The Online Photographer

Open Mike: Culture is Ever-Changing (Self Portraits)

["Open Mike" is the often off-topic Editorial Page of TOP, in which Yr. Hmbl. Ed. is sometimes forced to come up to 2025, despite the fact that, for him, not only was 2001 in the future, but 1984 was too. He actually loves being a geezer, but for that whole "death getting closer" deal. Otherwise, being an old guy is da bomb (<—very dated expression that Ed. imagines is still hip.) "Open Mike" appears on Sundays, when Ed. remembers.]

Luke (who was the self-described "lab drudge" at the original Imaging-Resource website for a dozen years, when it was the main competition for the original DPReview) wrote a fascinating comment here a day or two ago. He mentioned a number of new terms that have become current since I personally kinda stopped paying so much attention*. This is fun stuff, so let me just go down the list briefly:

Reverse selfie: If most of the pictures you take are selfies, featuring yourself mugging for the camera in a variety of settings and with a variety of people, pets, food, swag, etc., then the opposite might become a whole new category; a reverse selfie is, as Luke wrote, when you "aim the camera AWAY from yourself." What a concept—a picture in which my I doth not appear? 

I remember when most photographs—the overwhelming majority—were actually all reverse selfies! So much that we didn't even have the term "selfie." Imagine. (I'm being arch**.) We used the more formal term "self-portrait" then, and it was a perfectly honorable genre, albeit probably not something that most people would make a whole project out of, let alone a whole career. At least, until Cindy Sherman came along and owned it. (She still owns it, smartphone selfies aside.) The peripatetic Lee Friedlander, who I've called the most important American photographer (or shall we say the quintessential, to avoid the value judgement) of the second half of the 20th century, did a whole book called Self Portrait. Lee's self-portraits, however, don't convey classical little-n narcissism and self-love (Ye, formerly known as Kanye, and who now wants to be known as Ye Ye, has a line in one of his raps about how "people be snapping my angles"), but rather the strangeness of inhabiting a body and the extent to which our observing consciousness is alienated from it.  

(The 1970 original of Self Portrait is unobtanium, and the 1998 Second Edition is getting expensive. I'd recommend the updated version, from Yale, which has a great many more photographs. Strangely, no other self-portrait projects are coming to mind for me here.)

I had to do a self-portrait as a school assignment at the Corcoran, and I wish I could put my hands on it to show you. It was not very good. Not very creative, either. And not my thing—definitely. Like a lot of photographers of my era, I don't like having my picture taken. I'm all into the reverse selfies and what they can tell me about the look of the world when the camera is pointed outward.

Actually, reverse selfies contain a lot about the photographer even thought he or she is not in the picture. You'd never look at a Michael Kenna and think it was a Helmut Newton, or a Helmut Newton and think it was an Ernst Haas. But no hate to those whose thing is exploring the look of themselves; it's a perfectly legitimate thing and I'd look at it as soon as I'd look at any other thing. I'd love to see some curated, deliberate, consciously-made bodies of work of smartphone selfies by persons of artistic temperament and skill. 

I once tried to recreate this Lee Friedlander self-portrait using myself. I thought it would be easy. It was not easy. I did not get close. I also mailed him a letter and offered to trade prints, one of mine for one of this. I have not heard back yet, but he has only had about 32 years to consider my offer. I think I ought to give him a few more years.

Handheld tripod: A.k.a. a selfie stick. (I heard once of a little kid calling it a "selfish stick," which maybe isn't too far off base.) While not unknown in days of old, when it would more likely be called a handgrip tripod or just a grip, the term divorces "tripod" from its meaning as a three-legged stand that sits on the ground, and hangs on to its meaning as something attached to a camera that puts the camera at a location in space where you want it to be. My only question would be, why the newer term when "selfie stick" already serves the need? But that kind of rational consideration is not always how culture works.

Lens filter: A filter made of glass, usually colored, that actually physically screws or clips on to the lens. Because as everyone knows, a filter is a digital preset that you apply to a file to give it a predetermined look or to create a particular effect. If you used the word "filter" to describe a glass screw-on filter, people might misunderstand. Hence lens filter.

2D printing: This one really floored me! Am I behind the times. But it is instantly obvious what it means and why it exists. Since AI is not copyrighted (having no conscious human creator), I believe I can reproduce this here. Just the first sentence would be enough, but it's all pretty amazing:

AI Overview
2D printing is the process of creating two-dimensional images or text on a flat surface, typically paper. It involves using a printer to deposit ink or other materials onto a substrate, resulting in a flat, visual representation. Common examples include printing documents, photos, or artwork on paper using inkjet or laser printers.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Two-Dimensional: 2D printing creates images or text that exist only on a plane, lacking depth or volume.

Flat Surface: The process typically involves printing on a flat surface like paper, but can also include other materials like fabric or film.

Ink or Material Deposition: Printers use various methods to deposit ink or other materials, such as inkjet sprays, laser toner, or other specialized processes.

Examples: 2D printing is used for a vast array of applications, including:

• Documents: Printing reports, letters, and other textual information.
• Artwork: Creating prints of paintings, drawings, and photographs.
• Labels and Packaging: Printing product information, barcodes, and designs.
• Signage: Producing posters, banners, and other signage materials.
• Publications: Printing books, magazines, and newspapers.

Relationship to 3D Printing: 2D printing is fundamentally different from 3D printing, which creates three-dimensional objects by layering materials.

I love that it doesn't even bother mentioning under "other specialized processes" that you can create a 2D print on light-sensitive paper by projection. Perhaps because that's so 1870s. And I especially love that last bit—having to specify that 2D printing is different from 3D printing. I've written many times about the amorphous interrelationships and ambiguities involved in all the "print" words, noun "verse" verb, print, printer, printmaker, printing, printmaking. This new thing adds to the happy melée in a way that, perhaps opposite from what you might expect, delights me.

So there, that's your dispatch*** from the former future on a halcyon Sunday in June. How come nobody's written a book called 2084 or 2054?

