.8, a recent design, uses only 14 elements, most of which are 'exotic' and more size, weight and dosh for the greater speed.

"Even newer is the PanaLeica 8–18mm ƒ/2.8-4.

"The venerable Oly 9–18mm ƒ/4–5.6 rounds out the pack, trading width of coverage and speed for tiny and light.

"It's hard to visualize sizes from specs. Camerasize.com to the rescue, sorta; they only show collapsible lenses collapsed—and that's one of my points. So, I've cobbled a 9–18mm opened up at 9mm into their comparison.

"As you can see, although lighter and thinner, the Oly is actually longer in use than the 7–14mms and 8–18mm.

"I've never liked Oly's manually collapsible lenses, as they have a fussy little slide lock on the side to collapse them. Panny's 12–32mm and 35–100mm are much nicer, with just a stiff detent to avoid accidental closing.

"I used the 9–18mm a fair amount, 378 shots in the first year, 2013, but it has languished with little use since. A general switch to stitched panoramas for wide landscape is a factor, but the ergonomics just don't suit me; nice to pack, less than ideal in use.

"I've been pleased so far with my recently acquired 7–14mm ƒ/4 Panny. Eleven of the photos (58%) in this little gallery are with it. Only time will tell how much I use it."

John Camp: "Let me add to your friend Ken's extolment of the Panny 7–14mm. I use it quite a lot, but not for serious photographic work (although I use it for serious stuff—research on the appearance of certain scenes that will show up in my novels.) I've had wide zooms before, but not one so light (it's heavy for Micro 4/3, but not, you know, fundamentally heavy.) It shows far less distortion than my earlier extra-wides, and is quite sharp."

Carl: I'll add a note in praise of the 7–14mm ƒ/4 Lumix lens. I've never made friends with zoom lenses in general but this one has proved incredibly useful to me and delivers excellent optical results. It balances well on small Micro 4/3 cameras though I prefer to use it on a tripod as a sort of technical rig. I bought it to use on my drive-in theater road trip several years ago. I just checked, and in the tight edit web gallery of one digital capture each from 107 theaters, 81 of them were shot with the 7–14mm. Recently I've been using it as the primary lens for a 'four seasons' series of pictures at a nearby forest preserve. I've printed an autumn portfolio of these as 11" platinum/palladium prints and viewers have been amazed to learn the pictures began as small format digital captures. In the right situations this type of lens can be extremely useful, though for general walkabout-style shooting I still prefer a set of primes."

Steve Caddy: "At the risk of telling you something you already know, the round hood is for people using a rig of multiple cameras, set up to capture a 360° spherical image. Software places the user in the middle of this ‘photosphere’, projecting an offset version into each eye, producing the illusion of being enveloped in a three dimensional environment. The reason the round hood is important is so that the cameras can be clustered close together without getting each other in frame, which would produce strange shadows in the final photosphere. Other VR techniques include mapping the environment using a 3D scanner and texturing that 3D model of the world with photographic 'texture.'"

Geoff Wittig: "The logical target market for this lens may be folks taking photographs of the night sky, like those cool images of the Milky Way against a dramatic foreground landscape. For this a lens basically can't be too fast or too wide. An ƒ/2.8 lens cuts the exposure time in half compared to ƒ/4, so movement of stars is reduced commensurately as is sensor noise.

"I will readily confess that my skill with super-wide optics leaves a lot to be desired. I just seem to 'see' more like 80–150 mm or so. Most of the photos I've taken with Canon's 16–35mm ƒ/2.8 are, well, awful. But a few are among the best pictures I've ever taken, so I keep dragging it with me everywhere I go, hoping the lightning might strike again."

Photographers Like Light

...And Daylight Saving (not "savings") Time begins only one more month from now, on March 11th! Yay, I say.

Early risers might not like that, but only a quarter of us, roughly, are "larks" who are early to bed and early to rise. For those of us who sleep a little later, additional daylight later in the day is a plus without an offsetting disadvantage.

Sunset is already an hour later than it was at its earliest on and around December 8th of last year. The dark days of Winter are lifting in the Northern hemisphere. Spring, although far from here, is coming.

I like this time of year. It feels...hopeful, somehow.

Mike

P.S. Wikipedia relates the preposterous fact that DST was first proposed by a single fellow, an entomologist from New Zealand who wanted more daylight hours in the evenings to collect insects. Its first major proponent in England wanted more light in the evening to play golf. I'm not making that up. The reason for its adoption in the U.S. is more pedestrian and practical...it saves energy (or at least it did then), and, although it certainly existed earlier, it got firmly established here in the 1970s following the energy crisis of that decade.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

David B: "And then there is Arizona which stays on Mountain Standard Time (MST) year round—except for the Navajo Nation which uses MST and MDT. The downside of year-round MST in Arizona is that sunrise occurs around 5:15 a.m. in the summer. The blue and golden hour come much too early in the morning! Evenings are okay...."

Bill Tyler: "Speed's comment about the complexities of time for computers is well taken. Here's a link to just a little of the tech info. As one example of the evils of DST, consider the poor innocent who tries to compute the duration of some task. He/she reads the clock at the beginning and end of the task, and subtracts the two times, right? Well, what if DST transitioned in the middle. The task might have taken an hour less than the computation, or the computed value might even be negative! There are numerous examples in the computer literature of serious errors that came about because of flawed assumptions about time.

"Not DST related, but time related, is the rare occurrence that happened in the year 2000. Years divisible by four are leap years, except if they fall on a century year such as 1900, except if they fall on a century year divisible by 400 such as 2000. So we had a leap year not for the usual reason, but for a reason two steps removed from the usual one. And then there are leap seconds...."

Phil: "In 1954 I was in the Army in Indianapolis. The Met was performing at the University of Indiana in Bloomington, so a friend and I decided to drive down for the 8 p.m. performance. When we got there, we found we were two hours early, because Bloomington was CDT...one hour for different zone and one hour because we were on DST and Bloomington was on standard time. It was a four-hour opera, so we didn't start home until about 2 a.m. our time, with a two hour drive ahead of us."

Patrick Dodds: "Can. Worms. Opened."

Clayton: "Someone said that DST helped them discover a way to avoid cold feet while sleeping. They cut a bit off the top of the blanket and sewed it onto the bottom."