Mike

*In the 1970s, in the suburb of Bayside, Wisconsin, there was a guy in his 50s who tried way too hard to act like he was in his 20s. He dressed like a Bee Gee, down to the gold chains and white bell bottoms, and drove a white Corvette Stingray T-top. I actually heard him say "hey hey hey" to one of the girls from my high school, which was as much a cliché as a dog peeing on a fire hydrant. I decided then and there that I would not grow up to pretend too hard that I was younger than I was. It's a mark of respect to young people for older people to go ahead and act their age. In my very humble opinion.
**Adjective, meaning 2: "Marked by a deliberate and often forced playfulness, irony, or impudence." (Merriam-Webster.)
***Younger readers are going, "What." And older readers are going, "Wow."

Original contents copyright 2025 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

B&H BILD Show Report

Words and pictures by John Camp

The B&H Photo BILD expo was held in Javits Center in Manhattan on June 17–18, and I happened to be in the city for an unrelated event. With a couple of free hours on the 18th, I hotfooted over to the show—literally hotfooted it, on a morning too warm and muggy be walking around with a camera bag on your shoulder.

The nut graf: Was it worth it? Oh, yes. Not only was there everything on display that you could ever imagine, there was lots of stuff I couldn’t even identify, although there were crowds everywhere, looking and working with the stuff I couldn’t identify.

The doors opened at 9:30, and since I had something to do at one o’clock that I couldn’t skip, I arrived at about 9:35. I got in the door, and got my name tag, but that was as far as I got: the show itself actually opened at ten o’clock, and I was at the back of a crowd that numbered in the many hundreds, lined up outside the interior entrance, and by the time I got in, there were more hundreds behind me.

Once inside, I expected the show-goers would be mostly male, but that wasn't the case; both sexes were amply represented, along with people of all races, ages, and tech preferences, and most of them were wearing cameras bags or carrying cameras. I don’t actually remember being at another event with such cultural diversity. Everything from rednecks to blue suits, with a solid representation of the orthodox Jewish community, whose members include the owners of B&H. The Javits Center is a huge space, and the BILD took up most of two floors.

Biggest crowd overall at a manufacturer’s stand was probably at Nikon, although Canon, Sony, Panasonic and OM also had big displays. The Leica display was modest, but the small stand had a constant attendance, enough that I couldn’t get right up to it. I didn’t see anything really new and significant from those manufacturers. I asked two separate Nikon guys if they had any information about a possible Z7III, and both said, “No information on that.”

The Fuji display. X-E5 tables.

The most intense crowd was probably at Fuji’s large stand, where numerous examples of their new X-E5 were on the tables and available to handle. A Fuji guy told me that the camera would be released in late August, that he expected that it should be released in reasonable numbers—that he didn’t think we would get hung up on insufficient supply, as people have been with the scarce X100VI. I asked him to promise that, but he just smiled. There is a current controversy about pricing on the X-E5—it’s about twice as expensive on release as was the X-E4, and substantially more expensive in the U.S. than in other countries, with at least some of the price hike attributed to the new tariffs. The Fuji guy told me the camera was manufactured in Japan, partly as a way to reduce the price (tariffs on China-made goods are higher for the time being than Japan-made).

X-E5 on left, X-T5 on right. The X-E5 will come
in both chrome and black.

I was impressed enough that I made an on-the-spot decision to buy the X-E5 when it arrives. I currently own two X-T5s, and he told me the guts were similar (same 40-MP sensor.) For me, the selling point was really the size. The X-E5 is remarkably smaller than a X-T5, which is itself a small camera, but the X-E5 still handles reasonably well. (Emphasis on the “reasonably.” I suspect it will be too small for many people.) This thing is small for a full-featured ILC, and with the 23mm (35 equiv.) pancake lens, probably would fit in a pocket, though I had no appropriate pockets with which to try that. In my view, it’s a total, and more desirable, replacement for the X100VI.

The Chinese companies Viltrox and 7Artisans had their lenses on display, and I was surprised both by the range of lenses and by their apparent enthusiastic audiences. I had a brief conversation with a 7Artisans sales guy that left me with the impression these lenses might be well worth trying out.

Judging from the BILD displays, it's possible that we have reached Peak Bag. There were bags by Lowepro/Manfrotto, Pelikan, Gura Gear, Peak Design, Brevite, Swiss Design, PGYTECH, ThinkTank, Tenba, Wandrd, Nomatic, Shimoda, Nanuk and probably more, and as often happens, they seemed to be converging on design and materials. Quite a few of them seemed very well made (and a couple didn’t.) I was carrying an old ThinkTank that apparently isn’t made any more, and which looks like a copy of a Domke; a guy I didn’t know admired the bag, and thought it was a Domke, and when I said it wasn’t, but I wondered if Domke was at the show, he said, yes, he’d seen them, but I never did find their stand.

For me personally, the most amazing things I saw at the show were the Epson large format color prints. Amazing is most of what I have to say about them: they were. I mean, eyelashes that printed out several times the size of real eyelashes, but with perfect sharpness. The only thing I didn’t like was that their display samples were in such wild color that they didn’t look real. A quiet, foggy Suffolk landscape would have been nice. Speaking of which, Hahnemuhle had their printing papers on display, with an interesting range of effects provided by the varying surfaces. Impossible to write about, though.

Guy who posed for me with a 600mm Nikon lens.
Just a guy, not a Nikon guy.

The next most amazing things were the Nikon super-telephotos, which show-goers were allowed to handle, amazing to me because I’d never had my hands on one before. Eight hundred millimeters, and not nearly as heavy as you’d think, though I suspect they’d be a really crappy lens for street photography.

Lots and lots of lighting equipment from all the usual companies.

SmallRig was there with a plethora of gadgetry, most of it probably useful. They may be the most innovative camera-accessory company right now. Peak Design was showing bags and straps, good, innovative stuff that I saw copied in some ways by other manufacturers.

Winner of saddest booth: Kodak. Tiny point-and-shoots with almost nobody looking at them. A way to get the telephone off your camera….

Lots and lots and lots of video gear, and lots and lots and lots of equipment for manipulating videos. I don’t do video, so I didn’t know anything about it. From watching people talking about it, and handling it, I came away with the impression that you could make a full-scale, in-theater movie with the gear being shown. Nikon had a Red section.

A guy was selling a complicated machine (for around $3,000) called the Film Toaster for transferring film negatives to digital, apparently using your own DSLR. Interesting, but I think Kirk Tuck has figured out how to do it for $12.15, if you bring your own camera.

James Currie, birder, giving a birding talk

The show also featured individual speakers for various companies, some of the talks pretty good, some not. Familiar names like Scott Kelby, Peter McKinnon, Chris Niccolls of PetaPixel, and so on. Some booths had models, but few people seemed to be paying attention to them—the speakers were much more of an attraction.

Model; note the guy with a long lens

There were speakers on bird and landscape photography, wildlife in general, night photography, on Lightroom and storytelling, using drones, filmmaking both in the artistic and business perspectives, fine art black-and-white, portrait lighting and light painting, etc. At least a hundred topics—the stuff you can see on YouTube, but in person. Most disregarded speaker, as far as I could tell, was one who gave basic photography lessons, like what ISO is, the exposure triangle, and so on. If there was anybody in the place who didn’t know that stuff, they’d wandered in by mistake.

Overall? The show was reminiscent of a county fair for photographers of all kinds. And somehow, the whole show gave off a photographic vibe. There’s a look to photographers—practical clothing, practical shoes, practical hats, things you can get dirty and throw in a washing machine—along with an intense interest in imaging of one kind of another.

The show is well worth going to, if you happen to be in Manhattan next year when it’s going on. And worth traveling for, if you’re a pro with a tax deduction.

John

Longtime reader John Camp, who lives in New Mexico, is a former reporter. He shoots Nikon and Fuji, and writes thriller novels under the pen name John Sandford.

Original contents copyright 2025 by John Camp. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Elesh: "I arrived the first day at 10:30 for an 11 a.m. session and the line outside for those registered and with a QR Code stretched around the Javits Center in a double row. My impression of attendance was in the thousands. In the 11 a.m. Lightroom session, people filled every available space. The next day, Joe McNally's lighting session had to turn away people for lack of space. The size of the crowd in the vendor area made movement difficult. When I left at 2, many were still filing in. If one was unclear about the dramatic effect of social media on the market for cameras, video, audio, and related equipment, BILD was an education."

Scott Parsons: "This sounds exactly like the PMA shows of the '80s and '90s that I attended. Lots of excitement around new products. The memories come flooding back."

Tom Burke: "I used to go to the equivalent shows in the UK, but gave up nearly 10 years ago—there was just too much concentration on very expensive hardware.

"This year I weakened and went to The Photography & Video Show, at London's Excel Centre. I made a point of not visiting the major manufacturers' stands. The camera I already have is beyond my capabilities to use it to its fullest, so there's no point in thinking about another one. And the price of new lenses to fit the new mirrorless mounts continues to rise.

"Instead I looked for the small and interesting booths, also just chatting to the people working at them. I found two that impressed me and ended up buying from both of them. One was PlatyPOD, which makes a range of small accessories for small cameras and smartphones: two low-level tripod replacements, a ball head, and various other things. There I met Larry and (I think) his wife, the designers and founders. PlatyPOD is a US-based company but they decided that this show was worth crossing the Atlantic to attend. Their small booth did seem to be quite busy, and they seemed to be doing good business. I'm pleased with the equipment I bought from them.

"The other was Adaptalux, a macro lighting system. Again, the booth was staffed by the company's founder and product designer, and I was impressed enough to buy a starter kit.

"These shows are probably the only way that an ordinary photographer can get to meet these interesting and enterprising people. I think I'll go again next year."

Chris: "This was a great show and it was a return to the size of the pre-COVID PhotoExpo. The attendance was very good. My impression is that people were delighted to effectively have PhotoExpo back after a four-year gap. There was a BILD in 2024, but that just wetted the appetite for something altogether more impressive. It was very good to see all the major brands represented, including Chinese brands such as TTArtisans and Laowa. It was impressively well organized and I give credit to B&H, obviously combined with a professional meeting organizer. This was a meeting that I found quite interesting to photograph too. The range of people attending was impressive. As so often, I remain astonished at the expensive equipment many young creators tote about. Clearly some must be doing well, but many I assume have easy access to credit. From my perspective I will be attending next year. I attended PhotoExpo for 10 years, so it was great to have BILD to replace it."

World Photograph Production Will Surpass Two Trillion for the First Time in 2025

Tha-tha-tha-that's a lot of pictures: A site called PhotoTutorial has published some estimates of how many photographs its writer thinks have been taken or will be taken this year. The site is light on sources, and I assume some sources might also have originated as broad estimates, so I assume that many of these numbers are very approximate at best. Keeping that in mind, they're still fun.

The total number of images projected to be taken this year is estimated to surpass two trillion for the first time. Guys like me like to keep their finger on the pulse of what's happening, but at more than 61,000 images per second, it's starting to make it difficult to keep up with all of them.

The percentage of images taken with smartphones has reached 94%, the highest ever. (Meanwhile, the AI technology for creating photo-like graphic images capable of fooling people is improving by leaps and bounds, raising the reasonable assumption that someday, a large majority of the trillions of photographs taken won't even be, um, photographs. So there's that to consider as well. By some estimates, 90% of all online content will be AI-generated by the end of 2026. At that point, it all becomes a loop of irrelevance.)

People with iPhones take more pictures than people with Android phones. 

One in three pictures taken by people who are between the ages of 18 and 24 are selfies. Why? They do it because it raises their anxiety, lowers their self-confidence, and makes them feel unattractive. As an article at Inc. explains.

The entire article is fun, but, again, take the actual numbers with not just a grain of salt—take with a whole deer lick of salt, would be my personal recommendation. 

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Luke: "Re trillions of selfies, you can see where the term 'reverse selfie' comes from (i.e., aim the camera away from yourself.) Also handheld tripod (selfie stick), and lens filter (as opposed to electronic distortion). Then, there's 2D printing..."

Ronny Nilsen: "Re 'By some estimates, 90% of all online content will be AI-generated by the end of 2026. At that point, it all becomes a loop of irrelevance.' One of the best descriptions of where AI is taking us that I have read. AI can not be creative or create new content, it's just stochastic prediction of what to say/do next based on previous content and existing material."

Mike adds: At some point it will just be eating itself.

Ed Hawco: "At this point taking photographs is on par with writing words in terms of the pointlessness of counting them. How many trillion word are written every day, from grocery lists to scratching down phone messages to entering text into Google searches? I venture to guess that an awful lot of those trillions of photos are about as consequential as these word examples. Maybe we should mentally separate and dismiss those transient and inconsequential photos the same way we do with transient and inconsequential words.

"Maybe the only words and photos we should think about are the ones done deliberately and mindfully, such as love letters, blog posts, magazine articles (and shared selfies, portraits, travel and memory keepsakes, 'fine art,' etc.)."

Michael Newsom: "And many of those selfies and pictures of what I ate for dinner are posted on the Cloud and are a terrible waste of energy and computing resources."

Eric Rose: "We call that kind of estimate SWAG: Scientific Wild Assed Guess."

New Sigma Lens: The ART 17-40mm f/1.8

The new Sigma ART 17–40mm ƒ/1.8 DC was introduced at 1:00 a.m. this morning. It harkens back to the early days of zooms, when many zooms had a range of only 2x. The range of this lens is only a little more at 2.35x. Generally when any lens has a distorted spec—weight and size, overlarge objective element, low range, high or low price, etc., it's a sign that some sort of special feature is present. The special feature of this lens is a fast constant maximum aperture. In a world where ƒ/2 zooms are still considered exotic (like the Canon RF 28–70mm ƒ/2L which is $300 off today and tomorrow in honor of B&H's Bild Show taking place at the Javits Center in NYC as we speak), the ƒ/1.8 maximum aperture of this lens is just that tiny bit faster. 

I question the cost of that. It's an APS-C lens, so the range is 25.5–60mm equivalent. Is that really a useful focal length range?

Slam it or tweak it
It seems to me there are two ways people tend to use zooms. One is where you use it as two lenses. For example, with a 28–85mm on 35mm, you slam it to 28mm when you need a wide angle of view, and wish it went a little wider; or, you slam it to 85mm when you need a telephoto angle of view, and wish it went a little longer. And you use it 80–90% of the time on those two extremes. Or, you use a zoom as an "adjustable normal," whereby you use a zoom lens somewhere in the middle of the range and adjust the zoom function to tailor it to the exact angle of view that you like best, then tweak it to purposes from there. That tends to be how I use zooms. Years ago, Pentax prototyped a lens with an exceedingly narrow range that was deliberately intended to be used that way, but I have a poor memory for numbers and forget the specs now. Hopefully Oracular Oren of Stately Oren Manor will chime in and provide, as he recalls all there is to recall and then a little bit more. The lens never saw production in any event. Although Pentax now has a beautiful 20–40mm (roughly 30–60mm-e) that seems intended to be used that way. 

YMMV, of course.

Slow lens fast
I also (perhaps I am in a contrarian mood today) somewhat question the need for speed. Despite the overpowering popularity of fast lenses now—everybody wants a brag-on lens—I have been photographing on FF with an ƒ/2.8 lens for some while now, and I can honestly say that I cannot remember even one time that I wished the lens was faster. I get the speed I need by ratcheting up the ISO a tad, and never have run out of room there either; ƒ/2.8 is the new ƒ/1.4 if you ask me. Of course I am now a fuddy-duddy, not a photo-ninja, so maybe YMMV there as well.

And I've said before that 60mm, or 60mm-e, is a particularly useless angle of view for me. It's simply a 50mm only worse. To me. When I say so, I hear from people who like and use that focal length. So they're out there. I still keep the Panasonic 12–35mm for Micro 4/3, even though it's been an age since I shot Micro 4/3, and even on that lens, the 70mm-e maximum range was a limitation. I've learned that I like a zoom that goes to at least 120mm-e on the long end for shooting with a zoom where I live now, where a lot of the pictures are farther away. The Panasonic-Leica Vario-Elmarit 12–60mm (24–120mm-e on Micro 4/3) seems perfect, although I have never owned it.

So it all depends on use-cases. Would you buy this lens? Would you try this lens?

Sigma ascendant
I'll bet it's yummy. I've become a big fan of Sigma. I keep kind of dreaming of a Leica SL3 with a set of Sigma Contemporary primes in L-mount. I don't need a camera like that, but the lack of any need or purpose has virtually never stopped me from dreaming about photography equipment. Cameras and especially lenses fire the endorphins for me, like gambling does for a gambling addict. I presume. I never gamble, except perhaps on life decisions. Bah-dum-pah.

The new Sigma ART costs $919, and comes in Fujifilm X, Canon RF, Sony E, and L-mount.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Dave: "Years ago, Pentax prototyped a lens with an exceedingly narrow range...." Wasn't it something like a 5–10mm range for that lens? (Just going from memory.) Found it here."

Mike replies: That's it. Can't believe I forgot that. The 35mm "Flexi," 33–39mm zoom.

hugh crawford: "These specs would have been really attractive for studio or location photography back when I was doing that sort of thing. You needed a constant aperture because you were using a bunch of pack and head strobes, and absolutely had to have all the exposures consistent because you were probably shooting E6. Moving around was probably difficult on location because there was stuff in the way, and in the studio moving around would get the set from the wrong angle or mess up the lighting so cropping in the camera was the thing, because E6 and art directors. Time was money, and literally if you had a few models. Rock stars and CEOs were even worse. Changing lenses meant that you had to do another clip test on the E6, and change lenses at the end of a roll or better yet have multiple bodies. I don't know if any of that applies today.

"Getting an acceptable 35mm Ectachrome for a printed page seems like crossing the Atlantic on a sailing ship these days."

Jim Simmons: "I shot a ton of architecture with a Pentax 55–100mm ƒ/4 zoom on a Pentax 67. That's a 27–50mm equivalent. Super sharp lens, not to mention huge and heavy. I probably did 90% of my architectural photography with that one lens. Oh, and it was perfectly rectilinear too, which was uncommon with zooms of that time. This Sigma feels like it could be a similarly useful lens."

ASW: "Regarding zoom lenses, I find that I'm a 'slammer' to the extremes with my telephoto zoom lenses, first a 70–210mm and later a 70–300mm, regardless of whether I was using them on my initial APS-C or later full-frame DSLR. Conversely, with my wider zoom lenses, first a combo of 12–24mm and 18–70mm DX lenses and later a combo of 18–35mm and 24–85mm FX lenses, I appreciate and utilize fine-scale adjustment for framing landscape photos and use the entire zoom range at relatively equal proportions."

Daniel: "This lens violates my sacred rule to always have the wrong lens on my camera at any given time."

Review and Recommendation: Fujifilm GFX100RF (Part 2)

Text and illustrations by Ken Tanaka

(Continued from Part I)

Notes and impressions

• The GFX100RF uses same NP-W235 battery as other current GFX cameras, as well as the X-T5. Note, however, that it does not come with a battery charger. (What'd you expect for $5,000?)
• File sizes and formats are the same as found on Fuji's GFX100s II. That is, they're quite large but normal for today's 100-MP medium-format-sensor cameras. For example, here are files recorded from the same scene in various in-camera formats:

Uncompressed raw: 200 MB
Compressed raw: 68 MB
Lossless raw: 112 MB
Super-Fine JPEG: 40 MB
Fine JPEG: 20 MB

• Autofocus on any medium-format digital camera today lags far behind the state-of-the-art "which eyelash do you want to follow on that gnat" tech that full-frame system users enjoy. That is, the GFX100RF's autofocus is basically the same as that of the GFX100s II; so-so. Definitely not best-suited for action. The old single-point technique will be your friend.
• Speaking of autofocus, the GFX100RF finally puts the focus mode selection switch in a saner place; on the back! (Unfortunately, this does not seem to be a prospectively permanent design choice. The newly-announced X-E5 features this switch in the usual obscure left-edge location.)

New sensibly-located focus mode switch!

• The Fujinon 35mm Aspherical ƒ/4 lens (28mm field of view in 35mm terms) is quite good, as you'd expect. It's sharp but can sometimes seem softish in the corners. I have not noticed significant falloff in the corners at ƒ/4. It has good contrast, good definition, and good flare resistance. I don’t think you’ll find much to complain about here.
• As a personal nitpick, the controls feel somewhat stiff to my hands. The dials feel just a bit hard to turn with my thumb and the joystick feels stiff and sharp to the touch. My thumb actually felt raw after a day of shooting. Your impression might be different.
• The GFX100RF, like Fuji’s other cameras, is designed to make the JPEG shooter feel right at home. A dedicated aspect ratio dial on the body's top-center edge, functionless when shooting raw, stands as a prime testament to that. As does the easily-accessed digital teleconverter lever that enables switching between various focal length frame crops. Fuji imagines that you're going to use a $5,000 medium-format camera to capture pre-cropped and pre-seasoned JPEG images. That's just fine of course. There's a great deal to recommend this shortened workflow for most avocational and personal work. But I wonder how many buyers plan to do that. It also seems somewhat at odds with the Capture One trial coupon included in the box.

Aspect ratio dial—only active during JPEG shooting

GFX100RF digital telephoto lever

So does the GFX100RF make sense?

Short answer: Not nearly as much as it could.

Fuji’s GFX100RF is a lovely camera that really wants to be your buddy in the same style as the X100 cameras. The in-hand feeling and control layouts of the cameras are largely the same. It’s thoughtfully designed, well-built and very consistent with Fuji’s other well-established, very successful camera models. There’s absolutely no question that a great many GFX100RF owners will be thrilled and use the camera productively for years. I heartily salute Fujifilms’s continuing design initiatives. They are true practical innovators who have persistently expanded and redefined photography for decades.

Unfortunately, to be honest—and I own all these cameras—the GFX100RF falls a bit short in value when measured against the small but established field of fixed-prime lens digital cameras. Yes, its 100-MP sensor gathers a great deal of data from that wide lens that can be severely cropped while retaining sufficient resolution for social media. (I call it "gillnet photography.") Maybe that represents value to you? But when the light gets low you're going to find it harder to capture sharp images with no IBIS and an ƒ/4 lens. A 100-MP medium-format sensor can be brutally honest and unforgiving of shake. Judged against alternatives, these shortcomings seem like miscalculations for a new camera aimed at the advanced amateur semi-pro market.

Frankly, for $5,000, and much less, there are better alternatives that can provide much stronger fixed-prime lens companion camera values. The first and best alternative that comes to my mind (from within Fujifilm's own stable) is the almighty X100 series of cameras. An X100 V or VI will give you the same retro gestalt, albeit at 40 MP, with a brighter (ƒ/2) lens, IBIS, tilting screen, same Fuji-style controls, etc. for a much lower price, even if inflated due to scarcity.

But if you’re already willing to spend $5,000 and really want the best image quality from a fixed-prime lens camera, why not spend just a bit more for a Leica Q3? It’s about the same size and weight as the GFX100RF and features a 60-MP full-frame sensor. With its excellent simple control system, IBIS, and a perhaps the best 28mm lens ever made (the 28mm ƒ/1.7 Summilux lens with a physical optical macro shift ring), the Q3 simply blows past the GFX100RF. Yes, a new Q3 will set you back over $6,700. But used, like-new Q3s are available at MPB and KEH for $5–6,000. It’s also worth noting that Leica cameras, in general, retain substantially higher resale values than more popular consumer brands. I believe I paid $5,900 for my Q3 when it was first introduced by Leica. Today I know I could sell it for nearly that same price on eBay. So, after all factors are considered, a Leica Q3 may very well be the stronger long-term value proposition for such a camera today.

Leica Q3 and Fujifilm GFX100RF

So should you consider buying the GFX100RF? It’s a seductive gadget with undeniable charms found only in the kinds of "classic" camera designs that Fujifilm has become well known for. It’s not really an exciting camera, but it can grow on you…like a companion. But it's also expensive. If you're in the market for a fixed-prime lens camera I highly suggest renting one for a week or two, if possible, before placing an order.

Ken Tanaka

Cameras mentioned in this post:

Fujifilm GFX100RF (currently out of stock)
Fujifilm X100 VI (currently out of stock) (Amazon)
Fujifilm X-T5 (back-ordered) (Amazon)
Fujifilm GFX100s II (back-ordered)
Fujifilm X-E5 (available for pre-order)
Leica Q3 (or Leica Q3 43)

Original contents copyright 2025 by Kenneth Tanaka. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Henry White: "Amused. The 'Veblen' Leica Q3 smoothly passes the non-Veblen medium-format Fuji GFX100RF for overall usability, quality, etc. And VALUE over time. With possibly the best 28mm lens in the world...

"From Ken: '... and a perhaps the best 28mm lens ever made (the 28mm ƒ/1.7 Summilux lens with a physical optical macro shift ring), the Q3 simply blows past the GFX100RF.' I think Ken got this all just right. I'm still on the Q2 and find it to be nearly perfect for wide angle (and 35mm) users. Value indeed."

Oharritz: "My impressions after two months' use:

"I got the GFX100RF one week after it was available. Before I bought it, I researched all available info on the net, watched all the (hyped) launch reviews, and checked all discussion forums I could find. For me, there were three things shaping my decision:

1. Size and weight: I usually bring two cameras on a trip. One ILC (GFX50sII or Nikon Z7II) in a backpack with several lenses. And one smaller camera in a small shoulder bag. The size and weight of the GFX100RF fits this purpose perfectly, and so far I have been very happy with this setup.
2. 28mm equivalent lens: I bought the GFX100RF mainly for landscapes. In the past five years, I have found that 28mm is my sweet spot for general landscape photography. And so far it has been perfect for this purpose. I found the lens on my copy is tack sharp, also in the corners, and even at ƒ/4. Could it be sharper? I don't know. But it's definitively sharp enough for me. Second use was for street photography. I also tend to like 28mm more and more for street. Additionally, the GFX100RF allows (extensive) cropping when shooting from the hip, in the cases where you're not getting the framing perfect.
3. 100-MP GFX quality ‘medium’ format sensor: With my GFX50sII as a reference, I knew that it would have impressive image quality.  So far, it has lived up to my expectations. And again, now in a small compact body with a great lens attached.

"My main complaint when using the GFX100RF for street is the false-positive Face/Eye detection. It will find the face/eye in the scene very quickly, but the recorded image is often sharp elsewhere (i.e., behind the person). I will say I have 30–40% false positives. This is in AFS mode. I have not yet tried to see if the success rate increases by using other modes.

"I also have a Nikon Z7II. In several cases, when I compared pictures, I preferred the image from GFX50sII, and now the GFX100RF. At times and in certain light conditions (i.e., sunsets) the GFX takes an image which is rendered with a remarkable tonality, something I do not see as impressively with the Nikon."

Open Mike: Biphasic, the Word of the Hour

["Open Mike" is the often off-topic, anything-goes Editorial Page of TOP, when Yr. Hmbl. Ed. nods off and allows a dreamlike state to intrude on his waking thoughts. It is supposed to appear on Sundays, and sometimes does.]

So far, I'm high on my new schedule. I love it.

Biphasic means "two phases." I've been getting up for four hours in the middle of every night. And during that time I do nothing but work on book projects. It's working great so far, although I'm still adjusting the rest of my day to the new schedule.

I'll tell you one thing—the middle period, between first sleep and second sleep, traditionally called the "watch," is great for writing. At 3:00 a.m., there are no lawnmowers or leafblowers, no chatty Cathys on the road out front talking loudly into Bluetooth headsets or big families from rental cottages strolling by, no Harley-Davidsons, no kids yelling, no dogs barking or chainsaws droning, no one calling or message alerts pinging, no workmen or tradesmen scheduled to come by, no threat of the (new) doorbell ringing (it was broken for seven years and I just replaced it), no grunting trucks delivering propane or Amazon packages. Just beautiful darkness and quiet. It is utter bliss. I've gotten more work done on the book project about Xander's birth in the past week than I have in all of 2025 before this, no exaggeration. And when I took stock of all the material I already had, digging bits and pieces off hard drives hither and yon (I've got 50 half-finished projects all over everywhere if I've got one), I discovered that the book is fully one-quarter finished already, maybe even more. I had already written much more than I remembered. 

I put the new wireless doorbell at eye level on the glass of the main door. That way it's more protected from the weather. When it goes kaput, I can scrape the adhesive off the glass with a razor blade. But the guy from the electric company missed it. So I put a sign on it. If he can't find it next time, that's on him.

I'm eccentric ain't I?

The only thing I've had to sacrifice with the new biphasic sleep schedule is all the hours I used to waste every night before bed when, tired and winding down from the day, I would spend hours dicking around on the Internet, watching tennis and pool matches and endless random YouTube videos and shorts. And stay up too late doing so. I can certainly let that go and not be much the poorer.

This new working schedule, by the way, might be Butters' last gift. As I mentioned (complained about?) a number of times this Spring, I had to get up in the middle of the night from one to five times each night for this whole year up till the time he died. So of course I got more and more used to it. Now, I can't tell you how eagerly I look forward to the alarm going off at three o'clock in the morning, after my "first sleep" of four hours. It means a solid four hours to write with no interruptions and no distractions. I just love it. The middle of the night instantly became my favorite time of day. And on the couple of days it all worked right (I'm still adjusting), I actually got more sleep than usual, not less.

I should mention that I've had sleep problems all my life, literally. I stopped taking naps at two, and my parents couldn't get me to go to sleep at night even when I was still literally in my crib (I would clamber out of my crib and go pester them). There have only been two exceptions: on my "Freshman Trip" at Dartmouth when we literally didn't even have flashlights, I synchronized with the sun; and, conversely, after I took "Sleeping and Dreaming" from Dr. Peter Hauri, who was briefly a professor at Dartmouth before he became Director of the Sleep Disorders Center at the Mayo Clinic. I got to participate in a "time free environment," when I discovered that I naturally had a 36-hour circadian cycle at the time. This is not an outlier, but it's extreme, way longer than normal.

I don't know if this will continue, but right now I feel like this is one of the most exciting changes of my writing life. We'll see how it goes.

Patience
My regular readers here are very patient people, I'll say that. You're very patient with my eccentricities. You have to be. Maybe I can learn to be patient with myself as well, and to have a little faith. 

So that's the report on the biphasic sleep experiment so far. I'll report again in about a month—feel free to remind me on or around July 15th. If you want to read up about the history of sleep, here's the magnum opus on the topic.

Mike

[CORRECTION: The link has been fixed. Thanks to all who reported the problem. —Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2025 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

AN: "There was a brief period in my early twenties, when I lived alone for a few months and had limited scheduled obligations. During that time, I decided to just sleep whenever I felt like it, and wake up whenever I felt like it. I ended up settling into a biphasic sleep pattern, and felt great. I referred to the waking period between sleeps as 'mini-day.' There was often a small meal during mini-day. Like you, I found mini-day to be a very enjoyable and productive time. Years later, I read about biphasic sleep for the first time, recognized my old sleep pattern, and decided to try it again. It was still great, but unfortunately not as feasible, living in a house with other people, and having many scheduled obligations. Maybe someday…."

schralp: "I’m gonna go out on a limb and just say it; the fact that you’re setting an alarm to wake up in the middle of the night tells me that you’re deluding yourself. If you naturally wake up then and choose stay up to work with catch-up sleep later, that’s great. But otherwise, listen to your body and its rhythms since you now have the luxury to do so. Take it from someone who was not able to do so for many years (medical school, internship, residency, fellowship, and years of clinical practice). Granted, the awakenings were more, and the need to work less predictable, but it has certainly led me to a greater understanding of the wisdom of listening to the body. Sleep as you duly noted is a precious commodity. Don’t force your sleep pattern. We will all be OK without your final report on this experiment in July."

Review and Recommendation: Fujifilm GFX100RF

Text and illustrations by Ken Tanaka

-

Amidst a sleepy camera world, Fujifilm’s new 100-MP GFX100RF medium format camera has grabbed lots of attention since its launch early this year. (In fact, Fujifilm has been the driver of most camera news for months!) Much of the interest in this camera seems coalesced around two groups. First, fans of the extremely successful X100-series APS-C cameras see a medium-format sibling to the fixed-lens, hybrid-viewfinder X100[x]. Second, fans of Fuji’s interchangeable-lens GFX medium-format cameras see a more compact fixed-lens member of that lineage.

I was among the lucky (non-influencers) who received a GFX100RF shortly after pre-order, somehow avoiding the tariff chaos that halted early shipments shortly afterwards. What follows are some general notes and opinions I’ve made after a few weeks with this camera. You can find many more detailed reviews at the main photo gear sites (DPReview, PetaPixel, et.al.) and on the many influencer reviews on YouTube.

 “Let’s go for a walk!”

Gestalt and style
Fujifilm has long realized that the appearance of cameras in today’s hobbyist market is at least as important as their actual functional fitness. The GFX100RF is a prime example. My first impression of it was that this is a camera cleverly designed to lure you to take it for long walks. The camera feels very good in-hand. Very natural. It’s quite light and sleek for a medium-format camera. Very easy to shoulder all day. Like its smaller cousins, Fuji’s X100 cameras, the RX100RF has a strong "I’m destined to be a classic camera" smugness about it. That’s powerful stuff!

But what is the GFX100RF really? Is it "an X100 all grown-up," as one influencer/reviewer claimed? No, not really. As a long-time user of Fuji’s X100 and GFX series cameras, I can safely say that the GFX100RF is more like a fatter cousin of Fuji’s X100 cameras. Yes, it shares some of the gestalt and features an almost identical control layout as the X100VI. But the GFX100RF does not have its hybrid rangefinder-style viewfinder. It has an OK-but-very-conventional EVF, albeit eccentrically placed in rangefinder-like style to leave one eye unblocked.

Nor is the GFX100RF really a slimmed-down GFX100 model with a fixed lens. Although it produces the same 100-MP image file as its GFX siblings, it lacks much of the capability and versatility of its bigger interchangeable-lens cousins.

I’ve concluded that Fujifilm's GFX100RF is actually a new sub-genre of digital camera—the fixed prime lens digital medium format camera—a genre whose heritage reaches back to photography’s chemical era.

Oddly, my first-glance at the GFX100RF’s top-plate momentarily reminded me of another Fujifilm camera, their wonderful GF670 Professional folding camera—a film camera I still own, that beckons me back with its switchable 6x6 / 6x7 frame sizes and lovely 80mm lens. I might just have to give it a whirl again this summer! (Ugh..film!) Capture Integration’s Steve Hendrix similarly observes that the GFX100RF seems to be a "clearly an inspired facsimile" of Fujifilm’s TX-1 film camera (circa 1998).

Fujifilm GFX100RF and the GF670 Professional folding film camera

Hasselblad’s X2D medium format camera has the closest thin-body style to the GFX100RF. In fact the cameras do share the same 44mm x 33mm image sensor and 100-MP image file size. As you can see, the X2D outfitted with a comparable focal length lens (the XCD 28P ƒ/4) is not much larger than the GFX100RF, although it weighs just about one pound heavier.

Fujifilm GFX100RF and Hasselblad X2D

Conceptually, however, the closest relative of the GFX100RF may be Leica’s full-frame Q3 with its similar medium-wide fixed 28mm prime, its compact size, its tilting screen, and its relatively large files.

Fujifilm's X100 VI and GFX10RF, and Leica's Q3

Both have 28mm-equivalent fixed lenses and are clearly designed as companion cameras.

But there are some significant differences worth considering between them. More later.

[To be continued on Sunday...]

Ken

Original contents copyright 2025 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

It's Fujifilm Day

Not only has the new X-E5 been announced—check B&H or any of the usual suspects for details, I'm sure the information is all over the place—but also, coming up soon, we should have a reader's take on the GFX 100RF as well.

Not that the X-E5 is unwelcome news—the X-E4 has been discontinued since the end of 2023, and the series certainly has its fans and its user base—but there's also a new lens that's of particular interest, to me at least. It's the Fujifilm XF 23mm ƒ/2.8 R WR, a new pancake 35mm equivalent. It's an interchangeable lens, and will fit on any Fujifilm X-mount camera. 

The talking points (this is from the brochure) are as follows: 

• Incredibly light and small
• Uncompromised optical construction
• Super-smooth bokeh
• 20 cm close focusing
• Weather resistant design
• Fast, reliable autofocusing.

To unpack that just a little, 1.) the lens weighs only 90 grams (3.17 ounces), and is less than an inch long—.91 inches to be exact. And that's with an aperture ring and a focusing ring. 2.) Fujifilm states that the lens is "a masterpiece of modern lens design." Might just be marketing-speak, but until proven otherwise you have to pay attention to that coming from Fuji, which has a long history as a lensmaker. 3.) that they'd make bold claims for the bokeh indicates that they were probably paying attention to it, although we'll know soon enough. 4.) close-focusing doesn't really mean much with a 35mm-e lens, but it does mean you'll never, or very seldom, run up against that limitation. This is of course more important with longer lenses, but still. When did you ever have a problem with a close-focusing limit on a 35mm? I never have. But I sure have with 100mm short teles, for instance. 5.) "weather resistant" usually means: don't dunk it under water, but you'll be okay in limited exposure to light or medium rain. I have to say this is simultaneously good and bad. I'd rather my lens be resistant to water incursion, but then again, when it's just "resistant," how are you supposed to know where the limit is? It's not like you can experiment. 6.) this is mainly important as reassurance, since other pancakes, such as the venerable Panasonic 20mm, are known to be slowish focusers. So this is good. 

Pictures:

I used the silver pictures because they're easier to see, but the lens is available in black as well. The black "innie" hood was included in the folder with the silver-lens pictures from Fujifilm, so I assume it's black regardless of which color lens you buy. That's good by me, as hoods should be black at least on the inside. 

This lens or the 27mm (more on that in a sec) would be perfect for a "nested pair"—a high-end, all-purpose zoom such as the 16–80mm for concerted, dedicated photographing, and then a small, light compact or pancake lens as an EDC (everyday carry—the phrase comes from firearms, of which I am not a fan, but it's also used on pen forums, which is why it's in my head). The two lenses cover everything you need for general photographing. 

Re the older 27mm, I would strongly recommend trying both before you settle on one. It's being bandied about that the new 23mm pancake won't be available as a standalone lens for six months—I haven't confirmed that—so you'll probably have plenty of time to think about it.

Pancakes are very handy for "smallening" larger cameras. It's not like Fujifilm doesn't have compact options—the Fujicrons (the ƒ/2 lenses—the word is a portmanteau of Fujifilm and Summicron, Leica's term for ƒ/2 lenses) are very handy already. Still, I'd love to heft my X-T4 with this new pancake on it. Bet I'd like it. 

...If I like the way the new lens renders, of course. Always a big IF. Only time will tell on that. I will point out that spec'ing the lens to be one stop slower allows lens designers a lot of extra leeway for correction. 

I've asked Fujifilm for a review copy of the X-E5 and 23mm pancake. I'm assuming little TOP (and unreliable me—I'm flaky by nature) go to the back of the queue, but we'll see what happens. 

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Raboin: "I don't need another camera. My current rig satisfies my every photographic need, but this new Fuji creates a strong buyer's itch. I'm picturing myself walking around a foreign city looking so smart with this little Fuji and a stylish bag full of jewel-like lenses. Fuji sells a fantasy lifestyle as much as they sell cameras."

G Dan Mitchell: "There is a lot to like about about the X-E5—IBIS, 40 MP, its slight refinement of the XE design, upgraded AF, etc. The XE models (I once owned the X-E1 and I have access to the X-E4) have long been appealing to those who wanted the smallest possible X-Trans body, the manual controls, a significantly lower price, and the same IQ as the high-end models. Therein lies a problem. The pricing history of the XE. line is as follows:

• X-E1: $999 (at the time the only ILC x-trans other than the Xpro)
• X-E2: $799
• X-E3: $849
• X-E4: $849
• X-E5: $1,699

"Wait! $1,699?! That’s a typo, right?! No. Fujifilm doubled the price from the previous model."

Frank Colen: "The pricing of the X-E5 relative to the rest of the Fuji cameras makes total sense in the UK: It is more or less exactly the same price as an X-E1 at launch, exactly the same as an X-T50 and much less than X-T5 and a little bit less than X100VI if bought as a kit:

• X-E5 body: £1,299
• X-T50 body: £1,299 (launch price)
• X-T5 body: £1,699 (launch price)
• X-E1 body only: £899 (launch price 2012) corresponds to £1288 in 2025 according to bank of England inflation calculator
• X-E5 with 23mm: £1,549
• X100VI: £1,599

"All numbers include UK VAT (sales tax) of 20%."